Couldn't we come with a nicer term then failed states

I've been reviewing this year “Failed States Index”in Foreign Policy Magazine(More data here). So far I've notice that it's rather meaningless. The term failed states means exactly that, a state that has failed in all aspects of what a state should do. The term is being used increasing incorrectly in IR and also in the political arena. A failed state is only when there no operational government and anarchy is the norm. Bringing out my old trustworthy Baylis and Smith, their definition for failed states is

“states that have collapsed into civil war and disorder, and where the government of the state has ceased to exist inside the territorial borders of the state. Citizens find themselves in a quasi-state of nature.(477)”

In the article, they had this to say about the definition of failed states.

The category of “failed states” has become part of the strategic vernacular, and it has many definitions. For the purposes of this index, a failing state is one in which the government does not have effective control of its territory, is not perceived as legitimate by a significant portion of its population, does not provide domestic security or basic public services to its citizens, and lacks a monopoly on the use of force. A failing state may experience active violence or simply be vulnerable to violence. The great majority of the states listed in the index are not presently failed states. The index measures vulnerability to violent internal conflict. It is an index of country risk, not of countries that have already failed.

My question is why do they care it the failed states index when they admit it isn't an actually index of failed states. Why couldn't they call it “index of country risk.” The definition of failed states has already been distorted enough and doesn't need to be further abused by one of the most influentially international relations magazines.

1. Sudan
2. DR Congo
3. Ivory Coast'
4. Iraq
5. Zimbabwe
6. Chad (Tie) Somali
7. Haiti
8. Pakistan
9. Afghanistan
   

I think the results are absolutely incorrect. Firstly, the Sudan has a government and that fact has to be mention more. The government of the Sudan is responsible for genocide in its own country. If the government wanted to stop the genocide then its very likely it could do just that. It's not a failed state for the simple reason that a government exists. Certainly it is a failing state and crisis there is very serious but the Sudan should not be on the top of the list.

I understand the need for this type of index but i don't think the methodology they use is the best way to come up results. They look at news articles for a 6 month period. As they noted in the article:

The scores in the index are based on data from more than 11,000 publicly available sources collected from July to December 2005. The period used for data gathering means that some events, including Iraq’s tip toward sectarian strife in February, are not included. Other events, including the massive October earthquake in Pakistan, occurred in the middle of the analysis window and had a significant impact on the results. Inevitably, the index is an extended snapshot rather than a continuing analysis.

My last point is the fact that Norway is consisdered the most stable state. Norway? Yes, Norway is a wonderful country but is it really the most stable? What if the EU, one day, feels threaten by Norway since they are not in the union. Of all the Scandinavia states, i think Norway is the least stable. Also conflict with the UK might occur over fishing. Remember Iceland? What if Norway insults Sri Lanka by offering too much raindeer meat and Sri Lanka declare war?