The Pros And Cons Of Collective Security

It is in the postwar time periods of the Napoleonic Wars and World War I that Europe sees a new way of addressing the underlying causes of war in the attempt to prevent another: collective security. Collective security is when a large group of nations agree to not attack each other as well as preserve the provisions of their treaties and/or agreements. It is during both these postwar time periods that collective security is practiced. However, both time periods have differences in the way collective security is applied by their leaders. Between the Congress of Vienna and post-World War I agreements, they both quell threats of war and political change while allowing weaker breaches of agreement but are different because the preservation of collective security involves more military intervention throughout the Napoleonic postwar period and far more appeasement is practiced during the post-World War I era. …show more content…
Some of the purposes of this meeting were to restore legitimate monarchies and preserve conservatism throughout Europe. Collective security can be shown in the Kingdom of Two Sicilies. This threat of political change sparks a revolution which rises in Naples. The King of Two Sicilies signs the proposed constitution immediately (Kagan 717). Other large European powers such as Britain, Austria and Russia felt the need to address this matter. It is at the Congress of Troppau that the protocol of Troppau is decided on (Kagan 717). This declaration basically allowed any power to intervene in countries with revolution. Afterward, Austrian troops stormed into Naples and quickly restored the non-constitutional monarchy. There were also times after World War I where the crushing of threats