State-Building, Nation-Building, and Constitutional Politics in Post-Conflict Situations: Conceptual Clarifications and an Appraisal of Different Approaches

Abstract

The difference between state building and nation building is not always appreciated. Simon Chesterman uses only the term state-building, because, he claims, nation-building is specific to post-colonial situations. James Dobbins and his co-authors at RAND solve the problem in an equally sweeping, but opposite fashion by declaring all US involvements in post-conflict reconstruction, from Germany to Iraq, to have been exercises in nationbuilding. Francis Fukuyama acknowledges that there is a distinction between state-building and nation-building but his usage of both terms would suggest that he regards nation-building as a term employed in the language of politics describing what he-in academic discourse-calls statebuilding. See J.

External Democratization after War: Success and Failure

“…The erosion of the nation's coherence can 536 DEMOCRATIZATION escalate into violent conflict and war. 40 Such nation failure is a typical source of intra-state wars and becomes a major obstacle for state reconstruction and democratization after war, as demonstrated in the Latin American countries, in the Balkans, and in the Middle East.…”

State-building and Development Challenges: The Case of Armenia

“…However, unlike nation-building, the concept of state-building in more recent literature makes reference to interventionist strategies for building the capacity of local institutions (Van de Walle & Zoe, 2011). Though, as articulated by Fukuyama (2006), nation-building also may involve both reconstruction and development actions, but the difference is that state-building deals more with increasing the capacity of government institutions, whereas nation-building places emphasis on creating a sense of belonging through the construction of a collective national identity that embraces shared values and goals (Alesina & Reich, 2012;Bogdandy et al, 2005;Fritz & Menocal, 2007).…”

“…To define the concept, some scholars tend to limit the boundaries of nation-building to the distinct territory of a particular state (Bogdandy et al, 2005;Van de Walle & Zoe, 2011). While this may be arguably true in the case of state-building where the main actors are public institutions within a state, restricting the process to a given territory may not reflect the real picture of nation-building particularly in the case of nations with active diasporic communities.…”

“…This view touches upon the notion of global governance and the mission of institutions and organizations to make transnational impact with the aim of regulating world order (Battacharya, 2001). However, scholars also propose that since the process of state-building takes place within the defined borders of a given territory, Weber's concept of legitimacy along with territorial authority can be viewed as essential variables to consider in studying state-building (Bogdandy et al, 2005;Brinkerhoff, 2006;Whaites, n.d.).…”

Building the nation's body: The contested role of abortion and family planning in post-war South Sudan

“…In this paper, we analyse public health policies and 35 interventions targeting unwanted pregnancy (family planning and abortion) in contemporary South 36 Sudan as part of wider 'nation-building' after war. We understand national-building as a process of 37 collective identity formation which projects a meaningful future by redefining existing institutions 38 and customs as national characteristics (von Bogdandy et al, 2005). 39…”