2 August 2023
The fact that Nuclear Deterrence is such a concern is the horrific outcomes if deterrence fails, and if there is nothing in place to step in to prevent a nuclear exchange.
The emergence of discussion on Common Security, as one such alternative, has much to seriously consider. This may have merit if robust enough, strongly embedded in international law, ratified by nations, and with a global will to implement, ie to intervene in war and armed conflict emergencies that arise. Perhaps the notion of one global family engenders global responses.
Common Security begins with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
10 December 1948 (General Assembly Resolution A/217 ).
- Article 3 Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.
This can imply that everyone has a duty to ensure “security of person” to everyone else. Security of person needs security of the nation, and eventually by global security. The latter being endangered by nuclear weapons and even conventional war. The words deterrence and intervention then arise.
Perhaps we need explore some unanswered questions concerning some discussions for a doctrine of Global Common Security. One such question, “How can any deterrence deal with violence and killing in the moment?” Security must mean more than just preventative, or diplomatic, or mediation measures, or conflict resolution measures, or justice systems and the courts afterwards. Courts and justice are of no consolation to those with destroyed homes and communities, with the death of loved ones, horrific wounds, suffering and trauma. Far too late.
Discussion often speaks more to common “conflict prevention, mediation and justice” than it does to actual physical security. Certainly, there is much that happens after the cessation of hostilities, or can happen beforehand; but when the killing happens, the word security does not happen. This has little value following the occurrence of a nuclear war.
In law, we grant the right of self defence. Nations currently engage in conventional deterrence or nuclear deterrence to protect themselves; which in turn relies on balance or superiority. Most nations cannot afford this. The alternative seems to be to assert, provide, and guarantee rights of security for everyone by the collective global community. This is the vision to work towards.
So National Security must mean Global Common Security in which all nations will be required to act, without veto, and at least at the onset of hostilities against any nation; after which the courts and international justice systems can be engaged.
An analogy is a police force with constabulary duties to intervene, stop harm, apprehend, and turn over to courts. The police have a duty to protect in the moment, with the use of force if necessary, not afterwards.
If Common Security is to be serious, and a counterweight to nuclear security, then all elements of the conflict spectrum need attention and guarantors. This may involve interlocking doctrines such as:
A Global security doctrine of obligation
That the global community has an obligation to:
- Be present in serious conflict.
- Adopt a posture of impartiality between parties in conflict.
- Bring values of non-violence and peace-making.
- Bring communication, diplomatic, education, and mediation skills.
- Bring justice and reconciliation measures.
A global security doctrine of conflict intervention
This is a doctrine to intervene in a complete sense, and would encompass all conflict stages.
Pre conflict. A duty to prevent, involving diplomacy and mediation in risk situations, and wider attention to building cultures and ministries of peace.
During conflict. An overriding global duty to intervene, in the moment, if hostilities occur, in a constabulary role, as a minimum stopping the violence and killing, using force if necessary, and protecting all parties and civilians.
- In active conflict zones this may extend to a global duty to provide for safe havens, refugee support, humanitarian aid, relentless diplomacy, mediation and protection forces.
Post conflict. A duty for accountability, to provide for reconciliation, and justice in courts (ICC, ICJ). This extends to:
- A duty of care for victims,
- A duty for rebuilding infrastructures, livelihood, economies, and governance.
A Global common security doctrine of peace operations
That the global community establish in international law a strong veto-proof precursor to the laws of armed conflict.
Preamble. Regarding the laws of armed conflict and ”just war” tradition, we believe that the ethic of care has equal weight, to the ethic of justice in conflict situations. We believe in the responsibility to protect. We believe in primacy of non-violence, human rights, and the care of others.
Regarding that the Laws of Armed conflict generally define the right to resort to force, and the limits to the employment of force;
- Just cause: Defense against armed attack, prevention of significant harm, and significant threats to international peace.
- Right authority: Legitimate political authority with ability to control force and cease its use.
- Right intention: Just cause, not intimidation, vengeance, domination, hatred, coercion.
- Proportionality of ends: Good achieved greater than harm done. Limits force levels.
- Last resort: Other political means exhausted.
- Reasonable hope of success:
- Aim of peace, stability, security.
- Proportionality of means: Limits weapons, combatants. Prohibits torture, unnecessary harm.
- Non-combatant immunity and protection: POWs and civilians. To be spared harm and accorded protection.
It is therefore resolved: That the laws of peace operations be codified as a strict mandated precursor to any military intervention or the use of the laws of armed conflict.
That laws of peace operations be codified as a strict obligation for dealing with conflict in pre-conflict stages, conflict stages, and post conflict stages by the international community, states or transnational parties with circumstance that have the potential for violence. Such laws should prioritize in order:
- Stop or prevent violence or killing as a first priority.
- Care for the victims and refugees.
- Create safe spaces for peace talks or diplomacy.
- Strengthen or rebuild governance at all levels.
- Make efforts to create safe, healthy, and socially responsible communities.
- Reconstruction of economies and infrastructure.
- Enable truth, reconciliation, and justice activity.
This essentially turns just war theory upside down.
A global common security doctrine of deterrence.
The global community must offer the role of guarantor, and that it be seen to be effective, in all conventional wars, to have any chance regarding decreasing chances of nuclear war or threats of nuclear war.
The hope would be that a robust Global Common Security would negate the need to possess nuclear weapons as deterrence; and make the TPNW and NPT something of a reality. The 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) was negotiated with the purpose of strengthening the largely unimplemented disarmament pillar of the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
We already have much peace prevention and operations capacity and laws in place now, and await an awareness for greater coordination, cooperation, global will and courage. This is not perfect with many grey areas, but a start.
We can only build a better world together. All of us together.
In peace
Paul
Paul Maillet
Colonel retired
Accredited Peace Professional CPSCCanada
Awakening the Peacemaker Within 