Week 8: Quasi States

While quasi states search for the right balance between wealth and sovereignty, the international community sees quasi states as potential threats to their security. Based on the articles read for discussion this week Jackson describes the main problem of quasi states deriving from positive sovereignty and resulting in negative sovereignty, Krasner proposes the use of transitional administration such as de facto trusteeship, and on the other hand Inayatullah argues that quasi states must search for domestic wealth and political structure before being considered sovereign states. The relationship between sovereignty and wealth is studied by Inayatullah, the author says the most important factors to become sovereign are economic growth, specialization of products, and those factors will lead quasi states to be universally accepted as sovereign. Inayatullah considers every quasi state to be capable of generating economic growth. Whereas Jackson and Krasner think the international community needs to compensate them for their current condition. In addition, Karsner supports shared sovereignty in order for the protectorates to gain sovereignty. However, shared sovereignty works only for the short term, and could only work long term if the local authorities agree to follow the established order.

Inayatullah measured sovereignty calculating the amount of economic growth in quasi states and the results determined whether a state is sovereign or not. On the other hand, Jackson and Krasner measured sovereignty by analyzing the level of international interference and recognition. The relationship between wealth and sovereignty is best described using Brazil as an example that uses both. Brazil has experienced great levels of economic growth in recent times, and at the same time has become more influential in the global market. This example confirms the importance of economic growth and sovereignty. Brazil does not need international interference to promote economic and political stability. Krasner and Jackson’s view of ex-colonial powers as marginal is proven wrong, Brazil did not require the international community to share sovereignty, and now is accepted as an equal member of the global market.

On the other hand, Jackson and Krasner were right to say that some quasi states in crisis will need a transitional administration in place. In the case of emergency it is extremely necessary to establish de facto trusteeship, but this is only a short term solution and the main role is to help with peace keeping, and controlling inflation. It has been proven through time that unsolicited international intervention causes more conflict, and that it only helps to reduce conflict if local leaders agree to follow up with the established governance. For example, The Vietnam War was a civil war and the United States interfered in the conflict and that resulted in more problems because the Vietnamese refused to accept foreign intervention. This is a significant example that proofs Jackson and Krasner wrong to interference in domestic conflicts. Ex-colonies are tired to be dominated and their main goals are not always economic growth, instead autonomy and independence.

In conclusion, the international community considers quasi states as threats due to their lack to secure their borders, and the growing levels of inequality that can risk the security of superior states. International intervention will not happen always, unless the conflict is considered to be a potential risk to the safety of superior nations. It is an economic strategy to grant all quasi states freedom; all states must be able to integrate in the global economy. All states have different capabilities, however in order to create growth and be a member all quasi states must be recognized.