Collective Security
fathers of collective security. These principles and designs asserted, in conjunction with the les- sons learned by both the League of Nations and the United Nations, all have a role in the defining of collective security. Hence, collective security must be seen more than mere ideals or beliefs, but rather now as a system – a system that made its first appearance in the form of the League of Nations and as of 1945, in the United Nations.
A frequent issue encountered when defining col- lective security is how to understand what the term “collective” refers to. Does it refer to an ad-hoc group of nations? Must a prior treaty ar- rangement exist? Does collective security require all nations to participate or at least support the efforts done in the name of collective security? Kant’s belief on what a collective entailed differs from that of Bahá’u’lláh and President Wilson. For Kant, such a system defined the “collective” as member states within a league that would provide security for other member States – rec- ognizing that there would be states that would not form part of the league. However, Bahá’u’lláh and President Wilson understood that a league, with a purpose of achieving collective security, required complete international membership. Bahá’u’lláh described a “collective” in 1881 by using the language “all” and “every people, gov- ernment and nation” when describing a system of collective security. President Wilson expressed a similar understanding in his “Fourteen Points” speech where he stated that “all the peoples of the world are in effect partners in [the] interest” of guaranteeing that “the world be made fit and safe to live in” by dealing with the force and self- ish aggression by other peoples and States.
Prior to the League, collective security, although offered as a means of guaranteeing international peace and security, was missing an institutional framework that would allow for such ideas to manifest themselves into a system. Therefore, prior to the establishment of the League of Na- tions, Kant’s view of what was meant by the col-
lective was reasonable. It was perfectly accept- able to define collective security, at that time, and not be constrained by the belief that all na- tions must act together. However, since the for- mation of the League of Nations and the United Nations, the view of what a “collective” is has in fact changed. This is due, in part, to the com- mitment of virtually every nation-state seeking admission to these two bodies. Regarding mem- bership to the League of Nations, only four na- tions never applied for membership – the United States, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Nepal. Regard- ing membership to the United Nations, member- ship has grown from only 51 members in 1945 to 193 members at present as well as one perma- nent observer and one permanent entity. Given that there are only 195 states in the world with international recognition, it is clear that a new un- derstanding of a “collective” has emerged with the existence of the League and the continuing maturation of the United Nations. Thus, efforts in the name of collectively maintaining international peace and security – the responsibility that all UN members (the collective) have conferred on the Security Council – have evolved, to date, to being carried out with the affirmative resolution of the Security Council.
_______________
Collective security, being once merely the sub- ject of philosophical thought in the 1700s to mak- ing its first major appearance on the world stage just over 90 years ago, has made major strides in its evolution. Although the functioning of such has been a struggle through two international organizations, the participation of virtually every country in the world in the United Nations as well as the continued application and learning by the UN Security Council is likely to lead to further strengthening and application of a system of col- lective security.
.
Endnote for Collective Security 1
ILSA Quarterly » volume 20 » issue 3 » February 2012 Bahá’u’lláh, Lawh-I-Maqsud, (1881). .
93
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112