From Frozen Conflicts to Emerging States ReSET Summer Session 2011

The plan of the lecture Two approaches to definition of the state: (1) empirical; (2) legal or juridical; Definition of de-facto state; Main points in understanding of de-facto states; De-facto state and territoriality; De-facto state and ethnocratic regime; De-facto state as a result of state failure? De-facto state as failing state: criminalization of the state, revenue generation and links between organized crime and secessionist movements, dependence on foreign aid;

Introduction: empirical and juridical (legal) approaches to definition of the state Empirical approach: Max Webers classic definition of the state: a corporate group that has compulsory jurisdiction, exercise continuous organization, and claims a monopoly of force over territory and population De facto rather than de jure attributes of statehood; Basic test for existence of statehood – monopoly of force over territory two monopolies cannot exist over the territory and population Juridical approach: State is a legal person, recognized by international law with the following attributes: defined territory, permanent population, effective governance and independence or right to enter into relations with other states (Brownlie, Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States)

Weak, quasi, shadow, collapsed states and states-within-states Quasi states – exist on the base of their juridical nature, formally recognized, but cannot function properly; Shadow state – the product of personal rule, usually constructed behind the façade of de jure sovereignty (rulers benefit from superpower patronage or from foreign investors); Weak state - contain ethnic, religious, linguistic and other tensions that limit or decrease ability to deliver political goods; Failed state – tense, deeply conflicted, dangerous and contested by warring factions (Rotberg), central authority collapses for several years…wider range of civil conflicts, political crises and massive human rights violations (State Failure Task Force); Collapsed state – a case of failed state which exhibits a vacuum of authority (Rotberg) Fragmented state – state failure is limited to certain contested parts of territory which the central government does not control (Jenne)

Definition of De-facto state A de-facto state exists where there is an organized political leadership, which has risen to power through some degree of indigenous capacity; receives popular support; and has achieved sufficient capacity to provide governmental services to a given population in a specific territorial area, over which effective control is maintained for a significant period of time

Main points in understanding of de-facto states 1) De-facto state is not recognized by international community; it has no judicial status in the international arena; it has no rights to claim a certain territory; it is a part of a recognized state; 2) De-facto state may have an empirically-defined claim to statehood (Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States, 1933). Criteria: (1) a permanent population, (2) a defined territory; (3) a government; (4) the capacity to enter into relations with other states; De-facto states fulfill the first three of these criteria and claim to be able to pursue the forth. 3) De-facto states claim both for sovereignty (external – being within a wider constitutional scheme

De-Facto States and Territoriality Territory: Under a states jurisdiction; Effectively controlled by the state The role of territory – Prior to 1945 the geographic size of states was more fluid (Richard Bean: States larger than the optimal range tend to disintegrate, and those smaller tend to be absorbed) In contemporary developing countries, governments have already failed to generate statewide infrastructure even if they do not face challenges to their border

De-Facto states and ethnocratic regimes Ethnocracy is a regime, facilitating the expansion, ethnicization and control of contested territory and state by a dominant ethnic nation. Are de-facto states created by ethnocratic regimes? All de-facto states? The characteristics of ethnocratic regimes: 1)Ethnicity and not citizenship forms the main basis for resources and power association; only partial rights and capabilities are extended to minorities; 2)The dominant ethnic group appropriates the state apparatus and shapes the political system, public institutions, geography, economy and culture; 3)Ethnicization of politics, rigid forms of ethnic segregation and economic stratification

The process of ethicizing territory (Yiftachel, Ghanem) 1)Structural segregation, without which the expansion of the majority group would not be possible; 2)Construction of minorities as a threat or enemies to the project of purifying of the territory; 3)The formulation of public policies and practices in the field of land, development and planning that enhance ethnocratism; 4)The structural discrimination of minorities in access to land, resources and decision-making

Criminalization of the State Political stability is based on corporate corporatism, clientism and special privileges; Corrupt models of state-private relations, in particular, in the periphery regions; Organized criminal networks are involved in production and sale of drugs, illegal traffic of weapons, money laundering, human trafficking and smuggling of radioactive materials

Revenue generation and links between organized crime and secessionist movement Deep social transformation in result of violent conflict and de-facto state formation; Broken economic ties with metropolis state; economic blockade; Prevalence of shadow economy; survival economic strategy; Semi-criminal and criminal activities are main source of revenue; New elite in de-facto states formed in result of criminal activities and corruption; Warlord competition; Many groups inside and outside of de-facto state profit from the status quo

De facto states as failing states De-facto states in Eurasia were created in results of violent conflicts; Economies are destroyed; economic blockade; deep economic weakness, criminalization of the state and impoverishment of population; Little efforts to economic reforms; Widespread violation of human rights in favor of national security and survival

State Functions and Indicators of State Failure (Scheneckener) – small groups exercise Security: a)limited effective control over the entire states territory; b)limited control over the states external borders; c)ongoing local or regional unrest (riots, separatism); d)high number of armed non-state actors (warlords, organized crime, rebels, terrorists, etc); e)Disintegration of the states security sector; f)State organs become a threat to physical safety of citizens; Kosovo; Transnistria; Abkhazia; South Ossetia; Nagorno-Karabakh

State Functions and Indicators of State Failure (Scheneckener) – small groups exercise Welfare: 1)Systematic exclusion of certain groups from access to economic resources; 2)Economic or financial crisis; 3)Low income from taxes; 4)Low state expenditures; 5)High external debts; 6)Growing gap between rich and poor, redistribution of wealth, regional disparities; 7)High/growing rates of unemployment; 8)Low human development; 9)Non-existence of social security system; 10)Massive ecological problems Kosovo; Transnistria; Abkhazia; South Ossetia; Nagorno- Karabakh

State Functions and Indicators of State Failure (Scheneckener) – small groups exercise Legitimacy and Rule of Law: 1)Restriction of political freedoms and political participation; 2)Systemic manipulation of elections; 3)Massive human rights violation; 4)Massive increase in disapproval of the political system; 5)Significant amount of people taking the law into their own hands; 6)Inefficient public administration; 7)High level of corruption and clientism Kosovo; Transnistria; Abkhazia; South Ossetia; Nagorno-Karabakh

Kosovo as de-facto state Kosovo is partially recognized state; Western model of state against clan-based society, political parties are based on family alliances; Socio-economic indicators: poverty, unemployment up to 50%, UN sponsored institutions of governance, Serbian parallel institutions,

Regionalism, separatism or first step to creation of state-within-state? A case study of Crimea Crimea is a case of two, partially opposite self-determination movements; Open secessionist conflict died out in mid-1990s, but the share of republics residents, supporting the idea of annexation, rolls over 50%; Longstanding dissociation of Kiev from the Crimea has been main driving force for the Crimean separatism in the 2000s; Triggers of escalation: privatization of land and land reform against a background of state weakness – criminalization of the state, socio- economic inequality, institutional exclusion, spreading of alternative practices, e.g. survival culture; Canalization of tension into inter-ethnic rhetoric and ethnic conflict

The Kosovo and Crimea cases: an attempt of comparison Criteria for comparison: Geopolitical and geostrategic importance of territory for national and regional security; Status of autonomy; State weakness; Socio-economic indexes: poverty, unemployment, inequality; Ethnic composition; External influence

The features of statehood have to be accomplished to overcome fragility and guarantee state stability (Ghani) 1)Establishment of legitimate monopoly on the means of violence; 2)Administrative control; 3)Sound management of public finances; 4)Investment in human capital; 5)The creation of citizenship rights and duties; 6)Provision of infrastructure; 7)Market formation; 8)Management of the assets of the state; 9)Effective public borrowing; 10)Maintenance of rule of law

Questions for discussion 1)What are differences between sources/features/consequences of state weakness in a de-facto state and a recognized state where territory is under a states jurisdiction? 2)What measures can/should be implemented in order to overcome state weakness/fragility in de-facto states? 3)Can recognition of de-facto states favor strengthening state institutions and promotion of human rights and economic development?