Having let this site sit for a while I've decided that I'm going to start publishing things that I have written during my time at UMASS Amherst. If you are a professor or teaching assistant don't freak out if you find an essay you are grading here, verbatim. Just know if you mark me as having plagiarized I will show you this disclaimer and you will feel like an idiot.
The Lord of the Rings presents a world, Middle Earth, where many different types of actors are cooperating or fighting each other for a ring of power making it an interesting story to apply international relation theory to. Because Middle Earth is so much different from our world, and IR theories are suppose to explain our world, it makes it difficult to apply any specific theory and explain all the decisions made in Middle Earth. Constructivism does the best job though because of it’s flexibility in explaining decisions due to rational and irrational reasons and recognition of individuals as having power.
Realist theory explains the world as being made up of states in an anarchic system where power is a state’s only interest and a state can only depend on themselves for help, but they can balance against or bandwagon with states that pose a threat. In Middle Earth the decisions people make are often in the pursuit of balancing power, especially because of the ring which represents a great deal of power. Saruman offers Gandalf a chance to bandwagon with Sauron, when Gandalf does not Sauron attacks him. Realists would say this was to be expected because if there cannot be an agreement between them there can only be conflict. Once Elrond learns that Saruman has chosen to bandwagon with Sauron he immediately discusses with Gandalf the allies they can align with to balance this new power because the elves do not have enough power, militarily, to do so alone. This is pure realist strategy.
Before entering the Mines of Moria Gandalf quietly gives Frodo some very realist advice. He tells Frodo that he can only trust his own strength even though they are a fellowship of nine “bound” to the fate of the ring.
Gandalf and Galadriel are offered the ring by Frodo, but both decline because the security dilemma teaches us there is no defensive weapon. Both would wish to do good with the power of the ring, but the ring is a weapon and it would only bring them less security. However, Boromir does want the ring as a weapon so he can better defend his people, but his people are already at war with Mordor. So there isn’t exactly a great deal of security he is risking by seeking the ring.
Boromir’s attempt to take the ring from Frodo leads to the break up of the Fellowship of the Ring. Realists would not be surprised by this because under realism cooperation only lasts as long as it is beneficial to all members. As soon as one member feels like they have no chance at gaining what they want they will withdraw.
Liberal theory builds upon realism believing that the world is an anarchic system, but rejects that the gain of power through military force is the only way of increasing security. Where realism sees only conflict and states, liberalism believes cooperation is possible between states and nonstate actors to create an interdependence amongst anarchy.
There are many nonstate actors in Middle Earth that have power and influence, many are nations, or something smaller, rather than states. The Shire for example is not exactly recognized by humans or elves, but they all share the common identity of being hobbits. The wizards, Gandalf and Saruman, are part of an order of wizards. They are sort of like an NGO or something even more loosely associated because Gandalf and Saruman align with different sides. Realism would not be able to explain the influence these groups have, but liberalism does.
The secret council in Rivendell is a liberal attempt at cooperation in Middle Earth. Sauron is threatening their collective security so together they must attack. This attempt at diplomacy almost fails when the meeting turns into an argument about race, but it is saved when Frodo accepts the burden of the ring. Which they agree is a reasonable compromise to have a basically nonbiased party be the ring bearer.
Middle Earth itself is a model for liberalism in that for 3000 years they have lived peacefully during the time that Sauron was not a threat.
Constructivist theory argues that realism and liberalism assume that all actors are rational, but sometimes actors decisions are affected by social norms, their identity, and what they perceive to be appropriate. Individuals are recognized as having power under constructivism.
Individuals are the major driving force in Middle Earth, partially because the state actors are monarchies. Gandalf holds much sway among all races, but he has no army or territory. Frodo has absolutely no power, yet he is the one to carry the ring and the ring represents more power than anyone can handle. He is hopeless in battle, being stabbed twice, and often needs saving. Saruman is a good example of an individual doing something very irrational. He bandwagons with Sauron even though he knows that Sauron seeks hegemony.
The action of the elves is most supportive of constructivist theory in that they literally have no stake in Middle Earth anymore. They are about to sail to a land far away and what happens to Middle Earth would not matter. But they know that it is inappropriate to just leave when they historically helped in the fight against Sauron.
Most of the human men have a history that shapes their actions. Boromir wants to restore the honor of man. He dies futilely defending two hobbits for the honor. Realists do not fight losing battles like this, not even liberals would. Aragorn is trying to conform to his identity as an heir to the thrown. Having the blood of kings explains why he helps bring the hobbits to Rivendell, it is not some attempt at gaining power.
Feminists look at the role of women and gender in world politics because theories can be “gendered” or masculine in their assumptions.
Women are barely seen in Middle Earth. They are most seen in The Shire, but they are like their men more interested in hobbit affairs. Looking beyond The Shire the only women we see are Arwen and Galadriel, both elves. Middle Earth is dominated by men, but that does not mean that men are shown to be better than women.
Men are portrayed in a negative light. Human men are described as weak because all they desire is power and hobbit men are described as being interested in only drinking, smoking, and eating. Sauron, the evil of Middle Earth, is a man and the reason he still lives is due to the weakness of Isildur, also a man.
Women are talked about as being all knowing truth seekers. Frodo comments that Sam’s love interest can spot a fool, and Galadriel can literally see through men and into their mind. Arwen rides to Rivendell over Aragorn because she is a faster rider and she defeats the black riders at the river. Galadriel is feared by Boromir because of her ability to speak to him in his mind. So women are not the dominant gender in Middle Earth, but they are not powerless. Stereotypically though, the women’s power is derived from their ability to love.
Constructivism best explains the decisions in Middle Earth because there are so many individuals with power and importance risking their lives for no rational reason, but for the honor and glory. At the secret council no one wants to take the ring because no one wants to be written into history books as being the one that failed, like Isildur was. As soon as Frodo takes on the burden they join him because if he succeeds they get the glory, but if he fails they can blame Frodo.
Gandalf acts not for any state in particular, but for the overall betterment of Middle Earth. There is no theory that properly explains why anyone would do this, but constructivism is open to the idea that individuals can have great influence through diplomacy.
The race of decision makers plays a major role in Middle Earth. Each race has norms to overcome or follow. Elves are suppose to be wise, dwarves greedy, humans weak. The four hobbits go way against the norms of other hobbits, but Frodo is following the norm for Bagginses. Sam is being a loyal companion to Frodo, and Merry and Pippen are just making a series of impromptu and uninformed decisions.
Many of the decisions made in Middle Earth are realist, but they are made by individuals or other nonstate actors. Middle Earth basically shows how realism fails, the Nazgûl were once men who only sought power and now they are doomed to seek the ring of power forever. Liberalism helps to explain the cooperation we see and recognizes the nonstate actors, but liberalism depends much on democracy and trade. There is very little interstate trade seen in Middle Earth and no democracies. Feminism is right in believing there is more to look at than realism and liberalism does, but gender is not it. Constructivism best explains Middle Earth because it allows for the irrational actions individuals are seen doing while other theories do not recognize individuals, but if they did they would talk about individuals as having robotic logic and we can see that inhabitants of Middle Earth make decisions for all sorts of reasons.
The creation of a global police force is not justified by the fact that some men remain at large from the International Criminal Court. It is not a lack of power, but a lack of international cooperation that the ICC must overcome. States that have ratified the Rome Statute have shown they will cooperated in bringing suspects before the ICC without threat of force. Therefore the solution is for the United Nations to work towards full multilateral ratification of the treaty rather than creating a police force to apprehend a total of eight men still at large.
The International Criminal Court recently issued an arrest warrant for the President of Sudan, Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir. Although he is not the first person to remain at large from the ICC, recent news coverage has highlighted the issue that the ICC does not, by itself, have the force to bring people they indict to court. The question then is whether the United Nations should establish a global police force with the power to capture suspects indicted by the ICC.
The UN creates a police force for the sole purpose of enforcing arrest warrants issued by the ICC.
The creation of a police force would increase the power and legitimacy of the ICC beyond the court room. Even if the ICC never used this force its existence may serve as a deterrent to the: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression that the ICC has jurisdiction over.
The difficulty with creating a global police force is that not all states recognize the ICC, the United States, China, Russia, and Turkey included. If a wanted suspect is in one of these nonmember states then any action taken by the ICC police force may be seen as a threat to the sovereignty of that state.
The existence of a police force does not guarantee that all of those indicted will be apprehended, but it does guarantee a new annual cost to the budget of the UN.
The United Nations works to increase the effectiveness of the International Criminal Court by focusing on getting more states to ratify the Rome Statute.
Getting more ratifications for the Rome Statute would be easier than working towards creating entirely new treaties to govern a global police force. 108 states have ratified the Rome Statute and 40 have signed, but have not yet ratified it. Working with these 40 states would be much less costly than creating a police force.
If this method were to fail and nothing is done to bring suspects wanted by the International Criminal Court to justice than future arrest warrants may become meaningless. The victims of the accused and victims of criminals not yet accused may be less likely to speak out against cruelties if an organization like the ICC fails to bring these men to trial.
The United Nations should follow possible solution #2 as outlined above and the Security Council should veto any attempts to create a police force for the International Criminal Court.
There are 40 states that have signed the Rome Statute, but not ratified it, Sudan included. The ICC has had success in the past with prosecuting individuals thanks to the cooperation of member states. 3 out of 4 individuals have been brought to trial from the Congo, a state that has ratified the Statute.
Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo was wanted for crimes against humanity and war crimes in Central African Republic, he was arrested in Belgium. Both states have ratified the Rome Statute. The ICC should not need to exert force within states that have ratified the Rome Statute.
The International Criminal Court is not completely powerless and has brought 4 of the 13 men indicted to trial, one has died. The ICC has been unsuccessful in trying five men in Uganda and three men in Sudan, but taking forceful action in either of these countries is to question already unstable governments. A global police force to apprehend those still at large would create more diplomatic issues than they would solve. Only through international cooperation and diplomacy can these men be brought to the International Criminal Court and justice.