State fragility and International Studies

 

The concept of state fragility is one that has been a part of considerable debate within international security studies. It has been an attempt to ensure that there is an understanding through application of a theoretical framework of the humanitarian issues and violent upheavals that take place in both developing and underdeveloped states across the world. The significance of this issue can be seen through the way that there is a consideration of the insecurities that take place within state systems in such a way that promotes the realities of internal insecurity. It is on the basis of these considerations that it becomes possible for states, especially those in the western world, to develop their foreign policy priorities in a manner that advances their national interests, often at the expense of the fragile states involved.[1] The concept of state fragility is therefore one that essentially considers the local, regional, and global security implications of state failure. It looks into the manner through which great powers will often develop their foreign policies based on the condition of states; whether fragile or stable. State fragility is a fairly modern concept that seeks to ensure that there is the promotion of a situation where there is the development of an understanding of the way that weaknesses in state structures can led to insecurity at a regional and global level. This means that state fragility is a theory that is based on the perception of great powers rather than local actors, and is aimed at securing their own foreign policy ambitions. The concept of state fragility is therefore highly politicized within the subject of international security studies to such an extent that it cannot be adequately defined without a consideration of all its diverse aspects, which will be covered in this paper. The purpose of this essay is to make a critical evaluation of the notion of state fragility and the security implications that it has on international security studies.

An outline of the international system within which states have developed is critical in understanding state failure. This is especially the case when it comes to the understanding of the reason for the state involved existing, in whose interests the state was developed, and therefore for who it should either be successful or a failure.[2] The international system in the contemporary world is one that is based on the Westphalian tradition, which promotes the idea that statehood can only be attained when there is political authority practiced within a territory, autonomy, mutual recognition, and control.[3] The principles of the United Nations, which were codified into international law following the Second World War, formalized the Westphalian state and promoted a scenario where it was possible for states to not only be formally recognized by others, but also advanced the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention in each other’s’ affairs. The recognized independent state was therefore one that validated as the core political unit within the international system and one that was aimed at promoting the interests of different regions in the world. it is important to note that the matter of international security was left in the hands of the Security Council, which is dominated by its five permanent members. Thus, in the current international system, state fragility is a concept that is determined by the whim of the great powers that control the Security Council, with those that are considered fragile being the target of various forms of intervention aimed at stabilizing or destabilizing them in a bid to attain the foreign policy goals of the powers involved. It is therefore important to note that state fragility can be caused by interventionism by great powers in domestic affairs, as seen in the case of Syria when both regional and international powers got involved in its internal affairs. The result has been the considerable destabilization of the state to such an extent that Syria is currently struggling to recover.

Absolute sovereignty over territory and the population within it, from a legal perspective, is significant in the definition of a strong state. This comes about because the state involved has functioning structures of governance that provide public services while at the same time holding a monopoly over authority in its territory. It therefore ensures that there are few challenges to its authority and allows for the promotion of its infrastructural capacity to perform the key tasks of the state. it is important to note that because of this capability, states are able to attain a high level of sovereignty over their territories to such an extent that they are able to enhance their position within it with little effort while at the same time perform key tasks and deliver services.[4] Furthermore, under such circumstances, states are able to make sure that they make use of their coercive capabilities, including the use of force, to eliminate dissent to their authority in such a way that enhances their capacity to promote social cohesion and national identity. In this way, states develop a social contract with their populations in such a way that allows them to exercise their authority over their populations while at the same time allowing the population in their territory to identify with them and accept their legitimacy. These circumstances show that in order for state stability to be enhanced and guaranteed, there is the need for there to be effectiveness, on one hand, and legitimacy, on the other.[5] Effectiveness is the process within which the state is able to exercise authority and deliver services within the territory it controls. Legitimacy, on the other hand, it the process through which the population recognizes the authority of the state and there is no dissent as a result.

---

[1] Sonja Grimm, Nicolas Lemay-Hébert, and Olivier Nay, "‘Fragile States’: Introducing a Political Concept," Third World Quarterly 35, no. 2 (2014): 197.

[2] David Sogge, "Weak States and the Savage Wars of Peace," Global Dialogue 13, no. 1 (2011): 7.

[3] Stephen D Krasner, "Sharing Sovereignty: New Institutions for Collapsed and Failing States," International security 29, no. 2 (2004): 85.

[4] Alan Collins, Contemporary Security Studies (Oxford University Press, 2013), 164.

[5] Jack A Goldstone, "Pathways to State Failure," Conflict Management and Peace Science 25, no. 4 (2008): 285.