The Rights And Power Of Nato

Thesis: Although NATO provided assistance in containing the spread of communism, and its member countries applied economic pressure on the Soviet Union, neither NATO nor President Reagan should be solely credited with causing the fall of the Soviet Union and thus the end of the Cold War. Instead, it was a combination of the tough Reagan administration policies and NATO’s threatening military armory along with grave economic problems within the Soviet Union that ultimately brought the end to the Cold War.

(1) After the end of World War II, all involved countries, with no exception of being victorious or defeated, have started seeking of the prevention of a new disaster by reconstructing and maintaining the security and peace primarily in Europe. All huge and disastrous events (such as World Wars) which affected whole world were originated from the uncomfortable conditions and conflicts in the continent. Thus the main task was to settle a

In the international community, a country’s domestic policies may often interfere with that of the community’s wishes. Throughout the Cold War, there was often tension between a country’s autonomy and the wishes of a particular sphere of influence or international body. Despite the great assistance in the attainment of human rights and attempts at peace, often greater conflict occurred due to this interference in each country’s domestic policies rather than serving their original purpose. Although international influence and control promotes singular agreements and policies, countries should be allowed to remain completely autonomous within their domestic policies in order to maintain peace, encourage diverse policy, and allow for independence internationally.

NATO has impacted human rights around the world by enforcing existing laws, forging alliances between countries, and being a trailblazer in protecting human rights. During the Libyan Civil War of 2011, protestors that wanted democracy were brutally subdued and slaughtered by the special forces of the Libyan government (Haglund). Since they are the ones perpetrating the atrocities, it is natural that they would not want the international community to interfere. However, NATO successfully invoked the Responsibility to Protect, which is an idea adopted by the UN in 2005 that when a country is either unable or unwilling to protect its citizens from war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or in this case, crimes against humanity, then others can step

NATO and US troops were sent to Bosnia to solidify the fragile peace in Bosnia. Conflicts in Bosnia are largely responsible for the unstable Europe and this can alter the Security of the US as well. In addition to all these factors US planned to intervention in to the Bosnia conflict and suppress the conflicts (Carpenter, 1996). American hopes for a continental solution on Bosnia Problem proved unrealistic. The European Community-soon to become the European Union-could not reach a consensus on the appropriate course of action over Bosnia (70-97-1, 2013). With the American government's decision to become more involved in the peace process and to support the Vance-Owen plan, there was hope once again that a turning point in the Bosnian conflict had been reached (Rigby, 1994). Nations attached to the boundaries of the Bosnia are also in threat because the situation and the intervening countries can trigger war in all European nations.

The U.S. military response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 signifies the most extensive use of force by any state since the Persian Gulf War more than two decades ago. Following these operations, many commentators have suggested that there has been a notable transformation in international law regarding state responsibility for terrorist acts. This essay aims to argue that such change has been significant and it has satisfactorily countenanced states’ response to terrorism by presenting evidence of new state practice plus opinio juris in this area. To do so, this essay will first discuss the controversial concept of terrorism and its relevance to the legal framework for the use of armed force in international law. From here, it will move to explicate the principles of and grounds for state responsibility as well as to debate that the act of providing a safe haven for terrorist non-state actors should be considered as a revolutionary factor to the concept of attribution. Lastly, this essay will examine the recent changes occurred in customary law on state responsibility in the light of the application and interpretation of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter after the events of September 11. All these aspects will demonstrate that not only has the law on state responsibility had noticeably developed and consequently provided states with adequate legality to react to the challenges posed by contemporary terrorism, but it has also begun to inaugurate binding

No nation is ever merely able to act at its people’s whim; a system of alliances and treaties has formed over the course of history, and breaking any of those agreements can mean anything from a small conflict to a large-scale war. One such

The debate of humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect have been discussed in international relations discourse more seriously within the last 60 years. The major historical developments which have led to an increase in the intensity of these debates have had beneficial and detrimental effects on Earth within the last 20 years. Several factors have contributed to this including; globalization, the rise in international accountability, an increase humanitarian consciousness to prevent major atrocities from occurring, the expansion of territorial to global responsibility of the western world, and the realization of the western world that regional sovereignty no longer accounts for national security. To develop an opinion

In today’s trend towards a more globalized world, there are many global entities that each state chooses or chooses not to participate in. Two of the largest International Global Organizations are the United Nations (UN) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO); both of which the United States of America belongs to. There are stark contrasts between how the UN and NATO are run. For this reason, the United States’ foreign policy and defense may be better served in one of these entities compared to the other. Some may argue that the United States (US) is best represented with being part of the UN because it allows the US to discuss its ideas and plans with practically all states around the globe. On the other hand, people may argue that

The United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are two different groups, but they affect the world in the same way. They both want to make a difference in today's world, they strive for peace and prosperity, and they work hard to accomplish their goals.

The argument of Mearsheimer supports the United States, claiming that the international institutions have minimal effect on the behavior of the states (Mearsheimer, 1994, p.7). On the other hand, Keohane and Martin readdress the institutionalism that Mearsheimer criticized, that the institutions – here, the international institutions, such as NATO and European Union – are the mechanism for the stability to be maintained through the cooperation of the states (Keohane & Martin, 1995). After World War I, European powers believed what is called “collective security” and created the League of Nations, to prevent the future war (Kagan, 2004, p.13). Kagan claims that the weaker states – in this case, Europe – tend to focus on the economic, soft power than the military power and on the international institutions than the power of single nation-state (p.37). As history demonstrated, European countries established different institutions for resolving the issues of the Continent, such as the Concert of Europe, NATO, and European Union.

In the pursuit of positive peace for the global community, certain mechanisms are necessary in order to better protect human rights and resolve interstate conflicts. Prior to the events of World War II, a cogent set of laws defining those human rights, much less violations therein were never heard at an international scale. The International Criminal Court has the role as both appellate for justice and voice for peace in the international community but has not yet resolve the contradictory ends of both roles. That contradictory end is that many countries proclaim the necessity of the International Criminal Court as an advocate for conflict resolution and peace advocacy while being resist or outright antagonistic towards the court when their own state has committed those same crimes. To the ends of defending basic universal rights, the International Criminal Court (hereafter ICC) serves that capacity when state level systems cannot or will not act accordingly.

The theocracy of Iran promotes a system of government that entirely contradicts the core values and interests upon which the NATO association was founded. This can be supported by the fact that the Iranian system of governance exempts some vital international human rights in their values and standards of governance (Fazeli 2006, p.9). These rights include the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion and association. In addition to this, the Iranian system of governance does not uphold the doctrine of serene coexistence in the international harmonization (Mousavian 2008, p.34).

Article 2 emphasizes the rudimentary importance of sovereignty in international law as almost absolute. This belief has been further demonstrated in General Assembly Resolutions. Resolution 2625, accepts the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. Amongst other considerations, it confirms the importance of the Charter and sovereign equality. General Assembly Resolution 3314, defines aggression and calls upon members to refrain from aggression as well as other uses of force that would not be in compliance with the Charter. It also reinforces the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. Declaration 42/22, the approval of the Declaration on the Enhancement of the Effectiveness of the Principle of Refraining from the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations, once again reaffirms the importance of non-intervention, the importance of peaceful relations and the necessity for peaceful means to be used in conflict resolution because a) the risks and concerns associated with conflict and more importantly in this

NATO starts the year 2000 with the issue of concern. The European Allies' defense capability, stabilization efforts in the Balkans, and relations with Russia are at the top of a highly charged agenda.