Collective Defense. A Collective Defense organization looks outward to defend its members from external aggression. Collective Defense organizations blossomed during the days of the Cold War.
To be both useful and effective, Cooperative Security must look both ways, inward and outward. But, it also must incorporate two further dimensions not covered explicitly by either Collective Security or Collective Defense. The first of these is the concept of Individual Security and the second is the Active Promotion and Projection of Stability into areas adjacent to the Cooperative Security space where instability and conflict might adversely affect the security of its members.
Individual Security. The furtherance and protection of the basic freedoms of the individual is the nucleus from which all other forms of security must radiate.
In an age of growing inter-connectivity between states and peoples, concern about the human condition within a state has become the direct and immediate interest of the world community. Violations of human rights in one state become very quickly known to the citizens of other states. Damage to the security of individuals in one country, by external or more often by internal forces, now means that other peoples and their governments feel that their own security is diminished.
Recent gross violations of the individual security of large numbers of human beings in such widely flung countries as Rwanda, Kosovo, and East Timor have had a dramatic impact on the international community. The Westphalian concept of the absolute right of states to act as they see fit within their own territories is no longer accepted by liberal democratic states nor, increasingly, by nations within international organizations such as the United Nations.
The concept of state sovereignty cannot be a screen behind which mass violations of human security can take place with impunity, even within otherwise recognized international boundaries.
Promoting Stability. The second new component of Cooperative Security is the active promotion of stability outside the boundaries of the states forming the Cooperative Security system. Instability in areas adjacent to the territory of the Cooperative Security system, or further afield, that might threaten the security of its members, will become a matter of serious concern.
Stability may be upset by the danger of conflict between states, but also by mass violations of individual security within neighboring states, such as that which occurred in Kosovo in and early This provoked a strong reaction from NATO and others. How stability can be developed, restored, and preserved in the world around them should remain the active concern of the states within the Cooperative Security system. Here we must sound a word of caution. Promoting Stability could be seen as a license for unwarranted intervention by larger powers or international organizations in the legitimate internal affairs of other, mainly smaller states.
Active intervention — diplomatic, economic, or military — must, therefore, be very carefully sanctioned and monitored. I will say more about this below. The following model, Figure 1 — Cooperative Security: The Four Rings , is built on a series of widening concentric circles, or rings. It attempts to bring together the four elements of Cooperative Security in a practical framework to form a real and effective security system:. Cooperative Security is a strategic system which forms around a nucleus of liberal democratic states linked together in a network of formal or informal alliances and institutions characterized by shared values and practical and transparent economic, political, and defense cooperation.
Ring One: Promoting and protecting human rights within their own boundaries and further afield Individual Security. Ring Two: Maintaining peace and stability within their common space Collective Security. Ring Three: Mutual protection against outside aggression Collective Defense. Ring Four: Actively promoting stability in other areas where conflict could threaten their shared security, using political, informational, economic, and, if necessary, military means Promoting Stability.
As we have seen, it must be manifested in concrete form to achieve its complete potential. Thus, it will be based on existing or newly created, strong and resilient institutions. There are two points to be made here. First, there are those who argue that the state itself has become a less relevant player in the realm of national and international security and that sub—state and trans—state actors now play the leading role on the modern security scene.
It is true that non—state organizations, trans—national corporations, non—governmental organizations NGOs , pressure groups, and even international criminal and terrorist groups are increasingly influential in the security area. There is, however, in my opinion, no early prospect that a realistic alternative to the system of sovereign states and the institutions they form will be replaced as the dominant providers of security to the citizens of this planet.
Second, I believe that only liberal democratic states can be trusted with the protection and furtherance of human rights in their widest sense, the core of the Cooperative Security system. However, they may make a helpful political and military contribution to the Cooperative Security system in specific and limited ways. In the longer term, their own values and perceptions may change through contact and cooperation with the liberal democracies within the system.
Because of the ultimate unreliability and fragility of undemocratic states as allies — for example, Iran, Libya, and Yugoslavia have all been, at one time or another, helpful to western interests — it seems abundantly clear that only liberal democratic states are capable of developing and sustaining the common objectives, the spirit of compromise, and the flexibility essential for the long—term maintenance of a Cooperative Security system. As we have seen, the League of Nations ultimately foundered on a lack of basic political compatibility amongst its members.
They must be committed to a dialogue amongst themselves, spanning a whole range of activities and interests. If we accept that the broader definition of security includes political, economic, and human rights aspects, then the nations forming the Cooperative Security system must be linked by all elements of the web of security.
These include: close and continuing political consultations; free and open trade relations; and closely aligned foreign and security policies, including integrated or multi—national military formations.
Most importantly, they must develop mechanisms for peacefully and amicably resolving differences between individual states or groups of states within the system, including perceived violations of individual security within one or more of the member states. They do so because they judge their shared interests to be ultimately more important to them than their own short—term concerns. This element is fundamental to the success of a Cooperative Security system. It did so because it rightly perceived the potential long—term damage to NATO and ultimately to its own security and prosperity of blocking consensus.
The essential basic value upon which a Cooperative Security system rests is an unquestioned conviction by its members to uphold and maintain the Individual Security of its own citizens and those of their fellow members. This is the inner ring of the Cooperative Security system, which will ultimately hold it together over time under inevitable pressures and stresses, internal and external. Only the ideals and values of liberal democracy can keep this vital nucleus together.
Ring Two: Maintaining Peace. This ring of Cooperative Security embodies the concept of Collective Security , i. Collective Security will also include close cooperation between members in countering common threats such as terrorism, organized crime, illegal immigration, drugs, pollution, and joint planning and actions in the event of natural or man—made disasters, etc.
Ring Three: Mutual Protection. That is, it promises reliable and credible military protection against aggression or the threat of aggression from outside the system. This is the Collective Defense ring of Cooperative Security. Ring Four: Actively Promoting Stability.
Finally, a Cooperative Security system attempts to prevent and preempt instability, which will almost certainly include widespread abuse of human rights, in the area around it. It does so by actively Promoting Stability through a wide variety of means, including, as a last resort, the use of force.
This is the fourth and outer ring of Cooperative Security, and arguably its most sensitive element. In Kosovo, massive violations of individual security were an important factor in swinging public opinion behind the NATO action. This fear of destabilization and the spread of conflict were certainly the determining factors in the decision to use military force once political, diplomatic, and economic tools proved ineffective.
As we have seen, Cooperative Security must be built around a strong institutional framework. Figure 2 attempts to match the current leading international security organizations with the characteristics of the Cooperative Security system that we have described above.
This chart is based on the perceived effectiveness of the institution in a particular role, rather than on its formal organizational commitment to one security role or another. However, in an imperfect world, most reasonable observers would agree that NATO members come close to the championing of Individual Security, which stands at the core of a Cooperative Security system.
However, even during the Cold War, the Alliance served as an unofficial, yet de facto, guarantor of the security of its individual member states against threats from fellow members. Greek—Turkish friction over a variety of issues would almost certainly have resulted in at least one war between these states, had they not been firmly embedded within the North Atlantic Alliance. On more than one occasion, informal, but intense, bilateral and multilateral consultations within the NATO Alliance averted a Greek—Turkish conflict.
It was intended that all member states would commit to making a certain number of armed forces available to the Security Council, under special agreements that would specify their size, composition, degree of readiness and location, but these agreements were never actually established. The use of these forces was meant to be planned by an international military staff, but this was never put into practice.
The disagreements between the great powers, linked to the emergence of the Cold War, quickly brought about the paralysis of the UN, a fact that played a significant role in the Korean War , the American intervention bringing together 17 countries only being legitimized by the Security Council in the temporary absence of the Soviets. In the absence of a veritable system of collective security, international security was therefore based primarily on collective defence organisations principally NATO and the Warsaw Pact.
However, these hopes were soon dashed, and the UN does not seem capable, at the beginning of the 21 st century, of providing real answers to problems of international security. Its actions in favour of peace are conducted primarily within the framework of peacekeeping operations. International relations.
The pioneering role of the League of Nations Hoping to break with the system of alliances and secret diplomacy which was held responsible for the cataclysm of , the American president Woodrow Wilson placed the creation of the League of Nations at the top of the agenda during the Peace Conference, in order to base the preservation of peace on new practices. The failure of the s The collective security system experienced resounding failures in the s, showing itself incapable of guaranteeing the protections of Article 10 to those members threatened by the aggressive policies of dictatorial regimes.
Weiss, Thomas G. Forsythe, and Roger A. Boulder, CO: Westview, , esp. Weissman, Fabrice. London: Hurst, White, Nigel D. Collective Security Law. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, Toggle navigation. Advanced search The Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law « Calling things by the wrong name adds to the affliction of the world.
Cookies disclaimer I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information cookies on your device in order to deliver better content and for statistical purposes. Index Alias Alphabetical index International conventions Ratified conventions by countries Advanced search.
Others Authors and participants. Collective Security The concept of collective security replaces the one of military alliances between States, which prevailed until World War II, to ensure the collective defense of a State by its allies in case of aggression by another State. In the initial phase, the Council must strive to facilitate the pacific settlement of disputes among the concerned States. This is the preventive stage. States are under the obligation to seek peaceful solutions to their disputes, whether through negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, or arbitration Art.
However, the Security Council may expressly call on the parties to do so, if it deems it necessary. It may also investigate any dispute to determine whether its continuation threatens international peace and security Art. In any case and at any stage in the dispute, the Council may recommend procedures or methods of adjustment that it considers appropriate.
In particular, it may suggest that States refer legal disputes to the International Court of Justice Art. In cases of threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression, if all preventive actions fail, the Security Council may have recourse to more forceful measures such as sanctions, including military ones. The reasons set forth by the Council vary from one situation to another.
0コメント