text: Considerations to Achieve Unity of Effort
  * Coordination with host-nation police forces.
  * Coordination with host-nation legal personnel.
  * Coordination with host-nation ministry of defense and security force legal personnel.
  Criminal Justice System Reform
  3-107. While the categories of activities supporting rule of law are broad, commanders should pay
  particular attention towards those activities involving criminal justice system reform. The three primary
  components of the criminal justice system include law enforcement (police), judicial systems and processes
  (laws and courts), and corrections (jails and prisons). Throughout all joint operational phases of a campaign
  or operation, interagency partners must empower the criminal justice system components through advising
  and equipping for a broader culture of rule of law to take hold in a society, either before or after a conflict.
  3-108. Criminal justice system reform is crucial to establishment of the rule of law. As with other rule of
  law activities, the execution of criminal justice system reform tasks resides primarily with the lead
  interagency partner. Though the military may initially execute rule of law activities based on an operational
  environment and availability of civilian experts, the DOS is the lead for U.S. rule of law efforts. The
  primary interagency partners with the DOS for these efforts are the USAID and the Department of Justice.
  Whether military or civilian, partners coordinate any rule of law activities executed at the tactical or local
  level with the country team, if there is one. In a permissive environment, rule of law activities should be
  coordinated with DOS. The military contribution to criminal justice system reform may be limited to
  engagement with host-nation counterparts. However, in a nonpermissive environment, where the security
  situation does not permit easy access by interagency personnel, military forces may be required to
  coordinate criminal justice system reform activities on its own. Nonetheless, the military is neither tasked
  nor resourced to conduct long-term institutional reform on its own. When interagency partners are not
  participating in the field, the military contribution to criminal justice system reform may include operations
  at the tactical level, other support to the lead agency, and coordination with all criminal justice system
  reform partners—including host-nation and nongovernmental partners.
  3-109. Establishing effective rule of law through criminal justice system reform typically requires an
  international review of the host-nation legal framework, a justice reform agenda, police and corrections
  institutional reviews, and general justice reform programs. Many societies emerging from conflict also
  require a new constitution or significant modification of an existing or previously instituted constitution.
  All efforts to establish and support the rule of law must account for the customs, culture, and ethnicity of
  the local populace.
  3-110. Identifying the correct objectives for criminal justice system reform remains paramount during the
  planning stages. Divorcing planning efforts from critical interagency enablers who have a vital role in this
  reform effort is a dangerous proposition. Though not all inclusive, commanders consider the following key
  criminal justice system reform actions:
  * Enforce law and order.
  * Establish public security.
  * Build effective police, customs, borders, and immigration organizations.
  * Protect civilians and human rights.
  * Establish an ethical legal framework.
  * Promote accountability to the law.
  * Establish effective courts and penal systems.
  * Ensure access to judicial processes.
  * Ensure access to justice systems.
  * Promote civilian participation (public awareness).
  * Promote a culture of lawfulness.
  3-111. Commanders and planners analyzing the effect of rule of law on operations, as well as those
  leading the rule of law line of effort, should include experts within the specific fields of law enforcement,
  judicial, and corrections. Those experts should not necessarily be called to lead the rule of law line of
  effort, but they should be relied upon for their special area of expertise. For instance, military and civilian