The Force of Last Resort: Organizing and Legitimizing the Role of the Armed Forces in Domestic Crisis Management

Summary (English) Extensive military involvement during the COVID-19 crisis reflects a broader trend that has been unfolding since the Cold War, in which the armed forces in many Western countries have become structural partners in domestic crisis management. This development, however, conflicts with the principle of last resort, which holds that military support to civilian authorities should be temporary, complementary, and used only when civilian capacities are insufficient. While an expanded domestic military footprint can strengthen civilian capabilities and generate new sources of legitimacy for the armed forces, it also entails risks, including weakened civilian control, militarization of crisis response, civilian over-reliance on military assets, and the overuse of military means in the domestic domain. This dissertation examines this dilemma by analyzing how domestic military involvement in crisis response is organized and legitimized, and how it affects both the domestic role of the armed forces and civil–military relations. The central research question is: How is domestic crisis response by Western armed forces organized and legitimized, and how does it shape both the armed forces’ domestic role and civil–military relations? The study adopts a multidisciplinary approach, drawing on organization and management theory, crisis management literature, military studies, civil–military collaboration, and civil–military relations. Empirically, it relies on qualitative methods, including three in-depth case studies, 100 semi-structured interviews, 152 hours of direct observation, and analysis of more than 500 internal and public documents. The findings reveal considerable variation in how Western countries organize domestic military support, yet all rely on forms of “objective control,”. Focusing on the Netherlands, COVID-19 crisis, these military roles evolved over time. Initial military support was ad hoc, decentralized, and rapidly deployed, with the armed forces acting as a near-permanent partner to civilian emergency services. As the crisis persisted, concerns about operational readiness and resource allocation prompted the military to formalize temporary structures, centralize support, and gradually disengage from domestic crisis response. Addressing the transboundary nature of contemporary crises, the dissertation identifies four ideal-typical crisis response networks: interaction networks, cooperation networks, venturing networks, and integration networks. These network forms differ in levels of coordination, shared governance, and organizational integration, and they can evolve over time as trust, crisis demands, and resource dependencies change. The study further demonstrates that when established organizations become overwhelmed and operational gaps persist, new organizational forms may emerge. Rather than viewing this as a failure, the dissertation highlights the value of emergent organizing, which enables rapid, flexible, and adaptive responses under conditions of uncertainty. Emergent organizing develops through stages of sensemaking, restructuring, and eventual formalization, as they seek resources and legitimacy within broader crisis response networks. Military officers play a pivotal role in these processes. Despite hierarchical constraints, they often act with significant autonomy as Street-Level Policy Entrepreneurs, facilitating emergent organizing. They connect civilian demands with military capabilities, establish informal coordination mechanisms, and initiate new organizational arrangements to address urgent needs. By emphasizing practical, adaptive solutions at the operational level, they not only manage acute crisis response but also leverage crises to enhance organizational legitimacy and expand military roles. At the same time, they implement pragmatic forms of control within civil–military partnerships, balancing formal regulations with hands-on practices. Civilian oversight thus emerges not merely as a formal framework, but as a practice that must be continuously enacted by both civilian and military actors. From a comparative perspective across Western liberal democracies, the dissertation identifies four components shaping domestic military roles: the military’s socio-historical position, civilian demand for military resources, alignment among military, political elites, and citizens, and the coordination of domestic tasks. Together, these components reveal a dynamic nexus between civil–military collaboration and civil–military