Calendar of Events
Failed States and Gradations of Sovereignty
Stephen Krasner
Monday, February 9th
IES Lecture Series 2003-2004
Beyond the Gulf: US-European Relations After Iraq
Conventional sovereignty has failed in the face of the forces of globalization, but the policy instruments currently available to repair the negative effects of this failure are inadequate. Many societies in these "failed states" are troubled because they suffer under, weak, or abusive regimes. Outlaw states, which may be effectively (if not justly) governed but are bent on aggressive policies, can produce weapons of mass destruction and support transnational terrorist networks. Any adequate effort to confront the problems produced by troubled societies or outlaw states will have to transcend the conventional rules of sovereignty. Alternative institutional arrangements, such as trusteeships and shared sovereignty, must be legitimated if international threats are to be reduced and the prospects for individuals in troubled societies improved. Particularly in raw materials producing states, "pockets" of sovereignty can be carved out and jointly administered by international and national actors to achieve stability.
-- Stephen Krasner
In his lecture given on Monday, February 9th in the IES Seminar Room, Krasner briefly named four different types of sovereignty: international legal, Westphalian, domestic, and interdependence (for expansive definitions, go here). He gave examples of some of the contemporary issues of sovereignty, including rogue states, humanitarian catastrophes, and problems of states not wanting to give up international sovereignty power. Contemporary domestic sovereignty, in Krasner's opinion, is failing badly in many places.
"We have this script of domestic sovereignty, and it's not working well at all," said Krasner. "We don't have adequate policy repertoire."
He explained how one aspect of domestic sovereignty -- governance assistance -- is "an inadequate institution in developing countries." Another aspect -- transitional assistance -- is seeing mixed success rates. He reasoned that this may have to do with the fact that local political leaders have to figure out where support is going to come from a few years down the line.
Krasner feels there is a lack of "good language" to discuss how to deal with these issues. He denounced the idea of a trusteeship, explaining that the concept "reeks of colonialism." His suggestion?
"Take away international and Westphalian sovereignty to create domestic sovereignty," said Krasner. "I think it would be very hard to do, but it's not a bad idea." He voiced his own rebuttal questions, though, such as: where would political support come from? And if the third world doesn't want such a thing, what would make major powers want this?
An alternative, he suggests, is shared partial sovereignty, in which a more or less permanent structure would share internal and external actions.
Most in the audience were skeptical of how such an idea would work. Krasner is the first to admit that "ideas like this never actually move policy," and that there were many questions he could not yet answer. How could this idea exist without 'picking winners?' How would this practice be legitimated? Would those holding stakes in this shared partial sovereignty ever want to give it up, once these "badly formed" states became more stable?
The concept of shared partial sovereignty is, nonetheless, a new idea that people might do well to consider before shooting down.
Stephen Krasner is a Graham H. Stuart Professor of International Relations, Deputy Director, Stanford Institute of International Studies. Read more about him at here.
