Collective security

Last updated

Collective security can be understood as a security arrangement, political, regional, or global, in which each state in the system accepts that the security of one is the concern of all, and therefore commits to a collective response to threats to, and breaches to peace. Collective security is more ambitious than systems of alliance security or collective defense in that it seeks to encompass the totality of states within a region or indeed globally, and to address a wide range of possible threats. While collective security is an idea with a long history, its implementation in practice has proved problematic. Several prerequisites have to be met for it to have a chance of working. It is the theory or practice of states pledging to defend one another in order to deter aggression or to exterminate transgressor if international order has been breached. [1]

Treaty express agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law

A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms. Regardless of terminology, all of these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered treaties and the rules are the same.

Security degree of resistance to, or protection from, harm

Security is freedom from, or resilience against, potential harm caused by others. Beneficiaries of security may be of persons and social groups, objects and institutions, ecosystems or any other entity or phenomenon vulnerable to unwanted change by its environment.

Military alliance alliance between different states with the purpose to cooperate militarily

A military alliance is an international agreement concerning national security, when the contracting parties agree to mutual protection and support in case of a crisis that has not been identified in advance. Military alliances differ from coalitions, as coalitions are formed for a crisis that are already known.

Contents

History

Early mentions

Collective security is one of the most promising approaches for peace and a valuable device for power management on an international scale. Cardinal Richelieu proposed a scheme for collective security in 1629, which was partially reflected in the 1648 Peace of Westphalia. In the eighteenth century many proposals were made for collective security arrangements, especially in Europe.

Power (social and political) ability to influence the behavior of people with or without resistance

In social science and politics, power is the capacity of an individual to influence the conduct (behaviour) of others. The term "authority" is often used for power that is perceived as legitimate by the social structure. Power can be seen as evil or unjust. This sort of primitive exercise of power is historically endemic to humans; however, as social beings, the same concept is seen as good and as something inherited or given for exercising humanistic objectives that will help, move, and empower others as well. In general, it is derived by the factors of interdependence between two entities and the environment. In business, the ethical instrumentality of power is achievement, and as such it is a zero-sum game. In simple terms it can be expressed as being "upward" or "downward". With downward power, a company's superior influences subordinates for attaining organizational goals. When a company exerts upward power, it is the subordinates who influence the decisions of their leader or leaders.

International is an adjective meaning "between nations".

Cardinal Richelieu French clergyman, noble and statesman

Cardinal Armand Jean du Plessis, 1st Duke of Richelieu and Fronsac, commonly referred to as Cardinal Richelieu, was a French clergyman, nobleman, and statesman. He was consecrated as a bishop in 1607 and was appointed Foreign Secretary in 1616. Richelieu soon rose in both the Catholic Church and the French government, becoming a cardinal in 1622, and King Louis XIII's chief minister in 1624. He remained in office until his death in 1642; he was succeeded by Cardinal Mazarin, whose career he had fostered.

The concept of a peaceful community of nations was outlined in 1795 in Immanuel Kant's Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch . [2] Kant outlined the idea of a league of nations that would control conflict and promote peace between states. [3] However, he argues for the establishment of a peaceful world community not in a sense that there be a global government but in the hope that each state would declare itself as a free state that respects its citizens and welcomes foreign visitors as fellow rational beings. His key argument is that a union of free states would promote peaceful society worldwide: therefore, in his view, there can be a perpetual peace shaped by the international community rather than by a world government. [4]

Immanuel Kant Prussian philosopher

Immanuel Kant was an influential German philosopher. In his doctrine of transcendental idealism, he argued that space, time and causation are mere sensibilities; "things-in-themselves" exist, but their nature is unknowable. In his view, the mind shapes and structures experience, with all human experience sharing certain structural features. He drew a parallel to the Copernican revolution in his proposition that worldly objects can be intuited a priori ('beforehand'), and that intuition is therefore independent from objective reality. Kant believed that reason is the source of morality, and that aesthetics arise from a faculty of disinterested judgment. Kant's views continue to have a major influence on contemporary philosophy, especially the fields of epistemology, ethics, political theory, and post-modern aesthetics.

<i>Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch</i> essay by Immanuel Kant

Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch is a 1795 book by Immanuel Kant.

International co-operation to promote collective security originated in the Concert of Europe that developed after the Napoleonic Wars in the nineteenth century in an attempt to maintain the status quo between European states and so avoid war. [5] [6] This period also saw the development of international law with the first Geneva Conventions establishing laws about humanitarian relief during war and the international Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 governing rules of war and the peaceful settlement of international disputes. [7] [8]

Concert of Europe

The Concert of Europe represented the European balance of power from 1815 to 1848 and from 1871 to 1914.

Napoleonic Wars Series of early 19th century European wars

The Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815) were a series of major conflicts pitting the French Empire and its allies, led by Napoleon I, against a fluctuating array of European powers formed into various coalitions, financed and usually led by the United Kingdom. The wars stemmed from the unresolved disputes associated with the French Revolution and its resultant conflict. The wars are often categorised into five conflicts, each termed after the coalition that fought Napoleon: the Third Coalition (1805), the Fourth (1806–07), the Fifth (1809), the Sixth (1813), and the Seventh (1815).

Geneva Conventions Treaties establishing humanitarian laws of war

The Geneva Conventions comprise four treaties, and three additional protocols, that establish the standards of international law for humanitarian treatment in war. The singular term Geneva Convention usually denotes the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War (1939–45), which updated the terms of the two 1929 treaties, and added two new conventions. The Geneva Conventions extensively defined the basic rights of wartime prisoners, established protections for the wounded and sick, and established protections for the civilians in and around a war-zone. The treaties of 1949 were ratified, in whole or with reservations, by 196 countries. Moreover, the Geneva Convention also defines the rights and protections afforded to non-combatants, yet, because the Geneva Conventions are about people in war, the articles do not address warfare proper—the use of weapons of war—which is the subject of the Hague Conventions, and the bio-chemical warfare Geneva Protocol.

The forerunner of the League of Nations, the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), was formed by peace activists William Randal Cremer and Frédéric Passy in 1889. The organization was international in scope with a third of the members of parliament, in the 24 countries with parliaments, serving as members of the IPU by 1914. Its aims were to encourage governments to solve international disputes by peaceful means and arbitration and annual conferences were held to help governments refine the process of international arbitration. The IPU's structure consisted of a Council headed by a President which would later be reflected in the structure of the League. [9]

Inter-Parliamentary Union intergovernmental organization

The Inter-Parliamentary Union is a global inter-parliamentary institution established in 1889 by Frédéric Passy (France) and William Randal Cremer. It was the first permanent forum for political multilateral negotiations. Initially, the organization was for individual parliamentarians, but has since transformed into an international organization of the parliaments of sovereign states. The national parliaments of 178 countries are members of the IPU, and 12 regional parliamentary assemblies are associate members. The IPU has permanent observer status at the United Nations General Assembly.

Frédéric Passy French economist and statesman

Frédéric Passy was a French economist and a joint winner of the first Nobel Peace Prize awarded in 1901.

Parliament legislature whose power and function are similar to those dictated by the Westminster system of the United Kingdom

In modern politics and history, a parliament is a legislative body of government. Generally, a modern parliament has three functions: representing the electorate, making laws, and overseeing the government via hearings and inquiries.

At the start of the twentieth century two power blocs emerged through alliances between the European Great Powers. It was these alliances that came into effect at the start of the First World War in 1914, drawing all the major European powers into the war. This was the first major war in Europe between industrialized countries and the first time in Western Europe the results of industrialization (for example mass production) had been dedicated to war. The result of this industrial warfare was an unprecedented casualty level with eight and a half million members of armed services dead, an estimated 21 million wounded, and approximately 10 million civilian deaths. [10] [11]

Mass production production of large amounts of standardized products

Mass production, also known as flow production or continuous production, is the production of large amounts of standardized products, including and especially on assembly lines. Together with job production and batch production, it is one of the three main production methods.

Industrial warfare

Industrial warfare is a period in the history of warfare ranging roughly from the early 19th century and the start of the Industrial Revolution to the beginning of the Atomic Age, which saw the rise of nation-states, capable of creating and equipping large armies, navies, and air forces, through the process of industrialisation.

By the time the fighting ended in November 1918, the war had had a profound impact, affecting the social, political and economic systems of Europe and inflicting psychological and physical damage on the continent. [12] Anti-war sentiment rose across the world; the First World War was described as "the war to end all wars", [13] [14] and its possible causes were vigorously investigated. The causes identified included arms races, alliances, secret diplomacy, and the freedom of sovereign states to enter into war for their own benefit. The perceived remedies to these were seen as the creation of an international organization whose aim was to prevent future war through disarmament, open diplomacy, international co-operation, restrictions on the right to wage wars, and penalties that made war unattractive to nations. [15]

Theory

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.

Collective Security also contrasts with alliances in term of different forms. In Ph.D dissertation of Andreatta, collective security is based on the perspective of all together in a group against any one rather than on unilateral idea of some against specific others. [16] Alliance has the form of two groups against each other as like states A+B+C against states Y+Z; however, collective security system takes form of conducting one agreement between A+B+C+Y+Z against any one of them. Moreover, it is also different from alliance since collective security is built to focus on internal regulation required universal membership while alliance is built to deter or reduce an outside threat as an exclusive institution. For alliance, states would see their allies as absolute gain and their enemies as relative gains without legal obligation. In contrast, collective security follows the case of neutrality as the whole group would be required to punish the aggressor with the hope for it not to violate general norms, in which are beyond the states' control rather than by their self-interests. Opposite with short term interest of allies fighting for a common threat, collective security tends to use universal interests for global peace. [16]

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, and Woodrow 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. However, the term "Collective Security" is not the same as Balance of power, mentioned in Realism theory. According to Adreatta, balance of power focuses on state's unilateral interests stoping aggression. Since states look at the world as having security dilemma due to the fear of relative gain, state does not want any state to become predominant causing a mutually restraining equilibrium. In other word, 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. "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] In contrast, under collective security, states share the long term goal of global peace, reversing relationship between individual and community goals mentioned in Balance of Power theories. Balance of power fails to maintain stability led to break down of war as in the case of Napoleonic Wars and World Wars when states unilaterally decided to be unwilling or unable to fight.

At the same time, 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," [19] 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." [19] Despite some different characteristics of balance of power theory, collective Collective security selectively incorporates both of the concepts, centralization and decentralization, which can broil down to a phrase: "order without government." [20] Thus, collective security seems to be more reliable alternative since it gathers power as a team to punish the aggressor, and it is an attempt to improve international relations and to provide solid rules under anarchy.

Basic assumptions

Organski (1960) lists five basic assumptions underlying the theory of collective security: [21]

Prerequisites

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

In the League of Nations

After World War I, the first large scale attempt to provide collective security in modern times was the establishment of the League of Nations in 1919–20. The provisions of the League of Nations Covenant represented a weak system for decision-making and for collective action. According to Palmer and Perking, they pointed failure of United States in joining League of Nations and the rise of USSR outside the League as one of major reasons why it was failed under enforcement of collective security [22] . Moreover, an example of the failure of the League of Nations' collective security is the Manchurian Crisis, when Japan occupied part of China (which was a League member). After the invasion, members of the League passed a resolution calling for Japan to withdraw or face severe penalties. Given that every nation on the League of Nations council had veto power, Japan promptly vetoed the resolution, severely limiting the LN's ability to respond. After one year of deliberation, the League passed a resolution condemning the invasion without committing the League's members to any action against it. The Japanese replied by quitting the League.

A similar process occurred in 1935, when Italy invaded Abyssinia (now Ethiopia). Sanctions were passed, but Italy would have vetoed any stronger resolution. Additionally, Britain and France sought to court Italy's government as a potential deterrent to Hitler, given that Mussolini was not yet in what would become the Axis alliance of World War II. Thus, neither enforced any serious sanctions against the Italian government. Additionally, in this case and with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, the absence of the United States from the League of Nations deprived it of another major power that could have used economic leverage against either of the aggressor states. Inaction by the League subjected it to criticisms that it was weak and concerned more with European issues (most leading members were European), and it did not deter Hitler from his plans to dominate Europe. Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie I continued to support collective security, as he assessed that impotence lay not in the principle but in its covenantors' commitment to honor its tenets.

One active and articulate exponent of collective security during the immediate pre-war years was the Soviet foreign minister, Maxim Litvinov. However, there are grounds for doubt about the depth of Soviet commitment to the principle as well as that of Western powers. After the Munich Agreement in September 1938 and the passivity of outside powers in the face of German occupation of the remainder of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, it was shown that the Western powers were not prepared to engage in collective security against aggression by the Axis powers together with the Soviet Union, Soviet foreign policy was revised and Litvinov was replaced as foreign minister in early May 1939 to facilitate the negotiations that led to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact with Germany, signed by Litvinov's successor, Vyacheslav Molotov, on August 23 of that year. The war in Europe broke out a week later, with the invasion of Poland, starting on September 1, 1939. Thus, this could be seen that collective security does not always work due to the lack of commitment and unwillingness of states or International Community to act in concert (Mingst 1999).

Under United Nations and recent events

The 1945 United Nations Charter, although containing stronger provisions for decision-making and collective military action than those of the League of Nations Covenant, does not represent a complete system of collective security, but rather a balance between collective action on the one hand and continued operation of the states system (including the continued special roles of great powers) on the other. States in UN collective security system are selective to support or oppose UN action in certain conflicts based on their self-interests. United Nations can be somehow seen as the platform for self-interest purposes for members in Security Council due to their Veto power and excessive assistance or aid. This has made those states to act unilaterally ignoring the approval, or flout orders of Security Council not to act unilaterally. The Iraq crisis is a clearer example as “Rather than seek the global interest of peace and security through stability in Iraq and the Middle East region, the domination oriented members amassed their vast economic, diplomatic and military resources, captured and brazenly subjugated Iraq to an unprecedented condominial regime serving their economic interest under Iraq Reconstruction Programme.” (Eke, 2007) [22] In addition, lack of geographical spread of members in Security Council causes unbalancing on the role of maintenance global peace and security. The voices of small countries can be only heard, but not all policies were adopted in response to them unless they serves the great powers' interests.

However, this does not mean collective security in the UN is completely fail. The role of the UN and collective security in general is evolving, given the rise of internal state conflicts. Since the end of World War II, there have been 111 military conflicts worldwide, but only 9 of these have involved two or more states going to war with one another. The remainder have either been internal civil wars or civil wars where other nations intervened in some manner. This means that collective security may have to evolve towards providing a means to ensure stability and a fair international resolution to those internal conflicts. Whether this will involve more powerful peacekeeping forces, or a larger role for the UN diplomatically, will likely be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Collective defense

Collective defense is an arrangement, usually formalized by a treaty and an organization, among participant states that commit support in defense of a member state if it is attacked by another state outside the organization. NATO is the best known collective defense organization; its famous Article 5 calls on (but does not fully commit) member states to assist another member under attack. This article was invoked after the September 11 attacks on the United States, after which other NATO members provided assistance to the US War on Terror in Afghanistan.

Collective defense has its roots in multiparty alliances and entails benefits as well as risks. On the one hand, by combining and pooling resources, it can reduce any single state's cost of providing fully for its security. Smaller members of NATO, for example, have leeway to invest a greater proportion of their budget on non-military priorities, such as education or health, since they can count on other members to come to their defense, if needed.

On the other hand, collective defense also involves risky commitments. Member states can become embroiled in costly wars benefiting neither the direct victim nor the aggressor. In World War I, countries in the collective defense arrangement known as the Triple Entente (France, Britain, Russia) were pulled into war quickly when Russia started full mobilization against Austria-Hungary, whose ally Germany subsequently declared war on Russia.

See also

Related Research Articles

League of Nations 20th-century intergovernmental organisation, predecessor to the United Nations

The League of Nations, abbreviated as LN or LoN, was an intergovernmental organisation founded on 10 January 1920 as a result of the Paris Peace Conference that ended the First World War. It was the first worldwide intergovernmental organisation whose principal mission was to maintain world peace. Its primary goals, as stated in its Covenant, included preventing wars through collective security and disarmament and settling international disputes through negotiation and arbitration. Other issues in this and related treaties included labour conditions, just treatment of native inhabitants, human and drug trafficking, the arms trade, global health, prisoners of war, and protection of minorities in Europe. At its greatest extent from 28 September 1934 to 23 February 1935, it had 58 members.

Great power nation that has great political, social, and economic influence

A great power is a sovereign state that is recognized as having the ability and expertise to exert its influence on a global scale. Great powers characteristically possess military and economic strength, as well as diplomatic and soft power influence, which may cause middle or small powers to consider the great powers' opinions before taking actions of their own. International relations theorists have posited that great power status can be characterized into power capabilities, spatial aspects, and status dimensions.

In international relations, multilateralism refers to an alliance of multiple countries pursuing a common goal.

Bilateralism is the conduct of political, economic, or cultural relations between two sovereign states. It is in contrast to unilateralism or multilateralism, which is activity by a single state or jointly by multiple states, respectively. When states recognize one another as sovereign states and agree to diplomatic relations, they create a bilateral relationship. States with bilateral ties will exchange diplomatic agents such as ambassadors to facilitate dialogues and cooperations.

The term "new world order" has been used to refer to any new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. Despite various interpretations of this term, it is primarily associated with the ideological notion of global governance only in the sense of new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve.

Unilateralism is any doctrine or agenda that supports one-sided action. Such action may be in disregard for other parties, or as an expression of a commitment toward a direction which other parties may find disagreeable. Unilateralism is a neologism which is already in common use; it was coined to be an antonym for multilateralism, which is the doctrine which asserts the benefits of participation from as many parties as possible.

Grand strategy or high strategy comprises the "purposeful employment of all instruments of power available to a security community". Issues of grand strategy typically include the choice of primary versus secondary theaters in war, distribution of resources among the various services, the general types of armaments manufacturing to favor, and which international alliances best suit national goals. With considerable overlap with foreign policy, grand strategy focuses primarily on the military implications of policy. A country's political leadership typically directs grand strategy with input from the most senior military officials. Development of a nation's grand strategy may extend across many years or even multiple generations.

The security dilemma, also referred to as the spiral model, is a term used in international relations and refers to a situation in which, under anarchy, actions by a state intended to heighten its security, such as increasing its military strength, committing to use weapons or making alliances, can lead other states to respond with similar measures, producing increased tensions that create conflict, even when no side really desires it.

International security set of measures taken by states and international organizations to ensure mutual survival and safety

International security, also called global security, refers to the amalgamation of measures taken by states and international organizations, such as the United Nations, European Union, and others, to ensure mutual survival and safety. These measures include military action and diplomatic agreements such as treaties and conventions. International and national security are invariably linked. International security is national security or state security in the global arena.

Interventionism is a policy of non-defensive (proactive) activity undertaken by a nation-state, or other geo-political jurisdiction of a lesser or greater nature, to manipulate an economy and/or society. The most common applications of the term are for economic interventionism, and foreign interventionism.

Polarity in international relations is any of the various ways in which power is distributed within the international system. It describes the nature of the international system at any given period of time. One generally distinguishes three types of systems: unipolarity, bipolarity, and multipolarity for four or more centers of power. The type of system is completely dependent on the distribution of power and influence of states in a region or globally.

Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter sets out the UN Security Council's powers to maintain peace. It allows the Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" and to take military and nonmilitary action to "restore international peace and security".

Wolfowitz Doctrine Wolfowitz Doctrine

Wolfowitz Doctrine is an unofficial name given to the initial version of the Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994–99 fiscal years published by Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz and his deputy Scooter Libby. Not intended for public release, it was leaked to the New York Times on March 7, 1992, and sparked a public controversy about U.S. foreign and defense policy. The document was widely criticized as imperialist as the document outlined a policy of unilateralism and pre-emptive military action to suppress potential threats from other nations and prevent any other nation from rising to superpower status.

John Ikenberry American political scientist

Gilford John Ikenberry is a theorist of international relations and United States foreign policy, and a professor of Politics and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University.

The balance of power theory in international relations suggests that national security is enhanced when military capability is distributed so that no one state is strong enough to dominate all others. If one state becomes much stronger than others, the theory predicts that it will take advantage of its strength and attack weaker neighbors, thereby providing an incentive for those threatened to unite in a defensive coalition. Some realists maintain that this would be more stable as aggression would appear unattractive and would be averted if there was equilibrium of power between the rival coalitions.

The San Francisco System is a network of bilateral alliance pursued by the United States in East Asia, after the end of the World War II - the United States as a 'hub', and Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Australia as 'spokes'. The system is made of political-military and economic commitments between the United States and its Pacific allies. It allowed the United States to develop exclusive postwar relationships with the Republic of Korea (ROK), the Republic of China, and Japan. These treaties are an example of bilateral collective defense. Since the system emerged under the U.S powerplay rationale, it is the most dominant security architecture in East Asia up to now.

Four Policemen Proposed international order policed by the US, UK, USSR and ROC

The term "Four Policemen" refers to a post-war council consisting of the "Big Four" that U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed as a guarantor of world peace. The members of the Big Four, called the Four Powers during World War II, were the four major Allies of World War II: the United Kingdom, the United States, the Soviet Union and China. The United Nations envisioned by Roosevelt consisted of three branches: an executive branch comprising the Big Four, an enforcement branch composed of the same four great powers acting as the Four Policemen or Four Sheriffs, and an international assembly representing the member nations of the UN.

A peace congress, in international relations, has at times been defined in a way that would distinguish it from a peace conference, as an ambitious forum to carry out dispute resolution in international affairs, and prevent wars. This idea was widely promoted during the nineteenth century, anticipating the international bodies that would be set up in the twentieth century with comparable aims.

The European balance of power referred to international relations between European countries during the First World War, which evolved into the present states of Europe. The Nineteenth Century political concept emerged at the Peace of Paris in 1815. It is often known by the term European State System. Its basic tenet is that no single European power should be allowed to achieve hegemony over a substantial part of the continent and that this is best curtailed by having a small number of ever-changing alliances contend for power.

References

  1. Macmillan., Palgrave (2015). Global politics. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN   9781137349262. OCLC   979008143.
  2. Kant, Immanuel. "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch". Mount Holyoke College. Retrieved 2008-05-16.
  3. Skirbekk, Gunnar; Gilje, Nils (2001). A History of Western Thought:from Ancient Greece to the Twentieth Century (illustrated ed.). Routledge. p. 288. ISBN   978-0-415-22073-6 . Retrieved 17 October 2010.
  4. http://www.constitution.org/kant/perpeace.htm
  5. Reichard 2006, p. 9.
  6. Rapoport 1995, pp. 498–500.
  7. Bouchet-Saulnier, Brav & Olivier 2007, pp. 14–134.
  8. Northedge 1986, p. 10.
  9. "Before the League of Nations". The United Nations Office at Geneva. Retrieved 2008-06-14.
  10. Bell 2007, pp. 15–17.
  11. Northedge 1986, pp. 1–2.
  12. Bell 2007, p. 16.
  13. Archer 2001, p. 14.
  14. Northedge 1986, p. 1.
  15. Bell 2007, p. 8.
  16. 1 2 Andreatta, Filippo (Summer 1996). "Collective security: Theory and practice of an institution for peace in the XX century". Collective Security.
  17. Yost, David S. (1977). NATO Transformed: The Alliance's New Roles in International Security. London: Leicester University Press. p. 149.
  18. I.L. Claude, Jr., "The Management of Power in the Changing United Nations", International Organization, Vol. 15 (Spring 1961), pp. 219–221
  19. 1 2 3 Claude, p. 222
  20. I. L. Claude, Jr. "An Autopsy of Collective Security", Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 90 (Winter 1975–76), p. 715
  21. As quoted in Ghosh (1960), pg 89. Paraphrased.
  22. 1 2 Ebegbulem, Joseph C (2011). "The Failure of Collective Security in the Post World Wars I and II International System" (PDF). Journal of Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. 2.

Bibliography