Regarding post-war rehabilitation models, the general opinion indicates that there is no post-war rehabilitation model that is universally valid. Each situation requires the design and implementation of its own process, through the combination of a wide range of interventions, the nature of which will depend, among other factors, on the needs created by the conflict or the financial and institutional resources available (Pérez, 2001).

Pérez (2001) points out that in order to guide the rehabilitation process, it is necessary to establish a national strategic rehabilitation plan. This must detail the objectives, the available and necessary resources, and the sectoral programs that must be carried out. The national strategic plan constitutes a comprehensive operational planning instrument that must be carried out with a short, medium and long-term focus. Urgent priorities - 6 to 12 months - usually refer to emergency aid and repair of essential services. Medium-term objectives - 1 to 3 years - usually focus on the rehabilitation of physical infrastructure, macroeconomic reforms and institutional rehabilitation. The long-term objectives - 3 to 10 years - prioritize reconstruction and economic development. The responsibility for preparing the Plan corresponds to the national government.

There are models, however, that differ from the one indicated by Pérez, particularly in the time frame. In these models three phases of activity are usually considered in the rehabilitation process:

Many scholars have criticized this framework, arguing that this sequence is too rigid or that postponing political and economic reform until the security situation has stabilized reinforces unequal policies that could have been at the root of the armed conflict. Furthermore, some specialists believe that phases two and three should be considered a single phase or a continuum, so that there is greater synchronization between reconstruction and recovery programs and development programs from the beginning (Burke, 2006).

In this sense, Fisas (1998) points out that reconstruction is a transition period with an intense initial stage, of no less than five years, in which the political, social and economic foundations of what will be a new society must be shored up. How the reconstruction stage is reached determines its development. He mentions that it is different to rebuild a society in which one party has 'defeated' another, from rebuilding a society in which the parties in dispute have reached an agreement to cease the confrontations, due to fatigue, due to their own evolution, due to a tie of forces or by popular mandate. The case of countries in which a powerful external military machine has imposed a new situation is also different, perhaps without the full participation of the 'pacified' society. Nor is the degree of human or infrastructure destruction the same. Likewise, the level of attention provided by the United Nations or the media influences. All of this influences the way the new reconstruction process is approached, the deadlines, and the resources available to undertake certain projects.

In general, Romeva (2002) proposes that to begin a post-war rehabilitation process, one must: a) establish an analysis guideline adaptable to each context and situation; b) determine who, in the international community, should and can assume some responsibility in the process, taking into account that the process will only be sustainable if it is born and strengthened from within the affected society; and c) establish the parameters that must be taken into account when developing the Strategic Post-War Rehabilitation Plan.

There is broad agreement on a set of activities that are essential in post-conflict societies to achieve long-term social, economic and political stability. These time-sensitive activities reflect the needs that arise from the destruction of the social, economic and political fabric of societies during the conflict. Actual needs, priorities and sequencing may vary from case to case.

Shepard Forman and Dirk Salomons (1999) point out some elements indicative of the wide range of needs that must be addressed initially:

For its part, Romeva (2002) lists five essential tasks:

Other authors, such as Robert Orr, propose four pillars for rehabilitation: security; governance and participation; social and economic well-being; and justice and reconciliation. As well as Debiel and Terlinden, who focus on the promotion of good governance by introducing three dimensions: security governance, political-administrative governance and socioeconomic governance (Burke, 2006).

Although most experts agree on the activities that are necessary for rehabilitation, there is much less agreement regarding how, when and by whom they should be carried out. This debate focuses, above all, on international responses to the post-war situation and the relationship between local actors and the international community.

According to Fisas (1998) the actors present in the rehabilitation process are:

Although all actors are important, those who form the so-called 'civil society' play a determining role in reconstruction since it is the most direct expression of the concerns and desires of citizens. Furthermore, it is the first link in any future mobilization and the guarantee that society will monitor compliance with the peace agreements and a return to the past will not be tolerated.

In relation to the international actors that play some role in post-war contexts, Romeva (2003) points out that there is no clear definition of who, within the international community, should lead the coordination of post-war rehabilitation aid. However, it is clear that there is no international actor that can alone assume the burden of managing such aid. Therefore, it recommends carrying out an analysis exercise of who can do what with the aim of better distributing responsibilities and taking advantage of the comparative advantages of each actor. This analysis can be done based on the possible contributions of each one in relation to diplomacy and politics, military security, emergency aid and rehabilitation itself.

In relation to internal or local actors, Burke (2006) highlights the need to promote local autonomy and local participation throughout the process. Striking the right balance between international assistance and local community ownership of the process presents an ongoing challenge for international actors, but that balance is critical to long-term success. In this sense, it mentions that three main challenges have been identified in the coordination of local and international efforts: identification of suitable local partners by the international community; establishment of a governance structure that is legitimate and credible locally; ensure that international reconstruction priorities align with local priorities.

It has been shown in numerous studies that armed conflict has a different impact on men and women and that, in many cases, traditional gender roles are altered in the course of a protracted conflict. Many post-conflict societies have a high proportion of female heads of households, while many post-conflict reconstruction projects target predominantly men, especially those focused on disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of ex-combatants. Furthermore, many post-conflict societies have higher than average levels of violence against women and children (Burke, 2006).

Tsjeard Bouta and Georg Frerks (2002) have noted that in order to incorporate women's needs and interests in post-conflict interventions, it is important to treat them in a realistic way. Women's positions, as well as the implications of their roles and activities in conflict, differ from those of men. However, there are also differences between women. They can be differentiated by their functions (mothers, heads of family and combatants, at the same time) as well as by issues of ethnicity, religion, social class, etc.

The main roles of women in the conflict cycle that Bouta and Frerks have identified are: women as victims of sexual abuse, women as combatants, women for peace in the non-governmental sector, women in formal politics for peace, women as resisters and survivors of armed actors, women as heads of households, and women with (in)formal employment opportunities. Agencies involved in the rehabilitation process must view this framework dynamically, and take into account that women's roles, gender identities and relationships constantly change in conflict situations.

To respond to the roles of women in conflicts, there are three major challenges for intervention agencies, both in policy and practice. The first is to employ more professional women in interventions related to post-war rehabilitation. The second is to adapt interventions to the interests and needs of women in local conflicts. Intervening agencies must simultaneously apply conflict analysis and gender analysis in order to delve deeper into the changing roles of women in conflicts. This is in order to evaluate whether policies and interventions affect women and men differently, and, if so, explore ways to avoid this or correct potential disadvantages. The third challenge for agencies is to take into account the main roles of women in their policies and interventions, mitigating the negative effects of conflict on women and, at the same time, supporting and maintaining newly acquired public and political positions as well as their organizations.

Regarding post-war rehabilitation models, the general opinion indicates that there is no post-war rehabilitation model that is universally valid. Each situation requires the design and implementation of its own process, through the combination of a wide range of interventions, the nature of which will depend, among other factors, on the needs created by the conflict or the financial and institutional resources available (Pérez, 2001).

Pérez (2001) points out that in order to guide the rehabilitation process, it is necessary to establish a national strategic rehabilitation plan. This must detail the objectives, the available and necessary resources, and the sectoral programs that must be carried out. The national strategic plan constitutes a comprehensive operational planning instrument that must be carried out with a short, medium and long-term focus. Urgent priorities - 6 to 12 months - usually refer to emergency aid and repair of essential services. Medium-term objectives - 1 to 3 years - usually focus on the rehabilitation of physical infrastructure, macroeconomic reforms and institutional rehabilitation. The long-term objectives - 3 to 10 years - prioritize reconstruction and economic development. The responsibility for preparing the Plan corresponds to the national government.

There are models, however, that differ from the one indicated by Pérez, particularly in the time frame. In these models three phases of activity are usually considered in the rehabilitation process:

Many scholars have criticized this framework, arguing that this sequence is too rigid or that postponing political and economic reform until the security situation has stabilized reinforces unequal policies that could have been at the root of the armed conflict. Furthermore, some specialists believe that phases two and three should be considered a single phase or a continuum, so that there is greater synchronization between reconstruction and recovery programs and development programs from the beginning (Burke, 2006).

In this sense, Fisas (1998) points out that reconstruction is a transition period with an intense initial stage, of no less than five years, in which the political, social and economic foundations of what will be a new society must be shored up. How the reconstruction stage is reached determines its development. He mentions that it is different to rebuild a society in which one party has 'defeated' another, from rebuilding a society in which the parties in dispute have reached an agreement to cease the confrontations, due to fatigue, due to their own evolution, due to a tie of forces or by popular mandate. The case of countries in which a powerful external military machine has imposed a new situation is also different, perhaps without the full participation of the 'pacified' society. Nor is the degree of human or infrastructure destruction the same. Likewise, the level of attention provided by the United Nations or the media influences. All of this influences the way the new reconstruction process is approached, the deadlines, and the resources available to undertake certain projects.

In general, Romeva (2002) proposes that to begin a post-war rehabilitation process, one must: a) establish an analysis guideline adaptable to each context and situation; b) determine who, in the international community, should and can assume some responsibility in the process, taking into account that the process will only be sustainable if it is born and strengthened from within the affected society; and c) establish the parameters that must be taken into account when developing the Strategic Post-War Rehabilitation Plan.

There is broad agreement on a set of activities that are essential in post-conflict societies to achieve long-term social, economic and political stability. These time-sensitive activities reflect the needs that arise from the destruction of the social, economic and political fabric of societies during the conflict. Actual needs, priorities and sequencing may vary from case to case.

Shepard Forman and Dirk Salomons (1999) point out some elements indicative of the wide range of needs that must be addressed initially:

For its part, Romeva (2002) lists five essential tasks:

Other authors, such as Robert Orr, propose four pillars for rehabilitation: security; governance and participation; social and economic well-being; and justice and reconciliation. As well as Debiel and Terlinden, who focus on the promotion of good governance by introducing three dimensions: security governance, political-administrative governance and socioeconomic governance (Burke, 2006).

Although most experts agree on the activities that are necessary for rehabilitation, there is much less agreement regarding how, when and by whom they should be carried out. This debate focuses, above all, on international responses to the post-war situation and the relationship between local actors and the international community.

According to Fisas (1998) the actors present in the rehabilitation process are:

Although all actors are important, those who form the so-called 'civil society' play a determining role in reconstruction since it is the most direct expression of the concerns and desires of citizens. Furthermore, it is the first link in any future mobilization and the guarantee that society will monitor compliance with the peace agreements and a return to the past will not be tolerated.

In relation to the international actors that play some role in post-war contexts, Romeva (2003) points out that there is no clear definition of who, within the international community, should lead the coordination of post-war rehabilitation aid. However, it is clear that there is no international actor that can alone assume the burden of managing such aid. Therefore, it recommends carrying out an analysis exercise of who can do what with the aim of better distributing responsibilities and taking advantage of the comparative advantages of each actor. This analysis can be done based on the possible contributions of each one in relation to diplomacy and politics, military security, emergency aid and rehabilitation itself.

In relation to internal or local actors, Burke (2006) highlights the need to promote local autonomy and local participation throughout the process. Striking the right balance between international assistance and local community ownership of the process presents an ongoing challenge for international actors, but that balance is critical to long-term success. In this sense, it mentions that three main challenges have been identified in the coordination of local and international efforts: identification of suitable local partners by the international community; establishment of a governance structure that is legitimate and credible locally; ensure that international reconstruction priorities align with local priorities.

It has been shown in numerous studies that armed conflict has a different impact on men and women and that, in many cases, traditional gender roles are altered in the course of a protracted conflict. Many post-conflict societies have a high proportion of female heads of households, while many post-conflict reconstruction projects target predominantly men, especially those focused on disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of ex-combatants. Furthermore, many post-conflict societies have higher than average levels of violence against women and children (Burke, 2006).

Tsjeard Bouta and Georg Frerks (2002) have noted that in order to incorporate women's needs and interests in post-conflict interventions, it is important to treat them in a realistic way. Women's positions, as well as the implications of their roles and activities in conflict, differ from those of men. However, there are also differences between women. They can be differentiated by their functions (mothers, heads of family and combatants, at the same time) as well as by issues of ethnicity, religion, social class, etc.

The main roles of women in the conflict cycle that Bouta and Frerks have identified are: women as victims of sexual abuse, women as combatants, women for peace in the non-governmental sector, women in formal politics for peace, women as resisters and survivors of armed actors, women as heads of households, and women with (in)formal employment opportunities. Agencies involved in the rehabilitation process must view this framework dynamically, and take into account that women's roles, gender identities and relationships constantly change in conflict situations.

To respond to the roles of women in conflicts, there are three major challenges for intervention agencies, both in policy and practice. The first is to employ more professional women in interventions related to post-war rehabilitation. The second is to adapt interventions to the interests and needs of women in local conflicts. Intervening agencies must simultaneously apply conflict analysis and gender analysis in order to delve deeper into the changing roles of women in conflicts. This is in order to evaluate whether policies and interventions affect women and men differently, and, if so, explore ways to avoid this or correct potential disadvantages. The third challenge for agencies is to take into account the main roles of women in their policies and interventions, mitigating the negative effects of conflict on women and, at the same time, supporting and maintaining newly acquired public and political positions as well as their organizations.