Gheciu, A. ; Welsh, J.: Introduction. - S. 115-120 Gheciu, A. ; Welsh, J.: The imperative to rebuild: assessing the normative case for postconflict reconstruction. - S. 121-146 Evans, M.: Moral responsibilities and the conflicting demands of jus post bellum. - S. 147-164 Recchia, S.: Just and unjust postwar reconstruction: how much external interference can be justified? - S. 165-187 Zaum, D.: The norms and politics of exit: ending postconflict transitional administrations. - S. 189-208
While the impact of norms on post-conflict statebuilding operations has been well-explored in the literature, the ways in which the same normative frameworks affect the exit practices of such operations has so far remained unaddressed. To fill this gap, this paper examines the impact of the liberal-democratic norms governing statebuilding operations on the timing and process of exit of post-conflict international transitional administrations. To that end, it first examines the concept of exit, arguing that exit is best considered as a process rather than an event. The second section outlines the normative framework that has shaped postconflict statebuilding activities since the end of the cold war, and proposes three ways in which norms can affect exit: first, that norms act as blueprints for statebuilding and can thereby shape benchmarks for exit; second, that norms create "zones of permissibility" that explicitly commit statebuilders to a transitional presence and make exit central to the legitimacy of statebuilding operations; and third, that local actors strategically use norms, in particular those of self-determination and the taboo of permanent control of a territory, to push for an early exit of statebuilding operations. The third section explores both the scope and limitations of the three functions of norms with regard to exit in the context of a brief case study of UNMIK's exit from Kosovo. The article concludes with some observations about the impact of the findings for exit strategies of international actors from statebuilding operations.
In this article there is analyzed how the international administrations that exercise a governmental power in post conflict territories justify their political authority without having democratic legitimacy. In the article it is studied, both the establishment, the mandates and the practices of government of the international administrations of Bosnia, Kosovo and East Timor, and they are identified five sources for this authority: the assent, the delegation, the maintenance of the peace and the safety, the promotion of the human rights and the democracy, and the disposition to govern. Nevertheless, all these aspects are questionable. Concretely, the authority of the international administrations is weakened due to its practices, to the unexistence of any obligation for accountability and to the limited efficiency at the moment of arranging government. To conclude, in the article are outlined some possible ways for the reinforcement of the authority of the international administrations. ; En este artículo se analiza cómo las administraciones internacionales que ejercen un poder gubernamental en territorios post conflicto justifican su autoridad política sin tener legitimidad democrática. En el artículo se estudia el establecimiento, los mandatos y las prácticas de gobierno de las administraciones de Bosnia, Kosovo y Timor Oriental y se identifican cinco fundamentos de la autoridad: el consentimiento, la delegación, el mantenimiento de la paz y la seguridad, el fomento de los derechos humanos y la democracia, y la disposición para gobernar. No obstante, todos estos aspectos son cuestionables. En concreto, la autoridad de las administraciones internacionales se debilita debido a sus prácticas, a que no existe la obligación rendir cuentas y a la efectividad limitada a la hora de disponer gobierno. Para concluir, en el artículo se destacan algunas posibles vías de refuerzo de la autoridad de las administraciones internacionales.
This article analyses the way in which international administrations exercising governmental power in post-conflict territories justify their political authority in the absence of democratic legitimacy. Looking at the administrations in Bosnia, Kosovo, and East Timor, the article focuses on their establishment, their mandates, and their government practices and identifies five different sources of authority: consent, delegation, the maintenance of peace and security, the promotion of human rights and democracy, and the provision of government. However, all of these sources are contested. In particular the practices of international administrations, their lack of accountability and their limited effectiveness in providing government, undermine their authority. The article concludes by highlighting some possible avenues for enhancing the authority of international administrations.
