reform that may instead have destabilizing effects on states and societies. The high level of focus on the working functions of a distinctly centralised state6 and a presumption of a 'Western' liberal democracy as a universally effective system of governance according to many scholars and practitioners are among the existing problems. As Richmond has observed, attention has been diverted away from 'local contexts, communities and agencies.'7 The approaches discussed here aim to change two types of overarching conditions: Format in the sense of constructing a specific type of state structure to control and regulate a specific territory and population; and substance in the sense of norms and values derived from international declarations that 'should', according to this view, guide the social system. While state agencies tend to focus on the functions of the state as a vehicle to deliver pre-determined functions, international organisations often step in to de facto replicate and perform such functions if the local state cannot. Though not absolute and with notable exceptions, the general impression is that through the mechanisms inherent in the donor-client relationship, a system is created which perpetuates and works towards changing the format and substance of a target society. The intention of this system seems to be, in spite of its own discourse of adaptation, to create an externally defined vision of social interaction. These attempts are largely supported by a body of literature reproducing the assumption of primacy of that vision. Format - The State as the vehicle of social order and delivery The international system is exclusively geared towards states. Right or wrong, this is how the system works in terms of international representation and the rights and duties of states. There can be no question that in the current international system there is an inherent expectation that the state is the guarantor of a territory. There is little flexibility in this systemic demand by the international community for a number of reasons. A territory is not only an internal boundary but also an external reference as neighbouring states define their territory in relation to the borders of their neighbours. Thus, the social arrangements of the territory in question can be different, 29
and possibly even cross over into the neighbouring country via nomadic movements or kinship affiliations. If a state lacks clearly defined borders it carries implications for the capacity of its neighbours to exert authority, collect taxes, and draw the lines of responsibilities. In other words, there is a compounding pressure in the international system that a territory be organised as a state with a specific set of responsibilities even if these formal functions, defined by that same system, have disintegrated or function poorly. Unlike the historic norm during the European state formation, the annexation of neighbouring territories is rarely accepted in the contemporary international climate and it is less likely that a weaker (militarily or otherwise) state will be swallowed by a stronger neighbour. Thus the internal conditions of a territory are of less relevance to the