Afghanistan
State-building, legitimacy and withdrawal — strong for Paper 2 peace questions and for the HL security challenge.
Twenty years of external state-building, and what remained afterwards.
Why reach for it
Legitimacy. The central question of the case: why an internationally recognised government with resources and external backing failed to secure domestic acceptance, and why a movement without recognition did.
Peacebuilding. It is the best available illustration of the difference between building institutions and building legitimacy — and of what happens when the first is mistaken for the second.
Sovereignty. Recognition, non-recognition, and what a state is when other states will not deal with it.
HL — Security and Identity. Both, and the interaction between them.
Where it fits
| Use it in | For |
|---|---|
| Legitimacy | Sources of legitimacy; why external backing is not one |
| Sovereignty | Recognition and its consequences |
| Peacebuilding | What withdrawal leaves behind |
| HL Security | Long intervention, contested outcome |
The honest use
This case is often used badly, as a single verdict. Use it instead to weigh what was achieved and what was not, on which measures, and over which period. That is what "perspectives evaluated" looks like.
Resources for this page
Type and length first, then why it is worth opening.