К годовщине Мюнхена. Уроки истории.

[fat_yankey]

Нельзя сказать, что история ничему не учит. Так, всего через четыре года после окончания Второй мировой, наученные горьким опытом европейцы создали реально работающую систему коллективной безопасности в Европе (NATO).

Стоит, конечно, пожалеть, что учиться пришлось на своих ошибках, при том, что собственно концепция коллективной безопасности была сформулирована ещё в 1919, в Уставе Лиги наций.

Comments

[shadow-ru.livejournal.com]

Не-а. Это коллективная (само-)оборона.

The principal is that "an attack against one, is an attack against all." It differs from "collective defense" which is a coalition of nations which agree to defend its own group against outside attacks. Thus NATO and the Warsaw Pact were examples of collective defense, while the UN is an attempt at collective security.

http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/collsec.htm

Ну и так далее:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_security
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council

[fat-yankey.livejournal.com]

Вероятно произошло развитие понятия и разделение его на два. Я привожу определение как оно существоало в межвоенный период. Тогда под коллективной безопасностью пониумали именно "an attack against one, is an attack against all".

[panzer-papa.livejournal.com]

=Тогда под коллективной безопасностью пониумали именно "an attack against one, is an attack against all". =
Что не помешало похерить Восточный Пакт.

В огороде бузина.

[fat-yankey.livejournal.com]

А в Киеве - дядка.

Re: В огороде бузина.

[panzer-papa.livejournal.com]

Почему же? Если сравнивать с НАТО начального периода - то вполне себе аналогично: большой мальчик и его компания. Но в случае Восточного Пакта большой мальчик сдулся и компания разбежалась.

[shadow-ru.livejournal.com]

Я не специалист, но, насколько понимаю, между коллективной безопастностью и коллективной обороной следующие различия:

- безопастность международная, оборона региональная
- безопастность поддерживает международный орган, оборону государство или группа государств
- спектр угроз, для борьбы с которыми предназначена система кол. безопастности, гораздо шире, чем система кол. обороны (последняя как правило предназначена только для обороны от вооружённого нападения)
- стратегия кол. безопастности предусматривает не только БОРЬБУ с угрозами, но ещё и их предотвращение и... э-э-э, "послевоенное" разрешение
- стратегия кол. безопастности предусматривает не только вооружённое разрешение конфликта, но и разного рода невоенные способы "наказания"/принуждения к миру (санкции и т.д.)

Могу опять процитировать:

A. Themeaning of collective security

Collective security postulates the institutionalization of the lawful use of force in the international community.… What is required is a multilateral treaty, whereby contracting parties create an international agency vested with the power to employ force against aggressors (and perhaps other law-breakers). Such an instrument is basically ‘introverted’ in character (designed against a potential future aggressor from among the contracting parties), unlike a collective self-defence treaty (see supra, ch. 9, B) which is ‘extroverted’ (envisaging aggression from outside the system). Collective security shares with collective self-defence the fundamental premise that recourse to force against aggression can (and perhaps must) be made by those who are not the immediate and direct victims. But self-defence, either individual or collective, is exercised at the discretion of a single State or a group of States. Collective security operates on the strength of an authoritative decision made by an organ of the international community.

The systemof collective security has its roots in the League of Nations. Article 10 of the Covenant empowered the League’s Council to advise Member States on themeans to be taken in case of aggression or threat of aggression. Article 11 declared that any war or threat of war, whether or not immediately affecting any Member, was a matter of concern to the whole League, which had to take action as required to safeguard peace among nations.Ã Article 16 stipulated that, if anyMember resorted to war in violation of its obligations under Articles 12, 13 or 15 of the Covenant (see supra, ch. 3, E (c)), it was ipso facto deemed to have committed an act of war against all otherMembers. All trade or Wnancial relations with the transgressor, including commerce between nationals, had to be severed.

The article went on to instruct the Council to recommend to the Governments concerned what effective military, naval or air contribution they should make to the armed forces which were to be used for the protection of the Covenant’s obligations. Expulsion of a Member from the League for violation of any of the Covenant’s obligations was also authorized. Article 17 applied the provisions of Article 16 in the event that a non-Member State embarked upon war against aMember. Article 16 of the Covenant drew a line of distinction between economic sanctions and military action. Member States were duty bound to apply commercial and Wnancialmeasures against an aggressor, but – in so far as military action was concerned – the League’s Council was only entitled to make (non-binding) recommendations. Economic sanctions (partial, temporary and ineffective in nature) were indeed imposed on Italy, following the latter’s aggression against Ethiopia in 1935–6. Yet, even mandatory economic sanctions are not likely to stop war by themselves.

As long as an international organization cannot obligate Member States to impose military sanctions against an armed attack, one cannot speak of a veritable collective security system.

The main objective of the framers of the Charter of the United Nations was to introduce into international relations a genuine mechanism of collective security.

И т.д. Цит. по Yoram Dinstein "War, Aggression and Self-Defence".

[shadow-ru.livejournal.com]

Тогда под коллективной безопасностью пониумали именно "an attack against one, is an attack against all"

Прошу прощения, ступил. "An attack against one, is an attack against all" - это действительно принцип коллективной безопастности (как видно и из самой цитаты "it differs...").

Но все остальные слова про оборону/безопастность в силе. ;)