POLI 244 Lecture 26: Lecture 26 - Collective Security
19 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
The Post-1945 US-led liberal international order
From the West to the rest
-
Main constitutive norms/practices
Free trade, economic globalization
Production process is internationalized
§
When building a car, the tires will be built in one
country and the door will be made somewhere
else, they will be put together in a third country
and shipped to a fourth country, the marketing
will take place in a fifth country
§
○
State sovereignty/human rights
Individuals have certain rights and freedoms
that all governments must respect
§
Relationship that was to be determined by each
government (I treat my own people how I see
fit) - international voice did not have a say
§
International community now has a voice on
human rights
§
○
Collective security
Find a new way to manage problems of
collective security
§
Will not have a world government created
(anarchic) but need to find a way to prevent
wars from happening in the future
§
○
-
What is "collective security"?
A state's act of aggression is met with collective
(diplomatic/economic/military) response
The response is automatic and aimed at the
enforcement of a norm of non-aggression (collective
interest trumps individual interests)
○
"All for one, one for all"
Systemic norm of non aggression
§
There is respect for territorial sovereignty
§
You cross the boundaries of legitimate action in
international politics and people will gang
together and make sure go back to the situation
as it was before
§
○
Whole international community will gang together
against the aggressor no matter who the aggressor or
victim is
○
-
The first goal is to deter aggression
Aggression will not even happen so we will not have to
gang together to deter the actor
○
He will think twice before doing anything because he
will have to face the whole international community
○
-
The second goal is to neutralize aggression and eliminate its
benefits
Force the aggressor back into the situation that it was
before without having collecting any benefits from it
○
-
The third goal is to mitigate the need of military buildup
(solution to security dilemma)
Build a sufficient weapon system to defend yourself
○
Actions committed are going to be met with a
collective response
○
Aggressor will be successfully defeated independently
of my own power, power of the international
community as a whole is stronger than the power of
the aggressor
○
-
International security system
Collective Security
-
Concerts
-
External balancing (alliances)
-
Internal balancing
-
The UN collective security system
General ban on the use of force (Art 2.4)
Exception 1: Self defense (Art. 51)
Has the right to defend themselves and the
allies has this right as well
§
○
Exception 2: Collective security
Needs to determine that there is an act of
aggression that can be attributed to a particular
state
The UN Security Council determines that
exists:
An act of aggression
®
A breach of the peace
®
A threat to international peace and
security
®
□
§
The UN Security Council authorizes measures
against the aggressor (including the use of
force), urging all members to contribute to the
collective effort
Decisions subject to the veto of the
permanent 5
□
Cold War (and current?) paralysis □
Need 9 affirmative votes and none of the
5 can vote against it
□
Rules out the possibility of organizing a
collective response against an aggressor
who is one of the five permanent
members
Example: China wants to go to war
against Japan and will veto to have
any measures taken against them
®
□
There is some measures of security unless
it is the permanent 5
□
§
○
-
Why do realists reject collective security systems?
The system can only work when it is not needed (example:
no great power threat)
Can only work for small conflicts, when one state
violates the territorial sovereignty of another state
○
Example: what happened between Iraq and Kuwait
and people ganged together against them
False (in theory) - unless the aggressor is
overwhelmingly powerful
§
Selectively collective (non-automatic response)
§
○
-
A security system geared towards an abstract threat (no
identified enemy) limits strategic preparation to effectively
face/deter the actual aggressor
Partially true - "usual suspects" + overwhelming force
compensates for strategic preparation
○
-
The animating motive for constructive a security system (no
more war) reflects abhorrence of war, but the system
requires going to war where immediate self-interest might
not
False - the goal is "no more aggression", not "no more
war"
Make uses of force incompatible with territorial
sovereignty
§
○
-
Rigidly conservative, as it requires honouring the status quo
ante irrespective of its merits
False - presumes war is the only path to change
Implies a balance of power logic (need force
sometimes to make the balance is restored
when it is upset by a great power in the system)
§
○
-
It makes the world more unstable, because it discourages
the formation of a balance of power to prevent unipolairty
Partially false - assumes that unipolarity is unstable
and ignores internal balancing
Because we are going to expect a collective
response to an act of aggression, we will not pay
attention to a rising power because we will think
it doesn't matter how powerful the state
becomes, given how much collective security
works and they will be deterred from using
power
§
○
-
It makes the world more unstable, because it exacerbates
revisionists (example: Italy, Ethiopia and the Axis alliance in
WWII)
Partially true - assumes exacerbated revisionists
cannot be stopped/deterred by the community
Italy wanted to invade Ethiopia and this affected
their state sovereignty and the League of
Nations put economic sanctions on Italy
§
Italy became more of a revisionist before
because it understood the collective security
system was working against their interests
§
This pushed Italy towards the Axis alliance
(Japan and Germany)
§
○
-
The Collective security dilemma
The challenges to collective security systems
Join decision-making problem
Self defense, self interest and "who's the
aggressor?"
Everyone claims they are using force in
self defense and therefore it is not easy to
determined who is the victim and
aggressor when two states are fighting
each other
□
§
○
Collective action problem
Collective security is a "public good": free riding
§
The "hegemon" solution
§
○
-
Collective security and security communities
Collective identity as a precondition of collective
security
Trust in a collective perception of (in)security -
if so, what's the point of collective security?
§
○
Do contemporary states have a collective identity?
○
-
Lecture 26 -Collective Security
Wednesday, November 29, 2017
2:35 PM
The Post-1945 US-led liberal international order
From the West to the rest
-
Main constitutive norms/practices
Free trade, economic globalization
Production process is internationalized
§
When building a car, the tires will be built in one
country and the door will be made somewhere
else, they will be put together in a third country
and shipped to a fourth country, the marketing
will take place in a fifth country
§
○
State sovereignty/human rights
Individuals have certain rights and freedoms
that all governments must respect
§
Relationship that was to be determined by each
government (I treat my own people how I see
fit) - international voice did not have a say
§
International community now has a voice on
human rights
§
○
Collective security
Find a new way to manage problems of
collective security
§
Will not have a world government created
(anarchic) but need to find a way to prevent
wars from happening in the future
§
○
-
What is "collective security"?
A state's act of aggression is met with collective
(diplomatic/economic/military) response
The response is automatic and aimed at the
enforcement of a norm of non-aggression (collective
interest trumps individual interests)
○
"All for one, one for all"
Systemic norm of non aggression
§
There is respect for territorial sovereignty
§
You cross the boundaries of legitimate action in
international politics and people will gang
together and make sure go back to the situation
as it was before
§
○
Whole international community will gang together
against the aggressor no matter who the aggressor or
victim is
○
-
The first goal is to deter aggression
Aggression will not even happen so we will not have to
gang together to deter the actor
○
He will think twice before doing anything because he
will have to face the whole international community
○
-
The second goal is to neutralize aggression and eliminate its
benefits
Force the aggressor back into the situation that it was
before without having collecting any benefits from it
○
-
The third goal is to mitigate the need of military buildup
(solution to security dilemma)
Build a sufficient weapon system to defend yourself
○
Actions committed are going to be met with a
collective response
○
Aggressor will be successfully defeated independently
of my own power, power of the international
community as a whole is stronger than the power of
the aggressor
○
-
International security system
Collective Security
-
Concerts
-
External balancing (alliances)
-
Internal balancing
-
The UN collective security system
General ban on the use of force (Art 2.4)
Exception 1: Self defense (Art. 51)
Has the right to defend themselves and the
allies has this right as well
§
○
Exception 2: Collective security
Needs to determine that there is an act of
aggression that can be attributed to a particular
state
The UN Security Council determines that
exists:
An act of aggression
®
A breach of the peace
®
A threat to international peace and
security
®
□
§
The UN Security Council authorizes measures
against the aggressor (including the use of
force), urging all members to contribute to the
collective effort
Decisions subject to the veto of the
permanent 5
□
Cold War (and current?) paralysis □
Need 9 affirmative votes and none of the
5 can vote against it
□
Rules out the possibility of organizing a
collective response against an aggressor
who is one of the five permanent
members
Example: China wants to go to war
against Japan and will veto to have
any measures taken against them
®
□
There is some measures of security unless
it is the permanent 5
□
§
○
-
Why do realists reject collective security systems?
The system can only work when it is not needed (example:
no great power threat)
Can only work for small conflicts, when one state
violates the territorial sovereignty of another state
○
Example: what happened between Iraq and Kuwait
and people ganged together against them
False (in theory) - unless the aggressor is
overwhelmingly powerful
§
Selectively collective (non-automatic response)
§
○
-
A security system geared towards an abstract threat (no
identified enemy) limits strategic preparation to effectively
face/deter the actual aggressor
Partially true - "usual suspects" + overwhelming force
compensates for strategic preparation
○
-
The animating motive for constructive a security system (no
more war) reflects abhorrence of war, but the system
requires going to war where immediate self-interest might
not
False - the goal is "no more aggression", not "no more
war"
Make uses of force incompatible with territorial
sovereignty
§
○
-
Rigidly conservative, as it requires honouring the status quo
ante irrespective of its merits
False - presumes war is the only path to change
Implies a balance of power logic (need force
sometimes to make the balance is restored
when it is upset by a great power in the system)
§
○
-
It makes the world more unstable, because it discourages
the formation of a balance of power to prevent unipolairty
Partially false - assumes that unipolarity is unstable
and ignores internal balancing
Because we are going to expect a collective
response to an act of aggression, we will not pay
attention to a rising power because we will think
it doesn't matter how powerful the state
becomes, given how much collective security
works and they will be deterred from using
power
§
○
-
It makes the world more unstable, because it exacerbates
revisionists (example: Italy, Ethiopia and the Axis alliance in
WWII)
Partially true - assumes exacerbated revisionists
cannot be stopped/deterred by the community
Italy wanted to invade Ethiopia and this affected
their state sovereignty and the League of
Nations put economic sanctions on Italy
§
Italy became more of a revisionist before
because it understood the collective security
system was working against their interests
§
This pushed Italy towards the Axis alliance
(Japan and Germany)
§
○
-
The Collective security dilemma
The challenges to collective security systems
Join decision-making problem
Self defense, self interest and "who's the
aggressor?"
Everyone claims they are using force in
self defense and therefore it is not easy to
determined who is the victim and
aggressor when two states are fighting
each other
□
§
○
Collective action problem
Collective security is a "public good": free riding
§
The "hegemon" solution
§
○
-
Collective security and security communities
Collective identity as a precondition of collective
security
Trust in a collective perception of (in)security -
if so, what's the point of collective security?
§
○
Do contemporary states have a collective identity?
○
-
Lecture 26 -Collective Security
Wednesday, November 29, 2017 2:35 PM
The Post-1945 US-led liberal international order
From the West to the rest
-
Main constitutive norms/practices
Free trade, economic globalization
Production process is internationalized
§
When building a car, the tires will be built in one
country and the door will be made somewhere
else, they will be put together in a third country
and shipped to a fourth country, the marketing
will take place in a fifth country
§
○
State sovereignty/human rights
Individuals have certain rights and freedoms
that all governments must respect
§
Relationship that was to be determined by each
government (I treat my own people how I see
fit) - international voice did not have a say
§
International community now has a voice on
human rights
§
○
Collective security
Find a new way to manage problems of
collective security
§
Will not have a world government created
(anarchic) but need to find a way to prevent
wars from happening in the future
§
○
-
What is "collective security"?
A state's act of aggression is met with collective
(diplomatic/economic/military) response
The response is automatic and aimed at the
enforcement of a norm of non-aggression (collective
interest trumps individual interests)
○
"All for one, one for all"
Systemic norm of non aggression
§
There is respect for territorial sovereignty
§
You cross the boundaries of legitimate action in
international politics and people will gang
together and make sure go back to the situation
as it was before
§
○
Whole international community will gang together
against the aggressor no matter who the aggressor or
victim is
○
-
The first goal is to deter aggression
Aggression will not even happen so we will not have to
gang together to deter the actor
○
He will think twice before doing anything because he
will have to face the whole international community
○
-
The second goal is to neutralize aggression and eliminate its
benefits
Force the aggressor back into the situation that it was
before without having collecting any benefits from it
○
-
The third goal is to mitigate the need of military buildup
(solution to security dilemma)
Build a sufficient weapon system to defend yourself
○
Actions committed are going to be met with a
collective response
○
Aggressor will be successfully defeated independently
of my own power, power of the international
community as a whole is stronger than the power of
the aggressor
○
-
International security system
Collective Security
-
Concerts
-
External balancing (alliances)
-
Internal balancing
-
The UN collective security system
General ban on the use of force (Art 2.4)
Exception 1: Self defense (Art. 51)
Has the right to defend themselves and the
allies has this right as well
§
○
Exception 2: Collective security
Needs to determine that there is an act of
aggression that can be attributed to a particular
state
The UN Security Council determines that
exists:
An act of aggression
®
A breach of the peace
®
A threat to international peace and
security
®
□
§
The UN Security Council authorizes measures
against the aggressor (including the use of
force), urging all members to contribute to the
collective effort
Decisions subject to the veto of the
permanent 5
□
Cold War (and current?) paralysis □
Need 9 affirmative votes and none of the
5 can vote against it
□
Rules out the possibility of organizing a
collective response against an aggressor
who is one of the five permanent
members
Example: China wants to go to war
against Japan and will veto to have
any measures taken against them
®
□
There is some measures of security unless
it is the permanent 5
□
§
○
-
Why do realists reject collective security systems?
The system can only work when it is not needed (example:
no great power threat)
Can only work for small conflicts, when one state
violates the territorial sovereignty of another state
○
Example: what happened between Iraq and Kuwait
and people ganged together against them
False (in theory) - unless the aggressor is
overwhelmingly powerful
§
Selectively collective (non-automatic response)
§
○
-
A security system geared towards an abstract threat (no
identified enemy) limits strategic preparation to effectively
face/deter the actual aggressor
Partially true - "usual suspects" + overwhelming force
compensates for strategic preparation
○
-
The animating motive for constructive a security system (no
more war) reflects abhorrence of war, but the system
requires going to war where immediate self-interest might
not
False - the goal is "no more aggression", not "no more
war"
Make uses of force incompatible with territorial
sovereignty
§
○
-
Rigidly conservative, as it requires honouring the status quo
ante irrespective of its merits
False - presumes war is the only path to change
Implies a balance of power logic (need force
sometimes to make the balance is restored
when it is upset by a great power in the system)
§
○
-
It makes the world more unstable, because it discourages
the formation of a balance of power to prevent unipolairty
Partially false - assumes that unipolarity is unstable
and ignores internal balancing
Because we are going to expect a collective
response to an act of aggression, we will not pay
attention to a rising power because we will think
it doesn't matter how powerful the state
becomes, given how much collective security
works and they will be deterred from using
power
§
○
-
It makes the world more unstable, because it exacerbates
revisionists (example: Italy, Ethiopia and the Axis alliance in
WWII)
Partially true - assumes exacerbated revisionists
cannot be stopped/deterred by the community
Italy wanted to invade Ethiopia and this affected
their state sovereignty and the League of
Nations put economic sanctions on Italy
§
Italy became more of a revisionist before
because it understood the collective security
system was working against their interests
§
This pushed Italy towards the Axis alliance
(Japan and Germany)
§
○
-
The Collective security dilemma
The challenges to collective security systems
Join decision-making problem
Self defense, self interest and "who's the
aggressor?"
Everyone claims they are using force in
self defense and therefore it is not easy to
determined who is the victim and
aggressor when two states are fighting
each other
□
§
○
Collective action problem
Collective security is a "public good": free riding
§
The "hegemon" solution
§
○
-
Collective security and security communities
Collective identity as a precondition of collective
security
Trust in a collective perception of (in)security -
if so, what's the point of collective security?
§
○
Do contemporary states have a collective identity?
○
-
Lecture 26 -Collective Security
Wednesday, November 29, 2017 2:35 PM
Document Summary
Individuals have certain rights and freedoms that all governments must respect. Relationship that was to be determined by each government (i treat my own people how i see fit) - international voice did not have a say. International community now has a voice on human rights. Find a new way to manage problems of collective security. Will not have a world government created (anarchic) but need to find a way to prevent wars from happening in the future. A state"s act of aggression is met with collective (diplomatic/economic/military) response. The response is automatic and aimed at the enforcement of a norm of non-aggression (collective interest trumps individual interests) You cross the boundaries of legitimate action in international politics and people will gang together and make sure go back to the situation as it was before. Whole international community will gang together against the aggressor no matter who the aggressor or victim is.
