Search

STATEBUILDING IS WIDELY RECOGNIZED AS A CENTRAL CHALLENGE FOR THE international order today and the main response to a range of global problems from poverty to terrorism and international crime. However, there is no agreement about why and how international actors should engage in statebuilding processes. Donor governments and international agencies often justify and legitimize their statebuilding support by referring to international norms, such as human rights. Others, especially in the academic community but also some development professionals, question the relevance of these norms, in particular, in fragile states that are unable or unwilling to live up to them and have only limited means of exercising their sovereignty. They argue that statebuilding is essentially a local process that only works if it is based on local norms and values and led by national actors. For instance, an aid worker said in an interview on Deutsche Welle recently about the situation in Darfur: "We should listen to the local actors more. They know much better how to solve their own conflicts than anyone else. We must also accept the fact that we deal with very different societies who don't always want to develop in the direction we want them to or think they should." (1) By looking at this problem from a pragmatic perspective that emphasizes progress through practical engagement, it becomes clear that the two positions are not as different and irreconcilable as they first appear. On one hand, there is a growing body of evidence of the possible harm that excessive or untimely insistence on international norms may cause. This evidence demands a stronger realism and a clearer balance between the respect for international norms and an understanding and appreciation of the national context. However, the evidence does not contradict the fundamental relevance and importance of international norms. On the contrary, it shows how international actors can strengthen progress toward international norms on a pragmatic basis by being less principled and rigid. On the other hand, a pragmatic approach also makes it clear that international norms are already known and accepted by many national statebuilding actors and people in fragile situations. They are increasingly included as the basis for peace agreements and represent hope and opportunities. International interventions in fragile situations often run the risk of doing harm by causing tensions and fragmentation of societies if they are not sensitive enough to the political, historical, and cultural context. However, it can be questioned if international actors fully recognize the motivation that international norms provide for national statebuilding actors in fragile situations, and the opportunities for progress that they create. A pragmatic approach to statebuilding demands a discussion and a rethinking of current concepts and practices. We need to understand better what the sources of international norms are, what dilemmas and trade-offs are involved in their application, and how mechanisms for engaging national statebuilding actors work. This discussion should lead international statebuilding actors to clarify their own role in promoting normative standards in fragile situations in a number of ways that would help to strengthen progress. Are International Norms Relevant for Statebuilding? International norms are as old as the sovereign state itself, going back to the Peace of Westphalia, which contained provisions that states must respect religious freedom and remove barriers to trade as part of the settlement after the Thirty Years' War. Charles Tilly famously said that "war makes states" through internal processes of concentration of power and wealth in preparation for warfare. However, he also described how mutual recognition among states that are able to effectively challenge each other in war is an important source of state legitimacy, and how external compacts among states gradually led to stronger constraints on the form of states. …

In this paper, I will perform a "step back" by showing how Derrida's analysis of forgiveness is rooted in Kantian moral philosophy and in Derrida's interpretation of Kierkegaard's concept of decision. This will require a discussion of the distinction that Kant draws in his Groundwork between price (the economic) and dignity (the incomparable), as well as a discussion of the underlying notion of singularity in Kant's text. In addition, Derrida universalizes Kierkegaard's concept of the agent so that, with this perspective in view, the interpretation of Kantian morality as something that must be described in a paradoxical way, becomes fully transparent. Whereas the interpretation of Kantian morality will provide us with a concept of morality that remains a "blind spot" for the agent, with the help of Derrida's Kierkegaard interpretation we can see that the concept of decision remains ultimately ambivalent. In conclusion, both (a) the deconstructed concept of morality and (b) the concept of decision will finally (c) let us understand Derrida's radical concept of forgiveness, which is both a non-economic act of morality in the sense explained and an unpredictable, uncontrollable decision and event.