What does the nature of statebuilding in Bosnia tell about sovereignty Essay

What does the nature of statebuilding in Bosnia tell about sovereignty during its post war reconstruction - Essay Example Earlier in the process of state building, there was an understanding that non-western states were autonomous and independent entities, and did not require western interference. However, in the post-Cold war era, in cases of domestic conflict, the issues of development and security have broadened to such an extent that non-western states cannot prevent the interference of foreign bodies in their domestic processes (Chandler, 2006). Bosnia, after the end of the civil war, was a transition state, and hence fragile in nature. In such cases, while helping to rebuild a fragile nation, the response from the international communities is often based on the establishment of new political orders and a new constitutional mechanism. Not promoting notions of state fragmentation through secession, the global community looks to pacify all parties that were at strife during the civil war by advocating agreements that make sovereignty a shared right amongst the existing warring factions within the sta te. Those in the arena of international relations often term this form of state sovereignty as internal self-determination (Cassese, 1995). This comprises the rights of different nationalistic groups within the realms of a multi-ethnic state that aims at preserving all the existent socio-cultural, language and religious identities, equal participation of these groups in state politics, with even a certain extent of regional autonomy (Hannum, 1990). Thus, to bring in peace initiatives for helping states in transition, experts in the line of international relations bring forth the notions of ‘consociational democracy’ that advocate a moderate form of political attitude (Lijphardt, 1969, 207). In real practice, various instances have shown that post-conflict reconstruction cannot be based only on establishing a new constitutional mechanism. In a fragile state, when a new constitutional mechanism is place, there are chances that the newly formed social and cultural institut ions and political framework may fail to form a sustaining framework. According to a report by the World Bank, chances of a conflict breaking out again after the close of a civil war, in a fragile state, is nearly 40 % (Collier, 2000, 6). Even with extensive negotiations with various concerned parties, undertaken by any international peace mission to prevent a fragile state from regressing back into armed conflict, there are substantial barriers in establishing an effective sovereign state. In case of Bosnia, we find that even after 16 years of large-scale efforts from the global community to reconstruct Bosnia and bring in socio-political stability in the country, the state is yet to achieve an established form. In 2009, after 14 years since the Dayton treaty (1995) heralded the end of a near four yearlong violent ethnic civil war, Bosnians again faced a serious threat of another civil war (McMahon and Western, 2009). In this context, keeping Bosnia as a frame of reference, this pa per will explore concepts associated with modern notions of state building, whether international form of state building is actually a way of assuming control over state functioning, the differences between peace building and state building, and viable alternatives to the current form of international state building. Discussion Viewing state building as regards its effectiveness in case of post-war Bosnia The Dayton peace agreement signed in 1995 is often viewed as a treaty, which was â€Å"designed to end a war, not build a state† (Ashdown, 2004, 15). Various scholars contend that leaders of ethnic