ArticlePDF Available

Theories on the role of international organizations in maintaining peace and security

Authors:

Abstract

There are different theories as to the role of international organizations in maintaining peace and security. Accordingly, constructivists argue that international organizations induce states to cooperate internationally even though their power and utility-maximizing interest is not achieved. Neo-Liberals also believe that international organizations are vital to make the world peaceful and cooperative. Neo-realists, on the other hand, argue that international organizations are the means by which states achieve their self-interest, thus, contribute nothing for peace and security. UN, as a testing ground, has contributed a lot in the maintenance of peace and security by deploying peacekeeping forces in the conflict areas though still lack of member states' commitment to provide necessary supports, the level of their interest at stake and the interest of veto powers put challenges on the effective operation of the organization.
~347~
IJMRD 2014; 1(7): 347-350
www.allsubjectjournal.com
Received: 01-12-2014
Accepted: 20-12-2014
e-ISSN: 2349-4182
p-ISSN: 2349-5979
Endalcachew Bayeh
Department of Civics and
Ethical Studies, College of Social
Sciences and Humanities, Ambo
University, Ambo, Ethiopia.
Correspondence:
Endalcachew Bayeh
Department of Civics and
Ethical Studies, College of
Social Sciences and
Humanities, Ambo University,
Ambo, Ethiopia.
Theories on the role of international organizations in
maintaining peace and security
Endalcachew Bayeh
Abstract
There are different theories as to the role of international organizations in maintaining peace and security.
Accordingly, constructivists argue that international organizations induce states to cooperate
internationally even though their power and utility-maximizing interest is not achieved. Neo-Liberals
also believe that international organizations are vital to make the world peaceful and cooperative. Neo-
realists, on the other hand, argue that international organizations are the means by which states achieve
their self-interest, thus, contribute nothing for peace and security. UN, as a testing ground, has contributed
a lot in the maintenance of peace and security by deploying peace-keeping forces in the conflict areas
though still lack of member states’ commitment to provide necessary supports, the level of their interest
at stake and the interest of veto powers put challenges on the effective operation of the organization.
Keywords: Constructivism, Neo-Liberalism, Neo-Realism, Peace, Security, United Nations.
1. Introduction
As regards the role of international organizations in maintaining peace and security, there have
been divergent views. Some argue that international organizations are the representation of
state self-interests and cannot satisfy what is expected from them. Others argue in favor of
positive role of international organizations in promoting cooperation as well as peace and
security. There are contending theories in this regard. For the purpose of this study, however,
constructivism, neo-realism/structural realism and neo-liberalism/neo-liberal institutionalism
have been discussed pertaining to the role of organizations in maintaining peace and security.
2. Constructivism
Constructivists argue in favour of international organizations. They argue that international
organizations have the role of not only regulating state behaviour but also modifying the
identity and interest of states, which, in turn, directs states action (Mitchell, 2006). Finnemore
(in Hobson, 2003:154) believes that states are “normative-adaptive entities”. This means that,
through international organizations, states adapt international norms of appropriate state
behaviour to inform their policies and domestic structures (ibid). Thus, international norms
push states to cooperate internationally even though states’ power as well as utility-
maximizing interests is not achieved (ibid). Constructivists underestimate the relevance of
relative gain, unlike the neo-realists, and propagate the more likelihood of cooperation among
states (Nugroho, 2008).
Moreover, international organizations, by constraining self-interest of states and infusing new
appropriate norm to states, control states not to deviate from international cooperation (ibid).
This optimistic view on the role of international organizations makes constructivists to
embrace neo-liberals. Above all, international organizations have the role of, inter alia,
promoting democratization of member states and encouraging member states to pursue
peaceful conflict management strategies (Mitchell, 2006).
3. Neo-Liberalism
Neo-liberals or liberal institutionalists argue in favour of the significance of international
organizations in promoting cooperation and stability. Unlike the neo-realists, neo-liberals
assert that “states are concerned with maximizing their ‘absolute gains’ – an assessment of
their own welfare independent of their rivals (what will gain me the most?)” (Burchill, 2005:
65). This is vital for promoting cooperation among states and maintaining mutual benefit. In
this connection, Boehmer, et al., (2004) argue that in a condition where states focus more on
obtaining absolute gain, cooperation and collective security are more feasible.
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development 2014; 1(7): 347-350
~348~
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development
In other words, neo-liberals believe in collective security and
argue that states can devote themselves to the preservation of
joint interests through international organizations (Niou and
Ordeshook, 1991).
Keohane, being optimistic about the relevance of those
organizations, states that international organizations are
capable of facilitating cooperation, and without them “the
prospects for our species will be very poor indeed” (in Sinclair
and Byers, 2006). Hence, he values organizations’ role in
promoting cooperation. Besides, neo-liberals affirm that
organizations “assume the role of encouraging cooperative
habits, monitoring compliance and sanctioning defectors”
(Burchill, 2005: 65). Hence, one can infer from this that,
organizations have a pivotal role in facilitating cooperation
between states.
Liberal institutionalists, though recognize the systemic
anarchy, the importance of military power and the pre-
eminence of states’ interests, argue that organizations are a
framework for cooperation, which can help to address the risk
of security competition between states and promote peace and
stability (Sinclair and Byers, 2006; Boehmer, et al., 2004;
Baylis, 2001; Burchill, 2005). Besides, they claim that since
organizations feed states with information in the areas of
security, they can lessen uncertainty and other risks that could
emerge out of anarchy (Meierhenrich, 2012; Nathan, 2012).
Generally, as Hobson (2003) notes international organizations
are vital to make the world peaceful and cooperative. Thus,
their argument is that international organizations do play
significant role in maintaining peace and stability. To
substantiate this argument, they present the role of Association
of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) in maintaining stability
in South-East Asia, the role of OAU in contributing its part to
address interstate differences, the role of European
organizations in enhancing security in Europe as a witness for
positive role of organizations in maintaining peace and
security (Baylis, 2001).
In supporting the neoliberals’ assumption of the positive role
of international organizations, Nathan (2012) came up with
concrete evidence. Taking into account the progress of
regional organizations in the peace and security area, most
importantly, through preventive diplomacy, mediation, post-
war peace-building, arms control, and disarmament, Nathan
argues that it will be irrational to argue that international
organizations cannot bring peace. He substantiates his
argument by explaining, inter alia, the role of AU in Kenyan
civil violence and the mediation effort of IGAD in Sudan.
In a nutshell, as can be understood from the above discussion,
neo-liberals believe that international organizations are very
important in facilitating interstate cooperation and
maintaining peace and security.
4. Neo-Realism
As neo-realists or structural realists argue, organizations are
the product of state interests, thus, they cannot independently
function, rather, it is state interests, which determine the
decision whether states cooperate or compete (Baylis, 2001;
Meierhenrich, 2012; Sinclair and Byers, 2006). UN, the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the European Union
(EU) are international organizations through which states
safeguard their interests. Arguing that they are formed on the
basis of self-interest calculation, neo-realists reject the
importance of international organizations in serving to achieve
peace and security (Baylis, 2001; Meierhenrich, 2012;
Nathan, 2012). International organizations could not have the
role to prevent war (Nugroho, 2008). For neo-realists,
organizations are reflections of the interests of states and states
are unwilling to surrender their power. Thus, the cumulative
effect of these constrained the independent role of
international organizations.
Neo-realists are pessimistic about the possibility of
international cooperation as they believe that states highly
care for their relative position. An important point, which
characterizes neo-realists’ assumption, is their focus on
relative gains (Burchill, 2005; Brown and Ainley, 2005;
Baldwin, 1993; Lamy, 2001). In this regard, Burchill (2005:
65) notes as follows: “Neo-realists, such as Waltz, argue that
states are concerned with ‘relative gains’ – meaning gains
assessed in comparative terms (who will gain more?)”. It is
possible to deduce from this that, states care for their relative
position (for their better position compared to others) in
cooperating with others and if cooperation does not serve this
ultimate interest, cooperation will be fragile. Neo-realists
further assume that states cooperate and join international
organizations when it is suitable to them (Sinclair and Byers,
2006). As a result, international organizations survive so long
as they allow states to follow their own interests and assist
states to achieve relative gain.
To sum up, as can be inferred from the above discussion, neo-
realists underestimate the importance of international
organizations. Rather, they believe that, international
organizations are the means by which states achieve their self-
interest. Thus, they are pessimistic about the role of
international organizations in the maintenance of international
peace and security.
In the following sections, the study examines the role of UN
in the peace and security areas briefly, especially, the UN
Security Council’s rapid deployment in crisis areas. In this
connection, the concept of UN Standby force will be
highlighted.
5. United Nations: As a Testing Ground
United Nations was founded in 1945 with the primary purpose
of maintaining international peace and security. The Security
Council, the primary responsible body, is mandated to “pacific
settlement of disputes” under Chapter VI of UN Charter. The
Security Council suggests the appropriate means to be used by
concerned parties when it believes that the issue would
threaten international peace and security. However, it has no
binding effect on member states (UN, 2007). More
importantly, the Security Council is also mandated under
Chapter VII of the Charter to decide on appropriate actions to
be taken when there exists “any threat to the peace, breach of
the peace, or act of aggression”. Such power of the Security
Council involves the use of force “to maintain or restore
international peace and security”. The collective security role
of the UN is, thus, stipulated on the Charter providing power
to the Security Council ranging from peaceful resolution of
disputes to the use of armed force depending on the situations.
Accordingly, Matheson (2001) presents that since the end of
the Cold War in 1991, UN has played significant role in
resolving intrastate and interstate violence as well as boundary
conflicts either with the permission of the states or based on
the power of the Security Council under Chapter VII of the
UN Charter.
Since the maintenance of international peace and security is
the primary responsibility of the Security Council, from its
very establishment the Security Council has needed rapidly
deployable force to respond to threats to international peace
~349~
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development
and security (Koops and Varwick, 2008; UN, 2003a). This
means that there has been a great need for improvement of UN
peace-keeping operations to effectively and promptly respond
to numerous crisis situations. This was evident from the UN
Secretary General’s (Boutros Boutros-Ghali)
recommendation, in his “Agenda for Peace” and the
“Supplement” to member states to cooperate with UN in
peacekeeping operations through preparing their troops for
rapid deployment with the same training standards and
procedures (Koops and Varwick, 2008). Consequently,
member states, refusing the earliest proposal of having a
standing army (a permanent army similar to the army of a
certain state) on the ground that will endanger their
sovereignty, favoured this proposal of a standby arrangement
(where forces situated in the country of their origin and
deployable through notice) as a sensible choice (ibid).
Accordingly, Department of Peace-Keeping Operations
(DPKO) has organized the United Nations Stand-by
Arrangement System (UNSAS) since 1994 to strengthen the
supports of states in the peacekeeping operations of UN
(Mazzei, 2009). The UNSAS does not have its own military
force; rather it depends on contributions from member states
of military units, equipments and personnel (UN, 2003b;
Mazzei, 2009). Hence, the ultimate power whether to deploy
resources or not is under member states’ will (UN, 2003a).
States who pledge to contribute forces are required to provide
their troops with training as per the UN standards and
procedures (UN, 2003b; Koops and Varwick, 2008).
As discussed above, UNSAS is constituted by pledges of
member states; hence, to support it, a group of like-minded
states discussed to create rapidly deployable force within the
framework of UNSAS. On December 1996, Austria, Canada,
Denmark, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland and Sweden
signed a letter of intent and forged the Standby High
Readiness Brigade (SHIRBRIG), at Hovelte Barracks in
Denmark, with the intent of improving the rapid deployment
of UN peacekeeping force (Koops and Varwick, 2008).
Eventually, in supporting the UN, the SHIRBRIG deployed
first in 2000 for United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and
Eritrea (UNMEE) (UN, 2003a; Koops and Varwick, 2008).
SHIRBRIG also assisted in planning activities for United
Nations Mission in Cote d’ Ivoire (UNOCI) of the 2003
(Koops and Varwick, 2008). Moreover, on the request of
DPKO for assistance, SHIRBRIG deployed in the United
Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) and the United Nations
Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) in 2003 and 2004, respectively
(UN, 2003b; Koops and Varwick, 2008).
The UN Security Council, though not in all case, has been able
to minimize or prevent conflict across different corners
through its peacekeeping operations (UN, 2007). Therefore,
UN as an international organization has played a paramount
role in the maintenance of international peace and security,
though not without challenges. Putting it differently, UN has
played a great role in the overall peace and security of the
world even though it fails to address all issues adequately.
Hence, the importance of international organizations (in this
case, UN) is obvious though still lack of member states’
commitment to provide necessary support, the level of their
interest at stake and the interest of veto powers put challenges
on the effective operation of the organization.
6. Conclusion
As regards the role of international organizations in
maintaining peace and security, there have been divergent
theories. Constructivists argue that through international
organizations states adapt international norms of appropriate
state behavior to inform their policies and domestic structures.
International norms push states to cooperate internationally
even though states’ power as well as utility-maximizing
interest is not achieved. Neo-liberals also believe in collective
security and argue that states can devote themselves to the
preservation of joint interests through international
organizations. International organizations are vital to make the
world peaceful and cooperative. Neo-realists, on the other
hand, argue that international organizations cannot
independently function, rather, it is state interests, which
determine the decision whether states to cooperate or compete.
Organizations are reflections of the interests of states and
states are unwilling to surrender their power. They believe that
international organizations are the means by which states
achieve their self-interest.
The reality in the UN shows that since the end of the Cold War
in 1991 UN has played significant role in resolving intrastate
and interstate violence as well as boundary conflicts either
with the permission of the states or based on the power of the
Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. In this
regard the deployment of UN peace-keeping force in Ethio-
Eritrea conflict, Liberia and Sudan can be mentioned as simple
instances. However, it does not mean that UN has addressed
all issues completely. Lack of member states’ commitment to
provide necessary supports, the level of their interest at stake
and the interest of veto powers put challenges on the effective
operation of the organization.
7. References
1. Baldwin, David A. ed, Neorealism and Neoliberalism:
The Contemporary Debate, New York: Columbia
University Press, 1993.
2. Baylis, Steven. ‘International and Global Security in the
Post-Cold War Era’, in The Globalization of World
Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, 2nd
ed, New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
3. Boehmer C, Gartzke E, Nordstrom T. “Do
Intergovernmental Organizations Promote Peace?”,
World Politics 2004; 57:1–38.
4. Brown, Ainley. Understanding International Relations,
3rd ed, Macmillan: Palgrave, 2005.
5. Burchill, Scott. ‘Liberalism’, in Theories of International
Relations, 3rd ed, Burchill, et al., Macmillan: Palgrave,
2005.
6. Hobson, John M. The State and International Relations,
London: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
7. Koops J, Varwick J. “Ten Years of SHIRBRIG: Lessons
Learned, Development Prospects and Strategic
Opportunities for Germany”, GPPi Research Paper
Series No. 11., Berlin: Global Public Policy Institute,
2008.
8. Lamy, Steven. ‘Contemporary Mainstream Approaches:
Neo-Realism and Neo Liberalism’, in The Globalization
of World Politics: An Introduction to International
Relations, 2nd ed, eds. Baylis, J. and Smith, S., New York:
Oxford University Press, 2001.
9. Matheson, Michael J. “United Nations Governance of
Post-conflict Societies”. The American Journal of
International Law 2001; 95(1):76-85.
~350~
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development
10. Mazzei, Cristian. “Peacekeeping, UN Stand-by force and
Rapid Deployment: a
Critical Analysis”, Available at: http://media.peaceopstr
aining.org/theses/mazzei.html, Accessed on 10 February
2014.
11. Meierhenrich. “International Organizations”, London:
University of London, 2012.
12. Mitchell, Sara. “Cooperation in World Politics: The
Constraining and Constitutive Effects of International
Organizations”, Paper prepared for presentation at the
2006 International Studies Association meeting in San
Diego, California and for presentation at the
Intergovernmental Organizations in Action conference,
La Jolla, California, 2006.
13. Nathan, Laurie. “The Peacemaking Effectiveness of
Regional Organizations”, Working Paper no. 81, London:
Development Studies Institute (DESTIN), 2010.
14. Niou E, Ordeshook P. “Realism versus Neoliberalism: A
Formulation”. American Journal of Political Science
1991; 35(2):481-511.
15. Nugroho, Ganjar. “Constructivism and International
Relations Theories”, Global and Strategis 2008; 2(1):85-
98.
16. Sinclair A, Byers M. “When US Scholars Speak of
“Sovereignty”, What Do They Mean?”, TranState
Working Papers No. 4, Bremen: Sfb 597 „ Staatlichkeit
im Wandel“, 2006.
17. UN. United Nations Stand-by Arrangements System
Military Handbook, Edition
2003, Available at: https://cc.unlb.org/UNSAS%20Docu
ments/KEY%20DOCUMENTS/UNSAS%20Handbook
%20%202003.pdf, Accessed on 7 November 2013.
18. “Handbook on United Nations Multidimensional
Peacekeeping Operations”, New York: UN, 2003b.
19. “United Nations Security Council: The Current Situation
in Darfur”, Thessaloniki: University of Macedonia, 2007.
... They contend that organizations are scaffolding cooperation, which cognize the security competition between states and endorse peace and stability (Baylis, 2001;Burchill, 2005). Furthermore, they assert that organizations provide security related information to states so that they can reduce uncertainty and other risks that could emerge out of anarchy (Bayeh, 2014). This discourse helps to understand the role of SCO in mitigating tensions between (rival) member states. ...
Article
Full-text available
Pakistan’s inclusion in Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is optimistically seen as a turning point in the changing geopolitical landscape of the Eurasian belt, as well as bringing new opportunities for Pakistan. This paper explores the prospects of economic development and political cooperation that Pakistan’s membership of SCO offers. The practice of multilateral diplomacy has helped in mitigating regional tensions and augmenting collaboration in the world history, therefore, the paper explores the possibilities of SCO as the best multilateral forum for Pakistan. Although SCO is perceived as an anti-Western alliance, its extended membership is building on the allies (old and new) of the US, particularly inclusion of India and Pakistan is challenging the stance. Moreover, SCO has shunned the notion of anti-Western outlook and the widespread perception to balance out the supremacy of US at the regional, as well as global level. Even so, SCO is catering all prerequisites of the collaboration of regional actors in Central and South Asia and furthering cooperation in the economic field. In this setting, the paper is divided into three parts. The first part deals with the analytical framework of new regionalism in South and Central Asia. The second part examines core factors that have led to the extension of the SCO. Finally, the paper evaluates the impact of the extension of the SCO on Pakistan. The study concludes that notwithstanding challenges, the SCO provides opportunities for economic development and political cooperation between states.
... International bureaucrats who close the gap between IOs and states by internalizing new norms are pioneers in establishing new norms in the international structure [77]. Constructivism is a useful tool for thinking about the power and influence of IOs on international politics [78] and for studying their crucial role in the dispersion of beliefs and standards of appropriate behavior in promoting cooperation [67,68,89]. ...
Article
It is widely accepted that renewable energy will contribute to building a more sustainable world, and a transition from a fossil fuel-dominated to a renewable-based energy system is inevitable. However, only 5% of the world's primary energy consumption comes from renewables. It will, therefore, take considerable time to implement international policies and take effective actions to increase the use of renewable energy to a level that mitigates climate change. States remain the primary decision-makers in the international structure, but international organizations can help states internalize and form new identities by creating norms. It is expected that the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) will have a voice on international renewable energy policies. This study seeks to explain how IRENA helps shape these policies through its interactions with major players. It examines the agency's activities, initiatives, and tools over the past 10 years, and how it contributes to norm emergence and identity creation in renewable energy through social constructivism. Using the constructivist approach, this study argues that IRENA's efforts to create norms have succeeded to a considerable extent, but the agency needs to spread its initiatives more equally around the world so that these norms become truly universal. Today, nearly every state needs to improve its renewable energy policies. This objective may only be possible if states form a common identity through the internalization of renewable energy norms. IRENA still has a lot of work to do.
... A peacekeeping mission, as discussed in the first chapter, is hardly ever expected to directly support long-term economic and political development; however AMIB allowed for short-term stability to occur (ibid. [13][14]. The fourth and only objective in which AMIB has been considered to be less successful was 'to support disarmament and demobilization initiatives and advise on the reintegration of combatants' (ibid. ...
Thesis
Full-text available
The creation of international organizations has, arguably, led to great changes in both the international and national dimensions of conflict resolution. Despite regulations and checks and balances systems employed, violence, abuse of HRs and breaches of international law are part of a reality that is yet to be changed. Part of the reason, many argue, why the international system has not reached the idealistic picture painted by Woodrow Wilson in 1918, may be that the means and mechanisms employed by international organizations are yet to be completely efficient. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the efficiency of international organizations in conflict resolution, by analysing the factors that often prevent them from achieving peace, and those that, on the other side, help them be successful. In order to understand the place that international organizations hold in the international arena, specifically in their conflict resolution practices, a theoretical approach is needed to analyse the fundamental factors that shape interstate relations. This paper focuses on two schools of international relations theory, classical and neorealism, and classical and neoliberalism. One relevant aspect that will be analysed of these two schools of thought, and to an extent of the international order, is that their notion of peacebuilding entails the creation of a negative, non-transformative peace. The assessment of the efficiency of International Organizations in conflict resolution, which is at the center of this thesis, will be done by analysing one particular institution, the African Union (AU), which is a prime example of how the notions of IOs and peacebuilding practices are becoming globally integrated. Specifically what will be evaluated is its intervention in two violent outbreaks in the country of Burundi, the Burundian Civil War, occurred between 1993 and 2005, and a second crisis occurred in 2015 that has remained unresolved.
... Meierhenrich, 2012, p. 26).Asimismo, el neorrealismo posee una visión pesimista de la cooperación internacional, considerando que "los Estados se preocupan sumamente por su posición relativa (…) Un punto importante, que caracteriza el supuesto neorrealista, es su foco en las ganancias relativas"(Burchill, 2005, citado en Bayeh, 2014. En este sentido, son los intereses estatales los que determinan la decisión de cooperar o competir(Bayeh, 2014).A lo anterior se suma la conjetura neorrealista de que los Estados cooperan y adhieren a las organizaciones internacionales cuando les conviene(Sinclair y Byers, 2006). De esta forma, "las organizaciones internacionales sobreviven mientras permitan a los Estados seguir sus propios intereses y asistirlos en alcanzar ganancias relativas"(Bayeh, 2014, p. 348). ...
Article
Full-text available
El artículo tiene por objetivo dar cuenta de los diferentes enfoques que desde la disciplina de las Relaciones Internacionales permiten estudiar el fenómeno de las organizaciones internacionales. En este sentido, en primer lugar se realiza un abordaje conceptual y una caracterización de las organizaciones internacionales, así como una diferenciación del término Instituciones Internacionales. En segundo lugar, se señalan aquellos trabajos a los que se tuvo acceso que han estudiado el tema en los últimos años, evidenciándose que han existido esfuerzos desde diferentes puntos del planeta en indagar sobre este tema. En tercer lugar, se analiza el papel que juegan las organizaciones internacionales en la disciplina, específicamente desde los enfoques teóricos del realismo y neorrealismo, liberalismo, institucionalismo neoliberal e interdependencia compleja, constructivismo y otras contribuciones teóricas (entre ellas, la visión crítica, el funcionalismo, neo-funcionalismo, la teoría del agente-principal y la perspectiva feminista). Por último, se presentan reflexiones finales. Así, el artículo estudia un actor internacional considerado por los autores de carácter más estatocéntrico no tradicional en las Relaciones Internacionales, tal como son las organizaciones internacionales, que desde mediados del siglo XX han incrementado su presencia en el sistema internacional, vinculándose en la actualidad tanto con gobiernos nacionales como subnacionales y abarcando una amplia variedad de temas y problemáticas.
Article
Full-text available
A basic debate in world politics involves the impact of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) on international conflict. Liberals, functionalists, and others see IGOs as capable of transforming global anarchy, while realists emphasize the essential irrelevance of IGOs in managing such fundamental processes as war and peace. Recent quantitative studies also yield disparate conclusions depending on particular econometric assumptions, implying variously that IGOs foster pacific relations among states, have no impact on dispute behavior, or even increase dispute propensity. At least part of the problem is a lack of theoretical and empirical specificity. The authors apply bargaining theory to develop a "middle path" between the realist and liberal perspectives. Only some IGOs, those with security mandates and the most sophisticated institutional structures, are likely to influence dispute behavior. The authors combine the theory with two improvements in research design. First, IGOs vary in capability, mandate, and cohesion. The authors construct a dataset of IGO institutional heterogeneity and member cohesiveness. Second, states join IGOs for reasons that are not unrelated to why states fight. The authors control for the level of international involvement among countries and find support for their arguments in initial tests.
Article
International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia); SC Res. 955, UN SCOR, 49th Sess., supra note 1, at 15, reprinted in 33 ILM 1602 (1994) (International Tribunal for Rwanda). 5 See, e.g., SC Res. 687, supra note 2, paras. 16–19 (compensation for victims of Persian Gulf conflict). 6 The Marshall, Caroline, and Mariana Islands, formerly mandated to Japan, were placed under the UN trustee-ship system in 1947 as a strategic trust territory, with the United States as administering authority. Since the end of the Cold War a decade ago, the United Nations has exercised authority in significant new ways to address various aspects of resolving conflicts and dealing with their consequences. These new approaches have included the use of force to end interstate and internal violence, 1 the resolution of boundary issues and other disputes that might prolong the conflict, 2 the elimination of threatening weapons capabilities, 3 the prosecution of violations of international humanitarian law, 4 and the compensation of victims of the conflict. 5 These actions have been taken either with the consent of the state or states involved, or pursuant to the authority of the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, or both. In addition, the role of the United Nations has substantially expanded during this period with respect to the governance of societies affected by conflicts. This expansion has assumed particular significance during the past two years with respect to the UN involvement in the conflicts in Kosovo and East Timor. The following commentary outlines this development of law and practice concerning UN governance of postconflict societies and addresses some of the legal issues presented by it.
Article
This article examines American conceptions of sovereignty — as they appear in the writings of US scholars of international law, and those US international relations scholars who deal with international law. At first glance, the US literature is dominated by two distinct conceptions of sovereignty: 1. A statist conception that privileges the territorial integrity and political independence of governments regardless of their democratic or undemocratic character; 2. A popular conception that privileges the rights of peoples rather than governments, especially when widespread human rights violations are committed by a totalitarian regime. However, on closer examination, the two conceptions are in fact different manifestations of a single, uniquely American conception of sovereignty - one which elevates the United States above other countries and seeks to protect it against outside influences while, concurrently, maximizing its ability to intervene overseas. The single conception of sovereignty is able to encompass both statist and popular sub-conceptions because the latter have different - though not mutually exclusive - agendas. The statist conception is concerned with protecting the United States against outside influences and has little to say about the sovereignty of other countries. The popular conception is concerned with limiting the sovereignty of other countries and has little to say about the sovereignty of the United States. This article exposes the single US conception of sovereignty - as it exists in the academic literature of international law and international relations — and arrives at some tentative conclusions derived from the unique position and history of the world’s most powerful state. --
Article
This concise introductory text for students approaching the subject of international relations for the first time takes as its starting point the main theoretical approaches which have been adopted historically and shows how these can be applied to understanding the central questions of war and peace, poverty and wealth, economic management and global governance confronting the world today. The second edition has been revised and updated throughout with increased coverage of globalization and of the emerging 21st-century world order.
Article
Although the debate between realism and neoliberalism offers deep insights and raises fundamental questions into the nature of international systems, it also offers the confusion that accompanies imprecisely formulated concepts and an imperfect application of subsidiary ideas. Using a noncooperative extensive-form game to model anarchic international systems, this essay seeks to resolve that debate by restating it in a more explicit and deductive context. Arguing that collective security corresponds to the system envisioned by neoliberals, we begin by differentiating between balance of power and collective security in terms of the strategies that characterize the foreign policies of countries. Next, we establish that both balance of power and collective security can correspond to equilibria in our game. Arguments about goals and institutions are then recast in terms of the different properties of these equilibria. In particular, a balance of power equilibrium does not guarantee every country's security, so in it countries must be vigilant about their relative share of resources. A collective security equilibrium, on the other hand, ensures everyone's sovereignty and thereby allows absolute resource maximization. Unlike a balance of power equilibrium, however, a collective security equilibrium is not always strong, and it is not necessarily perfect, so the institutional structures that facilitate the realization of mutual gains from the variety of cooperative "subgames" that characterize the world economy play a critical role in establishing the stability of that equilibrium.