Collective security is a “one for all, all for one” scheme in that states are believed to be committed to deter and punish the aggressor, regardless of their own identities and the aggressor’s identity. Put differently, states are supposed not to discriminate between friends and foes. Related to this, collective security opposes the alliance-building policy, and it rather prescribes a universal alliance. 

Collective security prescribes a partially centralized system for the management of power. Although, states still possess the means of power, resort to force is regulated by a central agency, which is a general international organization such as the League of Nations or the United Nations. Also, in this agenda, aggression would be deterred not by an equilibrium of power but by a preponderance. As such, collective security holds that most, if not all, states must remain committed to the system to deter the potential aggressor, and, when needed, participate in collective actions to punish the aggressor. In addition, although collective security prescribes imposing on the aggressor moral, diplomatic, and economic sanctions, its credibility as a deterrent relies ultimately on military sanction. Therefore, collective security is a hard approach to world order.  Because it requires willingness to support the words with deeds and a determination to frustrate and, if necessary, defeat the aggressor with military sanction