2.2.1 The purpose of international administrations
The overview above has shown that international administrations and analogous institutions share a common characteristic in that they both involve territorial administration by a foreign actor. In this way, Wilde refers to both categories collectively as ‘foreign territorial administration.’ However, as pointed out above, the difference between international administration and the other foreign administrations is that the latter are state-conducted institutions rather than institutions conducted by international actors (international organizations and
international appointees).102 For this reason, Wilde views international
administration as a distinct activity from analogous institutions.
Wilde also distinguishes international administration from state-building and peace operations (like peacekeeping or peacebuilding), because these labels risk ‘ignoring the complex nature of the projects under consideration and failing to appreciate the full potential of ITA [International Territorial Administration, NvW] based on recent and previous uses of the institution.’103 According to Wilde the range of tasks international administration can be used for is much broader than the terms state-building and peace operations suggest. Wilde categorizes the many tasks that international administration can carry out according to two broadly defined purposes.104 The first purpose of an international administration is to respond to a sovereignty problem. In that case the status of the territory in question is contested and an international administration is established in order to facilitate a solution to the problem. The case of Kosovo is mentioned as an example, because of its disputed political status. The second purpose for which international administration can be used is to respond to a governance problem. In that case the problem is not about who governs the territory, but about the quality of governance. The government is either incapable or unwilling to govern the territory well in the eyes of the international community. Bosnia with its legacy of ethnic nationalist politics (bad governance in the eyes of the international community) is mentioned as an example of international administration as a reaction to a governance problem; the international administration attempts to establish good governance by promoting ‘a multi-ethnic social and political culture.’105
As a distinct activity, international administration is not synonymous with state-building, but even Wilde admits that – at least when addressing a governance problem – international administrations ‘perform what is usually called a “state-
102
Wilde, International Territorial Administration, 312.
103 Ibid., 286. 104 Ibid., 191-235. 105 Ibid., 219.
building” role.’106 State-building is an important purpose of international administration. That is not only illustrated by the actual cases of Bosnia and Kosovo, but also with the academic definitions and theoretical understandings of international administration. First, Richard Caplan regards international administration to be a peace-operation which is more comprehensive in scope and more political in character than other peace operations. Like Wilde he also distinguishes international administration from military occupation and state-
building.107 At the same time, Caplan acknowledges that international
administration has much in common with complex peacekeeping, peacebuilding and state-building and that ‘one must not be pedantic or dogmatic in drawing too sharp a distinction.’108 According to Caplan, the chief functions or purposes of an international administration can be divided in five categories: (1) establishment and maintenance of public order and internal security; (2) repatriation and reintegration of refugees and internally displaced persons; (3) performance of basic civil administrative functions; (4) development of local political institutions, including the holding of elections to these institutions, and the building of civil society; and (5) economic reconstruction and development.109 Especially the fourth category can be considered among state-building activities.
Second, Simon Chesterman conceptualizes international administration (which he calls transitional administration) as a special form of state-building. He defines state-building as: ‘extended international involvement (primarily, though not exclusively, through the United Nations) that goes beyond traditional peacekeeping and peacebuilding mandates, and is directed at constructing or reconstructing institutions of governance capable of providing citizens with physical and economic security.’110 International administration, then, is a special type of state-building which is carried out by assuming ‘some or all of the powers of the state on a temporary basis.’111 Chesterman identifies five different types of international administration based on their purpose and trajectory.112 In some way or another, all five types are related to state-building, which makes Chesterman’s classification consistent with his definition of international administration as a special type of state-building. The first type of international administration is the one which is established in the context of a process of decolonization (UNTAG and UNTAET for example). The second type is international administration established with the purpose to facilitate the transfer of territory (UNTEA, MINURSO and
106
Ralph Wilde, ‘Representing International Territorial Administration. A Critique of Some
Approaches’, European Journal of International Law 15:1 (2004) 71-96, 71-96 and 601.
107
Caplan, International Governance, 4-5.
108
Ibid., 12.
109
Ibid., 44.
110
Chesterman, The United Nations, Transitional Administration and State-Building, 5.
111
Ibid.
112
UNTAES). Thirdly, international administrations have been established in order to organize elections (UNTAC). Fourthly, international administrations can be established in order to implement a peace process (the OHR and UNMIK). The fifth and last type of international administration mentioned by Chesterman is the one established in the context of state failure (ONUC, UNOSOM II).
Third and finally, Dominik Zaum defines international administration as: ‘(…) international bodies exercising governmental functions over a territory, which are locally based, and most recent of which have been engaged in the establishment or reform of that territory’s political and social institutions.’113 Zaum considers international administration also to be a form of state-building. This is not only evidenced by his definition, but also by his description of the key objective of international administration as: ‘(…) the establishment of effective and legitimate control of the national political institutions, based on a specific model of organizing domestic society.’114
Making a clear distinction between international administration on the one hand, and state-building or peace operations on the other hand, is necessary in order to avoid making the concept ‘empty.’115 In that respect, Wilde’s argument that international administration should be considered as a specific institution in international politics is compelling. For this study, international administration is considered a distinct activity in which an international authority (rather than a foreign authority) aims to solve sovereignty and/or governance problems through state-building. State-building is broadly defined as the construction or reconstruction of political, social and economic institutions.116
2.2.2 The authority of international administrations
Section 2.2.1 briefly mentions that international actors are responsible for conducting international administrations. These international actors have extensive powers at their disposal. Therefore, next to the purpose of international administration, the authority of these actors is also a defining characteristic of international administrations. Caplan points out that by administrating Eastern Slavonia, Bosnia, Kosovo and East Timor, the international authority in question has assumed ‘responsibility to a degree unprecedented in recent history.’117 Caplan has made a distinction between a rather limited scope of international authority and a more substantial scope of authority. He positions international administration on
113
Zaum, Sovereignty Paradox, 51.
114
Ibid., 5.
115
William Bain, Between Anarchy and Society: Trusteeship and the Obligations of Power (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2003), 146.
116
Based on: Chesterman, The United Nations, Transitional Administration and State-Building;
Wilde, ‘Representing International Territorial Administration. A Critique of Some Approaches’, 601.
117
a continuum with two extremes. One extreme is international administration with relatively little authority in the form of international supervision, while the other is a type of administration in which the international authority is extensive and engages in direct governance of the territory.118 A more detailed continuum has been presented by Jarat Chopra and Michael Doyle. Chopra distinguishes four types of international administration, ranging from little authority to more political authority. The first type is assistance, where the international authority acts as an independent advisor. The second type, partnership, refers to a situation in which the international authority serves as a partner of the domestic authority. The third type is control; a situation in which the international authority acts throughout the domestic authority structures. The last type is governorship, in which the international authority takes full responsibility for the functioning of the territory.119 Michael Doyle also distinguishes four types of international administration (which he calls ‘ad hoc semi sovereign mechanisms’). His scale of international transitional political authority ranges from monitoring, administrative authority and executive authority to full sovereign rule (or ‘supervisory authority’ as he calls it).120 Arguably, the three classifications are more or less overlapping as is shown in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: A classification of international administration based on the level of authority
Richard Caplan Jarat Chopra Michael Doyle
Supervision Assistance Monitoring
- Partnership Administrative Authority - Control Executive Authority Direct Governance Governorship Sovereign Rule
On one side of the spectrum, the supervision of Caplan could be regarded to be the same as the assistance of Chopra and the monitoring of Doyle. An example of an international administration of the supervision, assistance, or monitoring type is UNTAC. On the other side of the spectrum, Caplan’s direct governance is similar to Chopra’s governorship and Doyle’s sovereign rule. All three are based on the notion of total international political authority over the administered territory. Examples of the direct governance, governorship, or sovereign rule type of
118
Richard Caplan, ‘A New Trusteeship? The Administration of War-torn Territories’, International
Institute of Strategic Studies Adelphi Paper 341 (2002), 13-16. Caplan, International Governance, 17- 18.
119
This classification is not based on empirical research, but is a deductive classification of political
authority. Chopra, Peace-Maintenance, 16.
120
Michael W. Doyle, ‘Strategy and Transitional Authority’, Ending Civil Wars. The Implementation
of Peace Agreements, Stephen John Stedman, Donald Rothchild, and Elizabeth M. Cousens, eds. (Boulder/London: Lynne Rienner, 2002) 71-88, 83-86.
international administrations are UNTAES, UNMIK and UNTAET. In all three cases the international administration functioned as the sovereign power. The international administration of Bosnia should be considered as a control (Chopra) or executive authority (Doyle) type of international administration. The difference between governorship and control is that in the former case the external state sovereignty is exercised by the international administration, while in the latter case the external state sovereignty lies with the domestic authorities.
The question is whether the categories of supervision, assistance,
monitoring, partnership and administrative authority do enough justice to international administration as a specific institution. According to Zaum, international administrations have in comparison to other instances of institution- building ‘the most comprehensive mandates and the most comprehensive authority over local institutions at their disposal.’121 Zaum argues that ‘international administrations are involved in governance, rather than monitoring and assistance, distinguishing them from less intrusive incidents of international involvement such as election monitoring or development work.’122 Similarly, Wilde argues that ‘the difference between supervision/control/conduct, on the one hand, and mere assistance/advice, on the other, is (…) a key component in defining the nature of the involvement in territorial administration by international actors.’123 Given the specificity of international administration as an institution in international politics, the term international administration can better be reserved for those operations in which the level of authority is of the governorship type (Kosovo) or the control type (Bosnia). Thus, international administrations which involve ‘soft’ mandates with little authority (the first two types in Table 2.1) and no governance functions are not regarded as international administrations for this study.
2.2.3 Defining international administration
In the two sections above it was pointed out that international administrations are conducted by international actors that have extensive powers at their disposal. International administrations also develop in response to sovereignty or governance problems and most often involve state-building activities. Taking these elements into account, international administration is defined as: a political authority which is established by an international organization and which aims to develop political, social and economic institutions in a specific territory by assuming some or all sovereign powers of the state on a temporary basis. This definition includes an empirical as well as a normative aspect of international administration. First, the empirical aspect involves the extensive political power that is executed by an
121
Zaum, Sovereignty Paradox, 3.
122
Ibid., 52.
123
international administration. The definition allows for a distinction in the level of authority. In the case of Bosnia, the OHR has assumed ‘some sovereign powers’ whereas in the case of Kosovo UNMIK has assumed ‘all sovereign powers’ of the state. This variation is important, because it is argued that the difference in authority might explain the different trajectories of both international administrations when it comes to institutionalization.
The normative aspect of the definition is that international administrations aim to develop political, social and economic institutions; i.e. that they are involved in institution-building or state-building. Institution-building is an important task of international administrations as all authors mentioned above recognize.124 In this study it is regarded as the core activity of international administration. As has been explained in the introduction, this study attempts to assess the institution-building process in Bosnia and Kosovo. The focus is on political institutions without denying the importance of other institutions.
2.3 Conflict management
A basic argument of this study is that the development of Bosnia’s and Kosovo’s political institutions into domestically embedded institutions has been impeded by the absence of conflict resolution.125 The international administration in Bosnia was established after the Dayton Peace Agreement was signed between the conflicting parties. As mentioned in the introduction, the Agreement was imposed by the Contact Group, which shows there was little commitment to conflict resolution. In the case of Kosovo the absence of conflict resolution was even more evident. UNMIK was established while the conflict, the political status of the territory, had not been addressed at all. Instead of being resolved, the conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo were being managed. In order to understand the concepts of conflict management and conflict resolution, it is necessary to first take a closer look at the concept of conflict.
124
Even Wilde argues that international administrations ‘perform what is usually called a “state- building” role.’ Wilde, ‘Role of International Administration’, 601.
125
An alternative term for ‘conflict resolution’ is ‘conflict transformation.’ In Galtung’s work both terms are defined as an effort to solve the incompatibility. See Johan Galtung, ‘Conflict as a Way of
Life’, Progress in Mental Health, Hugh Freeman, ed. (London: J&A Churchill LTD, 1969) 11-33, 15.
Galtung and several other conflict analysts prefer the term ‘transformation’, because ‘resolution’ has a too definitive connotation to it. According to Galtung, no resolution can be forever. Johan Galtung,
Peace by Peaceful Means (London: Sage Publications, 1996), 96. Alan Tidwell even speaks of a ‘school’ of theorists who reject the notion of resolution and write about transformation instead. Alan
C. Tidwell, Conflict Resolved? A Critical Assessment of Conflict Resolution (London/New York:
Continuum, 1998), 72. Nonetheless, recognizing that it does not entail a definitive solution, the term conflict resolution is used in this study, because it is the most common term applied in the literature.
In everyday language, conflict has a negative connotation. However, many conflict researchers stress the positive sides of conflict. In his classic article
Conflict as a Way of Life, Johan Galtung concluded that: ‘conflict can be basically seen as one of the major motivating forces in our existence, as both a cause, a concomitant and a consequence of change, as an element as necessary to social life as air to human life.’126 According to Luc Reychler, conflict has value, utility and even healing power.127 Finally, Lewis Coser states that conflict can contribute to society in a positive way.128 All three authors recognize the functional element of conflict, without denying its potential of destruction; next to a functional, constructive manifestation, conflict can, and often does, manifest itself in a dysfunctional or destructive form.
Most definitions of conflict include the notion of ‘incompatibility.’129 Oliver Ramsbotham, Tom Woodhouse and Hugh Miall define conflict as: ‘the pursuit of incompatible goals by different groups.’130 Galtung defines conflict as an ‘incompatibility between goal-states, or values held by actors in a social system.’131 Adam Curle writes: ‘By conflict I mean, essentially, incompatibility.’132 Based on these definitions one can safely conclude that ‘incompatibility’ lies at the heart of a conflict. However, Galtung pointed to the equal importance of attitudes and behavior when analyzing conflict. He developed a model, the conflict triangle, in which he described the dynamics between the incompatibility of a conflict and the attitudes and behavior supporting it (see Figure 2.1). The conflict triangle shows three elements of conflict which continuously influence each other. The first element is the incompatibility (also called ‘contradiction’ by Galtung), the second element is the hostile attitudes and the third element is the hostile behavior of conflicting parties.133 One can speak of a fully articulated conflict when all elements exist.134
Incompatibility should essentially be understood as the content of the conflict, i.e. what the conflict is actually about. The Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) defines incompatibility as ‘generally incompatible positions of the parties to the conflict.’ Although it is often not possible to identify one single cause of a
126
Galtung, ‘Way of Life’, 16.
127
Luc Reychler, Democratic Peace Building and Conflict Prevention. The devil is in the transition
(Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999), 141.
128
Lewis Coser, The Functions of Social Conflict (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1956).
129
In the academic literature incompatibility is also referred to as the ‘structure of the conflict.’ See:
Chester A. Crocker, Fen Osler Hampson, Pamela Aall, Taming Intractable Conflicts. Mediation in the
Hardest Cases (Washington D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2004), 99.
130
Oliver Ramsbotham, Tom Woodhouse, and Hugh Miall, Contemporary Conflict Resolution
(Cambridge: Polity Press, 2005), 27.
131
Galtung, ‘Way of Life’, 13.
132
Adam Curle, Making Peace (London: Tavistock Publications, 1971), 3.
133
In this text the term incompatibility is used instead of contradiction. Galtung, Peace, 71.
134
particular conflict, in most cases a primary reason for the incompatibility of the conflicting sides can be identified. The UCDP, for example, makes a distinction between two broadly defined incompatibilities: one concerning governmental power (a conflict about the political system or the composition of government) and one concerning territory (a conflict about the status of a territory).135
As will be argued in Chapter three, in Kosovo the incompatibility of the conflict was the political status of the territory. The conflict in Kosovo has been described as: ‘an ethnic conflict with strong territorial and cross- border/international dimensions.’136 In Bosnia, the incompatibility was also about the political status of the territory. The main issue was concerning the question whether the country should be one (federal) state or split into separate political entities, as will be elaborated upon in Chapter three. Steven Burg and Paul Shoup describe the content of the conflict in Bosnia as follows: ‘The war in Bosnia- Herzegovina involved an internal struggle among ethnic nationalists over the definition and control, indeed the very existence of the state, as well as an