Apparently as many politicians have argued, the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 10, 1989 has not only become the symbol of the end of Cold War, but the beginning of another line that divided world into modern and failed states. This division at its initial stages challenged core principles of UN Charter, which throughout of its first day of issue emphasized the importance of peoples’ rights for self – government, sovereign equality of member states and principles of non-intervention. Thus, the new intervention era stepped in, starting from this point the sovereignty of states were not any more considered as an essential source of security and universally acknowledged barrier against intervention. Existing problems within failed states were viewed as local and the negative attributes applicable to definite state. Nevertheless, the consideration of its universal impact happened after the 9/11 events, where the states lost their negative attributes gained before and were promoted to receive support, aid and assistance in state building. As the title of paper speaks out for itself, it primarily aims to explore whether there is a 'success' in state building. It argues that evidence of such 'success' cannot be purely seen in statistical data analysis, and therefore has to be profoundly investigated. In order to do that present paper initially tries to define the term 'fixed state', which largely escaped consideration of many political scientists and their common acknowledgment of clear-cut term, first of all, by defining the term 'the state' itself and than distinguishing its 'stateness' attributes. Consequently, determined attributes will be applied in comparative case analysis of Bosnia, Kyrgyzstan and East Timor to explore ‘improving’ and ‘hindering’ effects of state building in details.
