The European Union’s ambiguous concept of ‘state fragility’ (original) (raw)
Related papers
Foreign aid and the fragile consensus on state fragility
Most actors in the field of foreign aid agree with the call for coordinated engagement in fragile states in order to more effectively counter the consequences and origins of state failure. However, despite such demands, governments from OECD countries as well as multilateral agencies that are engaged in fragile states often continue to act in an uncoordinated manner and fail to reach higher levels of harmonisation. Why is effective coordination so hard to achieve? This article argues that three major challenges explain the persistent problems of donor harmonisation in fragile states: (1) the cognitive challenge of explaining the origins of state fragility and deducing effective instruments and interventions; (2) the political challenge of reconciling divergent political motives for engagement; as well as (3) the challenge related to the organisational logic of competing aid agencies.
ECDPM, 2018
Ever since the EU ventured into development cooperation, questions were raised on how its institutions and member states could better coordinate their activities. Numerous initiatives were launched to put into practice their repeated commitment to work more closely together, particularly in situations of fragility and protracted crisis. In this paper we analyse three specific policy initiatives where EU institutions, member states and other non-EU players are working together. These are: • the operationalisation of the humanitarian-development nexus in pilot countries, • the Sahel Alliance, and • the EU Trust Funds. The three initiatives have so far managed successfully to bring together all the relevant actors, thus signaling the political commitment to have a joint, quick and effective response to complex challenges in fragile contexts. They have also agree that this response should combine short-term action with more structural engagement, in an integrated manner. Yet, in practice, the implementation faces coordination obstacles, often because of the top-down and headquarters' driven way these initiatives were conceived and led, and of their inability to link up with other ongoing processes on similar themes or regions. This, in turn, affects negatively the buy-in and ownership of actors at field level. Our analysis suggests that incentives and disincentives for the EU institutions and the member states to work more closely together are determined by a particular set of trade-offs: • How to address the practical constraints to coordination while also maintaining a high level of political interest? • How to accelerate procedures to allow faster and more flexible responses while preserving coordination and inclusive processes that are more time-consuming?
Fragility and resilience in the European Union's security strategy: comparing policy paradigms
Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica, 2020
The article takes fragility and resilience as distinct policy paradigms, and proposes a structured, focused comparison of how they informed and changed the EU approach to conflict and crisis management in time. The first section provides a cumulative synthesis of the debate on fragility and resilience in the international and European security discourse and practice on the background of which their comparison is built. By analysing the founding documents respectively endorsing fragility and resilience in the European context, namely the 2003 European Security Strategy and the 2016 European Union Global Strategy in addition to the existing literature on these topics, the two paradigms are examined in terms of (1) what understanding of the international system they advance; (2) where they identify the locus of the threat; (3) which role they attribute to the international community (4) and the type of solutions they proposed. In accordance with our results, we conclude that the two pa...
Let’s get comprehensive: European Union engagement in fragile and conflict-affected countries
The European Union is one of the world’s most important actors in assisting fragile and conflict-affected countries, and has made engagement with ‘fragile states’ a top priority for its development policy. At the policy level, the EU’s approach is in line with international best practices defined by the OECD’s 2007 Principles and the 2011 Busan ‘New Deal’ for fragile states. At the operational level, the EU is developing a ‘comprehensive approach’ to the implementation of its policies. As is the case with most international actors that engage with fragile and conflict-affected countries, a multidimensional gap exists between the intentions expressed at the policy level and the reality of operations at the country level. This paper argues that three sets of factors intervene between the policy and the operations level: cognitive factors related to turning knowledge of partner-country political processes into appropriate actions; issue-related conflicts of interest and trade-offs; and actor-related factors concerning coordination and capacity. This paper discusses how these factors affect the implementation of the EU’s policy frameworks with reference to three fragile and conflict-affected countries: South Sudan, Nepal and Liberia.
In December 2013 the European External Action Service (EEAS) and the EU Commission published the Joint Communication on the ‘EU’s Comprehensive Approach to external conflict and crises’. The document offered important guidelines regarding the purpose and general way forward for the EU’s Comprehensive Approach, and has helped better to internalise the concept within EU institutions and amongst the Member States. However, the Joint Communication very largely left undefined the specific implementation steps needed for the EU to use its instruments in a more coherent joined up way to enhance its actions in fragile and conflict states. In December 2012 Wilton Park organised a first Comprehensive Approach conference that made an important contribution to the thinking reflected in the Joint Communication. The follow up conference, held in February 2014, was designed to consider next steps and initiatives in taking forward the principles set out in the Joint Communication.
2013
State Building Contracts appear to be a smart and flexible response to past criticisms of EC budget support in fragile, transition and conflictaffected environments, but the effectiveness of this form of budget support, which was formalised in 2012, remains to be seen. Officials within EU institutions and EU member states have different expectations about the strategic and developmental role that State Building Contracts should play in partner countries. Stakeholders will need to avoid overloading the modality with too many objectives and demands. Capacity requirements for implementing budget support require greater attention in fragile contexts. More flanking measures for capacity development to effectively accompany the implementation of State Building Contracts are needed as well as extra expertise at the level of the EU delegations. State Building Contracts conceptually support the New Deal’s peacebuilding and statebuilding goals, but to accomplish them, EC officials and partner...
Stosunki Międzynarodowe – International Relations, 2022
This paper studies the concept of a ‘fragile state,’ its origins, uniqueness, and the circumstances determining the changing dynamics of the presented subject, as well as the possibility of its application in the practice of International Relations (IR). The analysis of the conceptualization process, as well as the instrumental treatment of the idea of state’s fragility structures by decision-makers responsible for shaping foreign policy - especially in the context of the global development and security strategy - underlines the complexity and incoherence of the fragile state’s concept, which is currently considered as one of the most ‘wicked problems’ of the modern world, often torn by numerous brutal military conflicts. The author of the piece uses the term ‘fragile state’ to describe not only the form and conditions of disintegration of the state’s political and social ties and the dismantling of its state-legal infrastructure, but also analyzes issues related to the economic col...