AbstractThe 9/11 terrorist attacks shifted the emphasis of failed states as just a regional humanitarian problem to one that could present a global security threat. In this regard US policymakers, especially, identified failed states as possible terrorist threats. However, this renewed attention to the study of state failure has exposed a number of theoretical weaknesses in this body of literature. The latter could mainly be ascribed to the way in which US policy makers have often used generalised definitions of failed states and then applied it to states that are perceived as threats. Another problem is the fact that government sponsored research institutes and think tanks are operating independently from university academics. This situation has caused theoretical confusion as conditions in failed states are often interpreted differently resulting in the development of a number of opposing theories, definitions and confusing classification models. The body of literature is further accused of endorsing a “Weberian” definition (ideal type) of the state against which degrees of “failure” in non-complying states are measured. This article will investigate the extent of these theoretical weaknesses and expose the dangers of following an approach that seem to misinterpret the political realities of developing states (often regarded as failed) – this despite having an extensive popular following. It will further focus on possible alternative approaches – or the formulation of ideas that are better suited and relevant to the often unique internal political, social and economic dynamics of unstable states.
- Ownership of copyright in terms of the Work remains with the authors.
- The authors retain the non-exclusive right to do anything they wish with the Work, provided attribution is given to the place and detail of original publication, as set out in the official citation of the Work published in the journal. The retained right specifically includes the right to post the Work on the authors’ or their institutions’ websites or institutional repository.
Publication and user license
- The authors grant the title owner and the publisher an irrevocable license and first right and perpetual subsequent right to (a) publish, reproduce, distribute, display and store the Work in any form/medium, (b) to translate the Work into other languages, create adaptations, summaries or extracts of the Work or other derivative works based on the Work and exercise all of the rights set forth in (a) above in such translations, adaptations, summaries, extracts and derivative works, (c) to license others to do any or all of the above, and (d) to register the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) for the Definitive Work.
- The authors acknowledge and accept the user licence under which the Work will be published as set out in https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (Creative Commons Attribution License South Africa)
- The undersigned warrant that they have the authority to license these publication rights and that no portion of the copyright to the Work has been assigned or licensed previously to any other party.
Disclaimer: The publisher, editors and title owner accept no responsibility for any statement made or opinion expressed by any other person in this Work. Consequently, they will not be liable for any loss or damage sustained by any reader as a result of his or her action upon any statement or opinion in this Work.
In cases where a manuscript is NOT accepted for publication by the editorial board, the portions of this agreement regarding the publishing licensing shall be null and void and the authors will be free to submit this manuscript to any other publication for first publication.
Our copyright policies are author-friendly and protect the rights of our authors and publishing partners.