Suchergebnisse

Hundreds of millions of people live in countries that have been designated as "failed states." These countries suffer from deep-seated problems. Some, like Somalia, lack a functional government. Others, like North Korea, suffer from a failing economy and brutally repress their citizens. This book examines the phenomenon of failed states by taking a look at a diverse sampling of these countries. State failure does not solely impact the citizens of the failed state-instead, it can affect the entire international community. The vast scope of this complex, timely topic is made easy to understand through this narrative, which unpacks often-complicated information in a compelling, accessible manner

Examines the nation-state, international terrorists networks and host states, Pakistan, Colombia, Indonesia, and Sierra Leone; 6 articles. Contents: The new nature of nation-state failure, by Robert I. Rothberg; Do terrorist networks need a home? by Ray Takeyh and Nikolas Gvosdev; The nation and the state of Pakistan, by Stephen Philip Cohen; Colombia: failed, failing, or just weak? by Philip McLean; Indonesia: a failed state? by Jusuf Wimandi; Sierra Leone: the state that came back from the dead, by Michael Chege.

The Failed States Index, the annual ranking of the world's most vulnerable countries prepared by the fund for Peace, is presented. For four years, Somalia has held the No. 1 spot, indicating the depth of crisis in the international community's longest-running failure. Adapted from the source document.

The Failed States Index, the annual ranking of the world's most vulnerable countries prepared by the fund for Peace, is presented. For four years, Somalia has held the No. 1 spot, indicating the depth of crisis in the international community's longest-running failure. Adapted from the source document.

Failed states pose one of the deepest challenges to American national security and international peace and stability. Finding a comprehensive and effective solution to the challenges of terrorism, human rights violations, or poverty and economic development requires some understanding of how to restore failed states. The response of the United States and its allies has remained the same: to rebuild the institutions of state control, and, if lucky, to plant a working democracy and a market economy within existing state borders. But many international law scholars remain openly dubious about the ability of states to rebuild – the problem is not failed states but the nation-state as the primary actor in international relations. This paper argues that both American and U.N policy on the one hand, and the conventional academic wisdom on the other hand, are mistaken. Building a normal nation-state with full sovereignty on every territory in the world, without changing any borders, fails to understand why some states are failing in the first place. Viable states simply do not align with the borders recognized by the United Nations or created during the period of rapid decolonization in the decades after World War II. Academics who see in failed states the rise of alternatives to the nation-state have no practical solutions that do not depend on the political, economic, and military resources of strong nation-states. Without them, supra-national governments, trusteeships, or non-governmental organizations have shown little ability to fix failed states. This paper argues that powerful nations can help by performing the more modest role of promoting and guaranteeing power-sharing agreements between competing groups within failed states. It concludes by illustrating the thesis with the outcome of the surge in Iraq.

Failed states pose one of the deepest challenges to American national security and international peace and stability. Finding a comprehensive and effective solution to the challenges of terrorism, human rights violations, or poverty and economic development requires some understanding of how to restore failed states. The response of the United States and its allies has remained the same: to rebuild the institutions of state control, and, if lucky, to plant a working democracy and a market economy within existing state borders. But many international law scholars remain openly dubious about the ability of states to rebuild – the problem is not failed states but the nation-state as the primary actor in international relations. This paper argues that both American and U.N policy on the one hand, and the conventional academic wisdom on the other hand, are mistaken. Building a normal nation-state with full sovereignty on every territory in the world, without changing any borders, fails to understand why some states are failing in the first place. Viable states simply do not align with the borders recognized by the United Nations or created during the period of rapid decolonization in the decades after World War II. Academics who see in failed states the rise of alternatives to the nation-state have no practical solutions that do not depend on the political, economic, and military resources of strong nation-states. Without them, supra-national governments, trusteeships, or non-governmental organizations have shown little ability to fix failed states. This paper argues that powerful nations can help by performing the more modest role of promoting and guaranteeing power-sharing agreements between competing groups within failed states. It concludes by illustrating the thesis with the outcome of the surge in Iraq.

"Wirtschaftliche, politische und kulturelle Globalisierung ist nicht die Ursache von 'failed states' und sich fragmentierenden Gesellschaften, sondern ein wichtiger Faktor, der dazu beitragen kann. Entscheidend sind die gesellschaftlichen Verhältnisse und die neoliberale Ausgestaltung des Globalisierungsprozesses." (Autorenreferat)