Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Back to the future? The limits of neo-Wilsonian ideals of exporting democracy

By David C. Chandler


International state-building has become central to international policy concerns and has marked a clear neo-Wilsonian shift in international thinking, spurred by the leadership of the United States and the European Union. Today's approaches insist on the regulatory role of international institutions and downplay the importance of locally-derived political solutions. This privileging of 'governance' over 'government' is based on the assumption that the political process can be externally influenced through the promotion of institutional changes introduced at the state level and pays less attention to how societal pressures and demands are constitutive of stable and legitimate institutional mechanisms. This article questions this approach and analyses the transformation in the assessment of the importance of the societal sphere. It considers how this shift has been shaped by current understandings of war and conflict, and how the prioritisation of governance has fitted with critical and post-positivist trends in academic thinking in international relations and security studies. The discussion is illustrated with examples drawn largely from the Balkans and the international regime in Bosnia-Herzegovina in particular.\u

Topics: UOW10
OAI identifier:
Provided by: WestminsterResearch

Suggested articles


  1. (2004). A Self-Restrained Approach to Nation-Building by Foreign Powers’,
  2. (2004). America Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism (Oxford:
  3. (2003). Between Anarchy and Society: Trusteeship and the Obligations of Power (Oxford:
  4. between individuals.69 Simon Chesterman’s study of post-conflict international administrations points out that today’s international rule over Bosnia and Kosovo
  5. (2002). Bosnia after Dayton: Nationalist Partition and International Intervention
  6. (2005). Empire Lite: Nation-building in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan (London: Vintage, Rights For All,
  7. (1999). For background on postwar state-building in Germany and Japan, see for example,
  8. For figures on refugee return, see 〈〉.
  9. (2001). For further reading on the post-Dayton international regime see the website of the international Office of the High Representative. Available at: 〈〉. See also Chandler, Bosnia: Faking Democracy after Dayton;
  10. (2003). Lessons from Bosnia and Herzegovina: Travails of the European Raj’,
  11. (1991). Quasi-states: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World (Cambridge:
  12. (2003). Sovereignty: Existing Rights, Evolving Responsibilities: Remarks to the School of Foreign Service and the Mortara
  13. (2005). The Case for Shared Sovereignty’,
  14. (2005). The Dangers of Exporting Democracy’,
  15. The Freedom Crusade Revisited’, The National Interest
  16. (2004). You, the People: the United Nations, Transitional Administration, and State-Building (Oxford:

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.