1.3 . The Collective Security System and the right to self-defense in the UN.

We can define a collective security system in that where when a nation threatens or initiates an
aggression against other member of the system, the other nations will bring to bear preponderant
force acting as a deterrent, or as a very early remedy for an invasion by defeating the aggressor on
the battlefield. This is a militarized solution as threatening or carrying out a larger war to deter or
prevent a smaller war, but this is not the only one mechanism of response to one member of the
system aggression.
The United Nations was founded to be a collective security organization, although it couldn’t fulfill
that function during the Cold War due to the changes in the international society along the
decolonization process, the two blocks clash and eventually the Soviet Union collapse. But in the
last two decades the UN has become a potentially contributor to international security and stability.
We have to start addressing that the law and institutions governing the use of force and the
response to aggressions are in the UN Charter. After the WWII, the architects of postwar regime
sough to ban the use of force; thus, article 2.4 of the UN Charter declares that “all members shall
refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity
of political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the
United Nations”, and according to international commentators, the prohibition is comprehensive,
outlawing not only the resort to traditional war, but also excluding other uses of force, whether or
not declared war or all-out hostilities. But integrating the lessons learned after the failure of the
League of Nations and the WWII, the UN drafters understood that States might need to use force
despite formal legal prohibitions, so the UN Charter provides two permissible exceptions to article
2.4 prohibition of the use of force: self-defense and collective security measures taken under the
authority of the Security Council.

- Self-Defense. It is defined in the article 51 of the UN Charter. “Nothing in the present Charter
shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs
against a member of the UN, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to
maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in exercise of this
right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any
way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to
take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international
peace and security”.
- Collective Security. The second exception to article 2(4)’s prohibition on the use of force takes
place when the United Nation authorizes armed collective security measures. The UNSC is
the primary responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security. The UNSC
is comprised of fifteen States, the five Great Powers who prevailed after the WWII (United
States, Russia, China, France and the UK), as well as ten other elected States to serve in the
Council for two-years terms. Decisions require the affirmative vote of at least nine of the
members, including the concurring votes of the five permanent members, who also have the
right to veto.
The collective security system is empowered by Chapter VII to “determine the existence of
any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression”. In these circumstances, it
will decide what measures to take according to articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore
international peace and security. Article 41 includes those measures not involving the use of
armed force to implement the UNSC decisions –sanctions, embargoes, etc. In addition to this,
Article 42 empowers the UNSC to take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be
necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security, including measures such
as demonstrations, blockades, and other military operations of forces of the Members of the
United Nations. Decisions taken under Chapter VII are legally binding on all UN members,
prevailing this obligation over any other international agreement.
The main differences between the collective security regime and the right of self-defense are
the following ones: a) it is not a unilateral right, but a recourse exclusive of the UN, acting in
concert; agreement is especially relevant in the Security Council, where the agreement
between the permanent members is necessary to approve any measure. B) in contrast to the
right of self-defense, the prior commission of an armed attack is not a prerequisite to the
exercise of force under the Security Council authority. Rather, the Security Council may
authorize measures, including the use of force, merely in the face of “threats” to international
peace and security and even threats that may not yet be imminent.
The standards-based entitlement to use force for collective security allows the international
community to address a much broader range of threats than does the right self-defense under
article 51. New security threats as the presence of terrorism make necessary the use of force
under the UN umbrella, but despite this fact, the refusal of the Council to authorize the use of
force against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during Kosovo crisis in 1999 and Iraq in 2003
shows a new pattern of rivalries in the Security Council, where the collapse of bipolarity had
given room to unipolarity –represented by the United States- and a number of contestant
regional great powers challenging it, some of them as Russia and China permanent members
themselves of the UNSC.