The Role of the UN in Promoting World Peace

The United Nations in the International System: Effectiveness of Collective Security
Introduction
The concept of collective security is used by countries to end or avert conflicts. The arrangement of collective security provides that an attack against one nation has a ripple down effect to the other country and they should act as a unit to deter the attacker[footnoteRef:1]. Once the Cold War ended, the primary issues of international security have undergone significant changes. Through the United Nations (UN) peacekeeping, several conflicts in Africa, Asia, and Central America were resolved. Peacekeeping is one of the central means by which the United Nations fulfills its roles in maintaining security and peace internationally[footnoteRef:2]. The United Nations, as well as the League of Nations, was established on the collective security principle. This paper delves into how the collective security has evolved its role as the foundation for most global peace agreements and its effectiveness regarding peacekeeping. [1: Ramesh, Thakur, the United Nations, peace and security: from collective security to the responsibility to protect, Cambridge University Press, 2016:27.] [2: Peter G., Danchin, and Horst Fischer, eds. United Nations reform and the new collective security. Cambridge University Press, 2010: 33.]
Established on October 24, 1945, the United Nations succeeded the League of Nations as a versatile international organization with a global range and participation[footnoteRef:3]. Before Second World War, the League of Nation grappled with numerous challenges when mediating conflicts and ensuring security and peace on a global scale. However, when the conflict was going on, the U.S., France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and China decided to develop a new international organization to assist in the management of global affairs. Initially, the UN was conceptualized as states uniting against Japan, Italy, and Germany. The initial steps in the design of the UN and establishment of its functions and structures in making decisions were done by the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States[footnoteRef:4]. The three state confronted various issues including the infamous ‘veto problem’ with disagreement arising over the most appropriate voting system. [3: Kenneth, Anderson, United Nations Collective Security and the United States Security Guarantee in an Age of Rising Multipolarity: The Security Council as Talking Shop of the Nations, Chicago Journal of International Law 10, no. 1 (2009): 59.] [4: Willard N., Hogan, International conflict and collective security. University Press of Kentucky, 2015: 3.]
The headquarters of the United Nations is in New York with regional offices in Nairobi, Vienna, and Geneva. The U.N. Charter stipulates its goals, which include saving the next generations from the conflict menace to restate confidence in basic human liberties, which include establishing conditions that support justice and respect for the responsibilities arising international law sources and treaties and encourage social advancement and better quality of life[footnoteRef:5]. Besides peace and security maintenance, the UN also focuses on establishing friendly associations among nations founded on the high regard for the principles of autonomy and equal rights and attaining global collaboration in solving humanitarian, cultural, social, and economic issues. Moreover, it supports and values human rights and functions as a center where nations can synchronize their activities and actions towards achieving the primary goals. [5: Kenneth, Anderson, United Nations Collective Security and the United States Security Guarantee in an Age of Rising Multipolarity: The Security Council as Talking Shop of the Nations, Chicago Journal of International Law 10, no. 1 (2009): 59.]
Modifications in the role of the UN and its apparatus for making decisions were associated with the transformations of international relations strategies. In the first 45 years, U.N.’s security function was profoundly affected by the tensions of Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States[footnoteRef:6]. The widespread decolonization after the Second World War in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa amplified the nature and volume of social, economic, and political concerns that challenged the organization. In 1991, after the Cold War came to a stop, the United Nations received renewed demands and attention[footnoteRef:7]. With the growing unstable geopolitical climate, the UN was faced with new issues that called for the establishment of functions and practices, particularly in the humanitarian and conflict resolution domain. The UN, its associated agencies, and programs encountered numerous challenges at the start of the 21 century when addressing the civil wars and humanitarian crises, international terrorism, and the unexpected flow of refugees[footnoteRef:8]. [6: Ibid., 60.] [7: Ramesh, Thakur, The United Nations, peace and security: from collective security to the responsibility to protect, Cambridge University Press, 2016:52] [8: Willard N., Hogan, International conflict and collective security. University Press of Kentucky, 2015: 3.]
Since the Collective Security concept was the basis for the UN, the member states were to abide by the imposed self-defense limitations, which support its primary goal. They relied on the belief that Collective Security scheme would provide them with national security protection in exact measures as the powers that they had agreed to renounce[footnoteRef:9]. The concept of Collective Security is very different from the reactive approaches of engaging in war for instant state benefits. However, the U.N. Charter acknowledges the in-built right of self-defense both collectively and individually. Member states have always employed this right as a form of avoiding the binding obligations. In recent years, the Collective Security Concept has been under intense scrutiny because of how the right has been employed in the ‘War against Terror.[footnoteRef:10]’ The concerns arise from the conflicting interpretation of the Collective Security concept. For instance, the U.S. has a wider comprehension of the United Nations Charter’s article 51 that permits Collective Self-Defense in different situations. On the contrary, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) restricts the Article 51 provisions. Consequently, the essentiality of the Collective Security concept has been overshadowed by the Collective Self-Defense controversy. [9: Anthony Clark Arend, and Robert J. Beck, International law and the use of force: beyond the UN Charter paradigm, Routledge, 2014:71.] [10: Ramesh, Thakur, The United Nations, peace and security: from collective security to the responsibility to protect, Cambridge University Press, 2016:27.]
Evolution of the Collective Security Concept
The United Nations Organization was founded on the collective security doctrine. The Chapter VII provisions of the UN Charter have been the foundations of the multilateral safekeeping system envisioned by sponsoring the UN member states in 1945[footnoteRef:11]. The multilateral security system has been regarded important for peace preservation since Second World War ended and is among the fundamental components of the contemporary international law since it incorporates the sovereign equality concepts and the force non-utilization between countries. [11: Ramesh, Thakur, The United Nations, peace and security: from collective security to the responsibility to protect, Cambridge University Press, 2016:27.]
The primary function of collective security is to assist in the evolution of peaceful international relations. The collective security idea was first floated before World War 1. Article 17 of the Osnabruck treaty provided that every contracting party that every contracting part is responsible for defending and maintaining peace[footnoteRef:12]. In 1919, League of Nations was established and adopted some collective security concepts to a global system of averting war. Therefore, the collective system became League of Nations and the succeeding United Nations’ crowning principle. [12: Ibid.,30]
Collective Security Mechanism
The Collective Security system assures each country globally of security against aggression or war that another nation may commit against others[footnoteRef:13]. It is analogous to an insurance system where all states are bound to protect the victim of war or aggression by countering it. Presently, Collective Security is considered the most favorable strategy for internal peace. It is designed to protect security and peace and counter aggression and war globally. Aggression and war are considered a threat to international security and peace and collective security supports all nations in their attempts to defend peace[footnoteRef:14]. The fundamental principle of collective security is aggression or war against any international community’ member state is an aggression against the global security and peace. To this end, counteractive measures entail all nations’ collective measures. [13: Hans, Kelsen. Collective security under international law. Vol. 49. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 2001:1.] [14: Peter G., Danchin, and Horst Fischer, eds. United Nations reform and the new collective security. Cambridge University Press, 2010: 115.]
Collective Security is primarily institutionalizing an international police force against breaches and abuse of order that can result in insecurity. In this arrangement, states collaborate on security provision for all actions against any UN member state that may be a threat to the rest of the countries[footnoteRef:15]. With the collective security system, the UN expects to deter any member state from acting in a way that would be a threat to peaceful coexistence and subsequently circumvent conflict. [15: Ibid., 155.]
For the collective security arrangement to be efficient, then it must be solid enough to survive belligerence from any authority or combined supremacies. Ideally, the principle entails nations being willing to apply sanction or even go to war whenever necessary[footnoteRef:16]. Collective security can only be practical if all member states are prepared to threaten the aggressor with sanctions simultaneously or fight. Furthermore, the nations must be willing to acknowledge the obligations and in good faith. [16: Ibid.,156]
Collective security is founded on four principles where all nations only use force when defending themselves, and the indivisibility of peace when one country is attacked. Moreover, they agree to unite to stop the war and for peace restoration through the provision of resources or material required in establishing collective security dynamism connected to the United Nations to battle the attackers and for peace restoration[footnoteRef:17]. The collective security code is provided in the UN Charter’s Article 48 and 49 that states that the actions needed to perform the Security Council decision for maintaining peace and security internationally shall be the responsibility of some or all the UN Member nations either directly or through other suitable international agencies where they have a membership[footnoteRef:18]. [17: Peter G., Danchin, and Horst Fischer, eds. United Nations reform and the new collective security. Cambridge University Press, 2010: 94.] [18: Ibid.,94. ]
The collective security system’s idea maintains that the members of the UN have the responsibility of counterig any form of attack. The fundamental principle is that attacking one nation is more or less attacking all nations. As such, any nation that is thinking about starting a war with the member states will not only struggle with the possible victim but also other members of the system[footnoteRef:19]. Hypothetically, the collective security concept assumes that its member states will have an overpowering superiority. It is later committed to the principles without reservations especially when aggression is unreasonable and must be trounced. [19: Ibid.,96]
The Role of the Security Council in Peacekeeping
While focused on its primary goal of maintaining harmony and safety around the world, the Security Council is focused on determining whether a peace threat or acts of aggression exists[footnoteRef:20]. It then asks member states to dispute to settle it peacefully and makes recommendations regarding terms of settlement or forms of adjustment. As provided by the Charter’s Chapter VII, the Security Council can take implementation actions to preserve and reinstate amity and security internationally[footnoteRef:21]. The actions run from international military action to economic sanctions. It also develops the Special Political Missions and the UN Peacekeeping Operations. [20: Ramesh, Thakur, The United Nations, peace and security: from collective security to the responsibility to protect, Cambridge University Press, 2016:30.] [21: Ibid.,30]
Through the years, the United Nations has assisted to stop several conflicts usually via the activities of the Security Council[footnoteRef:22]. As provided by the UN Charter, this organ is responsible for handling all issues about security and peace maintenance internationally. Once the Council receives a threat, the recommended first line of action is for the involved parties to strike an agreement to stop the aggression peacefully. In other instances, the Council initiates mediation and investigations[footnoteRef:23]. Ideally, it appoints envoys or makes requests to the Secretary-General to utilize its office to facilitate the process of setting the conflict peacefully. [22: Ibid.,30] [23: Ibid.,30]
The primary concern of the Security Council is to avert any disputes that escalate to fighting as soon as possible[footnoteRef:24]. Sometimes, the Council has issued ceasefire directives that have played a primary role in stopping extensive aggressions. It also facilitates the deployment of UN peacekeeping operations to assist in reducing tensions in war-torn regions, separate opposing parties, and establish conditions for maintainable peace after reaching a level ground. The options provided by the Council to facilitate peace include collective military action, trade embargoes or economic sanctions, and other enforcement measures like blockade and severance of diplomatic relations. [24: Ibid.,31]
On 17 January 1946, the first session of the Security Council took place at Church House, Westminster, and London[footnoteRef:25]. The Council has since taken permanent residence in New York at the UN headquarters and has held sessions in different parts of the world including Geneva, Panama, and Addis Ababa. All Member States have their representative at the UN headquarters, and it holds sessions at any time that it deems necessary. The Security Council has fifteen United Nations among them five are permanent including China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States[footnoteRef:26]. The five nations have the power to ‘veto’ a fundamental decision made by the council by voting against it. While the veto was largely used during the Cold War, it is still largely used to stop the Council’s activities. The remaining ten affiliates of the Security Council entailing those members who are not permanent members are chosen from the major regions in the world. [25: Ramesh, Thakur, The United Nations, peace and security: from collective security to the responsibility to protect, Cambridge University Press, 2016:40.] [26: Ibid., 30]
The Security Council has both private and public sessions where the member vote on resolutions and as well as performing other official business[footnoteRef:27]. The private meetings are mostly done to make decisions on its candidate recommendation of a candidate for the UN Secretary-General position. The chair of these meetings is the powerful president, and there is a monthly rotation of who holds that office done alphabetically on the Member States. The council also appoints the International Court of Justice judges. [27: Ibid.,31]
Collective Security Conditions
For the UN Security Council to fulfill its mandates, the UN Charter has conferred some powers to it among them conforming to article 39 that provides that the Council must identify any peace threats[footnoteRef:28]. The article provides that Council have been mandated to determine an existing threat to peace, aggression, and disturbance of the peace. These threats range from terrorism and human rights violations to civil wars. Article 39’s provisions are reinforced by Article 25 that provides that the Member States should respect the decisions made by the Council[footnoteRef:29]. Fundamentally, Article 39 is not a recommendation, but it binds condition and all members. However, in this regard, the Security Council has a broad array of unrestricted power because the Charter did not define what constitutes an ‘act of aggression,’ ‘breach of peace,’ or ‘threat to peace[footnoteRef:30].’ [28: Ramesh, Thakur, The United Nations, peace and security: from collective security to the responsibility to protect, Cambridge University Press, 2016:30.] [29: Hans, Kelsen. Collective security under international law. Vol. 49. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 2001:7.] [30: Ramesh, Thakur, The United Nations, peace and security: from collective security to the responsibility to protect, Cambridge University Press, 2016:40.]
However, the inconclusiveness of this article is intended. For such a long time, member states have struggled to determine how aggression should be defined in this regard. Numerous scholars and qualified publicists have debated and written drafts on the meaning of aggression but still there is less clarity on what to include in it and what to be left out. During the San Francisco Conference, the Philippine and Bolivia Delegations requested the Charter to be amended, and the definition of aggression included but was voted out by the majority arguing that with the dynamic nature of modern war, there can never be a satisfactory definition of the word[footnoteRef:31]. [31: Kenneth, Anderson, United Nations Collective Security and the United States Security Guarantee in an Age of Rising Multipolarity: The Security Council as Talking Shop of the Nations, Chicago Journal of International Law 10, no. 1 (2009): 65.]

The cause of disagreement regarding the powers given to the Security Council by Article 39 is whether acts of force can be considered as aggression. The Council Member’s interpretation of a certain situation and its power to determine the gravity of a battle plays a central role in making a decision favoring or against the utilization of force[footnoteRef:32]. When different intervention cases are analyzed through the years, the manner in which the Council justifies the execution of the power provided by Chapter VII of the chapter has not remained the same. The situation can be attributed to the fact that the global state of security after the Second World War has very fewer similarities with the present growingly international war. [32: Ibid., 65.]

Within the previous sixty years, there have been new emerging forms of conflict and threats, and the traditional wars between states have largely been replaced the most recent international terrorism phenomenon, mixed conflicts, and civil wars. Logically, the Security Council has been prompted by these new challenged to reevaluate its comprehension of the circumstances to use its peace-enforcement right[footnoteRef:33]. All through the Cold War era, the understanding of conflicts that threatened peace was primarily fixated on regional violence started by countries, and the other carnages like the persecution of ethnic minorities and civil war considered domestic concerns[footnoteRef:34]. Any involvement by the United Nations particularly the utilization of force as provided by Chapter VII would have been considered an objectionable violation of national independence without any doubt. Various advances made the Security Council to reevaluate these principles. Since 1945, the international legal framework has experienced significant improvements on its unclear clauses that appeared to protect offensive states[footnoteRef:35]. [33: Ibid.,66.] [34: Ibid.,66.] [35: Kenneth, Anderson, United Nations Collective Security and the United States Security Guarantee in an Age of Rising Multipolarity: The Security Council as Talking Shop of the Nations, Chicago Journal of International Law 10, no. 1 (2009): 57.]

However, the utilization of article 39 is restricted by the fact that enforcement measures cannot be applied against any of the Security Council’s permanent members as well as those nations that enjoy their protection because these nations can circumvent this by using their right to veto[footnoteRef:36]. The restriction indicates that the measures of enforcement provided under article 39 of the UN Charter are currently only possible against nations beyond the two and these impartial countries are either pushed to join them or behave in a way that the when they apply article 39, they do not face any danger. [36: Ibid.,57]

The exceptions to the application of article 39 are provided under article 51, which mentions about self-defense and article 53 and 107 that mention about actions against ex-enemy states[footnoteRef:37]. The two are the only probable legal military arrangements provided by the Charter since they do not require the Security Council to authorize them. Whenever the Security Council establishes that there has been a violation of peace, war or aggression, the member states are allowed to impose sanctions. Article 39 gives the Security Council sole power of applying measures of enforcement[footnoteRef:38]. The Council determines the appropriate actions to be applied by states to preserve the harmony and security globally. [37: Ibid.,58] [38: Kenneth, Anderson, United Nations Collective Security and the United States Security Guarantee in an Age of Rising Multipolarity: The Security Council as Talking Shop of the Nations, Chicago Journal of International Law 10, no. 1 (2009): 59.]

Collective Security in Practice
Collective security is a strategy used to guarantee the security of all countries. It provides assurance force of using force in international relations will be frustrated. Under the collective security system, war or aggression would no longer be any individual nation’s concern, but would other nations worry[footnoteRef:39]. Security is the goal of the international relations, and security is the manner through which it will be achieved. The fundamental principle is that attack on one nation provides ripple effects to the remaining countries. Collective security entails using joint action to counter or avert any danger against the achievement of international order. The security becomes the concern of all nations, and they handle the concerns collectively. It is a mutual insurance plan, and the collective action is adequate to prevent the possible aggressor[footnoteRef:40]. Collective security acknowledges the significance of power in international politics. It acknowledges that law is a reality. It is a device utilized in the management of power, not that of the elimination of power. [39: Peter G., Danchin, and Horst Fischer, eds. United Nations reform and the new collective security. Cambridge University Press, 2010: 33.] [40: Ibid.,33]

Use of Power
In international relations, collective security primarily means protection against the utilization of armed force better known as war. The use of force is prohibited unless with only an exception of two scenarios including when utilized in self-protection or when the UN Security Council authorizes it.
Collective Self-Defense
The Collective Security evolution of the concept has been in four distinctive periods. The initial of was after the Second World War scenario when the League of Nation inception[footnoteRef:41]. The second period was after the U.N. Charter was signed. The third period was during the Cold War and lastly after the September 11 attacks in New York. Each of the periods presents a certain danger that had never been observed in the world before. It includes the Axis Power proliferation and the League of Nations collapsing or the conflict even the battle between the U.N permanent members and their escalation as nuclear powers during the Cold War in the third and the second epochs. There was also an upsurge of non-state actors such as terrorists as a danger to worldwide peace. [41: Willard N., Hogan, International conflict and collective security. University Press of Kentucky, 2015: 10]

The liberty of ‘collective self-defense’ is enshrined in UN Charter’s Article 51[footnoteRef:42]. It refers to the right that the UN member states have to utilize military force to defend other countries from war. It has presented the foundation for all the military operations authorized by the United Nations after the Korea Wars. Collective self-defense provides that if a nation in the global system has been attacked, then other states have a right, and not the responsibility, to utilize military forces against the attacker by relying on the principle[footnoteRef:43]. The preconditions for the use of force, is that to ensure that the military attack has happened or is irreversibly in motion and the utilization of force is considered crucial, and the aggression is balanced to that utilized in the posed a threat or the instant attack. [42: Anthony Clark Arend, and Robert J. Beck, International law and the use of force: beyond the UN Charter paradigm, Routledge, 2014:29] [43: Ibid., 29]

Collective self-defense assists nations at their initiative of performing complementary functions of the United Nations[footnoteRef:44]. Moreover, when resources are collectively pulled together, it minimized the cost burden on one state that provides for its security. Collective funding also assists in building infrastructure, health, and education because they can ask other members to assist them in defending their territories whenever the need arises. Additionally, after taking aggressive actions, they can have peacekeeping missions at lower costs in those nations that are a significant challenge to the UN when rebuilding the areas that have been hit by conflicts. [44: Ibid., 71]

In collective self-defense, the U.N. Security Council is not required to make any initial determinations or allow the utilization of force[footnoteRef:45]. For instance, if Canada were to attack the U.S. and Japan would be constitutionally allowed to use the collective self-defense right and utilize force on Canada as provided by the international law provisions. If the Japanese government made a sound supposition that the United States had undeniably been the victim of the aggression, then Japan would be allowed to utilize force in Canada using the collective self-defense. However, both the International Court of Justice and Security Council may consider the utilization of force unfounded like in the war between of the U.S. and Nicaragua. [45: Anthony Clark Arend, and Robert J. Beck, International law and the use of force: beyond the UN Charter paradigm, Routledge, 2014:71.]

Japan Case Study
Japan does not exercise its collective self-defense right. The Japan constitution provisions highlight the controversy surrounding it. While Japan was under Allied occupation in 1947, it was under pressure, and it had to adopt a constitution written in America. Japan has been pushing for an amendment to Article 9 to permit it to employ the collective self-defense right[footnoteRef:46]. As such, the government would be applying to utilize the use of force power anywhere in the world when it identifies a threat to another state. Since there is a Security Treaty between Japan and the U.S., the former could be asked to defend the latter anywhere in the world. Japan would be granted by the collective self-defense the right to utilize force everywhere, the lack of any United Nations approval or absence of extensive agreement on the essentiality of the utilization of force notwithstanding. [46: Joshua, Pickar, "Japan's Defensive Constitution: Nuclear Weapons as a Better Alternative Than Expanding Collective Self-Defense." Law School International Immersion Program Papers, No. 20 (2016): 1.]

Japan’s government has attempted to minimize the collective self-defense discussions to particular cases including the seizure of flying arsenals that are targeted at the United States[footnoteRef:47]. Therefore, it has developed the misguided impression that in some way collective self-defense can be restricted to such limited scenarios. However, after the amendment of the constitution is done to allow for collective self-defense, the state will be at liberty to utilize force everywhere as long as long as its preconditions are met. [47: Ibid., 4.]

Peaceful Collective Security
When the United Nations has established post the Second World War, its primary goal was to preserve peace within countries[footnoteRef:48]. It was purposed to maintain peace and security all around the world in the way of deterring states from getting aggressive towards each other and develop countermeasures if it happened. The Security Council was developed with the primary purpose of maintaining peace and security globally. Under the Charter, the United Nations is tasked with enforcing peace using collective security. [48: Ramesh, Thakur, The United Nations, peace and security: from collective security to the responsibility to protect, Cambridge University Press, 2016:53.]

Peacekeeping resulted after the Cold War’s consequences. In the preceding decades, the superpowers found themselves in unceasing disagreements over the state of the world after the Second World War, and their clashing interests rapidly created an environment of hostility and distrust particularly in the cases of Syria, Lebanon, Indonesia, Iran, and Greece[footnoteRef:49]. Therefore, from the very beginning, there was a mounting competitiveness among the superpowers, which blocked the UN to function. The absence of agreement and the hostility between the Soviet Union and the U.S. affected the Security Council. Consequently, it was barely advantageous to the application and performing of the Charter provisions for peacekeeping. [49: Ramesh, Thakur, The United Nations, peace and security: from collective security to the responsibility to protect, Cambridge University Press, 2016:53.]

The U.N concept of peacekeeping has been expanded since the world war ended to include implementation or oversight of agreements that have settled bitter and long civil wars as in Cambodia, Angola, and Salvador[footnoteRef:50]. It has also facilitated political evolutions to sovereignty like in Namibia. The peacemaker in the United Nations has also maintained security conditions that are necessary to perform free and fair elections, to disband battling groups and to examine human rights violations. [50: Ibid.,53.]

It is essential that any peacekeeping force in the U.N. conduct these actions only with the consent of all local parties affected. The peacekeeping forces from the United Nations are not enforcers, but they act as referees[footnoteRef:51]. While most of the U.N troops have light weapons, they are instructed to use them only in self-defense but are rarely utilized. The most important function of the weapon is psychological as it helps the troupes retain the respect of the societies that are mostly heavily armed after any conflict. Once they lose the respect earned from the locals, they may also lose their ability to control a cease-fire and may even become targets of sectarian violence as it happened in Bosnia and Lebanon. [51: Ramesh, Thakur, The United Nations, peace and security: from collective security to the responsibility to protect, Cambridge University Press, 2016:54.]

Although the U.N. peacekeeping procedures are in line with the views and specific interests, the five permanent members who exercise a veto. During peacemaking operations, the UN asks its wealthier members to donate equipment or buy new ones[footnoteRef:52]. In the event its members refuse to respond to the requests, its operations are largely affected and the response time reduced. For instance, if the United Nations were well prepared to join into the 1991 Cambodia conflict within few weeks of the Paris Accords, most of the problems that followed would have been subverted such as the upsurge in rural banditry and increase in corruption. [52: Ibid.,54]

Conclusion
Collective security is considered as a security arrangement whereby a group of nations agrees to collaborate on counteractive actions against threats to their territorial and economic sovereignty. The world has shrunk into a global village and states have been subjected to one international body. The function of the international organization is to work as a superior force to oversee associations between individual nations. International bodies like the UN and the League of Nations were formed from this idea. These international bodies were also founded based on the collective security concept.
The member states agreed to some form of restrictions regarding collective self-defense. The concept of Collective Security is different from the retaliatory strategies of engaging in war for instant national benefits. While the concept was well conceived and as a form of enhancing world security, not all countries have co-operated with each other. Collective Security was adapted to deter nations from getting into conflicts because of the consequences that they risked suffering including sanctions and other enforcement measures as provided by the UN Security Council.
Presently, Member States are employing the concept of self-defense to circumvent the obligations binding them as provided by the United Nations. This has gathered legality particularly due to the United Nations inability in the modern days to use Collective Security against non-state actors who fund terrorism. The concept of Collective Security has also been challenged by the superpowers who share conflicting views about the state of the world. The United Nations cannot act against the powerful nations who exercise their veto whenever they are dissatisfied with any of the organization's decisions. Therefore, while the Collective Security Concept was well conceptualized and its objective of ensuring global peace and security is crucial in the present day, the few issues that limit the functions of the United Nations should be streamlined to ascertain that its aims are achieved and the world becomes a completely war-free place.


Bibliography
Anderson, Kenneth. “United Nations Collective Security and the United States Security Guarantee in an Age of Rising Multipolarity: The Security Council as Talking Shop of the Nations.” Chicago Journal of International Law 10, no. 1 (2009): 55-90.
Arend, Anthony Clark, and Robert J. Beck. International law and the use of force: beyond the UN Charter paradigm. Routledge, 2014.
Danchin, Peter G., and Horst Fischer, eds. United Nations reform and the new collective security. Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Hogan, Willard N. International conflict, and collective security. University Press of Kentucky, 2015.
Kelsen, Hans. Collective security under international law. Vol. 49. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 2001.
Pickar, Joshua. "Japan's Defensive Constitution: Nuclear Weapons as a Better Alternative than Expanding Collective Self-Defense." Law School International Immersion Program Papers, No. 20 (2016): 1-33.
Thakur, Ramesh. The United Nations, peace, and security: from collective security to the responsibility to protect. Cambridge University Press, 2016.