The Theory Of Collective Security In The Un International Law Essay

The Theory Of Collective Security In The Un International Law Essay After it had been established in 1945, when World War II came to an end, the United Nation (UN) adopted the notion of collective security as a security arrangement. This arrangement was to ensure that all of the states under the shadow of the United Nations Organization would cooperate collectively to provide security for one another. However, to a great extent, the structure and practice of the UN sometimes sways from the theory of collective security. In this regard, this essay will first provide a definition of collective security. Subsequently, a thorough analysis will be given of the extent that the UN has been adopting the theory of collective security. According to Graham Evans and Jeffrey Newnham, The Dictionary of World Politics (Hemel Hempstead, 1990), the theory of collective security is a theory in international relations. According to them nations achieve security from attack by collective military agreements of all nations with each other to join forces against any aggressor. They believe that it is an alternative to balance of power  [1]  . What is meant by balance of power here is that parity of power between nations is contributing to peace, since it hold backs any one nation from being involved in war with another. As a result, weak nations may be supporting common stability by arming, but the strong nations possibly destabilize balance by going on arming. Furthermore, in its research titled Conflict Research Consortium, the University of Colorado, USA defines collective security as a type of coalition building strategy where each country agrees not to attack other countries and to defend them against any other poss ible attacks. The principal line of reasoning is that an attack against one, is an attack against all.  [2]  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  . Collective security theory is different from collective defense which means a coalition of nations which have contracts to protect its own group from outside attacks.   Examples of collective defense are NATO and the Warsaw Pact. On the other hand the UN is an attempt at collective security.   Advocators of collective security believe that it is more effective way to security than individual countries trying to act alone, as weaker countries cannot possibly defend themselves  [3]  . Although collective security arrangements are designed to aid international cooperation, security is not provided by the United Nations Organization for all its members. When United Nations laws are breached, powerful countries are not always judged the same way as weaker countries. On the other hand, some other scholars and diplomats believe that the security concept is misguided. In other words, it is bewildered because it is sometimes misused and even confused with other concepts such as mutual security agreements among the members of alliance such as NATO countries. Thus, practices are not subjected to the United Nations regulations. Not only this, sometimes cooperative security is applied by invading other countries, occupying lands, destroying economy and property and killing people. Thus, it becomes military alliance which leads to military confrontations and accordingly endangers peace and transfers the meaning of collective security to be an aggressive coalition. The role of the UN is activated by the Security Council which responds to the requirements of the members of the United Nations in voting and making decisions. The United Nations Security Council consists of 15 members: five permanent ones and ten temporary ones with two-years terms. The permanent countries are the USA, the UK, France, Russia and China. In theory, the task of these countries includes applying the theory of collective security when there are emerging issues. For example, under Chapter Six of the UN Charter, Pacific Settlement of Disputes  [4]  , the Security Council is entitled to investigate disputes and all other situations which may lead to such disputes. Thus, the Security Council may vote for appropriate procedures in order to keep peace and settlement using all possible ways such as collective security procedures. These decisions can only be made by the consent of at least 9 out of the 15 members of the Security Council members and none of the five permanent members should object or vote against such decisions. Furthermore, it is supposed that the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) as a principal organ of the UN should be charged with the maintenance of international peace and security. Thus, it should use its powers, according to the United Nations Charter, to establish peacekeeping operations and might be obliged to also establish international sanctions in addition to the authorization of military action. However, such powers should only be exercised through United Nations Security Council Resolutions. For example, under Chapter Seven, the Council has enough authorities to decide what procedures should be taken in case there are some situations where there are threats to peace, breaching peace or some acts of aggression against peace, people or countries. In this case, the Security Council has the power to use armed force in order to keep or restore peace and collective security. Examples of these measures were when there was an armed action by the UN in Korea in 1959 during the Kore an War and the use of coalition forces in Iraq and Kuwait in the year 1991 when Kuwait was liberated from Iraqi Forces. Moreover, the UNs role in international collective security is illustrated by the UN Charter. According to this charter, the Security Council is given the power to consider any situation which threatens international peace. The Security Council can also advise some procedures for peaceful resolution of any dispute. In addition, the Security Council can ask other member nations to totally or partially break off economic relations, sea, air, postal, and radio communications, and even diplomatic relations with any country against whom a decision is taken by the Security Council. Additionally, The Security Council can also use military force if it is deemed as necessary. However, it is sometimes possible to manage and avoid conflicts, by keeping the focus on cooperation  [5]  . Despite what has been mentioned above in regard to the adaptation of the Security Council resolutions and the theory of collective security, member states of the UN and also members of the Security Council have from time to time breached laws and regulations, hence undermining the theory of collective security. Although the United States of America is the sponsor and host of the United Nations Organization, it is the first deviator from its laws including the breach of collective security. According to the UN charter Article 24, in discharging these duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. The specific powers granted to the Security Council for the discharge of these duties are laid down in Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and XII  [6]  . Yet, despite the absence of UN approval, U.S. military forces began invading Iraq from the Kuwaiti borders on the 20th of March, 2003. There was no unified support by the UN to attack Iraq and the Security Council was divided on the decision; however, undermining the theory of collective security, the USA alongside with the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland invaded Iraq and brought down the regime of Saddam Hussein in 21 days of major combat operations. With hindsight it became evident that t he justifications used for the war were invalid and were only used to try and legalize the war. The Bush administration, backed by the support of Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister announced the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Bush administrations general justification for the invasion of Iraq was presented by the US Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations Security Council on the 5th of February, 2003, when he said We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; hes determined to make more. Given Saddam Husseins history of aggression given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond? The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American peop le. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11 world  [7]  . According to Blair, the cause was Iraqs failure to take a final opportunity to disarm itself of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that USA and UK asked its government and president to do immediately in order to keep peace and not threaten world peace  [8]  . Two major forces in the world misused power and the notion of collective security and as a result the country was disastrously shattered, resources exploited with a high price of large losses of civilian lives. It became evident that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction There are many other examples of breaching the collective security theory applications and objectives by wrong policies and practices of the United Nations members. For example, the USA invaded Panama in December 1989. Some justifications were given for such invasion like safeguarding the lives of the U.S. citizens in Panama, defending democracy and human rights in Panama, combating drug trafficking and protecting the integrity of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties  [9]  . However with hindsight it became clear that the justifications were not enough to support the invasion and it was a clear breaching of collective security theory. Other examples of the limitations of collective security also comprises the Falklands War, when Argentina invaded the islands although they were considered British. However, there were many UN members who stayed out of the issue, as such an issue did not directly concern them  [10]  . The role of the UN and collective security in general is also evolving given the rise of internal state conflicts since the end of WWII; there have been 111 military conflicts world wide, but only 9 of which have involved two or more states going to war with one another. The remainder has either been internal civil wars or civil wars where other nations intervened in some manner. This means that collective security may have to evolve towards providing a means to ensure stability and a fair international resolution to internal conflicts. Whether this will involve more powerful peacekeeping forces or a larger role for the UN diplomatically, it will likely be judged from a case to case basis. Since the establishment of the UN in 1945, the Middle East has seen the negative consequences of breaching the agreements and arrangements set by the UN. Supported by the USA and some other Western Regimes, Israel has been breaching such laws. Since the voting of the existence of Israel in 1948 by some members of the United Nations, Israel has been continuously undermining recommendations and resolutions of the UN. For example, in 1967 it occupied territories from Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, killing civilians, creating unrest and destroying properties. In this regard, the worst misuse of the UN Security Council Rights has been utilized by USA. When it comes to condemning the illegal actions of Israel, the U.S. uses the right of veto against any resolution which may condemn Israeli actions. Moreover, one of the latest collective security resolutions made by the UN Security Council adopted a sanctions resolution on Iran although there were two votes against and there was one abstention. According to the voters the ban was on Iranian certain nuclear and missile investment abroad  [11]  . To sum up, the theory of collective security implies a security arrangement among which all members of the United Nations share to provide security shadowed by the UN resolutions to keep world peace using all possible approved ways including sanctions and force. Four basic principles of collective security should be adopted by the UN members. First one is that every state should have all relevant arrangements for which it should be committed. Second, when it comes to collective security, the power of using the veto to block any relevant decision should be very limited. Third, sanctions should not harm the people of the country on which they applied and should not harm other countries which apply them especially economically. Fourth, collective security should safeguard the world peace and the security of every country. However, deviations from such principle have been made by many members of the United Nations, mainly the USA. When it comes to condemn the illegitimate actions of one of its allies because such actions threaten the world peace and justice, the USA uses the veto to block any sanction or penalty. Finally, economic sanctions which are supposed to serve collective security often negatively affect the lives of the people of the cou ntry on which such sanctions are applied and not the governments which have enough to fulfill their needs. Collective security is abused by some representatives of nations which call for peace, justice, prosperity and happiness. Although it looks very ideal and great in essence, it is evident that member states of the UN have departed from the theory of collective security to a great extent, especially when their national interests are at stake; thus undermining not only the theory of collective security but also the UN organization itself.

Scent of Apples by Bienvenido Santos

The air within Celestial Bias's secluded home was perfumed with the foreign scent of apples. The immigrant had been living in Kalamazoo for more than 20 years when he met a speaker from his native land who had come to the US to lecture; he drove out to the city hear this man. The crowd's questions during the open forum centered on Bias's home country. To this AIBO stands and asks if the women now were the same 20 years ago and the lecturer responds that they were. Thereafter AIBO invites the lecturer to dinner with his American wife, Ruth, and his son, Roger.The next day AIBO picks the speaker up from the hotel and drives him to a farm east of the city into a rugged road that led into an isolated farm. It held a crumbling and shanty home. AIBO reminisces about his time in the Philippines and the speaker has dinner with the hospitable family. As the dinner ends, so does the Bias's time with his only link back home. The lecturer bids goodbye and offers to pass on Bias's sentiments to h is family in the Philippines, which AIBO politely declines saying that nobody would remember him anyway and lets the lecturer go.Ovenbird Canton's â€Å"The Scent of Apples† centers on the absence of the familiarity of home or the characteristics of what makes a place so, for example: for a Filipino Collections AIBO there is abundance of apple trees, while for the American men who went out to war there is the absence of great icy winds and the promise of winter; additionally the way Santos describes the setting further exemplifies this nostalgia and isolation from home. The absence of home is introduced by Canton's description of the, which creates a somber tone by describing the memory their son who had gone away to war.He uses that setting, the boy being away for war, to establish exile or loneliness; additionally he adds the boys absence from the familiar icy winds, changing golden leaves, and the fragrance of apples to further isolate the parent's from their son. This des cription when Juxtaposed to Bias's situation, being an immigrant surrounded by apple trees in an isolated farm in the US, intensifies the concept of exile in a foreign place. During the lecture, the narrator receives a lot of questions about his home country, which he describes had become a lost country to his American audience.Here his audience was composed of mostly women who had lost contact with the men deployed in the Philippines. Their situation is parallel to Bias's, with his family closing their gates after him and his loss of contact with any Filipino for the past years, which emphasizes his isolation. Juxtaposing Ruth with the narrator's commentary on the differences of Filipino and American women, and Bias's description of Filipino women entails that there may be no differences between these groups of women at all.To emphasize Remarking on Ruth being described like a Filipino, she stays with AIBO even on the brink of death, while she herself was pregnant. The she maybe ho me that he finds in the US. In relation to the setting, his link to the Philippines no longer persists and the dinner with narrator was the Bias's soiree with his old home, but his being released back into the cold and dark at the end implies that AIBO still Bias's shanty home emphasizes this isolation in exile as well, since the house is located alone amidst an apple orchard miles away from the city.The narrator described the trip from Kalamazoo to the farm to be interminable; they disappeared wrought thickets, passed narrow lanes with unattractive, barren land covered in weeds, dead leaves and dry earth. Santos meaner to represent Bias's distance from home through the interminable trip; furthermore the barren land, narrow lanes and weeds represent Bias's affiliations in the Philippines – he no longer had any contact with his family and he has not talked to other Filipinos in years.The apple trees in the distance emphasize his being in a foreign place. The reader is reminded of this when AIBO comments on the beauty of autumn to which the narrator replies, â€Å"No such thing in our own country' and the narrator reflects on the unkind comment and how AIBO must have avoided this fact for fear of being reminded of his exile. Once they arrive at the house the narrator notices how the house was ready to crumble.The inside was barren and decked with second-hand furniture and, the scent of apples pervaded he air – describing how even in his own home there is the reminder that he is a foreigner. In contrast to his home in the Philippine, biggest one in the Visalia town, which shunned him. Santos also uses autumn to influence the tone of the story. He opens the first paragraph with the old couple; he uses the description of icy winds, ghostly feet of fallen leaves and coming of down of the cold to nuance the theme of loneliness and abandonment.The autumn, being a season of fallen leaves and cold weather imposes transitory feeling brought by being away f rom someone. He also this when AIBO brings the narrator home for dinner the setting is described to be ineffectual and not too cold, which implicates a more positive mood in the text. Santos uses the coming winter, the cold and the dark to further highlight the feeling of abandonment hen the narrator finally says goodbye to AIBO, remarking that they would probably never see each other again.Ovenbird Santos brings to his audience the sentiments of nostalgia. The well-crafted short, â€Å"the Scent of Apples† very well articulates the loneliness of an immigrant. He does this through how he establishes the setting, through how he sets up the stage for the characters to move around and for the audience to get better feel of what Santos intended to impart. The loneliness is palpable in the setting and his use of it gives subtlety to the theme isolation in exile.

Say Yes to Gun Control - 1144 Words

Say Yes to Gun Control What would make you feel safer? Walking down the streets knowing that people can carry guns around willingly or knowing that people cannot carry guns willingly and that there are strict rules and regulations for having a gun? I would go with the second option. America has some of the highest rated gun related crimes and homicides. If you erase the option people being able to own guns, maybe there will be less gun related incidents. Yes you can still be able to get guns from places but it will also limit the list of people with guns. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. It takes action and movement to pull that trigger. It takes even more action to pick up and hold that gun and point it at someone. In†¦show more content†¦Gun control has been effective recently. There was a decline in gun crime from 1990 to 2000s due to the banned of assault weapons (Ballaro 2). Now a days the main cause of African Americans are due to the crimes caused in the streets (Reiss and Roth 1993). The reason for these deaths is mainly due to guns in the project areas also gang related activates. â€Å"A 1997 survey of more than 18,000 prison inmates found that among those serving time for a violent crime† (Agresti and Reid 1).30% of State offenders and 35% of Federal offenders carried a firearm when committing the crime (Agresti and Reid 1). With numbers these large, it’s enough proof to say that most criminals and crimes either own a gun at least. Not putting the fact they might use it for the crime into account. Gun control would prevent these criminals from getting a gun much more than the current rules and regulations we have right now. In addition, did you know in 2008, more than sixteen thousand crimes and murders occurred in the United States (Agresti and Reid 1)? And more than ten thousand of those crimes and murders were due to firearms (Agresti and Reid 1). Also at this rate, if gun control does not take effect and become stricter, the rate of Americans getting murdered by firearms will be over two hundred per year (Agresti and Reid 2). That is why gun control will also make it tougher for anyone to just get or buy a gun. Doing things such as back ground checking and having a waitingShow MoreRelatedElection Of 1860 And 2016 Divided Our Country Essay1500 Words   |  6 Pagessometimes change. Clinton’s views on gun control is that she will let gun manufacturer’s get sued, she’ll balance lawful gun ownership and keep guns away from criminals (isn’t that smart?) She will give local police access to federal gun tracking information, she’ll let states and cities determine local g un laws, and she is against illegal guns, she wants to crack down on illegal gun dealers, right now it seems like she is stating the obvious. She also wants to keep guns away from people who shouldn’tRead MoreWhy Should Guns Be Banned949 Words   |  4 PagesWhy and why not ban guns? Guns have been in our lives even before the immigrants colonized the United States, but in the past few years, there have been many shootings. There have been reasons for why they happen like illness and mass murder, but some people just think that guns have been the main reason behind the shooting. Most all people believe that guns are always the problem. But as people don’t know what should or is going to happen to guns in America over time. As more shooting happensRead MoreThe Violation Of The Word Militia Essay1528 Words   |  7 Pagesbehind many measures in gun control, says the embarrassing second amendment empowers people to want to own guns to protect themselves. Some of the American historians believe that the use of the word militia is not meant for a specific group of people like the military, but rather it is meant for the American people as a whole. The Second Amendment, like all of the other amendments, must be read along with the constitution (The Embarrassi ng Second Amendment p. 1). Gun rights activists really likeRead MoreThe Crime Rates Of Murder And Suicide1018 Words   |  5 PagesStamper Class: GE102 Date: November 18, 2015 â€Å"Gun Control in America† The crime rates of murder and suicide is increasing due to guns being handled by different people in our society. Should the American government enforce new gun control laws in our country? This topic matters because gun control will make the country a safer place to live in. However, some people believe that gun control will take over citizen’s rights and isn’t a great idea. Gun control should be enforced by the government becauseRead MoreThe Crime Rates Of Murder And Suicide1018 Words   |  5 PagesStamper Class: GE102 Date: November 18, 2015 â€Å"Gun Control in America† The crime rates of murder and suicide is increasing due to guns being handled by different people in our society. Should the American government enforce new gun control laws in our country? This topic matters because gun control will make the country a safer place to live in. However, some people believe that gun control will take over citizen’s rights and isn’t a great idea. Gun control should be enforced by the government becauseRead MoreIs The Government Restricting Our Rights?1077 Words   |  5 Pages Is The Government Limiting Our Rights â€Å"If we ever forget we are one nation under god, then we will be a nation gone under† - Ronald Reagan. Gun control, free speech and social media, some of the most controversial topics of this century, many believe they limit our rights, others think they’re useless and need to be gotten rid of. I, on the other hand, just think they’re exaggerated. Our government may be corrupt in some places, and really almost any spot of power or wealth is corruptRead Moregun control research essay1222 Words   |  5 Pages ProCon.org recently featured an article that studied gun control. â€Å"Stricter state gun laws associated with fewer gun deaths, study finds.† The article discussed gun control laws in states with stricter laws tend to have lower rates of gun related homicides, and a suicide (ProCon para. 1) Gun control in the United States is becoming a wide spread issue and is becoming a problem everywhere. Although I am living in a city with uprising crime that has been skyrocketing over the years, I wasn’t awareRead More Gun Control Essay1065 Words   |  5 Pages Gun Control Throughout America there is the constant debate concerning the second amendment or the right to bare arms. One day an innocent kid walking home from school gets shot in a drive by shooting is he just a victim of circumstance or could this of been easily prevented. There are lobbyist for the private ownership of guns and lobbyist for legislation to ban personal possession of guns for good. In this paper I hope that just maybe I can persuade you to think differently on a topic that’sRead More Private Gun Ownership Should NOT be Banned Essays1056 Words   |  5 PagesWould you choose to own a gun if your life depended on it? America has defended itself with guns since December 13, 1631 when the National Guard was born. We are a country that defends what we love. What do we defend ourselves with? Guns of course. Guns and America were discovered around the same time. Guns will forever be a part of America. Without guns the American Revolution would not have been won (Boehm). There have been some times in American history where guns have caused the loss ofRead MoreEssay On Teenage Gun Violence1314 Words   |  6 PagesAbstract Teenage gun violence is on the rise. Gun violence has become a major problem for America. We have more privately owned guns than any other country. This could be one of the reasons that guns are being used by teens, because of the access they have to guns. The availability of guns to our youth is making the world unsafe. Although lawmakers are working on gun control laws, I wonder is the problem too far gone. Social Welfare Issue: Teenage Gun Violence Teenage gun violence is caused by individuals

Infamous Cases of Defendants Pleading Insanity