Military power-sharing takes forms such as:
Joint military command structures (between state and rebel forces)
Example: Ouagadougou Political Agreement, Cote d'Ivoire
3.1.1. In keeping with the spirit of joint handling of issues related to defence and security, the two former belligerent Parties agree to create an Integrated Command Centre for the purpose of integrating the two fighting forces and implementing measures for the restructuring of the Defence and Security Forces (FDS) of Côte d’Ivoire.
Mergers of state and rebel forces
Example: Agreement between the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahariya and the Rep of Chad concerning the practical modalitities for the implementation of the Judgment delivered by the International Court of Justice on 3 February 1994, Chad/Libya
Page 3, Article 4. The two countries have agreed to study the question of establishing joint patrols to monitor the extensive frontier between the two countries, within the framework of bilateral relations.
Other forms of group/combatant proportionality in the army and police and associated security force institutions (for example monitoring commissions)
Example: Ceasefire Agreement (Bicesse Accords), Angola
4. The monitoring groups, which will be established before entry into force of the cease-fire, will be composed of an equal number of representatives from the Government of the People's Republic of Angola and UNITA.
Proportion of agreements with military power-sharing and its component parts
We agree that, as prescribed in the Federation Constitution, the Cantonal governments shall ensure that the composition of the police shall reflect that of the population, according to the 1991 census, provided that the composition of the police of each Municipality, shall reflect the composition of the latter.Page 3, Concrete Steps, 5, Agreement on Restructuring the Police (Bonn-Petersburg Agreement), Bosnia and Herzegovina-Yugoslavia (former) 25/04/1996
Military power-sharing can be an effective tool for ending violence because it focuses on including groups key to the conflict – rather than assuming that rebel groups will unilaterally ‘disarm and disband’ while the state army remains.
Case study: Mozambique
2 Military power-sharing agreements
Sought to merge the forces of RENAMO (rebels) and FRELIMO (state forces)
RENAMO received security guarantees and a place in the state security forces while FRELIMO maintained elements of control (Manning 2002).
RENAMO combatants transferring to the joint military were allowed to keep their rank even if the had not received the training commensurate with that position. They also were guaranteed high ranking roles for senior officers (Dayton and Kriesberg 2009).
International involvement was important. While the parties willingly came to the negotiating table, the UN facilitated the complicated and delicate nature of the deliberations.
Military power-sharing must be understood as one part in a wider ‘security transition’.
Military power-sharing is often agreed as an alternative form of demobilisation, demilitarisation and reintegration (DDR) measures, or put in place as part of a wider attempt as security sector reform (SSR). DDR, SSR and forms of military power-sharing may all be part of a ‘security transition’, which is itself a political process.
Inclusion Challenges: Military power-sharing arrangements focus on the inclusion of groups key to the conflict but in doing so can create perverse incentives to smaller groups outside of the main peace agreement consensus to assert their claims violently.
The Sudanese Comprehensive Peace Agreement (2005)
Recognised and addressed
2 ARMED GROUPS
when in reality
OVER 24 EXISTED
The others then ramped up violent activities in an attempt to gain a position in the national military.
Power-sharing may result in sharing military power in a unified force, or a form of 'splitting' power and 'forces-within-forces', that is more difficult to control.
The result may be a joint exercise of power in a unified state army or ‘split’ security force with ‘forces within forces’ reporting to a split ‘government of national unity’ or a highly territorially devolved political arrangement.
Military power-sharing means those most responsible for the conflict will control the military. Rule of law and human rights protections can help mitigate this.
Proportion of Military Power-Sharing agreements that also contain provisions for Human Rights / Rule of Law
Human rights and rule of law can be brought into military power-sharing agreements by:
- Widening the social ambition of inclusion measure beyond armed actors.
- Human rights and humanitarian law commitments, and amnesty.
See publications at: www.politicalsettlements.org/publications-database
In particular: Bell, C., Gluckstein, S., Forster, R., & Pospisil, J. (2018). Military Power-Sharing and Inclusion in Peace Processes (PA-X Report, Power-Sharing Series). Edinburgh: Global Justice Academy, The University of Edinburgh.