The system of Collective Security indisputably faces certain dilemmas and contradictions. It is clear that the premise of Collective Security still needs cautious legislation. It is only an evolving jurisprudence and its loose ends need to be tied up through concentrated deliberation. A system of Collective Security that would serve the purposes of keeping peace and would sustain continual international onslaught needs to be developed. A coping mechanism that would stand the test of time is of utmost necessity.
• QUESTIONS ABOUT ITS UTILITY: War theorists and strategists have questioned the workability of Collective Security. After World War II, there have been arisen 111 military conflicts so far, out of which only 9 have resulted in all-out wars between states. Civil wars, wars of secession, separatist movements, wars of liberation – these are the most usual types of violent conflicts, which are usually taken care of by indigenous forces. Collective Security ...view middle of the document...
This is particularly seen in cases assignments involve defending the supposed Third World countries. The alleged superpowers always reserve an exit route for themselves, and have never been forthcoming in establishing an international army of significant strength. Perhaps this has something to do with their inherent sovereign ego that needs to be satiated perpetually and their inherent hesitance to let an international force supersede their own. Or perhaps it has something to do with their reluctance to acknowledge a mightier force, as it may be perceived as a possible threat to their sovereignty. It is true that sovereign states cannot be fully bound by pledges to act in some hypothetical future case. Most international situations are only prophesized now, and there often is no conclusive proof that such a situation threatening international peace may manifest itself.
• TENDING TOWARDS UTOPIA: As suggested in the beginning of this paper, the concept of Collective Security tends to be over-ambitious. German Sociologist Karl Mannheim reserves a special term for Collective Security – “Relative Utopia” – one that tries to be realistic but retains the elements of fantasy. It looks to bridge what might sometimes be unbridgeable. It seeks to civilize a world that constantly heads towards anarchy.
Moreover, hypocrisy is often attributed to the ideology of Collective Security, as it uses war to rid the world of war. Although the international theory of Liberalism comes close to advocating Collective Security as a means to a desirable end, the fact remains that Collective Security offers nothing new to the world. The entire system and process works akin to the process of immunization, which gets rid of micro organisms through another breed of micro organisms. Similarly, Collective Security only uses war as a vaccination against war, and this logic is certainly vulnerable to criticism. Although its ends are commendable, its means are definitely disputable. The fact also remains that Collective Security is still a slightly Utopian concept; The order of the universe is chaos, inertia is rampant in the universe. To defy the inertia of a world that increasingly gravitates towards anarchy is a Herculean task. World order is after all, an alternate reality, albeit a desirable one.