Define “collective security”. How is this principle articulated in the aims of the UN? Has that organisation been successful in achieving those aims?
This essay will focus on ““collective security””. It will begin by amalgamatingpolitical philosophers’ definitions in an attempt to come to a clear understandingof what ‘““collective security””’ actually is. Subsequently, the essay will go on toargue, using the failings of its embodiment to date in the aims of the UnitedNations, that the concept remains a political ideology.The concept of ““collective security”” can be said to have begun with the Prussianphilosopher Immanuel Kant in his Second Definitive Article when he referred to a‘pacific federation’ as a ‘particular kind of league’ that ‘would seek to end
for good’. He saw the possibility of promoting and maintaining internationalpeace through an extensive partnership of committed states. This is the keyconcept of ““collective security””. According to Inis Claude, (an influentialphilosopher in this study) ““collective security”” was a ‘system for themaintenance of international peace’ which was evolved as a ‘replacement for thesystem commonly known as the Balance of Power’ by the internationalcommunity. It was the argument that through ‘consensus, commitment andorganisation’, international peace could be facilitated and ensured. ‘Superior’ toits predecessor -the Balance of Power- it would transcend the reliance ondeterrence of competing alliances through a network or scheme of ‘nationalcommitments and international mechanisms.’ More recently, Claude argues that