Internal and External State Security Blu
11014633
Policing International Order – PIR 30118
“The differentiation between internal and external security, and
between police and military, has been a core principle of the
modern nation state.” - Lutterbeck
Introduction
In recent decades, the differentiation between police and military operations has
seen a steady convergence with regards to their attempts in upholding security.
This is predominantly because the internal and external dimensions of a nation’s
security have been affected by the emergence of globalisation. Issues such as
crime, human trafficking and terrorism, in the midst of an interdependent world
ensure that these become a transnational difficulty to tackle individually. Thus,
the conventional methods of dealing with these problems means that effective
management of both the police and military to coincide with each other is
needed – to the extent that we see the ascension of agencies dealing with aspects
of both to sustain security. This essay will attempt to argue that these
differentiated principles have been transformed to the point where such agencies
have actually become the most effective methods for tackling issues that affect a
nation state from a security perspective. There are two pressing examples of how
these forces assist in dealing with these threats. First, this is the need for effective
border management in a framework of Internal security, as can be seen with the
operations of Frontex. The second issue is the restructuring of post-conflict
areas, which needs to rely on policing and military strategies in order to ensure
that a security gap created by them is filled as seen with the Gendarmeries of
France, Italy and Spain. As a starting point to address this question, Foucault’s
observations provide a basis for ensuring that we see a differentiation between
internal and external security. Furthermore, this lays the foundations for how we
can class police and military in the wider security agenda of a globalised world.
Distinguishing between the Police and Military
11014633
Policing International Order – PIR 30118
One must look at the difference between internal and external security in order
to appreciate the various forces that act inside and outside a state. Foucault’s
lecture, Security, Territory and Population (1978) is a good starting point to
address the balance between internal security and order through policing in the
framework of a nation state. Prior to its more conventional meaning, the word
‘Police’ was used to describe a form of community governed by a public authority
(Foucault, 1978 pp.3). This public authority can be described as a political
power that is being exercised over a human society. From the seventeenth
century onwards, the term ‘police’ began to refer to the various means that would
allow the state’s forces to be increased, while preserving its good order. Foucault
states that this is the technique in order to establish a stable relationship
between the state’s internal order and the development of its forces. The word
‘Splendor’ in the context of policing - which originates from the German author
von Justi – is something that Foucault uses repeatedly to represent the
relationship between police and internal security. It signifies the laws and
regulations that are established inside a state for the ascension of stability. In the
event that such stability occurs, the good use of a state’s forces will be able to be
deployed (Foucault, 1978 pp.4). To reiterate, this ‘good use’ is the prime objective
of police, and is also a factor that differentiates it from the military.
Traditionally, the military is associated with the acquisition of land and the
maintenance of security outside the borders of the nation state. For Lutterbeck,
the context of external security in its association with military can be seen as
transformative over the course of the post-Cold War period. This period, which is
now becoming the norm for most security operations, signifies a shift between
the military and the police as opposed to two rudimentary facets of achieving
security. A key difference is noted by the use of reasonable force in the pursuit of
order within the realms of security. For military, and therefore, external security,
the association with violence, and the justification for it, would usually be
associated with imminent death against a perpetrator. Perhaps a reason as to
why this could be determined as an easily identifiable threat is the use of
uniform, and therefore a public allegiance to a threatening faction. The 9/11
11014633
Policing International Order – PIR 30118
terrorist attacks, have contributed to a state of global disorder in the sense that
the enemy is now harder to identify – and in some cases police use a militaristic
approach of ‘shoot to kill’ inside the state. Such instances can be seen where the
scandal surrounding the 7/7 London bombings, for instance, where police on
sight, shot a civilian (Guardian, 2008). This depicts the delicate balance between
reasonable force and aggressive military approaches, and where these contexts
are applicable for certain situations. For Police, reasonable force coincides with
the notion that there are options available to them before the use of deadly force
is necessary (Ryan, 2012 pp.441). This mechanism differentiates itself from the
military because it follows a spectrum of choices that are available to the police
before an escalation of violence was to occur. For example, a police officer will
use dialogue before making an arrest. If this is unsuccessful, then they will have
to resort to more coercive means such as handcuffs, mace spray and finally the
use of firearms. This differentiation between external and internal security,
although laced in the modern state, does not necessarily apply to them in some
cases.
Between Military and Police
Besides military and police, there are other security actors that have emerged
since the conception of a dualistic approach to security. At a government’s
disposal are other means to attain security that need to be focused on, as they
create a supportive mechanism for order. To name a few, these come with the
likes of intelligence agencies, rapid response units, paramilitaries and
gendarmeries. The point must be made that certain modern nation states have
the privilege of the differentiation between police and military to uphold their
internal and external security interests. Other nations that have experienced
conflict-ridden environments do not have this luxury. Against the order that is
established one finds mercenary groups as a result of ex-military personnel,
private security firms, guerrillas and criminal mafias (Luckham, 2003 pp.17).
Globalisation has shaped the conflicts in these areas in several ways. First,
conflicts are prone to being prolonged as a result of resources that flow towards
them, either in the form of arms or funding. Second, the regionalisation of
11014633
Policing International Order – PIR 30118
conflicts causes them to enter adjacent regions. Thirdly, there are informal global
networks that create conflicts and sustain them, such as holy warriors, mafias
and illicit arms suppliers to name a few (Luckham, 2003 pp.24). In such cases,
the use of military and police coordination, in addition to specialised forces such
as Gendarmerie is needed to counter these measures.
From as early as the nineteenth century, the French established Gendarmerie
contributed to the stability of France under Napoleon. He restructured them in
order to develop the state and society as a whole, rather than to merely pacify
regions that were against him (Emsley, 1999 pp.58). Often, the Gendarmerie was
met with resistance, and these incidents would usually escalate to lethal violence.
However, the force would also partake in the patrolling of communities and
intelligence gathering. The latter fact about this force offers a basis for providing
military and policing aspects to security. Currently, the template for this is used
across many different modern states: their counterparts devoted to pursuing
security both inside and outside the state. Friesendorf (2009) argues that
specialized forces such as the Gendarmerie are better suited for security
operations than using the police and the military as separate entities. Their
hybrid nature allows them to be deployed in a vast array of operations that were
traditionally associated with police or military forces. In the external security
realm for example, they are well suited for Border patrol. They have the
resources to patrol land and sea, whereas their civilian police counterparts do
not necessarily have access to these assets. Heavy equipment such as aircraft and
boats, as well as armoured cars ensure that these forces are well equipped to
carry out their operations over large expanses of land. Internally, these forces
also find a place in the nation state’s security. With regards to counter terrorism,
the French Gendarmerie, in response to the 1995 Paris bombings, initiated the
missions ‘Vigipirate’ (Kirchner, Sperling, 2007 pp.38). This operation has strived
to see that France’s important infrastructure such as airports, train stations and
nuclear installations are protected against potential terrorist attacks. Finally,
with regards to peacekeeping operations, Gendarmeries are accompanied by
Multinational Specialist Units. This point will be expanded on further with the
inclusion of the European Union below. Although they are addressing the
11014633
Policing International Order – PIR 30118
prospect for security both inside and outside the state, they do pose problems,
drawing criticism for their organisational nature and missions.
Justifications and Criticisms of Gendarmeries
Gendarmeries are criticised on the grounds that they are anachronistic
institutions. In other words, they represent the militarisation of internal security
in the nation state. It is argued that civilian policing is better suited to this, and
should be the sole entity that enforces the law and internal activities associated
with security. Furthermore, in a Western liberal school of thought, the semimilitary forces in a police function is incompatible with civil liberties and
principles (Lutterbeck, 2013 pp.10). Using two examples of Gendarmeries, Italian
Carabinieri under Mussolini, and the Spanish Guardia Civil under Franco, both
showed that they could be instruments to repress their populations inside the
state. Furthermore, there is no legally binding norm at the European level stating
that police forces should be civilian in nature rather than military. This point
expresses the growing concern that these forces can be used in large quantities
and undermines the traditional apparatus of the police and military. Justifications
for the use of Gendarmeries are also quite prominent, and these arguments come
from nation states that deploy them regularly. First, it is important to note that
the intermediary status of them allows the indispensable solution for bridging
the gap between the internal and external security. This alludes to the fact that it
also bridges the security gap between military and police. Having a service that
contains the traits of both of these entities in the wake of modern security
challenges is a significant asset (Lutterbeck, 2013 pp.12). Second, the use of more
than one police force also prevents the centrality of security apparatus located in
the nation state. This means that Gendarmeries can be assigned specialised
agendas to ease the efforts from police and military.
The Interconnected relationship of External and Internal security
11014633
Policing International Order – PIR 30118
To demonstrate the effect that globalization has on the determinacies of security,
both internally and externally, one should look at countries efforts in a collective
manner. Modern nation states are taking steps to ensure that external security
will attain their internal security. The European Union is a good example of how
these efforts are used to attain a basis of security in its member states. Florian
Trauner (2011) builds upon the conception that the traditional understandings
of internal and external security are now becoming integrated to complement
each other. The involvement of different security actors, the police forces and law
enforcement agencies on one side, and military on the other contributed to a
relative independence of both security realms (Trauner, 2011 pp. 7). The EU has
recognised that the trans-boundary issues such as terrorism and organised
crime, which affect all of its member states, needs to be tackled in specialized
manners. This will be done through the close coordination between its
institutions and organisations. Interdependence is an issue here among member
states, for their dependence on other regions is very high. Most threats to the EU
either originate outside Europe or can be traced to other parts of the world.
Narcotics smuggling is a crime that is operated outside the continent, and annual
illegal immigration number just shy of a million (Trauner, 2011 pp.13). It is not
surprising that the EU is taking steps to ensure that these problems are tackled
with the participation of all of its members. First, in the interest of a nation
state’s concerns over illegal migration and threats from the ‘outside’, it focuses on
the effective management of the borders that lie adjacent with regions that are
not classed as part of Europe (Spengeman, 2013 pp.6). To tackle the external
threats that challenge the integral security of the EU, the European Agency for
the Management of External Borders (Frontex) takes steps to develop external
relations with other countries.
Border Control
11014633
Policing International Order – PIR 30118
Frontex is a fairly recent organisation, established in 2004 under the European
Council’s regulation. The agency was primarily created to address the view that
illegal migration into Europe can, and should, be prevented (Spengeman, 2013
pp.2). It also addressed the primary objective to improve the integrated
management of the EU’s member state’s external borders. The policies on
migration flows have been of concern for the Common European Asylum System
(CEAS). In light of these concerns, a growing amount of power has been given to
Frontex in developing ‘smart borders’, especially in the Mediterranean (Alscher
(2005 pp.29). One such method would involve intercepting vessels that are
bound for Europe’s southern borders and escorting them back to their origins of
destination (Spengeman, 2013 pp.4). These policies are reflective of a ‘Push back’
stance that individual European member states have used. A criticism of Frontex
in the context of the question is that it has been accused of a lack of transparency,
both politically and publicly. Some instances of their operations are said to
breach EU norms and standards of Human Rights and International Refugee laws
(Spengeman, 2013 pp.4). Frontex shows to some degree, the dimensions of
policing and military. Although it is bound by a code of conduct, it does not
necessarily mean that its actions are lawfully accounted for. Accountability is a
key dimension of police as it ensures that a policing body is held accountable for
its actions in a body of law. Frontex is an agency that is planned on risk analyses
that is conducted by its operations division, and not on the considerations of
Member States: this in turn creates a situation where their legitimacy
encapsulates the interests of those outside a state (Trauner, 2011 pp.16). Though
this does not suggest that external and internal security is compromised for a
state, this certainly impedes the sovereignty of the nation in question.
Furthermore, unlike police, Frontex members seem to enter a grey area with
regards to accountability. The issues of accountability can be traced towards
other operations that take place under forces known as the Gendarmerie. In the
framework of border patrols, the significant influx of additional equipment used
by the Italian Guardia de Finanza, and the Spanish Guardia Civil, has created
negative associations to the term ‘Fortress Europe’ in light of its strict
immigration policies (Carr, 2012).
11014633
Policing International Order – PIR 30118
Peacekeeping
International policing from institutions also provide a deviation from the
traditional aspects of police and military. This method also delivers a re-location
of security to encompass both internal and external aspects for the state. Since
the 1990’s, Multinational specialist units (MSU’s) grained prominence as the
missions that they were deployed in became more complex. For example, in
Bosnia-Herzegovina, it is noted that military operations from NATO and the UN
lacked effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy. Military and police duties also
become ‘indistinguishable’ with regards to their divisions of labour. Cornelius
Friesendorf (2011, pp.144) states that intelligence is collected by the different
services on the same subjects, which leads to a higher likelihood of the
misunderstandings of one another. He argues that intervention in other states
also contributes to the blurring of the internal, external and criminal intelligence
used between the forces that contribute to this collective security. Gendarmeries
are noticeable in this field with the support of the European Union, which
established a European Gendarmerie Force (EGF) in 2007 with the EGF Treaty. It
comprised of France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain deploying a rapid
reaction police force to Bosnia-Herzegovina (Weger, 2012 pp.24). Article 1 states
that it is a requirement that only police forces with a military status from states
can participate in these operations. Article 4 lists that the EGF can be used in
conjunction with police to strengthen it. Furthermore, this Article also denotes
the option of putting the EGF under civilian or military Authority. This shows that
a sharp distinction between police and military is not necessarily evident in
these regions.
Using the EGF is a significant advantage over these conventional means of
securitising these areas. Partly because they held expertise in the field, and partly
because they were more involved in the civilian aspects of securitising regions,
the EGF assisted NATO in Afghanistan as an assistance force (Lutterbeck, 2013
pp.18). The added hybridity of them also ensured that they have a rapid response
plan to mitigating the risks that lie within conflict areas where security is not
11014633
Policing International Order – PIR 30118
easily attained. Furthermore, the influx of humanitarian efforts with the likes of
NGO’s, the prospects of Security Sector Reform (SSR) programs and the
establishment of security by international organisations in such regions, ensures
civilian and military forces can deploy them. These points illustrate that the
principles of the modern nation state do illustrate that it can identify internal and
external security, but a more collective approach, first with the military, then
police and then the gendarmeries will subsequently fill their places to attain it.
Conclusion
The role of securitising nation states has changed significantly since Foucault’s
description of its development from the 19 th Century onwards. Police in this
sense, alludes to an increased welfare of the population that it supports through
the framework of laws and regulations. It differs from the norms of the military
because of the spectrum that is ascribed to it using reasonable force in the face of
security threats. In the context of military, the traditional understanding has been
associated with the securitisation of territory outside the state. The modern
nation state faces new challenges regarding to the security nexus of both internal
and external threats. Globalisation has contributed to the interdependent nature
of the world, and thus, a more immediate threat of an enemy that is ‘unknown’.
This is because issues such as terrorism, organised crime, illegal migration and
drug trafficking has led to a complete relocation of where security approaches
are adequate in their instances. They cannot be dealt with through the military
and the police in a singular fashion, but in a collective, dualistic approach. One
can see this development with the Gendarmerie, although these pose significant
problems with regards to human rights and laws. These forces are police that
hold military status, and in the process of their operations, become detached
from the conventional laws and regulations that ensure they are held
accountable for their actions. A limitation here is that there are no laws that state
that such forces need to be associated with civilian status, which may see their
militaristic sides coming to the forefront of their activities. One need not look
further than the Carabinieri under Mussolini, and the Spanish Guardia Civil
under Franco to see the oppressive stances they are able to deploy to ensure
11014633
Policing International Order – PIR 30118
internal security. However, they are effective at bridging the gap between the
internal and external security. The principles of the modern nation state
therefore, are becoming increasingly blurred - Frontex and the EGF provide good
examples of how this occurs. Frontex prevents the alleviation of illegal migration,
yet establishes a ‘Fortress Europe’ connotation to the rest of the world. The EGF
however, provides a successful means to coordinate civilian and military
missions in peacekeeping areas. This flexibility is an approach that is needed in
different regions because of its civilian and military expertise. In the following
years however, this begs the question whether the maintenance of security, both
inside and outside the state, will become the norm for states to ensure safety
through similar agencies – to the point where both the police and military
become the same unit in the midst of a global disorder.
Bibliography
Word Count: 3298
11014633
Policing International Order – PIR 30118
Alscher, S (2005) “Knocking at the Doors of “Fortress Europe” [PDF] Available at: <
http://ccis.ucsd.edu/wp-content/uploads/WP_126.pdf> [Accessed 21/4/2014]
Barry, R, J. (2012) Securing Reasonable Force, in Statebuilding and Police Reform; The
Freedom of Security, pp. 28-48. London: Routledge
Call, C., Barnett, M, (2000), Looking for a Few Good Cops: Peacekeeping, Peacebuilding
and CIVPOL, in , Tor Tanke Holm & Espen Barth Eide (eds)Peacebuilding and Police
Reform, pp. 43-68. London: Frank Cass
Carr, M. (2012) “The trouble with Fortress Europe” [Online] Open Democracy.
Available at: http://www.opendemocracy.net/matthew-carr/trouble-with-fortresseurope [Accessed 18/4/2014]
Cockell, J, G., (2002), Civil-Military Responses to Security Challenges in Peace Operations:
Ten Lessons from Kosovo, in Global Governance, Vol 8 (4), pp. 483.
Dubber, Markus, (2005) "Continental Police Science" from Dubber, Markus, Police
power: patriarchy and the foundations of American government pp.63-77,234-239,
New York,: Columbia University Press
Emsley, C (1999) Gendarmes and the State in Nineteenth Century, Oxford
:Oxford University Press
Foucault, M., (2007) "Lecture 12, 29th March 1978" from Foucault, M., Security,
Territory, Population: lectures at the College de France, 1977-1978. edited by Michel
Foucault ; Michel Senellart ; general editors, François Ewald and Alessandro
Fontana ; translated by Graham Burchell, pp.311-332, Basingstoke,: Palgrave
Friesendorf, C. (2011) “The military and Law Enforcement in Peace Operations:
Lessons from Bosnia-Herzogovina and Kosovo” [PDF] Geneva Centre for The
Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF). Available at: < connectionsqj.org/ru/system/files/09.3.04_Friesendorf.pdf> [Accessed 16/4/2014]
Guardian (2008) Extraordinary Scenes end Jean Charles de Menezes Inquest
[Online] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/dec/12/de-menezesdramatic-scenes [Accessed 15/4/2014]
Kirchner, E., Sperling, J. (2007) Global Security Governance: competing conceptions
of Security in the 21st Century. London: Routledge
11014633
Policing International Order – PIR 30118
Luckham, R. (2003) "Democratic Strategies for Security in Transition and Conflict"
from Cawthra, G. & Luckham, R. eds., Governing insecurity : democratic control of
military and security establishments in transitional democracies pp.3-28, London,:
Zed Books
Lutterbeck, D. (2013) “The Paradox of Gendarmeries: Between Expansion,
demiliterization and Dissolution” [PDF] Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of
Armed Forces (DCAF). Available at:
< http://www.dcaf.ch/Publications/The-Paradox-of-Gendarmeries-BetweenExpansion-Demilitarization-and-Dissolution> [Accessed 17/4/2014]
Lutterbeck, D, (2004), Between Police and Military: the New Security Agenda and the
Rise of Gendarmeries, in Cooperation and Conflict, vol 39 (1), pp. 45-68.
Spengeman, A (2013) “Upholding the legitimacy of Frontex: European Parliamentary
oversight” in European Security Review [PDF] Available at: http://isiseurope.eu/sites/default/files/publications-downloads/esr65_FrontexMarch2013AS.pdf [Accessed 18/4/2014]
Trauner, F (2011) “The Internal-external security nexus: More coherence under
Lisbon? [PDF] Available at:
http://www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/op89_The_internalexternal_security_nexus.pdf [Accessed 20/4/2014]
Weger, M. (2009) The Potential of the European Gendarmerie Force [PDF] Available at:
http://www.clingendael.nl/sites/default/files/20090400_cscp_gendarmerie_weger.pdf
[Accessed 18/4/2014]
Policing International Order – PIR 30118
“The differentiation between internal and external security, and
between police and military, has been a core principle of the
modern nation state.” - Lutterbeck
Introduction
In recent decades, the differentiation between police and military operations has
seen a steady convergence with regards to their attempts in upholding security.
This is predominantly because the internal and external dimensions of a nation’s
security have been affected by the emergence of globalisation. Issues such as
crime, human trafficking and terrorism, in the midst of an interdependent world
ensure that these become a transnational difficulty to tackle individually. Thus,
the conventional methods of dealing with these problems means that effective
management of both the police and military to coincide with each other is
needed – to the extent that we see the ascension of agencies dealing with aspects
of both to sustain security. This essay will attempt to argue that these
differentiated principles have been transformed to the point where such agencies
have actually become the most effective methods for tackling issues that affect a
nation state from a security perspective. There are two pressing examples of how
these forces assist in dealing with these threats. First, this is the need for effective
border management in a framework of Internal security, as can be seen with the
operations of Frontex. The second issue is the restructuring of post-conflict
areas, which needs to rely on policing and military strategies in order to ensure
that a security gap created by them is filled as seen with the Gendarmeries of
France, Italy and Spain. As a starting point to address this question, Foucault’s
observations provide a basis for ensuring that we see a differentiation between
internal and external security. Furthermore, this lays the foundations for how we
can class police and military in the wider security agenda of a globalised world.
Distinguishing between the Police and Military
11014633
Policing International Order – PIR 30118
One must look at the difference between internal and external security in order
to appreciate the various forces that act inside and outside a state. Foucault’s
lecture, Security, Territory and Population (1978) is a good starting point to
address the balance between internal security and order through policing in the
framework of a nation state. Prior to its more conventional meaning, the word
‘Police’ was used to describe a form of community governed by a public authority
(Foucault, 1978 pp.3). This public authority can be described as a political
power that is being exercised over a human society. From the seventeenth
century onwards, the term ‘police’ began to refer to the various means that would
allow the state’s forces to be increased, while preserving its good order. Foucault
states that this is the technique in order to establish a stable relationship
between the state’s internal order and the development of its forces. The word
‘Splendor’ in the context of policing - which originates from the German author
von Justi – is something that Foucault uses repeatedly to represent the
relationship between police and internal security. It signifies the laws and
regulations that are established inside a state for the ascension of stability. In the
event that such stability occurs, the good use of a state’s forces will be able to be
deployed (Foucault, 1978 pp.4). To reiterate, this ‘good use’ is the prime objective
of police, and is also a factor that differentiates it from the military.
Traditionally, the military is associated with the acquisition of land and the
maintenance of security outside the borders of the nation state. For Lutterbeck,
the context of external security in its association with military can be seen as
transformative over the course of the post-Cold War period. This period, which is
now becoming the norm for most security operations, signifies a shift between
the military and the police as opposed to two rudimentary facets of achieving
security. A key difference is noted by the use of reasonable force in the pursuit of
order within the realms of security. For military, and therefore, external security,
the association with violence, and the justification for it, would usually be
associated with imminent death against a perpetrator. Perhaps a reason as to
why this could be determined as an easily identifiable threat is the use of
uniform, and therefore a public allegiance to a threatening faction. The 9/11
11014633
Policing International Order – PIR 30118
terrorist attacks, have contributed to a state of global disorder in the sense that
the enemy is now harder to identify – and in some cases police use a militaristic
approach of ‘shoot to kill’ inside the state. Such instances can be seen where the
scandal surrounding the 7/7 London bombings, for instance, where police on
sight, shot a civilian (Guardian, 2008). This depicts the delicate balance between
reasonable force and aggressive military approaches, and where these contexts
are applicable for certain situations. For Police, reasonable force coincides with
the notion that there are options available to them before the use of deadly force
is necessary (Ryan, 2012 pp.441). This mechanism differentiates itself from the
military because it follows a spectrum of choices that are available to the police
before an escalation of violence was to occur. For example, a police officer will
use dialogue before making an arrest. If this is unsuccessful, then they will have
to resort to more coercive means such as handcuffs, mace spray and finally the
use of firearms. This differentiation between external and internal security,
although laced in the modern state, does not necessarily apply to them in some
cases.
Between Military and Police
Besides military and police, there are other security actors that have emerged
since the conception of a dualistic approach to security. At a government’s
disposal are other means to attain security that need to be focused on, as they
create a supportive mechanism for order. To name a few, these come with the
likes of intelligence agencies, rapid response units, paramilitaries and
gendarmeries. The point must be made that certain modern nation states have
the privilege of the differentiation between police and military to uphold their
internal and external security interests. Other nations that have experienced
conflict-ridden environments do not have this luxury. Against the order that is
established one finds mercenary groups as a result of ex-military personnel,
private security firms, guerrillas and criminal mafias (Luckham, 2003 pp.17).
Globalisation has shaped the conflicts in these areas in several ways. First,
conflicts are prone to being prolonged as a result of resources that flow towards
them, either in the form of arms or funding. Second, the regionalisation of
11014633
Policing International Order – PIR 30118
conflicts causes them to enter adjacent regions. Thirdly, there are informal global
networks that create conflicts and sustain them, such as holy warriors, mafias
and illicit arms suppliers to name a few (Luckham, 2003 pp.24). In such cases,
the use of military and police coordination, in addition to specialised forces such
as Gendarmerie is needed to counter these measures.
From as early as the nineteenth century, the French established Gendarmerie
contributed to the stability of France under Napoleon. He restructured them in
order to develop the state and society as a whole, rather than to merely pacify
regions that were against him (Emsley, 1999 pp.58). Often, the Gendarmerie was
met with resistance, and these incidents would usually escalate to lethal violence.
However, the force would also partake in the patrolling of communities and
intelligence gathering. The latter fact about this force offers a basis for providing
military and policing aspects to security. Currently, the template for this is used
across many different modern states: their counterparts devoted to pursuing
security both inside and outside the state. Friesendorf (2009) argues that
specialized forces such as the Gendarmerie are better suited for security
operations than using the police and the military as separate entities. Their
hybrid nature allows them to be deployed in a vast array of operations that were
traditionally associated with police or military forces. In the external security
realm for example, they are well suited for Border patrol. They have the
resources to patrol land and sea, whereas their civilian police counterparts do
not necessarily have access to these assets. Heavy equipment such as aircraft and
boats, as well as armoured cars ensure that these forces are well equipped to
carry out their operations over large expanses of land. Internally, these forces
also find a place in the nation state’s security. With regards to counter terrorism,
the French Gendarmerie, in response to the 1995 Paris bombings, initiated the
missions ‘Vigipirate’ (Kirchner, Sperling, 2007 pp.38). This operation has strived
to see that France’s important infrastructure such as airports, train stations and
nuclear installations are protected against potential terrorist attacks. Finally,
with regards to peacekeeping operations, Gendarmeries are accompanied by
Multinational Specialist Units. This point will be expanded on further with the
inclusion of the European Union below. Although they are addressing the
11014633
Policing International Order – PIR 30118
prospect for security both inside and outside the state, they do pose problems,
drawing criticism for their organisational nature and missions.
Justifications and Criticisms of Gendarmeries
Gendarmeries are criticised on the grounds that they are anachronistic
institutions. In other words, they represent the militarisation of internal security
in the nation state. It is argued that civilian policing is better suited to this, and
should be the sole entity that enforces the law and internal activities associated
with security. Furthermore, in a Western liberal school of thought, the semimilitary forces in a police function is incompatible with civil liberties and
principles (Lutterbeck, 2013 pp.10). Using two examples of Gendarmeries, Italian
Carabinieri under Mussolini, and the Spanish Guardia Civil under Franco, both
showed that they could be instruments to repress their populations inside the
state. Furthermore, there is no legally binding norm at the European level stating
that police forces should be civilian in nature rather than military. This point
expresses the growing concern that these forces can be used in large quantities
and undermines the traditional apparatus of the police and military. Justifications
for the use of Gendarmeries are also quite prominent, and these arguments come
from nation states that deploy them regularly. First, it is important to note that
the intermediary status of them allows the indispensable solution for bridging
the gap between the internal and external security. This alludes to the fact that it
also bridges the security gap between military and police. Having a service that
contains the traits of both of these entities in the wake of modern security
challenges is a significant asset (Lutterbeck, 2013 pp.12). Second, the use of more
than one police force also prevents the centrality of security apparatus located in
the nation state. This means that Gendarmeries can be assigned specialised
agendas to ease the efforts from police and military.
The Interconnected relationship of External and Internal security
11014633
Policing International Order – PIR 30118
To demonstrate the effect that globalization has on the determinacies of security,
both internally and externally, one should look at countries efforts in a collective
manner. Modern nation states are taking steps to ensure that external security
will attain their internal security. The European Union is a good example of how
these efforts are used to attain a basis of security in its member states. Florian
Trauner (2011) builds upon the conception that the traditional understandings
of internal and external security are now becoming integrated to complement
each other. The involvement of different security actors, the police forces and law
enforcement agencies on one side, and military on the other contributed to a
relative independence of both security realms (Trauner, 2011 pp. 7). The EU has
recognised that the trans-boundary issues such as terrorism and organised
crime, which affect all of its member states, needs to be tackled in specialized
manners. This will be done through the close coordination between its
institutions and organisations. Interdependence is an issue here among member
states, for their dependence on other regions is very high. Most threats to the EU
either originate outside Europe or can be traced to other parts of the world.
Narcotics smuggling is a crime that is operated outside the continent, and annual
illegal immigration number just shy of a million (Trauner, 2011 pp.13). It is not
surprising that the EU is taking steps to ensure that these problems are tackled
with the participation of all of its members. First, in the interest of a nation
state’s concerns over illegal migration and threats from the ‘outside’, it focuses on
the effective management of the borders that lie adjacent with regions that are
not classed as part of Europe (Spengeman, 2013 pp.6). To tackle the external
threats that challenge the integral security of the EU, the European Agency for
the Management of External Borders (Frontex) takes steps to develop external
relations with other countries.
Border Control
11014633
Policing International Order – PIR 30118
Frontex is a fairly recent organisation, established in 2004 under the European
Council’s regulation. The agency was primarily created to address the view that
illegal migration into Europe can, and should, be prevented (Spengeman, 2013
pp.2). It also addressed the primary objective to improve the integrated
management of the EU’s member state’s external borders. The policies on
migration flows have been of concern for the Common European Asylum System
(CEAS). In light of these concerns, a growing amount of power has been given to
Frontex in developing ‘smart borders’, especially in the Mediterranean (Alscher
(2005 pp.29). One such method would involve intercepting vessels that are
bound for Europe’s southern borders and escorting them back to their origins of
destination (Spengeman, 2013 pp.4). These policies are reflective of a ‘Push back’
stance that individual European member states have used. A criticism of Frontex
in the context of the question is that it has been accused of a lack of transparency,
both politically and publicly. Some instances of their operations are said to
breach EU norms and standards of Human Rights and International Refugee laws
(Spengeman, 2013 pp.4). Frontex shows to some degree, the dimensions of
policing and military. Although it is bound by a code of conduct, it does not
necessarily mean that its actions are lawfully accounted for. Accountability is a
key dimension of police as it ensures that a policing body is held accountable for
its actions in a body of law. Frontex is an agency that is planned on risk analyses
that is conducted by its operations division, and not on the considerations of
Member States: this in turn creates a situation where their legitimacy
encapsulates the interests of those outside a state (Trauner, 2011 pp.16). Though
this does not suggest that external and internal security is compromised for a
state, this certainly impedes the sovereignty of the nation in question.
Furthermore, unlike police, Frontex members seem to enter a grey area with
regards to accountability. The issues of accountability can be traced towards
other operations that take place under forces known as the Gendarmerie. In the
framework of border patrols, the significant influx of additional equipment used
by the Italian Guardia de Finanza, and the Spanish Guardia Civil, has created
negative associations to the term ‘Fortress Europe’ in light of its strict
immigration policies (Carr, 2012).
11014633
Policing International Order – PIR 30118
Peacekeeping
International policing from institutions also provide a deviation from the
traditional aspects of police and military. This method also delivers a re-location
of security to encompass both internal and external aspects for the state. Since
the 1990’s, Multinational specialist units (MSU’s) grained prominence as the
missions that they were deployed in became more complex. For example, in
Bosnia-Herzegovina, it is noted that military operations from NATO and the UN
lacked effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy. Military and police duties also
become ‘indistinguishable’ with regards to their divisions of labour. Cornelius
Friesendorf (2011, pp.144) states that intelligence is collected by the different
services on the same subjects, which leads to a higher likelihood of the
misunderstandings of one another. He argues that intervention in other states
also contributes to the blurring of the internal, external and criminal intelligence
used between the forces that contribute to this collective security. Gendarmeries
are noticeable in this field with the support of the European Union, which
established a European Gendarmerie Force (EGF) in 2007 with the EGF Treaty. It
comprised of France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain deploying a rapid
reaction police force to Bosnia-Herzegovina (Weger, 2012 pp.24). Article 1 states
that it is a requirement that only police forces with a military status from states
can participate in these operations. Article 4 lists that the EGF can be used in
conjunction with police to strengthen it. Furthermore, this Article also denotes
the option of putting the EGF under civilian or military Authority. This shows that
a sharp distinction between police and military is not necessarily evident in
these regions.
Using the EGF is a significant advantage over these conventional means of
securitising these areas. Partly because they held expertise in the field, and partly
because they were more involved in the civilian aspects of securitising regions,
the EGF assisted NATO in Afghanistan as an assistance force (Lutterbeck, 2013
pp.18). The added hybridity of them also ensured that they have a rapid response
plan to mitigating the risks that lie within conflict areas where security is not
11014633
Policing International Order – PIR 30118
easily attained. Furthermore, the influx of humanitarian efforts with the likes of
NGO’s, the prospects of Security Sector Reform (SSR) programs and the
establishment of security by international organisations in such regions, ensures
civilian and military forces can deploy them. These points illustrate that the
principles of the modern nation state do illustrate that it can identify internal and
external security, but a more collective approach, first with the military, then
police and then the gendarmeries will subsequently fill their places to attain it.
Conclusion
The role of securitising nation states has changed significantly since Foucault’s
description of its development from the 19 th Century onwards. Police in this
sense, alludes to an increased welfare of the population that it supports through
the framework of laws and regulations. It differs from the norms of the military
because of the spectrum that is ascribed to it using reasonable force in the face of
security threats. In the context of military, the traditional understanding has been
associated with the securitisation of territory outside the state. The modern
nation state faces new challenges regarding to the security nexus of both internal
and external threats. Globalisation has contributed to the interdependent nature
of the world, and thus, a more immediate threat of an enemy that is ‘unknown’.
This is because issues such as terrorism, organised crime, illegal migration and
drug trafficking has led to a complete relocation of where security approaches
are adequate in their instances. They cannot be dealt with through the military
and the police in a singular fashion, but in a collective, dualistic approach. One
can see this development with the Gendarmerie, although these pose significant
problems with regards to human rights and laws. These forces are police that
hold military status, and in the process of their operations, become detached
from the conventional laws and regulations that ensure they are held
accountable for their actions. A limitation here is that there are no laws that state
that such forces need to be associated with civilian status, which may see their
militaristic sides coming to the forefront of their activities. One need not look
further than the Carabinieri under Mussolini, and the Spanish Guardia Civil
under Franco to see the oppressive stances they are able to deploy to ensure
11014633
Policing International Order – PIR 30118
internal security. However, they are effective at bridging the gap between the
internal and external security. The principles of the modern nation state
therefore, are becoming increasingly blurred - Frontex and the EGF provide good
examples of how this occurs. Frontex prevents the alleviation of illegal migration,
yet establishes a ‘Fortress Europe’ connotation to the rest of the world. The EGF
however, provides a successful means to coordinate civilian and military
missions in peacekeeping areas. This flexibility is an approach that is needed in
different regions because of its civilian and military expertise. In the following
years however, this begs the question whether the maintenance of security, both
inside and outside the state, will become the norm for states to ensure safety
through similar agencies – to the point where both the police and military
become the same unit in the midst of a global disorder.
Bibliography
Word Count: 3298
11014633
Policing International Order – PIR 30118
Alscher, S (2005) “Knocking at the Doors of “Fortress Europe” [PDF] Available at: <
http://ccis.ucsd.edu/wp-content/uploads/WP_126.pdf> [Accessed 21/4/2014]
Barry, R, J. (2012) Securing Reasonable Force, in Statebuilding and Police Reform; The
Freedom of Security, pp. 28-48. London: Routledge
Call, C., Barnett, M, (2000), Looking for a Few Good Cops: Peacekeeping, Peacebuilding
and CIVPOL, in , Tor Tanke Holm & Espen Barth Eide (eds)Peacebuilding and Police
Reform, pp. 43-68. London: Frank Cass
Carr, M. (2012) “The trouble with Fortress Europe” [Online] Open Democracy.
Available at: http://www.opendemocracy.net/matthew-carr/trouble-with-fortresseurope [Accessed 18/4/2014]
Cockell, J, G., (2002), Civil-Military Responses to Security Challenges in Peace Operations:
Ten Lessons from Kosovo, in Global Governance, Vol 8 (4), pp. 483.
Dubber, Markus, (2005) "Continental Police Science" from Dubber, Markus, Police
power: patriarchy and the foundations of American government pp.63-77,234-239,
New York,: Columbia University Press
Emsley, C (1999) Gendarmes and the State in Nineteenth Century, Oxford
:Oxford University Press
Foucault, M., (2007) "Lecture 12, 29th March 1978" from Foucault, M., Security,
Territory, Population: lectures at the College de France, 1977-1978. edited by Michel
Foucault ; Michel Senellart ; general editors, François Ewald and Alessandro
Fontana ; translated by Graham Burchell, pp.311-332, Basingstoke,: Palgrave
Friesendorf, C. (2011) “The military and Law Enforcement in Peace Operations:
Lessons from Bosnia-Herzogovina and Kosovo” [PDF] Geneva Centre for The
Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF). Available at: < connectionsqj.org/ru/system/files/09.3.04_Friesendorf.pdf> [Accessed 16/4/2014]
Guardian (2008) Extraordinary Scenes end Jean Charles de Menezes Inquest
[Online] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/dec/12/de-menezesdramatic-scenes [Accessed 15/4/2014]
Kirchner, E., Sperling, J. (2007) Global Security Governance: competing conceptions
of Security in the 21st Century. London: Routledge
11014633
Policing International Order – PIR 30118
Luckham, R. (2003) "Democratic Strategies for Security in Transition and Conflict"
from Cawthra, G. & Luckham, R. eds., Governing insecurity : democratic control of
military and security establishments in transitional democracies pp.3-28, London,:
Zed Books
Lutterbeck, D. (2013) “The Paradox of Gendarmeries: Between Expansion,
demiliterization and Dissolution” [PDF] Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of
Armed Forces (DCAF). Available at:
< http://www.dcaf.ch/Publications/The-Paradox-of-Gendarmeries-BetweenExpansion-Demilitarization-and-Dissolution> [Accessed 17/4/2014]
Lutterbeck, D, (2004), Between Police and Military: the New Security Agenda and the
Rise of Gendarmeries, in Cooperation and Conflict, vol 39 (1), pp. 45-68.
Spengeman, A (2013) “Upholding the legitimacy of Frontex: European Parliamentary
oversight” in European Security Review [PDF] Available at: http://isiseurope.eu/sites/default/files/publications-downloads/esr65_FrontexMarch2013AS.pdf [Accessed 18/4/2014]
Trauner, F (2011) “The Internal-external security nexus: More coherence under
Lisbon? [PDF] Available at:
http://www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/op89_The_internalexternal_security_nexus.pdf [Accessed 20/4/2014]
Weger, M. (2009) The Potential of the European Gendarmerie Force [PDF] Available at:
http://www.clingendael.nl/sites/default/files/20090400_cscp_gendarmerie_weger.pdf
[Accessed 18/4/2014]