UN Collective Security

Question	Answer
according to realism... when wouldn't a state go to war?	- if it has more to lose, if the costs outweigh the benefits - but what deters the mighty states from going to war? - Realists say a BALANCE OF POWER
"insecurity can be capped at manageable levels, so long as no state has significantly more power than another state"	- so as long as states, in combination, are in a stable balance of power, war won't happen! - realists disagree about whether a bipolar or a multipolar system is more stable, but the key here is balance between states
what evidence do we have for this BoP?	- historical evidence for this balance of power preventing war? can it be a competent condition for peace? - the classic example is the Concert of Europe (1815-1914) - century without major war in Europe - it was a multi-polar balance of power -"golden age" of BoP politics - first comprehensive attempt to construct machinery for keeping the peace among/by the Great Powers
in this classic BoP system, we have several key rules	1. don't let states get too strong or too weak (constant pursuit of balance, even instances where states let some things go, like a longstanding rivalry for the sake of wider stability) 2. no permanent alliances are allowed (states would for alliances, but switch them when a better opportunity came about, they had fluid alliances) 3. morality is irrelevant (wasn't about choosing between the good and bad states to ally with) it also wasn't a war free system, but was free of major wars, conflict could and did arise between states
so, Realists would argue that by following these rules throughout this long period, states produced a balance that created stability	but critics would argue that the BoP was not actually a condition of peace, but it was actually a cause of war - wars did occur, just not major war - and crucially this system failed to prevent WW1
after WW1 we began to see efforts to find an alternative to the BoP, this came in the form of COLLECTIVE SECURITY - it is a LIBERAL idea	- it is the formation of a broad alliance of most/all major actors, for the purpose of jointly opposing aggression by any other actor - revolves around the central idea that governments of all states would join together to prevent any other using coercion to gain advantage - involved the participation of ALL member states - the collective security community is a GLOBAL one - seeks to inhibit war through the threat of collective action - all states unite to punish one aggressor
collective security: main ideas	- it implies a general and permanent alliance (could say the P5 isn't an alliance) - all for one peace, all against one aggressor - implementing a collective security scheme requires specific commitments by sovereign states - usually an international treaty that lays out what constitutes aggression and a clear indication of how to community should respond (UN Charter!!) - for this to be implemented successfully, an institutionalised structure is necessary, we need international institutions - one in which members can determine when collective action is required
History of Collective Security	- it is simple in theory, but there are considerable difficulties in application - this raises the question, can we actually count on collective security to protect and restore the peace? - need to look at the history of the isa in practice to answer this - which starts with the League of Nations
League of Nations (1919)	- this was the first effort to create a CS arrangement - context: first time an institution like this existed, dedicated to solving problems through peaceful means - we do see progress on international cooperation through the leagues arrangements - evolving international architecture, HR/Trafikking etc - but ultimately a failure
why did the League fail?	- the league tried to define the collective security membership as a universal one, but there was no universal membership, crucially the US didn't join - it was also highly euro-centric - didn't react to Japanese invasion partly because it didn't care all too much - in general, members were unwilling to bear the costs of collective action to oppose aggression when it occurred, kind of redundant - by the end of WW2, great powers much more willing to construct and enter into a new collective security system
and then came the UN in 1945 with almost universal membership but is the UN a collective security arrangement???	on one hand... yes - by signing the UN Charter, states agree not to engage in aggressions, except for defensive purposes - chapter 7 authorises the UN to take military action against a state that commits unlawful action - on paper, it's a collective security agreement
But on the other hand...	- the UN structure privileges great powers - this makes the UN only a modified collective security system
SYRIA CRISIS - why no collective security response?	- violent war, massive death toll, economic devastation, major refugee crisis - and what we've seen at the UN is the international community struggling to develop a collective response to the crisis - Syria represents a crisis in collective security - the premise of CS is that all states should stand against aggression but in reality this has proven difficult - complexities arise when a conflict is internal and not interstate, because CS is supposed to be about when a state invades another state..
UN not set up to deal with internal/civil war	- attempts to make crisis seem like threat to international security in hope to kickstart some action - "regional calamity with global ramifications" - but this action has been blocked primarily by Russia, it has vetoed action NINE TIMES - does this support the realist view that state power cannot be constrained, states will continue to priorities their own self interest? or - are liberals right to suggest that this is why we need more power to the UN, and international law in general? - sovereignty vs human rights again
why does Russia veto action in Syria?	- Russia is an ally of Syria, the Assad Regime - wants to show off its newly expanded military - show off arms to potential customers in the middle east - these are all national interests and are interfering with the CS agenda of the UN
could argue that Collective Security is being prevented by the very structure of the UN- but how is the UN structured?	- the two central bodies to directly safeguard the peace are Security Council and General Assembly - SC primarily responsible for maintaining international peace and security - 10 rotating and non permanent members, 5 permanent members - the p5 have veto power over decisions - this is a significant revision to the theoretical idea of collective security - but it is the only way to get great power agreement
How about the General Assembly?	- the GA is a more open, equally representative forum of discussion - important thing here is it has equal representation, one vote per state - it has global visibility and controls the budgets etc, elects rotating members of the security council - but its resolutions are non legally binding - so although its more fair, doesn't do much to help the issue of CS being undermined by super power dominance
Conclusions	- UN is a modified collective security model - although chapter 7 calls for the Security Council to authorise military force against aggression if non violent means have failed, the veto power of the P5 means that CS effectively can't ever occur against one of these powers - can't expect the USA to authorise military intervention against themselves
Conclusions	- it cannot be a pure collective security arrangement in which every state stands a risk of punishment if they violate - the p5 veto power undermines !

Next up

UN Collective Security

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by Katie Best almost 7 years ago