Each Response is 250 words each: Response 1: Goal number one this week is portraying a bit more chipper writing attitude as opposed to the last two weeks rather dystopian outlooks.  I lay the blame on social isolation J.  The common theme running through this weeks’ reading is how statute sovereignty hamstrings OIs such as IJC, International Criminal Court, NATO and so on.   I found a couple things interesting in these articles as they are quite old, none more recent than ten years ago.  First, de Nevers (2007) mentions NATO alliances agreed upon spending for defense.  Defense Department's budget request for research and development for FY 2007 is $57.9 billion. This figure has more than doubled to $107B or 38.6 percent of all R&D budget for 2020 (CRS 2020) and has been a central focus point of the current US administration (Haltiwanger 2019).  I interpret de Nevers (2007) framing of NATO’s international security role as a US “It’s my way or the highway”.  The argument is reinforced with actions such as the US unilateral invasion of Iraq and the underlying reasons.  Paulson (2004) notes (concerning the IJC, “In an increasing number of cases, however, a party refused either to appear or to participate in stages of the proceedings, and unwilling participants were less likely than others to accept the Court's judgment”.  Mirror that with views of former UN Ambassador and former National Security Advisor, John Bolton, when referencing the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (Bolton 2018, Bolton 2001):            “The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court. We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC. We will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us.”  The extent of US objection to the ICC is it agreed to more than 100 bi-lateral agreements stating countries would not turn over US service members to the Court and passing legislation, American Service-Members' Protection Act in 2002, dubbed “the Hague Invasion Act” (Bolton 2018), that the US would use “any means necessary” to retrieve members from confinement at The Hague, essentially saying it held the right to militarily retrieve service members.  Those examples may seem extreme but, in Bolton’s view, it centers on state sovereignty.   Similar arguments flow throughout the articles be it whether the IJC judgments in Chad and Libya are observed (Paulson 2004), whether NATO is important to the spread of democracy (Reiter 2001), and so on.  The core of each argument is state sovereignty and the debate as to whether an international organization has any sway over a nation’s actions.  Such arguments have been made concerning NATO since its inception (U.B. 1958).   As John Bolton (2018) notes, 70 percent of the worlds’ population (including the US, China, Russia, India.

1. Each Response is 250 words each:
Response 1:
Goal number one this week is portraying a bit more chipper
writing attitude as opposed to the last two weeks rather
dystopian outlooks. I lay the blame on social isolation J. The
common theme running through this weeks’ reading is how
statute sovereignty hamstrings OIs such as IJC, International
Criminal Court, NATO and so on. I found a couple things
interesting in these articles as they are quite old, none more
recent than ten years ago. First, de Nevers (2007) mentions
NATO alliances agreed upon spending for defense. Defense
Department's budget request for research and development for
FY 2007 is $57.9 billion. This figure has more than doubled to
$107B or 38.6 percent of all R&D budget for 2020 (CRS 2020)
and has been a central focus point of the current US
administration (Haltiwanger 2019). I interpret de Nevers (2007)
framing of NATO’s international security role as a US “It’s my
way or the highway”. The argument is reinforced with actions
such as the US unilateral invasion of Iraq and the underlying
reasons. Paulson (2004) notes (concerning the IJC, “In an
increasing number of cases, however, a party refused either to
appear or to participate in stages of the proceedings, and
unwilling participants were less likely than others to accept the
Court's judgment”. Mirror that with views of former UN
Ambassador and former National Security Advisor, John
Bolton, when referencing the jurisdiction of the International
Criminal Court (Bolton 2018, Bolton 2001):
“The United States will use any means necessary to
protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust
prosecution by this illegitimate court. We will not cooperate
with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will
not join the ICC. We will let the ICC die on its own. After all,

2. for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us.”
The extent of US objection to the ICC is it agreed to more than
100 bi-lateral agreements stating countries would not turn over
US service members to the Court and passing legislation,
American Service-Members' Protection Act in 2002, dubbed
“the Hague Invasion Act” (Bolton 2018), that the US would use
“any means necessary” to retrieve members from confinement at
The Hague, essentially saying it held the right to militarily
retrieve service members. Those examples may seem extreme
but, in Bolton’s view, it centers on state sovereignty. Similar
arguments flow throughout the articles be it whether the IJC
judgments in Chad and Libya are observed (Paulson 2004),
whether NATO is important to the spread of democracy (Reiter
2001), and so on. The core of each argument is state
sovereignty and the debate as to whether an international
organization has any sway over a nation’s actions. Such
arguments have been made concerning NATO since its inception
(U.B. 1958).
As John Bolton (2018) notes, 70 percent of the worlds’
population (including the US, China, Russia, India) are not
signers to the International Criminal Court (Tao 2015). The
World Bank and IMF face unprecedented challenge with the
COVID-19 outbreak, “call on all official bilateral creditors to
suspend debt payments from IDA countries that request
forbearance” (World Bank 2020). NATO faces concurrent
pressure from the Trump administration on funding and calls for
expansion to the Middle East (Oprysko 2020). Honestly, I have
no idea how IOs face and make headway to these challenges
aside from make small steps and hopefully they turn into bigger
steps. It is my view that any major IO follows US direction as
it has the largest economy, the largest military, and the largest
global influence. Small rebuffs to the US happen, for example
with the EU on climate (Tamma and Oroschakoff 2019), or the
G-7 rebuff to jointly referring to COVID-19 as the Wuhan-virus

3. (Finnegan 2020). But my mine is a narrow view because,
honestly, the US is what I know, what I listen to, what I hear,
and what I read. IOs success and failure is not completely
dependent on US reaction though I frequently view it through
that lens as it is the only lens I have. IOs do achieve
tremendous success. It’s just really hard for us to hear about it.
Response 2:
Mayerfeld very succinctly summarized the problems with
international justice with his question “how can the world
institute the global enforcement of fundamental human rights in
a manner that is fair and accurate and does not inflame
international tensions?” (2003, 2) The problems with security
and justice, much like the behavior of states, are the result of
the nature of the international system. Any state that is judged
by the International Court of Justice to be guilty of human
rights crimes, will naturally dispute that ruling and call the
court unfair, as will its allies, most likely. This is why “in
order for their cases to be heard, states must agree to abide by
the decisions of the ICJ.” (Lesson 5) Accepting ICJ and ICC
authority requires the states to willingly give up some measure
of sovereignty, allowing a higher court to punish their citizens
and hold them accountable. This is why none of the great
powers (US, China, and Russia) have ratified the Rome Statue
establishing the ICC. (Mayerfeld, 2003, 3) Without all nations
of the world accepting the authority of the ICJ and ICC, it is
nearly impossible to enforce any fair rulings without inflaming
international tensions.
Preserving security faces similar challenges and just as often
inflames political tensions. We studied NATO this week, an
organization whose primary purpose is preserving security in
Europe and North America. However, naturally, its formation
was seen as enough of a threat to Russia specifically, to prompt

4. them to form the Commonwealth of Independent States. The
CIS is a twin organization to NATO, but consisting entirely of
former Soviet states. It is worth noting that not all former
Soviet states have joined the CIS, with several opting for NATO
membership instead. This created a power struggle that
arguably destabilizes Europe, rather than providing security.
We can clearly see the application of realist principles in this
struggle. The lack of trust between nations, in this case Russia
and the US, led to the US gathering allies under NATO to
control Russia, which led to Russia gathering allies under the
CIS to balance against NATO. Both of these IOs, however, are
military alliances that are essentially extensions of their main
state, the US and Russia. Other IOs whose purpose is to
preserve security include the UN Security Council and the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. These
IO’s do not carry the stigma of being an extension of any one
state, and so are able to communicate and work with other
nations more easily. Unfortunately, they lack the enforcements
mechanisms that NATO and CIS have. Both the US and Russia
have massive militaries that make up the vast majority of their
respective alliances’ military power, and thus NATO and the
CIS can take action more efficiently and forcefully than the
UNSC or OSCE.
Factors that affect how successfully IOs address these
challenges are largely outside of the IO’s control. Military
support form member nations contributes significantly to the
enforcement power of the IO, as we saw with the UNSC and
OSCE. How difficult the situation the IO is trying to control is
also a huge factor. Prosecuting human rights violations in
Africa is significantly easier than prosecuting similar violations
in western countries, which may be why the ICC has heard far
more criminal cases from that part of the world, as our lesson
this week pointed out. While brokering peace between the US
and Russia would be a significantly more difficult problem to
tackle. The political savvy of the IO will greatly affect their

5. negotiations with nation states, as will the infrastructure they
have to support such negotiations and the finances they have to
support vast infrastructure and potential military action. Thus
far IOs have experienced limited success, primarily in weaker
states. For them to be universally successful they would have
to have authority over all nations, which would require the great
powers to not only submit to their authority, but enthusiastically
support the IOs with their money and militaries. That is not
going to happen any time soon.
Response 3:
At the end of World War II, the International community sought
to establish a system of international relations recognizing that
“To deal with security problems arising from regional conflicts
and humanitarian crises, states need institutions that have
specific assets for mediation and bargaining, rest on a
presumption of legitimacy, and operate by including
problematic states” (Wallander 2000, 711), finding that the
creation of international institutions will be the key to
guarantee a more stable and real security landscape to prevent
those horrible events from repeating.
At the same time, the United States and the USSR began the so-
called Cold War, a situation that always threatened peace in the
nations. The inevitable debacle of the USSR culminated in that
situational state and could end the Cold War. From there, the
focus changed, the problem of security moved for political,
economic and social reasons, making the world panorama
extremely complex, conditioned by many factors. This event led
to an understanding that the global security landscape was going
to go beyond, “peace-war” binomial, without leaving these
factors out of importance in the system of international
relations. But even when the world challenges changed some
organizations such as North Atlantic Treaty Organization

6. (NATO) have persisted after the war threat ended, the main
reasons for these are its focus “achieving transparency,
integration, and negotiation among its members, and because it
developed general assets that could be mobilized to deal with
new security missions”(Wallander 2000, 712), ideas that were
aligned with the world needs.
Since their creation, International Organizations (IOs) in
general face the different challenges this constantly changing
world present regarding; the unequal distribution of wealth,
hunger among the poorest, pandemics and epidemics without
adequate control, exhaustion of energy sources and natural
resources, migrations and massive and uncontrolled
displacements, increasing effects of environmental degradation
and also guiding governments into fulfilling their obligations
the protection of human rights (Mayerfeld 2003, 97).
The current international situation is characterized by the
hegemonic policy of the United States which condition relations
with its allies, collaborators, and enemies. The causes of armed
conflicts in the current era retain the traditional spectrum that
includes, among other factors: the struggle for political power
in various scenarios and national situations; the achievement of
economic benefits for certain sectors; ethnic and even religious
disputes (Paulson 2004). These factors impose insecure
conditions within the countries and, thus, in the world.
Among the IOs focus on fighting these challenges and
preserving justice and security, the United Nations (UN) stands
out. In this regard, it has made efforts to achieve the end of
numerous conflicts, likewise, it has carried out various
preventive tasks, so that, national, or international controversies
do not lead to medium-high intensity wars or armed conflicts.
The main dilemma for the IOs is whether it must intervene to
protect civilians in danger. In civil conflicts, the Security
Council of the UN has authorized innovative and complex

7. peacekeeping operations, such as operations in El Salvador,
Guatemala, Cambodia, and Mozambique (regions affected by
internal conflicts). Other conflicts, especially those
characterized by ethnic violence and genocidal outreaches, such
as in Somalia, Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, posed new
challenges for the performance of the United Nations
peacemaking function (United Nations Peacekeeping: Where We
Operate n.d.).
The general problems of peacekeeping forces in major theaters
of operations since 2008 have provided evidence that current
peacekeeping missions have been ill-equipped to deal with a
changing scenario. With the aggravation of little or inadequate
international aid, reflecting that despite the efforts and many
lives these efforts have safeguarded, it is undeniable there is
still much to do not only in IOs but all international actors to
guarantee security, justice, and peace in the world.