COLLECTIVE SECURITY AND THE TWIN PRINCIPLES OF THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT & THE DUTY TO PREVENT. A CASE STUDY OF THE YUGOSLAV & SOMALI CRISES

  • Sunday Esoso Nsed Ebaye Cross River University Of Technology, Calabar, Nigeria

Abstract

To propagate the UN philosophy of collective-security as a system of cooperation among states such that an act of aggression against one of its members is an act of aggression against all of its members, meaning the safety of all by all, the United-Nations-High-Level-Panel suggests collective-security should rest on three pillars: the continued need for collective-responses at the global, regional and national levels, the acceptance that certain threats pose serious security concerns to all states, and the Responsibility to Protect, in the realization that some states cannot and will not protect their own people and will harm their neighbours. A fourth pillar; the Duty to Prevent, which focuses attention on the threat posed by weapons-of-mass-destructions, rogue states and terrorism and the need for collective military intervention has also been added. However, there is a danger in adding these new principles to the UN-collective-security-system already plagued by radical defects. Wouldn’t these new pillars – Responsibility to Protect and Duty to Prevent - result in international insecurity? The premise of this research is the conviction that the UN is capable of dealing with the main geo-political problems- the creation of a secured world, and is, in fact indispensable to that end. Using the Yugoslav and Somali experiences as case studies, the intent therefore is to explore the collective-security-mechanism as envisioned by the UN-Charter and the incorporation of the Responsibility-to-Protect, and the Duty-to-Prevent. The data were collected through content analysis and analysed using the quantitative chi-square scientific method. Findings revealed that there is no significant difference between the UN collective security/twin principles of the responsibility to protect & the duty to prevent and the vested interest of the U.S in the management of the Yugoslav and Somali crises. The UN consciously or unconsciously allowed itself to be manipulated by a world power- the U.S, seeking universal hegemony. The research recommends a review of the present five-permanent-membership structure of the UNSC to include at least one powerful State from each continent. The membership of the UNSC should be restructured to include three major-countries from each continent, each representing their sub-regions aimed at making the system more balanced. Adoption of a wider scope of the concept of aggression to include indirect aggression in the form of sabotages, economic-aggression, and other forms of pressure, initiated by the powerful states, aimed at bringing the weaker states under the subjugation of the world powers. Review of the UN-charter to give an explicit definition of what constitutes threat to international peace and security. Arms control/regulation, as the ‘Big-Five’/economically powerful states are still investing more in developing deadly weapons-of-mass-destruction. A new international treaty making it a crime to test weapons of mass destruction should be concluded by the UN. The UN must therefore act; as envisaged in the Charter, as the guardian of the security of nations, especially the small countries, and as a catalyst for promotion of the primacy of the rule of law in international relations.

References

Aida, J. (2005). UN General Assembly adopts nuclear terrorism treaty. US Department of state. Retrieved April 13, 2008 from http://www.iwar.org.uk/news-archive/2008/04-13.htm.
Albright, M. K. (1993a). The new opportunity to build a collective security system. Foreign Policy Bulletin, 4, 65-68.
Albright, M. K. (1993b). A strong United Nations serves U.S. security interest. Dispatch, June 28, 461-462.
Albright, M. K. (1993). Address to the national defense university. Washington D.C.: Fort McNair Federal News Service.
Benson, L. (2001). Yugoslavia: A concise history. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Betts, R. K. (1992). Systems for peace or causes of war? Collective security, arms control, and the new Europe. International Security, 17 (1), 5-43.
Boren, D. (1992). The world needs an army on call. The New York Times. Aug. 26. Retrieved August 21, 2009 from www.freerepublic.com/focus/.
Buzan, B. (1991). People, states and fear: An agenda for international security studies in the post-cold war era (2nd ed.). Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Chesterman, S. (2001). Just war or just peace? Humanitarian intervention and international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Claude, I. L. (1962). Power and international relations. New York: Random House.
Claude, I. L. (1971). Swords into plow shares: The problems and progress of international organization (4th ed.) New York: Random House.
Claude, Jr., I. L. (1994). The new international security order: Changing concepts. Naval War College Review, 12.
Claude Jr., I. L. (2006). Collective security as an approach to peace. In Donald M. Goldstein, Phil Williams & Jay, M. Sharfritz (Eds.) Classic readings and contemporary debates in international relations. Belmont CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 289-302.
DeConde, A. (1957). Isolation and security. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.
Dixon, M. (2000). International law (4th ed.). London: Blackstone Press.
Dixon, M. & McCorquodale, R. (1991). Cases and material on international law (3rd ed,). London: Blackstone Press.
Evans, G. & Sahnoun, M. (2001). The responsibility to protect: Report of the international commission on intervention and state sovereignty (ICISS). Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
Fassbender, B. (2002). Uncertain steps into a post-cold war world: The role and functioning of the UN Security Council after a decade of measures against Iraq. European Journal of International Law, 13, 273-303.
Feinstein, I. & Slaughter, A. M. (2004). A duty to prevent. Foreign Affairs, 83(1), 137-148.
Finnemore, M. (2003). The purpose of intervention: Changing beliefs about the use of force. New York: Cornell University Press.
Gilligan, M. & Stedman, S. I. (2003). Where do peacekeepers go? International Studies Reviews, 5(4), 48-53.
Haas, E, B. (1968). Collective security and the future international system. Monograph Series in World Affairs, 5 (1), 36-55.
Heldt, B, & Wallensteen, P. (2004). Peacekeeping operations: Global patterns of intervention and success, 1948-2000. Oslo: Folke Bernadotte Academy Publications.
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). (2001). 'The Responsibility to Protect', (http://www.iciss.gc.ca/report-e.asp). Retrieved July 1, 2009.
Keohane, R. (1980). The theory of hegemonic stability and changes in international economic regimes. In O. Holistic and A. George (Eds.), Change in the international system. Boulder CO: Westview Press, 131-162.
Kindleberger, C. (1981). Dominance and leadership in the international economy. International Studies Quarterly, 25(2), 242-254.
Lewis, I. M. (1995). Peoples of the horn of Africa. London: International African Institute.
Martin, A. (1952). Collective security progress report. Paris: United Nations.
Naidu, M. V. (1975). Collective security and /he United Nations. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Northedge, F. S. (1986). The League of Nations: Us life and time. New York: Holmes and Meier.
Oslon, M. (1995). Multilateral and bilateral trade policies. In J. de Melo and P. Panagariya (Eds.). New dimension in regional integration. New York: Cambridge University Press. 472-481.
Stromberg, R. N. (1963). Collective security and American foreign policy: From the League of Nations to NATO. New York: Praeger.
Stromberg, R. N. (1965). The idea of collective security. In Joel Larus (Ed.), Collective security to preventive diplomacy: Readings in international organization and the maintenance of peace. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 273-277.
Sutterlin, J. S. (2003). United Nations and the maintenance of international security: A challenge to be met (2nd ed.). Westport: Praeger.
United Nations (1991). The UN and the situation in the former Yugoslavia. New York: United Nations Department Of Public Information.
United Nations (1994). The UN and the situation in Somalia. New York: United Nations Department Of Public Information. March.
United Nations (2004). United Nations high level panel (UNHLP): Report on Threats, Challenges and Change: A/59/565. A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility. December. Retrieved August 8, 2009. http://www.un.org/secureworld.
United Nations Security Council (1991). Security Council resolution S/RES/0688, April 5. New York: United Nations.
United Nations Security Council (1991). Security Council resolution 713, 721, 724. New York: United Nations.
United Nations Security Council (1991). Security Council resolution S/23239. New York: United Nations.
United Nations Security Council (1991). Security Council resolution S/23240. New York: United Nations.
United Nations Security Council (1992). Security Council resolution S/PV.3046: The Responsibility of the Security Council in the maintenance of International Peace and Security. New York: United Nations.
U.S. Department of State (1991). Federal Republic of Yugoslavia security assistance request. Reprinted in Dispatch, June 19.
Welsh, J. (2002). From right to responsibility: Humanitarian intervention and international society. Global Governance, 8 (4), 503-521.
Wheeler, N.J. (2000). Saving strangers: Humanitarian intervention and international society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wolfers, A. (1952). National security as an ambiguous symbol. American Political Science Quarterly, 47, 481-502,
Wolfers, A. (1962). Discord and collaboration. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Published
2020-12-01
How to Cite
Ebaye, S. E. N. (2020). COLLECTIVE SECURITY AND THE TWIN PRINCIPLES OF THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT & THE DUTY TO PREVENT. A CASE STUDY OF THE YUGOSLAV & SOMALI CRISES. IJRDO Journal of International Affairs and Global Strategy, 1(1), 55-78. Retrieved from http://13.234.104.160/index.php/iags/article/view/3981