AFFAIRS
国際問題 INTERNATIONAL
No. 706, April 2022

Focus: Future of State-building（Summary）
Essay: State-building for Whom?
Toshiya Hoshino（Professor, Osaka School of International Public Policy, Osaka University）
The waves of state-building in a broad sense swept over the world due to the large-scale politicalchanges that took place after the end of the Cold War and the beginning of the 21st century. Statebuilding was pursued in some instances in the context of new states emerging from dissolution offederal states or secession, and in other cases associated with transitioning to democracies and market economies. However, chaos continues in Afghanistan and Iraq, where attempts were made toestablish new states after the overthrow of their governments in the post-9/11 War on Terror.
Russia’s latest maneuver to build new “states” in pro-Russia regions was a precursor to its aggression against Ukraine.Although state-building is a highly political process, it is the people’s will – aswell as their history, spirit and dreams – that tends to be drowned out first by the avarice of those inpower, the arbitrariness of outside actors, the infiltration of international terrorist organizations andother constant challenges. It is important to incorporate in the state-building strengthening of humanresource development so that people, as the sovereign, can exercise their abilities. State-building
support that emphasizes local ownership and human resource development is the area in which
Japan excels in particular, and it is hoped that people be given opportunities to participate in a meaningful manner. We must not forget the question of for whom the state is being built.

1 Challenges of Ownership for State-building andthe Stagnation of International Constitutionalism
Hideaki Shinoda（Professor, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies）
State-building in the 21st century is tied to the narrative of the “triumph of liberal democracy” after
the end of the Cold War, and is recognized as the endeavor to form a state that establishes constitutional institutions. International military and aid activities based on liberal democracy have been carried out in the 21st century to promote state-building through the war on terrorism, international
peace operations, and development assistance. Major Western countries, which had implemented
modern state-building through conversion into liberal democracies, have also tended to provide
international support by referencing their own history of constitutionalism. However, state-building
activities that follow the prevalent trend in the international community have the limitation that it isdifficult to develop a sense of “ownership” among members of the local community. It can be said
that the success or failure of state-building activities depends on the extent to which ownership canbe established in the development of value norms and military capabilities.

2 UN Assistance for Post-Conflict State-building:
The Past, Present, and Future of UN Peacekeeping Operations
Yuji Uesugi（Professor, Faculty of International Research and Education, Waseda University）
This article provides an overview of the past, present, and future of post-conflict state-building assistance provided by the United Nations (UN), focusing on UN peacekeeping operations (PKO). It
reviews “successes” in Sierra Leone and Timor-Leste and “failures” in Cambodia and Rwanda as
examples of post-Cold War peace efforts. It examines the impact of UN PKO involvement on post国際問題 No. 706（2022 年 4 月）● 57

Summaryconflict state-building from the perspective of liberal peace and derives the importance of intra-statestability as a prerequisite for state-building. Then, current UN peacekeeping operations in Mali,South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Central African Republic are examined, making it clear that the inability to stabilize a country makes the protection of civilians (PoC)
the main mandate of UN PKOs and closes the door to state-building support. Dealing with Islamic
extremists tied to international terrorist organizations is a key for envisioning the future prospect ofstate-building assistance by the UN. As long as eliminating Islamic extremists remains a prerequisite
for ending a civil war and bringing stability to the country, there is no place for UN PKOs in assisting liberal state-building.

3 US Military Intervention and Failure of State-building in Iraq
Dai Yamao（Associate Professor, Graduate School of Social and Cultural Studies, Kyushu
University）
This paper focuses on Iraqi state-building after the regime change prompted by the US invasion ofIraq in 2003. It also aims to analyze the problems faced therein.
In the initial stage of the state-building process that began under military occupation, senior members of the former Ba’athist regime were removed, military and security institutions were dismantled
and a decentralized democracy was established, all at the same time. Since democratization proceeded without concurrent progress in rebuilding state institutions, political confrontation intensified
and the democratic system itself became dysfunctional by morphing into something else. As a result,distrust in politics spread, causing voters to give up on political participation and instead take to thestreets. State-building as envisioned by the United States thus ran aground.
The key lesson from the case of Iraq is that it is very difficult to rebuild a stable state by promoting democratization, which disperses power, while dismantling state institutions.

4 Why America Failed: Lessons from the Case of Afghanistan
Daisaku Higashi（Professor, Center for Global Education, Sophia University）
In the wake of the 9-11 attacks in 2001, the United States concluded that al-Qaeda, an international
terrorist organization which had a base in Afghanistan, was responsible. The US then demanded that
the Taliban government hand over the head of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and all of its members tothe US. When the Taliban refused to do so, the US overthrew the Taliban government with a military offensive and started state-building activities in Afghanistan. Twenty years have passed sincethen. The Taliban revived and regained control of Afghanistan in August 2021 as US troops withdrew. The US stationed over 100,000 troops there in its peak and spent as much as 2 trillion dollars
over the past two decades. What are the causes of this failure? This article discusses the following
topics:（1）the debate over the role of the United Nations in post-conflict peace-building activities
and inclusivity, and how state-building of Afghanistan was positioned;（2）the lack of inclusivity（political exclusion）in Afghan state-building and the reorganization of the Taliban;（3）theattempts at peace negotiations that began after 2010 and their challenges and（4）lessons from thecollapse and failure of the Afghan government, and the roles of Japan in supporting self-reliance andstability in Afghanistan from now.

国際問題 No. 706（2022 年 4 月）● 58

Summary

5 The Future of State-building and the Responsibility to Protect:
Sovereignty-building as a Way Forward?
Hiroshi Nishikai（Associate Professor, Faculty of Political Science and Economics, Seigakuin
University）
There has been widespread skepticism and dismay in recent years about the responsibility to protect（R2P）stemming from the failure of the international community to address major humanitariancrises. However, the principle of R2P itself is internationally recognized, and the issue now is not
scrapping R2P but rather finding a way to realize the principle. To this end, it is necessary to first
reaffirm the complicated relationship between R2P and state-building / peace-building as well as theoriginal meaning of R2P. By reconsidering the relationship between R2P and state-building / peacebuilding, building “responsible sovereignty”, i.e., “sovereignty-building” emerges as a way for thefuture. Furthermore, building “responsible sovereignty” based on R2P has its own significance forpeace-building or peace formation, this being that it can compensate for the lack of “legitimacy” inpeace-building and provide a common goal or guideline for peace-building. If we rethink R2P asdescribed above, it becomes clear that Japan could have a significant role to play.

国際問題 第 706 号

2022 年 4 月号

編集人 『国際問題』編集委員会
発行人
発行所

佐々江 賢一郎
公益財団法人日本国際問題研究所（https://www.jiia.or.jp/）〒 100−0013 東京都千代田区霞が関 3−8−1 虎の門三井ビルディング 3 階
電話 03−3503−7262（出版･業務担当）＊本誌掲載の各論文は執筆者個人の見解であり、執筆者の所属する機関、また当研究所の意向を代表するものではありません。
＊論文・記事の一部分を引用する場合には必ず出所を明記してください。また長文にわたる場合は事前に当研究所へご連絡ください。
＊最近号
20 年 10 月号
20 年 11 月号
20 年 12 月号
21 年 1 ・ 2 月号
21 年 3 月号
21 年 4 月号
21 年 6 月号
21 年 8 月号
21 年 10 月号
21 年 12 月号
22 年 2 月号

焦点：感染症と国際社会
焦点：ポストコロナの世界経済
焦点：新型コロナウイルスに揺れる新興経済国
焦点：パンデミック後を見据える世界と日本
焦点：パンデミックの国際法問題
創刊 700 号記念特集：国際社会の変容と日本外交の展望― 2030 年に向けて
焦点：バイデン政権の課題
焦点：アメリカの政権移行と中東国際関係
焦点：経済格差に揺さぶられる世界
焦点：今日の外交と人権
焦点：習近平体制の現状と課題＊＊＊■『国際問題』配本サービス（実費・完全予約制：年 6 回／ 3300 円、JIIA 会員割引有）配本サービスおよびバックナンバーの購入をご希望の方は、JIIA ウェブサイトもしくは上記電話番号にお申し込みください。
■ JIIA ホームページ『国際問題』読者アンケート（URL http://www2.jiia.or.jp/ENQ/）
特集・論文に関するご意見・ご感想や、今後の『国際問題』についてのご要望等をご自由にお寄せください。

国際問題 No. 706（2022 年 4 月）● 59