State Building Controversy

In this essay I will contend that ‘shared sovereignty’—as outlined by Stephen Krasner—can overcome the main obstacles of statebuilding. However, to increase the likelihood of success, I posit it is necessary for this ‘shared sovereignty’ to be based in principles of republicanism. Statebuilding has been largely unsuccessful. This failure can be explained by two major, interrelated obstacles: statebuilding’s exogenous nature and prêt-à-porter tendencies. Both of these criticisms allude to the reality that external actors’ interests typically do not align with the host government’s. A ‘partnership’ where sovereignties are tied together for an indefinite period of time addresses these concerns by assuring that the weak or failed state and the external body have agreed sufficiently on their end goals to enter into this relationship. This shared sovereignty and statebuilding being bound to republican statebuilding assures that Western tendencies towards liberalism are appropriately moderated to merge with the sociopolitical customs of the specific state being built up.

This criticism has two main elements: that the external actors’ interests do not directly align with those of the weak state and that exogenous conceptions of the state fail to see value in sub-state indigenous governing bodies. External influence on the statebuilding process is not inherently bad. In fact, some states are so weak in capacity that monopoly of violence and provision of goods does not make it past the capital city. Without external forces and training, these states with low funds would be incapable of fulfilling their