Quasi-States and Sovereignty

Quasi states are new institutions that undertake roles previously performed by central and local government but which are now outside traditional channels of democratic control. Many times there are states that seem to have some sort of power and jurisdiction over their people but are lacking in other areas and do not have the legitimacy or enough power to be recognized fully as a state, which we can refer to as quasi-states. I do not believe that there is a single definition for what a quasi-state is because what weaknesses a state has that would qualify it as a quasi-state can be different in each particular case. Also, what makes a state a quasi-state can be determined by how ‘sovereign’ that nation is, and sovereignty is and what makes a nation sovereign can also be defined in multiple ways. This week’s discussion touches on quasi-states and sovereignty with three authors: Inayatullah, Jackson, and Krasner which each have a different opinion on quasi-states and sovereignty as well as different theories of how quasi-states developed.

Jackson states that quasi states are juridical, meaning that they do not have the same external rights and responsibilities as other states. He touches on two aspects of sovereignty: positive and negative sovereignty. Negative sovereignty means that the state has gone through the process of removing the mother country from the state and does not allow for external intervention. Positive sovereignty means that the state has the authority to act without international intervention and being able to provide for its citizens, which includes implementing public policy. Jackson argues that characteristics of quasi states are nothing new and that there has been states that have more or less strengths when compared to other states. Jackson believes that quasi states have negative sovereignty by definition but have positive freedom, but only limitedly. These quasi states do not have the ability to build domestic authority, legitimacy, and positive sovereignty. An example of a quasi-state would be Somalia because Somalia is not fully sovereign and therefore cannot act as a state completely. I believe that a large competent to qualifying as a quasi-state is that nation’s inability to act internationally because of the lack of power and legitimacy as a nation.

Inayatullah disagrees with Jackson’s premise of quasi-states and sovereignty because he feels that Jackson left out a critical aspect of sovereignty in his discussion which is wealth. Wealth and sovereignty are conflicting ideas according to Inayatullah because he believes that all states, in order to acquire wealth, have to operate as a global division of labor and have to respond to an external force in order to do so. He believes that where states have been placed did not come from random, that these states are linked my social and historical experiences. I would have to agree with Inayatullah because I believe that obtaining wealth without some sort of external force would be a nearly impossible task. Wealth has to do with a global division of labor and does not come simply from within the state itself.

Krasner goes over three elements of conventional sovereignty. The first is international legal sovereignty which is when recognized independent territorial entities have the right to freely decide which agreements or treatments they will get in to. Secondly, Westphalian sovereignty is when the state refrains from intervening in international affairs of other states and has the right to determine its own domestic authority structures. Lastly, Domestic sovereignty is a state with no rule or norm and it is the description of the nature of domestic authorities’ structures and the extent to which they are able to control activities within a state’s boundaries. How should one deal with countries where international sovereignty and Westphalian are inconsistent? Krasner describes two solutions: De facto trusteeships and shared sovereignty. De factor trusteeships establish a protectorate which involves deciding who will appoint the authority figure. Shared sovereignty involves the engagement of external actors in some domestic authority figures of the target state for an indefinite period of time. I believe De facto trusteeships are more effective than shared sovereignty in this inconsistency because it would most likely not create as much conflict as involving an engagement of external actors would be. In my opinion, Krasner shows the distinction between authority and control clearly. He shows that authority and control rely on social interpretation and legitimacy than an actual dividing line.

A topic that involves tying the three author’s interpretations of quasi-states and sovereignty together would be how the Arab state sovereignty and legitimacy are constantly undermined. The modern Arab state resembles that of a European colonialism because it is based on sovereignty as an establishing principle. Their state system has been rejected time and time again has been looked at as a flawed state system. People of the region go against the state system and social and political movements have challenged the state system since it has came about. This tension has come about because of the frequent disputes over the Arab’s identity and interests. In order for a authority to be legitimate, the people of that nation have to approve of the authority. With all the tension and disputes about what being an Arab really means and differing cultures and beliefs make it impossible to have an authority figure that everyone can ultimately approve of. Because of the inability to create territorial statehood it makes those on the outside question Arab state’s legitimacy and governing principles. Societal forces and international forces play an important role on trying to build state identities within the Arab states.