Sustainable socio-economic development of all the nations. Strengthening of peaceful means of crisis-management and international peace- keeping. Criticism Against Collective Security: 1. It is Idealistic in Nature and Scope: The concept of Collective Security is based upon certain idealistic assumptions which make its operationalization difficult.
For example: 1 It assumes that there can be a complete international understanding regarding the nature of all threats or aggressions against international peace and security. Nor can all the nations be expected to join a collective security action. At times it is not possible to identify the Aggressor: Another major defect of the Collective Security system is that it wrongly assumes that in the event of an aggression against any nation, the aggressor and the nature of its aggression can be really and easily identified.
In practice, it is very difficult to determine and name the aggressor as well as to identify the nature of aggression. Often the aggressor acts in the name of self-defence and justifies its aggression as a defensive action.
It wrongly believes the most effective way to deal with such situations is to undertake a collective security war. It, as such, rules out neutrality. Many nations often prefer to remain away from war.
It makes Collective Security war an international obligation and wrongly assumes that all nations are willing to participate in such a war. Charter, has two inherent limitations. It accepts the right of the states to undertake war as a measure of self- defence against any aggression.
In practice this provision gives a legal basis to an aggression or war in the name of action in self-defence. Secondly, it admits the right of the nations to establish regional defence pacts and organisations for protecting their security. It admits regional security systems as devices for preserving peace and security. The working of regional security systems has in-fact been a source of strain upon international peace and security.
Absence of a Permanent International Peace Keeping Force: Another major limitation of the Collective Security system is the absence of a permanent peace keeping force. It is only after a decision of the Security Council to take military action against an aggressor is taken that the constitution of a collective security military force in initiated.
This process is so slow and difficult that it takes a long time to raise the force and press it into service. Collective Security System is that whereas elaborate provisions have been laid down for implementing the system, no provision has been made regarding the method of terminating the Collective Security action.
Dependence on Powerful States: One of the basic principles of Collective Security is that all the states should have an equal say in arriving at collective security decisions. In actual operation, it fails to work on the principle of equality. Powerful states always dominate collective security decisions and actions. In fact, only the powerful states can play an effective role in executing a collective security action.
Collective security also assumes the satisfaction of unusually complex network of requirements namely: those of a subjective character which are related to the general acceptability of the responsibilities of collective security, and objective requirements, related to the suitability of the global situation to the operation of collective security Collective security rests on the assumption that it is true, and that governments and peoples can be expected to recognize and act on the truth, that the fabric of human society has become so tightly knit and woven that a breach any where threatens disintegration everywhere.
Unchecked aggression in one direction encourages and helps to empower its perpetrators to penetrate in other directions. Or, successful use of lawless force in one situation contributes to the undermining of respect for the principle of order in all situations. The remoteness of aggression is irrelevant. That the system will work if the peoples of the world identify their particular interests so closely with the general interest of mankind that they go beyond just recognizing the interdepence of nations to a feeling of involvement of all nations.
The responsibility of participating in a collective security system are too huge to be borne by any nation but people motivated by genuine sympathy for any and all victims of aggression, and loyalty to the values of a global system of law and order.
The operation of a collective security system must always be unstable unless there is belief that what is good for world peace is necessarily good for the nation and is deeply engrained in governments and peoples Another requirement of collective security is that all states be willing to entrust their destinies to collective security This implies that confidence is an essential condition of the success of a collective security system, thus states must be prepared to rely upon its effectiveness and impartiality.
The external sphere includes the power, the legal and the organizational situations Thus the ideal milieu for a collective security system is, firstly, a world characterized by a considerable diffusion of power.
This means that the most favourable situation would be one where all states commanded equal resources, and the least favourable, one marked by the concentration of effective power in a few major states. The existence of several great powers of roughly equal strength is essential to collective security.
Secondly, a collective security system demands a substantial universality of membership. Thus, collective security is a design for a system of world order.
The system is intended to provide security for every state against the particular threat that arouses its sense of national anxiety. The other assumption is that if every potential aggressor, every state which is or might become the source of the misgivings of another state, were excluded, they system will have very few members indeed.
Thus, a workable system of collective security cannot afford the exclusion or abstention of a major power. It is dangerous to have an important commercial and naval power on the outside. This is because the refusal of these states to cooperate and to agree in the violation of their normal rights is enough to make it difficult the effective application of economic sanctions to the aggressor.
Therefore, the doctrine of collective security relies heavily on the proposal that non military measure will be sufficient to control aggression. Military commitments are acceptable only because they will be invoked but economic sanctions are peculiarly dependent on the application of universal application for their intended results Thus, collective security purports to establish a portable preponderance ready to be shifted to the defence of any victim of aggression and capable of making such a victim superior to its adversary In an ideal sense, collective security makes preponderance safe for the world by making use of it to the purpose of guaranteeing security of members of the international community.
This analysis then demonstrates the importance for a collective security system of meaningful objective use of power diffusion and organizational comprehensiveness On the other hand, if one state controls a very substantial portion of global power resources, forty five percent, for instance, the collective matching of its strength is doubtful and amassing overwhelming power against it is clearly impossible Collective security system approaches all-inclusiveness, the possibility of its disposing of sufficient resources to outclass any aggressor grows.
However, the converse of this is that this possibility is correspondingly diminished It is important at this juncture to examine the historical evolution of conceptual and institutional forms of collective security. Collective security theoretical ideas find their origins from the seventeenth century onwards.
Pierre and Immanuel Kant. In each of these works, the essential ideas of collective security began to take shape, that in the absence of a central authority for the enforcement of law and maintenance of peace, it was necessary to provide a substitute solution; a substitute can only be created by organizing the common defence of all states against the illegal use of force; and the rights of states to use of force as a form of self-help or law enforcement must be reduced to a minimum or limited to an interim measure In this process, just war doctrine was transformed from ethical to formally legal as the use of force was recast in legalistic terms as self-help remedy of the last resort The Concert provided not only for the common defence against external dangers in the classical form of a defensive alliance, but also for collective action by the European Great Powers against any potential enemy within their own ranks As this structure gradually collapsed, the peace movement began to advocate at the turn of the century for renewed conceptions of collective security.
While it was intended to be a collective security arrangement, the League was in reality closer to a balance of power arrangement as it 38 M. Knipping, H. Von Mangoldt and V. It was not until the First World War, however, that an institutionalized system of collective security was realized by the formation in of the League of Nation.
The creation of the League of Nations built on long standing efforts since the late nineteenth century to reduce the effects of war on belligerents and civilians alike by adopting new rules of humanitarian law and outlawing war and interstate aggression under international law The only deployments of the League of Nations forces were in Saarland Plebiscite and in — 34 Colombian force acting under League authority in the upper Amazon.
McCoubery and J. The United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union, united in political terms as the victorious powers emerging from the war, sought to overcome the weaknesses of the League of Nations through two main innovations; first, through the drafting of a new Charter that completely prohibited the use of force except as a means of individual and collective self- defence; and second, by creating a new Security Council with the authority to determine whether an act of aggression had occurred and what measures ought to be taken by its member states in response These improvements in collective security were soon diminished, however, by the onset of the Cold War and ensuing collapse of whatever political solidarity had previously existed between the Soviet Union and the West There four observations that one can make in the brief history of collective security.
First, historical development of the idea of collective security can be variously be interpreted and is not a product of any simple or singular process The development of international 45 J.
Legault, I. Desmartis, J. Collective security stands for meeting any war or aggression by the creation of a global preponderance of power of all nations against the aggression. Collective Security is also regarded as a deterrent against aggression in so far as it lays down that the collective power of all nations will be used to repel aggression or war against any state.
Nature of Collective Security: Collective Security stands for preserving security through collective actions. Its two key elements are: 1 Security is the chief goal of all the nations. Presently the security of each nation stands inseparably linked up with the security of all other nations. National security is a part of the international security. Any attack on the security of a nation is in fact an attack on the security of all the nations.
Hence, it is the responsibility of all the nations to defend the security of the victim nation. The power of the aggressor has to be met with by the collective power of all the nations. All the nations are required to create an international preponderance of power for negating the aggression or for ending a war. Aggression or war against any one nation is a war against all the nations. It seeks to preserve international peace through crisis management in the event of any war or aggression in the world.
Under it all the nations are ready to defend international peace and security through collective military action against aggression. Under this system each nation knows that any aggression against another nation shall be met by the collective power of all other nations. As such no nation tries to commit aggression and war because it knows that such an action will invite collective security action against it. This realization acts as a deterrent against any war or aggression.
A collective security action is limited to the elimination of war, aggression or threat of war or aggression. It does not stand for the elimination of the state which commits aggression. Its sole concern is to get the aggression vacated, to prevent the aggressor to gain out of its aggression, to restore the health of the victim of aggression, and to restore international peace and security.
As such Collective Security stands for securing international peace and security through collective efforts of all the nations. Security is the common objective of all the nations and it has to be secured through collective efforts of all. Ideal Conditions for the Success of Collective Security: Collective Security system can successfully operate when the following conditions are present in the international system: 1.
Agreement on the definition of Aggression. More broad based and more powerful United Nations. More powerful role of UN Security Council and strong commitment of its permanent members in favour of collective security of international peace and security.
Existence of a permanent international peace keeping force. An established procedure for termination of every collective security action. Popularization of peaceful means of conflict resolution.
0コメント