Sovereignty As Responsibility: Conflict Management in Africa
In the new world order, should the community of nations continue to adhere to the old principle of nonintervention in the internal affairs of sovereign states so long as their domestic policies do not constitute a "threat to international peace"? Not if the world recognizes, as these authors argue it should, that sovereignty carries responsibility to fulfill a social contract in which the legitimacy of rulers derives from their efforts to promote the welfare and dignity of all their citizens. Predatory or incompetent states that fail to discharge this duty must accept the right of other countries or international bodies to intervene to resolve conflicts and rescue victim populations from disaster. To help nudge international opinion closer to an acceptance of sovereignty as conditional, this study, drawing examples from Africa, lucidly sets out a framework of concepts and arguments to show how states can prevent, manage, and resolve conflicts that threaten their legitimacy, as well as how international and regional organizations can work to promote norms of responsibility within and among states.
Related
Some threats to international security are so potentially damaging that preventing them in advance is preferable to remedying their effects. In such cases, states should judge preventive actions by a standard of legitimacy, not strict legality.
The intervention in Somalia was not an abject failure; an estimated 100,000 lives were saved. But its mismanagement should be an object lesson for peacekeepers in Bosnia and on other such missions. No large intervention, military or humanitarian, can remain neutral or assuredly brief in a strife-torn failed state. Nation-building, the rebuilding of a state's basic civil institutions, is required in fashioning a self-sustaining body politic out of anarchy. In the future, the United States, the United Nations, and other intervenors should be able to declare a state "bankrupt" and go in to restore civic order and foster reconciliation.
When the founders forged the United Nations 50 years ago, they envisioned nothing less than a messianic transformation of politics and diplomacy. But they neglected to take human nature and history into account. The concept of collective security that they bet on to keep order was dead a few years later--though it has taken the humiliations of Bosnia to demonstrate this definitively. What's a world organization to do in the confused twilight of the nation-state? Traditional diplomats have proved they are better at settling conflicts, but the dream of global community is still alive in the human imagination.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.