Collective Security

Employed during the construction of the League of Nations, the concept of collective
security goes beyond the pure idea of defence to include, according to Inis Claude,
'arrangements for facilitating peaceful settlement of disputes,' assuming that the
mechanisms of preventing war and defending states under armed attack will 'supplement
and reinforce each other' (1984:245). Writing during the Cold War, Claude identifies the
concept as the post-WWI name given by the international community to the 'system for
maintenance of international peace... intended as a replacement for the system commonly
known as the balance-of-power' (1984:247). Most applicable to widely inclusive
international organizations such as the League and the United Nations, ideally, the
arrangement would transcend the reliance on deterrence of competing alliances through a
network or scheme of 'national commitments and international mechanisms.' As in
collective defence, collective security is based on the risk of retribution, but it can also
involve economic and diplomatic responses, in addition to military retribution. From this,
it is theorized that perfected collective security would discourage potential aggressors
from angering a collectivity of states. Like balance-of-power, collective security works
on the assumption that any potential aggressor would be deterred by the prospect of joint
retaliation, but it goes beyond the military realm to include a wider array of security
problems. It assumes that states will relinquish sovereignty and freedom of action or
inaction to increasing interdependence and the premise of the indivisibility of peace. The
security that can be derived from this is part of the foundation of the neoliberal
institutionalist argument.
Claude Jr., notes that the idea that a peaceful and stable world order can be maintained
without the benefit of a collective security system has been seen by most persons
concerned with international organization as a far-fetched idea. The theory of collective
security deals directly with the issue of how to cause peace.It takes cognisance of the fact
that military power is a central fact of international politics and is likely to remain the
case for some time.
Thus, the key to enhancing stability in the world is to manage properly military power.
For advocates of collective security, it is institutions that are vital in managing power
successfully.
According to Danchin, the concept of collective security is notoriously difficult to
define, as the term is associated with a loose set of assumptions and ideas and its
continued existence remains a contested concept Claude Jr., agrees and further suggests
that when the term collective security if used loosely, appears to be a synonym of peace
or world order while it has also been used to refer to any and all multilateral efforts to
deal with the problem of international peace and security, rather than a specifically to the
system that gained prominence after the First World War. Roberts and Kingsbury define
collective security as an arrangement where each state in the system accepts that
security of one of them is a concern of all, and agrees to join in a collective response to
aggression. It is the foundational principle of the League of Nations: namely that
member states would take a threat or attack on one member as an assault on all of them.
Kupchan et al defines collective security as, an agreement between states to abide by
certain norms and rules to maintain stability and when necessary, band togetherto stop
aggression.This definition captures three distinct ideas: the purpose or end of stopping

aggression; the reliance on legal norms to determine both the meaning of that term
and the appropriate response; and the rejection of self-help in favour of collective action.
Thus, collective security rests on the idea of institutionalizing the legal use of force, to
reduce reliance of self-help as a rather crude instrument of law enforcement. When
these ideas are brought together, the concept of collective security may be further defined
as:... an institutionalized universal or regional system in which States have agreed by
treaty jointly
to meet any act of aggression or other illegal use of force resorted by a member State of
the system.
The concept is primarily directed against the illegal use of force within the group of states
forming the collective security system rather than an external threat In order to
understand the underlying logic of collective security, it would be important to
distinguish collective security from two closely related terms, namely balance of power
and global government. A balance of power arrangement between states rests on the idea
of decentralization. States act as separate units without subordinating their autonomy or
sovereignty to any central agency established for the management of power relations.
Thus, singly or in combinations reflecting the coincidence of interests, States seek to
influence the pattern of power distribution and to determine their own places within
thatpattern. Under this conception, states may form defensive alliances such as under
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) against actual or perceived external
threats. These sorts of flexible alliances allow for recurrent shifts of alignment to take
place. The promise of order lies in the expectation that competing claims to power will
somehow balance and thereby cancel each other out to produce deterrence through
equilibration.
On the other hand, global government posit the creation of a centralized institutional
system superior to individual states with a monopoly on power and the use of force
similar to that of well-ordered national state. This conception is based on depriving states
of their standing as centers of power and policy, where issues of war and peace are
concerned, and superimposing on them an institution possessed of the authority and
capability to maintain, by unchallengeable force so far as may be necessary, the order and
stability of a global community. Global government is thus a normative or ideal vision
of the international political community under a universal law which does not currently
exist.
The concept of collective security sits uneasily between and incorporates elements of
both these elements (balance of power and global government) thus functioning as a
dialectical notion of order without government14 in an effort to manage the problem
of power relations between states by superimposing a scheme of partially centralized
management upon a situation in which power remains fused among national units. The
hybrid system involves a centralization of authority over the use of force to the extent that
states are deprived of the legal right to use force at their own discretion and agree to
follow objective rules governing the threat and use of force requires an international
organization
with authority not only to determine when a resort to force is illegitimate but also
authority to require states to collaborate under its direction in suppressing such use of

force. This is system of collective security falls short of creating an institution with a
centralized monopoly of force in the full sense implied by world government. The power
wielded by a hybrid collective security system thus can reach no further than that given
by the sovereign will of its members.
International organization can be defined as a process; international organizations are
representative aspects of the phase of that process which has been reached at any given
time. International organization includes not only interstate arrangements but,
increasingly, arrangements among non-governmental and transitional actors18. Thus, the
landscape of international organizations includes both inter-governmental organizations
and international non-governmental organizations. Scholars also note that international
organization is a very broad concept, which has evolved with the practice of various
forms of international governance.
In order to explain the theory of collective security, it would be important to examine its
key assumptions, relevance and limitations. Organski, for instance, lists five basic
assumptions underlying the theory of collective security. That in an armed conflict,
member nation-states will be able to agree on which nation is the aggressor.

In an armed conflict, member nation-states will be able to agree on which nation

is the aggressor.
All member nation-states are equally committed to contain and constrain the
aggression, irrespective of its source or origin.
All member nation-states have identical freedom of action and ability to join in
proceedings against the aggressor.
The cumulative power of the cooperating members of the alliance for collective
security will be adequate and sufficient to overpower the might of the aggressor.
In the light of the threat posed by the collective might of the nations of a
collective security coalition, the aggressor nation will modify its policies, or if
unwilling to do so, will be defeated.

On the other hand, Claude Jr., points out that the theory of collective security is less
heavily dependent on a set of assumptions about the nature and causes of war and thus
claims to be applicable to wider variety of belligerent (confrontational) situations,
assuming that not all wars occur from similar type of causes.

Prerequisites[edit]
Morgenthau (1948) states that three prerequisites must be met for collective security to
successfully prevent war:

The collective security system must be able to assemble military force in strength
greatly in excess to that assembled by the aggressor(s) thereby deterring the

aggressor(s) from attempting to change the world order defended by the collective
security system.
Those nations, whose combined strength would be used for deterrence as
mentioned in the first prerequisite, should have identical beliefs about the security
of the world order that the collective is defending.
Nations must be willing to subordinate their conflicting interests to the common
good defined in terms of the common defense of all member-states

Theory[edit]
Collective security can be understood as a security arrangement in which all states
cooperate collectively to provide security for all by the actions of all against any states
within the groups which might challenge the existing order by using force. This contrasts
with self-help strategies of engaging in war for purely immediate national interest. While
collective security is possible, several prerequisites have to be met for it to work.
Sovereign nations eager to maintain the status quo, willingly cooperate, accepting a
degree of vulnerability and in some cases of minor nations, also accede to the interests of
the chief contributing nations organising the collective security. Collective Security is
achieved by setting up an international cooperative organisation, under the auspices of
international law and this gives rise to a form of international collective governance,
albeit limited in scope and effectiveness. The collective security organisation then
becomes an arena for diplomacy, balance of power and exercise of soft power. The use of
hard power by states, unless legitimised by the Collective Security organisation, is
considered illegitimate, reprehensible and needing remediation of some kind. The
collective security organisation not only gives cheaper security, but also may be the only
practicable means of security for smaller nations against more powerful threatening
neighbours without the need of joining the camp of the nations balancing their
neighbours.
The concept of "collective security" forwarded by men such as Michael Joseph
Savage, Martin Wight, Immanuel Kant, andWoodrow Wilson, are deemed to apply
interests in security in a broad manner, to "avoid grouping powers into opposing camps,
and refusing to draw dividing lines that would leave anyone out."[17] The term
"collective security" has also been cited as a principle of the United Nations, and
the League of Nations before that. By employing a system of collective security, the UN
hopes to dissuade any member state from acting in a manner likely to threaten peace,
thereby avoiding any conflict.

Collective security selectively incorporates the concept of both balance of power and
global government. Thus it is important to know and distinguish these two concepts.
Balance of power between states opts for decentralization of power. States are separate
actors who do not subordinate their autonomy or sovereignty to a central. Thus, "singly or
in combinations reflecting the coincidence of interests, States seek to influence the
pattern of power distribution and to determine their own places within that
pattern."[18] The expectation of order and peace comes from the belief that competing
powers will somehow balance and thereby cancel each other out to produce deterrence
through equilibration.[19]
On the flip side, the concept of global government is about centralization. Global
government is a centralized institutional system that possesses the power use of force like
a well established sovereign nation state. This concept strips states of their "standing as
centers of power and policy, where issues of war and peace are concerned,"[20] and
superimposing on them "an institution possessed of the authority and capability to
maintain, by unchallengeable force so far as may be necessary, the order and stability of a
global community."[21] Collective security selectively incorporates both of this concepts
which can broil down to a phrase: "order without government."
Balance of Power Theory
As a theory, balance of power predicts that rapid changes in international power and
statusespecially attempts by one state to conquer a regionwill provoke
counterbalancing actions. For this reason, the balancing process helps to maintain the
stability of relations between states. A balance of power system functions most effectively
when alliances are fluid, when they are easily formed or broken on the basis of
expediency, regardless of values, religion, history, or form of government. Occasionally a
single state plays a balancer role, shifting its support to oppose whatever state or alliance
is strongest. A weakness of the balance of power concept is the difficulty of measuring
power.