Collective security is a system in international relations in which a group of states agree to cooperate in order to maintain international peace and security. It is based on the principle that an attack on one member of the group is considered an attack on all members, and that the group will take collective action to defend against the attack. Collective security arrangements can take various forms, including regional organizations and global institutions. One of the most well-known examples of collective security is the United Nations (UN), which was established following World War II with the goal of promoting international cooperation and preventing the outbreak of future wars.

The universal system of collective security, established by the UN Charter, is a unique phenomenon of development of international relations after World War II. The collective security system establishes not only normative, but also political and military prerequisites for the UN in current conditions to be able to prevent threats, acts of aggression and other acts of breach of peace. This particular aspect of the collective security system within the UN became particularly evident after the Cold War, when instead of ideological confrontation, cooperation between states began to develop not only on issues of collective security on a global scale, but also on problems of economic and social development, environment, fighting poverty and underdevelopment that require collective efforts of the international community. 

Challenges against Collective Security

• It is Idealistic in Nature and Scope: The concept of Collective Security is based upon certain idealistic assumptions which make its operationalization difficult. For example: (1) It assumes that there can be a complete international understanding regarding the nature of all threats or aggressions against international peace and security. (2) It is assumed that all nations could and would come forward to name the aggressor and to take up collective security actions against the aggressor. (3) The concept of “collectivity” meaning, “All acting for one and all” is basically an idealistic concept since it ignores the fact; all nations are not active in international relations. Nor can all the nations be expected to join a collective security action.
• At times it is not possible to identify the Aggressor: Another major defect of the Collective Security system is that it wrongly assumes that in the event of an aggression against any nation, the aggressor and the nature of its aggression can be really and easily identified. In practice, it is very difficult to determine and name the aggressor as well as to identify the nature of aggression. Often the aggressor acts in the name of self-defence and justifies its aggression as a defensive action.
• Admits War as a means: Collective Security is self-negating in so far as it first denounces war or aggression as an illegal activity and then indirectly accepts that wars and aggressions are bound to remain present in international relations. It wrongly believes the most effective way to deal with such situations is to undertake a collective security war.
• Rules out ‘Neutrality’ in times of War: The concept of Collective Security makes it an international obligation of all the nations to pool their resources and undertake collective action in the event of an aggression. It, as such, rules out neutrality. Many nations often prefer to remain away from war. It makes Collective Security war an international obligation and wrongly assumes that all nations are willing to participate in such a war.
• A Limited Concept: The concept of Collective Security, as laid down in the U.N. Charter, has two inherent limitations. It accepts the right of the states to undertake war as a measure of self-defence against any aggression. In practice this provision gives a legal basis to an aggression or war in the name of action in self-defence. Secondly, it admits the right of the nations to establish regional defence pacts and organisations for protecting their security. It admits regional security systems as devices for preserving peace and security. The working of regional security systems has in-fact been a source of strain upon international peace and security.
• Absence of a Permanent International Peace Keeping Force: Another major limitation of the Collective Security system is the absence of a permanent peace keeping force. It is only after a decision of the Security Council to take military action against an aggressor is taken that the constitution of a collective security military force in initiated. This process is so slow and difficult that it takes a long time to raise the force and press it into service. The time-gap between the date of aggression and the date on which the United Nations is actually able to send its peace keeping force for restoring peace is very big, and the aggressor gets all the time needed for reaping the fruits of aggression.
• Lack of provisions for the termination of Collective Security Action: Another drawback of the U.N. Collective Security System is that whereas elaborate provisions have been laid down for implementing the system, no provision has been made regarding the method of terminating the Collective Security action.
• Dependence on Powerful States: One of the basic principles of Collective Security is that all the states should have an equal say in arriving at collective security decisions. In actual operation, it fails to work on the principle of equality. Powerful states always dominate collective security decisions and actions. In fact, only the powerful states can play an effective role in executing a collective security action. At times the powerful state are reluctant to put their power behind a collective security action which does not strictly conform to their national interests.
• Dangerous: Some critics hold the view the Collective Security system is a dangerous system as it can transform a local war into a global war involving all the nations. On the basis of these points critics describe the collective security system as an idealistic and limited system.

However, it cannot be denied that the system has not been totally meaningless and without positive features. It has brought into vision the idea and possibility of collective steps for the preservation of world peace through crisis management in the event of a war. The chances for a more purposeful and successful use of Collective Security in this post-cold war world have brightened. Currently it is being operationalized in several different parts of the world. Collective Security constitutes a modern device of crisis management. All the members of community of nations are expected to act and save the humankind from the scourge of war and aggression and to use the collective security system for this purpose.