Failed states should be placed in the care of the Trusteeship Council Essay

Failed states should be placed in the care of the Trusteeship Council. Discuss - Essay Example Factors like government stability and social peace are taken into consideration for deciding the status of a state, whether it is failed or not. Current paper presents the context of failed state focusing on the following issue: should failed states be placed in the care of the Trusteeship Council. The role of the above Council is reviewed and evaluated, especially in regard to the interaction of the Council with the failed states worldwide. It is made clear that the Trusteeship Council could play such role but under certain terms: that the national identity and the control over the national territory will not be threatened. 2. Failed states and the Trusteeship Council 2.1 Failed states - characteristics In order to understand the potential need of failed states to be set under the care of the Trusteeship Council it would be necessary to explain primarily the characteristics of these states. In the literature the failure of states has been extensively explored. According to Harpviken , Enjolras and Sivesind (2010) a state can be characterized as failed only if certain terms are met. Reference is made, for example, to the view of Zartman (1995) who noted that a state is considered as failed ‘when the basic functions of the state are no longer performed’ (Zartman 1995 in Harpviken, Enjolras and Sivesind 2010, p.29). A state can be also characterized as failed if ‘it has not been able to establish the features associated with statehood’ (Harpviken, Enjolras and Sivesind 2010, p.29). In other words, a state can be failed either since its beginning, if it has not managed to implement the functions required for building its identity as a state, or at a later point of time, when its functions, which have been successful implemented, become inactive. This means that for all states no guarantee can exist in regard to their success or failure. Of course, as long as a state is carefully structure and its functions are closely monitored it is quite difficult for the particular state to become a failed state. From another point of view, Rotberg (2010) noted that failed states are characterized by ‘the collapse of government’ (Rotberg 2010, p.43), as this collapse can have many consequences, such as social disorder, threats against human rights, lack of necessary food and so on (Rotberg 2010, p.43). In other words, states can be characterized as failed not only because of the status of their functions but also of the status of their politics. Naude, Santos-Paulino and McGillivray (2011) claim that failed states tend to face specific problems, such as ‘weak governance and unequal distribution of goods and wealth’ (Naude, Santos-Paulino and McGillivray (2001, p.44). On the other hand, there are states that have no government due to the lack of necessary majority of voters, as for example in the case of Belgium; also, these states continue to operate with no problem being in a pre-election period for quit e a long period of time. This means that the view of Rotberg, as presented above, that the collapse of government results necessarily to the failure of a state, is not verified. Akpinarli (2009) argues that problematic states can be categorized as follows: failed and failing, a distinction also accepted by Herdegen (Akpinarli 2009, p.97). It is explained that the criteria used by each research for describing the status of a state that faces a series of