Browsing by Author "Salo, Mathilda"

As new security challenges are increasingly posed by violent non-state actors, international actors involved in state-building are urged to revise their approaches. This study examines how EU conceptually approaches the dual power situation in Lebanon’s security sector through two concepts of states. There are two main security actors or dual powers in Lebanon, namely the army and the violent non-state actor Hezbollah. Two opposing concepts of states represent the theoretical framework in this thesis. According to the dominating Weberian concept of state, states should establish a monopoly on force by eliminating rival armed groups such as non-state actors. On the other hand, a critical contemporary alternative has emerged referred to in this study as the hybrid model state concept. Hybrid model scholars argue for the acknowledgement and inclusion of non-state actors in statebuilding efforts. Qualitative content analysis was used as a method to enable a thorough and systematic examination of the data. The gathered data was operationalized by identifying key features present in the two concepts of states. The data consisted of EU’s global and regional strategies and EU’s Lebanon policy documents. The beginning of the civil war in Syria in 2011 was chosen as a determinate on the timeline, because Lebanon has suffered spillover effects from the conflict and consequently EU has reacted to this development. The analysis shows that EU has increasingly based its Lebanon policy on the Weberian concept of state. This finding is especially visible in times of crises, when EU emphasizes a strong role for the state army and perceives Hezbollah as a threat that should be disarmed. However, parts of EU’s Lebanon policy also corresponds to the hybrid model state concept, as it mentions cooperation with and the acknowledgement of non-state actors in the security sector. Interestingly, based on the data examined in this study EU’s global and regional approach on state-building is increasingly based on the hybrid model concept of state. Thus, the main finding is that whilst EU’s country specific approach is dominated by the Weberian concept of state, its global and regional approach shifted towards the hybrid model concept of state. This study concludes that due to the variation between, and sometimes overlapping use of the opposing concepts of states EU’s approach in Lebanon can be characterized as a continuity of vagueness, avoidance and uncertainness in dealing with the dual powers in Lebanon. As there is a clear discrepancy to be noted in EU’s broader and country specific policies, it also shows that EU does not have a clear strategy on how to approach security sectors involving both state and violent non-state actors. This theoretical finding is important also policy wise, as the choice of the concept of state affects concrete state-building policies.