International Relations and International Security - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – International Relations and International Security PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 5b28-ZjNmM


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

International Relations and International Security


... Organisations in San Francisco 50 participating ... San Marino. S&M. Belgium. Czech Republic. Denmark. Estonia. France. Germany. Hungary. Italy ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:1312
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 20
Provided by: stefan5


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: International Relations and International Security

International Relations and International Security
  • Lecture 4
  • International Organisations as
  • Providers of Collective Security

  • Conceptualizing International Organisations
  • Characteristics
  • Basis of Membership
  • IOs as Instruments, Arenas and Actors
  • Collective Security
  • Collective Security vs. Collective Defence
  • Examples
  • United Nations
  • UN and Collective Security
  • UN vs. Regional Organizations
  • UN Security Governance
  • Conclusions
  • Successes and Failures of International
  • Future Relevance of International Organisations

Conceptualizing International Organisations
  • Characteristics (Yearbook of International
  • Based on a formal instrument of agreement between
    the governments of nation states
  • Including three or more nation states as parties
    to the agreement
  • Possessing a common purpose
  • Having a permanent secretariat performing ongoing
  • Global, intercontinental, regional membership
  • Geographic basis AU, ASEAN, OAS
  • Functional basis NATO, WTO, CoE, OSCE
  • Mixed basis EU, ECOWAS

International Organisations as Instruments
  • Realist/neo-realist perspective
  • IOs are set up by states, receive their mandates
    from states, are funded by states
  • They are tools for carrying out state interests
  • Their policies will be shaped by the interests of
    the most powerful member states
  • Leaders of IOs depend on powerful states
  • UN SG Boutros-Boutros Ghali was forced out by US
    in 1996
  • US and EU have tacit agreement on World Bank and
    IMF leadership
  • States engage or disengage with IOs according to
    their interests
  • At times they seek influence within IOs to
    achieve their goals
  • At other times they seek autonomy from IOs to
    achieve their goals

International Organisations as Arenas
  • Liberal institutionalist perspective
  • IOs provide forums or meeting places for states
  • Allow for the exchange of information,
    networking, increased transparency
  • Provide rules, procedures and formats for
    meetings on substantive issues (and thus
    structure outcomes)
  • Provide a setting for iterated interaction over
  • A stage on which states can
  • Air policy views
  • Seek status
  • Build consensus on joint action

International Organisations as Actors
  • Constructivist perspective
  • IOs are autonomous agents in world politics
    because they have a stable and coherent
    decision-making machinery
  • Have effects in the international system that are
    independent of their member states
  • Can affect the interests and policy choices of
    states (impose constraints/offer opportunities)
  • Can reconstitute the structures of states
  • Can promote norms to which member states adhere
    in their domestic and international conduct

Instruments, Arenas or Actors?
  • No sovereignty
  • Mandates depend on member state consensus
  • Limited budgets ? limited tools of influence
  • Resource dependency on member states
  • Yet, empirically there are independent effects in
    international politics
  • NATO and security sector reform in Central and
    Eastern Europe
  • EU and membership conditionality
  • OSCE and UN state-building
  • WTO and trade rules

Collective Security
  • Coalition building strategy
  • States agree not to attack each other
  • States agree to defend each other against an
    attack from one of the others
  • an attack against one, is an attack against
  • Encourages international cooperation
  • Examples UN, OSCE
  • Distinct from collective defence
  • States agree to defend their coalition against
    outside attack
  • Likely to lead to competition and potentially
    conflict between rival coalitions
  • Often means never ending arms races (security
  • Examples NATO, Warsaw Treaty Organisation

Examples of Collective Security Institutions
  • Concert of Europe
  • 1815 Congress of Vienna
  • Great Powers (Britain, Austria, Prussia, Russia)
    make decisions by unanimous vote (until approx.
  • League of Nations
  • 1919 Paris Peace Conference
  • Council of four great powers (United Kingdom,
    France, Italy and JapanUS never officially
    joined) and four other states (selected by the
    Assembly) adopt resolutions with unanimous
    consent (until 1939)

Examples of Collective Security Institutions
  • United Nations
  • 1945 United Nations Conference on International
    Organisations in San Francisco50 participating
  • Five permanent Security Council members with veto
    rights (US, GB, USSR, France, China), and, since
    1965, ten non-permanent members
  • OSCE
  • Established in 1973 as the Conference for
    Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE)
  • 1975 Helsinki Final Act 33 European states US
  • Renamed in 1993, now 55 member states
  • Permanent Council in Vienna for regular political
    consultation and decision-making

The United Nations and Collective Security
  • United Nations Charter
  • Chapter VI (Peaceful Settlement of Disputes)
  • Chapter VII (Security Council deals with Threats
    to Peace, including authorizing use of force)
  • Security Council has primary responsibility of
    dealing with threats to international peace
    General Assembly has secondary role
  • Decision-making procedures
  • 10 non-permanent members elected for two-year
    terms on regional quotas
  • Passage of resolutions requires 9 out of 15
    votes, including no vetoes of Permanent Five
  • Members of UN are obliged to comply with
    decisions of the Security Council
  • Amendments to the UN Charter require 2/3 General
    Assembly and support of Permanent Five

United Nations vs. Regional Security Institutions
  • Increased Division of Labour with Delegation to
    Regional Organizations
  • NATO/OSCE/EU pillars in Kosovo since 1999
  • Organization of American States (OAS) supported
    peace processes in Nicaragua, Haiti, Guatemala
  • African Union has been active in Burundi (2003),
    Darfur (since 2004)
  • Variation Across Regions
  • Resources EUAU
  • Mandates OASECOWAS

United Nations vs. Regional Security Institutions
Belgium Czech Republic Denmark Es
tonia France Germany Hungary Italy Latvia Au
Finland Cyprus Malta
Lithuania Luxemb. Netherl. Poland
Slovakia Slovenia Spain UK Ireland Swed
Monaco Holy Sea
Canada US Bulgaria Iceland Norway Roman
Tajikistan Turkm. Uzbekistan
Andorra BiH Liechtenst. San Marino SM
Belarus Kazakhst. Kyrgyzstan Albania Armenia
Azerbaijan Croatia Macedonia Georgia Moldova

Russia Switzerl. Ukraine
UN Security Governance
  • UN security functions have expanded over time
  • Peacekeeping activities (not officially in UN
    Charter still ad hoc and voluntary, but moves
    towards Peacebuilding Commission)
  • UN High Commissioner for Refugees staff of
    5,000 currently assisting 20 million people
  • UN Development Programme (post-conflict
  • UNICEF (child soldiers)
  • UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

UN Security Governance
  • United Nations High Level Panel Report A More
    Secure World Our Shared Responsibility (2004)
  • Expanded view of collective security
  • Economic and social threats poverty, disease,
    environmental degradation
  • Interstate conflict
  • Internal conflict, civil war and genocide
  • WMD
  • Terrorism
  • Transnational Organized Crime
  • Shift from state-centric collective security
    institution to security governance institution?
  • Institutionalisation/bureaucratisation of
    security functions
  • BUT foundation of UN remains its member states

Successes and Failures of International
  • Successes
  • NATO and EU
  • Security Communitiesarmed conflict between
    members becomes unthinkable
  • No armed conflict comparable to WWI (between 15
    and 65 million deaths) or WWII (approximately 57
    million deaths) since 1945
  • Peaceful end of Cold War, no nuclear exchange,
    peaceful enlargement of NATO
  • Promotion of global norms of human rights and

Successes and Failures of International
  • Failures
  • Lack of Agreement on Criteria for Use of Force
  • Cambodia, Rwanda, Balkans and other cases of
    internal conflict/genocide
  • Kosovo, Iraq and unauthorized use of force
  • Continued relevance of power configurations
  • Cold War (1950s-1980s)
  • US Unilateralism (present)
  • Multi-polarity (future)?
  • Gap between legitimacy, capabilities and will

Future Relevance of International Organisations
  • Unilateralism vs. Multilateralism
  • Divergence of attitudes towards security
    institutions and international law
  • Power differences
  • Experience and history
  • Cultural attitudes
  • OR
  • Convergence on a model of strengthened security
  • UN Reform
  • Increased capacity
  • Focus on governance issues

International Relations and International Security
  • Lecture 4
  • International Organisations as
  • Providers of Collective Security