ABSTRACT
Introduction To confront global insecurity, states require an augmentation of police power and expertise, a transformation of military forces and doctrine, and improved civilmilitary coordination for complex peace operations.1 Guaranteeing security requires that states and organizations utilize multiple instruments, often in a comprehensive, non-sequential process involving complex civilian, military, intelligence, judicial and police capabilities. International organizations, such as the UN, NATO and the EU, intervene to bolster failing states, to prevent conflict or to cease hostilities. More than the threat of interstate warfare and the attendant need to protect the territorial integrity of state borders, asymmetrical threats such as transnational crime, terrorism, poverty and internal conflict and violence erode state security. Most states are not well prepared to address transnational threats, or sufficiently resourced to deploy multi-dimensional, comprehensive post-conflict operations. This is especially germane to post-conflict peacebuilding, where states must facilitate and sustain peace and stability in countries ravaged by war, conflict or humanitarian crises.2 While states know how to wage war, securing the peace is fraught with dilemmas, tradeoffs and unanticipated outcomes. Military forces of the twenty-first century respond to humanitarian catastrophes, provide protection for refugees and internally displaced peoples, monitor peace agreements, demobilize militias, train nascent security forces in disparate cultures, and fight transnational terrorist networks. Such responses increase the fluidity between military and law enforcement functions. As Zaalberg demonstrates,
The most crucial civil-military relationship in most peace operations proved to be between soldiers and policemen, either from the local police forces or from an international civilian police force. It was in this area that the dividing lines between the military and civil spheres most frequently became blurred.
