Failed states and the effects of instability

The demands of statehood, “ensuring peace and stability, the rule of law”, and “good governance” can be difficult to achieve (Hashi, 2015). It is not uncommon for some polities to fail outright. When a state lacks the capacity to enforce binding laws, monopolize force, and collect tax, for an extended period of time, it has failed (Lambach, Johais, & Beyer, 2015). The consequences of failure are rarely isolated. The instability associated with fragile and failed states causes disruptions for the international community. Responding to disruptions, outside actors may attempt to preserve authoritarian regimes in order to maintain or reestablish stability. The intent of this paper is to (1) review the definitions of states and failed states, (2) examine the internal and external effects of failed states, (3) review disruptive externalities caused by failure in the Middle East and North Africa and to (4) consider the effects of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is more likely to disrupt its own citizens, rather than the international community. This by no means is an endorsement of oppression in the name of international stability. In the absence of stability some may reminisce about the old regime, but regression may only delay an inevitable collapse. In fact, predatory authoritarian behavior may lead to civil uprisings. Which in turn facilitate state failure and subsequent regional destabilization. The international community must work through the challenges of state failure by offering appropriate assistance. A failed state is more disruptive to the international community only in regards to spillover (externalities) than authoritarianism.M.A.L.S.Includes bibliographical referencesby Matthew Lisne