The most powerful military alliance in history, NATO shaped the geopolitical contours of the Cold War and continues to structure the contemporary international system. The NATO agreement is reprinted here with speeches and essential historical documents concerning the alliance’s founding and subsequent evolution. Accompanying essays by major scholars discuss debates about NATO’s evolving governance, its role in nuclear politics, and its appropriate mission during and since the Cold War.

This compelling history brings to life the watershed year of 1948, when the United States reversed its long-standing position of political and military isolation from Europe and agreed to an "entangling alliance" with ten European nations. Not since 1800, when the United States ended its alliance with France, had the nation made such a commitment. The historic North Atlantic Treaty was signed on April 4, 1949, but the often-contentious negotiations stretched throughout the preceding year. Lawrence S. Kaplan, the leading historian of NATO, traces the tortuous and dramatic process, which struggled to reconcile the conflicting concerns on the part of the future partners. Although the allies could agree on the need to cope with the threat of Soviet-led Communism and on the vital importance of an American association with a unified Europe, they differed over the means of achieving these ends. The United States had to contend with domestic isolationist suspicions of Old World intentions, the military's worries about over extension of the nation's resources, and the apparent incompatibility of the projected treaty with the UN charter. For their part, Europeans had to be convinced that American demands to abandon their traditions would provide the sense of security that economic and political recovery from World War II required. Kaplan brings to life the colorful diplomats and politicians arrayed on both sides of the debate. The end result was a remarkably durable treaty and alliance that has linked the fortunes of America and Europe for over fifty years. Despite differences that have persisted and occasionally flared over the past fifty years, NATO continues to bind America and Europe in the twenty-first century. Kaplan's detailed and lively account draws on a wealth of primary sources--newspapers, memoirs, and diplomatic documents--to illuminate how the United States came to assume international obligations it had scrupulously avoided for the previous 150 years.

The story of Canada in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is one of consistent support and involvement but of varying levels of military and diplomatic engagement. Canada in NATO, 1949–2019 provides the first analysis of Canada’s involvement in the Atlantic Alliance – from the negotiations leading to the alliance’s charter in 1949 to NATO’s seventieth anniversary – exploring how the country’s role in NATO has evolved over the years. As one of NATO’s early, foremost participants, Canada was a major force contributor in the 1950s. Briefly deploying more modern fighter aircrafts in Europe than the United States had, as well as a naval commitment that would have been responsible for 10 per cent of ship escorts across the North Atlantic, Canada became the “odd man out” of the western alliance as the Cold War wore on due to its spotty military contributions. Yet Canada eventually re-emerged as a significant member through its contributions to NATO peace enforcement operations in the Balkans in the 1990s and its heavy contributions to operations in Afghanistan in the early twenty-first century, finding itself in the unfamiliar position of criticizing many of the allies by which it had for so long been criticized. As the lead nation for the alliance’s “enhanced forward presence” in Latvia, Canada still plays an important and highly visible role in NATO’s efforts in Eastern Europe today. Canada in NATO, 1949–2019 sheds light on how NATO profoundly shaped Canadian defence and foreign policy, while also serving vital Canadian security and diplomatic interests.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

A head of title: Council on Foreign Relations, International Institutions and Global Governance Program.

The Role of International Administrative Law at International Organizations, edited by Peter Quayle, is centred on the law of employment relations at international organizations, and divided into four parts. It examines the interplay between international administrative law and the jurisdictional immunities of international organizations. It explores the principles and practice of resolving employment related disputes at intergovernmental institutions. It considers the dynamic development of international administrative tribunals. It examines international administrative law as the basis for the effectiveness and integrity of international organizations. Together academics, jurists and practitioners portray the employment law that governs the international civil service and the resulting accountability of the United Nations, UN Specialized Agencies, and international financial institutions, like the World Bank and IMF.

In this new Brookings Marshall Paper, Michael O'Hanlon argues that now is the time for Western nations to negotiate a new security architecture for neutral countries in eastern Europe to stabilize the region and reduce the risks of war with Russia. He believes NATO expansion has gone far enough. The core concept of this new security architecture would be one of permanent neutrality. The countries in question collectively make a broken-up arc, from Europe's far north to its south: Finland and Sweden; Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus; Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan; and finally Cyprus plus Serbia, as well as possibly several other Balkan states. Discussion on the new framework should begin within NATO, followed by deliberation with the neutral countries themselves, and then formal negotiations with Russia. The new security architecture would require that Russia, like NATO, commit to help uphold the security of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and other states in the region. Russia would have to withdraw its troops from those countries in a verifiable manner; after that, corresponding sanctions on Russia would be lifted. The neutral countries would retain their rights to participate in multilateral security operations on a scale comparable to what has been the case in the past, including even those operations that might be led by NATO. They could think of and describe themselves as Western states (or anything else, for that matter). If the European Union and they so wished in the future, they could join the EU. They would have complete sovereignty and self-determination in every sense of the word. But NATO would decide not to invite them into the alliance as members. Ideally, these nations would endorse and promote this concept themselves as a more practical way to ensure their security than the current situation or any other plausible alternative.

International law makes it explicit that states shall not intervene militarily of otherwise in the affairs of other states; it is a central principle of the charter of the United Nations. But international law also provides an exception; when a conflict within a state poses a threat to international peace, military intervention by the UN may be warranted. (Indeed, the UN Charter provides for an international police force, though nothing has ever come of this provision.) The Charter and other UN documents also assert that human rights are to be protected—but in the past the responsibility for the protection of human rights has for the most part been allowed to rest on the government of the state where the violation of rights occurs. Not surprisingly in this context, the question of what protection (if any) should be provided by the UN or otherwise to individuals when their human rights are violated by their governments or with the complicity of their governments remains a contentious issue. Should the principle of respect for state sovereignty trump the principle of respect for human rights? In this volume contributors grapple with a specific case: was the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) intervention in Kosovo legally or morally acceptable? The contributors all have doubts on this score, and several argue strongly that the intervention was both legally and morally unjustified. A companion volume, Humanitarian Intervention: Moral and Philosophical Issues focuses on the philosophical principles involved in this sort of question; this volume, on the other hand, focuses as much or more on the political as on the philosophical.