CHAPTER 7

Intergovernmental Organizations, Nongovernmental

Organizations, And International Law
Chapter Summary
I. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

The Creation of International Organizations (IOs)

o Why have states chosen to organize themselves collectively? The response is found in
liberalism
1. Within the framework of institutions, cooperation is possible
Functionalism
o Simple problems, often with technical (not political) solutions are common starting points for
IOs
o David Mitrany argues that states bind together those interests which are common, where
they are common, and to the extent to which they are common.
o They promote building on and expanding the habits of cooperation nurtured by groups of
technical experts. Eventually, those habits will spill over into cooperation in political and
military affairs.
Collective Goods
o Collective goods are available to all members of the group regardless of individual
contributions.
o The use of collective goods involves activities and choices that are interdependent. Decisions
by one states have effects for other states; that is, states can suffer unanticipated negative
consequences as a result of actions by others.
o Garrett Hardin, in The Tragedy of the Commons, proposed several possible pollutions to the
tragedy of the commons:
1. Use coercion: force nations and peoples to control the collective goods.
2. Restructure the preferences of states through rewards and punishments.
3. Alter the size of the group.
The Roles of Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs)
o IGOs contribute to habits of cooperation; through IGOs, states become socialized to regular
interactions. Such regular interactions occur between states in the United Nations.
o Roles:
1. Some establish regularized processes of information gathering, analysis, and
surveillance.
2. Some IGOs, such as the World Trade Organization, develop procedures to make
rules, settle disputes, and punish those who fail to follow the rules.
3. Other IGOs conduct operational activities that help to resolve major substantive
problems
4. IGOs also play key roles in bargaining, serving as arenas for negotiating and
developing coalitions.
o IGOs often spearhead the creation and maintenance of international rules and principles.
They establish expectations about their behavior of other states. These are known
as international regimes.
 o Charters if IGOs incorporate the norms, rules, and decisionmaking processes of regimes.
IGOs help to reduce the incentive to cheat and enhance the value of a good reputation.
1. For states, IGOs enlarge the possibilities for foreign policy making and add to the
constraints under which states operate and especially implement foreign policy.
States join IGOs to use them as instruments of foreign policy.
2. IGOs also constrain states. They set agendas and force governments to make
decisions; encourage states to develop processes to facilitate IGO participation,
and create norms of behavior with which states must align their policies if they
wish to benefit from their membership.
3. IGOs affect individuals by providing opportunities for leadership. As individuals
work with or in IGOs, they, like states, may become socialized to cooperate
internationally.
The United Nations
o The UN was founded on three fundamental principles:
1. The UN is based on the notion of the sovereign equality of member states. Each
state is legally equivalent of every other state.
2. Only international problems are within the jurisdiction of the UN. Such problems
include human rights, global telecommunications, and environmental
regulation.
3. The UN is designed primarily to maintain international peace and security. States
should refrain from the threat or use of force and settle disputes through
peaceful means.
o Security has broadened from the classical protection of national territory to human security
providing humanitarian relief for refugees or the starving.
o Structure
1. Security Council: responsible for ensuring peace and security and deciding
enforcement measures. Decisions must be unanimous and each of the five
permanent members has a veto.
2. General Assembly: with 192 member states, permits debate on any topic under
its purview. Since the end of the Cold War, the GAs work has been
marginalized, and power has shifted back to the Security Council, much to the
dismay of the Group of 77, a coalition of developing states, regional groups, and
the Group of 20.
3. Secretariat: gathers information, coordinates and conducts activities. The
secretary-general is the chief spokesperson and administrative officer.
4. Economic and Social Counsel (ECOSOC): coordinates economic and social
welfare programs and coordinates action of specialized agencies.
5. Trusteeship Council: supervision has ended; proposals have been floated to
change its function to a forum for NGOs.
6. International Court of Justice: noncompulsory jurisdiction on cases brought by
states and international organizations.
Key Political Issues
o The United Nations played a key role in the decolonization of Africa and Asia. The UN
Charter endorsed the principle of self-determination for colonial peoples.
o The emergence of new states transformed the United Nations because of the formation of the
Group of 77, pitting the North against the South. This conflict continues to be a central
feature of the United Nations.
Peacekeeping
o In traditional peacekeeping, multilateral institutions such as the United Nations seek to
contain conflicts between two states through third-party military forces. These military units
 are drawn from small, neutral member states, invited by the disputants, and primarily
address interstate conflict.
o Complex peacekeeping activities respond also to civil war and ethnonationalist conflicts
in states that have not requested UN assistance.
o UN peacekeepers have tried to maintain law and order in failing societies by aiding in civil
administration, policing, and rehabilitating infrastructure. This is referred to
as peacebuilding.
o Complex peacekeeping has had successes and failures. Namibias transition from war to
cease-fire and then to independence is seen as a success; Rwandas genocide and need for
humanitarian protection is seen as a failure.
Reform: Success and failures
o Management: the size of the Secretariat has been reduced by 4,000. In the wake of the Oil for
Food scandal, new financial accountability mechanisms have been put in place and internal
oversight has been established.
o Reorganization: The High Commissioner for Human Rights, Counter-Terrorism Committee,
and Department of Peacekeeping Operations have been restructured for greater efficiency.
In 2006 a Peacebuilding Commission was formed to address post-conflict recovery.
o Security Council: Most states agree that the council membership should be increased, but
many disagree over how it should be done, Europe is overrepresented, and Germany and
Japan contribute the most financially. China is the only developing country. Contending
proposals have been discussed but no agreement reached.
A Complex Network of Intergovernmental Organizations
o There are nineteen specialized agencies formally affiliated with the United Nations. These
organizations have separate charters, budgets, memberships, and secretariats. They also
focus on different issues. Examples include the World Bank and Food and Agriculture
Organization.
o There are IGOs not affiliated with the United Nations, including the World Trade
Organization and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, as well as regional
organizations like the African Union.
The European UnionOrganizing Regionally
o Historical Evolution
1. After World War II, an economically strong Europe (made possible by a
reduction of trade barriers and help from the United States) knew it would be
better equipped to counter the threat of the Soviet Union if it integrated.
2. The European Coal and Steel Community represented the first step toward
realizing the idea. This became so successful that states agreed to expand
cooperation.
3. Under the European Economic Community, six states agreed to create a common
marketremoving restrictions on internal trade, reducing barriers to movement
of people, services, and capital, and establishing a common agricultural policy.
4. New areas were gradually brought under the umbrella of the community,
including health, safety, and consumer standards.
5. In 1986, the most important step was taken in deepening the integration process
the signing of the Single European Act (SEA), which established the goal of
completing a single market by 1992.
6. The Maastricht Treaty was signed in 1992, and the European Community became
the European Union (EU). Members committed themselves to a political union,
including the establishment of common foreign policies, a single currency, and
regional central bank.
 7. The 1997 Amsterdam Treaty put more emphasis on the rights of individuals,
citizenship, and justice.
8. The increased power of the EU has not been without its opponents. The United
Kingdom opted out of the monetary union, and some Europeans fear a
diminution of national sovereignty and are reluctant to surrender their
democratic rights to nonelected bureaucrats.
9. In 2004, the proposed European Constitution was signed by members of the
heads of state, but both the French and Dutch electorate rejected the document.
o Structure
1. Power initially resided in the Commission, which is designed to represent the
interests of the community as a whole. Increasingly, the Council of Ministers,
with a weighted voting system, has assumed more power.
2. The increasing power of the European Parliament is one area of change. Since the
1980s it has gained a greater legislative role.
3. The growing power of the European Court of Justice is another change. The court
has the responsibility for interpreting and enforcing EU law.
o Policies and Problems
1. Among the many controversial issues has been the failed effort to develop a
common European foreign and security policy. The split between who
supported the 2003 Iraq war and those who opposed it is suggestive.
2. Issues surrounding widening are equally as problematic. Should the EU continue
to expand its membership by reaching out to Eastern European states and the
former Soviet Union? Can Turkey eventually meet the criteria for membership?
Other regions have sought to follow the EU model, while still others have sought a different role for
integration
The Organization of American States (OAS) has followed a different path from that of the EU.
o In 1948 the OAS adopted wide ranging goals: political, economic, social, and military.
o The OAS not has rules for the protection of democratic government in the form of rules
prohibiting members from supporting coups in member states.
The African Union (AU) replaced the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 2002.
o The OAU had been a weak organization as its members were newly independent states and
thus deeply concerned about questions of sovereignty
o The AU is an attempt to give African states an increased ability to respond to the issues of
economic globalization and democratization affecting the continent.

II. NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

NGOs are generally private, voluntary organizations whose members are individuals or associations
that come together to achieve a common purpose.
They are diverse entities, ranging from grassroots organizations to those recognized transnationally.
Some are funded solely through private sources, while others rely on partial government funds.
Some are open to mass memberships and some are closed member groups.
The Growth of NGO Power and Influence
o The anti-slavery campaign was one of the earliest NGO-initiated efforts to organize
transnationally to ban a morally unacceptable practice.
o NGOs organizing on behalf of peace and noncoercive methods of dispute settlement also
appeared during the 1800s, as did the Red Cross, which advocated for the treatment for
wounded soldiers.
o During the 1970s, networks and coalitions were formed among various groups, and by the
1990s these NGOs were able to effectively mobilize the mass pubic and influence
international relations.
o A number of factors explain the resurgence of NGO activity:
1. The issues seized on have been viewed as interdependent, or globalizing, issues
issues states cannot solve alone and whose solutions require transnational
cooperation.
2. Global conferences became a key venue for international activity beginning in the
1970s, each designed to address the environment, population, women, and food.
NGOs organized separate but parallel conferences on the same issues.
3. The end of the Cold War and the expansion of democracy have provided political
opening for NGOs into parts of the world before untouched by NGO activity.
4. The communications revolutionfirst fax, then the Web and e-mailhas enabled
NGOs to communicate more efficiently.
o Functions and Roles of NGOs:
1. NGOs act as advocates for specific policies and offer alternative channels of
political participation, as Amnesty International has done.
2. They mobilize mass publics, as Greenpeace did in saving the whales.
3. They distribute critical assistance in disaster relief and to refugees, as Oxfam has
done.
4. They are the principal monitors of human rights norms and environmental
regulations and provide warnings of violations, as Human Rights Watch has
done.
5. NGOs are the primary actors at the grassroots level in mobilizing individuals to
act. Their impact was felt strongly at the 1992 UN Conference on the
Environment and Development (UNCTAD).
For the first time, they made statements from the floor during official
meetings, drafted information materials, and scrutinized UN
documents.
2. At the national level, NGOs have occasionally taken the place of states, either
performing services that are inept or corrupt government is not stepping in for a
failed state.
3. NGOs seldom work alone. The communications revolution has served to link
NGOs with each other, formally and informally.
4. NGOs may also be formed for malevolent purposes, the Mafia, international drug
cartels, and even Al Qaeda.
o The Power of NGOs
1. NGOs rely on soft power, meaning credible information, expertise, and moral
authority that attracts the attention and admiration of governments and the
public.
2. NGOs have distinct advantages over individuals, states, and intergovernmental
organizations. They are usually politically independent, participate at all levels,
and can make policy with less risk to national sensitivities.
3. NGOs can increase their power through networking with other NGOs.
The International Campaign to Ban Landmines demonstrates the
power of the network.
o The Limits of NGOs
 1. Most NGOs have very limited economic resources since they do not collect taxes.
The competition for funding is fierce.
2. There is a continuous need to raise money, and some NGOs increasingly rely on
governments. If NGOs choose to accept state assistance, then their neutrality
and legitimacy is potentially compromised.
3. Success is hard to measure; there is no single agenda, and NGOs are often
working at cross-purposes.
4. Some people question whether certain activities undertaken by NGOs, which
have traditionally been viewed as supportive of the common good, may result in
prolonging conflicts.

III. INTERNATIONAL LAW

International Law and Functions

o International law consists of a body of both rules and norms regulating interactions among
states, between states and IGOs, and among IGOs, states, and individuals.
o At the state level, law is hierarchical. Established structures exist for both making law and
enforcing law, and law binds individuals and groups within the state. There is widespread
compliance with the law because it is in the interest of everyone that order be maintained.
o In the international system, authoritative structures are absent. Nonetheless, liberals
acknowledge that international law exists and has an effect in daily life, such as airspace,
trade, and shipping regulations.
The Sources of International Law
o Custom. But customary law is limited because it develops slowly. Not all states participate in
customary law, and its uncodified nature leads to ambiguity in interpretation.
o Treaties. Treaties are the dominant source of law today, and are legally binding: only major
changes in circumstances give states the right not to follow treaties they have ratified.
o Authoritative bodies, such as the UN International Law Commission.
o Courts. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been responsible for some significant
decisions, but it is a weak institution for several reasons:
1. The court actually hears very few cases. Since 1946, only 112 cases have been
brought before it.
2. When cases are heard, they rarely deal with the major controversies of the day
because such controversies are outside of the courts reach.
3. Only states may initiate proceedings; individuals and nongovernmental actors
like multinational corporations cannot.
o National and even local courts. They may hear cases occurring on their territory in which
international law is invoked or cases involving their own citizens.
1. Under universal jurisdiction, states may claim jurisdiction if the conduct of a
defendant is sufficiently heinous to violate the laws of all states. States claimed
jurisdiction as a result of genocide in World War II, and for war crimes in
Bosnia, Rwanda, and Kosovo.
Enforcement of International Law
o A key trend in the new millennium has been the expansion of the international judiciary,
motivated by the idea of individual responsibility for war crimes and crimes against
humanity.
1. Following the atrocities of Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and East Timor, the UN
established two ad hoc criminal tribunals. Because of the need to establish
procedures and the difficulty of finding those accused, the trials have been
subject to criticism
 o In light of the difficulties with the ad hoc tribunals, in 1998, states concluded the statute for
the International Criminal Court (ICC), an innovative court having both compulsory
jurisdiction and jurisdiction over individuals.
1. ICC work began in 2003, and pending cases all concern crimes committed in
African countries.
2. The ICC is controversial. Supporters see the court as essential for establishing
international law and enforcing individual accountability. Others, including the
U.S., objects to it on the grounds that the ICC infringes on U.S. sovereignty and
may implicate U.S. military or political officials.
o Why do states obey international law most of the time?
1. The liberal response is that they obey because it is right to do so. Individual states
benefit from living in an ordered world where there are general expectations
about other states behavior.
2. Should states choose not to obey, other members of the international system do
have recourse: they can issue diplomatic protests, initiate reprisals, threaten to
enforce economic boycotts, or use military force.
3. Self-help mechanisms of enforcement from one state alone are apt to be
ineffective. To be most effective, states must use collective action against the
violator.

IV. REALIST VIEWS OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION AND LAW

They are skeptical about international law

o International law creates some order, and states comply because it is in the states self-
interest to comply. It is in the self-interest of states to have their airspace and territory
respected, and to enjoy secure procedures for international trade.
They are also skeptical about international organizations, both IGOs and NGOs.
o Realists do not put much faith in the United Nations and point to failures of the Security
Council to collectively punish aggressors.
o Most NGOs exist at the beck and call of states; it is states that grant them legal authority, and
it is states that can take away that authority.

V. THE RADICAL VIEW OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION AND LAW

Radicals see contemporary international law as the product of a specific time and historical process,
emerging out of eighteenth-century economic liberalism and nineteenth-century political
liberalism.
o Law primarily comes out of Western capitalist states and is designed to serve the interests of
that constituency, and is biased against socialist states, the weak, and the unrepresented.
o IGOs, especially the UN and UN agencies, were designed to support the interests of the
powerful. Those institutions have succeeded in sustaining the powerful elite against the
powerless mass of weaker states.
o The lack of representativeness and the lack of accountability of NGOs are key issues. Most
radicals see the world of NGOs based in the North as dominated by members of the same
elite. NGOs are captive to the dominant interests of that system.
o Contemporary law and international organizations are not the agents of the political and
economic changes that radicals desire,
VI. THE CONSTRUCTIVIST VIEW OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION

They place critical importance on institutions and norms. Both IGOs and NGOs can be norm
entrepreneurs that socialize and teach states new norms. These new norms may influence state
behavior.
Law plays a key role in constructivist thinking because it reflects changing norms. Norms are
internalized by states themselves, they change state preferences, and shape behavior.

VII. IN SUM: DO IGOS, NGOS, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW MAKE A

DIFFERENCE?

Realists remain skeptical; all are reflections of state power and have no independent identity or role.
Radicals view them skeptically as well. They see them as mere reflections of political and economic
hegemony.
Liberals believe that international law and organizations do not replace states as the primary actors,
but they do provide alternative venues for states themselves to engage in collective action and for
individuals to join with other like-minded individuals in pursuit of their goals.
CHAPTER 8

War And Strife

Chapter Summary
I. INTRODUCTION

This chapter introduces prominent approaches to mitigating the effects of the security dilemma as well as how
insecurity can be managed short of war.

War is the oldest, most prevalent, and most salient issue in international relations.
Attention to war and security is warranted: security comes first in international relations; all other
competing values such as human rights, the environment, and economic development presuppose
security.
Although 3.5 billion have died in the 14,500 armed struggles throughout history, the number and
intensity of war has dropped by one-half since 1991.
International relations theorists disagree over the inevitability of war.
Classical realists and neorealists argue that war is inevitable. They view states as victims of
the prisoners dilemma during times of conflict: each state is compelled to harm the other so as
to avoid the worst possible outcome.
The inevitability of war also creates a security dilemma: states seeking to increase their defense
capabilities end up threatening other states in the system, thereby increasing tensions and the
chance of war.
Liberals argue that war can be eliminated with sufficient effort and effective institutions that can
reduce the chances of conflict. Liberals also argue that the way in which a state is governed
domestically can change its attitude toward war. The democratic peace concept demonstrates
this by arguing that democracies virtually never fight one another.
Radicals argue that war can be eliminated, but only through a revolutionary change in the character
of the system.
Constructivists argue that war is the result of a process of socialization in which conflict is assumed
to exist. If this construction is changed, then war can potentially be eliminated.
Historically, states have sought security by balancing realist and liberal policies. When states face
more serious threats, they tend to look toward realism.

II. CAUSES OF WAR

The Individual

Both the characteristics of individual leaders and the general attributes of people have been blamed for war.
 Realist interpretation: Characteristics of the masses lead to the outbreak of war. Aggressive behavior
is adopted by virtually all species to ensure survival. War is the product of biologically innate
human characteristics or flawed human nature.
Liberal interpretation: Misperceptions by leaders, such as seeing aggressiveness where it may not be
intended, or attributing the actions of one person to an entire group, can lead to the outbreak of
war.

State and Society

War occurs because of the internal structures of states.

Liberal explanations: Some types of economic systems are more war-prone than others, such as
aristocratic states. Democratic regimes are least likely to wage war because democratic norms and
culture inhibit the leadership from taking actions leading to war.
Radical explanations: Conflict and war are attributed to the internal dynamics of capitalist economic
systems: the competition between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat over economic dominance
and political leadership. This struggle leads to war. One manifestation of this is diversionary
war: war designed to hold off a domestic political crisis by temporarily unifying the populace.
o Conflict over what institutions should govern a state can also lead to civil wars as groups
attempt to impose their preferred system.

The International System

Realist interpretation: The international system is equivalent to a state of war; it is anarchic and
governed only by a weak and overarching rule of law. War breaks out because there is nothing to
stop it. States themselves are the final authorities and the ultimate arbiters of disputes; herein
resides sovereignty.
o A states security is ensured only by its accumulating military and economic power.
o Groups seeking self-determination cannot appeal to higher authority.
Realist variant: Power transition theory: Represented by the work of Organski, this theory
argues that changes in state capabilities lead to war. War occurs when a dissatisfied challenger state
begins to attain the same capabilities as the hegemon. Modelski and Thompson find that there are
regular cycles of power as old powers decline and new powers rise.
Radical interpretation: Dominant capitalist states within the international system need to expand
economically, leading to wars with developing regions over control of natural resources and labor
markets.

The Case of Iraqs Invasion of Kuwait

At the individual level: Perhaps Saddam Husseins individual characteristics, including his basic
insecurity and ruthless techniques, help to explain Iraqs actions. Hussein may have calculated that
his actions would not elicit a military response from the international community.
At the state level: Iraq was just acting in its own national interest. Iraq felt that the land (oil fields)
annexed had been illegally seized during the British occupation around the time of World War I.
The 198088 war with Iran had also reduced Iraqs oil revenues.
 At the international system level: Several factors indicated that Iraqs actions would not be resisted:
the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Arab Leagues reluctance to criticize its members, and the
historical failure of the UN Security Council to act decisively.

The Case of South Ossetia

At the individual level: Saakashvilis efforts to restore Georgian pride and resist the Russian
bully raised tensions. The pressures of ethnic identity both raised tensions and provided a reason
for Russian interest in South Ossetia. Saakashvili and Medvedev both wanted to look active and
strong.
At the state level: Georgia was acting to promote its sovereignty over a breakaway region. Russia
was acting to increase its influence in part of the former Soviet territory.
At the international system level: There was no impartial arbiter to deal with any of the questions at
issue in the conflict. In a state of anarchy, both sides had to rely on their own strengths during the
conflict.

III. CATEGORIZING WARS

Interstate wars: wars between two or more states. In the past these were the focus of most
research. They are the easiest to study and have caused the most damage.
Intrastate wars: wars between groups within a state, with or without international participation.
While the number of ongoing intrastate wars has declined, the decline has been less precipitous
than the decline in interstate wars.
Total war: Wars involving multiple great powers. Total wars include significant destruction and
loss of life. Since the end of World War II, total wars have become less frequent; the number of
countries participating in total wars has fallen, and they tend to last for shorter lengths of time This
has led some to argue that this type of war is obsolete.
Limited war: the objective is not surrender and occupation of enemy territory, but rather to attain
limited goals. The Korean War, the Gulf War, and conflicts in Sudan and Sierra Leone are examples
of limited war.

While interstate wars which can be called total wars have declined significantly, limited wars and particularly
civil wars that are limited in nature have increased precipitously. Two-thirds of all conflicts since World War II
have been civil wars.

Characteristics of limited wars:

1. They last a long time, with periods of fighting punctuated by periods of relative calm.
2. Human costs are high: both combatants and civilians are killed and maimed.
3. Food supplies are interrupted.
4. Diseases spread as health systems suffer.
5. Money is diverted from constructive economic development to purchasing armaments.
6. Entire generations may grow up knowing only a state of war.

Limited war has become the most common option for states contemplating violence against other states.
IV. HOW WARS ARE FOUGHT

Conventional war: war between designated soldiers representing specific sides of a conflict. Conventional
war is conducted primarily with conventional weapons.

Conventional weapons: weapons technologies whose destructive effects can be limited in space and time to
those who are legitimate targets of war.

Weapons of mass destruction (WMD): chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons whose destructive
effects cannot be limited in space or time to legitimate targets of war.

Debate over nuclear proliferation: some scholars argue that slow proliferation by states with nuclear
capabilities will deter potential enemies from nuclear action, whereas others argue that proliferation is more
apt to breed proliferation and/or initiate accidental war.

Unconventional warfare: warfare in which one or more sides refuse to follow the accepted conventions of
war. This can be expressed either in the conduct of the war itself or in the refusal to accept traditional outcomes
of battle.

Asymmetric conflict: warfare conducted between parties of unequal strength. The weaker party seeks to
neutralize its opponents strengths by exploiting that opponents weaknesses.

Guerilla warfare: the weaker party may often use a civilian population to provide supplies like food and
shelter and to gather intelligence. Fighters rely on hit-and-run tactics until the enemy is worn down. Examples
include the Algerians against the French in the 1950s, and the Taliban against coalition forces in Afghanistan.

Terrorism: a particular form of asymmetric conflict in which one side attempts to instill fear in the other in
order to force concessions.

This involves four major elements:

1. premeditation
2. motivation or cause, whether religious, economic, or political
3. noncombatant targets
4. secretiveness, where perpetrators belong to clandestine groups or are secretly sponsored by states

Terrorism has a long history, occurring during Greek and Roman times, the Middle Ages, and the French
Revolution; in Nazi Germany; by Basque separatists (ETA); and most recently by Al Qaeda around the world.
Since the 1990s, terrorist acts have become more lethal. The infrastructure to support terrorism has become
more sophisticated, and groups practicing terrorism are more wide-ranging. Responding to terrorism has
become increasingly difficult; perpetrators have networks of supporters in the resident populations. The
international community has taken action against terrorism by creating a framework of rules and blocking the
flow of financial resources to global networks.
Piracy: reflects the dual nature of participants motives: economic gain from violent action. Piracy has surged
in recent years, most notably as a result of state failure in Somalia.

V. THE JUST WAR TRADITION

Jus ad bellum: the justice of entering into a war.

Jus in bello: the justice of how a war is fought.

Just war tradition

Just war theory asserts that there are several criteria that can make the decision to go to war a just one:

1. The cause must be just (self defense or massive violation of human rights), with a declaration of
intent.
2. Leader needs to have the correct intentions.
3. Leader should desire to end abuses and establish a just peace.
4. Nation should have exhausted all other possibilities for ending the abuse.
5. Forces must be removed rapidly after the abuses have ended.

Just war tradition also addresses conduct in war:

1. Combatants and noncombatants must be differentiated.

2. The violence used needs to be proportionate to the ends to be achieved.

Just war is an evolving practice, changing as broader ideas about war change.

The Debate over Humanitarian Intervention

Just war tradition directly contradicts the hallmark of the Westphalian system, the respect for state sovereignty.
Since the end of World War II, the notion has emerged that all human beings are in need of protection and that
states have an obligation to intervene when human rights are violated. This belief is known as the responsibility
to protect.

Responsibility to protect: if a state does not provide protection to its own people, then it is the obligation of
others to intervene in order to protect human rights.

VI. APPROACHES TO MANAGING INSECURITY

Liberal Approaches: Collective Security and Arms Control/Disarmament

The collective-security ideal: although wars can occur, they should be prevented. Wars will not
occur if all parties exercise restraint.
 Collective security does not always work, because the aggressor cannot always be easily identified,
and a state may be unwilling to take action against an ally or foe.
Arms control and disarmament: fewer weapons means greater security. By regulating arms
proliferation and reducing the amount and type of weaponry employed, the costs of the security
dilemma are reduced.
Complete disarmament schemes are unlikely because cheaters would be rewarded, but incremental
disarmament remains a possibility.

Realist Approaches: Balance of Power and Deterrence

Balance of power: an equilibrium between any two sides in a potential conflict. States must
evaluate the costs and benefits of particular policies that determine their roles in a balance of
power. States seek to ensure that no side can be certain of a victory if there is a war (example:
NATO and the Warsaw Pact).
A major limitation of the balance-of-power approach is its inability to manage security during
periods of fundamental change (because it supports the status quo).
Balance of power is also very difficult to manage in times of power transition.
Deterrence: war can be prevented by the threat of force. States must build up their arsenals in
order to present a credible threat.

Key assumptions:
1. Decision-makers are rational.
2. Nuclear weapons pose an unacceptable threat and decision-makers will not resort to armed aggression
against a nuclear state.
3. Alternatives to war are available irrespective of the situation.
These assumptions are troublesome because not all decision- makers are rational.
It is unclear how non-state actors can be deterred using traditional methods.
The United States is also approaching nuclear primacy, and thus deterrence may not serve to
restrain U.S. actions.
Collective security: aggressive or illegal use of force by one state shall be met with united action
by all (or at least most) states in the system. Aggressors cannot take on the world and will be
deterred from using force.

Key assumptions:
1. Wars are prevented by restraint on military action.
2. Aggressors must be stopped.
3. The aggressor is easy to identify.
4. The aggressor is always wrong.
5. Aggressors know the community will act against them.
Collective security is problematic: these assumptions do not always hold. Collective security also
requires that the community act decisively in all cases of aggression, even when individual states
have no clear interest in acting.
Arms control and disarmament: fewer weapons = more security.
1. The Cold War saw many agreements to limit the weapons on both sides.
2. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty limits the acquisition of nuclear weapons technology.
 There are many examples of agreements to limit arms, but enforcement can sometimes be
problematic.
Complete disarmament is unlikely given the risks involved to the disarming states.

VII. A CHANGING VIEW OF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

A shift from a focus on territorial integrity and threats from states toward a wider concern about
threats from non-state actors
A shift toward the privatization of force through private military contractors such as Xe (formerly
Blackwater), etc.
The extent to which the international community has an obligation to consider the protection of
individual humanitarian conditions in decisions about conflict
o When can sovereignty be violated to protect individuals? And what do we protect individuals
from?