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.

The Clash of Civilizations

 

Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilizations’ is one that seeks to promote the idea that different civilizations will inevitably clash because of the differences in their cultures and beliefs. Thus, the major concern of this author is to ensure that there is a consideration of the impact of conflicts at both the international and national contexts at an inter-civilizational level.[1] The clash of civilizations is a concept that has become extremely pertinent, especially in the 21^st century as a diversity of powers and cultures have ended up competing on the global stage. A consequence is that because of this competition, and the fear of some civilizations losing, an adverse reaction has developed. In Europe, for example, there has been a negative response to the refugee crisis, as the potential of Muslim migrants eroding European, and Christian culture has created a sense of fear that has in turn caused a high level of nationalism and populism in society. However, the most significant example of the clash of civilizations that has come about in recent years has been the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

The rise of ISIL and the ensuing attacks on western targets, created an environment within which the concept of the clash of civilization became more relevant. This is because the increase in attacks by ISIL on western targets as well as on those targets that were considered not Islamic within the Middle East, such as against Shia and Yazidis, are an example of the way that civilizational differences will often result in conflict.[2] ISIL looks to bring about an orthodox Sunni Muslim caliphate that will not only enhance the power of Islam, but also bring back its golden age. This is at a time when it considers the Islamic world to have been humiliated by the West through its support for Israel[3] as well as regimes in the Middle East that are considered un-Islamic.

Thus, as the West continues to struggle to ensure that the liberal world order is maintained and defended, ISIL is seeking to make sure that this order is brought to an end. When ISIL was at its peak, it essentially reinvented itself into a civilizational state. The major objective was to provoke the West into an existential conflict that would determine the future dominant power. The response of the West, especially some NATO countries led by the United States, was aimed at maintaining the prevalent liberal order. Therefore, the concept of the clash of civilizations is one that remains pertinent and provides for an understanding the motivations of a diversity of international players such as ISIL and the United States, among others. It has proven that a clash between civilizations, especially when one is considered to be encroaching on another, is inevitable and is the basis of most conflicts at the international level.

 

---

[1] Samuel Huntington, "The Clash of Civilizations," Foreign Aff. 72, no. 3 (1993): 24.

[2] Christopher Coker, The Rise of the Civilizational State (John Wiley & Sons, 2019), 5.

[3] Huntington,  31.

The lives of the aristocracy and the peasantry during the eighteenth century

 

The eighteenth century is one of the most important periods of history because it allowed for the beginnings of the modern world as it is known today. It was a period of considerable developments, especially in the move from an agrarian society to an industrialized one as well as changes within the political scene as aristocrats gradually lost their power. While the latter may be the case, it is important to note that the eighteenth century was also a time when the lives of the aristocracy and peasantry were very different. This paper makes a comparison of aristocratic and peasant households, on one hand, and opportunities for social advancement, on the other.

During the 18^th century, the aristocracy made up the top of the social hierarchy in society. It was not only the ruling class in society, but it also practiced near absolute dominance over the other classes. The aristocratic households relied significantly on servants, who were a pertinent factor when it came to their running and it is estimated that “approximately half of all young people of both sexes between 15 and 24 years of age were servants” (Reher 205). Servants played an important role in a diversity of aristocratic household tasks, including raising children, the provision of basic education, and the catering to other needs of the aristocracy. However, the same was not the case in peasant households, because of the relative poverty that they experienced. Peasants had to work the land in order to eke out a meager living, with most of their labor being provided to the aristocracy that owned most of the land. Most peasants did not receive an education and instead, there was often the expectation that the children of peasants would end up following in their parents’ footsteps and working the land, which shows that “peasant households were the unit of production” (Kertzer 163). The latter evidence shows that there was an extensive gap between the aristocracy and the peasantry to such an extent that they essentially lived in different social environments.

Another aspect of the lives of the aristocracy and peasantry that can be contrasted is that of social advancement. Opportunities for social advancement in peasant households were almost nonexistent for a majority of the individuals in this class. However, many of those who sought advancement or better opportunities would often move to cities where they would take up a trade (Wyżga 236). Individuals form peasant backgrounds would become apprenticed to masters in their desired trade for a number of years until they became proficient enough to start out on their own. The aristocracy, on the other hand, gained their position in society through inheritance and strategic marriages (Cannon 2). Because of the way that they gained their social position, the aristocracy often took it for granted, to such an extent that despite having the power to improve their lives of the peasantry, there were no serious attempt to do so in the eighteenth century. Instead, the aristocracy retained its social dominance despite increasing dissatisfaction among the peasantry. The status quo in the 18^th century remained with the sole exception being the French Revolution, which saw the breaking of the power of the aristocracy.

The lives of the aristocracy and the peasantry in the eighteenth century had a significant impact on the lives of people in the western world in the later centuries. This is because it was a period that showed the realities of the inequalities between these two classes in society. Thus, the political changes that took place in the nineteenth century can be considered to have been an attempt at change in western society. With the coming of industrialization, the influence of the aristocracy over society reduced significantly while the peasantry gained more opportunities and would eventually stop their reliance on their land as more of them gained new opportunities in urban centers.