State collapse and politicized identity: Somalia and Sudan

Scholarship on how to rebuild failed or collapsed states provides scant theoretical guidance in the search for specific warning signs or mechanisms of collapsing states. This thesis argues that state collapse is a societal response to an identity crisis politicized by the state apparatus in response to a legitimation crisis. As regime legitimacy deteriorates, identity politics are deployed to build support for the regime, but typically at the cost of increasing other forces of internal conflict. Absent a mediating force to suppress internal conflict, the state collapses once the regime has been removed. Somalia and Sudan proceeded through this trajectory during their civil wars, though with different outcomes. Somalia fragmented into clan and subclan groups that continued their inimical relationship perpetuating the war following Siyad Barre's coup. Sudan maintained two core identity groups separated by the implementation of sharia that survived each state legitimation crisis, though the state's physical solidity endured.

Análisis del papel desempeñado por terceros actores (ONU – EE. UU.) en la búsqueda de la seguridad en Somalia, periodo 1992-2006

Con el fin de la Segunda Guerra Mundial y el escenario que planteaba la Guerra Fría, la manera de entender y explicar la seguridad en la comunidad internacional se amplió, y pasó de ser concebida únicamente en términos políticos y militares, a incluir aspectos como el medio ambiente, la economía y la sociedad. Por esta razón el concepto de seguridad se complejizó dando paso a la construcción de distintas definiciones y debates alrededor de la ampliación de la agenda de seguridad y los temas que en ella se debían tratar. Así pues el fin principal del presente trabajo es el análisis de un fenómeno socialmente relevante en el marco de las relaciones internacionales como lo es la configuración de seguridad, a partir de intervenciones de terceros actores que involucran poblaciones afectadas como en el caso somalí, la cual enfrentó una situación de crisis como producto de la emergencia de seguridad que se produce en el año 1991 con la expulsión de Siad Barre del poder. Su importancia radica en la reivindicación de la trascendencia tanto de los derechos humanos, como de la relevancia del papel de las organizaciones internacionales y de los Estados más poderosos del Sistema Internacional, en la protección de esos derechos y de las comunidades vulnerables que conforman dicho sistema.

El rol de la Unión Africana (UA) en el Cuerno de África a partir del caso de Somalia - AMISOM (2007-2013)

El propósito de esta monografía es comprender cuál ha sido el rol de la Unión Africana (UA), dentro de la misión de paz AMISOM en el periodo de 2007- 2013. Por ello, el trabajo abarca aspectos geopolíticos e históricos, que han influido en la configuración del conflicto armado de Somalía y que han llevado progresivamente a la creación, evolución e implementación de mecanismos como las misiones de paz. Además, se abarcan los planteamientos del neo-funcionalismo y el neo-regionalismo para comprender las estructuras y las dinámicas propias de la UA y así, comprender la naturaleza tanto de sus acciones, como de sus propósitos; propósitos que aclaman el fomento del panafricanismo. Desde aquí se puede entender como su rol ha contribuido con el crecimiento del mercado de la industria militar en la región, a costa de la responsabilidad de proteger. Por último, se concluye que dichas dinámicas han llevado a la creación de comunidades de inseguridad.

From Civil Strife to Civil Society: civil and military responsibilities in disrupted states

"The 1990s saw the United Nations, the militaries of key member states, and NGOs increasingly entangled in the complex affairs of disrupted states. Whether as deliverers of humanitarian assistance or as agents of political, social, and civic reconstruction, whether in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, or East Timor, these actors have had to learn ways of interacting with each other in order to optimize the benefits for the populations they seek to assist. Yet the challenges have proved daunting. Civil and military actors have different organizational cultures and standard operating procedures and are confronted with the need to work together to perform tasks to which different actors may attach quite different priorities."--BOOK JACKET.

Introduction

The 1990s saw the United Nations, the militaries of key member states, and NGOs increasingly entangled in the complex affairs of disrupted states. Whether as deliverers of humanitarian assistance or as agents of political, social, and civic reconstruction, whether in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, or East Timor, these actors have had to learn ways of interacting with each other in order to optimize the benefits for the populations they seek to assist. Yet the challenges have proved daunting. Civil and military actors have different organizational cultures and standard operating procedures and are confronted with the need to work together to perform tasks to which different actors may attach quite different priorities. From Civil Strife to Civil Society explores the nature of these challenges, blending the experience of scholars and practitioners. It is underpinned by an understanding that recovery from disruption is a laborious process that can easily be de-railed. The first part of the book offers a rigorous examination of the dimensions of state disruption and the roles of the international community in responding to it; the second part looks at military doctrine for dealing with disorder and humanitarian emergencies; the third part examines mechanisms for ending violence and delivering justice in post-conflict times; the fourth part investigates the problems of rebuilding trust and promoting democracy; the fifth part deals with the reconstitution of the rule of law; while the sixth and seventh parts address the reestablishment of social and civil order.

The experience of xenophobia in South Africa

In May 2008, xenophobic violence erupted in South Africa. The targets were individuals who had migrated from the north in search of asylum. Emerging first in township communities around Johannesburg, the aggression spread to other provinces. Sixty-two people died, and 100,000 (20,000 in the Western Cape alone) were displaced. As the attacks escalated across the country, thousands of migrants searched for refuge in police stations and churches. Chilling stories spread about mobs armed with axes, metal bars, and clubs. The mobs stormed from shack to shack, assaulted migrants, locked them in their homes, and set the homes on fire. The public reaction was one of shock and horror. The Los Angeles Times declared, “Migrants Burned Alive in S. Africa.” The South African president at the time, Thabo Mbeki, called for an end to “shameful and criminal attacks.” Commentators were stunned by the signs of hatred of foreigners (xenophobia) that emerged in the young South African democracy. The tragedy of the violence in South Africa was magnified by the fact that many of the victims had fled from violence and persecution in their countries of origin. Amid genocidal violations of human rights that had recently occurred in some countries in sub- Saharan Africa, the new South Africa stood as a beacon of democracy and respect for human dignity. With this openness in mind, many immigrants to South Africa sought safety and refuge from the conflicts in their homelands. More than 43,500 refugees and 227,000 asylum seekers now live in South Africa. The majority of people accorded refugee status came from Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Somalia. South Africa also hosts thousands of other migrants who remain undocumented.

Journalists at war

Journalism is an especially hazardous profession when it takes the reporter into zones of war and conflict. The Committee to Protect Journalists records that in 2010 44 journalists were killed while carrying out their duties. Some of these were reporting conflict in Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq and elsewhere. Others were on assignments covering crime and corruption in Mexico, Russia, Venezuela*all places where telling truth to power can easily get you killed, beaten or banged up. In the last 20 years some 874 journalists have been killed on the job, and we salute them all. Journalists get criticised a lot by we scholars, and often for good reason. They can be villains, for sure, but they can also be heroes, when they lay down their lives in the pursuit of the truth. As this piece was being edited, photojournalists Tim Hetherington and Chris Hondros were killed in Libya.

International law and the regulation of violence : shifting perceptions of the legitimacy of the jus ad bellum?

International law’s capacity to influence state behaviour by regulating recourse to violence has been a longstanding source of debate among international lawyers and political scientists. On the one hand, sceptics assert that frequent violations of the prohibition on the use of force have rendered article 2(4) of the UN Charter redundant. They contend that national self-interest, rather than international law, is the key determinant of state behaviour regarding the use of force. On the other hand, defenders of article 2(4) argue first, that most states comply with the Charter framework, and second, that state rhetoric continues to acknowledge the existence of the jus ad bellum. In particular, the fact that violators go to considerable lengths to offer legal or factual justifications for their conduct – typically by relying on the right of self-defence – is advanced as evidence that the prohibition on the use of force retains legitimacy in the eyes of states. This paper identifies two potentially significant features of state practice since 2006 which may signal a shift in states’ perceptions of the normative authority of article 2(4). The first aspect is the recent failure by several states to offer explicit legal justifications for their use or force, or to report action taken in self-defence to the Security Council in accordance with Article 51. Four incidents linked to the global “war on terror” are examined here: Israeli airstrikes in Syria in 2007 and in Sudan in 2009, Turkey’s 2006-2008 incursions into northern Iraq, and Ethiopia’s 2006 intervention in Somalia. The second, more troubling feature is the international community’s apparent lack of concern over the legality of these incidents. Each use of force is difficult to reconcile with the strict requirements of the jus ad bellum; yet none attracted genuine legal scrutiny or debate among other states. While it is too early to conclude that these relatively minor incidents presage long term shifts in state practice, viewed together the two developments identified here suggest a possible downgrading of the role of international law in discussions over the use of force, at least in conflicts linked to the “war on terror”. This, in turn, may represent a declining perception of the normative authority of the jus ad bellum, and a concomitant admission of the limits of international law in regulating violence.