There is an assumption made that states protect their citizens. International humanitarian law is structured on the premise that if a state ratifies Additional Protocol II or Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, then those states will protect their citizens. However, evidence indicates that some governments do target civilians (at varying levels). Granted non-state actors target a greater number of civilians than governments, but the fact remains that government do target civilians. This is perplexing, and makes me wonder if perhaps some of these governments need to be reclassified. If the definition of a state includes providing public services, targeting them does not fulfill that bargain. Perhaps some of those entities labeled states ought to be relabeled into 'entities' instead of states, because by definition they are not functioning as the defined norm of a state.
Where does the pressure come from to establish the process of changing a state's identity because it not does comply with the norm of statehood? It is acknowledged that this is a naive question as sovereignty comes into play. But it seems that forcing change is not really an option - even if there is a hegemon. A hegemon wants to benefit from trade, not from spending money on war to 'fix' or 'help' populations that do not influence the well-being of its own citizens. Increasingly it appears that markets are more important than the rules of war, which is worrying.
Where does the pressure come from to establish the process of changing a state's identity because it not does comply with the norm of statehood? It is acknowledged that this is a naive question as sovereignty comes into play. But it seems that forcing change is not really an option - even if there is a hegemon. A hegemon wants to benefit from trade, not from spending money on war to 'fix' or 'help' populations that do not influence the well-being of its own citizens. Increasingly it appears that markets are more important than the rules of war, which is worrying.
4 comments:
I don't know. I'm very much a liberal of the Kantian sort, and as such I think it's possible, even likely, that free trade and the market may, in fact, contribute to peace. A government can't benefit from taxes if its citizens are destitute, and no one will invest in a state in chaos. Of course, there's a zillion exceptions. But, in theory, the desire of a government to preserve itself and to prosper means that it should ensure peace and security in order to attract investment. Maybe?
But this assumes that a government is benevolent. What if a 'state' is controlled by self interested individuals who seek profit. A 'war economy' is very differetn from the principles of free markets, which are based on social coorindation. However, if a state is not functioning as a norm would expect why is it allowed to maintain the label of the state? As I agree, there are potentials for trade to improve 'harmony of interests' and peace, but that is premised on the concept of a state that fulfills the norm constructed duties of a state. If an entity labeled a state is not function as a state, where does it fit into the rules of war? Why respect its 'sovereignty'?
I realize this response might be a little off from the original intent of this post, but I found it very interesting that you brought up the definition of state to include providing public services. In a different class I read the definition of state as having a monopoly on legitimate violence in a territory. At first this sounded kind of silly, but when you think further on it, it maybe makes sense. At first I was going to say that a state that targets its own civilians is still a state, however, violence against a states owns civilians is likely not considered legitimate. Either way, its an interesting way to consider the definition of state.
A definition of state failure provided by the Fund for Peace is:
A state that is failing has several attributes. One of the most common is the loss of physical control of its territory or a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Other attributes of state failure include the erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions, an inability to provide reasonable public services, and the inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community…risk elements such as extensive corruption and criminal behavior, inability to collect taxes or otherwise draw on citizen support, large-scale involuntary dislocation of the population, sharp economic decline, group-based inequality, institutionalized persecution or discrimination, severe demographic pressures, brain drain, and environmental decay. States can fail at varying rates through explosion, implosion, erosion, or invasion over different time periods.
If a state is failing, it is not fulfilling its bargain as a state. A state provides the normative framework for IHL - if a fragment of that normative framework disintegrates, but is left? Who fills that gap? Why is that state able to continue to participate and have its sovereignty respects??
Anyways my additional two cents.
Post a Comment