Privatizing and internationalizing violence
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15355/2.1.35Abstract
Privatization of violence and international interventions to stop wars are two recent trends in wars. Both affect how the traditional state monopoly of force is exercised and on how armed forces operate. The concept of state monopoly of force is now questioned since the execution of force is increasingly delegated to armed nonstate actors. Nationally organized armed forces are outdated, given the new international tasks. Since the role of the nation-state in security has changed so fundamentally, it is argued that changes in three political and legal fields are necessary: Private military companies need to be regulated; the democratic deficit in international bodies which decide on international intervention needs to be overcome; and the monopoly of force needs to be re-conceptualized.References
Born, Hans and Heiner Hänggi, eds. 2004. The Double Democratic Deficit: Parliamentary Accountability and the Use of Force under International Auspices. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Brauer, Jurgen. Forthcoming. “Private Military Companies: Markets, Ethics, Economics,” chapter in Andrew Alexandra, Marina Caparini, and Deane-Peter Baker, eds. Private Military Companies: Ethics, Theory, and Practice.
Brauer, Jurgen. 2006. “Theory and Practice of Intervention.” The Economics of Peace and Security Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 17-23. http://www.epsjournal.org.uk.
Debiel, Tobias. 2005. “Dealing with Fragile States.” ZEF-Discussion Papers on Development Policy, Nr. 101. Bonn: Zentrum für Entwicklungsforschung.
Howard, Michael. 1976. War in European History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. 2001. “The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty.” Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. http://www.iciss.ca/pdf/Commission-Report.pdf [accessed 24 August 2006].
Kennedy, Paul. 1987. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. New York: Random House.
Ku, Charlotte and Harold K. Jacobson, eds. 2003. Democratic Accountability and the Use of Force in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lock, Peter. 2004. “Gewalt als Regulation: Zur Logik der Schattenglobalisierung,” pp. 40-61 in Sabine Kurtenbach and Peter Lock, eds. Kriege als (Über)Lebenswelten. Bonn: Dietz Verlag.
Mandel, Robert. 2001. “The Privatization of Security.” Armed Forces & Society, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 129-151.
Markusen, Ann R. 2003. “The Case Against Privatizing National Security.” Governance, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 472-478.
Mason, Ann C. 2005. “Constructing Authority Alternatives on the Periphery: Vignettes from Colombia.” International Political Science Review, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 37-54.
Schreier, Fred and Marina Caparini. 2005. “Privatising Security: Law, Practice and Governance of Private Military and Security Companies.” Occasional Paper No. 6. Geneva: Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of the Armed Forces. http://www.dcaf.ch/_docs/op06_privatising-security.pdf [accessed 23 August 2006].
Singer, Peter W. 2003. Corporate Warriors. The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Tilly, Charles. 1990. Coercion, Capital, and European States. Oxford: Blackwell.
United Nations High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. 2004. A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility.” New York: Report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change.
Weber, Max. 1992 [1919]. Politik als Beruf. In Max Weber, Gesamtausgabe, Vol. 17. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr/Paul Siebeck.
Wulf, Herbert. 2005. Internationalizing and Privatizing War and Peace. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wulf, Herbert. 2006. “Good Governance Beyond Borders: Creating a Multi-level Public Monopoly of Legitimate Force.” Occasional Paper No. 10. Geneva: Geneva Centre for the Control of the Armed Forces. http://www.dcaf.ch/_docs/op10_good_governance_beyond_borders.pdf [accessed 23 August 2006].
