Is Lebanon a failed state? 1/2

In the wake of August 4th double explosion in Beirut, we’ve been talking about the failure of the Lebanese state. The country has witnessed an unprecedented uprising since October 2019, led by the youth, against the political ruling class that has driven Lebanon into bankruptcy, corruption, unemployment, civil unrest and major failure in ensuring basic human rights.

Has Lebanon become a failed state since the October Revolution, or since the August 4th explosion, or has it always been? That’s a question for another day.

In this two parts series, we will determine first what a failed state is, in order to then identify if Lebanon fits in this category of states in the second part. Lastly, we will think of ways to remedy to the failure of the state.

Part 1 of 2: What is really a failed state?

(For the lazy among you, you can directly skip to the table summary at the end of this article)

Here is my go on how to identify a failed state.

According to (one of the most important theorists on the development of modern Western society) Max Weber’s political theories, a state is defined as having a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within its borders. When this is broken (for example, by the dominant presence of paramilitary groups, armed gangs or terrorism), the very existence of the state becomes uncertain and the state becomes a failed state.

The notion of the failed state is often constructed in opposition to the strong state.

The notion of the failed state appeared in the 1990s, notably following the collapse of authoritarian regimes (the USSR) in the face of the wave of global liberalization.

The term “Failed States” rarely appeared in the political discourse of the United States. Before the attacks of September 11, 2001, the threat of Failed States was not a priority of the Bush administration, rogue states were.

Failed states were seen only as a humanitarian danger, and the terrorist threat in the eyes of the Americans was merely a product of the states possessing weapons of mass destruction..

But after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the term developed and immediately found itself at the center of political debates: “[…] threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones.” (President George W. Bush: 2002 : National Security Strategy)

The notion of the failed state is often confused with the concept of the rogue state, which is an accomplice to international terrorism. Rogue state is a term that refers to states that do not respect international laws, that are complicit in international terrorism or that systematically and flagrantly violate the most fundamental human rights. The notion first appeared in the 1980s by Ronald Reagan to designate states that constitute a threat to the collective security and interests of the United States.

The notion of the failed state is far more complex than that of the rogue state.

A Failed state is therefore a state that is unable to fulfill its regalian functions, in terms of police, public order and justice; but also a state that fails to confront internal unrest, political and ethnic crises, which sometimes lead to civil wars.

In this case, the central authority is absent and is therefore unable to exclusively ensure the exercise of legitimate force within its borders. Also, human and civil rights are not respected, and the basic needs of the population are not met.

According to this definition, international organizations or communities substitute for the exercise of competencies of these states.

There are two types of characterization: political and economic.

On the economic level, a failed state is defined by its inability to enforce property and traffic rights. It is a threat to the respect of the rules of the global market.

Thus, through their inability to enforce property or traffic rights, some failed states feed the insecurity of maritime transport, thus disrupting international trade.

The Failed state is characterized by very high unemployment, inflation, excessive debt and even bankruptcy of the state and companies, as well as the collapse of its national currency.

It allows corruption, money laundering, tax evasion and illicit transactions, which leads to poverty, underdevelopment and lack of future for the youth.

In addition, failed states are characterized by the development of organized crime, whether state-sponsored or not, in terms of terrorism and paramilitary groups or illicit trafficking of drugs, goods and people.

The political characterization refers to the definition of a state that is punctually weak and divided or even in the process of disintegration.

These states lack a strong sense of nationalism among the population; ethnic identities linked to tribal, religious, and community characteristics continue to dominate. The state does not respect citizenship rights, such as legal, political, and social rights, and often cannot maintain civil order in parts of its geographic territory.

The legitimacy of the state or the regime is questioned and citizens then turn to ethnic communities for support, contributing to a further diminution of central power and an accumulation of competing powers in ethnic, tribal or religious communities.

Can the international community intervene in Failed States?

In International Law, a failed state is a state that is incapable of ensuring human rights, humanitarian law, international treaties and its international responsibility, as well as its internal and external security, endangering its place as a member of the international community.

However, the notion of failed states cannot be considered, in the eyes of international law, as a legal notion: the definition of failed states does not entail consequences in the international legal order and does not allow for a clear distinction between its statutory condition and that of other states.

However, failed states appear under certain conditions of international law, and is therefore subject to sanctions.

Indeed, there are certain areas of international law that are affected by the situation of failure, such as human rights, humanitarian law, international treaties, and the law of international responsibility.

However, the various solutions to a State’s failure are limited by the principles and rules of international law. Thus, two rules of international law oppose each other with regard to the remedy to a situation of failure: “the responsibility to protect” and “the principle of non-interference”.

Could a limited use of force be justified?

Especially in cases where force is used within the country, by the population itself or by the government on its people.

Generally speaking, the problem is both security and humanitarian: it is necessary to restore or maintain the security of persons and property; it is necessary to bring aid to the population, as well as to maintain world peace, because failed states are considered as a vector of illicit activities and practices, contrary to international law, such as international terrorism, money laundering and various types of trafficking (drugs, organs, prostitution etc.).

A state or a coalition of states will then act and intervene on the humanitarian level and sometimes even militarily on the principle of the “Responsibility to Protect” and the “Right of Humanitarian Interference”.

According to Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, military intervention is authorized when there is a threat to peace and international order.

There is also the risk of “spill over”: situations at the local level whose effects could spill over to the global level and subsequently jeopardize international security.
Moreover, without the help of the international community, failed states will reproduce their cycles of violence and instability.

It is therefore in the interest of the international community to see a state’s failures disappear by offering assistance, and thus consolidate their sovereignty to prevent the resurgence of crises.

In most cases, the country’s military, political, economic and social needs must all be addressed, often simultaneously. The inclusion of non-military agencies such as international organizations and NGOs allows the intervention to solve long-term problems according to the country’s difficulties. These may include poverty, the government’s inability to provide basic health and education services, corruption, and arms proliferation.

When is international interference not acceptable?

Chapter 1 of the UN Charter: the “principle of non-interference”, the “right of peoples to self-determination” and the principle of the “sovereign equality of all [member] countries”.

Although national sovereignty is sacred in the eyes of international law, many countries, tend to reject international aid, which they perceive as “recolonization”.

Moreover, the failure of international aid and foreign interventions to consolidate lasting peace and stability, and their inability to strengthen economic and social development, has led to an increase in mistrust of Western countries and the international community.

On the other hand, although the failed state is not considered to be complicit in international terrorism as the rogue state, it may nevertheless promote the development of terrorist networks through its loss of the monopoly of use of force and thus lead to the birth of paramilitary groups; in the sense that terrorist groups may find weakly governed spaces conducive to coordinating their activities.

On the margins of the international system, these groups can operate quietly. The assumption is that the lack of enforcement capacity allows military organizations to infiltrate and fill the “power vacuum” created in the absence of a strong state.

However, this is only one of the ways in which weak or failed states are attractive to militant groups.

The power vacuum translates into opportunities for such groups. These include the ease of acquiring support and recruitment, particularly among refugees or marginalized populations, and the ability of these violent transnational non state organizations to establish an alternative state by providing institutions and services that enhance its public appeal.

If we take the example of the terrorist organization Daesh, the latter has acquired a state structure with a government and an administration, hence their self-proclaimed “Islamic state”.

Nevertheless, although a territory without a central state can create an environment that allows terrorism, it cannot be considered a sanctuary for terrorism.

Here is a brief table summary of everything I said before, for the lazy ones.