The United Nations and Collective Security

Gary Wilson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781136028243
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Law
• Subtopic: Law Theory & Practice
• Index: Law

The role of the United Nations in collective security has been evolving since its inception in 1945. This book explores collective security as practiced within the legal framework provided by the United Nations Charter, with a particular focus upon activity undertaken under the auspices of the UN Security Council, the body conferred by the Charter with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Although the book is primarily grounded in international law, where appropriate it also draws upon relevant political insights in order to present a clear picture of the UN collective security system in operation and the factors which impact upon the way in which it functions.

Offering a comprehensive analysis it considers the full range of measures which can be utilised by the UN in the performance of its collective security remit including military enforcement action, peacekeeping, non-military sanctions and diplomacy. The book considers each of these measures in detail, assessing the legal framework applicable to the form of action, the main legal controversies which arise in respect of their appropriate utilisation, and the UN's use of this collective security 'tool' in practice. The book draws conclusions about the main strengths and shortcomings of the various means through which the UN can attempt to prevent, minimise or end conflict.

1 The concept of collective security

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to provide an understanding of the concept of collective security. Although this book is concerned specifically with the collective security system established by the United Nations Charter, we can only fully appreciate the manner in which that system has functioned and the factors which have impacted upon its various perceived successes and failures by considering at the outset what collective security entails as a concept and the conditions upon which its effective implementation depends. This chapter, thus, provides a necessary theoretical foundation for the remainder of the book.

We begin by considering the basic idea of collective security and demonstrate that it is a potentially broad concept, which in the history of the UN has evolved considerably to embrace concern for threats posed to human well-being arising from a range of sources. We then outline the various requirements that must be satisfied if any collective security system is to have the optimum prospect of success. These reinforce the political contingencies upon which the operation of collective security hinges. That they have never been fully satisfied in practice reinforces the practical limits to collective security. In light of the political dynamics of collective security, we move on to consider the relevant role of legal and political perspectives in evaluating its practice. Finally, taking account of such perspectives, a case is made for collective security that justifies the contribution of this book to contemporary discourse on the evolution of the United Nations as a collective security actor.

‘Collective security’ defined

The term ‘collective security’ implies an arrangement by which states act collectively to guarantee one another’s security. Defined in general terms, in an ideal collective security system, each state ‘accepts that the security of one is the concern of all, and agrees to join in a collective response to threats to, and breaches of, the peace’.¹

The scope of what are considered to pose security threats will ultimately depend upon the particular system in place, and the view that it adopts of what constitutes ‘security’. Historically, collective security was largely deemed to concern the protection of states from external attack. As the Commission on Global Governance noted, ‘Since the seventeenth century, international security has been defined almost entirely in terms of national survival needs. Security has meant the protection of the state . . . from external attack’.² This traditional view of collective security regarded it as an agreement among states that they would see external aggression against one of their number as an act against them all, and that they would respond with a collective use of force against the perpetrators of such aggression.³ Arguably, such an understanding of collective security was reflected within the Covenant of the League of Nations, Article 10 of which provided that ‘The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League’. The Covenant made no express reference to other possible forms of security threats. However, collective security should not be viewed purely in terms of an arrangement among states to join in fighting external aggression. Such an understanding is too narrow and fails to recognise the potentially broader nature of collective security.

As will be seen in subsequent chapters, the history of activity by the UN Security Council, especially in the post-cold war era, has evidenced a broader understanding of the nature of security threats. The provisions of the UN Charter permit collective measures to be employed to maintain or restore international peace and security, following a determination by the Security Council that there exists a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, under Article 39. The flexible language used allows for the implementation of a form of collective security going beyond simply responding to external aggression to embrace concern for human security, Shraga noting correctly that ‘more than six decades after the adoption of the UN Charter, the concept of “peace” and of what constitutes a “threat to the peace” has fundamentally changed’.⁴ As one study has asserted, in the post-cold war era ‘Global security was redefined . . . and the tasks undertaken to provide security widened to protecting civilians from massacre by their own governments as well as shoring up weak states threatened by struggles among factional militias’.⁵ Indeed, in the post-cold war era the Security Council has identified threats to international peace and security emanating from a range of situations including human rights abuses, the humanitarian consequences of internal armed conflict, the removal of democratically elected governments and international terrorism.⁶ The report of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change stressed the importance of adopting a ‘comprehensive’ conception of collective security.⁷ It noted particularly that in the modern world security threats are interrelated,⁸ and that their nature is such that no state alone can make itself invulnerable.⁹ It is also worth noting the development of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine,¹⁰ under which states have a duty to protect their civilian populations from harm, and the international community a duty to intervene where a state is unable or unwilling to meet its obligation to protect its people.¹¹ The doctrine received the support of the UN General Assembly at the 2005 world summit,¹² evidencing the extent to which contemporary conceptions of security have human security at their core.

Regional bodies have also evidenced a broadened conception of what amount to security threats. For example, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) was one of the first bodies to employ a broad conception of security threats centred on human security,¹³ and in its 2003 European security strategy the EU makes reference to the emergence of new security threats including terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, state failure and organised crime.¹⁴ Significantly, some of these new threats have their sources in the actions of non-state actors such as terrorist organisations and factions to conflicts taking place within states. While states remain the principal actors upon the international plane, and are responsible for the utilisation of the UN’s collective security apparatus, it has become increasingly necessary to bear in mind that in some instances the major challenge for the UN system will be to utilise its mechanisms in order to exert coercion over the activities of non-state actors.

Collective security can be affected in different ways.¹⁵ It may involve a universal legal obligation among states to provide mutual assistance to one another in the event of external aggression or some other predefined occurrence. Such a form was evident within the system established by the League of Nations Covenant. An alternative approach is that of the ‘concert’ system, in which major powers take on a special role and cooperate to address security threats, using more flexible procedures in adopting collective measures to respond towards them. The ‘concert’ system inherently leads to a selective form of collective security. Such characteristics can be identified within the UN Charter’s collective security system, in which the Security Council – and in particular its five permanent (P5) members – are conferred with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.¹⁶ The Council enjoys discretion in determining the existence of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression under Article 39, and in choosing upon the course of action, if any, to be taken in response. Collective security may also operate on a regional basis, the states of a particular region creating and using collective mechanisms for addressing security threats within the region.¹⁷

It is important to note that not only can a system of collective security be concerned with a wide range of security threats, but that the means available for it to respond to these are not confined to the use of military force. As Orakhelashvili notes, ‘the concept of collective security is broad, and can include in itself a variety of tasks such as conflict prevention, crisis management, peace-keeping, or peace enforcement, as required to enable the relevant institution to deal with threats as their gravity and magnitude require’.¹⁸ In recognising that the UN collective security system is provided with a number of tools for tackling security threats, this book gives attention in turn to pacific settlement, sanctions, peacekeeping and military enforcement action as means of effecting collective security.

The requirements of collective security

Commentators upon collective security have set out a series of requirements that must be satisfied for its effective implementation.¹⁹ However, the satisfaction of all of these requirements ought to be regarded as the necessary condition for the operation of an ideal form of collective security. In practice, these have never been satisfied in their entirety, reinforcing the political dynamics of collective security.

First, collective security requires that some kind of institutional system be in place through which it can operate. As Claude suggests, the system is the institutional component that allows the means (a collective approach) to serve the end (security).²⁰ If collective security is to be meaningful, there needs to be some certainty as to when a particular situation will be regarded as being of concern to the wider international community, and how they will respond collectively to deal with it. While there is no one template of a collective security system, as the preceding discussion of the nature of collective security illustrated, it is essential that means are in place to determine what situations will trigger collective action and what form that collective action will take. This necessitates a series of norms and procedures and underlies the centrality of law to collective security.²¹ As Miller puts it, ‘[what is] demanded is some kind of institutional structure in which the members of the community can determine when conditions requiring their collective action have arisen’.²² An institutional framework is also needed for the purpose of coordinating collective action. With an international community in the region of 200 states, it must be questioned how effectively collective action could be conducted in the absence of any coordinating mechanism. It would clearly be impractical for states to take action, whether militarily or otherwise, in isolation, making the need for an institutional framework fundamental to the operation of collective security. As will be detailed in the next chapter, the application of collective security measures within the UN system rests largely on the decision-making of the Security Council. While this gives rise to a discretionary system, there are nonetheless clearly recognisable procedures by which collective action can be pursued.

Second are the related requirements of universality, preponderance and diffusion of power.²³ Any collective security system’s effectiveness rests upon its membership being substantially universal, taking in the vast majority of the international community. This is because the collective might of the members of the system must be sufficient to remove any security threat. Where military action is to be taken, its success in achieving its objectives is contingent upon the force deployed being sufficiently preponderant to enable it to overcome the problem with which it is mandated to deal.²⁴ The less universal a collective security system is, the weaker its collective resources, and thus its capacity to effectively tackle security threats. While the absence of a handful of relatively minor powers may be of no huge consequence, if a number of major states abstain from participation collective security’s potential may be seriously undermined. Any system lacking the membership of a number of major states may find it difficult to muster the overwhelming strength that would be essential to its ability to engage in collective action against aggression or identified security threats. An often-advanced criticism of the League of Nations is that it never enjoyed the membership of the United States (US), and prior to the outbreak of World War Two other major powers such as the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics (USSR), Germany, Italy and Japan all left the League.²⁵ By contrast, the UN has enjoyed a relatively universal membership. However, as shall become apparent, it is one thing to enjoy universal membership and an...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• List of acronyms and abbreviations
• Introduction
• 1. The concept of collective security
• 2. The UN Charter’s system of collective security
• 3. A brief overview of the UN era
• 4. Diplomatic responses to security threats
• 5. The use of non-military sanctions
• 6. Peacekeeping
• 7. Military enforcement action
• 8. Regional arrangements and the UN collective security system
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index