How to stabilize failing states: the good, the bad and the ugly of international intervention
The international community is often challenged with stabilizing failing states that are incapable of providing security, health, food and water to their citizens. Humanitarian concern about starvation, rapes, massacres, and oppression of the vulnerable in these states must be addressed. These state...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Published: |
Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School
2012
|
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10945/10651 |
| Summary: | The international community is often challenged with stabilizing failing states that are incapable of providing security, health, food and water to their citizens. Humanitarian concern about starvation, rapes, massacres, and oppression of the vulnerable in these states must be addressed. These states may also provide safe havens for terrorists and other groups that become threats to global security. The international community establishes complex missions with both a "soft approach" of providing only humanitarian aid and a stronger version that exercises binding power over local stakeholders. This thesis analyzes these complex international interventions and argues that missions with binding power are more successful. It begins with theoretical reasoning on why missions with binding power are expected to be successful and continues with empirical data through the comparison of 13 international missions in eight different countries. Five of these international interventions in three countries are reviewed in detail. The UNMIK and EULEX in Kosovo and UNOSOM in Somalia are considered as successful examples while the UNOSOM II and AMISOM in Somalia are failures. Finally, this thesis analyzes the current situation in Yemen and provides policy recommendations by applying lessons drawn from the analysis and comparison of the case studies in Kosovo and Somalia. |
|---|