AO1 A failed state is unlikely to be able to project authority over its physical territory, whereas a rogue state is likely to be able to have control over its territory. AO2 This is important because a failed state is characteristically less likely to be able to effectively represent a geographical area in the international community and in organisations like the United Nations, unlike rogue and other states which exhibit sovereignty. AO1 A failed state is unlikely to be able to project its authority over its people, unlike a rogue state which may well have a particularly strong hold over its people. AO2 This is significant because failed states, unable to project authority over people, are characteristically more likely to require global intervention to prevent civil war and anarchy and to maintain law and order and are less likely to see coordinated economic activity than other states including rogue states. AO1 A failed state is unlikely to be able to protect its national boundaries, unlike a rogue state which may have a particular focus over protecting its territory. AO2 This is significant because other states are more likely to become involved in the internal affairs of a failed state than a rogue state, including to loot resources or to interfere in other ways or even to tackle refugee problems or to resolve humanitarian concerns. AO1 A rogue state is likely to have a focus on military capacity and build up, unlike a failed state which is likely to lack a unified and strong military force. AO2 The significance of this is that the international community may perceive a greater threat from rogue states than from failed states. AO1 A rogue state is often characterised as a state which supports terrorism and/or seeks to acquire weapons of mass destruction, unlike a failed state which has no central authority able to develop a weapons development or support for overseas terror groups. AO2 This is important because rogue states may be seen as more able to undermine global peace and stability than failed states.