Richard Caplan - A New Trusteeship?: The International Administration of War-Torn Territories

Richard Caplan

A New Trusteeship?

The International Administration of War-torn Territories

Adelphi paper 341

First published February 2002 by Oxford University Press

Published 2014 by Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge

711 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 10017, USA

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

February 2002 The International Institute for Strategic Studies

Director John Chipman

Editor Mats R. Berdal

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data

ISBN 13: 978-0-198-51565-4 (pbk)

Publishers Note

The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original may be apparent

Since the mid-1990s there has been a willingness to entrust the United Nations and other multilateral bodies with more and more authority for the administration of war-torn territories. In Bosnia, Eastern Slavonia, Kosovo and East Timor these international organisations have assumed responsibility for governance to a degree unprecedented in recent history. Similar arrangements have been proposed at various times for other zones of crisis or contention, including Somalia, Sierra Leone, Kashmir, the city of Jerusalem and, more recently, Afghanistan. An idea that once enjoyed limited academic currency at best international trusteeship for failed states and contested territories has become a reality in all but name.

With the end of the Cold War, the vast majority of major armed conflicts averaging 28 a year have been of an internal nature, giving rise to brutal atrocities and rendering some states incapable of performing even the most basic governmental functions.

In supporting the establishment of these transitional authorities, however, states have also been motivated by considerations of Realpolitik. Unable to insulate themselves from the effects of instability in the former Yugoslavia, the member states of the European Union have favoured a strong and extensive international presence in the region in the hope of establishing a lasting peace from which they, too, would benefit. Moreover, the EUs failure to offer an effective response to the crisis in the Balkans from its early days has led the Union to seek a leadership position in the post-war rule and reconstruction of these territories, partly to strengthen its own credibility in foreign policy-making. Similarly, Australia, concerned about instability and a possible refugee crisis originating off of its northern shore, was making preparations well before the outbreak of violence in East Timor to spearhead a military deployment there and has taken a strong interest in the administration of the territory subsequently. Whether the more parochial interests of these states, which have provided some of the necessary impetus for international action, are entirely compatible with the broader purposes for which these initiatives have been conceived is one of the many issues that hang over these operations.