A failed state is perceived as a state who has failed to provide essential needs, functions, conditions, and responsibilities of a sovereign government. Indication of a failed state are distinguished as a loss of power, loss of regulation and control in its own territory, corrosion of authority in decision making and resolutions, incompetence in administering national services, such as education, security, or governance, and lack in collaborating with other states as a full representative of the international community. All of these factors are disruptions that result in fractious violence and extreme poverty emanating to a failed state.
The recent fund for peace index ranks failed states. Last year in 2013, the top sixteen failed states were Somalia, Congo (D.R.), Sudan, South Sudan, Chad, Yemen, Afghanistan, Haiti, Central African Republic, Zimbabwe, Iraq, Cote d’Ivoire, Pakistan, Guinea Bissau, and Nigeria. A failed state is categorized as hapless, precarious, or intentional. An example of a hapless state is Somalia. This country is incapable of forming and executing its policy therefore is considered a collapsed state. There is no central form of government and no effective policy which governs its people. The intentional state stokes violence between a self-governed territory and its alleged foe. Pakistan is a good example in which clear and consistent policies have been maintained throughout the country; however there are ungoverned regions in the Pashtun badlands along the Afghanistan border. A source states “the country's military leaders have made a strategic choice to allow the Pashtuns to govern themselves there, the better to be able to use them against their alleged adversaries”. The region has been known ...
... middle of paper ...
...hod approach advocating a guaranteed assurance by power-sharing compliances among competing groups within failed states. The United States and the United Nations seem convinced that international peace and security depend on the exclusionary presence of existence in the independent states capable of controlling their territories, policing their society, and acquitting their global obligation. Failed states generate negative externalities within the international system by impairing and abusing their own national population, or by permitting terrorist, corrupt criminal ventures operating on their country soil. Interventions in the interest of malfunctioning states disparage from the fundamental sovereignty, these interference may advance the significance border concerns using the nation states as the constructing unit in organizing international affairs and law.
The United Nations General Assembly 36-103 focused on topics of hostile relations between states and justification for international interventions. Specifically mentioned at the UNGA was the right of a state to perform an intervention on the basis of “solving outstanding international issues” and contributing to the removal of global “conflicts and interference". (Resolution 36/103, e). My paper will examine the merits of these rights, what the GA was arguing for and against, and explore relevant global events that can suggest the importance of this discussion and what it has achieved or materialized.
The question is whether a state is looking inward or outward for a deepened understanding and heightened application of human rights. The nation-state, which is authorized to transform principles into both policy and practice, is the central resolution to the question. However, nation-states are faced with the challenge of balancing their sovereignty with the moral necessity to produce enforceable regulations that both establish and protect global citizenship. Although there is a national interest in building a reputable international rapport, it cannot be denied that sovereignty is always an ingrained issue. In return, nation states attempt to limit the extent to which it involves itself in the addressing of human rights violations abroad. For example, although countries delegate authority to international institutions, they do so conditionally and preserve the right to disengage. Furthermore, solidarity joins sovereignty as another hindrance to a post-national world comprised solely of human rights. For as long as human rights include positive rights, such as freedom from poverty, there is a requirement for thick solidarity, a form of global community commitment. Necessitating a sense of collective responsibility, thick solidarity is increasingly
The United States’ populace as a whole is too ignorant of government dealings and too unquestioning of our government, as was the populace of 1984. The entire population is blinded due to media interference such as television and propaganda, just like the telescreens and the “ten minutes hate” in 1984. Additionally, people don’t apprehend why we are at war, or who we are at war with, alike Oceana. Furthermore, the American people are dumbing down the English language to near the newspeak of 1984 without the realization due to the languid nature of man.
The Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA) in northwest Pakistan serves as a sanctuary for the Taliban (“Afghanistan And Pakistan” 10). Although within Pakistan’s borders, the federal government does not exert actual control of the region, rather local Pashtun leaders govern the area and the region is believed to be home to many radical Islamic training camps and hideouts (Kurtzman 308). Moreover, the Pakistani ISI (think CIA of Pakistan), provides “logistics assistance” to the Taliban (“Afghanistan And Pakistan” 10) and the CIA even believes that the ISI provided support to the Taliban in a 2008 bombing of an Indian embassy in Kabul (Feisal 172). Multiple agencies, such as the Center for Strategic and International Studies and U.S. General Accountability Office, have concluded that the ISI provides significant support for the Taliban (Feisel 172). With all this mind, the Pakistan government chooses to support the Taliban (although they will not directly admit it) because of their strained relationship with Kabul, self interest to spread radical Islam rather than Pashtun nationalism, and their rival, India, supports an anti-Pakistan government in control of Afghanistan (Feisal 173). By Pakistan empowering the Taliban, this creates the opportunity to have a pro-Pakistan government in Afghanistan if the Taliban were able to control the country once again (“Afghanistan And Pakistan” 9). By spreading radical Islam, Pakistan is diverting Pashtuns attention from their ethnic culture to the religion of Islam; they do this because empowered Pashtuns might want to form a “Pashtunistan” which would require Pakistan to give up some of its land to a new nation (“Afghanistan And Pakistan” 9). Furthermore, Pakistan is rivals with India which wants an anti-Pakistani government in Kabul and Pakistan has tried to empower the Taliban in order to prevent
Afghanistan has had a history, full of violence and wars since the last 176 years, from being invaded by the British in 1838 to the soviet Russians in 1979, but those long wars have left the once prosperous and wealthy country, into a country torn apart into shreds (BBC News). The future of Afghanistan will be highly unstable due to its high levels of poverty, which is a major factor on the outcome of the country’s future. Wars are great contributors to high poverty levels and it is reported that “20 million out of the 26 million people in the country, are living under the line of poverty” (Rural poverty Portal), that is about 75% of the country’s population. When 75% of the country population is living under the harsh living conditions and poverty, it leaves the country’s economy running on fumes. The high level of poverty also leaves most of the country in a survival mi...
Where and how populations live (geographic), the traits and changes they exhibit (demographics), and cultural background/perspectives/beliefs (psychographics) directly impact the healthcare system. Social determinants are the key drivers behind all population trends. Social determinants of health that have negative consequences range from chronic stress to poor nutrition to poverty and inadequate living conditions. Where these determinants are a factor, chronic conditions such as obesity, diabetes, and asthma are more prevalent.
My answer to these two questions is threefold: First, I assert that TSMs and INGOs can and have posed substantial normative challenges to state hegemony, most commonly the notion that the state enjoys a monopoly on representation of its citizens and their interests. Furthermore, TSMs and INGOs that employ the use of violence (particularly terrorism) breach the conventional notion that states...
Rethinking Violence: States and Non-state Actors in Conflict. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2010. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed April 22, 2014).
According to realist view ordering principle of the international system is based on anarchy. There is no higher authority other than the states themselves to check and balance their actions. Consequently, nation-states are the main players in this system. In other words, sovereignty inheres in states, because there is not a higher ruling body in the international system. This is known as state centrism. Survival is an obligation continuing to be sovereign. On the other hand, sovereignty is the characteristic feature of states and its meaning is strongly tied to use of force. According to the most of the realist variants, states are “black boxes”; the determinative factor is states’ observable behavior, not their leaders’ characteristics, their decision making processes or their government systems.
The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
The international system is an anarchical system which means that, unlike the states, there is no over ruling, governing body that enforces laws and regulations that all states must abide by. The International System in today’s society has become highly influential from a number of significant factors. Some of these factors that will be discussed are Power held by the state, major Wars that have been fought out in recent history and international organisations such as the U.N, NATO and the W.T.O. Each of these factors, have a great influence over the international system and as a result, the states abilities to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development”.
While some may argue that a state-centric international system is apt for non-state actors, since to attain a foreseeable future, they need to comprehend the state system and how to operate within it. This structure is weakening as non-state actors are increasing their influence in conflicts and challenging the international order founded upon the power of states. The openness of commercial markets and the weakening territorial sovereignty has limited the state’s monopoly of power asserted by structural realists. In Structural Realism After the Cold War, Kenneth Waltz alleges that, “If the conditions that a theory contemplated have changed, the theory no longer applies.” Theories and traditions in international relations must become more comprehensive if society intends to tackle the conflicts of the 21st century more effectively in the future.
The. The “Failed States,” Democracy, War and Peace. Convocation Hall, Toronto, Canada. March 5, 2012. Krasner, Stephen.
Why Nations Fail takes an in depth look into why some countries flourish and become rich powerful nations while other countries are left in or reduced to poverty. Throughout this book review I will discuss major arguments and theories used by the authors and how they directly impact international development, keeping in mind that nations are only as strong as their political and economical systems.