The Promise of Collective Security

The Promiseof v-' Charles A. Kupchan ~ I and ~ J o h n J. Mearsheimer's critique of collective security misses its mark for three main reasons. First, Mearsheimer employs so narrow a definition of collective security that he defines away the issues most central to evaluating the peace-causing effects of institutions within the collectivesecurity family.Second, he misrepresentshow collective security acts to promote stability, by portraying it as based on moralistic principles that violate the logic of power balancing. But collectivesecurity is, if nothing else, all about balancing and the aggregation of military force against threats to peace. Indeed, its main advantages over balancing under anarchy are that it provides for more effectivebalancing against aggressorsand that it promotes a more cooperativeinternational environment,thereby making inter-state rivalry and aggression less likely. Third, Mearsheimer's general critique of institutions stems from a theoretical perspective-structural realism -that ignores the extent to which domestic politics, beliefs, and norms shape state behavior. By explaining war and peace solely in terms of power balancing in an anarchic world, Mearsheimer mounts an attack that is at once ahistorical and internally contradictory. We contend that a theoretical perspective that takes power seriously, but not to the exclusion of domestic and ideational variables, offers a richer, more accurate vision of international politics . It is within this vision that collectivesecurity has an important role to play in promoting peace and cooperation. Defining Collective Security The case for collective security rests on the claim that regulated, institutionalized balancing predicated on the notion of all against one provides more stability than unregulated, self-helpbalancing predicated on the notion of each for his own. Under collective security, states agree to abide by certain norms and rules to maintain stability and, when necessary, band together to stop Charles A. Kupchan is Senior Fellow for Europe at the Council on Foreign Relations and a professor at Georgetown University. Clifford A. Kupchan is Senior Foreign Policy Adviser to Congressman Hary lohnston. ~ The authors would like to thank Richard Betts, GeorgeDowns, Peter Katzenstein,Robert Keohane, Lisa Martin, Jack Snyder,and Alexander Wendt for their comments on earlier drafts of this article. International Security, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Summer 1995),pp. 52-61 0 1995by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 52 The Promise of Collective Security I 53 aggression.Stability-the absenceof major war-is the product of cooperation. In a world of balancing under anarchy, states fend for themselves accordingto the dictates of a hostile international environment. Stability emerges from competition.The key question is whether regulated balancing predicated upon the notion of all against one, or unregulated balancing predicated upon the notion of each for his own, is more likely to preserve peace. Our task is to show only that collective security is preferable to balancing under anarchy, not that collective security is a panacea or the ultimate answer to preventing war. In his critique, Mearsheimer focuses only on ideal collective security-a variant in which states make automatic and legally binding commitments to respond to aggressionwherever and whenever it occurs. He explicitlyexcludes from consideration other institutional formulations, such as concerts, that rely on looser and more informal regulation of balancing, arguing that they do not constitute collective security. As a result of this definitional maneuver, Mearsheimer directs his critiqueat a straw man and fails to engage the core conceptual issue at stake:whether some form of regulated, institutionalized balancing is preferable to unregulated balancing under anarchy. Of necessity, debate about the value of institutions must focus on generic formulations, not on the performance of a specific institutional variant. Any institution that is predicated upon the principlesof regulated balancing and all against one falls into the collective security family. Concerts do retain an undercurrent of competitive, self-help balancing. But they operate in a regulated , norm-governed environment and are predicated on the logic of all against one, not each for his own. Accordingly,our original terminology,which refers to a family of collective security organizationsranging from ideal collective security to concerts, best captures the underlying conceptual issues at stake.’ Mearsheimer’s formulation is, simply put, analytically unsustainable. He insists that concerts are “largely consistent...