Both the Williams and the Abrahamsen and Williams articles this week emphasized the idea that where gaps exist in the capacity of states to exercise authority, other actors and mechanisms will fill them in.
How is an actor granted authority in the international realm? From what we’ve read this week, ideally it’s the states that would have to grant authority through formalized processes. In the case of industries like privatized security, this may not always be the case. While they have to work within the rules set forth by governments of the states they work in, they ultimately answer to corporate, private decision-makers. In the case of privatized security at the Koido Holdings diamond mine, for example, distrust of the public police force has driven increased reliance on private security companies and thus “PSCs have stepped into the breach created by the incapacity of the Sierra Leonian State” (Abrahamsen & Williams). The verdict is still out on whether these entities are any more trustworthy than state provided security forces but it seems the combination of the public and private security actors has allowed at least this diamond mine in Sierra Leone to inch closer to peace of mind.
In the above mentioned case, a private company has moved to fill the void left by state actors but as Williams’ article on transnational organized crime has pointed out, the actors that move to fill the void are not always legalized entities. If private companies can move to fill the void, what’s stopping criminal organizations from doing so? If distrust in the state legitimizes constituents’ reasoning for turning to other actors, they will ultimately turn to someone they trust more than the state. It would seem that the combination of public and private authorities holds more parties accountable. The danger is that this could develop to more accountability expected from one actor over the other. Could arrangements like these end up privatizing the legitimation of violence? If that is the case I would have to agrees with Abrahamsen and Williams that “the role of the state has shifted from rowing towards steering.”
Williams, Phil. "Transnational Organized Crime and the State," in The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance, ed. Tom Biersteker and Rodney Bruce Hall (Cambridge, 2002).
Rita Abrahamsen and Michael C. Williams, "Security beyond the State: Global Security Assemblages in International Politics," International Political Sociology 3:1 (2009)
You bring up good points about how non-legalized actors (private companies or criminal organizations) can fill a capacity gap for states in terms of exercising the use of violence. These types of actors have the potential to supplant the state in terms of law enforcement, however I don't believe they would be able to maintain their hold on authority indefinitely. Internally within the state, these actors would only be able to maintain authority by filling in these capacity gaps, and maintaining the mandate of the people (ultimately authority and the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence derives from this). If the civilian population is too negatively affected by criminal or business related activity, then they will no longer have the will of the people. The state may also find ways to fill in their capacity gaps and reclaim certain authority which they had previously lost. States may lose some authority over a certain territory or even a subject matter for a period of time, however given the appropriate tools to regain control over it, they will always have an opportunity for regaining that authority if it is within their own borders.
ReplyDelete