Extending State Authority and Legitimacy in Post-Conflict Countries
Semester
Final Report
This Capstone workshop explored two questions: what constitutes legitimate state authority, and how is it extended in post-conflict countries?
Language pertaining to extending state authority has become more prevalent in United Nations documents in the past decade, particularly Security Council mandates. These, however, do not develop a common definition of state authority and remain vague on how to extend it in post-conflict states.
This report developed a working definition of state authority with a focus on effective and legitimate state activity. States derive authority from two factors: their ability to perform functions effectively and their ability to perform functions legitimately. As a state attempts to extend its authority across its territory, these two attributes (effectiveness and legitimacy) engage with each other in a mutually-reinforcing manner. The more effectively the state delivers security, justice and services to its constituents, the more legitimacy it earns. Similarly, perceived state legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens enhances a state’s ability to perform these functions more effectively.
Analyzing efforts to extend state authority in Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Mali and South Sudan, the report presented two pervasive themes across these examples. First, the analysis highlighted certain inherent and often contradictory dilemmas that challenged attempts to extend state authority in post-conflict countries, which must be at least acknowledged if not mitigated. Secondly, this analysis made several recommendations regarding programmatic design, specifically program sequence, scope and financing.