Government as coercision and violence.

[Drakken]

I agree.  The primary purpose of a government is a to perpetuate itself.  A state only really fails when it can no longer exert control over the territory it claims.  The United States, Great Britain, Russia and nearly every other country in history has been a failed state at some point.

When did the United States and Great Britain become comparable to Somalia? 

Social breakdown and civil war is not the same as becoming a failed state. To become a failed state the state actors must be unable to maintain any semblance of social cohesion and control even inside its own rump territory on the long term. In other words, the state becomes a shadow state, an intra-territorial faction on the same level than those actors that had attacked its cohesion beforehand.

[Razgovory]

I'd say Civil War is a state failure.  The only real requirement for a state to function is to control the territory it claims.  Now governments can still operate, and the failure may very well be temporary, but it is still a state that is failing.  This also applies when a country is invaded.  For instance, France was failing between 1914 and 1918 as it could not exert it's authority over territory lost to the Germans.  The one exception to this rule is when a state makes a de jure claim, but makes no real effort to enforce it.  For instance Argentina claims the Falkland Islands and a chunk of Antarctica, but makes no real effort to control this territory.  I wouldn't consider it failing at that time.

[Ideologue]

I think Russia 1917-1924ish could stand up to the definition--though even then it was so short-term it's hard to say it failed--but certainly not the U.S. or Great Britain.  I assume you refer to the Civil War and the end of the British Empire.

Loss of some territory while the central government holds on to major core territories (not to be too Europa Universalis about it) cannot a failed state make, otherwise the term would be useless.  If you want good examples of failed states that were or had pretensions to global power, there's the nice triple threat of the Western Roman Empire, Eastern Roman Empire, and Holy Roman Empire.  Others would include the Mongol Khanate (fell apart into four de facto monarchies within decades of its founding, despite de iure continuing to exist for quite a while) and the Republic of China (so failed it was exiled to a non-core territory and had to radically reconstitute itself).  We can also probably count Ming China, Poland and Germany as well (crushed and partitioned by external enemies).

[Razgovory]

Define "core territories" and exactly what percentage of them must be held for the state to be considered succeeding?

[Ideologue]

I'd say Civil War is a state failure.

If it only lasts four years and the result is an even stronger central government?  That doesn't seem overly broad?

The ACW is also a special case too because it was so geographically discrete, almost indistiguishable from a war between independent states.  It doesn't compare to the Russian Civil War, Spanish Civil War, or French Revolution in terms of outright chaos.  The devolution of authority to the state governments was extraordinarily orderly, considering.  You didn't have blueshirts and greyshirts street fighting in Atlanta and claiming sectors of the city as liberated from U.S. or Georgian rule depending upon their political bent.

[Ideologue]

Define "core territories" and exactly what percentage of them must be held for the state to be considered succeeding?

It would depend on each situation.  It's not math.

In the case of the United Kingdom, the most obvious definition for "core territory" would be the home island of the English-speaking peoples, the English, Scots, and Welsh.  If the UK manages to hold on to that core, Great Britain continues to exist in a completely recognizable form and cannot be considered failed.

If the Scots and Welsh left the union, you might have an argument that the UK itself is a failed state.  The loss of the Empire didn't make Britain a failed state any more than the loss of the Philippines made the U.S. a failed state.

[Razgovory]

It is a broad use, but for good reason.  A lot of people can't agree on what a state should be doing.  One person may regard the state failing when their Social Security checks don't come on time while another person might believe that government has no business providing services like Police.  My definition of state failure is where the state fails at it's most basic function: Maintaining its authority over its territory.  I think everyone can agree that this is a function of a state.

[Razgovory]

Define "core territories" and exactly what percentage of them must be held for the state to be considered succeeding?

It would depend on each situation.  It's not math.

In the case of the United Kingdom, the most obvious definition for "core territory" would be the home island of the English-speaking peoples, the English, Scots, and Welsh.  If the UK manages to hold on to that core, Great Britain continues to exist in a completely recognizable form and cannot be considered failed.

If the Scots and Welsh left the union, you might have an argument that the UK itself is a failed state.  The loss of the Empire didn't make Britain a failed state any more than the loss of the Philippines made the U.S. a failed state.

You forgot Ireland which was part of the UK by an Act of Union.  Certainly this was a large "core territory" that the government in London failed to hold.

[Ideologue]

I deliberately excluded Ireland.

[Razgovory]

I deliberately excluded Ireland.

Yeah, that kind of sinks your argument doesn't it?

[Ideologue]

Not really.  The loss of a bunch of Catholics of another ethnic group on another island that were treated largely as British colonial subjects is no more impressive than France's loss of Algeria, and perhaps less.  No one considers them failed states.

[dps]

Not really.  The loss of a bunch of Catholics of another ethnic group on another island that were treated largely as British colonial subjects is no more impressive than France's loss of Algeria, and perhaps less.  No one considers them failed states.

That's not a very good analogy.  The loss of Algeria crisis did lead to the collapse of the Fourth Republic;  it can certainly be argued that the Fourth Republic was a failed state.  I wouldn't agree with that argument--the nation of France still continuted to exist, just with a different government (and not even a different form of government--it was still a republic)--but it's not entirely spurious.

[Razgovory]

Not really.  The loss of a bunch of Catholics of another ethnic group on another island that were treated largely as British colonial subjects is no more impressive than France's loss of Algeria, and perhaps less.  No one considers them failed states.

Your definition is getting rubbery.  Essentially any territory that breaks away from a state can be rationalized as not being important because if they were important, they wouldn't have broken away. 

[Drakken]

That's not a very good analogy.  The loss of Algeria crisis did lead to the collapse of the Fourth Republic;  it can certainly be argued that the Fourth Republic was a failed state.  I wouldn't agree with that argument--the nation of France still continuted to exist, just with a different government (and not even a different form of government--it was still a republic)--but it's not entirely spurious.

A failed state is one that completely stops to have any functioning institution and military control over its whole national territory. Civil war against a government implies, by definition, that the government still holds control over a loyalist part of the territory.

The fourth Republic was simply a regime caught in perpetual deadlock of minority governments with a President who had no legimitacy whatsoever to intervene in politics. Coups d'États were nothing new in French politics, not even in the 20th century. But nowhere did the French state lose any control over the monopoly of legitimate violence over the metropolitan soil even while the OAS was striking.

Even Russia between 1917-1924 wouldn't feel the definition of a failed state, as the Communist Party had function apparatuses of state: an army, a police force, Soviets for decision-making, bureaucrats, and some level of control over the territory it could hold. Plus the USSR claimed that it was still a continuation of Russia on the international stage, but this time under a new proletarian regime. Germany from Spring 1945 under the Flensburg government until 1949 would better fit the definition.

[Razgovory]

This would mean that Iraq is not a failed state and possible even Somalia is not a failed state since they still have some form of national government.