International Authority and State Building: The Case of Bosnia and Herzegovina‪.‬

State building refers to efforts to reconstruct, or in some cases to establish for the first time, an effective indigenous government in a state or territory where no such capacity exists or where the capacity has been seriously eroded. How effective the government needs to be for this purpose is a matter of some debate. In practical, if not tautological terms, it depends on the criteria that are employed to measure effectiveness, and analysts will differ as to the precise requirements. (1) There may be other objectives associated with state building distinct from effectiveness, and often today this is the case. Among these further aims are, notably, the establishment of the rule of law, democratic norms and institutions, and a free-market economy. Third-party state building, as opposed to indigenous state building, is a relatively recent practice in international relations. It has its earliest contemporary expression in efforts by colonial powers to strengthen the capacity of territories under their jurisdiction in anticipation of the eventual transfer of sovereignty to local authorities. (2) It also has parallels in the U.S.-led Allied occupation and reconstruction of postwar Germany and Japan. (3) Today third-party state building is undertaken as well in response to weak or so-called failed states and, more recently, as part of the international administration of war-torn or strife-ridden territories. Since 1995, there have been four such administrations: the United Nations' interim administrations of Eastern Slavonia (UNTAES), Kosovo (UNMIK), and East Timor (UNTAET), and the ad hoc Peace Implementation Council's administration of Bosnia and Herzegovina. (By contrast, the current UN operation in Afghanistan [UNAMA] is an assistance mission, although state building is a significant aspect of that mission.)