“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.
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.
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
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.
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 semi-military 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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-fortress-europe [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: < connections-qj.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-menezes-dramatic-scenes [Accessed 15/4/2014]
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-Between-Expansion-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://isis- europe.eu/sites/default/files/publications-downloads/esr65_Frontex-March2013AS.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_internal-external_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
