110 likes | 415 Views
Collective Security. Karina Chang, Michael Fye , Rebeca Sigüenza. Collective Security. A foundation of the League of Nations
E N D
Collective Security Karina Chang, Michael Fye, RebecaSigüenza
Collective Security • A foundation of the League of Nations • Article X: “All members undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression and territorial integrity and political independence of all members of the League.” • Designed to defend against threats/nations
Old alliance systems were scrapped for collective security • Obligations clearly stated and understood; contained clear terms • Collective security does not specify where threats could be from or what should be done • Assumed equal preparedness for each country to fight against aggression • Not all countries see a crisis the same way; not willing to spare resources • South American nations would not intervene with problems in Central Europe
Its failure • Ignored reality, required altruistic stance not possible to achieve • Asked nations to surrender their freedom of action • Forced nations to enforce policies that they did not agree on • Forced them to aid other nations • Largest nations were not members • Tension in UK and France’s relationship due to regards in Treaty enforcement and status of Germany • If a problem arose about Germany, most nations would probably not come to an agreement • Popular concept, but had no relationship to the world
Lack of enforcement • Weakness was demonstrated by having felt the need to reinforce obligations of the League • Draft Treaty of Mutual Assistance (1923) • Would have required members to come to the aid of a victim of aggression to an extent determined by the League • Clear that few members were willing to take on the open-ended commitments that collective security entailed