ÇATIŞMA SONRASI DEVLET KAPASİTESİ VE İNSANİ GELİŞME: IRAK, LİBYA, SRİ LANKA ÖRNEKLERİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRMALI İNCELEMESİ

Öz

Yürütülen çalışma çatışma sonrasında devlet kapasitesi ile insanî gelişmenin dinamik ilişkisini ele almayı amaçlayarak dış müdahale ve iç askerî zafer örüntüleri bağlamında karşılaştırmalı olarak incelemektedir. Çalışmada vaka seçimi olarak Irak ve Libya dış müdahale ile rejim değişikliği bağlamında, Sri Lanka ise iç askerî zafer bağlamında tercih edilmiştir. Analiz süreci Fund for Peace tarafından yayımlanan Fragile States Index (FSI) ile Birleşmiş Milletler Kalkınma Programı’nın İnsani Gelişme Endeksi (HDI) verilerinin 2009-2021 dönemine ait on bir ardışık gözleminden oluşan panel veri setine dayanmaktadır. Yöntemsel olarak betimleyici istatistikler, histogram dağılımları, zaman serisi eğilimleri ve Pearson korelasyon analizi kullanılmış; T₀ olarak tanımlanan resmî çatışma-sonu tarihinden itibaren her vaka için simetrik zaman dilimi izlenmiştir. Bulgular üç düzlemde toplanmıştır. İlk olarak Irak ve Libya’da FSI toplam skorunun “yüksek kırılganlık” bandında kalıcılaştığı, HDI’nın ise dalgalı bir seyir izlediği saptanmıştır. Irak’ta güvenlik açıkları ile grup şikâyetleri arasındaki kuvvetli korelasyon, güvenlik sektöründeki reform eksikliğinin toplumsal gerilimleri derinleştirdiğini göstermektedir. Libya’da elit parçalanması, güvenlik kırılganlığını ve sosyal hoşnutsuzluğu aynı anda tetiklemiştir. İkinci önemli bulgu ise Sri Lanka’da FSI’ın istikrarlı şekilde düşerek 85 puan bandına gerilemesi ve HDI’nin .763 ortalamayla yükselmesi, iç dinamiklere dayalı barış sürecinin kurumsal konsolidasyonu ve kalkınma sonuçlarını olumlu etkilediğini ortaya koymaktadır. Üçüncü olarak ise alt gösterge analizleri değerlendirildiğinde her ülkenin kendine özgü kırılganlık sarmalına sahip olduğunu görülmektedir. Mülteci akımları ve dış müdahale arasında Irak’ta pozitif, Libya’da dalgalı, Sri Lanka’da ise önemsiz ilişkiler gözlenmiştir. Çalışma karşılaştırmalı nicel analiz yöntemiyle çatışma sonrası devlet inşasında bağlamsal farklılıkların görmezden gelinmesinin insanî kalkınma süreçlerinde geri tepmeye yol açabileceğini ortaya koyarak literatüre özgün katkı sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Devlet kapasitesi
• Kırılgan Devletler Endeksi (FSI)
• İnsani Gelişme Endeksi (HDI)
• Barış inşası
• Çatışma sonrası yeniden yapılanma

POST-CONFLICT STATE CAPACITY AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF IRAQ, LIBYA, AND SRI LANKA

Öz

The study aims to examine the dynamic relationship between state capacity and human development in the aftermath of conflict, comparing patterns of external intervention and internal military victory. Iraq and Libya were selected as case studies in the context of external intervention and regime change, while Sri Lanka was chosen in the context of internal military victory. The analysis process is based on a panel data set consisting of eleven consecutive observations from 2009 to 2021 from the Fragile States Index (FSI) published by the Fund for Peace and the Human Development Index (HDI) data from the United Nations Development Program. Methodologically, descriptive statistics, histogram distributions, time series trends, and Pearson correlation analysis were used; a symmetric time interval was tracked for each case starting from the official end-of-conflict date defined as T₀. The findings are grouped into three areas. First, it was found that the total FSI score in Iraq and Libya remained in the “high vulnerability” band, while the HDI followed a fluctuating trend. The strong correlation between security gaps and group complaints in Iraq shows that the lack of reform in the security sector has deepened social tensions. In Libya, elite fragmentation has simultaneously triggered security fragility and social discontent. The second important finding is that in Sri Lanka, the steady decline of the FSI to the 85-point band and the rise of the HDI to an average of .763 indicate that the peace process based on internal dynamics has positively affected institutional consolidation and development outcomes. Thirdly, when sub-indicator analyses are evaluated, it is seen that each country has its own unique vulnerability spiral. Positive relationships between refugee flows and external intervention were observed in Iraq, fluctuating relationships in Libya, and insignificant relationships in Sri Lanka. The study contributes to the literature by revealing that ignoring contextual differences in post-conflict state-building through comparative quantitative analysis methods can lead to setbacks in human development processes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• State capacity
• Fragile States Index (FSI)
• Human Development Index (HDI)
• Peacebuilding
• Post-conflict reconstruction

Kaynakça

1. Al Arabiya. (2011). Libya’s NTC declares country’s liberation days after Qaddafi’s death. Al Arabiya English. https://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011%2F10%2F23%2F173328.html
2. Anckar, C. (2008). On the Applicability of the Most Similar Systems Design and the Most Different Systems Design in Comparative Research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(5), 389–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701401552
3. Barnett, M., Fang, S., & Zürcher, C. (2014). Compromised Peacebuilding. International Studies Quarterly, 58(3), 608–620. https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12137
4. Berdal, M., & Zaum, D. (Ed.). (2013). Political Economy of Statebuilding: Power after Peace. Routledge.
5. Call, C. T., & Cousens, E. M. (2008). Ending Wars and Building Peace: International Responses to War-Torn Societies. International Studies Perspectives, 9(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-3585.2007.00313.x
6. Chamberlain, G., (2009a, Mayıs 19). Sri Lankans celebrate end of conflict. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/19/sri-lanka-conflict-tamil-tigers
7. Chamberlain, G., (2009b, Mayıs 19). The fight for survival goes on in Sri Lanka amid reports of 15,000 killed. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/19/sri-lankan-war
8. Chulov, M. (2011, Aralık 15). US exit from Iraq: “this is not a withdrawal, this is an act on a stage”. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/15/us-exit-iraq-withdrawal-ambivalence

9. Donais, T. (2009). Empowerment or imposition? Dilemmas of local ownership in post-conflict peacebuilding processes. Peace & Change, 34(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0130.2009.00531.x
10. Doyle, M. W., & Sambanis, N. (2000). International peacebuilding: A theoretical and quantitative analysis. American Political Science Review, 94(4), 779–801. https://doi.org/10.2307/2586208
11. Fearon, J. D., & Laitin, D. D. (2003). Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War. American Political Science Review, 97(1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055403000534
12. Fragile State Index. (t.y.). Methodology | Fragile States Index. Methodology. Erişim: 04 Haziran 2025, https://fragilestatesindex.org/methodology/
13. Francis, K. (2021). Sri Lanka says it has reached an agreement with China’s EXIM Bank on debt, clearing IMF funding snag. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/sri-china-debt-imf-81d9a10b0023ed03024f4a057f3e902b
14. Fund for Peace. (2009–2021). Fragile States Index. https://fragilestatesindex.org/data/
15. Galtung, J. (1976). Three approaches to peace: Peacekeeping, peacemaking, and peacebuilding. Impact of Science on Society, 26(1/2), 103–115.
16. Gleditsch, N. P., Wallensteen, P., Eriksson, M., Sollenberg, M., & Strand, H. (2002). Armed Conflict 1946–2001: A New Dataset. Journal of Peace Research, 39(5), 615–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343302039005007
17. Global Policy Forum. (1992). An Agenda for Peace: Preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-keeping. https://archive.globalpolicy.org/reform/initiatives/ghali/1992/0617peace.htm
18. King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400821211
19. Lederer, E. M. (2025). UN envoy underscores Libya’s security struggles amid political crisis. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/un-libya-security-volatile-elections-hate-speech-a7e8d2b61613869b020943ee77734e62
20. Mac Ginty, R. (2010). Hybrid Peace: The Interaction Between Top-Down and Bottom-Up Peace. Security Dialogue, 41(4), 391–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010610374312
21. Mann, M. (1984). The autonomous power of the state: Its origins, mechanisms and results. European Journal of Sociology, 25(2), 185–213.
22. New York Times. (2011). Last Convoy of American Troops Leaves Iraq. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/world/middleeast/last-convoy-of-american-troops-leaves-iraq.html
23. Paris, R. (2004). At war’s end: Building peace after civil conflict. Cambridge University Press.
24. Pettersson, T., & Eck, K. (2018). Organized violence, 1989–2017. Journal of Peace Research, 55(4), 535–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343318784101
25. Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. Wiley-Interscience.
26. Ragin, C. C. (2014). The Comparative Method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies (Online-ausg). University of California Press.
27. Ramirez, L. (2011). US Ends Military Mission in Iraq. Voice of America. https://www.voanews.com/a/us-marks-end-of-iraq-military-mission-135648838/149578.html
28. Reuters. (2011a). Reuters Archive Licensing. https://reuters.screenocean.com/record/541396
29. Reuters. (2011b). Timeline: Libya liberated says NTC. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-events-idUSTRE79M29P20111023/
30. Richmond, O. (2012). A Post-Liberal Peace. Routledge.
31. Sambanis, N. (2004). What Is Civil War?: Conceptual and Empirical Complexities of an Operational Definition. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48(6), 814–858. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002704269355
32. Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 294–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907313077
33. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Knopf.
34. Stern, M., & Öjendal, J. (2010). Mapping the Security-Development Nexus: Conflict, Complexity, Cacophony, Convergence? Security Dialogue, 41(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010609357041
35. Themnér, L. (2018). UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset Codebook (Codebook No. 18.1). Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP); PRIO – Peace Research Institute Oslo. https://ucdp.uu.se/downloads/ucdpprio/ucdp-prio-acd-181.pdf
36. Tschirgi, N., Lund, M. S., & Mancini, F. (2010). Security and Development: Searching for Critical Connections. Columbia International Affairs Online (CIAO). https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/book/ipi/0018819/index.html
37. UCDP. (t.y.). UCDP – Uppsala Conflict Data Program (Libya country page). Geliş tarihi 05 Ekim 2025, https://ucdp.uu.se/country/780
38. ul Haq, M. (1995). Reflections on human development. Oxford University Press.
39. UNDP. (2024). Libya’s Human Development Summary 2023–2024. United Nations Development Programme. https://www.undp.org/libya/publications/libyas-human-development-summary-2023-2024
40. UNDP. (t.y.). Human development. İçinde Human Development Reports [What is Human Development?]. United Nations. Erişim: 04 Haziran 2025, https://hdr.undp.org/about/human-development
41. United Nations Development Programme. (2009–2021). Human Development Data Center. https://hdr.undp.org/data-center
42. Uppsala Conflict Data Program. (2007). Appendix 2B. Definitions, sources and methods for the conflict data. İçinde SIPRI Yearbook 2007: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security (ss. 1–3 [pdf]). Oxford University Press. https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/YB07%20091%2002B.pdf
43. Waleed, H. (2021, Mayıs 18). 18th May 2009, The End of the Sri Lankan Civil War. South Asia Times. https://southasiatimes.org/sri-lankan-civil-war-ends-may-18-2009/
44. World Bank. (2024). Home | Worldwide Governance Indicators. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/worldwide-governance-indicators