Striving for the Impossible? Policing and Territoriality in the Age of the War on Terror

Abstract

This article asks how variations of state territorial control have influenced police missions in the recent past, and illustrate how recent police reforms were based on the structure of a 'western' type state with clearly identifiable formal state institutions enjoying autonomy, that strive for a form of territorial monopoly over violence. The article argues for moving beyond such assumptions by adopting scenarios based on how territory is controlled, developing four scenarios that can enable foreign-backed police missions to adapt to local circumstances. The article draws upon the typology of territorial control developed by Hansen in 2017/2019, amending this model to be adapted for policing. It argues that each of these scenarios require different strategies and compromises in order to create functioning police forces.

Emerging Perspectives on Post-Conflict Police-Community Relations II

“…With this in mind, it is particularly crucial to have a close awareness of the networks of power relations within which reform is implemented. In 'Striving for the Impossible' (Hansen, this issue) [7], for example, the distinctions of power relationships in post-conflict areas are categorized and tied to different strategies of reform, arguing that any approach that assumes that 'one size fits all' is unlikely to be effective. To explore the significance of contextual diversity of reform, we have in this research chosen a broad array of case studies representing different stages of conflict and reform, including those which are currently experiencing a resurgence of major conflict, such as Afghanistan.…”

“…Rather than fall into an essentialist, binary discussion of what such relations and roles should be, our cases attempt to unravel the complexities and dilemmas inherent in these interfaces. The article on state institution building notes that supporters, donors and facilitators of security sector and police reform often expect a Western configuration of the state, where responsibility is clearly located in a uniform organizational hierarchy (Hansen, this issue) [7]. By distinguishing four drastically different configurations of (state) power organization, the importance of recognizing, understanding, and often working with non-state security providers within COP efforts is made readily apparent.…”