efinition ofthe Study”Peace-making” and “collective security” are twoimportant concepts of international relations.
While “peace-making”means the process of bringing about peace,especially by reconciling adversaries1, “collectivesecurity” means the cooperation of several countries in an alliance tostrengthen the security of each2. Under a collective security arrangement, an aggressor against any onestate is considered an aggressor against all other states, which act togetherto repel the aggressor3. These twoconcepts 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 thatend: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal ofthreats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or otherbreaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformitywith the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlementof international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace4. As it seems, “peace-making” and”collective security” aretwo important concepts that have connectionwith principles of United Nations.
This connection also can be seen at Charterof United Nations. According to UnitedNations, the parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely toendanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first ofall, 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 ascontribution of United Nations about “peace-making”. On the otherhand, Charter of United Nations is more detailed about “collectivesecurity”.Chapter VII is generally about “collective security”and Security Council of United Nations is seen as body of this collectivemovement. According to United Nations, All Members of the United Nations, inorder to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security,undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and inaccordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance,and facilities, including rightsof passage, necessary for the purpose ofmaintaining international peace and security.
6The relationship between “peace-making” and”collective security”have played acrucial role at theCold War period and its aftermath. Furthermore, history of this relationship isas old as Westphalian Treaty. Great powers always tried to maintain peace andsecurity because of unfortunate results of French Revolution that affectedother states.
But they couldn’t conclude an absolute peace and security. EvenLeague of Nations collapsed. Creation of United Nations was their last attemptto maintain peace and security and this was their last hope because World WarII was the first war that used Nuclear Weapons and seen their monstrousresults.And in the need of restrict this power thistwo concepts become noteworthy andthe relation between them grown stronger.
On the other hand, during Cold Warthis relationship gained different perspectives due to polarization of states.The World War II coalition of great powers (the United States, TheSoviet Union, Great Britain, France and China), whose unity had been key toUN’s founding, became a victim of rising tensions almost before the firstGeneral Assembly session in 1946. Developments in Europe and Asia between 1946and 1950 soon make it clear that the emerging Cold War would have fundamentaleffects on the UN.7 Even the admission of new members to the UNwas affected between 1950 and 1955, as each side vetoed applications fromstates that were allied with other. The Cold War made Security Council actionson peace and security treats extremely problematic.
It resulted in someconflicts such as French and American wars in Vietnam and Soviet interventionsin Czechoslovakia and Hungary, not being brought to the UN at all. A UNresponse to the North Korean invasion of South Korea in 1950 was possible onlybecause the Soviet Union was boycotting the Security Council at the time. 8As a case “Korean War” was the best optionto see abird’s eyeviewof UnitedNations role and position regarding a study thatfocuses on United Nations, Cold War period, “peace-making” and”collective security”.
The Korean War was the first and onlyprotracted conflict conducted under the auspices of the UN.All other UNmilitary ventures have been to separatebelligerents and to maintain thatseparation. They have all been on a muchsmaller scale than the Korean conflict.
In Korea the moral authority of theUnited Nations was employed to label theDemocratic People’s Republic ofKorea the aggressor and to rally member stateseither to drive the aggressorsfrom the Republic of Korea or at least to supportthat effort. Thatcommitment would endure for three years.9 In August 1945 the Americans proposed to the USSR thattheir forces share the responsibility for taking the Japanese surrender inKorean Peninsula. The division of their respective zones was demarcated at the38th parallel, with the United States taking control of the southand Russia of the north. The intention was that they would then work toimplement thelong-term plan that had been drawn up by the Great Powers forpolitical future of Korea, which was that it should come under a United Nationstrusteeship that would prepare the country for eventual independence.
10Unfortunately, it didn’tsucceed. TheresultofSoviet and American policy was the emergence of rivalgroups fromthenorthandsouthwhichwerebothvehementlyopposedtotrusteeship and toany unification which would favour the other. In desperation the Americans in1947 turned the problem over to UN.11The US resolutioncalled for a nine-nation UN Temporary Commission on Korea (UNTCOK) and forelections no later than March ofthe following year12.As it seems during Cold War United Nations alwaysweresecond actorabout resolutions ofcrises and instead of United Nations mainactors wereUnited States and Soviet Union.
Furthermore,UnitedNationsfailed tobe an objective organization therefore this election rejected by USSR and NorthKorea and election wasn’t untainted. As a result, Korea divided two side asSouth Korea which is recognized by UN due to election and North Korea whichisn’t recognizedby UN. In 1950 North Korea invaded South Korea and started KoreanWar. In reality both sides were waiting for an opportunity to invade each otherbut their guarantor states didn’t allow until permission of USSR to NorthKorea. But eventhoughUSA asbeing guarantor of South Koreais the one who bringthis situation to UN and leader of the army created by UN in order to helpSouth Korea, it was indeed an UN war. 1Definitionof peacemaking.https://en.oxforddictionaries.
com/definition/peacemaking(25 December 2017)2 Definitionof collective security.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/collective_security(25 December 2017)3Collectivesecurity.https://www.
britannca.com/topic/collective-security (25 December 2017)4Charter 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, Article33, Paragraph 1. http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-vi/index.html (27 December 2017)6 Charterof 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, InternationalOrganizations : The Politics and Processes of Global Governance , Boulder,Colorado : LynneRienner Publishers, 2004, p.1268 Margaret P. Karns and Karen A.
Mingst, InternationalOrganizations : The Politics and Processes of Global Governance , Boulder,Colorado : LynneRienner Publishers, 2004, p.1279Stanley Sandler, The Korean War :An Interpretative History, Taylor and Francis, 1999. p.14910 Antony Best, Jussi Hanhimaki, Joseph A. Maiolo, Kirsten E. Schulze, Jussi M.
Hanhimäki, InternationalHistory of the Twentieth Century, London ; New York : Routledge, 2004, p.255-25611AntonyBest, JussiHanhimaki, JosephA. Maiolo, KirstenE. Schulze, JussiM. Hanhimäki, InternationalHistory 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