Optimale Auflösung:
1024x768

Information on the current issue 2-2010

Thematic focus:
Internal and External Security

Editorial

The division between internal and external security roles emerged as a feature of the modern (Westphalian) state and remains a key organising principle of Western democracies. But this division has come under increasing pressure as the definition of security and relevant threats has changed. Globalization and the shift from state-based threats to more diffuse transnational ‘risks’ have externalized law enforcement work and internalized tasks related to national defence, hence the emergence of notions such as “the militarization of the police” and “the constabularization of the military”.

This mixing of roles is not a new phenomenon given that there has always been a certain overlap between policing and military tasks. In Western democracies, the military has traditionally provided assistance in times of natural disaster for example, and paramilitary units such as the French Gendarmerie or the Italian Carabinieri have always had a policing role. Careful legal definition of respective authority, powers and missions made this overlap manageable as long as responses were based on theoretically distinct realms of security responsibilities. Matters of internal security concerned crime and public order and were to be handled separately from external security concerns, which were restricted to war and national defence.

The blurring of these distinctions is reflected in the changing roles and institutional arrangements of the security sector in a number of European contexts. In the post-9/11 world, the armed forces are performing more policing tasks, especially in post-conflict settings, while police are increasingly turning to militarized tactics. Paramilitary units are assuming a growing role, both in internal security and in external deployments. Law enforcement and public order have become more prominent in national security discourse and more closely linked with intelligence gathering.

From a security governance perspective, the effects of these changes on the checks and balances of a healthy liberal democracy are far from clear. At the same time, these changes may allow for innovative responses to security challenges and create new opportunities to improve security governance. It is therefore important to understand the extent to which internal and external security have become conflated and to assess the implications of this development.

The special theme of this edition of S+F, to which Fairlie Chappuis from the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces provided most valuable editorial assistance, is devoted to further exploring the theoretical and empirical implications of the changing relationship between internal and external security. Ines-Jaqueline Werkner offers an overview of the institutional interweaving of internal and external security in Europe, both at state and EU levels. Tracing the origins of the current tendency to conflate internal and external security, the author considers three trends that aptly reflect this growing phenomenon: the internal deployment of armed forces; the increased use of police forces in military conflicts; and the prevalence of paramilitary units. The article concludes by giving a concise overview of the challenges these trends pose from a political governance perspective.

Adopting a security governance approach, Albrecht Schnabel and Danail Hristov offer a conceptual framework designed for comparative analyses of the non-traditional roles of the armed forces. The discussion draws on several examples from Western European democracies in considering the purpose and legitimacy of the new roles of the armed forces, as well as the interests of key stakeholders and the possible opportunities and risks inherent in these new roles. The conceptual framework offers a way to assess changes in security functions across time and across cases, thereby presenting a powerful tool for a systematic analysis of the changing distinction between internal and external security.

Turning to the empirical level, the case study by Alexander Mayer- Rieckh offers a detailed explanation of one of the prominent elements of the blurring of internal and external security: the deployment of police forces in international peace operations. The article describes the challenges inherent in deploying police forces to unfamiliar environments without the resources or specialist skills to complete their mandate. The case study therefore aptly illustrates some of the difficulties when deploying internal security forces outside their traditional role.

Taking the empirical analysis one step further, in his peer-reviewed article Derek Lutterbeck focuses on the growing trend among European countries to deploy their military forces in internal security missions. In particular, he compares the cases of Italy and Germany, finding that despite their historical similarities, these two countries assign considerably different internal security roles to their armed forces. The case study provides a useful example of the use of external security forces in internal security roles, covering the two opposite extremes from very limited to very permissive mandates.

The roles and duties of the armed forces in internal security are also considered in the peer-reviewed article by Rüdiger Fiebig and Carsten Pietsch. Based on the findings of the annual public opinion survey on security and defence matters conducted by the Bundeswehr Institute of Social Sciences, the article parses public opinion on a spectrum of issues related to the engagement of the German armed forces in fighting terrorism. A significant finding reveals that attitudes are changing among the German public to allow for a greater role for the armed forces in internal security than had historically been the case. This article thus illustrates how measures to counter the threat of terrorism are contributing to changing perspectives on the internal and external security divide.

The way counter-terrorism measures are influencing the distinction between internal and external security is also the theme of the article by Milan Kuhli. The article considers the utility of dealing with terror suspects under domestic criminal law in Germany, questioning whether the law is the most appropriate instrument for meeting these challenges. Considering the normative and practical limits of treating terrorists as criminals throws new light on the question whether existing institutional arrangements are properly equipped to adapt to the new security roles assigned to them.

Together this selection of articles provides a broad overview of the theoretical governance challenges inherent in the blurring of internal and external security, while also offering a selection of pertinent empirical examples of how these trends continue to push established institutional boundaries.

The next edition of S+F will focus on the topic of “Europeanization vs. Re-nationalization of Security”

Heiner Hänggi