ABSTRACT
Finally, the article’s comparison of domestic implementation patterns in SSR operations raises broader questions about the viability of this type of external support to the transformation of security sectors in fragile or post-conflict states. Given the findings of our study that international security governance norms and standards are either adopted selectively or not at all, future research should focus in more depth on the question of whether donor-driven reform narratives in the field of SSR are appropriate models for security sector transformation outside the OECD-world: to what extent are democratic security governance standards that are closely linked to ideal-typical notions of Weberian statehood transferable to areas of fragile or limited statehood? In fact, the article’s findings can be read as evidence of a more fundamental misfit between different social contexts of security governance, and the potential danger inherent in trying to make one fit within analytical categories derived from another.
