The theory of collective security

Inis Claude viewed the place of collective security in international law and policy as follows:

‘Collective security is a specialized instrument of international policy in the sense that it is intended only to forestall the arbitrary and aggressive use of force, not to provide enforcement mechanisms for the whole body of international law; it

70 _{Karns and Mingst (International Organizations) (supra) 297.} 71 _{Danesh Sarooshi (Collective Security) (supra) 5-6.}

assumes that, so far as the problem of world order is concerned, the heart of the matter is the restraint of military action rather than the guarantee of respect for all legal obligations. Moreover, it assumes that this ideal may be realized, or at least approximated, by a reformation of international policy, without the institution of a revolution in the structure of the international system.’72

Claude has identified a number of subjective and objective requirements of collective security. One of the subjective requirements (referring to the acceptability of the responsibilities of collective security) rests on the Kantian notion of a constantly integrating world community: a community of peoples and nations that are becoming more and more interdependent and integrated into a true world community.

1.3.1 Liberal theory of international relations and governance

Immanuel Kant articulated the relationship between democracy and peace and put forward the idea that free communities and states would co-operate to promote peace.73 _{These Enlightenment ideas were later reflected in what became known as}

the liberal theory of global governance and international co-operation.74 Apart from the notion of a common humanity, one of the major threads running through

72 _{Claude (Swords into Plowshares) (supra) 249.}

73 _{For a critique of Kant’s For a Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch (1795), and the way the modern}

political philosophers Jürgen Habermas, John Rawls and Norberto Bobbio treat the ideas of Kant (via Hegel) and the liberal/cosmopolitan view of international law, see commentary by Perry Anderson, ‘Arms and Rights – Rawls, Habermas and Bobbio in an Age of War’, NLR 31 (2005) 5 – 40. For a discussion of the impact of the so- called neo-conservative view of international relations on the UN-dominated collective security system, and how neo-conservative thinking differs from the realist school of international law and relations, see Jürgen Habermas, ‘Interpreting the Fall of a Monument’, German Law Journal Vol 4(7) (2003) 701 – 708. The commentary appeared in reaction to the American-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The invasion was carried out without UN Security Council authorisation.

the liberal theory of international relations is the respect for international law. Liberals, who are often also being regarded as idealists, have expectations of an international system not based on power alone, but power being exercised within the framework of rules (international law75), and the institutions of collective security.76

In terms of collective security, this notion of a common humanity implies that the large majority of states must positively commit to ‘the value of world peace’.77 Authors like Hans Kelsen described collective security in terms of a continuum with ‘a highest possible degree’ of collective security. This ‘highest degree’ would have one central organ for the maintenance of peace and security, which would exercise an exclusive right to take enforcement actions against member states. Kelsen further described the ‘highest form of collective security’ in terms of the disarmament of individual states, and the commitment to community.78

The commitment to a more abstract value oriented view of world order is perhaps the one feature that distinguishes collective security from the balance of power international system that existed before. Both systems rely on the deterrent effect of overwhelming military power (be it in the form of alliances, or the international community collectively), but collective security is premised on the commitment to a higher international order – hence the irrelevance of the geographical remoteness

75 _{The creation of ad hoc international criminal tribunals and the permanent ICC can be regarded as flowing}

from the Kantian notion of a liberal/cosmopolitan international order based on the rule of law. On another level, the interaction between international criminal law and national criminal law, and the harmonization that may occur as a result, can also be seen as consistent with a liberal/cosmopolitan view of international law and relations. For an international criminal law perspective, see Mireille Delmas-Marty, ‘The contribution of comparative law to a pluralistic conception of International Criminal Law’, JICJ 1 (2003), 13 – 25.

76 _{Karns and Mingst (International Organizations) (supra) 37.} 77 _{Inis Claude (Swords into Plowshares) (supra) 250.}

of aggression.79 _{Inis Claude linked the normative element of the community of}

nations to the essential characteristic of the international system as a rules-based system – not for the sake of rules, but for the deeper commitment to peace and harmony:

‘The responsibilities of participation in a collective security system are too onerous to be borne by any but a people actuated by genuine sympathy for any and all victims of aggression, and loyalty to the values of a global system of law and order.’80

The ideal of peace is thus served by the certainty that the international rule of law is suppose to bring about: The certainty that acts of aggression will be met by the collective opposition of the nations of the world.81

1.3.2 Liberalism and realist critique

Whereas the liberal view of international relations and collective security is to a certain extent idealistic (there is an expectation that states will adhere to certain norms or would want to act for the global good of peace and security); realists view the international system as basically anarchic. Karns and Mingst summarise the realist theory of international relations as follows:

‘Within the international system, realists see states as the primary actors, entities that act in a unitary way in pursuit of their national interest, generally defined in terms of maximizing power and security. States co-exist in an anarchic international system characterized by the absence of an authoritative hierarchy. As

79 _{Inis Claude (Swords into Plowshares) (supra) 251.} 80 _Ibid.

a result, states must rely primarily on themselves to manage their own insecurity through balance of power and deterrence.’82

The realist view of international relations often regards the application of international law as problematic. The functioning of the collective security system is thus viewed from a national/sovereign policy perspective. While realists are not absolutely opposed to the idea of international law83, they would scrutinize the application of international law very critically.84 In extreme cases, there could be severe tension between the policy decisions of a sovereign state (acting in national self-interest) and the constraints imposed by international law. Consider the following statement by Stephen Krasner: ‘For realists, the defining characteristic of the international system is anarchy, and the most important empirical reality is that national power, including but not limited to the ability to wage war, matters more than anything else.’85