Political Science

Is collective security still a relevant concept and practice nowadays?


Collective security is an act entitled to consider an idea that a country attacks another nation state, after which the prevailing security of the attacked or attacking nation is unstabilized with its collaborating nation. For instance, when America attacked Iraq, Europe had to participate since America and Europe were security collaborators and that their security had been interfered with. Collective security is a social contract among several states; on the other hand, the system of balancing the collective security is another different mechanism. However, it is pertinent to note that in either cases, to control certain a fare can in one way or another affect positively or negatively the targeted nation. The goal of collective security is to foster as well as maintain peace and stability. It also ensures that the status quo is maintained. There is a need to resort war in order to maintain the balance of the geopolitics. According to the above paragraph, it is pertinent to note that collective security is not relevant today, because of major independent interest among the country states.


Considerably, there are two major schools of thought regarding the policy formulated by the foreign state on the subject liberals versus the realism. In essence, realism approves and encompasses several approaches and theories, which share the fact that states prefers to infest in their own military department to empower the security nature they have in the nation. This also undermines the issue of collective security. During his time, bill Clinton as the US president did extend the collective security to Balkans, which incorporated the NATO and UN. The main subject here was the conflict arising from the Bosnian crises that involved the Yugoslavian break up. NATO allies with the US retaliated air attack against Serbia, which was in the year 1995. The above was because of the US resolutions to the end of ethnic cleansing as well as Serbian aggression in Herzegovina. Due to intervention by the NATO, the UN partners and the United States resolved to negotiate the Dayton peace of 1995. After cooperating with the United States on aggression, Serbian agreed to negotiate. Liberalism is evident here since, Serbian had to corporate with United State after the intervention of the NATO, for the signing of the treaty. It followed that the above geared up the establishment the international peace keeping regime, which made most of the fight in the region to be put to an end. After retaliation of Serbia, the international community came in to cal war by forming the Kosovo awards negotiation. Realism is outlined here since national security was given to the Serbians. The above outlines the reality of liberals and realism; with the above illustration, it is evident that collective security is not relevant today and that nations are struggling to get their own independent security.

In section 1 of the book, three analytical frameworks are outlined. First, there is aspect of the sovereign states world being capable in limited co-operations only. Part I still elude the world in which the global governance extends to the markets, beyond the states and networks as well as civil society. Secondly, the second part narrows down to only five pertinent issues that are currently a threat to contemporary society. Some of the issues are politics of identity and nationalism, challenge of the ecology, and the global management of the economy. In addition, the last part puts into consideration the emerging system, which is multi-region, it follows that the overview of the global political order is based in the US. Here in my opinion, collective security is a foregone issue since many states value the act on being independent. Therefore, to crown it all, it is pertinent again to note that, collective security is not relevant in today’s’ life and that emergency system issues that are multi-regional has great hindered the collective security issues, this is as per the above argument outlined by  writer Micheal Glennon and so the above argument is very much essential(Glennon 11).

It is pertinent to note that, the writer affirms that the international community has been trying to embrace change on collective security but the change itself is not easy since not all of the nations participating can speak in one voice to initiate the change for a better moral world. This is why; the book assures that Collective security is a failure. In precision, it is clear that the book written by Andrew Hurrel concerns primarily with the international society fate in a globalization era and the ability of sovereign state that inherit society. The sovereign states are supposed to provide a practical normative and viable framework that is accepted for worldwide political array. Professionally the book lays emphasis on the different kinds of inequities and the legitimate problem. Here, the above allows the creation of challenges that are because of diversity of value conflict and culture. Therefore, it is pertinent to note that the Overview of the collective security and international order is a failure due to the above named reasons. More so, there are several relations that super power had which have been transformed. Despite the fact that the book at the beginning starts by agreeing with the fact that Collective security is a success as witnessed in the Iraq war, still the evident comes in between the paragraphs. Here, the book discuses that there are no-military bodies that has not yet given the required attention (Mingst 123). Again, the collective security is currently a failure because the collective security in many states is a burden of the country’s military.

NATO is alliance that converged military alliance for the benefit of the some European countries. Still collective security in the alliance above was not evident since some courtiers could go against the national interest in order to adhere to the rules of the international body like the NATO. The above illustrates that, collective security still was a failure due to the national interest of different and concerned government.

Like the NATO, still UNSC was a body that was in mandate of maintaining security and peace among the nations. The Security Council had authority to decide on which member nation is supposed to carry out what under center of the United Nations. It is pertinent that United Nations has greatly improved peace y hindering the international violence from becoming to the alarming conflicts. Again still collective security is a failure since there are issues that United States are unable to solve.

In conclusion, it is important to note how the world is organized currently in terms of political and the amendments to be done and again, the kind of political organization that are necessary in dealing with challenges. For instance the proliferation of nuclear, terrorism and change in climate are some changes that hinders the collective security. More so, the above outlines clearly the wide-ranging induction that analyses the political order globally. This essay has generally outlined the comparison materials by the analysts Andrew and Michael in both cases the idea brought out is the security failure.



Works Cited

Ambrosius, Lloyd E.. Wilsonianism Woodrow Wilson and his legacy in American foreign relations. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. Print.

Bealey, Frank, Richard A. Chapman, and Michael Sheehan. Elements in political science. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999. Print.

Glennon, Michael J.. Why the Security Council failed. New York, NY: Norton, 2004. Print.

Hurrell, Andrew. On global order: power, values, and the constitution of international society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.

Mingst, Karen A., and Jack L. Snyder. Essential readings in world politics. 2nd ed. New York: Norton, 2004. Print.

Toje, Asle. The European Union as a small power after the post-Cold War. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Print.