This dissertation examines the widespread theme of fragile states, trying to understand how this concept is formed and what are the effects of this signification process for the dynamics of international aid. The research puts in question the common sense about the so called state fragility, applying what Leander calls the FIHP approach, based on Bourdieu s concepts of field, habitus and practice. Based on this methodology, and supported by the work of Villumsen and Bigo, the purpose of this dissertation is to question the given character of fragile states and to understand them as a constant construction of different agents who are in the same transnational field. For this, the analysis focuses on routine bureaucratic activities and frequent disputes between players in the field, demonstrating that the concept of fragile states, like any process of signification and representation, is founded on violence, however subtle. The research also aims to help overcome two problems in the discipline of International Relations on the subject of the so called state fragility: a division of labor between theoretical and practical critiques that disregards the rich potential of uniting the two approaches; and the silence about how a so widespread conception gets formed. The dissertation looks forward to enrich the approach to the subject precisely in demonstrating the contingent, violent, and subtle dynamics which give meaning and create fragile state.