Category Publications

The purpose of the 2020.01 United Nations Infantry Battalion Manual (UNIBAM) is two-fold. It provides Troop Contributing Countries (TCCs) with guidance on how to train, equip units deploying to UN Peacekeeping Missions, and it provides battalion commanders and staff, company commanders, platoon commanders and sub-unit leaders in UN Peacekeeping with a reference to effectively plan and conduct operations and tasks in support of a UN mandate. This manual does not replace national doctrine. Rather, it is designed to highlight UN operational standards, which should be overlaid on existing doctrine, thereby assisting a conventional Infantry Battalion (Inf Bn) operating in its national role to prepare for UN operations as ‘blue helmets’. While this manual is designed to assist the deploying/deployed UN Inf Bn, it should also serve as a guide for national and UN Headquarters (UNHQ) planners, and for those who train, support, enable and utilize UN peacekeeping Inf Bns. This manual cannot be read in isolation from other UN guidance and policy documents. Readers must first understand the principles of UN missions, the role of the military component (MC) within the mission, and the required ethics and conduct for TCCs, as described in UN mandates and doctrine. This manual is part of broader UN doctrine and should be read with publications including the UN Military Peacekeeping-Intelligence (MPKI) Handbook. This is the second edition of this Manual.

Click on the link below to read the full UNIBAM or click the button below to Download

The Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute (PKSOI) will sunset the Stability Operations Lessons Learned & Information Management System (SOLLIMS). The system will not be available after Friday, March 13, 2020. The lessons and resources archived in SOLLIMS have been moved to the Joint Lessons Learned Information System (JLLIS). JLLIS serves as the system of record for all lessons learned across the joint force.

The decision to sunset SOLLIMS was made in coordination with the US Army Combined Arms Center, the US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), and the Joint Staff J7 Joint Lessons Learned Division to eliminate the redundancy between the two systems.

Leveraging JLLIS, PKSOI will continue to serve as the integrator of joint lessons learned for P&SO in its role as the Army and TRADOC lead for Joint Proponent of Stabilization and Peace Operations.

Members of the Peacekeeping and Stability Operations (P&SO) community of practice/interest who possess a DoD Common Access Card (CAC) can now query the JLLIS system for P&SO related observations and document files previously archived in SOLLIMS. The website is https://www.jllis.mil.

Those members of the P&SO community who are not CAC holders can “Ask PKSOI” for assistance at the PKSOI website, http://pksoi.armywarcollege.edu/.

All members of the P&SO community can still submit lessons. CAC holders can contribute new P&SO lessons directly in JLLIS. All others can submit lessons directly to PKSOI by emailing usarmy.carlisle.awc.list.pksoi-operations@mail.mil. Lessons should be in Observations, Discussion, and Recommendation format, and if needed can also include Implications, Comments, and Event Description.

PKSOI will continue to produce a quarterly lessons report–formerly called SOLLIMS Sampler–with select lessons that are now resident in JLLIS. PKSOI posts all of its quarterly lessons reports on their website at http://pksoi.armywarcollege.edu/index.cfm/resources/pksoi-publications/pksoi-lesson-reports-sollims-samplers/.

PKSOI created SOLLIMS in 2009 as a web-enabled database to provide a repository for observations, insights and lessons pertaining to P&SO. SOLLIMS was an unclassified, open-source system available to a larger P&SO community that spanned joint, interagency, inter-governmental, multinational, and non-governmental organizations. SOLLIMS has served that community for more than a decade holding over 750 P&SO lessons and more than 7,700 resources. All of those lessons and records were transferred to the JLLIS database on March 6, 2020, and PKSOI will continue to produce new lessons directly in JLLIS

Questions regarding the sunsetting of SOLLIMS can be directed to PKSOI by phone at (717) 245-3031 or by email at usarmy.carlisle.awc.list.pksoi-operations@mail.mil.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) published an Essay Series,
Protecting Civilians: A Humanitarian Obligation, with a contribution from
Sarah Petrin (Williamson), and Col (Ret.) Dwight Raymond, on “A U.S.
Perspective on the Protection of Civilians.”

The essay outlines the U.S. military framework for civilian protection, which includes: 1) understand civilian risks 2) conduct activities that protect civilians, and 3) shape a protective environment. It also offers perspective on the challenges that the military confronts in operations to protect civilians, and highlights the importance of building the capacity of national governments to provide
security. The series was published by the NATO Office of the Secretary General, Human Security Unit and includes essays on Children and Armed Conflict and Cultural Property Protection.

To read this essay please click on the link below or to download click on the button below.

By Dr. Raymond A. Millen and Travis Bolio

Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute

The purpose of stability in international orbiting space is to create and sustain an environment for the peaceful pursuit of international interests, namely science, technology, exploration, and commerce. While international competition and cooperation in international orbiting space have continued for decades, no country has pursued military conquest as a means to gain dominance in this domain or to gain a military advantage over other states. The growing investment and presence in space presage the need to ensure stability and accessibility for peaceful expansion.

The Eisenhower administration’s hallmark space policy (NSC 5814/1) sought to reserve outer space for peaceful and scientific purposes. Notably, the policy proscribed the militarization of space, that is, no permanent placement of weapons in orbit. The exploration and use of space have progressed since the Eisenhower administration created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). By the first two decades of the 21^st century, multiple countries have placed satellites in orbital space for global communications, global positioning systems (GPS), surveillance, the internet of things, and cyber physical systems (CPS).[1] Multinational involvement in space is progressing exponentially, which also portends greater complexity and perhaps, instability unless judiciously managed.

Reinforcing US space policies, the United Nations’ Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (19 December 1966) emphasized international peaceful cooperation in outer space. Specifically, the treaty outlined international cooperation, exploration, and scientific research of outer space and celestial bodies. As important, the treaty prohibited national claims of sovereignty, establishment of military bases and weapons, and the placement of weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies.[2] Together with US space policies, the UN space treaty established the basis for peaceful international activities in space.

Space exploration, along with a greater understanding of the universe, has continued with orbital telescopes, manned space stations, manned space missions, and unmanned space exploration systems. The utility of space is not limited to the physical domain but extends into the electromagnetic and the internet domains.  As the leading pioneer of space exploration, the United States should continue developing space systems with the purpose of enhanced space stability and exploration. Additionally, US leadership should encourage more nations to participate jointly in space efforts, as cooperative burden-sharing and mutual benefits. This paper explores development mechanisms to enhance space exploration, research, and stability: normalized space terminology; near-term stability; mid-term stability; and long-term stability. The intent is to provide broad recommendations for mankind’s expansion into outer space in a logical manner.

Normalized Space Terminology

The domain of space encompasses three distinct dimensions: physical, network, and cognitive. The physical dimension comprises the orbital area and proceeds out to the moon, outer space and other celestial bodies. The network dimension includes the interconnected systems and processes that permit command and control of data and information around the world. The cognitive dimension covers the range of mental and conceptual processes needed to understand and operate in the space domain.[3]

The characterization of the space domain is broader in scope, as it is not limited to geographic or physical borders. This paper identifies four sub-domains as a basis for discussion: near Earth orbit, travel vectors, outer space, and the electromagnetic spectrum. All sub-domains operate in the three distinct dimensions; however the electromagnetic spectrum can have some unique interactions with the physical dimension.  A clear, mutual definition of these domains helps to establish authorities and regulations for abiding stability in space.

Near Earth orbit is the area closely surrounding the planet, in which gravity has a proximate attraction on objects. This domain is commonly used for satellites and is filled with decades of space debris. It serves as a strategic gateway for spacecraft passing through Earth’s atmosphere. As such, administration and management of space travel within near Earth orbit shall become a growing challenge.

Travel vectors are identified pathways for outer space destinations and interplanetary travel, as well as returning traffic. Travel vectors vary in terms of time and space as planets and other bodies orbit the Sun. Interplanetary traffic-peaks would correspond with planetary orbits passing closest to Earth. Similar to sea lanes and air corridors, as space traffic becomes more congested, administration and management of travel vectors become a safety issue.

The outer space domain is the vast frontier for exploration, research, and discovery of wondrous phenomena. While outer space exploration and colonization may serve to unify human efforts, they may also spur economic competition and potential disputes. Establishing stability mechanisms and a sense of multinational cooperation prior to inhabiting outer space serves to foster comity.

Exploration may expose humans to exotic viruses, so medical systems must be integral to stability practices. Medical protocols for returning space travelers, such as quarantine, detection, and disinfection, are needed to preclude potential pandemics. Similarly, standard protocols for contact with or discovery of other life forms are prudent to minimize mishaps. Creating a system of shared knowledge and best practices would promote a predictable exploration of the outer space domain. Standardized protocols would also enable standardization and interoperability of systems and infrastructure.

The vastness of space naturally presents unforeseen challenges and opportunities to inhabitation and exploration. As technological advances project humanity deeper into space and enhances an understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum, attentive governments would need to adapt. Leading governments need to deepen national and international space policies and processes to ensure technology does not outpace management and administration of space ventures. New discoveries may fundamentally change mankind’s understanding of the universe and create astounding innovations. For example, the discovery of new energy sources may solve current energy dependencies and pollution on Earth, as well as improve space vessel propulsion. However, new energy sources might pose a threat to contemporary energy providers, prompting resistance. Creating systems of systems that are dynamic enough to accommodate these changes will help prevent destabilizing effects.

The electromagnetic spectrum constitutes the waves and electromagnetic energy that is currently utilized and radiates throughout space. This sub-domain has a large impact on the network dimension. It could be the photonic energy coming from the Sun to the Earth. It can be all the communication frequencies between satellites and Earth stations, as well as among satellites and space craft. Establishing regulatory practices for the electromagnetic spectrum is necessary as space activities become more prevalent. As the electromagnetic spectrum usage increases, it can affect Earth-based activities, such as solar power and photosynthesis. Increased electromagnetic spectrum media may also interfere with communications from Earth to space vessels and celestial bases.

Maintaining stability in space would require a dynamic, iterative evaluation of challenges and potential areas of friction as mankind establishes a greater presence, commerce, and economic competition in space. The internet has connected the world and accelerated globalization to such an extent that instability in a remote country can now reverberate far beyond its borders. Similarly, space inhabitation may spawn “galaxation,” where instabilities in space may have global ramifications.

 Near-Term Stability

Before addressing future endeavors in space, the United States must face contemporary realities. Stability in near Earth orbit currently rests on a foundation of deterrence. Effective deterrence requires the capability and national will to retaliate against potential attacks emanating within, from, or through near Earth orbit (e.g., weaponized satellites and intercontinental ballistic missiles). Seemingly innocuous, orbiting objects can serve as weapons as well. For example, a large, dense object guided for the purpose of plunging onto the Earth’s surface can wreak regional or even global devastation, as large meteorites in the past have demonstrated.  Deterrent capabilities require an arsenal of Earth-based retaliatory systems, such as weaponized satellites and missiles, held in launch readiness. National will is established through a declaration of retaliatory capabilities and assured response to threats vis-à-vis near space orbit. The dyad of national capability and will ensures potential aggressors do not misstep by misjudging US resolve and readiness.[4]

A “No First Use” policy assures the international community that the United States will not conduct preventive attacks in response to perceived or potential aggression. US deterrence policy should not attempt to define what is considered aggression, keeping the issue ambiguous (i.e., physical attack, cyberattack, blinding attack, and electronic warfare). The essence of deterrence places the onus of action on potential aggressors and fosters uncertainty in regards to what types of actions will trigger a US response.

To mitigate fears concerning the militarization of international space, the United States should consider changing the name of Space Force to something less provocative, perhaps Space Service. As the organization evolves, it may predominantly comprise robots, computers, scientists, engineers, and ultimately space vessel crews. At some point, the United States should consider offering membership to qualified candidates from other countries. Foreign membership in the organization would increase a unified endeavor, as well as maintaining US leadership and guidance for space service.

According to the Space Force, Space Domain Awareness is the “effective identification, characterization and understanding of any factor associated with the space domain that could affect space operations and thereby impact the security, safety, economy, or environment of our Nation.”[5] The Space Force should continue extending this vision for future expansion into space and the economic ramifications to the global economy, so as to ensure the stability in space.

In anticipation of future space exploration and enduring presence, the United States should consider promoting international space agreements which foster cooperation and partnership. This anticipatory approach would address stability issues in near Earth orbit and build on them over time. Specifically, the United States should begin the process of international economic agreements for space exploration and commerce. Public and private commercial interests shall become more prominent as access to space becomes open to all countries and business corporations. Economic drivers, rather than security issues, have the potential to create instability as countries and corporations vie for orbit positions, travel vectors, and planetary exploitation.

Human expansion into space will likely create opportunities for illicit and subversive activities. To address smuggling, piracy, sabotage, pilferage, and other criminal activities, establishing a rule of law framework and common legal jurisdictions should occur prior to inhabitation of space. All of these issues are addressed in national and international laws, so expanding them to include illicit activities in space should present fewer problems.

Mid-Term Stability

Near Earth orbit shall inevitably serve as global gateways to the frontier of space. An international gatekeeper agreement is needed since access to space shall impact all national and commercial enterprises interested in space exploration and commerce. The current sharing of near Earth orbit and the advantages it provides for public and private sectors are already a source of global competition and cooperation. While few countries currently possess the capability to establish a presence in space orbit, all countries are impacted by national space programs and policies, so an international space agreement is prudent to avoid future disputes. As near Earth orbit becomes more accessible, countries and companies will begin to invest in space enterprises, likely at an exponential rate. Hence, developing policies and agreements now will mitigate potential conflicts in the future.

Creating an environment that is beneficial for international economic development in space will be a key driver of activity and advancement. Currently, the physical barrier limits space activities, but this barrier will lessen as technology improves. Current trade laws do not account for the scope of space activities and investments. Through advancements and improvements in processes, regulations need to be dynamic enough to adapt to these changes. Transparent regulatory practices would enable the improvement of the international economic environment.

A revenue system to fund the orbital federation or system would be a necessary component of space activities. Transparent and consensual funding legislation promotes the equitable administration of orbital activities. The largest barrier to participation in space will be the financial demands on funding and maintenance of space endeavors. International financial policies and regulations to make space ventures more economically viable for countries and corporations would provide opportunities for increased infrastructure development in the space domain.

The administration of orbital gateways requires thoughtful management to ensure that access is equitable, fair, and open for all future national and private enterprises in order to avoid monopolies by early pioneers. International enterprises over orbital gateways, travel vectors, planets, moons, and asteroids should become the norm. Accordingly, the United States should consider the establishment of a space governing council that is scalable and diverse enough to allow for the continued expansion of the space domain. Initial administration of orbital gateways is within Earth-based government structures, but leading governments involved in space will need to think about the future establishment of quasi-independent or autonomous governments away from the immediate vicinity of Earth.

Long Term Stability

Global gateways to space could take the form of mega space ports in near Earth orbit. Mega space ports assume both technical and human dimensions. Technically, the construction of mega space ports would facilitate the reception and servicing of space vessels for exploration, transportation, commerce, salvage, and mining. Construction of mega space ports would be more economical and practical in a near-zero gravity environment than from Earth-based launch missions with construction crews and materials.

Construction of a space port would require modularization for expansion, with robotics and computers performing manufacture, construction, and design modifications. The initial and core module would be for the smelting of metal and the manufacture of material for modular expansion. Construction robotics and computers would be indispensable in the harsh environment of space. Automated repair and maintenance facilities for robotics and computers would obviate the need for direct human involvement and would minimize the use of Earth-based launch missions for the purpose of replacement parts and repairs. 

Conceptually, automated salvage vessels could focus initially on recovering space debris orbiting the Earth and delivering it to the core module for smelting and manufacture of modular components. Salvage work would serve to clean up space debris in orbits and travel vectors, which will increasingly become hazards to orbiting satellites and traffic. Hence, salvage work would be more economical than launching construction materials from Earth to the space ports.

The salvaging of space junk alone would not meet the material needs of space ports. In view of their low gravitation fields, the Moon and nearby asteroids are more economical for the mining and transportation of ore to space ports. Mining may require some human labor, so international agreements on mining contracts, bases, and operations would become necessary. Of course, mining would require the construction of bases and equipment, thereby becoming a major project in itself.

In view of economy and freedom from Earth’s gravity, separate space manufacturing facilities would be needed for the construction of large space vessels. As with mega space ports, these facilities would need core modules for smelting and manufacture of modular components, and for the manufacture of space vessels. In addition to robotics and computers, administrators, scientists, engineers, and laborers would be devoted to the construction of large space vessels.

The design, shielding, computers, communications, and propulsion of large space vessels should be built for upgrades and new innovations. Until more effective means for propulsion are developed, nuclear reactors would likely remain the most practical. Since crews of large space vessels would experience long tours of duty, amenities, such as living quarters, dining, entertainment, and relaxation become more important. Such vessels should be intended for exploration and scientific discovery. These vessels should not have weapons unless a threat materializes.

The human dimension would evolve over time. At some point, mega space ports and spacecraft manufacturing facilities could become capable of life support and artificial gravity. In addition to robotics and computers, administrators, scientists, engineers, and laborers would be required for maintenance and management of the space ports and manufacturing facilities, as well as scientific work. At a minimum, space ports would comprise facilities for space traffic control, port administration, constabulary, commerce, science research, passenger terminals, maintenance, living accommodations, dining, and exercise.

International participation in this program would reap benefits in terms of cooperation, diverse innovation, and a commitment to stability in space. Further, international ownership and administration would preclude the establishment of national monopolies in near Earth orbit and celestial bodies. A small governing space council, a constabulary, and a judiciary would serve to maintain the rule of law in each space port. Corporations will likely vie for commercial enterprises in space, so the port commerce office would administer regulatory policies designed to prevent corporate monopolies and predatory practices.

As other planets, moons, and asteroids become more accessible for commerce, exploration, and possible colonization, governance will eventually become an issue. Setting precedents on rule of law governance, authorities, administration, and so forth in the early stages of habitation of near Earth orbit would set the stage for later expansion. Accordingly, a space governing body should operate as a democracy with checks and balances to guarantee universal rights and representation. Executive, legislative, and judicial bodies may serve as the model for good governance of orbital space. Representation from governments and corporations active in space, with room for expansion, would serve to protect rights and interests. A formal constitution describing the political structure, electoral process, term limits, and criteria for office would provide for long term stability in space governance. As habitation of space expands farther from Earth, the need for autonomous government bodies will assume greater import.

Conclusion

The development of the space domain promises vast technological advances, new energy discoveries, and enormous wealth creation. The investment in space ventures would reap benefits far above overhead costs. Nevertheless, expansion into space should be based on a comprehensive plan with built-in stability mechanisms. Beginning the process now would prevent a haphazard evolution of space enterprises.

As mankind expands into the solar system, sovereignty claims and governance of the space commons shall become issues as more countries and commercial enterprises begin interplanetary operations. The regulation of space traffic would require the assignment of space vectors to mitigate congestion and accidents. A space communications agency would be needed to regulate communications traffic. An international sovereignty policy would be needed for private and international bases in space, on planets, on moons, and on asteroids.

All of the complexities, challenges and opportunities from the development of space domains cannot be anticipated. However, US leadership and international collaboration can begin laying the groundwork for eventual expansion and habitation of space. As with any human interaction, stability issues will remain abiding. Establishing stabilization mechanisms from the onset will create an environment of cooperation and healthy competition as economic and scientific advances develop the space domain.

[1] For an archival history of US administrations’ space policies, see https://aerospace.org/space-policy-resources

[2] 2222 (XXI). Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Office for Outer Space Affairs, 19 December 1966, https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/outerspacetreaty.html, 17 August 2020.

[3] Spacepower, Space Capstone Publication, Headquarters United States Space Force (June 2020), 5-8, https://www.spaceforce.mil/Portals/1/Space%20Capstone%20Publication_10%20Aug%202020.pdf, 14 August 2020.

[4] Coercion theory (i.e. deterrence and compellence) remains relevant in near Earth orbit and likely beyond. Thomas C. Schelling, Arms and Influence (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, revised edition, November 5, 2008).

[5] Spacepower, 34, 38-39.

As an Army critical care nurse, Col. Veronica Oswald- Hrutkay has instructed at the Army Trauma Training Center and deployed in support of Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm; UN Protection Force Mission Provide Promise in Zagreb, Croatia; and Operation Iraqi Freedom. It was always about saving lives – then, and now at the strategic level of human security, said the Army War College lead for Women, Peace and Security.

The first of a planned annual series, the Women, Peace, and Security Join Academic Forum Workshop is a two-day virtual collaboration among those in planning and policy roles and those in professional military education. For two days, Aug. 25 – 26, 2020, the participants focused on opportunities within PME to integrate WPS principles into the strategic mindedness of faculty and student.

“Within the Defense Department, WPS actions are force multipliers,” said U.S. Army War College Commandant Maj. Gen. Steve Maranian, opening the workshop. To read more of this USAWC article please CLICK HERE.

Forward 

This primer on reconciliation programs serves to complement counterinsurgency strategies. While such programs require a fair amount of organization, resources, funding and manpower, the key distinction is they are predominately managed by host nation governments. This requirement means that US military and government officials must focus on advising and the provision of resources to support a reconciliation program. The purpose of this primer is to inform US advisors on the salient features of a reconciliation program. This task is by no means simple because host nation governments are unlikely to pursue a reconciliation program without US persistence and guidance.

This primer provides a methodical approach to inducing surrender among common insurgents and providing ways for them to become productive citizens. Effective reconciliation programs have the potential to shorten the length and costs of an insurgency. Such programs serve to accelerate the healing process in the midst of an insurgency. In the aftermath of an insurgency, reconciliation programs provide the requisite infrastructure for the implementation of disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) programs. As such, reconciliation programs lay the groundwork for enduring stability in an affected country.

Scot N. Storey
Colonel, Director
US Army Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute

To read Crippling Insurgencies with National Reconciliation Programs: A Primer for Military Practitioners Click Here

The current COVID-19 pandemic is a world-wide public health emergency that has resulted in a multitude of deaths and has severely impacted economies of every nation in the world. Currently, there have been over 20 million cases of COVID-19 worldwide. Establishing and maintaining peace and security in all countries, especially underdeveloped countries, are critical because effective governance and the rule of law are essential to managing COVID-19. Likewise, without effective rule of law, the pandemic has the potential to exacerbate corruption, lack of recourse to courts, and ineffective policing, thereby resulting in even more instability and hardship for the people who, in many cases, already face injustice and lack of meaningful legal redress. This PKSOI paper discusses ways the rule of law and the justice sector can effectively facilitate the response to COVID-19, while promoting stability, peace, and governance. Further, it outlines a way forward for strengthening rule of law.  

What is Rule of Law

The rule of law is a principle which recognizes that all people, institutions, public and private entities, and the nation as a whole are accountable to clearly written laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, independently adjudicated, and consistent with international human rights norms and standards. The rule of law is an end state that requires access to justice where people can seek and are afforded a remedy through formal and informal judicial institutions (United Nations, What is the Rule of Law?).

In 2005, President George W. Bush issued National Security Presidential Directive 44 (NSPD-44), which outlined the implementation of the rule of law as part of its assistance to other countries and its integration into military plans. This Executive Order recognized that the rule of law is integral to stability operations in accordance with Joint Publication 3-0, Operations (JP 3-0).     

Without effective rule of law, nations cannot guarantee citizen rights and fundamental freedoms, thereby undermining enduring peace, security, and political stability. The UN recognizes the rule of law as “foundational to people’s access to public services, curbing corruption, restraining the abuse of power, and to establishing the social contract between people and the state” (UN, What is the Rule of Law?). Along with other government institutions, pandemics can fracture judicial mechanisms, resulting in unchecked violence, virulent corruption, and rampant human rights abuses. Under these circumstances, the rule of law collapses, which leads to protracted instability.     

How Pandemics Challenge the Rule of Law

COVID-19 is the most disruptive pandemic since the 1918 Spanish Flu, impacting the economic, political, and social infrastructures of every country in the world. Pandemics like COVID-19 cause significant economic, social, and political disruption to the equilibrium of effective, efficient, inclusive, and responsive governance. If the rule of law is weak, businesses and citizens cannot function effectively, thus increasing the potential for violence and violations of human rights.  

In today’s modern era, epidemics like with Ebola, SARS, MERS, and COVID 19 have the ability to spread more quickly because of increased global travel, urbanization, changes in land use, and greater exploitation of the natural environment (African Risk Capacity 2016). These trends will continue and intensify, causing governance in fragile nations to absorb the consequences and suffer the effects epidemics if not prepared. 

Pandemics like COVID-19 especially impact judicial systems and rule of law in three key ways. First, nations must have effective legal frameworks that include public health laws consistent with the World Health Organization’s (WHO) mandates. Countries must be able to implement emergency measures, respected by the people, to protect them from the spread of the disease. For example, laws and regulations requiring the use of masks, quarantines, and testing procedures contribute to the effective medical response to the pandemic, and ultimately save lives. Governments that lack the ability to implement effective countermeasures cannot manage the spread of COVID-19 competently. 

Second, the rule of law creates security for people, especially in fragile and underdeveloped nations. Government responses to pandemics require limits on freedoms of movement, such as quarantines and border closures. Effective rule of law seeks to reduce crime that has a disproportionate impact on the poor, women, elderly, children, and other marginalized people in less developed countries.  For example, COVID-19 has caused economic contraction, financial straits for labor, and prolonged quarantining, leading to reported increases of domestic violence on women.  Judicial institutions and courts must remain available to adjudicate crime and domestic violence on people and families. 

Third, the rule of law helps nations recover from the effects of the pandemic because stronger government institutions can ensure the safety and security of citizens and property. Timely resolution of disputes minimizes violence and ensures reliance on the processes of an independent judiciary. 

During pandemics, countries have the obligation to ensure that courts remain available to provide fair trials by an impartial court and effective remedies for litigants. Courts also play an essential role in securing the rule of law by ensuring other branches of government respect the law. For instance, pandemics can create situations for political abuses and usurpation of power by an executive leader or by the legislature.   

Evidence and recent studies suggest that epidemics and pandemics can amplify existing political tensions and spark unrest, particularly in the governance of fragile states with legacies of violence and weak institutions. During the 2014 West Africa Ebola epidemic, steps taken to mitigate disease transmission, such as quarantines and curfews by security forces, were viewed with suspicion by segments of the public and opposition political leaders. This led directly to riots and violent clashes with security forces (McCoy 2014). In Liberia, political tensions among warring factions reemerged early in the epidemic and were linked with threats to healthcare workers, as well as attacks on governance institutions, specifically public health personnel and facilities.  The Ebola epidemic amplified political tensions in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. In Sierra Leone, quarantines in opposition-dominated regions were delayed because of concerns that it would be seen as politically motivated (ICG 2015). A pandemic in countries with high levels of political polarization, recent civil wars, or weak government institutions can create overwhelming pressure and political tensions, impacting the governance structure of the nation.  

Pandemics threaten the operations of courts, with dramatic consequences. In many countries, including developing countries, courts are closed for all matters, except those deemed “urgent” (International Commissions of Jurists). Routine disputes are shelved for months while only those cases involving irreparable harm are adjudicated, often by video and other platforms, rather than in-person hearings. In many proceedings, litigants, attorneys, and persons arrested and detained normally appear in person before a court, especially for a preliminary hearing. However, with increased reliance on telephone and video-conferencing, the pandemic frustrates the ability of courts to administer justice effectively.

Without the ability of courts to supervise justice effectively, criminals are released from prisons to prevent the spread of COVID-19, and police are not arresting or detaining individuals accused of minor offenses. Lack of legitimate court supervision also is an invitation for illicit organizations. The UN mission in Congo provided support to the prosecution of those who committed serious crimes. As the UN recognized, the absence of effective justice systems across remote areas of Congo, where many of the crimes occurred, has been an underlying cause of the violence.  Providing effective justice instilled confidence in state actors and led to decreases in violations committed by armed groups, the national armed forces, and the police (UN Chronicle). 

Terrorists find their greatest safe haven in countries where governments cannot or will not control their territory. Pandemics are an invitation for organized criminal groups to create networks when governments are complicit (corruption) or unable to take steps to mitigate the threats (inadequate security). The missing link in all of these cases is the absence of the rule of law. 

Military Doctrine Requires Support for Rule of Law

Department of Defense Directive 3000.05, Stabilization, states that stabilization is an inherently political endeavor that requires aligning U.S Government (USG) efforts—diplomatic engagement, foreign assistance, and defense—to create conditions in which locally legitimate authorities and systems can peacefully manage conflict and prevent violence (DoDD 3000.05, p. 3). While the Department of State is the overall lead for Governance and other stabilization efforts, the US military is responsible for assisting other US government agencies, mainly the Department of State, to assist foreign nations and their people to share, access, and voice their opinion through non-violent processes (JP 3-07). 

Military operations must incorporate stabilization planning across all lines of effort as early as possible to shape operational design and strategic decisions. Stabilization requires sustained civil and military integration at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels to achieve unity of effort. This includes optimizing civil-military teams that can integrate key instruments of national power to complement allies and partners’ capabilities to achieve stabilization objectives. To that end, forces must be trained to conduct DoD’s core stabilization responsibilities, including the establishment of transitional public security to protect civilian populations when respect for and enforcement of rule of law is degraded (DoDD 3000.05, p. 11).

Thus, military doctrine recognizes that US forces can assist rule of law development by creating security for host nations. Rule of law objectives can only be attained after there is a safe and secure operational environment. 

Way Forward

The United States and its military missions must take immediate action to address urgent dangers to mitigate major threats before they arise—and to sustain global support for rule of law. The following steps are recommended for providing support for the rule of law in fragile states, in cooperation with partner nations whose stability is in the US national interest. These steps are a composite outlined in JP3-07, FM 3-07 and UN publications:

Resources:

ARC (African Risk Capacity). 2016. “African Risk Capacity Strategic Framework 2016–2020.” Strategy and policy document, ARC, Johannesburg, South Africa.

ASPR (Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response). 2014. “Public Health and Medical Situational Awareness Strategy.” Strategy document for situational awareness implementation plan U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.

Diamond J. 2009. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York: Norton.

McCoy T. 2014. “Why the Brutal Murder of Several Ebola Workers May Hint at More Violence to Come.” Washington Post, September 19.

Elbe S. 2002. “HIV/AIDS and the Changing Landscape of War in Africa.” International Security.

ICG (International Crisis Group). 2015. The Politics behind the Ebola Crisis. Crisis Group Africa Report 232, International Crisis Group, Brussels, October 28.

International Commission of Jurists, 5 May 2020.  The Courts and COVID-19.  ICJ Centre for the Independence of Judges & Lawyers.

National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD-44 (2005), available at https://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-44.html.

United Nations, Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, 2012, ‘What is Good Governance,” Bangkok, Thailand.

United Nations Chronicle, Strengthening the Rule of Law and Protection of Civilians in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

United Nations, “What is the Rule of Law, https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/what-is-the-rule-of-law/, June 10, 2020. 

Joint Publication 3-07, 2016, Stability, Washington DC.

DoD Directive 3000.5, Stabilization, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, December 13, 2018.

This edition of the Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute’s Semi-Annual Lesson Report explores the challenges and complexities of Multinational Interoperability in the conduct of peace operations and stability activities. An April 2020 RAND Corporation report asserted “interoperability” can be “a buzzword” in military vernacular to denote a problem needing a solution. While that may be true in many respects, the US Army Regulation (AR) 34-1.2 “interoperability” definition is used here:

…interoperability is the ability to act together coherently, effectively, and efficiently to achieve tactical, operational, and strategic objectives…[and]…Interoperability activities are any initiative, forum, agreement, or operation that improves the Army’s ability to operate effectively and efficiently as a component of the Joint Force, within an interorganizational environment, and as a member or leader of an alliance or coalition across the range of military operations (ROMO).

To read the full report please click on the link below or to download click on the button below.

Epidemics interrupt a country’s economy, causing temporary closures of businesses, industries, and agriculture. The labor force, which drives all economic activity, is impacted by sickness, death, and recovery from illness. Aside from the need to care for ill relatives, families suffer long term problems if the breadwinner dies.

As the 28 April 2020 PKSOI paper, US Global Stabilization Strategy for the COVID 19 Pandemic points out, the ability to regenerate the economy in the aftermath of a pandemic is an important joint stability function and has an enduring impact on the wealth of a country. Economic recovery requires prioritization through economic stabilization and repair of infrastructure. The level of infrastructure degradation is dependent on the length of the pandemic, impacts from neglected repairs, derelict projects and social destruction from rioting or other activities. Economic activities are a bottom-up process with the majority of attention focused on regenerating local economies.

This paper addresses the salient features of economic recovery: 1) Evaluation Local Economic Drivers; 2) Regenerating Local Economies; 3) Financial Wellbeing and perception; and 4) National Government Economic Incentives. As this paper avers, a little economic assistance at local levels provides the most effect boost for a country’s recovery.

Evaluation Local Economic Drivers

A pandemic not only devastates human life; it also interrupts economic activity throughout an afflicted country. The incapacitation of economic production inflicts direct and indirect shocks to the populace. The direct jolt is the immediate disruption of jobs, supplies, and monetary flow. The loss of employment and salaries causes people to stash rather than spend money. Even if supplies exist, the drop in demand decreases money flow and causes inflation. In this situation, people barter for goods, which fuels a black market. The indirect impact is a matter of public perceptions (i.e., hope and confidence) and psychological trauma, which leads to personal futility and desperation.  Consequently, an even greater rate of mortality, through suicides and murder, adds to the toll of the pandemic. An increase in violence can be fueled by desperation.

In the aftermath of a pandemic, economic recovery should comprise two elements: supporting existing economic activities and regenerating activities. Prompt economic action at the local levels arrests the direct and indirect impacts of the pandemic. Every economy has its own unique drivers and essential activities, so US assistance must identify and restore them.

As with any disaster, economic stabilization requires a thorough assessment of existing economic and cultural activities that stimulate the economy. Understanding the specific economic drivers accelerates the recover from a pandemic. For instance, while most cultures have a critical reliance on their supply chains, some cultures may shorten logistical movement of goods and services resulting in a greater impact. Targeting the key drivers that are important for specific locales within a country has the greatest return on investment.

Regenerating Local Economies

Pandemics ironically do not cause immediate mass starvation. Higher than normal mortality rates mean fewer people to feed, and existing reserves of food, and essential items, are sufficient for the immediate period. Farmers, fishermen, and herders are relatively isolated from the rest of society, so they are less susceptible to pandemics. Supply chains may be more susceptible to pandemics, due to the greater integration with the population. This can lead to a slowdown in goods delivery causing a perceived shortage. Perceived scarcity of basic needs can obscure facts, and can lead to theft and wanton destruction from marauding bands.

Equipment repairs and livestock replacement this takes time and therefore a gap in the food supply suffice to regenerate agriculture, fishing, and herding quickly; agrarian impact will be subject to the time of year and the activities that are affected. Prioritizing essential resource generation and protection facilitates the recovery of the economy. Essential resource production will need to fulfil demand and inventory requirements in order to replace expended inventories.

Opening markets may involve repairing or replacing private and commercial transportation. Farmers and fishermen need wagons, trucks, and trains to transport goods to the market. Infrastructure repairs, if needed (e.g., storage, bridges, and marketplaces), which may impede commerce, must receive priority. Delays in opening markets can increase the perceived resource scarcity and increase black market and smuggling activities.

Hoarding of food and other goods is prevalent during a crisis, so investigations of such practices serve to prevent black market, other illicit activities, and inflation. The police are often aware of illicit activities due to tips and experience. Since some policemen may be corrupt (i.e., taking payoffs to ignore illicit activities), assessments and investigations of the police are often needed during an intervention. However, the exigencies of the disaster require their retention for the nonce, so corrective action should wait until the crisis abates.

Financial Wellbeing and Perception 

Financial services provide a unique psychological role during a pandemic. These institutions drive economic mechanisms and provide psychological stability to the population. Every effort should be made to keep financial institutions open and to show confidence in the financial system. Financial institutions should remain empowered to use digital payments and other resources, including setting their own daily withdrawal limits in order to manage cash levels.

Financial institutions are always at risk for corruption and illegal activity, which the pandemic compounds. These activities may already be present in the system or as a result of economic fluctuations. Economic assistance may provide opportunities to combat illicit activities. However, the goal should be to stabilize the financial system, and improvements should be secondary—if they do not negatively affect the recovery.

The postal system is another, often overlooked, economic driver. This system is especially vital during pandemics as it continues to move goods and drive the flow of money through the economy. Using proper precautions to prevent the spread of a virus, the postal system can provide needed items to a wide range of citizens. The postal system can also be used to augment the logistical systems.

Economies rely on the velocity of money to drive their economies, so invigorating the circulation of money is essential. During a pandemic, people instinctively hoard money or avoid spending money due to uncertainty. Paradoxically, lower demand can cause a collapse of normal markets, creating deficits in basic commodities. In turn, the price of goods rises which decreases spending power (i.e., inflation). People then resort to bartering and black market activities. To prevent this occurrence, economic assistance should target businesses to stimulate employment. Once people have assured incomes, they begin buying, thereby putting more money into circulation. 

National Government Economic Incentives

Directly combating economic effects are done at the local level. At the national level the economic drivers are indirect and should be used to facilitate the local efforts. Understanding the existing national economic system facilitates the regeneration of the economy. Small adjustments at the national level serve to increase the effectiveness of local efforts. Expansive economic policies during or immediately after a pandemic are likely to stymy the recovery. While these policies may be desired, they should wait until immediate economic recovery occurs. If local efforts are proven ineffective and are not able to effectively target instabilities in the economy stimulus maybe required. Stimulus efforts should be used to supplement local level actions.

Understanding the country’s regulatory environment permits adjustments to facilitate recovery. Regulatory changes are dependent on the culture and effects of the pandemic. Boosting the private sector should receive priority since it is more susceptible to the shock of the pandemic. Public sectors, while still important in the economy, typically can withstand a loss in production better than private sectors. Public sectors also generate a lower velocity of money than private sectors, so the private sectors have a greater return on investment from the national point of view.

Improving market factors can facilitate economic stability, through better prices, products innovation, and inventories. Prices of products are likely to fluctuate due to supply changes and psychological perception during the pandemic. Improving public perceptions of resource security and utilizing economic drivers can ensure appropriate prices and production, which are unique to the economy. Perceived resource scarcity can lead to hoarding, price inflations, and illicit activities. The perceived scarcity can have a dramatic effect on inventory levels, and may create future problems as normal reserves are exhausted.

Fluctuations in the economy create opportunities for legitimate and illegitimate activates. Depending on the extent of the disaster and the level of economic degradation, illicit activities are likely to occur and expand if countermeasures are not implemented. Real or perceived scarcity of goods can increase smuggling and black market activates. These changes can lead to counterfeiting and illegal trafficking. Addressing these activities early can prevent them from spiraling out of control. Since illicit activities (i.e., human, arms, and drug trafficking) often have regional and global impacts, combating them is an international concern. Every country experiences illicit activities, so the main goal is to arrest their expansion rather than complete eradication.

Conclusions

Economic development differs among countries, so lesser developed countries are more susceptible to the effects of a pandemic. Economic assistance should not aim to transform a country beyond its level of development prior to the pandemic. The idea is to regenerate existing economic systems and avoid the temptation to remodel a country’s economy. Improvements can occur, but only after the country recovers from the pandemic.

Revitalizing an economy after a pandemic is a dynamic, multi-faceted challenge. An understanding of the afflicted country’s economy and prompt assistance can help avert the disaster of a pandemic from consigning a country to protracted poverty. While some public economic measures are needed to encourage money flow and confidence in the economy, immediate assistance should focus on the private sector, especially in local communities.

Taking steps to mitigate economic degradation before problems worsen can be effective. Managing public perception, availability of necessary resources and economic drivers can mitigate the negative economic effects of a pandemic. Targeting local economies allows for a direct approach to economic events, while managing the financial system and national government incentives can have an indirect approach. Prioritizing activities can create an economic resilience to survive future plagues/pandemics of the future.

As we approach the International Day of Peace on September 21st, our partner in peace, the US Institute for Peace, is mounting its annual Peace Day Challenge campaign with a focus on Profiles in Peacebuilding, highlighting the successes of everyday peacebuilders across the world.  Learn more about this year’s campaign on the USIP Peace Day Challenge webpage https://www.usip.org/programs/peace-day-challenge and by visiting their user-friendly social media kit https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/PeaceDayChallenge-Social-Media-Kit-2021.pdf