Read International Security: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) for Free Online Page B

laws and general principles, then this is also how disagreements between liberal democracies should be resolved. In contrast, the same respect is not automatically accorded to more autocratic or despotic regimes. Alternatively, it is suggested that the very emergence of the idea of the democratic peace has become self-fulfilling. Thus, insofar as the idea has taken hold then self-respecting democracies, or those states seeking recognition as democracies, are unlikely to take military action against any state with an established democratic identity for fear of damaging their own claim to democratic status.
    Since the end of the Cold War the idea that liberal democracies constitute a club of peaceful relations has become highly influential in directing the policies of various Western states. Indeed, the idea has become central to strategies of democracy promotion. As President Bill Clinton put it in his 1994 State of the Union Address, ‘Ultimately the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere. Democracies don’t attack each other.’ The fact that such strategies have sometimes relied on using military force to instigate regime change is perhaps ironic. Historically, though, and as post-colonial and Marxist critics point out, the use of force is hardly new to liberal regimes, which previously sought to impose liberal ideas on large parts of the world through earlier processes of Western colonization and empire building.

Chapter 4
The United Nations
    Chapter 3 discussed different approaches to the security dilemma and the possibilities of avoiding war. Missing from that chapter, however, was any mention of the United Nations (UN), the world’s primary organization of collective security. Partly this was because different perspectives exist as to the UN’s nature and its ability to contribute to international peace and security. Many, for example, view it as an organization best suited to mitigating the security dilemma, not least through its provision of a setting where differences can be aired and dialogue fostered. Indeed, the organization is often seen as an entrepreneur promoting norms of good governance, upholding commitments to human rights, and establishing standards around trade, and environmental and health issues, etc. More particularly, at times it has also played important roles in promoting the development of security regimes, for example through attempts to regulate the arms trade. Others, however, suggest that through such efforts the UN also enhances the overall sense of international community amongst states, which ultimately might enable them to transcend the security dilemma altogether. Seen in idealized terms the UN occasionally has even been viewed as a global government in waiting.
    When the UN was established in 1945 it was certainly saddled with high expectations. The Preamble to the UN Charter, theorganization’s guiding document and constitution, expressed the determination ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’, while Article 1.1 of the Charter identified the maintenance of international peace and security as the organization’s primary purpose. Following two devastating world wars, such goals were understandable. However, the UN’s ability to live up to such aims has been mixed. In part this is related to contextual factors, institutional limitations embedded in the Charter, and emergent tensions in how the UN and its member states variously understand what comprises international peace and security and what needs to be done to achieve or maintain it.
Towards collective security
    As stated the UN is an organization of collective security, although in reality it falls short of an ideal-type collective security arrangement. Collective security organizations are defined by their member states’ commitment to view the security of each as of common concern. Thus, aggression against one, or against the