USIP Framework for Societies Emerging from Conflicts

THE UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE has developed a framework for success for societies emerging from conflict designed to be shared by intervention leaders from the international community (military, government, NGO, IO, and private sector), as well as by domestic leaders in such societies. The framework is designed to promote unity of purpose and interoperability, a first step to giving peacebuilding the kind of shared doctrine that warfighting has long enjoyed. The framework, first presented by Daniel Serwer and Patricia Thomson in Leashing the Dogs of War (Aall, Crocker, Hampson 2006) builds on the research and expertise of the Institute. It also draws upon the work of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Association of the U.S. Army (AUSA), and RAND. In addition, it incorporates the input of leaders of international interventions collected during discussions at the Institute, as well as concepts from the U.S. Government Draft Planning Framework for Reconstruction, Stabilization and Conflict Transformation (PDF, 927 Kb), (developed by the U.S. State Department's Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization and the Joint Warfighting Center of the Joint Forces Command, with assistance from the Institute).

Focus on End-States, Objectives, and Leadership Responsibilities

End-states. While the particular circumstances of interventions vary dramatically, there is a remarkable degree of consensus in the post-Cold War period on the end-states sought. While they may be listed in a different order-or combined in different ways—we believe all recent international interventions can be described as having explicitly or implicitly five desired end-states: a safe and secure environment, the rule of law, a stable democracy, a sustainable economy, and social well-being. In this framework, the end-states describe the place a society emerging from conflict ultimately wishes to be. For those familiar with strategic planning, they are the strategic goals-the ultimate ambitions that anchor a plan.

The five end-states are not mutually exclusive. One of the challenges when developing a framework of this sort is to ensure that it is useful and substantive, but not burdensomely complicated. When balancing these demands, it is necessary to divide interrelated components. For example, a safe and secure environment is important in and of itself, but it is also an important condition for a sustainable economy. Similarly, rule of law is an important goal on its own, but it is also important to social well-being, a stable democracy, and a sustainable economy. The end-states of this framework should be treated, not as distinct and independent pillars, but rather as interconnected components that impact and influence one another.

Objectives. Within each end-state is a series of objectives. These represent some of the key things that need to be accomplished in order to achieve the desired end-state and serve as an added level of specificity that further defines the end-state. We have tried to focus on ends, not means, but in some cases this distinction is a tenuous one—a matter of definition, not substance. Moreover, like the end-states, the objectives within each end-state are often related. For example, conducting free and fair elections leads to the creation of a legitimate legislature, which contributes to democratic governance. Or consider economic development: Establishing effective patent laws contributes to a regulatory and legal framework that promotes business development, which contributes to a sustainable economy. We have chosen objectives that are (1) relatively easy to define, (2) at least partially within the control of those engaged in international intervention, and (3) mea surable (i.e., corresponding metrics can be identified and used to gauge success).

Leadership responsibilities. This framework also includes critical leadership responsibilities, which are essential to success. Earlier frameworks tended to embed these types of responsibilities within mission activities, which disguised or even entirely hid them. By highlighting critical leadership responsibilities, which cut across all five end-states, the Institute's framework presents a more accurate picture of the elements required for mission success.

In sum, the framework presented herein has several important features. First, it is crafted to be useful to (and ideally shared by) all the actors, civilian and military, involved in post-conflict situations. Second, it is organized around end-states, ensuring a focus on the ultimate goals of societies emerging from conflict. Third, it recognizes that there are critical leadership responsibilities that have a crosscutting impact crucial to mission success. Fourth, it is designed to allow for easy customization, recognizing that each post-conflict mission will be unique. Finally, we believe this framework is most valuable in planning and operations, but it also has great value as an underlying structure from which training programs, monitoring efforts, and coordination mechanisms should cascade.

View Table 1.1. Framework for Success: Societies Emerging from Conflict.