States Placed in the Care of the Trusteeship Council - Essay Example

? Failed s should be placed in the care of the Trusteeship Council. Discuss Introduction The power of s within the international community is evaluated using a series of criteria. Usually, the ability of the states to secure their political and social life against potential turbulences is considered as an indication of the states’ power and stability. In practice, it has been proved rather difficult for a state to protect its political and social framework. The term ‘failed state’ has been introduced in order to reflect the above problem. Different approaches exist in the literature in regard to the characteristics of failed states. Factors like government stability and social peace are taken into consideration for deciding the status of a state, whether it is failed or not. Current paper presents the context of failed state focusing on the following issue: should failed states be placed in the care of the Trusteeship Council. The role of the above Council is reviewed and evaluated, especially in regard to the interaction of the Council with the failed states worldwide. It is made clear that the Trusteeship Council could play such role but under certain terms: that the national identity and the control over the national territory will not be threatened. 2. Failed states and the Trusteeship Council 2.1 Failed states - characteristics In order to understand the potential need of failed states to be set under the care of the Trusteeship Council it would be necessary to explain primarily the characteristics of these states. In the literature the failure of states has been extensively explored. According to Harpviken, Enjolras and Sivesind (2010) a state can be characterized as failed only if certain terms are met. Reference is made, for example, to the view of Zartman (1995) who noted that a state is considered as failed ‘when the basic functions of the state are no longer performed’ (Zartman 1995 in Harpviken, Enjolras and Sivesind 2010, p.29). A state can be also characterized as failed if ‘it has not been able to establish the features associated with statehood’ (Harpviken, Enjolras and Sivesind 2010, p.29). In other words, a state can be failed either since its beginning, if it has not managed to implement the functions required for building its identity as a state, or at a later point of time, when its functions, which have been successful implemented, become inactive. This means that for all states no guarantee can exist in regard to their success or failure. Of course, as long as a state is carefully structure and its functions are closely monitored it is quite difficult for the particular state to become a failed state. From another point of view, Rotberg (2010) noted that failed states are characterized by ‘the collapse of government’ (Rotberg 2010, p.43), as this collapse can have many consequences, such as social disorder, threats against human rights, lack of necessary food and so on (Rotberg 2010, p.43). In other words, states can be characterized as failed not only because of the status of their functions but also of the status of their politics. Naude, Santos-Paulino and McGillivray (2011) claim that failed states tend to face specific problems, such as ‘weak governance and unequal distribution of goods and wealth’ (Naude, Santos-Paulino and McGillivray (2001, p.44). On the other hand, there are states that have no government due to the lack of necessary majority of voters, as for example in the case of Belgium; also, these states continue to operate with no problem being in a pre-election period for quite a long period of time. This means that the view of Rotberg, as presented above, that the collapse of government results necessarily to the failure of a state, is not verified. Akpinarli (2009) argues that problematic states can be categorized as follows: failed and failing, a distinction also accepted by Herdegen (Akpinarli 2009, p.97). It is explained that the criteria used by each research for describing the status of a state that faces a series of failures are differentiated (Akpinarli 2009, p.97). More specifically, a state can be characterized as failed because of failures in regard to ‘its government structure’ (Akpinarli 2009, p.97). There is also the view that a state is failed when it is not able to provide to its citizens ‘the most important political goods’ (Akpinarli 2009, p.97). The term political goods, as used above it is not clearly described. It is assumed that it is related to rights awarded to citizens as a result of their citizenship, as for example the right to vote, the right to participate in elections, the right to seek for support by the authorities and the courts and so on. Wilson and Forrest (2008) have noted that a state can be characterized as failed not only because of political or administrative failures but also of failures related to its security policies. In the last case it is quite possible for a state to be characterized as failed without its functions to be inactive (Wilson and Forrest 2008, p.50). For example, countries that promote terrorism, directly or indirectly, meet the requirements of a failed state (Wilson and Forrest 2008, p.50). In practice, the above countries can be strong but their practice to support terrorism set the safety of other countries in risk (Wilson and Forrest 2008, p.50). Pfeiffer (2007) agrees that failed states have two distinctive characteristics: a) political instability, at excessive level, usually reflected in the lack of official government and b) inactivity of the state’s basic functions, such as transport, protection of the security of citizens and health services (Pfeiffer 2007, p.4). It is also noted that violence can be a characteristic of failed states but only when it tends to continue, with no signs of limitation, for a long period of time (Pfeiffer 2007, p.4). 2.2 Should failed states be set under the care of the Trusteeship Council? Trusteeship has been extensively used as a method for supporting the transition of failed states to regular governance (Hill and Keller 2010). In fact, it is suggested that in the case of failed states a Trusteeship should be developed for a particular period of time, ranging from 5 up to 50 years, so that the traumatized political and social framework of the state fully recovers (Hill and Keller 2010, p.94). Trusteeship is imposed by a specific unit of the United Nations, the Trusteeship Council (Hill and Keller 2010, p.94). Trusteeship, as a tool for restoring political and social order, has been often criticized in regard to its following characteristic: in the context of Trusteeship certain ‘civilized countries set failed countries under their control’ (Hill and Keller 2010, p.94). The promotion of national interests, as often opposed to foreign interests, can face significant delays (Hill and Keller 2010, p.94). On the other hand, Lowe et al. (2008) explain that the role of Trusteeship Council in supporting failed states worldwide is not standardized. Indeed, there are countries that need mostly humanitarian support than political or military support (Lowe et al. 2008, p.126). Also, in certain failed countries severe administrative problems exist. In these countries it is necessary to address these problems at a first level; then the intervention of the Trusteeship Council would be possibly decided, if necessary so that the political and social life would fully recover (Lowe et al. 2008, p.126). Of course, there are cases where the intervention of the Council has been proved as non-effective, such as Kosovo (Lowe et al. 2008, p.126). In the above country, the social order has not been restored despite the extensive use of military forces by the United Nations (Lowe et al. 2008, p.126). The article 90 of the Chapter of the United Nations sets the rules related to the operation of the Trusteeship Council (Trusteeshipship Council, 2012). According to the above article, the Council holds two sessions on annual basis (article 90, rule I, in Kelsen 1950, p.668). Moreover, additional sessions can be arranged under the terms that there is need for addressing emergent issues (article 90, rule II and rule III, in Kelsen 1950, p.668). Following this procedure, the members of the Trusteeship Council can decide to set a failed state under the care of the Council, under the terms that the other bodies of the United Nations, such as the Security Council and the General Assembly are fully aware of the particular initiative (Kelsen 1950, p.668). In addition, Groom (2003) notes that in the past the Trusteeship Council has been extensively used as a tool for enhancing the rights of certain countries over other territories. Reference is made, as an example, to the cases of Spain and Argentina that have used the above Council, being its members, in order to promote their interests in regard to other countries (Groom 2003, p.173). In the above case, the value of the Trusteeship Council, as a tool for securing political and social stability is eliminated (Groom 2003, p.173). 3. Conclusion Keeping their political and social stability seems to be a major challenge for states internationally. In practice, many states are not able in identifying the resources necessary for securing their political and social life. This problem is reflected in the continuous increase of failed states worldwide. On the other hand, competition in the global community has been increase. The need for securing their energy needs leads many countries to intervene in the internal politics of other states. In this way, conflicts among states have become a common phenomenon. The states that are not able to face the above challenges are likely to lose their control on their governance. In this case, security issues are likely to appear, meaning not only the security of the country towards its opponents, but mainly the safety of the local population. The establishment of units such as the Trusteeship Council of United Nations has been, therefore, considered as unavoidable. Still, the involvement of the Trusteeship Council in the recovery of failed nations can be justified only if it is carefully planned and monitored, ensuring that the control of the state on its politics and economy is not lost or abandoned. Rather, when the placement of a failed state under the care of the Trusteeship Council is decided, a plan of action would be necessary for securing the transition of the failed country to healthy governance even in the long term. References Akpinarli, N., 2009. The Fragility of the 'Failed State' Paradigm: A Different International Law Perception of the Absence of Effective Government. Leiden: BRILL. Groom, A., 2003. United Nations at the Millennium: The Principal Organs. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Harpviken, K., Enjolras, B. and Sivesind, K., 2010. Troubled Regions and Failing States: The Clustering and Contagion of Armed Conflict. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. Hill, R. and Keller, E., 2010. Trusteeship for the Human Community: Ralph J. Bunche, the United Nations, and the Decolonization of Africa. Ohio: Ohio University Press. Kelsen, H., 1950. The Law of the United Nations: A Critical Analysis of Its Fundamental Problems with Supplement 1964. New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. Lowe, V., Roberts, A., Welsh, J. and Zaum, D., 2008. The United Nations Security Council and War : The Evolution of Thought and Practice since 1945: The Evolution of Thought and Practice since 1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Naude, W., Santos-Paulino, A. and McGillivray, M., 2011. Fragile States: Causes, Costs, and Responses. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pfeiffer, M., 2007. Somalia - A Model for Collapsed State. Berlin: GRIN Verlag. Rotberg, I., 2010. When States Fail: Causes and Consequences. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Trusteeshipship Council, 2012. Organizational website. Available athttp://www.un.org/en/mainbodies/Trusteeshipship/ [Accessed at 13 December 2012] Wilson, I. and Forrest, J., 2008. Handbook of Defence Politics. Oxon: Taylor & Francis. Read More