CEVAP:

Collective security has been criticized from different perspectives. First, nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction (MAD) weaken the deterrent effect because they make it impossible to use predominant force against a nuclear-capable aggressor. Secondly, collective security organizations (the League of Nations and the United Nations) have failed to prevent aggression in the 1930s and the postwar era. Thirdly, collective security is hard to implement in an anarchical world of sovereign nation-states because collective security forces state to equate national security with international security. It is almost impossible to convince states to believe that an attack on anyone is an attack on all. Furthermore, when states are attacked, they are forced to give up their sovereign right to use of force because they should ask collective security organization. In addition, it is highly unlikely that in a collective security system, states may not punish friends as well as enemies and powerful countries as well as weak ones. Lastly, collective security makes the states believe that only in two conditions, use of force is a legitimate form of aggression. The first condition is that collective security organization authorizes the use of force. Second condition is self-defense, which is a legitimate use of force.