Talk:Collective security

NPOV statements

Is this really neccessary? "This in fact relates to one of the weaknesses of democracy; that it tends to lead to decisions being made depending on their popularity, rather than their correctness."

I've placed an NPOV notice on the article as it's written in an opinionated manner. The following statements, for instance, are statements of opinion:

"It can be described by a saying like "You watch my back and I'll watch yours," but without there being any witnesses to whether one really watches the other's back. In theory this idea works very well, but tends to fall short in terms of practical application."

and

"However, despite its faults it remains a useful tool for keeping international peace."

I don't necessarily disagree with the opinions expressed, but they are opinions nevertheless. The article should be rewritten in a neutral manner. The same ideas can be expressed by finding actual quotations or published criticisms of collective security (not difficult to do, look in any textbook on IR) and citing them.AndyL 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree, especially with the former. Both were merged into my article from the duplicate page which was written at "Collective Security". The latter can easily be fixed by adding "many politicians believe", or similar. I'd favour the removal and rewriting of the former however. Grunners 00:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NATO

It there should be a little added about modern NATO. I mean, NATO has millions of U.S. troops in Europe as part of a mutual defense and comparatively little done by other NATO members to reciprocate. I think Europe dependence (not that they don't all have a military of their own) on the U.S. counts as a form as modern 'collective security'. Contralya 07:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

NATO is usually referred to as a system of 'Collective Defence' which is something different. but you're right, it should be cleared up here. --Ondra2 (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what mean when you say "NATO has millions of U.S. troops in Europe..." The U.S. military has a approximately 84,000 personnel stationed in Europe mainly in Germany which is in part a legacy from the Cold War. I believe this was because it was believed that if a conventional war was to break out it would be fought in Europe therefore the U.S. based troops on Germany and Air Force in the UK as well as other locations. The British Army along the same lines has large bases in Germany. Although the Cold War ended over 15 years ago the infrastructure is in place for the forces there and gives added flexibility having forces stationed around the world. With regards to NATO defence the U.S. most likely is the largest contributor, however, they are the largest force with 1,380,000 personnel followed by Turkey with 514,000 and then Germany with 250,000. --Ajnewma (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

References

Article should cross-reference Treaty of London

Refer to Treaty of London (1518). This treaty has the essential elements of collective security and should be considered a historical precedent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.133.160 (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Ireland is not a member of NATO or any military alliance, and therefore is incorrectly coloured blue in the image —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.234.199 (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I still don't get what collective security is. The article talks about the prerequisites, notable backers, modern day analogies, etc., but it doesn't explain what it is. What exactly is collective security besides "a compromise between the concept of world government and a nation-state based balance of power system" Redguard117 (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Redguard117

I agree on this. Is there no more clear definition available? Wiki-uk (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

How about this?-- "Collective security can be understood as a security arrangement in which all states cooperate collectively to provide security for all by the actions of all against any states within the groups which might challenge the existing order by using force."

This is *taken from the article*. (Gaccha (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

This is better, according to my opinion. Can you put it? Wiki-uk (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Bahá'í Faith

Is this reference relevant? It may be useful in the future once this article makes more sense as a historical source of CS theory, but right now I would remove it.. (maybe archive it in the talk page?) --Ondra2 (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC) This seems more like "putting a plug in" for a particular religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleanor1944 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Factual and theoretical error

The following is written: "Second: no one state can block the decision making process. This was a major issue with the League of Nations, as it gave every state veto power, as well as with the UN, which gives it to 5 powerful nations. Should vetoes be allowed, the collective security arrangement will be greatly weakened as one country can subvert a democratic decision. "

It is simply not true that the League of Nations allowed a state to veto. The irony is that the League failed, partly, because of this lack of realism (i.e. not reflecting the power of the state). Powerful states did not want to work with a system that did what was so against their interests. Recognising this, the UN included veto powers. The comment above also implies resolutions were binding at the League's Council: they were not; states could (in an international law sense)legally ignore them.

Please take a look at the charter documents of the League. I look forward to hearing some comments on this. Thanks(Gaccha (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC))

I inserted the much clearer explanation from the "League of Nations" article to avoid this issue. Feel free to improve my horrible English :). 78.53.214.73 (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent events

In this section it is mentioned that their was controversy with regards to the U.S. during the Falklands War due to their obligations as a Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance member. However, this is a defensive pact requiring members to come to the aid of another if one is attacked and Argentina was not attacked, but was the aggressor. Also the U.S. would have had commitments toward the UK as NATO members as Argentina is an “external body”.--Ajnewma (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

NATO only is invoked if a country was attacked in Europe or North America, this was a way of preventing war from breaking out over European colonialism. Argentina was the aggressor in the Falkland wars, but none of the US alliances with either Argentina or the UK had been invokeable. The US did give the UK a few satellites though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.242.242 (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

References

Military Alliances

Collective security is a form of military alliances but many military alliances are not a form of collective security. "Military alliance" should have its own page, not just re-direct to collective security. --Nutmeg39 (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, it can be split.

Also, SCO should not be in this list/map. While states of SCO conduct military cooperation & discussions, joint exercises, etc. - this is different from "military alliance" of the NATO or even CSTO type. Alinor (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This article has some good material. One problem is that at some points it fails to keep certain other ideas--e.g., peaceful settlement, international law, disarmament---that indeed are closely related to CS conceptually distinct from one another. Like other terms, CS can mean different things.I do not have time to work on this at the moment, but if somebody wants to do so I would suggest that he/she draw more (and cite) Inis L. Claude's Swords into Plowshares and his Power in International Politics. Admittedly, one of his later books is cited (he deserves more! I never met the man, so there is nothing personal at stake). His list of preconditions and also his clear distinctions between a CS arrangement and balance-of=power motivations need to be drawn on. Eleanor1944 (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, SCO is not an alliance in the traditional sense, it's more economical and counter terrorism/separatism. For example, Russia would be obligated to go to war if a province in China would declare its independence, but not if China and the US went to war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.242.242 (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe that this format should be rewritten with true facts considering that there are new facts about this war and now their are more memorials built to honor the soldiers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit hawk 1720 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

This article and the image at the top are so misleading that it possibly does more harm than good to public knowledge! There have been some very good points made at File_talk:Current_Major_Military_Alliances.png, but yet nothing has changed in over 6 years. The SCO, in terms of actual military cooperation, is a much looser arrangement than NATO or the SCTO, for example. The map should be redone to show all current military alliances, including overlapping ones. Mutual defense pacts (like in NATO, SCTO) should not be shown to be equivalent to broader but weaker cooperation in military organizations such as the SCO. Esn (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Defence or Defense

I think this article would look better with the English spelling. This is primarily about European history and to use American spelling may imply it is an American viewpoint. The Wiki advice seems to point to the English spelling being the preferred option https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Spelling 80.44.155.162 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)