Professional Documents
Culture Documents
the UN? Has that organisation been successful in achieving those aims?
argue, using the failings of its embodiment to date in the aims of the United
The concept of ““collective security”” can be said to have begun with the Prussian
‘pacific federation’ as a ‘particular kind of league’ that ‘would seek to end all
wars for good’. He saw the possibility of promoting and maintaining international
designation for a variety of means and even for the end itself’.
The central idea of ““collective security”” is that there is certainty backed by legal
obligation, that any aggression to one state will be confronted with collective
sanctions. Its logic lies in two-fold: that the collective power of all the members
will act as a deterrent to an aggressor, and that through the promotion of co-
operation rather than competition, it ‘mitigates the rivalry and hostility of a self-
regulation of the international system since its first incarnation in the League of
Nations and in the treaty of Versailles in 1919. In the wake of the Second World
War a revised attempt at the targets and functionality of the concept resulted in
““Collective security”” was the primary reason for the establishment of the
organisation. Whittaker states that the principle behind the United Nations is that
‘states unite to maintain, develop and protect a world progressively freed from
conflict, poverty and threat’ -a definition which holds clear parallels to that found
earlier in this study. The United Nations Charter is the treaty of this organisation
which codifies its rules and practices, it is the articulation of this aim.
Although the term ‘““collective security””’ is not explicitly used in the charter, the
unite our strength to maintain international peace and security’, and subsequently
combine the different aspects necessary to the concept. They relate to ‘collective
‘centre for harmonizing the actions of the nations’ again linking to cooperation.
Logically it follows that if all of the Articles in the Charter are adhered to, then
peace (through ““collective security””), is the direct conclusion. Article 2 (4) states
that all member states must refrain from using threat or force, or act in any way
inconsistent with the principles of the United Nations. This negatively protects
peace. In the positively active sense, f this is violated, the Security Council has
the power to decide whether, and how, to discipline. It can do this peacefully
through Chapter VII (militarily– ‘action with respect to threats to the peace,
breaches of the peace and acts of aggression). Furthermore as, under Article 43,
aspect.
The organisation of the United Nations has been undeniably successful in its aim
2 & 3 in Chapter 1(1). Winston Churchill backs up this point. He stated that even
if the United Nations is just a ‘talking shop’, ‘to jaw jaw is always better than to
war war’, meaning that the United Nations has been successful in ““collective
United Nations, Jackson and Sorensen put forward the point that membership of
the United Nations allows transparency in policy and actions of each state. They
argue that with transparency, states are less likely to cheat on one another and
hence this creates a more stable and trusting environment.
even non member states are prohibited from acts of aggression or threats to
in the 1st Gulf War in 1990. There was an immediate collective response to the
and Chapter VII for a US-led coalition of international forces. In six weeks,
The key argument for the success of the United Nations in achieving its aims of
that ‘powerful states may act anyway’, examples such as the Iraq invasion in
2003 and Kosovo in 1998-1999, show that military action without legitimization by
the United Nations’ approval leads to serious unease. Claude also makes this
However, despite these successes one can not deny that there are numerous
failings in the success of the United Nations in achieving its aims in “collective
combination of problems.
The Cold War period highlights the lack of success of the organisation in
The Security Council was unable to reach agreement over the Cold War divide.
Despite the organisation having the potential to act, it was paralyzed because
any threat to the interests of the US or the Soviet Union resulted in a VETO
Another cause of failure in the United Nations’ aims for “collective security” is due
ability to defer or defect actual or potential breaches of peace and security and
because the overall diffusion of power is more stabilizing than shifts in the
when invading Iraq 2003 (despite not having the Security Council's approval).
Claude emphasizes this failing with the example of the Korean War. He states ‘it
is neither feasible to carry out nor prudent to undertake “collective security”
This threat of individual power being stronger than the collective also relates to
ruthless dictators. Sergei Markov the head of the institute for political research in
Moscow draws parallels with Hitler and the United States. He said ‘Hitler thought
he was above the League of Nations, and the United States thinks it is above the
United Nations’.
Another argument that the United Nations fails in achieving its aims in “collective
Kingsbury use the term ‘selective security’ to talk about the failing of the UN in
“collective security” through its unreliability. In some cases, such as the Vietnam
War, numerous acts of ‘aggression’ were brought in front of the Security Council:
Laos against Hanoi in 1959, and Cambodia against the USA and South Vietnam
As was the case in these instances, the Security Council reaching a decision
about what action is appropriate can be very slow. The size of the membership
and it can be hard to define what an act of aggression is or who the culprit is.
Claude encapsulates this saying that the organisation is ‘too big, too slow and
security”’ Furthermore, even when a decision has been reached, the success of
The first, which draws to our attention another argument against the success of
aim and to the United Nations. Without commitment, the ‘collective’ aspect fails,
the concept is undermined. There are two main areas where lack of commitment
anticipated and so members are less prepared to provide forces (as pre-
mentioned with the case of Korea). Claude writes that, ‘states must be prepared
to go to war even though this may involve injury to innocent people.’ However, in
reality, with proof through examples in the failure in Bosnia and Rwanda, they are
As well as being reluctant to contribute forces in the face of resistance, states the
United Nations are reluctant to give up control of their forces. Ceding control to
state leader to give up the right to make decisions regarding the use of force.
British Statesmen have been quoted as claiming it ‘essential that we should not
enter into any extensive general and undefined commitment with the result that,
to a large extent, our foreign policy would depend, not on this country, this
Parliament and its electors, but on a lot of foreign governments.’ This highlights
representatives also raised this point questioning the ‘oractical reality that
Germany, one day, should be fegended on her own territory by Soviet Russian
troops against an attack in the West or by French troops against an attack in the
‘selfishness’ of the powers who do not give the United Nations necessary
support. However John Mearsheimer raises the point that it could be due to
the United Nations is a circular effect. These failures, combined with the poor
past record of the institutions success, mean that members do not trust it, and as
the success of the system; states must be prepared to rely on its effectiveness
on one hand, to contribute to it, and on the other hand, to rely on it. Both of these
capable, and hence more likely to continue to fail in the future. Lack of reliance
means that states feel the need to have other protection because, as ‘“collective
security” (cannot) do for the international society what police actions (do) for the
themselves (in accordance with Article 51). This creates a knock on effect
whereby other states are threatened by relative military power in the international
system and act the same, building up their national forces (following
survival’ ). Consequently this detracts further from the capability and intrinsic
Despite some areas and some examples of success in achieving the aims of the
United Nations which embody the concept of “collective security”, this essay
clearly shows that there are numerous spheres where it fails. This is epitomised
by Naidu stating that that the United Nations ‘resembles a system of “collective
security” but does not fulfil the requirements of an ideal type’. The problem lies in
the fact that “collective security” is a ‘relative utopia’ operating in a world where
concludes that “collective security” remains an political ideal, and to this date,
24 Barrie Watts, Simon Adams, (2004) The Role of the United Nations, Black Rabbit
Books
25 CBS News, MOSCOW May 10th 2007, Putin Offers Blunt Victory Day Speech
30 http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter
31 http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml
32 Immanuel Kant, (1915) Perpetual peace: a philosophical essay. London, G. Allen &
Unwin Ltd
33 Inis L Claude Jr. (1964) Swords into plowshares the problems and progress of
International Organization, 4th Edition, Random House New York
34 Inis Claude Jr, (1962) Power and International Relations, New York Random House
41 Naidu Mumulla Venkatrao “Collective Security” and the United Nations (New York: St
Martin’s Press 1975)
44 Lawrence Ziring, Robert E. Riggs, Jack C. Plano (2005) The United Nations:
international organisation and world politics, 4th edition, Belmont, Wadsworth.
45