What kind of organization can be effective for intervention?
        By International Organization or Regional Organization?
 
     Although UN is the only organization that can authorize intervention, there are many kinds of multi-national interventions.  In the case of multinational intervention in the former Yugoslavia, several kinds of multinational organizations: the regional organization, EU and WEU, the trans-regional security organization, NATO, and the international organization, UN, have operated intervention.  Each organization has got involved into the civil war through its own way as shown above.  Given difficulty in solving the current regional conflicts, many scientists argue for better commitment to the emerging conflicts.  Some see regional organizations as more effective in the future even though they are still immature.  Some favor UN reform because only UN can handle the emerging regional conflicts.  NATO is positioned at the middle of the current multinational regional organization.
 

    Regional Organization-financial problem and regional
            powerpolitics (Weiss et. al.)
    International Organization-financial problem and disinterest of
            participants (Carpenter)
    Multi-national Committment-difficulty in making consensus
            (Walter)

 
 
     Thomas G. Weiss, David P. Forsythe, and Roger A. Coate (1994) believe that multinational organization can handle the emerging complicated regional conflicts more appropriately than unilateral intervention.  From their point of view, international organization, UN, is the most effective organization for the future regional conflicts.
    They argue that there are two advantages of regional organization to handle regional conflict in theory.  One is their more seriousness of regional security issue than international organization's because regional confrontation in neighborhood directly impact on regional economic and social stability.  For example, military confrontation within the region can be an obstacle for economic transaction, and refugee causes financial burden for the regional governments and racism in the civil society.  In addition, resolution of regional hostility needs understanding of cultural and historical background, which regional organization has advantage of.  UN article also encourages regional organization to make an effort to solve regional security issue before informing to UN.  Another is financial crisis of UN due to opposition of the great power.  UN has expanded its role and operation over more regions; therefore, peacekeeping cost is tremendously increasing.  However, because the United States hesitates to pay its financial sharing, which is much more than any other countries.  The amount of US debt causes the current UN financial crisis.  Thus, regional organization seems to be more appropriate than international organization.
    However, they also argue that, although regional organization would work better in theory, it does not have capability in practice.  Its disadvantages are partisanship, resource shortage, and local rivalries.  In addition, regional organization has had neither military capability nor diplomatic leverage.  Its seriousness about resolution of conflict can be disadvantage as well.  Because countries near chaotic region suffer from the consequence, they more or less try to influence for making their favorable circumstance.  And, they are often not third party as intermediators but active participants, which makes the situation more complicated.  Moreover, intervention by regional organization brings its own financial crisis.  The example Weiss, Forsythe, and Coate also show is African regional organization.  They see that confrontation in Organization of African Unity (OAU) was caused by financial crisis due to long time intervention of OAU.  As seen that political disagreement in the former Yugoslavia between Germany and France became a cause of failure of its strategy, intervention by regional organization tends not to be inclusive.  Thus, Weiss, Forsythe, and Coate point out disadvantages of regional organization and regard more broad international organization, UN, as the most favorable for intervention.
 
     On the other hand, Ted Galen Carpenter (1997) sees collective security system as impractical.  He does not think that UN can be a fair organization.  For example, veto powers of UN shows its unfair structure, which is power politics.  From his point view, intervention can rely on more or less power of the region; therefore, regional or subregional organization should handle that conflict because it would be more possible that regional great powers can dampen conflict.  Regional countries must have an incentive created by consequence of maintenance or change of regional power balance.  In addition, it is not realistic to expect that distant and disinterested countries concern about other regional conflict.  Although he also understands that the current regional organization has been still too immature to handle regional confrontation, he believes that intervention by regional organization is more preferable.

     Although Barbara F. Walter (1997) agrees that intervention by the third party can be an important factor to solve conflict, she argues that limit involvement and sharing responsibility through multinational institution could be harmful for intervention if it shows unclear will, which regional organization tends to have.  She believes that possibility of success of intervention depends on credibility of will of the third party, especially will of enforcement; therefore, if the third party shows unwillingness of full extent commitment or disinterest in solution, mutual trust between hostile groups can not be built, and civil war can not be neutralized easily.  In addition, she does not agree with necessity of neutrality of the third party because enforcement for cease-fire guarantee is indispensable.  Neutrality is preferable, but it is not necessary.  The purpose of intervention is cease-fire, and the foundation of peaceful society is the second step.  Although peaceful social condition is important, the process on the way to foundation of such a circumstance should be the first concern for successful intervention.  In short, if multinational structure is harmful for credibility of peace enforcement by the third party, from her point of view, such structural system should not operate intervention.

t.