The starting point theoretically for discussing international organizations is usually the theory of collective security, most commonly associated with scholar Inis Claude–the notion that once joined, all countries will defend one country that is attacked. Is this notion still relevant?
FT column by Philip Stephens that asks the question, “To what degree will the big powers locate their foreign policies in a shared understanding of collective security?”
Globo Diplo 
Barnett makes a valid point when he mentions the economic and political connection that America and China have is stunted by the military history of these two countries. While America makes a bid to use China’s vast resources (people, natural abilities, etc.) they are blocked by the island of Taiwan and it’s political ties to American politics of the past.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA5XBJow9DA)
But, Barnett also mentions the ideas that are sprouting in politics today. After a long period of realism following the second world war and the cold war, this new idea of common and collective security and ability to trade reflects on the idealist school of thought. Whether or not either one works is completely relevant. If collective security is the plan of the day, then international organizations like the United Nations are a perfect place to watch the world change. If the zero-sum idea of life continues, isolationism will abound and no one will win.
It really comes down to what countries are willing to sacrifice. Are we willing to sacrifice secured safety at the loss of an international community? Or do we sacrifice the rights of the country for the direction of the world?