[Bilimsel Haber] The Idea of a Failed State: Interdisciplinary Theories and Applications

[Sule Tarakcioglu]

The Idea of a Failed State: Interdisciplinary Theories and Applications

In the post-Cold War era, it has become increasingly evident that one of the
most pressing challenges for the world community is that posed by so-called
"failed states." Many serious problems with highly significant intra- and
international ramifications are laid at their door: savage, prolonged wars;
global terrorism; persecution; organized crime; the spread of disease; the
impoverishment of local populations; and illegal immigration, to name 
only some
of the most obvious. If these are caused or at least exacerbated by the very
existence of failed states - by the fact that they have 'failed' - then 
solving
them requires us to confront them in their specific failings. But at 
this point,
the question naturally arises: what, exactly, are failed states? 
Scholars of the
phenomenon do not all seem to have the same thing in mind when using the 
term
"failed state," since attempts to define the term often seem to have 
little in
common. Many consist of little more than strings of examples, with no clear
statement of principle to show what those examples are taken to have in 
common.
More theoretically-developed definitions are usually extremely brief, or 
assert
principles that seem to lead to the conclusion only that a state has 
failed in
certain respects, but not necessarily across the board. What theoretical
concepts are behind these differing definitions? Could different concepts
augment, improve, or even disqualify others? Is it quixotic to think that
scholars could together develop an all-purpose concept? Or are we forced to
conclude that "failed state" is irretrievable as an analytic and moral 
concept
from the morass of ideological posturing?

In order to begin answering these (and many other) questions, we are 
inviting
proposals on the issues raised by the concept of a 'failed state.' 
Perspectives
from any relevant academic discipline are welcome. The main aim of the
collection will be to understand, from as many different points of view as
possible, what would make it true to describe a state as failed, in the 
hope of
developing a more complete understanding of this multi-faceted phenomenon in
order to help fashion the tools needed to tackle it. Hence, the primary 
focus of
proposals (and the resulting papers) should be that of clearly stating,
explaining and justifying fundamental theoretical principles. Application of
theory is, of course, often necessary and always desirable, but should 
serve the
purpose of illuminating the principles. The treatment should be 
scholarly but as
easily comprehensible as possible to those outside your specific 
disciplines.
So, for instance, literature surveys and fairly extensive bibliographies 
are a
good idea, but overly technical language should be either avoided or, if
unavoidable, clearly defined.

Questions you might address include, but are by no means limited to the
following:

(I) Is the very idea of a failed state a sound one? That is, does it 
even make
sense to describe any state as 'failed'? This question might be 
approached by
asking:

(a) How can we distinguish a failed state from a successful one? What
technical/functional and/or moral criteria might be used for this purpose?

(b) Must a state fail 'across the board' to be a 'failed state', or is it
sufficient to fail only in certain aspects of its functioning to pass the
threshold of overall failure?

(c) Is the notion of a failed state relative in some way? For example, can a
state that is deemed to be a failure in, say, one cultural context be 
deemed to
be successful (or at least not a failure) in another?

(d) Is state failure always absolute, or is it a matter of degree? That 
is, can
one failed state be a worse failure than another? And, if so, how do we tell
which is which?

(e) Is there any significant difference between a failed state and a failing
one?

(II) What are the paradigmatic cases of state failure? Are there failed 
states
which have not so far been recognized as such, and what case can we make for
classing them thus?

(III) Can failed states be turned into successful ones? If so, are there any
general strategies for doing this, or must such transformation be 
carried out on
a case-by-case basis? If failed states cannot in principle be thus 
"repaired,"
is there a case for "liquidating" them? If so, who should be the 
liquidator, and
what should happen to the "assets"?

(IV) From the answers to the questions which can be asked about the 
concept of a
failed state, what might be implied or inferred with respect to the nature,
functions and responsibilities of the international order?

The intention is that this call will solicit proposals from which a 
volume will
emerge and, if feasible, a conference at which draft contributions can be
presented and discussed. It is hoped to plan the volume, and submit a 
proposal
to publishers, early in 2006. To establish the feasibility of this, 
proposals of
about 500 words long are therefore invited.

Liam Harte,
Department of Philosophy,
Westfield State College,
Westfield, MA 01085
USA

Email: lharte@wsc.ma.edu