Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The pursuit of security has been a central theme in international relations. Two prominent mechanisms employed to achieve this are Collective Security and Collective Defence. While seemingly aimed at preventing conflict and maintaining peace, a critical perspective suggests these systems often function to sustain the dominance of powerful states. Collective Security, as envisioned by thinkers like Woodrow Wilson, aims to deter aggression through a broad alliance responding to threats against any member. Collective Defence, exemplified by NATO, focuses on protecting specific members from attack. However, the practical application of these concepts reveals a complex reality where power dynamics often overshadow the ideals of equitable security.
Defining Collective Security and Collective Defence
Collective Security is a system where an attack against one state is considered an attack against all, triggering a response from the collective. It relies on broad participation and aims to deter aggression by demonstrating a unified front. The League of Nations was an early attempt at establishing a collective security system, though it ultimately failed.
Collective Defence, conversely, is a more limited arrangement where states agree to mutual defence in the event of an attack on a specific member. This is typically formalized through treaties like Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty (NATO). It’s a targeted response, not necessarily encompassing all threats to all members.
Theoretical Underpinnings and Historical Evolution
The theoretical basis for both concepts stems from the realist and liberal schools of thought. Realists see collective security as a way for weaker states to balance against stronger ones, while liberals view it as a means to promote cooperation and interdependence, reducing the likelihood of conflict. Historically, the post-World War II era saw the rise of both systems. The United Nations (UN) was established as a framework for collective security, while NATO emerged as a collective defence alliance against the Soviet Union.
Mechanisms and Operational Challenges
The UN Security Council (UNSC) is the primary body responsible for maintaining international peace and security under the collective security framework. However, the veto power held by the five permanent members (P5 – US, UK, France, Russia, China) often paralyzes action, particularly when their interests diverge. This demonstrates how the system can be manipulated to protect the interests of powerful states.
NATO, on the other hand, operates on a more streamlined basis, but its actions are often driven by the strategic interests of its dominant members, particularly the United States. The intervention in Libya in 2011, while framed as a humanitarian intervention, was criticized for exceeding the mandate authorized by the UNSC and serving Western strategic goals.
Critical Analysis: Sustaining Power Dynamics
The claim that these mechanisms sustain the domination of powers that be holds considerable weight. Several factors contribute to this:
- Unequal Power Distribution: The P5’s veto power in the UNSC allows them to shield their allies and interests from scrutiny and intervention.
- Selective Application: Collective security and defence mechanisms are often applied selectively, with interventions occurring in situations where powerful states perceive a threat to their interests. The lack of consistent response to crises in various parts of the world highlights this bias.
- Military Capabilities: The effectiveness of both systems relies heavily on the military capabilities of member states. Powerful states contribute the bulk of the resources and often dictate the terms of engagement.
- Alliance Politics: Collective defence alliances like NATO can reinforce existing geopolitical divisions and create new ones, potentially escalating tensions.
For example, the US-led intervention in Iraq in 2003, despite lacking explicit UNSC authorization, demonstrated the ability of a powerful state to act unilaterally, effectively circumventing the collective security framework. Similarly, NATO’s eastward expansion has been viewed by Russia as a threat to its security interests, contributing to the current geopolitical tensions.
The Rise of Regional Security Arrangements
The limitations of global collective security have led to the proliferation of regional security arrangements, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and the African Union’s (AU) peace and security architecture. While these arrangements can address regional challenges, they also reflect the interests of dominant regional powers and may not always align with broader international norms.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while Collective Security and Collective Defence are presented as mechanisms for maintaining international peace and security, their practical application reveals a complex reality. The inherent power imbalances within these systems, particularly the veto power in the UNSC and the dominance of powerful states within alliances, often lead to selective application and the perpetuation of existing power structures. A truly effective system of collective security would require greater equity, transparency, and accountability, moving beyond the interests of a few powerful states to encompass the security concerns of all nations.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.