efinition the security of each[2]. Under a collective security

efinition of
the Study

“Peace-making” and “collective security” are two
important concepts of international relations. While “peace-making”
means the process of bringing about peace,
especially by reconciling adversaries1, “collective
security” means the cooperation of several countries in an alliance to
strengthen the security of each2. Under a collective security arrangement, an aggressor against any one
state is considered an aggressor against all other states, which act together
to repel the aggressor3. These two
concepts will help to understand attitudeof UnitedNations.After II. World War,
51 states founded an international organization which called United Nations
(UN) on October 24, 1945. Some of the main purposes of United Nations aremaintain international peace and security, and to that
end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of
threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other
breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity
with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement
of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace4.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

As it seems, “peace-making” and
“collective security” aretwo important concepts that have connection
with principles of United Nations.This connection also can be seen at Charter
of United Nations.  According to United
Nations, the parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to
endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of
all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation,
arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements,
or other peaceful means of their own choice5. It also canbe seen as
contribution of United Nations about “peace-making”. On the other
hand, Charter of United Nations is more detailed about “collective
security”.Chapter VII is generally about “collective security”
and Security Council of United Nations is seen as body of this collective
movement. According to United Nations, All Members of the United Nations, in
order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security,
undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in
accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance,
and facilities, including rightsof passage, necessary for the purpose of
maintaining international peace and security.6

The relationship between “peace-making” and
“collective security”have played acrucial role at the
Cold War period and its aftermath. Furthermore, history of this relationship is
as old as Westphalian Treaty. Great powers always tried to maintain peace and
security because of unfortunate results of French Revolution that affected
other states. But they couldn’t conclude an absolute peace and security. Even
League of Nations collapsed. Creation of United Nations was their last attempt
to maintain peace and security and this was their last hope because World War
II was the first war that used Nuclear Weapons and seen their monstrousresults.
And in the need of restrict this power thistwo concepts become noteworthy and
the relation between them grown stronger. On the other hand, during Cold War
this relationship gained different perspectives due to polarization of states.

The World War II coalition of great powers (the United States, The
Soviet Union, Great Britain, France and China), whose unity had been key to
UN’s founding, became a victim of rising tensions almost before the first
General Assembly session in 1946. Developments in Europe and Asia between 1946
and 1950 soon make it clear that the emerging Cold War would have fundamental
effects on the UN.7  Even the admission of new members to the UN
was affected between 1950 and 1955, as each side vetoed applications from
states that were allied with other. The Cold War made Security Council actions
on peace and security treats extremely problematic. It resulted in some
conflicts such as French and American wars in Vietnam and Soviet interventions
in Czechoslovakia and Hungary, not being brought to the UN at all. A UN
response to the North Korean invasion of South Korea in 1950 was possible only
because the Soviet Union was boycotting the Security Council at the time. 8

As a case “Korean War” was the best option
to see abird’s eyeviewof United
Nations role and position regarding a study that
focuses on United Nations, Cold War period, “peace-making” and
“collective security”. The Korean War was the first and only
protracted conflict conducted under the auspices of the UN.All other UN
military ventures have been to separatebelligerents and to maintain that
separation. They have all been on a muchsmaller scale than the Korean conflict.
In Korea the moral authority of theUnited Nations was employed to label the
Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea the aggressor and to rally member states
either to drive the aggressorsfrom the Republic of Korea or at least to support
that effort. Thatcommitment would endure for three years.9 In August 1945 the Americans proposed to the USSR that
their forces share the responsibility for taking the Japanese surrender in
Korean Peninsula. The division of their respective zones was demarcated at the
38th parallel, with the United States taking control of the south
and Russia of the north. The intention was that they would then work to
implement thelong-term plan that had been drawn up by the Great Powers for
political future of Korea, which was that it should come under a United Nations
trusteeship that would prepare the country for eventual independence.10Unfortunately, it didn’t
succeed. TheresultofSoviet and American policy was the emergence of rival
groups fromthenorthandsouthwhichwerebothvehementlyopposedtotrusteeship and to
any unification which would favour the other. In desperation the Americans in
1947 turned the problem over to UN.11The US resolution
called for a nine-nation UN Temporary Commission on Korea (UNTCOK) and for
elections no later than March ofthe following year12.As it seems during Cold War United Nations always
weresecond actorabout resolutions ofcrises and instead of United Nations main
actors wereUnited States and Soviet Union. Furthermore,UnitedNationsfailed to
be an objective organization therefore this election rejected by USSR and North
Korea and election wasn’t untainted. As a result, Korea divided two side as
South Korea which is recognized by UN due to election and North Korea which
isn’t recognizedby UN. In 1950 North Korea invaded South Korea and started Korean
War. In reality both sides were waiting for an opportunity to invade each other
but their guarantor states didn’t allow until permission of USSR to North
Korea. But eventhoughUSA asbeing guarantor of South Koreais the one who bring
this situation to UN and leader of the army created by UN in order to help
South Korea, it was indeed an UN war.  

of peacemaking.

(25 December 2017)

2 Definition
of collective security.

(25 December 2017)


https://www.britannca.com/topic/collective-security (25 December 2017)

Charter of UN Chapter 1, Article 1.

http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.html (27 December 2017 )

5 Charter of UN, Chapter 6, Article
33, Paragraph 1.

http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-vi/index.html (27 December 2017)

6 Charter
of UN, Chapter 6, Article 43, Paragraph 1.

http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-vii/index.html (27 December 2017)

7 Margaret P. Karns and Karen A. Mingst, International
Organizations : The Politics and Processes of Global Governance , Boulder,
Colorado : Lynne
Rienner Publishers, 2004, p.126

8 Margaret P. Karns and Karen A. Mingst, International
Organizations : The Politics and Processes of Global Governance , Boulder,
Colorado : Lynne
Rienner Publishers, 2004, p.127

9Stanley Sandler, The Korean War :
An Interpretative History, Taylor and Francis, 1999.  p.149

10 Antony Best, Jussi Hanhimaki, Joseph A. Maiolo, Kirsten E. Schulze, Jussi M. Hanhimäki, International
History of the Twentieth Century,  London ; New York : Routledge, 2004, p.255-256

Best, Jussi
Hanhimaki, Joseph
A. Maiolo, Kirsten
E. Schulze, Jussi
M. Hanhimäki, International
History of the Twentieth Century,  London
; New York : Routledge,
2004, p.256

12 Stanley Sandler, The Korean War :
An Interpretative History, Taylor and Francis, 1999.  p.149