Acceso usuarios
Anne-Laurence Graf-Brugère
Notions such as �peace�, �war�, �threat to the peace�, �maintenance of international peace and security�, and �collective security� are not only open-textured but also living concepts. Their content and definition evolve with time and experience. In fact, these concepts are based on a consensus which exists at a particular time between members of the international community. The 2004 Report of the Secretary-General's High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Changes, A More Secured World: Our Shared Responsibility (thereinafter �HLP Report�) and the reports that followed (the then Secretary-General's In Larger Freedom Report and the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document) aim precisely at delineating such a consensus on the global idea of collective security, �global� in the sense that it touches upon all the notions mentioned above, notably the one of threat to international security (not to be confused with the threat to international peace and security).
This �new security consensus�1 or �new consensus about the meaning and responsibilities of collective security�2 is critically assessed by the first book under review, United Nations Reform and the New Collective Security, edited by Peter Danchin and Horst Fischer, international law professors at the Universities of Maryland and Leiden. As the title suggests, there is a link between United Nations reform and the �new collective security�. Indeed, if there is a new consensus on peace and security matters, institutional and normative changes are inevitable so as to adapt reality to the new ideology. The second book under review, United Nations Reform, Heading North or South? by Spencer Zifcak, considers Kofi Annan's principal proposals for reform of the United Nations and alterations to international law.
These two books are exceptionally complementary. The first answers the question whether the process of reform is an adequate response to �contemporary threats�3 and �challenges of �
