Paper Outline

Hannah Whalen

International Organization: State and Sovereignty

November 20, 2013

Semester Paper Outline

Introduction:

I.                   Define Failed/Quasi States: “According to Rotberg(2002): nation-states fail because they can no longer deliver positive political goods to their people. Their governments lose legitimacy, and in the eyes and hearts of a growing plurality of its citizens, the nation-state itself becomes illegitimate.” (Di John 13)

-          “Modern sovereign states are expected to perform certain minimal functions for the security and well-being of their citizens as well as the smooth working of the international system. States that fail to meet these minimal standards have been described as ‘weak’, ‘fragile,’ or ‘poorly performing’, with more extreme cases labelled ‘failed’ or ‘collapsed” (Di John 11)

-          Discussion of external vs. internal sovereignty and how international recognition grants sovereignty without guaranteeing effective internal rule (ie. Congo)

 

Intervention:

I.                   Types of intervention: “revival and reconstruction” and “shared sovereignty”- prolonged occupation

-     Kratzner’s protectorate vs. shared sovereignty

II.                Goals of intervention: Peacebuilding, economic institutions, regime change, resource driven, democratization

III.             Discuss what causes/warrants intervention in a failed state:  theories according to Di John, focus on the three regarding interests of intervening states:1-functionalist theory- states are established primarily to serve economic interests of elites, 2- “resource course”- conflict over control of, 3- “new war theory”- modern war is engaged in for different reasons than past war, globalization leads to increased economic interests abroad

 

Intervention and sovereignty:  

I.                   To what extended does intervention erode sovereignty?

-          “In theory absolute sovereignty is incompatible with the right to intervene. However . . .we are now in an era of qualified sovereignty in which some intervention is permitted.” 734 (Nigel White)

II.                So then what drives intervention?

-          State self- interest -“economic and military intervention is carried out by Western Countries, not out of a sense of community but out of self-interest.”735 (Nigel White)

-          I suggest state interest, especially security dilemmas drive intervention.  Failed states are breeding grounds for terrorism, and other crime. John Yoo, “Failed states create a broad range of negative extremalities. The collapse of central authority, or its failure to take root, can generate the conditions for human rights catastrophes. The absence of state institutions can allow a territory to be exploited by international terrorist organizations or proliferators of WMD.”

-          “Much of this concern for failed states—particularly in the USA—has been security-related. In the wake of large-scale terrorist attacks, and terrorists’ use of the failed state of Afghanistan as a launching pad, foreign policy elites have more closely scrutinized weak states.” (Kraxberger, Brennan , 2)

-          Additional Sources: Yoo, John. “Fixing Failed States.”;

World Examples/ Case Studies:

I.                    Iraq

-          “Iraq’s consistent defiance of UN weapons inspections led the United States to label

Iraq a ‘rogue’ state – a state lacking legitimacy.20 This behavior warranted regime

change to ensure the presence of a government acceptable to the Coalition. The

implication was that Iraq did not deserve sovereignty.” (Natarajan, Usha)

-          Additional sources: Flibbert, Andrew.  “The Consequences of Forced State Failure in Iraq; Natarajan, Usha. "Creating and Recreating Iraq: Legacies of the Mandate System in Contemporary Understandings of Third World Sovereignty."

 

II.                 Africa

-          “Addressing these issues too can contribute towards the promotion of such broad

objectives of U.S. foreign policy and interests in Africa as regional stability,

trade and investment, furthering human rights and democracy, and eliminating

circumstances and conditions which tend to provide safe havens for international

terrorists and drug traffickers.” ( "Chapter 4: U.S. Interventions in Postcolonial Africa." In U.S. Policy in Postcolonial Africa)

 

-          Intervention tactics in Africa- “In South Africa, Kenya, and Uganda, U.S. officials

publicly protested against human rights violations in order to diffuse potential

conflicts. U.S. officials upheld additional pressures, including the closure of the

U.S. embassy in Uganda; economic sanctions on South Africa, Rhodesia, and

Uganda; temporary cessation of bilateral aid programs; and termination of

programs by U.S. government agencies such as Export-Import Bank and the

Overseas Private Investment Corporation (in Uganda under Idi Amin, Rhodesia

under Ian Smith, and South Africa under the apartheid regime). In the case of

clan warfare in Somalia, the United States carried out a humanitarian intervention

under UN auspices in 1992.” (Chapter 4: U.S. Interventions in Postcolonial Africa." In U.S. Policy in Postcolonial Africa)

-          Although the U.S. does intervene in Africa, it does so on a smaller scale, implementing financial and aid and diplomatic avenues first.

 

III.               Conclusion regarding Iraq and African intervention:

-          We saw full US intervention in Iraq that spurred a civil war, while the US does not intervene militarily in African countries that are facing vast human rights violations as well.  The US rather chooses aid and diplomatic approaches rather than military.  I argue that military intervention is security driven.  If the US deems a certain country’s actions propose a threat to US security military intervention id justified.  Intelligence, however false, reported that Iraq possessed WMD, thus justifying an invasion.  The failing African countries, such as Kenya, South Africa, Darfur, and Uganda, are not as threatening to US security and therefore do not warrant full US military intervention. 

Conclusion:

-          Briefly recount failed states , intervention, and the issue of sovereignty

-          Make final comments about the driving force if intervention: security.

 

 

Sources:

Di John, Jonathan. “The Concept, Causes and Consequences of Failed States: A Critical Review of  the                   Literature and Agenda for Research with Specific Reference to Sub-Saharan Africa,"  European                   Journal of Development Research. Feb2010, Vol. 22 Issue 1, p10-30.

"Chapter 4 U.S. Interventions in Postcolonial Africa." In U.S. Policy in Postcolonial Africa, 65-87. n.p.:       Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 2004. Political Science Complete

Flibbert, Andrew.  “The Consequences of Forced State Failure in Iraq.” Political Science Quarterly. Spring2013, Vol. 128 Issue 1, p67-96. 30p.

Kolstø, Pål and Blakkisrud, Helge. “Living with Non-recognition: State- and Nation-building in   South        Caucasian Quasi-states.” Europe-Asia Studies. May2008, Vol. 60 Issue 3, p483- 509. 27p. 3                 Maps. 

Kraxberger, Brennan M. 2007. "Failed states: temporary obstacles to democratic diffusion or fundamental               holes in the world political map?." Third World Quarterly 28, no. 6: 1055-1071

Natarajan, Usha. "Creating and Recreating Iraq: Legacies of the Mandate System in Contemporary               Understandings of Third World Sovereignty." Leiden Journal Of International Law 24, no. 4:                       799-822.

Nigel D. White, “Subduing Sovereignty: Sovereignty and the Right to Intervene by Marianne Heiberg.”        The International and Comparative Law Quarterly  , Vol. 44, No. 3 (Jul., 1995), pp. 734-735

Patrick, Stewart. “The brutal truth: failed states are mainly a threat to their own inhabitants. We should                     help them anyway.” Foreign Policy. July-August, 2011, Issue 187, p55, 3 p.

Rotberg, R. “Failed States, collapsed states, weak states: Causes and indicators.”  State Failure and State     Weakness in a Time of Terror. Washington DC: Brookings Institute Press, pp. 1–25.

Yoo, John. “Fixing Failed States.” California Law Review. Feb2011, Vol. 99 Issue 1, p95-150. 56p.