![Sample our Global Development journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5929/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Global-Development.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper uses the concept of ‘organised hypocrisy’ as a means of making sense of the inconsistencies and contradictions in contemporary theory and practice of international state-building. While organised hypocrisy in international politics allows states and organisations to maintain systemic stability and legitimacy by managing irreconcilable pressures that might otherwise render them unable to operate effectively, this paper argues that organised hypocrisy also has negative impacts on the operational effectiveness of state-building. It allows organisations to engage in operations without sufficient resources, thereby seriously undermining operational effectiveness and the credibility of international state-building as a legitimate political tool. Organised hypocrisy also creates false expectations among the local and global populations and thereby decreases the credibility of the strategic narrative that is supposed to explain and make sense of the transformation processes to the general public. The paper also explores a number of options for dealing with organised hypocrisy in a way that could improve the effectiveness of international state-building.
Notes
Robert Egnell is a lecturer in War Studies at the Swedish National Defence College. He received his doctorate from the Department of War Studies, King's College London and won the 2008 APSA Kenneth N. Waltz Dissertation Prize. He is the author of Complex Peace Operations and Civil-military Relations: Winning the Peace (Routledge, 2009).
1. CitationFukuyama, State-building, ix.
2. Brunsson, Organization of Hypocrisy.
3. Finnemore, ‘Paradoxes in Humanitarian Intervention’, 9.
4. Brunsson, Organization of Hypocrisy, xii.
5. CitationParis, At War's End, ix.
6. Brunsson, Organization of Hypocrisy, xiv.
7. Brunsson, Organization of Hypocrisy
8. CitationKrasner, Sovereignty, 66.
9. CitationAcemoglu, Robinson and Verdier, ‘Kleptocracy and Divide-and-Rule’, 162; CitationJackson and Rosberg, Personal Rule in Black Africa.
10. Krasner, Sovereignty.
11. Lipson, ‘Peacekeeping’, 8.
12. Krasner, Sovereignty, 6.
13. Krasner, Sovereignty, 6–7.
14. Lipson, ‘Peacekeeping’.
15. Brunsson, Organization of Hypocrisy, xv.
16. Brunsson, Organization of Hypocrisy
17. Lipson, ‘Peacekeeping’, 13–14.
18. CitationEtzioni, Security First, 3.
19. Chandler, Empire in Denial, 6; CitationBall and Hendrickson, ‘Trends in Security Sector Reform’, 25.
20. Egnell and Haldén, ‘Laudable, Ahistorical and Overambitious’, 36.
21. CitationFinnemore, ‘Paradoxes in Humanitarian Intervention’, 11; Krasner, Sovereignty.
22. Chandler, Empire in Denial, 8–10.
23. Newman et al., ‘Introduction’, 5, 10–11.
24. CitationDobbins et al., America's Role in Nation-Building, xix.
25. Egnell and Haldén, ‘Laudable, Ahistorical and Overambitious’.
26. CitationDobbins, et al., Beginners Guide, vii.
27. Dobbins, et al., America's Role in Nation-Building, xix.
28. Dobbins, et al., Beginners Guide, 258.
29. Egnell and Haldén, ‘Laudable, Ahistorical and Overambitious’, 32.
30. CitationHutchful and Fayemi, ‘Security System Reform in Africa’, 87.
31. CitationRichmond, ‘Emancipatory Forms’, 462.
32. CitationDonais and Baribeau, ‘Local Ownership’, 3.
33. CitationChesterman,‘Ownership in Theory and in Practice’, 20.
34. CitationChesterman,‘Ownership in Theory and in Practice’
35. CitationNathan, Local Ownership of Security Sector Reform.
36. CitationNathan, Local Ownership of Security Sector Reform
37. CitationOECD/DAC, Security System Reform and Governance, 11–14.
38. CitationScheye and Peake, ‘Unknotting Local Ownership’, 236.
39. Finnemore ‘Paradoxes in Humanitarian Intervention’, 14.
40. Donais and Baribeau, ‘Local Ownership’, 3.
41. Chesterman, ‘Ownership in Theory and in Practice’, 7.
42. Scheye and Peake, ‘Unknotting Local Ownership’, 236.
43. Scheye and Peake, ‘Unknotting Local Ownership’
44. Donais and Baribeau, ‘Local Ownership’, 4.
45. CitationOECD DAC, Handbook on Security System Reform, 21.
46. Donais and Baribeau, ‘Local Ownership’, 4.
47. Donais and Baribeau, ‘Local Ownership’
48. CitationBiddle, ‘Stabilizing Iraq from the Bottom Up’.
49. CitationMac Ginty, ‘Liberal Peace meets Warlordism’.
50. ICG, Iraq after the Surge II.
51. CitationHanna, ‘Still No Clear Path’; ICG, Iraq after the Surge II.
52. CitationBrunsson, Organization of Hypocrisy, xv.
53. Lipson, ‘Peacekeeping’.
54. CitationChandler, Empire in Denial, 10; CitationNewman et al., ‘Introduction’, 12.
55. CitationThompson, Defeating Communist Insurgency, 52, 55; Stubbs, Hearts and Minds in Guerrilla Warfare, 1–2.
56. CitationGarfield, Succeeding in Phase IV, 16.
57. CitationKalyvas, Logic of Violence in Civil War, 218.
58. CitationHeywood, Political Theory, 142.
59. CitationFreedman, Transformation of Strategic Affairs, 22.
60. CitationSmith, Utility of Force, 391.
61. CitationLipset, Political Man, 78.
62. CitationTocqueville, Democracy in America.
63. CitationKilcullen, ‘Counter-Insurgency Redux’, 3.
64. CitationLast, ‘Transformation or Back to Basics?’, 106–107.
65. Freedman, Transformation of Strategic Affairs, 8.
66. CitationLipson, ‘Peacekeeping’, 15–16.
67. CitationEgnell and Haldén, ‘Laudable, Ahistorical and Overambitious’.
68. Dobbins et al., America's Role in Nation-Building, xix.
69. Smith, Utility of Force.
70. CitationNewman, ‘“Liberal” Peacebuilding Debates’, 42.
71. Donais and Baribeau, ‘Local Ownership’, 5.
72. Donais and Baribeau, ‘Local Ownership’