|
A failed state is a state perceived as having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government. Although there is no general consensus on the definition, the Fund for Peace characterizes a failed state as having the following characteristics: *Loss of control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein *Erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions *Inability to provide public services *Inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community Common characteristics of a failing state include a central government so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory and there is a non-provision of public services. When this happens widespread corruption and criminality, the intervention of non-state actors, the appearance of refugees and the involuntary movement of populations, and sharp economic decline can occur.〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=Fragile States FAQ Number 6: What Does "State Fragility" Mean? )〕 The level of government control required to avoid being considered a failed state varies considerably amongst authorities. Furthermore, the declaration that a state has "failed" is generally controversial and, when made authoritatively, may carry significant geopolitical consequences.〔 == Definition and its issues == According to the political theories of Max Weber, a state could be said to "succeed" if it maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within its borders. When this is broken (e.g., through the dominant presence of warlords, paramilitary groups, or terrorism), the very existence of the state becomes dubious, and the state becomes a ''failed state''. The difficulty of determining whether a government maintains "a monopoly on the legitimate use of force", which includes the problems of the definition of "legitimate", means it is not clear precisely when a state can be said to have "failed." The problem of legitimacy can be solved by understanding what Weber intended by it. Weber clearly explains that only the state has the means of production necessary for physical violence (politics as vocation). This means that the state does not require legitimacy for achieving monopoly on having the means of violence (''de facto''), but will need one if it needs to use it (''de jure''). Typically, the term means that the state has been rendered ineffective and is not able to enforce its laws uniformly or provide basic goods and services to its citizens because of (variously) high crime rates, extreme political corruption, an impenetrable and ineffective bureaucracy, judicial ineffectiveness, military interference in politics, and cultural situations in which traditional leaders wield more power than the state over a certain area. Other factors of perception may be involved. A derived concept of "failed cities" has also been launched, based on the notion that while a state may function in general, polities at the substate level may collapse in terms of infrastructure, economy and social policy. Certain areas or cities may even fall outside state control, becoming a ''de facto'' ungoverned part of the state.〔Braathen, Einar: ''Brazil: Successful country, failed cities?'' ((NIBR International Blog 24.01.2011 )).〕 There is no real consensus on the definition of a “failed-state”. Various government agencies and think tanks often use their own indicators of state failure, leading to an ambiguous understanding of the term.〔Nay Olivier. “Fragile and Failed States: Critical Perspectives on Conceptual Hybrids”, International Political Science Review 33.1 (2013): 326-341〕 Some scholars focus on the capacity and effectiveness of the government to determine if a state is failed or not.〔Patrick, S. (2007) Failed’’ States and Global Security: Empirical Questions and Policy Dilemmas, International Studies Review 9, 644–662.〕 Other indices such as the Fund for Peace’s Failed State Index underline the democratic character of state institutions in order to determine its level of failure.〔Call, C.T. (2010) Beyond the 'failed state': Toward conceptual alternatives. European Journal of International Relations, US Institute of Peace, Washington DC, USA.〕 Finally other scholars focus their argument on the legitimacy of the state,〔Kaplan, S. (2008) Fixing Fragile States. A new paradigm for development. Praeger Security International. US.〕 on the nature of the state,〔Gros, J.G. (1996) Towards a taxonomy of failed states in the New World Order: Decaying Somalia, Liberia, Rwanda and Haiti, Third World Quarterly, 17(3), 455-472.〕 on the growth of criminal violence in a state,〔Rotberg, R. (2004) When States fail. Causes and consequences. Princeton University Press, US.〕 on the economic extractive institutions 〔Levitt, S. (2012), Why Nations Fail? The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty. Profile Books, UK.〕 or on the states’ capacity to control its territory.〔Taylor, A. (2013) State Failure. Global Issues. Palgrave MacMillan, UK.〕 Robert H. Bates refers to state failure as the “implosion of the state”, where the state transforms “into an instrument of predation” and the state effectively loses its monopoly on the means of force.〔Bates,Robert H. State Failure. Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 11, pp. 1-12.〕 As part of the debate about the state failure definition, Charles T. Call (2010) attempts to abandon the concept of state failure altogether; as, he argues, it promotes an unclear understanding of what state failure means.〔Call, C.T. (2010) Beyond the 'failed state': Toward conceptual alternatives. European Journal of International Relations, US Institute of Peace, Washington DC, USA〕 Indeed, one of the main contributions to the theorization of the “failed-state” is the “gap framework” developed by Call (2010). This framework builds on his previous (2008) criticisms of ‘state failure’, as a concept used as a catch-all term for diverse states with varying problems and as a base and explanation for universal policy prescriptions.〔Call C.T. (2008) The Fallacy of the "Failed State". Third World Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 8, pp. 1491-1507.〕 It unpacks the concept of “state failure” focusing on three gaps that the state is not able to provide when it is in the process of failure: capacity, when state institutions lack the ability to effectively deliver basic goods and services to its population; security, when the state is unable to provide security to its population under the threat of armed groups; and legitimacy, when a “significant portion of its political elites and society reject the rules regulating power and the accumulation and distribution of wealth.”〔Call C.T. (2010)〕 The “gap framework" seems to be more useful than other definitions. Instead of attempting to quantify the degree of failure of a state, the gap framework provides a three-dimensional scope useful to analyse the interplay between the government and the society in states in a more analytical way. Call does not necessarily suggest that states that suffer from the challenges of the three gaps should be identified as failed states; but instead, presents the gap idea as an alternative to the state failure concept as a whole.〔 Although Call recognizes that the gap concept in itself has limits, since often states face two or more of the gap challenges, his conceptual proposition presents a useful way for more precisely identifying the challenges within a society and the policy prescriptions that are more likely to be effective for external and international actors to implement. A relevant contribution to the field of failed states and its attributes was made by J. Goldstone in his paper called "Pathways to State Failure". What differs him from other definitions is the fact that to him, a state is failed if it lost both its effectiveness and legitimacy. Effectiveness means the capability to carry out state functions such as providing security or levying taxes. Legitimacy means the support of important groups of the population, it is dissociated from democracy as a government/leader can be legitimate in the eyes of his people without being elected. Goldstone coupled pathways to state failure to his conception of a lack of both effectiveness and legitimacy. A state that retains one of the two aspects isn't failed as such, however it is in great danger of failing soon if nothing is being done. Five possible pathways to state failure are: 1. Escalation of communal group (ethnic or religious) conflicts Examples: Rwanda, Liberia, Yugoslavia, Lebanon 2. State predation (corrupt or crony corralling of resources at the expense of other groups) Examples: Nicaragua, Philippines, Iran 3. Regional or guerrilla rebellion Examples: Colombia, Vietnam 4. Democratic collapse (leading to civil war or coup d’etat) Examples: Nigeria, Madagascar, Nepal 5. Succession or reform crisis in authoritarian states Examples: Indonesia under Suharto, Iran under the Shah, the Soviet Union under Gorbachev Although Goldstone identified pathways to state failure he is quick to warn about simplifying the issue. Often (re)-building either legitimacy or effectiveness implies a trade off with the other aspect of the state. Since these states are missing one of the two pillars to stability, it is dangerous to initiate such a trade off as it takes time to rebuild trust from the population. Although State Failure has been studied for decades by numerous scholars, it remains a contested concept vulnerable to political, ideological and economical agendas. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Failed state」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|