Gagne de la cryptomonnaie GRATUITE en 5 clics et aide institut numérique à propager la connaissance universitaire >> CLIQUEZ ICI <<


Non classé

In both cases, Kosovo and Macedonia were defined as failed states. Indeed, the criteria of failure tested in the two cases concluded to their inability to provide good governance. Kosovo and Macedonia performed poorly in most of criteria but not in all. Nevertheless, they failed in the most important political good, namely a sustainable security, that led to a high level of violence. Further, the analysis enables to conclude that the inability of a state to provide security leads to the inability to provide the other political goods and to an economic decline. Moreover, Macedonia and Kosovo both faced with a rise in nationalism and ethnic tensions that led to a conflict. So, the causes of failure in both territories were macro perspectives but also the state society relations were broken. Further, the causes were from the ethnic conflicts and nationalism.

The international community had to intervene in order to stop the conflicts and to establish a rebuilding process. In both situations, the international actors had to re-establish the main state building key task that is a sustainable security. State building had also to deal with governance reforms in order to ensure the stability of a state that are the reconstitution of legitimacy and the rebuilding of effectiveness. This process enabled to provide the other public goods (health care, education…) and to develop the basic infrastructures important for an economic boosting. Nevertheless, the rebuilding process was not the same for Kosovo and Macedonia. In the case of Macedonia, the state building process led to a complete success: a sustainable peace, the responsibility to protect and security are maintained and the Macedonian Constitution has changed. Nowadays, the Macedonian situation is closely related to a strong state.

However, Kosovo still faces with problematic issues: the security apparatus, an uneven development, refugees, factionalized elites and the presence of external actors. All these problematic factors make difficult the legitimization of Kosovo; moreover, after its unilateral declaration of independence in 2008, many European countries decided not to recognize Kosovo as a sovereign state. Kosovo is therefore seen as a weak territory: in the conceptual analysis describing the stages of conflict, Kosovo is situated in stage 3 that is the non violent transition. Therefore, the rebuilding process does not always lead to the end of failure.

To conclude, the theoretical framework and the case studies enable to claim that the failure of a state and its consequences can lead to the failure of another one: the failure of Kosovo and its consequence of a massive movement of refugees in the north of Macedonia led to future ethnic tensions and a future conflict between Albanians and Slaves. Nevertheless, the international intervention enables to avoid the spread of a crisis but it does not ensure the complete success which puts an end to failure. So, the global analysis also enables to conclude that in the case of Macedonia, compared with Kosovo, the rebuilding process and the external intervention avoided the spread of the conflict and the collapse of the state. Macedonia succeeded in avoiding the critical point of violence and of non return. In the case of Kosovo, conclusions may be raised about the consequences of a non complete strategy of state building: there are still internal conflicts and the failure of the process led to the future failure of Macedonia.

Page suivante : Bibliography

Retour au menu : State Failure – State Building: A theoretical analysis Case study: Kosovo – Macedonia