ABSTRACT

This chapter argues that the unintended consequences of preferred peace building and post conflict reconstruction policies have resulted in weak post-conflict states. Comparing the Bosnian and Lebanese experiences, it identifies the policies which have had the greatest effect on state weakness. While outsiders are essential to peace building and post conflict reconstruction, academics and practitioners have been critical of foreign intervention in post-conflict societies. A state must be able to deter the use of violence by groups in its midst; it must also be able to assure aggrieved groups that it does not constitute a threat to them and that it will give their grievances a fair hearing. The institutional frameworks negotiated at Dayton and Ta'if failed to secure the credible commitments of all Bosnian and Lebanese parties to democratic politics. With relative advantage paramount, all actors preferred political stagnation and paralysis to the prospect of compromise.