The Paradox Of Collective Security - International Law In Flux With Reference To The Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Author: LawSphereX

Category: International Law

Published: 2026-08-23T21:26:33.842572+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:05:31.105+00:00

THE PARADOX OF COLLECTIVE SECURITY:

INTERNATIONAL LAW IN FLUX WITH REFERENCE TO

THE RUSSIA-UKRAINE CONFLICT

Preti Majumer, School of Law, Christ (Deemed to be) University, Bangalore

ABSTRACT:

The writers of this article investigate the notion of collective security as a foundation for international law's validity and implementation in the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Collective security proposes that states may achieve and maintain peace by handling security concerns collectively rather than individually. Despite its theoretical attractiveness, the practical implementation of collective security has faced major problems, such as enforcement concerns and competing national interests. The Russia-Ukraine crisis is a tragic case study, demonstrating the limitations of collective security in the face of powerful states pursuing their own interests. The international community's response to the crisis has been marked by diplomatic tensions, economic sanctions, and limited direct military participation due to concerns about escalation.

Russia's use of its veto power in the UN Security Council hampered efforts to resolve the problem collectively. However, the violence has prompted efforts to hold aggressors responsible through judicial proceedings and regional mediation. While collective security has limits, such as the need for more state collaboration and conformity to international law, it remains an important instrument for conflict prevention and global peacekeeping. Efforts to promote collective security should prioritise collaboration, increased respect to international law, and tackling the core causes of conflict. Keywords: Collective security, international law, Russia-Ukraine, Enforcement issues, Conflict resolution

Chapter 1: Introduction To Collective Security Collective security as a foundation for the validity of international law is a complicated and comprehensive idea that has sparked considerable debate and research in the field of international relations. At its foundation, collective security is the belief that nations may achieve security and preserve peace by handling security challenges collectively rather than individually or unilaterally. This concept is strongly founded in the idea of interdependence between states, in which one state's security is considered as inextricably tied to the security of others. Stephen D. Krasner's realist views1 on international law offer essential insights into the complexities and ambiguities of collective security as a foundation for international law's legitimacy.

Realism, the prevalent viewpoint in international relations, emphasises the relevance of interstate power dynamics and the primacy of national interests in driving state behaviour. Realists frequently regard international law as secondary to power distribution, with governments putting their own security and interests ahead of respect to legal principles. Krasner's argument emphasises the conflict between legalist tendencies and realism viewpoints in international law. Legalist inclinations, which include selective application of law, broad interpretations of legal commitments, and efforts to legitimise state behaviour by legal methods, can occasionally impair the efficacy of international law.

Realists maintain that the implementation of international law is ultimately determined by power relations between states, with more powerful governments frequently determining and influencing the interpretation and application of legal standards2. Despite these limitations, Krasner recognises the changing character of international law and the growing role of legal and institutional frameworks in resolving global issues. He observes a resurgence of interest in international law, notably from liberal institutionalist viewpoints that see law as a means for establishing self-enforcing equilibria and overcoming market failure issues in the international setting. 1Slaughter, Anne-Marie. "Security, Solidarity, and Sovereignty: The Grand Themes of UN Reform. " The American Journal of International Law 99, no. 3 (July 2005): 619-631. 2 Santoro, David. "The Case for Collective Security.

" The National Interest, no. 152 (November/December 2017).

As nations continue to cope with complex security concerns and interconnectedness, the notion of collective security as a foundation for the validity of international law remains a key focus of international relations studies3. Collective security is the belief that governments may achieve and preserve peace by handling security challenges collectively rather than individually or unilaterally. This concept is strongly founded in the idea of interdependence between states, in which one state's security is considered as inextricably tied to the security of others. Efforts to develop collective security institutions and improve conformity with international legal standards are critical to promoting a more peaceful and secure global order.

Chapter 2: Collective Security and International World Through the enforcement of two fundamental legal tenets, the system of collective security seeks to guarantee peaceful coexistence. First of all, regardless of the rationale offered, it forbids the use of force between states, including threats or aggressive acts. The only times there are any exceptions are when someone is defending themselves or taking part in international collective enforcement operations4. All wars are basically considered aggressive, with a few exceptions. This paradigm encourages a collaborative response to violations of peace and forbids unilateral aggression in an effort to maintain peace5.

Expanding upon the first, the second principle of collective security holds that any violation of the ban on using force affects not only the state that is immediately impacted but also the international community as a whole. In contrast, conventional bilateral techniques assumed that a conflict was fought between two states. In the context of collective security, all states have a duty to support the state that has been harmed and endeavour to bring about peace. This principle, which emphasizes group responsibility and cooperation in preserving international peace and security by mutual aid and action, represents a dramatic break from conventions prevalent in the 19th century6. The development of institutions of collective security, such as the United Nations and the League of Nations7, reveals a paradoxical duality.

These systems were initially designed with 3Barry Buzan, The UN Security Council and the Question of Sovereignty: A Case Study of Russia and Ukraine,

1 Global Governance 335, 335-356 (1995).

4Michael W. Doyle, The Future of Collective Security, 46 World Pol. 524, 524-561 (1994 5Charles W. Kegley Jr. & Gregory A. Raymond, Realism, Liberalism and Collective Security: The Case of the Persian Gulf War, 10 Int'l J. on World Peace 1, 1-40 (1993)

6 Hula, Erich. “FUNDAMENTALS OF COLLECTIVE SECURITY.” Social Research, vol. 24, no. 1, 1957.

7 Id.

a generous and optimistic mindset, with the goal of gradually expanding their reach and efficacy. However, member states prioritized conventional security measures like alliances and interpreted them narrowly, thereby undermining their potential. The idea is still important despite objections and difficulties, but it frequently conflicts with political realities and the interests of particular states due to its abstract nature. Even though there isn't a flawless system in place, giving up on collective security completely would result in large losses, hence its viability and actual application need to be further investigated. In fact, collective security has proven to be effective in preventing hostilities and settling disagreements through a variety of diplomatic channels. The focus that collective security places on amicable dispute settlement is one of its key features8.

Nations try to resolve disputes by discussion, negotiation, and mediation as opposed to taking unilateral action. By reducing tensions and preventing conflicts from escalating into full-scale wars, this strategy contributes to the maintenance of peace and stability throughout the world. In efforts to promote collective security, mediation is essential. Third-party mediators, who are frequently chosen by regional or international organizations, assist in bridging understanding gaps and mediating disputes between disputing parties by providing a neutral platform for talks9. Conflicting parties might investigate amicable resolutions and come to agreements that resolve underlying issues through mediation. This procedure not only settles acute conflicts but also establishes the foundation for long-term peace making and trust-building.

Within the framework of collective security, sanctions are another measure used to discourage violence and promote adherence to international rules. The international community can put pressure on states or non-state actors who are acting in a way that is thought to constitute a danger to peace and security by enacting economic, diplomatic, or military sanctions. Sanctions are a tool for both punishment and for encouraging compliance with the norms and values of international law. Moreover, peacekeeping missions provide a concrete example of collective security in action. For example, United Nations peacekeeping missions send military, law enforcement, and civilian personnel into conflict areas in order to promote the execution of peace agreements, facilitate the cessation of hostilities, and protect people.

These missions are essential for 8Julius Stone, International Law and the United Nations, 22 Austl. Q. 62, 62-72 (1950) 9Nicholas J. Wheeler & Tim Dunne, The Limits of Collective Security, 15 Int'l Rel. 153, 153-176 (2001)

infrastructural reconstruction, post-conflict stabilization, and fostering peace between opposing parties. Peacekeepers contribute to the building of democratic governance systems and the restoration of peace by offering a neutral presence on the ground. Collective security not only prevents and resolves conflicts, but also encourages states to work together to address urgent global issues10. To lessen their effects and develop long-term remedies, issues like climate change, nuclear proliferation, and terrorism require concerted international action11. Mechanisms for collective security offer a forum for international discussion and cooperation, allowing nations to exchange intelligence, plan joint actions, and carry out cooperative projects.

For instance, exchanging intelligence on terrorist threats, coordinating border controls, and improving counterterrorism measures are all part of collective security efforts to combat terrorism. Nations can more successfully destroy terrorist networks, cut off funding sources, and stop the spread of extremist beliefs by combining their resources and expertise. Comparably, in the context of nuclear proliferation, disarmament and the containment of nuclear weapons are advanced through collective security institutions like arms control agreements and non-proliferation treaties12. The international community may improve global security and lower the likelihood of nuclear conflict by creating rules and verification procedures.

In terms of climate change, collective security means working together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, prepare for the effects of climate change, and assist those that are most vulnerable13. Countries pledge to lessen their carbon footprint and invest in renewable energy and sustainable development projects through international agreements like the Paris Agreement. Nations can tackle the underlying causes of climate change and protect the Earth for coming generations by cooperating with one another. In addition to averting hostilities and settling disagreements, collective security encourages international collaboration in the face of common problems. Collective security systems help 10Kolb, Robert. “The Eternal Problem of Collective Security: From the League of Nations to the United Nations”, Refugee Survey Quarterly, vol. 26, no. 4, 2007.

11 Id.

12Robert L. Rothstein, Collective Security: Theory vs. Practice, 19 Int'l Org. 212, 212-237 (1965). 13Santoro, David. "The Case for Collective Security." The National Interest, no. 152 (November/December 2017).

nations address complex dangers and defend peace, security, and justice on a global scale by encouraging multilateralism and solidarity. The joint responsibility of all nations to maintain world peace and security is embodied in collective security. This idea acknowledges that a nation's security is entwined with the security of other nations, requiring a coordinated response to threats. Collective security, which is ingrained in international accords such as the United Nations Charter, obliges member nations to settle disputes amicably and abstain from using force unilaterally until the Security Council authorizes it or in cases of self-defence14. By sustaining this idea, countries demonstrate their dedication to working together to safeguard stability and stop armed conflicts from breaking out on a worldwide basis15.

Chapter 3: Related Criticisms: World War I exposed a fundamental fault in the balance of power system. When the system collapsed, the outcome was perilous and devastating. After World War I, most nation-states rejected the balance of power system as the basis for international security due to the massive damage caused by the conflict. Instead, the victorious nations aimed to establish a collective security system through the League of Nations, where one state's aggression would result in a response from all other states, achieving collective security. While the notion of collective security appears to be sound in principle, its actual execution has frequently fallen short, especially in the post-World War II era16.

One of the most primary criticisms is that collective security institutions, such as those provided in the United Nations Charter, have proven unsuccessful at averting catastrophic crises or settling international disputes. Despite the formation of the UN Security Council and its purpose to ensure international peace and security, the council's capacity to take decisive action has been limited by the permanent members' veto power, resulting in deadlock and paralysis in many cases. Furthermore, the dependence on collective security has frequently been undercut by individual nations' pursuit of national interests, which may prioritise their own security above collective 14Id. 15Barry Buzan, The UN Security Council and the Question of Sovereignty: A Case Study of Russia and Ukraine,

1 Global Governance 335, 335-356 (1995).

16George W. Egerton, “Collective Security as Political Myth: Liberal Internationalism and the League of Nations in Politics and History”, 5 Int'l Hist. Rev. 496 (1983).

action. This has resulted in occasions when powerful states have acted unilaterally or in violation of international law, weakening the efficacy of global security structures. In the aftermath of World War I, many political philosophers believed that the formation of the League of Nations would usher in a new period of collective security, insuring worldwide peace and stability. This optimism lasted after World War II, with the establishment of the United Nations. However, the reality has been distant from what these intellectuals envisioned17. Collective security is founded on a number of assumptions, including the view that conflicts can be avoided by limiting military action and that aggressors can be easily detected and halted. However, the practical implementation of collective security has presented major obstacles.

One key difficulty is many nations' unwillingness to act cooperatively when their own interests are not immediately threatened18. Countries often prioritize their own national interests over collective action, leading to a lack of cohesive response to threats. The following are the other problems related to collective security:

1. States do not see themselves as part of a single global society with a shared

responsibility to protect and maintain one another's rights. For example, if Paraguay and Bolivia engage in a war that destroys both, Japan may find no need to intervene. Similarly, Nigeria may question its role if Egypt attacks Tunisia and the onslaught is effectively resisted. While nations are prepared to create alliances and pledge defence to specific regions other than their own, the notion of universal collective security, in which every state is committed to the defence of all others, has little practical appeal.

2. One of the most fundamental difficulties confronting collective security is the extent of

its hazards. While nations may easily enforce laws within their borders, the international arena provides a very different picture. Significant power disparities exist across states. While it may appear simple for a unified global civilization to fight aggression from a smaller nation, the situation becomes far more difficult if one of the great nations becomes the attacker. Enforcing global law against a state nearly as strong as the rest of the world combined is a daunting task for the United Nations. The introduction of nuclear weapons has exacerbated the problem, since a nuclear-armed 17Gray, Christine. "A Crisis of Legitimacy for the UN Collective Security System?" The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 56, no. 1 (2007). 18Id.

adversary might possibly destroy multiple members of the collective security system. Faced with such a dreadful situation, a member whose own essential interests are directly challenged may choose proud defiance over capitulation. However, for a member whose interests are not immediately jeopardised, such aggressive action is improbable19. States are often hesitant to commit in advance to taking such colossal risks, regardless of the aggressor's identity or the victim's circumstances20.

3. The actions of powerful regional organisations have posed a substantial threat to the

United Nations Collective Security System. Members of such organisations frequently choose their regional interests above the UN's, demonstrating split loyalties. This has resulted in occasions where regional security arrangements take precedence over the UN Collective Security System21. For example, during the US invasion of Iraq, the Security Council, which is crucial to the collective security regime, was ignored, disregarded, and misused. Palmer and Perkins22 contend that the United States and other Western nations prioritise national and regional defence over fulfilling their collective security commitments under the UN Charter, undermining the unanimity essential for the Security Council to handle security matters23.

4. In a number of state and regional disputes, members of regional security organisations

have abandoned the United Nations in favour of regional alliances. For example, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was heavily involved in the military intervention in Yugoslavia, undermining the UN Collective Security System. Similarly, NATO's engagement in Iraq24 following the demise of the Soviet Union weakened trust in the UN's ability to ensure collective security. These incidents emphasise the problems that powerful regional organisations offer to the UN's collective security operations, emphasising the necessity for more collaboration and coordination between regional and global security bodies. 19Quincy Wright, The Role of International Law in the Prevention of War, 62 Am. J. Int'l L. 55, 55-60 (1968) 20Id. 21Miller, Lynn H. "The Idea and the Reality of Collective Security. " Global Governance 5, no. 3 (July–Sept. 1999): 303-332.

22Arthur Deerin Call, Three Views of Collective Security, 100 World Aff. 180 (1937). 23Scott Stantis, Realism and Collective Security: The United Nations and the Korean War, 25 World Pol. 373, 373-396 (1973). 24Betts, Richard K. "Systems for Peace or Causes of War? Collective Security, Arms Control, and the New Europe. " International Security 17, no. 1 (Summer 1992): 5-43.

Chapter 4: Russia-Ukraine War as a Case Study The Russia-Ukraine war provides a stark illustration of the limitations and constraints of collective security in the modern world. The war started when Russia annexed Crimea and supported separatist forces in eastern Ukraine25. Despite worldwide censure and penalties, the international community did not respond to Russia's conduct in a coordinated and effective manner. Shortly after the invasion began on February 24, 2022, observers emphasised worldwide reactions to the emerging crisis as a potential watershed moment in global collective security. The post-World War II world order was based on the concept of a united international community deterring, stopping, or halting acts of aggression by individual nations or coalitions26.

However, this goal has repeatedly fallen short, with UN member states usually putting their own interests ahead of the welfare of vulnerable populations or shared global advantages. The UN Security Council's veto power, which was designed to serve as a check and balance, has instead been exploited to further self-interest and defend friends. Individual nations' prioritisation of national interests was a major contributing factor to the lack of a coordinated response. Many Western nations, notably the United States and European Union members, denounced Russia's actions but were unwilling to intervene militarily or offer direct military aid to Ukraine for fear of escalation and a direct confrontation with Russia27. Instead, they used economic penalties and diplomatic pressure, which had little influence on Russia's behaviour.

Chapter 5: Enforcement Issues in Collective Security: Conflict Resolution and Mediation Furthermore, disagreements among international organisations, such as the United Nations Security Council, impeded efforts to confront the crisis collectively. Russia, as a permanent member of the Security Council, used its veto power to prevent resolutions criticising its conduct or calling for tougher sanctions against it. This weakened the effectiveness of collective security institutions in resolving the dispute. 25 Larrabee, F. Stephen. "Russia, Ukraine, and Central Europe: The Return of Geopolitics”, Journal of International Affairs 63, no. 2 (2015): 33-52. 26Id. 27Matsaberidze, David, "Russia vs. EU/US through Georgia and Ukraine," Connections, vol. 14, no. 2 (Spring 2015).

Russia's regular use of the veto power gave Moscow confidence in its decision to invade Ukraine28, knowing that it could prevent unfavourable Security Council resolutions. However, the use of the Uniting for Peace resolution, which allows the General Assembly to debate issues while the Security Council is deadlocked, was a significant breakthrough. Subsequent steps, including a non-binding but politically significant resolution isolating Russia diplomatically, suspending Russia's membership in the UN Human Rights Council, and a resolution asking UNSC29 permanent members to justify their use of the veto, fueled expectations for Council change. However, the efficacy of these methods in enhancing collective security has to be determined. The Russia-Ukraine war also underlined the importance of regional factors in influencing conflict resolution.

Countries in Eastern Europe, particularly those with large Russian populations or historical links to Russia, took a cautious approach30 to the war, frequently prioritising stability and avoiding acts that may offend Russia. The crisis has also highlighted issues for emerging countries, which are pulled between economic and security objectives, as well as the temptation to choose sides. The offer of mediation by powers such31 as Turkey, India, and Israel, all of which have substantial interests but are unwilling to pick a side, poses a possible challenge to the unity required for worldwide collective security. Furthermore, Ukraine's legal procedures against Russia under the Genocide Convention before the International Court of Justice, as well as other legal, institutional, and military measures, demonstrate efforts to hold Russia accountable for its crimes32.

While these efforts provide some optimism for collective security, they raise issues about their replicability in less conspicuous emergencies, as well as the role of the media and public opinion in driving government responses33. 28Id. 29S. Neil MacFarlane, The Challenges to Collective Security: The Role of International Organizations in Peacekeeping, 6 Int'l J. Hum. Rts. 83, 83-107 (2002) 30Mearsheimer, John J. , "Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault: The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin," Foreign Affairs 93, no. 5 (September/October 2014). 31 "Security Risks: between Russia and NATO. " Belarus beyond 2020: Implications for Russia and the West vol. 2, (2020). 32Id. 33Ian Hurd, Sovereignty and Collective Security, 41 Int'l Org. 563, 563-587 (1987).

Chapter 6: The Way Forward Collective security, despite issues such as enforcement and opposing interests, is critical to global stability. The Russia-Ukraine crisis highlights these issues, with the international community unable to respond adequately. Despite condemnation, military involvement concerns and diplomatic difficulties hampered immediate action. Russia's veto power further hampered UN Security Council resolutions. However, legal lawsuits and regional mediation reflect continued efforts to hold aggressors accountable and resolve problems amicably. Despite failures, the values of collaboration and commitment to international law that underpin collective security remain critical for conflict prevention and global peace promotion.

Bibliography

1. Barry Buzan, The UN Security Council and the Question of Sovereignty: A Case Study

of Russia and Ukraine, 1 Global Governance 335, 335-356 (1995).

2. Betts, Richard K. "Systems for Peace or Causes of War? Collective Security, Arms

Control, and the New Europe." International Security 17, no. 1 (Summer 1992): 5-43.

3. Call, Arthur Deerin. "Three Views of Collective Security." 100 World Aff. 180 (1937).

4. Egerton, George W. “Collective Security as Political Myth: Liberal Internationalism

and the League of Nations in Politics and History.” 5 Int'l Hist. Rev. 496 (1983).

5. Gray, Christine. "A Crisis of Legitimacy for the UN Collective Security System?" The

International and Comparative Law Quarterly 56, no. 1 (2007).

6. Hula, Erich. “FUNDAMENTALS OF COLLECTIVE SECURITY.” Social Research,

vol. 24, no. 1, 1957.

7. Hurd, Ian. "Sovereignty and Collective Security." 41 Int'l Org. 563, 563-587 (1987).

8. Julius Stone, International Law and the United Nations, 22 Austl. Q. 62, 62-72 (1950).

9. Kegley, Charles W. Jr., and Gregory A. Raymond. "Realism, Liberalism and Collective

Security: The Case of the Persian Gulf War." 10 Int'l J. on World Peace 1, 1-40 (1993).

10. Kolb, Robert. “The Eternal Problem of Collective Security: From the League of Nations

to the United Nations.” Refugee Survey Quarterly, vol. 26, no. 4, 2007.

11. Larrabee, F. Stephen. "Russia, Ukraine, and Central Europe: The Return of

Geopolitics.” Journal of International Affairs 63, no. 2 (2015): 33-52.

12. MacFarlane, S. Neil. "The Challenges to Collective Security: The Role of International

Organizations in Peacekeeping." 6 Int'l J. Hum. Rts. 83, 83-107 (2002).

13. Matsaberidze, David. "Russia vs. EU/US through Georgia and Ukraine." Connections,

vol. 14, no. 2 (Spring 2015).

14. Mearsheimer, John J. "Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault: The Liberal

Delusions That Provoked Putin." Foreign Affairs 93, no. 5 (September/October 2014).

15. Miller, Lynn H. "The Idea and the Reality of Collective Security." Global Governance

5, no. 3 (July–Sept. 1999): 303-332.

16. Robert L. Rothstein, Collective Security: Theory vs. Practice, 19 Int'l Org. 212, 212-

237 (1965).

17. Santoro, David. "The Case for Collective Security." The National Interest, no. 152

(November/December 2017).

18. Scott Stantis, Realism and Collective Security: The United Nations and the Korean War,

25 World Pol. 373, 373-396 (1973).

19. "Security Risks: between Russia and NATO." Belarus beyond 2020: Implications for

Russia and the West vol. 2, (2020).

20. Slaughter, Anne-Marie. "Security, Solidarity, and Sovereignty: The Grand Themes of

UN Reform." The American Journal of International Law 99, no. 3 (July 2005): 619- 631.

21. Wheeler, Nicholas J., and Tim Dunne. "The Limits of Collective Security." 15 Int'l Rel.

153, 153-176 (2001).

22. Wright, Quincy. "The Role of International Law in the Prevention of War." 62 Am. J.

Int'l L. 55, 55-60 (1968).