H.

P NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

SHIMLA
ASSIGNMENT
OF
POLITICAL SCIENCE
(COLLECTIVE SECURITY: SYSTEM UNDER THE UNITED
NATIONS))

SUBMITTED TO:
DR. VED PRAKASH

SUBMITTED BY:
NAVISHA VERMA
B.A.LLB(HONS.)
3rd SEMESTER
ROLL NUMBER: 1020181960
Academic Year 2019-2020

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Every project big or small is successful largely due to the effort of many people who have

always helped from behind for every successful work. This project has been completed not

only by my efforts but several others who have timely helped me at every step I moved

forward. I would like to thank my module tutor Dr. Ved Prakash for giving this opportunity

to work on such an enlightening topic. I would also like to thank my family and friends for

providing me with full support, help and motivation at the time when I needed it the most.

I Navisha Verma, the student of H.P. NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY (SHIMLA), am

extremely grateful to H.P. NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY (SHIMLA), for the
confidence bestowed in me and entrusting me of management principles.

I would also like to thank all the faculty members of H.P. NATIONAL LAW
UNIVERSITY (SHIMLA), for their critical advice and guidance without which this project
would not have been possible.

DATE – 20th May 2019. Name – Navisha Verma

Contents
INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................4
Collective Security Provisions of the U.N. Charter.................................................................................5
WORKING OF THE COLLECTIVE SYSTEM OF THE U.N.............................................................................7
CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................................10
ENDNOTES...........................................................................................................................................10

INTRODUCTION
Collective security is regarded by many as one of the most promising approaches to peace
and a valuable device of power management in international trade. It postulates a
commitment on the part of all the nations to collectively meet an aggression that may be
committed by any state against another. War or aggression, in the collective security system,
is viewed as a breach of international peace and security and it calls for collective action by
all the nations in defence of peace. The Covenant of the League provided for an organised
collective security system which however, failed to work in actual practice. In the Charter of
the United Nations an attempt was made to eliminate the weakness of the Covenant and for
this purpose provisions for a working collective security system was included in the Charter.
Since then, collective security continues to be regarded as a valuable device for maintaining
and securing international peace and security.
Charles B Marshall has observed, “Collective Security is a generalised notion of all banding
together in undertaking a vague obligation to perform unspecified actions in response to
hypothetical events brought on by some unidentifiable state.” In collective security, it is
assumed that maintenance of peace and security is a legitimate common interest and will be
accepted as a fundamental responsibility by all the states.
The failure of the Collective Security System of the League did not deter the statesmen to
think in favour of reforming this system of maintaining international peace and security. The
founding fathers of the United Nations accepted that Collective Security offered a better way
of securing international peace and security than Balance of Power. The failure of Collective
Security System under the Covenant of the League of Nations was attributed to the rigidity of
the system, and to several structural defects of the League. The Collective Security in itself
was not considered to be defective and hence it was re-adopted in the Charter in a more
practical way than what it has been under the league.
Moreover, the new and increased concern for international peace and security that emerged
during and after the end of the Second World War, impelled the statesmen to give special
attention to the need for securing international peace and security through the collective
efforts of all the nations. The realisations in respect of complete inter-dependence between
the security as the national objective of each nation and the security and peace at the
international level, further helped the strengthening of support for the principle of “one for all
and all for one”. Consequently, a bold attempt was made to provide a practical Collective
Security System within the framework of the United Nations.

COLLECTIVE SECURITY PROVISIONS OF THE U.N.

CHARTER
The charter of the United Nations gives primacy to the task of maintaining international
peace and security as the most objective of international relations. This fact is writ large in
the text of the Charter. In it, the words “International Peace and Security” have been
mentioned 32 times. This Charter, in its very first article, while stating the purposes of the
United Nations, makes the preservation of international peace and security as the first priority
of the United Nations. The article states: “to maintain international peace and security, and to
that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to
peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression of other branches of the peace…”

The collective security system has been laid down in Chapter7 of the U.N. Charter and its
heading reads: “Actions with respect to threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts
of Aggression.” It contains 13 Articles, from Art. 39 to 51, which together provide for
detailed measures in respect of the collective action for preserving international peace and
security which the Security Council can initiate and which all the members are duty bound to
uphold and undertake.

Art 39 makes it the responsibility of the Security Council: “to determine the existence of any
threat to the peace, breach of peace, or act of aggression”, and to make “ recommendations or
decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Article 41 and 42 for maintaining or
restoring international peace and security.

Article 40,41 and 42 specify the nature of measures that Security Council is called upon to
undertake for the purpose of maintaining or restoring international peace and security. Art. 40
lays down that as the first step towards preventing the aggravation of the situation involving a
threat to or breach of international peace and security, the Security Council can take
provisional measures and call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional
measures as the Security Council may deem necessary or desirable.

Art. 41 refers to the enforcement actions, other than the collective military action, that
Security Council can recommend to the members of the United Nations for compelling the
concerned parties to end the violation of peace and security. This Art. Reads: “The Security
Council may decide what measures, not involving the use of armed forces, are to be
employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the members of the U.N. to
apply such measures. These may include complete, radio and other means of communication,
and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Art. 42 empowers the Security Council to take military action for securing or maintaining
international peace and security. This Article lays down: “ Should the Security Council
consider that measures provided for in Art 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be
inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain
or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstration,
blockades, and other operations by air, sea or land forces of members of the United Nations.

Art. 43 makes it the responsibility of all the members of the United Nations to contribute
their support, efforts, resources and forces for raising the Collective Security force that may
have to be raised when Security Council decides to undertake action under Article 42.

The next four Articles of UN Charter (44-47) lays down the procedure for raising,
maintaining and using the UN peace keeping force or the Collective Security force. Art. 48
states, “The action required to carry out the decision of the Security Council for the
maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the members of the
United Nations, or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.” Further that,
“Such decisions shall be carried out by the members of the United Nations directly and
through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.”
Article 49 boldly asserts that: “The members of the United Nations shall join in affording
mutual assistance in carrying out measures decided upon by the Security Council.” Arts. 50
and 51 respectively relate to the possible ways in which non-member states or members can
adjust their policies and actions towards the decisions that may be taken up the Security
Council under Article 41 and 42. Art 51, however, accepts the right of the states “to
individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member, until the
Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and
security.”

With all these provisions, Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter lays down a workable Collective
Security system for maintaining or restoring international peace and security.
 WORKING OF THE COLLECTIVE SYSTEM OF THE U.N.
Since 1945, the Collective Security system has been tried in a number of cases but due to
several reasons its working has not been satisfactory. Before examining the reasons for the
unsuccessful and inadequate operationalisation of Collective Security system it is worthwhile
to refer to some of the practical cases in which Collective Security was applied during the
past 53 years.

KOREAN CRISIS

The Korean crisis of 1950 was the first supreme test of the Collective Security system under
the U.N. Charter. It was the first collective Security action undertaken by the UNO under the
provisions of Chapter VLL of its Charter.
The North Koreans invaded South Korea on the night of 24-25 th June 1950. The Security
Council, in the absence of the Soviet Union, decided on June 25 and 27, 1950 to take
enforcement action against the aggressor North Korea. It held that North Korean attack on
South Korea constituted a breach of peace and called for an immediate cessation of hostilities
and withdrawal of North Korean forces to the 38th Parallel. However, North Korea failed to
comply with these directives and thus the Security Council found it essential to order military
action under the UNO for repelling the aggression and for restoring international peace and
security. The response of the members of the Security Council resolutions was quite
favourable as 53 countries expressed their willingness to support the principle of Collective
Security. On July 7, 1950, the Security Council set up a Unified Command under the UN flag
and requested the member states to provide military assistance. In the first instance the U.K.,
Australia, New Zealand came forward to induct small naval and air units into the “peace
operation” in Korea. Later on, by early 1951, 16 countries came forward to offer their armed
forces which were placed under a unified UN command. Thus the U.N.O. was successful in
raising a U.N. force, a collective force of the members for repelling the aggression. In the
words of Jacob and Atherton, “The United Nations successfully overcame great legal,
political and organisational obstacle to make the basic decisions on responsibility for breach
of peace and for aggression which were the basic decisions on responsibility for breach of
peace and for aggression which were the necessary precursors to enforcement action.” The
decisions of Security Council were hailed by many as “the beginning of the progressive
development of an effective Collective Security system.”
However, the U.N. Collective Security operations in North Korea became highly complicated
when Communist China intervened in the Korean war for protecting the interests of North
Korea as well as her own interests. This development made the Collective Security operations
in Korea very problematic because many states expresses their hesitation towards continued
Collective Security operations in Korea as they felt that these could lead to escalation of war
in which the Western countries, particularly the USA would like to pursue “containment of
communism” over and above the ideal of resorting international peace and security. The
decision of the commander of the UN forces in Korea, Gen. Mac Arthur to cross the 38 th
Parallel for repelling the aggression was sharply criticised by many states as a decision
designed to punish communist China. This led to complications which made the Korean crisis
almost a dispute between the communist and the capitalists. The Chinese decision to pursue
its intervention and the US decision to halt the march of communism into South Korea made
things worst. Consequently, attempts were made to secure a peaceful resolution of conflict.
However, the efforts proved unsuccessful. On 3 rd November 1950, the General Assembly
adopted the Uniting for Peace Resolution which was designed to give over-ride by 2/3 rd
majority any failure on the part of veto bound Security Council in respect of determining the
aggressor, the nature of aggression against peace and the enforcement action that might be
taken for preserving or restoring international peace and security.

UNITING FOR PEACE RESOLUTION

This resolution is a three-part affair, but only “Resolution A” is usually referred to as

“Uniting for Peace Resolution”. It contains four provisions:
 The resolution provided that the General Assembly can meet within twenty-four hours
to consider any situation involving international peace and security, if the Security
Council is prevented by the veto to exercise “its primary responsibility.”
 The resolution established a Peace Observation Committee of 14 member states. The
major task of the committee was to observe and report to the General Assembly as to
where the international tension existed.
 It recommended to member states of the United Nations to maintain within their
system some special elements which could promptly be made available for the United
Nations service, upon recommendation (under Art. 43) by the Security Council or
General Assembly.
This resolution was intended to give additional teeth to the Collective Security system.
However, in actual practice it failed to produce the desired effect. The (Erstwhile) Soviet
Union became more apprehensive about a possible anti-communism stance of the Gneral-
Assembly. It also made America apprehensive about powers of the General Assembly
which was dominated by small states. In the context of the Korean crisis, this resolution
was regarded as a bold attempt to strengthen the UN attempts for maintaining and
restoring international peace and security. However, its immediate result on the Korean
war was almost negligible. By United States, the General Assembly adopted a resolution
on 1st February 1951, charging China of engaging in aggression in Korea. A committee
was set up as a aggression and to report thereupon to the General Assembly.” The same
resolution authorised the President of the Assembly to establish Good Offices Committee
to explore further the possibilities of a peaceful settlement. The Additional Measures
Committee was to defer its report if the Good Offices Committee indicated satisfactory
progress. Consequently, Collective Security action and other activities aimed at securing
peace in Korea was now changed rapidly by June 1951, when frontier was stabilised at
the 38th Parallel. Ultimately, an armistice was arranged on a Soviet proposal of June 23,
1951. Thus the Korean war arranged ended and with this, the first attempt of the United
Nations to end aggression against peace got materialised. However, the success in Korean
crisis came not only due to the efforts of the UN but also due to the efforts of various
nations who made strong efforts towards peace in Korea.
The Collective Security action in Korea demonstrated several hindrances in the way of its
actual operationalisation under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Summing up the lessons of
Korean War and the UN collective security action, Jacob and Artherton have specified the
following six points:
1. Firstly, it demonstrated that it was extremely difficult to draw a line of distinction
between collective purposes of an international police action and the strictly national
interests of those participating in it.
2. Secondly, the operation could not maintain a true collective character because many
states contributed little material support to the UN. The Collective Security action in
Korea was virtually monopolised by the United Nations.
3. Thirdly, members of the United Nations shirked the responsibility of exercising
independent judgement in making vital decisions and strategies of the operation.
4. Fourthly, the more the overwhelming power available to enforce Collective Security,
the greater was the danger of its improper exercise.
5. Fifthly, the use of force, even under collective authorisation, runs a grave risk of
triggering a chain reaction of ever widening violence.
6. Finally, stopping an enforcement action is more complex problem than its starting.
Korean crisis demonstrated that the necessary procedure to terminate enforcement
action was serious omission in the Charter.
Thus, the operationalisation of Collective Security in Korea demonstrated the weakness
of the system as well as the practical difficulties involved in the way of using it as a
device for maintaining or securing international peace and security.
After the Korean experience, Collective Security system underwent a second major test at
the time of Suez crisis of 1956. But the results were secured less due to the action of the
United Nations and more due to the Soviet threat to Britain, France and Israel. However,
in Congo, the U.N. Peace Force did a good job in restoring peace in the strife torn
country. Even at the time of Hungarian crisis of 1956, (Erstwhile) USSR was compelled
to respond favourably to the pressure from the UN against its interferences in the internal
affairs of Hungary. However, during the period 1956-90 Collective Security system under
the United Nations could not work successfully in securing international peace and
security. The cold war between the two super powers, the bipolarity in international
relations, the failure of the General Assembly to act under the Uniting for Peace
Resolution, and the changed nature of aggression and war, all combined to prevent the
operationalisation of Collective Security system during this period. The Lebanon crisis,
the Iran-Iraq War and several other local wars kept on limiting and straining international
security system in actual practice of international relations.
However, during this last decade of the 20th century, the Collective Security System has
begun acting as a popular and useful device for the preservation of international peace
and security. It was successfully operationalised to meet the Iraqi aggression against and
occupation of Kuwait. To meet the violations of international peace and security resulting
from the Iraqi act of aggression, the UN Security Council first called upon Iraq to vacate
aggression, and when it failed to comply with the UN Security Council was accepted by
the international community. When Iraq refused to comply with, enforced economic
sanctions against Iraq. The UN peace keeping force was raised under the US leadership
and to which 26 countries contributed their armed contingents. On 17th January 1991,
Collective Security war against Iraq was initiated and within few days Iraq’s resistance
 was neutralised and liberation of Kuwait was secured. Collective Security war was
successfully made to secure international peace and security and to negate Iraq’s
aggression.
However, this exercise was successful primarily due to the keen interest taken by the
USA and the inability or willingness on the part of other four permanent members of the
Security Council to oppose the former. The internal troubles of the (erstwhile) the USSR
compelled it to support the US sponsored decisions and policies.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia became its successor state. Its economic
dependence upon the USA and some Western countries began compelling it to
accommodate the UN view point. China also began feeling isolated after collapse of
socialist regimes in the USSR and other socialist-states of Europe. The changed
international scenario of the post-cold war, the post-USSR and the Post-Warsaw bloc
international system, made the decision making by the US Security Council easier. This
development gave a new strength to the operationalised of Collective Security in
contemporary times. In one form or another, the UN Collective Security operations for
preserving peace and security have been currently at work in as many as 15 different
countries. Thus, Collective Security System has been gaining a new credibility in the
contemporary international relations. Preservation of international peace and security as
well as securing international development through cooperation at all levels of
international relations can be described as the two major objectives of our times.
Collective Security of peace and collective efforts for development stand accepted as the
two means for attaining these two objectives.

CONCLUSION
Collective security can be understood as a security arrangement, political, regional, or
global, in which each state in the system accepts that the security of one is the concern of
all, and therefore commits to a collective response to threats to, and breaches to peace.
Collective security is more ambitious than systems of alliance security or collective
defence in that it seeks to encompass the totality of states within a region or indeed
globally, and to address a wide range of possible threats. While collective security is an
idea with a long history, its implementation in practice has proved problematic. Several
prerequisites have to be met for it to have a chance of working. It is the theory or practice
of states pledging to defend one another in order to deter aggression or to exterminate
transgressor if international order has been breached.

ENDNOTES
BOOKS:
  U.R. Ghai, International Politics, Theory and Practice

ONLINE SOURCES:

 Plato.stanford.edu. (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/).
 Sol.du.ac.in. (https://sol.du.ac.in/mod/book/view.php?id=1599&chapterid=1598).
 Www.civilserviceindia.com.(https://www.civilserviceindia.com/subject/Political-
Science/notes/political-ideologies-liberalism.html)