without government,’ for being too narrow (see Thürer 1999: 731-32). Wilde’s is ‘States the most interesting critique of the discourse and, in focusing upon the question of responsibility, pre-empts some of the later debates about responsibility to protect. For him, the responsibilities discourse in relation to States’ is misplaced. He argues that the ‘failed label that when governmental infrastructure collapses, the state, its people, and its ‘suggests leaders are solely responsible’ (Wilde 2003: 426). While he accepts that indigenous factors such as conflict or corrupt leadership’ often contribute, to a significant degree, to ‘civil State collapse, other factors, such as involvement of foreign states, international ‘the financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, multinational corporations, and the like often plays a major role in mediating the state of local conditions, thereby affecting the viability of the economy and governmental infrastructure’ (Wilde 2003: 426). As will be shown below, the responsibilities discourse is much narrower than its equivalent in relation to States,’ focusing as it does ‘failed exclusively upon the protection of civilians from massive human rights abuses. Wilde’s primary assertion that responsibility cannot be seen as a simple question of singular fault is important to bear in mind, however, when considering the prospects of responsibility to protect. Responsibility turns out to be a considerably more complex notion than the ‘failed States’ discourse would suggest. The States’ discourse achieved some purchase in the academic literature and ‘failed policy prescriptions during the immediate post-Cold War era. The Fund for Peace, a United States-based non-governmental organisation, continues to publish an annual States ‘Failed Index,’ which it uses to analyse and support weak and States. It provides policy ‘failing’ advice to governments in relation to conflict, early warning and assessment, which is an
‘States without government,’ for being too narrow (see Thürer 1999: 731-32). Wilde’s is the most interesting critique of the discourse and, in focusing upon the question of responsibility, pre-empts some of the later debates about responsibility to protect. For him, the responsibilities discourse in relation to ‘failed States’ is misplaced. He argues that the label ‘suggests that when governmental infrastructure collapses, the state, its people, and its leaders are solely responsible’ (Wilde 2003: 426). While he accepts that indigenous factors such as ‘civil conflict or corrupt leadership’ often contribute, to a significant degree, to State collapse, other factors, such as ‘the involvement of foreign states, international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, multinational corporations, and the like often plays a major role in mediating the state of local conditions, thereby affecting the viability of the economy and governmental infrastructure’ (Wilde 2003: 426). As will be shown below, the responsibilities discourse is much narrower than its equivalent in relation to ‘failed States,’ focusing as it does exclusively upon the protection of civilians from massive human rights abuses. Wilde’s primary assertion that responsibility cannot be seen as a simple question of singular fault is important to bear in mind, however, when considering the prospects of responsibility to protect. Responsibility turns out to be a considerably more complex notion than the ‘failed States’ discourse would suggest. The ‘failed States’ discourse achieved some purchase in the academic literature and policy prescriptions during the immediate post-Cold War era. The Fund for Peace, a United States-based non-governmental organisation, continues to publish an annual ‘Failed States Index,’ which it uses to analyse and support weak and ‘failing’ States. It provides policy advice to governments in relation to conflict, early warning and assessment, which is an
Responsibility_to_Protect_Lessons_from_Libya_and_Syria_Final_Version.docx