APPENDIX C
CASE STUDY FRAMEWORK
Authors who contributed cases studies to this volume were asked to address the following issues (if applicable) in their drafts:
Background
¨ Briefly, what was the situation that precipitated international intervention?
¨ Describe the indigenous capacity for self-governance, the strength of armed opposition groups, the condition of the economy and infrastructure, and extent of societal disruption (e.g., was this a “failed state”?).
¨ What was the status of the domestic public security apparatus? How capable was it of maintaining public order? How did the indigenous police force relate to other elements of the local power structure (e.g., Army, Ministry of Interior, Prime Minister/President)? How did the general population view the indigenous police establishment(s) (e.g., as an instrument of state repression and control, a defender of factional interests, or a basically impartial and dedicated protector of the people)? What was the condition of the judicial and prison systems?
The Mandate and Resources
¨ What was the mandate? Did this mandate spring from a peace accord among major combatants or exclusively from a resolution adopted by the UNSC or a regional security organization? What were the ROEs? Was public security an explicit, initial responsibility of the peace mission or was this task adopted later by the peace mission? If the latter, was this done only after careful consideration or as a result of “mission creep?”
¨ How was the peace mission organized? Was there unity of command among the various components of the mission (e.g., humanitarian, human rights, CIVPOL, and military)? Did any pre-deployment training or team-building activity take place among the various elements that were to comprise the mission?
¨ Describe the size and composition of CIVPOL, International Police Monitors or equivalent elements, and, if they contributed to policing, military components of the peace mission. Were any standards used to screen CIVPOL members, during recruitment? What special considerations (such as the need for sensitivity to gender issues, language ability, historical considerations) impinged upon the composition of CIVPOL?
¨ What resources (financial, logistical, equipment) were allocated for the public security function and from what sources? Were the resources adequate for the job and available on a timely basis?
¨ Describe the phases through which the peace mission was designed to pass? Was this the result of a peace accord or some other planning process?
¨ What advance planning was done, by the United States or the United Nations, regarding public security? Who had the lead for the United States?
The Mission
¨ Did the mission unfold as planned? At the outset, was there a “public security gap” that the military component of the peace mission had to fill? If not, how was this avoided? To what extent did the peace mission assume responsibility for enforcing domestic law? Did the populace view the presence of and public security functions performed by the peace mission as legitimate?
¨ How did CIVPOL relate to the indigenous police force (Monitoring, mentoring, joint patrolling, passive observation, training, etc.)? Did MPs, Special Forces, or other regular military units become involved in public security matters? How did the military element of the mission relate to the indigenous public security force? Was there a direct relationship or did CIVPOL serve as intermediary? Did indigenous military or paramilitary forces become a factor?
¨ Was the peace mission charged with controlling weapons and demobilization of existing military and/or paramilitary forces? Did CIVPOL have a role in this? For ex-combatants (e.g., soldiers, paramilitary elements, guerrillas) who were not allowed to join or remain in the police force or military, was an effort made to reintegrate them into civil society? To what extent did former combatants continue as armed opposition or become transformed into criminal elements? What factors influenced these outcomes?
¨ Was vetting the existing police establishment and/or establishing a new force part of the peace mission’s responsibility? Who provided the background data, training, equipment, and funding? Was it adequate and timely? Did military personnel or other ex-combatants become part of a reconstituted police force? Was a leadership cadre developed for the new police force? How? If applicable, how long did it take to recruit, train, and deploy a new police cadre? Did CIVPOL or others provide effective mentoring and on-the-job training to the new police force? How long before their operation became reasonably effective?
¨ Was CIVPOL given responsibility for assistance to penal and judicial systems? What resources did it have for these tasks? What other entities provided assistance (e.g., governments, NGOs, international organizations)? What were their programs? Were these efforts adequate and well coordinated? What impact did shortcomings in the judiciary and penal systems have on public security?
¨ Were CIVPOL, the military division, and local police forces used to assist with or protect elections and human rights observers? How did they perform?
¨ Was the creation of a new or reconstituted police force an integral part of the exit strategy? Did police assistance continue after the military phase of the mission ended? By whom and to what effect?
Coordination and Cooperation
¨ Was there a coherent philosophy or mandate that governed conduct of the CIVPOL (e.g., regarding use of force and exercise of police powers, authority to carry a weapon, community policing, respect for human rights)? How did it relate to the overall philosophy of the peace mission?
¨ Describe the working relationship between the military and CIVPOL (i.e., command, planning, information sharing, logistics, communication, operations center, joint or coordinated patrolling, QRF arrangements, liaison with local police for training). How effective was this? Were psychological operations or civil affairs specialists involved in this operation? How were their contributions coordinated with the remainder of the mission and how effective were they?
¨ Describe the working relationship between CIVPOL and other components of the mission (e.g., Human Rights, Electoral, Humanitarian)?
¨ Was there coordination with and support for CIVPOL from the political leadership of the mission, U.N. HQ, and contributing governments? Were the contributions of the United States, other governments, NGOs, and the United Nations effectively coordinated? How? Was coordination between CIVPOL and local authorities accomplished effectively?
Evaluation/Conclusions
¨ How successful was the peace mission in establishing a climate of public security and, if part of its mandate, institutionalizing the rule of law? Was this central to the success of the overall peace mission? Did maintenance of public order contribute to force protection and reduction of conflict with elements of the local population (or vice versa)?
¨ Were the human rights of the general population and suspected criminals respected by the local police during and after the departure of the peace mission?
¨ What factors were most important in determining these outcomes? How competent were the CIVPOL contingents (and related elements) to perform their duties (e.g., as policemen, mentors, monitors)? What were the most troubling deficiencies? What actions were taken to enhance CIVPOL capabilities? How successful were they?
¨ What were the principal issues that arose during this peace mission and the most important lessons learned? Have these problems been corrected by the United States and the United Nations or are they still unresolved today?