UN Peace Operations Efforts to Extend State Authority in Mali and the Central African Republic Shannon Zimmerman
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Zimmerman, S. 2020. Defining State Authority: UN Peace Operations stability Efforts to Extend State Authority in Mali and the Central African Republic. Stability: International Journal of Security & Development, 9(1): 3, pp. 1–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/sta.762 RESEARCH ARTICLE Defining State Authority: UN Peace Operations Efforts to Extend State Authority in Mali and the Central African Republic Shannon Zimmerman In a state-based international order, the state is understood as the best actor to protect its population. With this in mind, UN peace operations often have mandates to extend state authority. However, by their very nature, peace operations deploy to states whose authority and legitimacy are contested. Without a clear definition of what that authority entails, peace operations and host states must constantly negotiate the content and approaches taken in extending state authority, some- times resulting in tensions between state and mission. This article examines the process of extending state authority in two cases: the UN Multidimensional Inte- grated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA) and the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA). It finds that there are evolving and contesting understandings of state authority across and within peace operations, which can limit mission impact and stress key relationships between peace operations and their host state. The article concludes that there is a need for renewed conversations in the UN as to how state authority is understood and supported by UN peace operations. Introduction states must constantly negotiate the content In a state-based international order, the state and approaches taken in extending state is considered the primary and best actor to authority. With the very nature of the state protect its population. With this in mind, at stake, these negotiations can result in ten- United Nations peace operations are often sions between state and mission and impact deployed with mandates to extend state the effectiveness of UN peacekeeping. authority. However, by their very nature, This article argues that UN peace opera- peace operations deploy to states that often tions with mandates to extend state lack both authority and legitimacy with their authority have a priori expectations about domestic populations and that may not have the nature of the recipient states. First, that the capacity to earn them. Lacking a clear the state has legitimate authority with its definition of what state authority entails and population; and second, that the state will how it is earned, peace operations and host attempt to fulfil the requirements of ‘posi- tive sovereignty’ as its capacity and authority increase. These expectations stem from University of Queensland, AU the state-based nature of the UN itself and s.zimmerman@uq.edu.au do not necessarily reflect the realities that Art. 3, page 2 of 16 Zimmerman: Defining State Authority peacekeepers address on the ground. Should Prior to World War II, sovereignty was these expectations not be met, peace opera- based on internal and external legitimacy. tions that focus on extending state authority Internally, state legitimacy rested upon may actually undermine the liberal demo- ‘standards of civilization,’ including culture, cratic ideals promoted by the UN. identity and religion (Gong 1984).1 Implicit The first section of this article outlines in these standards was an assumed level of the evolution of state sovereignty within internal social cohesion that fostered loyalty the UN, particularly how sovereignty to the state and led citizens to accept the has vacillated between authority-based state’s basic right to rule (Lemay-Hébert 2009; Weberian and legitimacy-based Lockean Holsti 1996: 84; Gilley 2006). Legitimacy was variations. As conceptions of sovereignty earned not just through effective govern- change, so too do understandings of how ance and service provision but shared social legitimate state authority is to be achieved. goals and values built over time (Schmelzle This article then details the emergence and Stollenwerk 2018: 450). Legitimacy was of the extension of state authority as a maintained by the government’s ability to mandated goal of peacekeeping and the provide political goods such as services and challenges this poses for peacekeepers. a minimal level of protection to the civilian Next, this article draws on two case stud- population in its territory. While state insti- ies, inclusive from their date of creation to tutions were still important, the degree of the end of 2018: the UN Multidimensional legitimacy achieved depended on how the Integrated Stabilization Mission in the government exercised authority. Once a state Central African Republic (MINUSCA) and was seen as able to uphold international the UN Multidimensional Integrated norms it was awarded external legitimacy, Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA). which should guarantee non-intervention These cases will illustrate how peace opera- into that state’s territory or domestic affairs tions understand their mandates to extend (Barnett 1995: 82). This combination of state authority and attempt to negotiate internal and external legitimacy constituted implementation with the host-state gov- ‘positive sovereignty’ (Jackson 1990: 29). ernment. This article concludes by noting The post-World War II rush to decolo- key factors that influence how state author- nize and the Cold War saw the connection ity is understood in particular contexts. It between internal and external legitimacy contributes to the literature by shedding increasingly downplayed, including within light on a central question of external state the UN. Exercising their right for self-deter- building: what is the nature of the state mination, decolonizing states pushed for- being built (Richmond 2013: 2)? ward conceptions of legitimacy focused on territorial integrity and control (Spencer State Sovereignty and Legitimacy 1962: 381; Barnett 1995: 82). The resulting The UN has long negotiated the tensions institutional approaches, based on Weberian between its realist state-based composition conceptions2 of the state as separate from and the universal liberal norms enshrined the nation, argued that it was possible to in the UN Charter. As a result, peacekeep- extend state authority without engaging in ing vacillates between supporting differ- the deeply contested socio-political realm of ent types of sovereignty, based either on societal cohesion (Lemay-Hébert 2009: 26). realist military authority or liberal political The general result of such approaches was legitimacy. These different conceptions of a ‘negative sovereignty’ where the state was sovereignty and the subsequent sources awarded freedom from outside interference of state legitimacy have a powerful impact but lacked the capacity to provide political on how state authority is understood and goods and services to its citizens (Jackson pursued by peace operations. 1990: 27). This type of sovereignty does not Zimmerman: Defining State Authority Art. 3, page 3 of 16 require the consent of the governed but is noted that peace operations could play a conferred by the international community ‘catalytic role’ by supporting the ‘activities (Jackson 1990). of state institutions’ (UN 2008: 26–27). Throughout the Cold War, peace opera- Strengthening host-state authority is now tions primarily deployed between two an inherent part of the peacekeeping and previously warring states and only after a peacebuilding system, and peace operation negotiated peace agreement. Therefore, the success is increasingly defined as a mission’s internal legitimacy of a state only mattered ability to craft a viable and legitimate state to the extent that it impacted the state’s (Cohen et al. 2006: 49; Karlsrud 2018: 148; ability to uphold its obligations in the peace Paris and Sisk 2009: 1–6; Sherman 2012; agreement. However, the end of the Cold Piiparinen 2016). Despite its importance, the War brought about several changes that UN does not have a formal definition of what made state legitimacy a major concern for state authority entails or a clear list of tasks peacekeepers. First, the state’s ability to main- which constitute its extension. tain order not only through coercion but also Differing conceptions of state authority with a fair degree of consent, re-emerged are evident in the evolving approaches of as the standard for upholding the inter- peace operations. Extending state authority national order (Chandler 2017: chapter 4; appeared for the first time in the UN Mission Barnett 1995: 82; Jackson 1990). This con- in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) (United Nations sent could only be garnered through effec- Security Council [UNSC] 1999a). UNAMSIL tive governance, which, in turn, fostered took a realist approach to authority by sup- legitimacy (Schmelzle and Stollenwerk 2018: porting host-state security structures and 450; Schmelzle 2011). Unfortunately, many emphasising military actions by peace- weak states struggled to achieve effective keepers to create space for the state to levels of governance. Poor or mis-governance reassert itself (Sherman 2012: 13). This combined with an array of country-specific emphasis on security sector reform assumed factors and a lack of Cold War- driven military and perpetuated a Weberian understanding support saw many states descend into civil of the state as the security provider, even war. when the state may not have ever filled this Post-Cold War, Peacekeepers