Isis phenomena and collective security ziad jaser

ISIS PHENOMENA and COLLECTIVE SECURITY
Analytical Study of
The World Collective Security and the War Against the Islamic State Organization
By: Ziad Jaser Durra
27-May-2015
Supervision: Dr. Ahmad Hamad

Collective Security Page 2
ISIS PHENOMENA and COLLECTIVE SECURITY
1. Introduction
Collective Security is a notion based on the principle that “an attack against one is an attack
against all.”1
States join together and pledge to react collectively to face those threats.
Terrorism facing the world today recognize no national boundaries, they are connected and
should be addressed at the global, regional and national levels.2
No state, no matter how powerful, can on its own secure itself against terrorism. It is
difficult to reach a consensus among the world about the meaning and responsibilities of
collective security and which groups pose a threat to the world community. Differences of
power, wealth and geography determine what people perceive as the most dangerous threats
to their survival and well-being.3
The consequence of the new non-state terrorism which is caused by the emergence of
‘‘religious terrorists’’ in contrast to the ‘‘political terrorists,’’ is greater fatality. These new type
of terrorists, are increasingly ‘‘stateless,’’ which remove territorial restraints. Neo-terrorists
seeking greater lethality to obtain not only greater news coverage, but to increase fear, and
thus increase the impact of their action.4
Doubts have been poised on the international community’s ability to counter Islamic
State Organization’s (ISO also know as ISIS) influence. It is a well managed organization that has
become a serious threat to regional and international security. It continues to attract recruits
from all over the world. Intense turmoil in Syria and Iraq in recent years has created a socio-
political environment in which terrorist organizations such as ISIS have been able to thrive on.
ISIS maintains ambitious objectives in the Middle East and it encourages attacks all over the
world by its members and supporters. Continuing pledges of allegiance from existing Islamic
extremist factions around the world underline the influence ISIS exerts.5
Few studies were written about the use of the world collective security system against
non-state actors. This paper aims to discuss the concept, application and current trends of
collective security and provide experts’ views on what should be done to enhance the world
collective security system. It provide an assessment of the threat imposed by ISIS, as
representing a more advanced non-state actor than just a simple terrorist organization. It
provide analysis of non-state terrorism and the collective strategy to combat its threat. It look
1
Nte Timothy Ubelejit, “Operation UNIFIED Protector: Collective security or Collective Defense,” Global Journal of Political
Science and Administration, Vol.2,No.2, (June 2014), pp.24-32, http://www.eajournals.org/wp-content/uploads/Operation-
Unified-Protector-Collective-Security-or-Collective-Defense.pdf
2
United Nations, “A more secure world: Our shared responsibility,” (UN Report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges
and Change, 2004), http://www.un.org/en/peacebuilding/pdf/historical/hlp_more_secure_world.pdf
3
Ibid.
4
Victor Asal and Jonathan Wilkenfeld, “Nonstate Actors, Terrorism, and Weapons of Mass Destruction,” International Studies
Review (2005, 133–170, http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/publications/articles/Nonstate%20Actors_Terrorism_and%20WMD.pdf
5
Charles Lister, “Profiling the Islamic State,” (Brookings Institution, 2014),
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2014/11/profiling%20islamic%20state%20lister/en_web_lister.pd
f

into the fundamental principles and requirements needed to deal with security threats from
non-state actors.
The research examine the hypotheses that “Understanding and addressing non-state
actors’ motives and grievances is key to combating their terrorist threats.” It illustrate the need
for a preemptive collective security strategy designed to prevent the formation of terrorist
groups. A strategy that takes into consideration individual motives and social incentives that
generate terrorists and the measures required to alleviate these decisive circumstances.6
While
there is a need to “eradicate exciting terrorist organizations and to contain the autoimmune
effect caused by fear.”7
According to the UN High-level Panel on threats, challenges and
change, the overreliance on military responses to terror threats has fueled a great deal of
resentment among many in the developing world, especially in the Arabic and Islamic
countries.8
2. Collective security
Collective Security is a formation whereby states, under the auspices of an international
organization such as the United Nations, agree to prevent war and maintain international peace
and security by opposing violence collectively. According to Inis Claude, collective security is
“addressed to any state, friend or foe that commits an act of international aggression.”
Collective security may also mean an understanding by which all member states agree, as a
collective, to overturn any threat posed against any of its member states.9
Modern concepts of collective security has started in 1914, but it has its roots to old ages
with the collective security alliance formed by ancient Creek City-States. Utopian Philosophers
have seen collective security as a Universal alliance of peace. Important contributions were
made to the concept of collective security by Cardinal Richelieu. In 1629, he proposed a scheme
for collective security, which was partially reflected in the peace treaty of Westphalia.10
Several philosophers, such as Michael Joseph Savage, Martin Wight and Immanuel Kant
have contributed to the development of the concept of collective security. Immanuel Kant
discussed in 1795 the concept of a league of nations in his book “Perpetual Peace.” He
advocated for a peaceful international system that would “control conflict and promote peace
between states.”11
The appearance of Collective Security in the 20th
century came from
Woodrow Wilson, who sought to maintain international peace after World War I. He advocated
for International institutions to reduce the threat of wars and achieve world peace. The League
6
Asal, “Nonstate Actors.”
7
Ibid.
8
United Nations, “A more secure world.”
9
Ubelejit, “Operation UNIFIED.”
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.

of Nations was the forerunner of the United Nations that adopted the collective security
initiative in 1919.12
2.1. Theoretical Overview
liberal-democratic principles is said to provide the best prospect for a peaceful world since a
world made up of liberal democracies would have less incentives for war. Liberals concluded
that the prospects for the elimination of war lay with a preference for democracy and free
trade.13
Liberals believe democracy extends its sway among nations, interdependence between
state is on the rise, and International institutions smoothing the way to peace. They believe in
creating and developing international institutions such as the United Nations to preserve peace
and security.14
Institutions that over time act with a measure of autonomy, becoming less
dependent on the wills of their sponsors and members.15
Constructivism theory focus on the role of identity, norms, and the social basis in global
politics. It introduced the concept of security communities, where a group of sovereign states
agreeing on political, economic, social and moral values consistent with democracy, the rule of
law and economic reform.16
Constructivism believes in institutionalizing of the notion of all
against one through collective security organizations, which will contributes to the creation of
an international system in which strength materializes through cooperation.17
Realism states that International relations are shaped by nation-states, states acts
rationally while trying to maximize their interests. National desires are infinite, whereas the
resources for obtaining them are strictly limited. Therefore, states could minimize costs and
maximize gain by pursuing their national interests in accordance with their power capabilities in
the international system.18
One of the charges hurled at realist theory is that it depreciates the importance of
institutions. Realists believe that international institutions are shaped and limited by the states
that found and sustain them. International institutions are created by the more powerful states,
and the institutions survive in their original form as long as they serve the major interests of
their creators. Susan Strange, observes that “international organization is above all a tool of
national government, an instrument for the pursuit of national interest by other means.”19
Realist recognize collective security as the relevance of power in international politics,
which should be balanced. According to Morgenthau the important manifestation of the
balance of power is to be found in the relations between alliance nations. He added that
alliances are a “necessary function of the balance of power,” where Nations dispense with an
alliance when their interests of a situation call for concerted policies and actions that an explicit
formulation of these interests, policies and actions in the form of a treaty of alliance. He added
that, “not every community of interest, calling for common policies and actions also calls for
12
Ibid.
13
Scott Burchill, Andrew Linklater, etl, Theories of International Relations, Palgrave Machmillan (New York, 3
rd
ed.,2005), p57
14
Kenneth Waltz, “Structural Realism after the Cold War,” (International Security, Vol. 25, No. 1 Summer 2000), pp. 5–41
15
Ibid.
16
Hasan, Ulusoy, “Revisiting Security Communities after the cold war: the Constructivist perspective.”
17
Ulusoy, “Revisiting Security Communities.”
18
Ibid.
19
Waltz, “Structural Realism.”

legal codification in an explicit alliance.” Alliance adds precision, and they are not limited to
geographic region.20
2.2. Collective Security Systems
Institutionalized Collective Security: Neo-liberal institutionalism advocate for constructing
institutions to encourage cooperation among nations to further their mutual interest in survival
and to preserve peace. There are two types Institutionalized collective security one is global in
scope like United Nations Security Council, which is mandated for maintaining peace and
security around the world. Collective Security is predicated on Chapter VII – Articles 39-51 of
the UN Charter.
The other type of institutionalized collective security takes the form of a regional
alliance like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Members of such coalitions agree
to mutually protect each other against outside attack by collectively declaring war on the
aggressor. Article 5 of NATO’s Pact, states that “The parties agree that an armed attack against
one or more of them in Europe and North America shall be considered an attack against them
all.”21
Realist see Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO) and NATO as treaties of guarantee rather
than old-style military alliances. Waltz see NATO as an illustration on how international
institutions are created and maintained by stronger states to serve their perceived or
misperceived interests.22
Community of Interest Collective Security Alliances: Morgenthau called for community of
interest to be the foundation for collective security alliances. He stated that in general alliances
are typical short lived. The dependence of alliances upon the underlying community of
interests.23
The US led collection against ISIS provide a good example of “community of
interest” alliance. Realists believe that alliances have no meaning apart from the adversary
threat to which they are a response to. For the alliance to be operative it should be able to
coordinate the general policies and tangible measures of its members.24
3. The International Collective Security System
Changes of weaponry and changes of polarity have affected the international security system.
States rely for their security both on their own internal efforts and on alliances they may make
with others.25
The increasing strategic focus of the United States and much of the developed
20
Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, (New York: Mc Grow Hill, 7
th
ed.).
21
22
23
Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations.
24
Ibid
25

world on the Middle East and the wider Islamic world represents a fundamentally new shift in
the world collective security concerns.26
According to the UN panel of experts, many people especially in the developing world,
believe what is considered collective security today is simply a system for protecting the rich
and powerful countries. Such perceptions pose a fundamental challenge to building collective
security system to fight terrorism. The expert panel added that without mutual recognition
among world community of the threats there can be no collective security.27
3.1. United States Role
According to Stanley Foundation panel of experts the world collective security framework for
combating terrorism is too “America-centric.”28
The centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy has
been its relationship with Israel. The unwavering U.S. support for Israel has inflamed Arab and
Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security in the region. The United States has “been willing
to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of Israel.”29
The US supports
maintaining Israel’s regional qualitative military edge.30
It has given Israel broad latitude in
dealing with the Palestinian, even when its actions were at conflicts with stated U.S. policy.31
There are different political ideologies involved in the American foreign policy decision
making process, including Neoconservative, Realist, Liberal internationalists and Jacksonian’s
American nationalists.32
The United States has a divided government that offers many ways to
influence the policy making process. The Israel Zionists lobby have great influence on the
decision making process and US Policies. The Lobby’s power flows from its unmatched ability to
play interest group politics. It has been very effective in utilizing Jews and their Christian allies
to bend U.S. policy towards Israel.33
The US have overestimated and mischaracterized the threat facing the US from radical
Islamic groups. The US argued that the September-11 attack on the US in 2001, made
preventive war necessary without correctly identifying the characteristics of the real enemy.34
American policy was generated by internal political pressure and national ambition not by
external security interests.
According to Fukuyama the US should take a different approach to relate to the world,
which is filled with anti-American sentiments. The US should promote political and economic
development instead of preemptive wars.35
The structural theory declares that, unipolarity is
26
The Stanley Foundation, “Capturing the 21st Century Security Agenda: Prospects for Collective Responses,” (October 2004),
http://www.stanleyfoundation.org/publications/report/C21CSA04.pdf.
27
28
The Stanley Foundation, “Capturing the 21st Century Security Agenda.”
29
John J. Mearsheimer, and Stephen M. Walt, “The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy,” London Review of Books, (March
2006), http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0040.pdf
30
US Department of State, “Congressional Budget Justification: Regional Perspectives,” Foreign Operations, P502-511, (2015),
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/224070.pdf.
31
Ibid.
32
Francis Fukuyama, “’Principle and Prudence ,’ in America at the Crossroads,” (New Haven and London: Yale University Press,
2006), 1-11, http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/excerpts/fukuyama_america.pdf
33
Mearsheimer, etl, “The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy.”
34
Fukuyama, America at the Crossroads.
35
Fukuyama, “America at the Crossroads Fukuyama, America at the Crossroads.”

the least durable of international configurations. The most powerful state usually think of itself
as acting for the sake of peace, justice, and well-being of the world. The effect is heightened
when one democratic state becomes dominant, as the United States is now. Peace is the
noblest cause of war. If the conditions of peace are lacking, then the country with a capability
of creating them may be tempted to do so.36
3.2. United Nation Role
The world share responsibility for each other’s security. The United Nations was created in
1945 “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.”37
The security threats we face
now, are from non-state actors as well as states.38
Stanly foundation expert panel declared that
the tense relationship between the Arab and Muslim world, which amount to a quarter of the
world’s population, and the Western powers presents a serious challenge that must be
addressed by the United Nations. This require new strategies to address the “rage” felt in many
parts of the Islamic world.39
It is important for the International community to address the root causes of the
problems in the Middle East, instead of just delaying the outbreak of violent conflicts in the
future.40
The Stanley Foundation panel of expert recommended that in order to root out
terrorist networks wherever they operate, multinational coordination is essential. The United
Nations is well positioned to help establish norms and standards to guide this effort and thus
legitimize an appropriate counterterrorism strategy.41
A study by Yale Center for the Study of Globalization stated that the UN Security Council
is the ultimate enforcement instrument of the international community, it enforces peace and
security in the world. They Yale experts panel recommended that the UN Security Council
should continue to play the role of pursuing peace and security around the world, where it is
empowered to impose economic sanctions and grant the use of force. The Yale study added
that the Security Council has continued to be deadlocked when trying to prevent or solve
serious crises, which created the need to reform the Council through enlargement, to increase
its effectiveness and credibility to address crucial issues of peace and security.42
The UN experts
panel pointed out that the “Security Council needs greater credibility, legitimacy and
representation to be able to address the world security issues.”43
36
37
38
Ibid
39
The Stanley Foundation, “Capturing the 21st Century Security”
40
Ibid.
41
Ibid.
42
Ernesto Zedillo, “Reforming the United Nations for Peace and Security,” Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, (March
2005), http://www.ycsg.yale.edu/core/forms/Reforming_un.pdf.
43
Ibid.

4. ISIS Phenomenon
ISIS represent a more advanced non-state actor than just a simple terrorist organization. ISIS is
not simply another manifestation of violent non-state actor. It controls a large territory with
more than six million people, it has conventional as well as nonconventional military
capabilities, with radical worship of violence.44
4.1. Non-State Actors’ Terrorism
Terrorism is a term that is widely used and poorly defined. According to Center for International
and Security Studies at University of Maryland, “Terrorism is a form of psychological warfare in
which a localized incident is intended to spread fear and anxiety throughout the wider society.”
Terrorists fundamental concerns are to deliberately initiate violence that have broad social
consequence. Terrorism is violence done for the strategic purpose of provoking self-destructive
reactions in a society. This type of violence depends fundamentally on inducing an influential
societal “autoimmune” effect.45
Non-state terrorism is an essentially vibrant phenomenon formed by energetic innovative non-
state actors. The behavior of non-state actors is influenced by the oldest alliance patterns
adopted by states within the international system, which is based on the concept ‘‘the enemy
of my enemy is my friend.’’ Non-state actors adopt this collaborative approach to avoid security
actions taken against them, by appealing to their supporters to carry out attacks on their
behalf. Non-State terrorism involves the potential for and consequences of collaboration
between terrorist groups around the world. There are indications that new patterns of
ideological “cross-fertilization” and partnerships are emerging among non-state terrorist
organizations. Any type of cooperation between separate terrorist organizations is a potentially
troublesome development, especially in an era in which terrorist attacks are becoming very
deadly.46
Collective incentives for non-state actors may come from anger about victims, fear of future
losses, or hopes for relative gains. The greater their collective sense of loss, and the greater
their hope for gains, the stronger their motivations to support radical actions. What’s important
is their belief that justice or vengeance can only be reached through destroying or hurting your
adversaries. Leaders of ideologically driven, religious, non-state identity groups are willing to
use lethal terror against any targets associated with their enemies.47
Non-state radical religious fundamentalist such as ISIS, are hierarchical in structure. The radical
cleric provides interpretation of the religious text justifying violence, which is accepted without
44
Jeffrey, “Assessing the Strategic Threat from ISIS.”
45
Asal etl, “Nonstate Actors.”
46
Ibid.
47
Ibid.

criticism by the followers. In contrast to non-state social revolutionaries and nationalist groups,
the constraints against mass destructive terrorism are not present, which makes this type of
terrorist group very dangerous. This is especially true when considering their spread, network-
centric, and extremely adaptive set of groups and individuals as today’s non-state terrorist
groups.48
4.2. ISIS Threat to World Security
The principal threat to world security is a result of the increasing instability in the Middle East,
which Jihadi groups have exploited in order to emerge, develop and strengthen its operations.
ISIS remarkable advances across large areas of Iraq and Syria since 2013, has made it a more
successful organization than Al-Qaeda. ISIS has become an impressively versatile organization,
operating simultaneously as a terrorist, insurgent and light infantry force. It has proven itself as
military force capable of defeating national armies and rival insurgent groups.
ISIS has developed multiple sources of income including oil, gas, agriculture, taxation,
extortion, kidnapping, selling of antique and human organs and other illegal trades. ISIS
represents now a frightening militant organization that worth close to 2 billion Dollars and
commands as many as 31,000 ideologically loyal fighters.49
ISIS successfully gained military
power, a multiplying international membership, and unprecedented financial resources. key to
undermining ISIS’s long-term sustainability, is to solve the socio-political problems that
contributed to its creation and strength.50
4.3. ISIS Use of Social Media for Identity Building
Interstate and transnational interactions can alter individuals identities and interests. Social
learning, especially coupled with effective functional processes, contributes to the emergence
of communities. individuals tend to behave according to others who they share norms, values
and identities with.51
Non-state Islamic terrorists groups identity is shaped by “Manichean”
worldview by which their opponents are “irremediably evil” and should be opposed by all
means available.52
Collective identities, shared values and shared threat perceptions have significant
importance for the creation of non-state actors groups. Identification is accepted as a social
concept. The process of identity formation is of a kind that develops within a social virtual unit.
Identification building is effective with non-identified individuals, such as some Muslim youth
around the world. Common identities lays the ground for the creation of terrorist community, it
help to establish a force whose existence proves that members share one common identity.
48
Ibid.
49
Charles Lister, “Profiling the Islamic State,” (Brookings Institution, 2014),
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2014/11/profiling%20islamic%20state%20lister/en_web_lister.pd
f.
50
Lister, “Profiling the Islamic State.”
51
Ulusoy, “Revisiting Security Communities.”
52
Asal etl, “Nonstate Actors.”

Communities forged through shared identities are more bind together than those formed
through interests and agreements.53
Globalization has increased the volume, velocity, and importance of cross-border flows
of just about everything including information and weapons. Many cross-border flows take
place outside the control of governments and without their knowledge. As a result,
globalization has weaken the influence of the major powers and strengthen the capacities of
non-state actors, such as terrorist groups.54
ISIS is using Social Media to recruit fighters, spread its propaganda and gather financial
support. Attempts by governments to block ISIS from using social media have failed.55
ISIS
utilized Twitter applications such as “Fajr al-Bashaer,” to broadcast produced propaganda and
military updates. ISIS affiliated Twitter accounts are engaged in Twitter “Hashtag” campaigns,
where thousands of ISIS supporters are tweeting ISIS “Hashtags,” in order to get them to
appear on a Twitter account that tweets the most trending “Hashtags” of the day.56
ISIS have targeted Western Muslims through Social media propaganda. To promote its
agenda, ISIS is relying on advanced media production techniques. It have produced and posted
high-quality videos and articles on Social Media to recruit fighters from around the world and to
spread fear. The group ensures that most of its media productions are translated and posted in
Western languages. ISIS broadcasted videos over Social Media get broadcast by local and
International news channels, which increased ISIS propaganda outreach and its influence on
people around the world.57
4.4. Analysis of the Collective Security Efforts Against ISIS
In 2014, through the unanimous adoption of resolution 2170 , under the binding Chapter VII of
the United Nations Charter, the Council condemned in the strongest terms what it called
“gross, systematic and widespread abuse” of human rights by the Islamic State Organization.
The Security Council called on “all United Nations Member States to act to suppress the flow of
foreign fighters, financing and other support to Islamist extremist groups.”58
The rise of extremist violence in the Middle-east has pushed the United States’
President’s Obama to announce a strategy to combat ISIS. The strategy, intended to weaken
and eventually destroy it. The US strategy to destroy ISIS, is to train and arm Arab forces such as
the Iraqi Shea government army, Kurdish Beshmarqa, tribal Iraqi Sunni militias and moderate
53
Ulusoy, Revisiting Security Communities.
54
Richard N. Haass, “The Age of Nonpolarity: What Will Follow U.S. Dominance,” Council on Foreign Relations, (May 2008),
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2008-05-03/age-nonpolarity.
55
Mustapha Ajbaili, “How ISIS conquered social media,” Al Arabiya News, (24 June 2014),
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/media/digital/2014/06/24/How-has-ISIS-conquered-social-media-.html
56
Ajbaili, “How ISIS conquered social media.”
57
Ibid.
58
UN Security Council, “Security Council Adopts Resolution 2170 (2014) Condemning Gross, Widespread Abuse of Human
Rights by Extremist Groups in Iraq, Syria,” (UNITED NATIONS, 15 AUGUST 2014),
http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/sc11520.doc.htm

Syrian Sunni opposition groups, and encourage them to launch ground offensives directed at
ISIS territory, and to support those ground campaigns with targeted airstrikes.59
Morgenthau called for “community of interest” to be the foundation for collective
security alliances. Realists believe that alliances have no meaning apart from the adversary
threat to which they are a response.60
The United State have formed a “Partners Nations”
coalition to compact the rise of ISIS. The alliance consist of Western European countries and
some Arab countries. The extend of contributions for each partner depends greatly on each
country. Some countries have participated in the Air strikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, such
as Jordan, UAE and France while others will provide intelligence and material support.61
According to Morgenthau for the collective security to be effective “Those nations,
whose combined strength would be used for deterrence they should have identical beliefs
about the security of the world order that the collective is defending.”He added that “Nations
must be willing to subordinate their conflicting interests to the common good defined in terms
of the common defense of all member-states.”62
Use of Force: Effective collective security may entail the backing of military force. For the use of
power to effective it must be seen as legitimate.63
According to Stanly foundation expert panel,
there is a need for the International community to improve its understanding of the complex
issues surrounding the use of force in a post-9/11 world. Article 42 of the UN Charter put down
a series of steps that should be taken to resolve disputes includes in the most extreme cases
the use of force. The United Nations consider any action that leads to large scale death,
reduction of the quality of life and undermines states sovereignty is a threat to international
security.64
ISIS and affiliates, have put great deal of countries on the defense. According to James
Jeffrey, ISIS is a “resilient and uniquely dangerous foe to world security.” ISIS, represent the
latest of a long series of pan regional, non-state movements with Islamic background, that
advocate violence. ISIS is so dangerous because of its unique characteristics and its reflection of
longer term trends and dangers.65
Conclusion
Fukuyama believes emerging institutionalization across nations will meet the security needs of
the world.66
Collective security, depend on the political will of UN member states that own the
59
The White House, “Remarks by the President on Request to Congress for Authorization of Force Against ISIL,” Office of the
Press Secretary, (February 2015), https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/11/remarks-president-request-
congress-authorization-force-against-isil.
60
Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations
61
The White House, “Force Against ISIL.”
62
Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, (New York: 5th ed., 1973), exerted from
63
64
Ibid.
65
James F. Jeffrey, “Assessing the Strategic Threat from ISIS,” Washington Institute for Near East Policy, (March 2015),
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/assessing-the-strategic-threat-from-isis
66
Fukuyama, America at the Crossroads.

decision to intervene and to provide funds, troops and military equipment.67
Liberals see
institutionalized collective security makes for more forceful deterrence by ensuring that
aggressors will be faced by much stronger force than merely equivalent power. They believe
this balancing mechanism that operate under institutionalized collective security should be able
to prevent war and stop aggression more effectively than the anarchic balance of power
system.68
Realists such as Waltz, believe in the limited role of international institutions and they
believe institutions have only marginal effects in world security. The US led collation falls under
Morgenthau definition of collective security, where he called for community of interest to be
the foundation for collective security alliances.69
The Charter of the United Nations provided the most powerful states with permanent
membership on the Security Council with the veto power. In exchange, these countries are
expected to use their power for the common good and promote and obey international law.
The UN expert panel concluded that the Security Council needs greater credibility, legitimacy
and representation to be able to address the world security issues. The expert panel added that
there must be new institutional arrangements to address the economic and social threats to
international security. These institutions of collective security must not just assert that a threat
to one is truly a threat to all, but they should perform accordingly.70
The Stanly Foundation expert panel have concluded that the US-led war on terrorism
was inciting a larger level of violent conflicts, especially in the greater Middle East instead of
eliminating exciting ones. Many of the current counterterrorism strategies “are actually
creating more, rather than fewer terrorists.”71
ISIS massage appeals to Muslim youth around the world. ISIS has a resilience nature and
anticipated drive to inflict harm. Either directly or by inspiring supporters around the world,
who identify with its cause and have similar grievances and motives. These elements render ISIS
uniqueness and difficulty to combat its threat. Addressing these grievances and motives that
drive ISIS and other non-state extremist movements growth, will depend primarily on the
world’s collective political well to undertake serious political steps to root-out injustice felt by
these groups, and dry-up the enabling environment they strive on. Jeffry stressed that ISIS
defeat depends on political developments to address the injustice felt by Muslims and remove
the motivation that these groups thrive on.72
67
68
69 69
Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations.
70
United Nations, “A more secure world.”.
71
The Stanley Foundation, “Capturing the 21st Century Security Agenda.”
72
Jeffrey, “Assessing the Strategic Threat from ISIS.”

5. List of References
Ajbaili, Mustapha. “How ISIS conquered social media,” Al Arabiya News, (24 June 2014),
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/media/digital/2014/06/24/How-has-ISIS-conquered-social-media-.html
Asal, Victor and Jonathan Wilkenfeld. “Nonstate Actors, Terrorism, and Weapons of Mass Destruction,”
International Studies Review (2005, 133–170,
http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/publications/articles/Nonstate%20Actors_Terrorism_and%20WMD.pdf
Burchill, Scott and Andrew Linklater, etl, Theories of International Relations, Palgrave Machmillan (New York, 3
rd
ed.,2005), p57
Fukuyama, Francis. “’Principle and Prudence ,’ in America at the Crossroads,” (New Haven and London: Yale
University Press, 2006), 1-11, http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/excerpts/fukuyama_america.pdf
Haass, Richard N. “The Age of Nonpolarity: What Will Follow U.S. Dominance,” Council on Foreign Relations, (May
2008), https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2008-05-03/age-nonpolarity
Jeffrey, James F. “Assessing the Strategic Threat from ISIS,” Washington Institute for Near East Policy, (March
2015), http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/assessing-the-strategic-threat-from-isis
Lister, Charles. “Profiling the Islamic State,” (Brookings Institution, 2014),
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2014/11/profiling%20islamic%20state%20lister/en_
web_lister.pdf.
Mearsheimer, John J. and Stephen M. Walt, “The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy,” (London Review of Books
Vol. 28, No. 6, March 23, 2006), http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0040.pdf
Morgenthau, Hans J. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, (New York: Mc Grow Hill, 7
th
ed.).
The Stanley Foundation, “Capturing the 21st Century Security Agenda: Prospects for Collective Responses,”
(October 2004), http://www.stanleyfoundation.org/publications/report/C21CSA04.pdf
The White House, “Remarks by the President on Request to Congress for Authorization of Force Against ISIL,”
Office of the Press Secretary, (February 2015), https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2015/02/11/remarks-president-request-congress-authorization-force-against-isil
Ubelejit, Nte Timothy. “Operation UNIFIED Protector: Collective security or Collective Defense,” Global Journal of
Political Science and Administration, Vol.2,No.2, (June 2014), pp.24-32, http://www.eajournals.org/wp-
content/uploads/Operation-Unified-Protector-Collective-Security-or-Collective-Defense.pdf
Ulusoy, Hasan. “Collective Security in Europe,” (Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2012), http://sam.gov.tr/wp-
content/uploads/2012/01/Hasan-Ulusoy2.pdf
Ulusoy. “Revisiting Security Communities after the cold war: the Constructivist perspective.”
UN Security Council, “Security Council Adopts Resolution 2170 (2014) Condemning Gross, Widespread Abuse of
Human Rights by Extremist Groups in Iraq, Syria,” (UNITED NATIONS, 15 AUGUST 2014),
http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/sc11520.doc.htm
United Nations, “A more secure world: Our shared responsibility,” (UN Report of the High-level Panel on Threats,
Challenges and Change, 2004), http://www.un.org/en/peacebuilding/pdf/historical/hlp_more_secure_world.pdf
US Department of State, “Congressional Budget Justification: Regional Perspectives,” Foreign Operations, P502-
511, (2015), http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/224070.pdf.
Waltz, Kenneth. “Structural Realism after the Cold War,” (International Security, Vol. 25, No. 1 Summer 2000), pp.
5–41
Zedillo, Ernesto “Reforming the United Nations for Peace and Security,” Yale Center for the Study of Globalization,
(March 2005), http://www.ycsg.yale.edu/core/forms/Reforming_un.pdf

Isis phenomena and collective security ziad jaser

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Isis phenomena and collective security ziad jaser

Similar to Isis phenomena and collective security ziad jaser (13)

More from Ziad Jaser

More from Ziad Jaser (9)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (16)

Isis phenomena and collective security ziad jaser