COLLECTIVE SECURITY

Collective Security

Collective Security

Introduction

Collective security arrangements have always been conceived as being global in scope; this is in fact a defining characteristic, distinguishing them from regional alliances such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Both the League of Nations and the United Nations were founded on the principle of collective security.

Discussion

Neither the League nor the United Nations were able to operate the principle successfully to prevent aggression because of the conflicts of interest among states, especially among the major powers. The existence of such conflicts has in fact been recognized in the institutionalized arrangements of the two world bodies themselves: under the Covenant of the League of Nations the response to aggression was left to the member states to decide (article 16, paragraph 3, as amended by interpretive resolutions adopted in 1921); and under the UN Charter any permanent member of the Security Council may veto collective action.

Collective security is one type of coalition building strategy in which a group of nations agree not to attack each other and to defend each other against an attack from one of the others, if such an attack is made.  The principal is that "an attack against one, is an attack against all." It differs from "collective defence" which is a coalition of nations which agree to defend its own group against outside attacks.  Thus NATO and the Warsaw Pact were examples of collective defence, while the UN is an attempt at collective security.  Proponents of collective security say it is a much more effective approach to security than individual countries trying to act alone, as weaker countries cannot possibly defend themselves, and countries that try often become involved in never-ending arms races which actually detract from, rather than enhance, their security over the long term. In addition, it is argued, collective security arrangements encourage international cooperation, while balance of power deterrence leads to competition and conflict instead.  Although the UN got bogged down in the superpower conflict during the cold war, now that that era has ended, many observers expect and hope that the UN will become a much more effective actor in protecting the security of its members.

Other scholars and diplomats, however, feel the collective security concept is misguided.  It is seen as conceptually muddled (as it is often confused with other similar concepts) and naively unrealistic.  Although they are pledged to defend each other, many countries will refuse to do so, if such an act is not in their own best interests or is thought to be too risky or expensive.  In addition, it has been argued, collective security arrangements will turn small struggles into large ones, and prevent the use of alternative (nonviolent) problem solving, relying instead on the much more costly approach of military confrontation.  In addition, there is always a danger that alliances formed for the purposes of collective security can also service as a basis for an aggressive coalition.

Before 1914, many observers believed that the international balance of power had made a general European ...