Pease chapter 5

1. War & International Organizations

  • War shapes world affairs; states fight for tangible (land, resources) and intangible (ideology, identity) reasons.

  • Realists argue war is driven by power, but IOs help:

    • Prevent wars

    • Manage conflicts

    • End military engagements quickly

2. The United Nations (UN)

Origins

  • Created after WWII at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference.

  • Goal: suppress aggression and maintain peace.

  • States retain full sovereignty.

  • UN Charter outlaws the threat and use of force, except:

    • Self‑defense

    • Collective self‑defense

3. The Security Council (UNSC)

Structure

  • 5 permanent members (P5): U.S., UK, France, Russia, China

    • Each has absolute veto power.

  • 10 non‑permanent members represent global regions.

Role

  • Primary responsibility: preventing and responding to war.

  • Can authorize collective defense and military action.

  • Member states must comply with UNSC decisions.

Why Collective Security Failed (Cold War)

  1. Consensus – P5 disagreed on how to run the Council.

  2. Commitment – States avoided actions against their interests.

  3. Organization – Military Staff Committee collapsed early.

Modern Challenges

  • Harder to define aggression with:

    • Proxy wars

    • Covert operations

    • Non‑state actors (terrorists)

    • Preemptive military strategies

4. The General Assembly (UNGA)

  • Purpose: peacekeeping and norm‑setting.

  • Passed Uniting for Peace Resolution to reaffirm non‑use of force.

  • Represents global opinion even when UNSC is deadlocked.

5. The Secretary‑General

  • Chief administrator; prioritizes international cooperation.

  • Identifies threats, mediates conflicts, and brings issues to UNSC.

  • Responsible for developing peacekeeping (the alternative to collective security).

6. Peacekeeping

Conditions for Traditional Peacekeeping

  1. Consent of main parties

  2. Cease‑fire in place

First Mission

  • 1956 Suez Crisis → UNEF (UN Emergency Force)

Key Lessons

  • Neutrality is essential

  • Host state must consent

  • Secretary‑General controls forces

  • No assigning blame

Post–Cold War Peacekeeping

  • Expanded roles: elections, governance, humanitarian aid

  • UN sometimes runs functions of failed states

  • Challenges: lack of money, troops, clear mandates, legal loopholes

7. Case Study: Syria

Background

  • 2011 Arab Spring → protests → violent repression

  • ISIS becomes major actor

IGO Attempts

  • Arab League proposed transition plan → vetoed by Russia & China

  • UN six‑point plan → also vetoed

  • OPCW destroyed 95% of chemical weapons (2015)

  • Evidence later showed continued chemical attacks

  • Russia & China blocked action against Assad

8. Theoretical Perspectives on Syria

Realist View

  • States act on geostrategic interests.

  • Russia & Iran support Assad for regional influence.

  • Vetoes reflect power politics.

  • Fear of power vacuum if Assad falls.

Liberal View

  • Crisis caused by autocratic repression.

  • UNGA condemned Assad; majority supported peace plans.

  • OPCW reduced chemical weapon threats.

  • Long‑term peace requires:

    • Democracy

    • Pluralism

    • Free markets

  • R2P (Responsibility to Protect) is key.

Marxist View

  • Middle East borders = colonial creations.

  • Western powers supported strongmen for resource control.

  • US/UK interventions = imperialism for oil.

  • R2P = modern colonialism.

Feminist View

  • Women played roles as:

    • Activists

    • Resisters

    • Fighters

    • Victims

  • ISIS exploited women as:

    • Jihadi brides

    • Mothers for the “caliphate”

    • Suicide bombers

  • War disproportionately harms women (rape, displacement).

  • UNSC Resolution 1325 mainstreams gender in peace/security.

Constructivist View

  • Focus on norms: sovereignty, nonintervention, R2P.

  • Russia vs. West = different interpretations of these norms.

  • R2P challenges traditional sovereignty.

  • Norms evolve as politics evolve.

Security Council, Iraq, and Nuclear Nonproliferation

1. Security Council & Iraq After the Gulf War

Iraq’s Behavior After the Gulf War

  • Iraq refused to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors.

  • Demanded removal of American inspectors.

  • Sparked debate over sovereignty vs. global security.

Theoretical Perspectives

Realists

  • See Iraq’s behavior as a sovereign right to develop WMDs.

  • View U.S. actions as a superpower maintaining dominance.

  • Believe UN cannot prevent war effectively.

Liberals

  • Emphasize diplomacy and multilateral solutions.

  • Some criticize U.S. unilateralism; others support intervention to protect global security.

Marxists

  • Argue sanctions harm civilians, not elites.

  • See U.S. policy as economic imperialism (oil, power politics).

Feminists

  • Highlight suffering of women and children under sanctions.

  • Concerned about rise of religious fundamentalism after invasion.

Constructivists

  • U.S. violated two key norms:

    1. Solve disputes multilaterally

    2. Avoid using force unless necessary

  • Misperceptions and norm violations worsened the crisis.

Key Events

  • 2001: U.S. conducts airstrikes without UNSC approval → backlash.

  • Post‑9/11: U.S. targets Afghanistan and Iraq over alleged WMDs.

  • 2003: U.S. + “coalition of the willing” invade Iraq without UNSC authorization → long‑term UN disputes.

2. Security Council Reforms

Membership Reform

  • Proposal: expand UNSC from 9 to 15 members.

  • Goal: increase representation and legitimacy.

  • Outcome: No agreement at 2005 World Summit → no reform.

Peacebuilding & Peacekeeper Conduct

  • UN Peacebuilding Commission created to help states recover from war.

  • New zero‑tolerance policy for sexual exploitation by peacekeepers.

3. Nuclear Proliferation

Early Efforts

  • 1946: UN creates UN Atomic Energy Commission (short‑lived).

  • U.S. Baruch Plan: UN control of nuclear tech → failed due to U.S.–USSR distrust.

Atoms for Peace & IAEA

  • 1957: Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” leads to creation of IAEA.

  • IAEA mission:

    1. Nuclear verification & security

    2. Safety

    3. Peaceful technology transfer

  • Independent agency but reports to UNSC & UNGA.

Types of Proliferation

  • Horizontal: more states get nuclear weapons.

  • Vertical: states expand or modernize arsenals.

Obstacles

  1. Push for new technology

  2. More actors → harder negotiations

4. Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)

Basics

  • Entered into force: 1970

  • Creates an unequal bargain between nuclear and non‑nuclear states.

Obligations

Nuclear‑weapon states:

  • Cannot transfer nuclear weapons or materials.

  • Must work toward long‑term disarmament.

Non‑nuclear states:

  • Cannot seek or develop nuclear weapons.

Both:

  • Peaceful nuclear tech allowed only under IAEA monitoring.

Why NPT Matters

  • Connects international law + IOs:

    • NPT = legal framework

    • IAEA = monitoring & verification

    • UN = enforcement

Nonproliferation Challenges & Case Study: Iran

1. Challenges to the Nonproliferation Regime

  • Near‑universal NPT membership, but:

    • States outside the treaty (India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea) destabilize the system.

  • Insufficient inspections → need stronger verification protocols.

  • Weak accountability → states can delay, obstruct, or manipulate inspections.

  • Emergence of “nuclear‑weapon‑capable” states:

    • States that don’t have weapons but have the technology to build them quickly.

    • Creates a gray zone not anticipated by the original NPT.

2. Case Study: Iran

Early History

  • 1968: Iran (under the Shah) signs NPT; partners with U.S. under Atoms for Peace.

  • Post‑1979 Revolution: Nuclear program suspended.

  • 1989: Iran restarts program with Russia, China, France → peaceful use.

2002–2004

  • Iran builds Bushehr plant without notifying IAEA.

  • 2003: Allows inspections; IAEA finds:

    • No proof of weapons program

    • But also no proof enrichment had stopped

    • Traces of weapons‑grade uranium at other sites

  • 2004: IAEA criticizes Iran for lack of cooperation.

2005–2008

  • 2005: Iran begins uranium conversion.

  • 2006: Breaks IAEA seals → UNSC threatens sanctions → sanctions imposed.

  • 2007: Iran blocks inspectors; Russia halts nuclear cooperation.

  • 2008: Iran tests ballistic missile → UN tightens sanctions.

2009–2010

  • Iran admits to secret facility near Qom.

  • Tests intermediate & long‑range missiles.

  • Announces plans for 10 more facilities.

  • 2010: Enriches uranium above 20%; IAEA suggests Iran may be pursuing weapons.

  • Mediation attempts by Brazil & Turkey fail.

3. Theoretical Perspectives on Iran

Realist View

  • Crisis = power struggle between U.S. & Iran.

  • U.S. uses legal/organizational tools to maintain dominance.

  • Iran exploits NPT loopholes + great‑power rivalry.

  • NPT is weakening because:

    • Interests of states have changed

    • Bargaining power has shifted

  • Realists argue:

    • NPT must adapt to include India, Pakistan, Israel.

    • If diplomacy fails, great powers may act alone.

    • “Minilateralism” (small group cooperation) may replace universal agreements.

    • War is a real possibility.

Liberal View

  • NPT + IAEA create norms, rules, and information that help states:

    • Avoid arms races

    • Resolve disputes

    • Make rational decisions

  • IOs help stabilize relations and reduce uncertainty.

  • States comply because it is economically beneficial.

  • Iran is difficult because:

    • Its goals = preserve Islamic regime + gain nuclear capability

    • Not focused on economic integration

  • Solution: adapt regime with new incentives and updated norms to encourage cooperation.

Feminist, Constructivist Cuts + Conclusion

A Marxist Cut – Nuclear Nonproliferation

Core Argument

  • The NPT institutionalizes inequality and codifies double standards.

  • It protects the dominance of nuclear‑weapon states and restricts developing states.

Why Marxists Critique the NPT

  • Creates a legal oligopoly of nuclear powers.

  • Allows powerful states to keep civilization‑destroying weapons while denying others the same capability.

  • Concern is not proliferation itself, but proliferation to states that challenge the global status quo.

How Capitalism Promotes Proliferation

  1. Economic incentives

    • When fossil fuel prices rise, demand for nuclear energy rises.

    • More nuclear energy → more states with nuclear capability.

  2. Profit motive

    • Nuclear technology is lucrative.

    • Safeguards and nonproliferation take a backseat to profit.

  3. Defense industry pressures

    • Nuclear states spend billions upgrading arsenals.

    • Jobs + money ensure new weapons are built even when unnecessary.

    • This undermines disarmament and complicates nonproliferation.

A Feminist Cut – Gender & Nuclear Politics

Core Argument

  • Nuclear weapons reflect masculine power, dominance, and status.

  • Gendered symbolism shapes how states think about nuclear capability.

Key Ideas

  • Nuclear weapons = “ultimate symbol” of masculine strength.

  • States without them experience “missile envy.”

  • Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology can be seen as asserting autonomy against powerful states (especially the U.S.).

Disarmament & Masculinity

  • Nuclear states take pride in their arsenals.

  • Disarmament is seen as:

    • Idealistic

    • But also emasculating in a masculine political culture

  • Feminists argue disarmament must be separated from ideas of “manhood.”

A Constructivist Cut – Norms, Identity, and Perception

Core Argument

  • Interests and identities are constructed, not fixed.

  • Nuclear politics depends on how states interpret threats and norms.

Key Ideas

  • U.S. sees Britain’s nuclear arsenal as safe but views Iran/North Korea as dangerous → based on identity, not capability.

  • States interpret nuclear behavior through the lens of “the other.”

  • The NPT, IAEA, and UN help create:

    • Shared norms

    • Shared identities

    • Shared expectations

  • The most important norm: nonuse of nuclear weapons.

Role of NGOs

  • Help spread and reinforce nonproliferation norms globally.

Chapter Conclusion – Knowt Summary

UN’s Role in Peace & Security

  • The chapter explains how the UN works through:

    • General Assembly (norm‑setting, peacekeeping support)

    • Security Council (primary authority on war/peace)

    • Secretary‑General (diplomacy, conflict resolution, peacekeeping leadership)

Nuclear Nonproliferation

  • NPT + IAEA form the backbone of the global nonproliferation regime.

  • NPT = legal framework

  • IAEA = monitoring & verification

  • UN = enforcement

Case Studies: Iraq & Iran

  • Show how different theories interpret:

    • State behavior

    • IO effectiveness

    • Power politics

    • Norms and identity

    • Human consequences

Overall Takeaway

  • International organizations matter, but their effectiveness depends on:

    • Power dynamics

    • State interests

    • Norms

    • Compliance

    • Global cooperation

Key Terms (Definitions for Fast Review)

UN Security Council

Primary UN body responsible for peace and security; includes P5 with veto power.

UN General Assembly

Deliberative body of all member states; sets norms and passes resolutions.

Peacekeeping

UN operations that monitor ceasefires and stabilize conflict zones with consent of parties.

Peace Enforcement

Use of military force (authorized by UNSC) to compel peace; does not require consent.

Peace Building

Long‑term efforts to rebuild institutions, governance, and stability after conflict.

Fait accompli

A situation presented as already decided, forcing others to accept it.

POW (Prisoner of War)

Captured combatant protected under international humanitarian law.

Veto

Power of P5 members to block any substantive UNSC resolution.

Korean War

First major UN military action (1950–53); collective defense against North Korea.

Suez Crisis (1956)

First full‑fledged UN peacekeeping mission (UNEF).

Iraq‑Kuwait Crisis (1990–91)

Iraq invades Kuwait → Gulf War → UNSC sanctions and inspections.

Srebrenica (1995)

UN peacekeeping failure; genocide of 8,000 Bosniaks in Bosnia.

ICISS (International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty)

Created the concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P).

Afghanistan

Post‑9/11 intervention; debates over UNSC authorization and state‑building.

Iraq

2003 U.S. invasion without UNSC authorization; major IO controversy.

Arab Spring

2011 uprisings across the Middle East; led to conflicts in Syria, Libya, etc.

Libya (2011)

UNSC authorized intervention under R2P; NATO enforced no‑fly zone.

ISIS

Terrorist organization that emerged in Iraq/Syria; challenged state authority.

OPCW (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons)

Monitors and destroys chemical weapons; key role in Syria.

Resolution 1325

UNSC resolution on Women, Peace, and Security; gender mainstreaming in peace operations.

IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)

Monitors nuclear programs; verifies compliance with NPT.

JCPOA (Iran Nuclear Deal, 2015)

Agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

🧠 Discussion Questions – Study‑Ready Prompts

Use these to practice writing or to prepare for class discussions.

1. Are peacekeeping or peace enforcement missions more difficult to accomplish?

Think about:

  • Consent vs. no consent

  • Neutrality vs. coercion

  • Mandate clarity

  • Resources and troop requirements

  • Political risks for contributing states

2. Why has the UN been hesitant to intervene in recent genocides/humanitarian crises?

Consider:

  • Veto politics (P5 interests)

  • Sovereignty concerns

  • Fear of repeating failures (Somalia, Rwanda)

  • Resource constraints

  • Lack of political will

3. Is the UN an effective peacekeeping institution?

Reflect on:

  • Successes (Namibia, Liberia, Cambodia)

  • Failures (Srebrenica, Rwanda)

  • Mandate limitations

  • Funding and troop shortages

  • Role of great powers

4. What policy recommendations could improve the UN before and after the Syrian crisis?

Possible angles:

  • UNSC reform (veto limits, new members)

  • Stronger early‑warning systems

  • More robust peace enforcement capacity

  • Better coordination with regional organizations

  • Clearer mandates and accountability mechanisms

5. What roles have the UN and Great Powers played in dealing with Iran?

Think about:

  • IAEA inspections

  • UNSC sanctions

  • U.S.–Iran rivalry

  • JCPOA negotiations

  • Realist vs. liberal interpretations

  • Power politics vs. institutional constraints