# Analysis of Factors Affecting the Effectiveness of Military and Security Mechanisms

Authors: Yichen Hao
Journal: Security and Communication Networks
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

The paper explores the factors that will influence the effectiveness of global military and security mechanisms. This topic has been studied for many years, however, scholars’ perspectives are limited to explain this topic, especially for the dynamics of these mechanisms. To address this limitation, the paper discusses the development of current military and security mechanisms and compares their differences based on various reasons using different case studies. Through the analysis of factors on the impacts of military and security mechanisms, the paper hopes to provide new perspectives that can help understand this issue and explores ways to distinguish the effectiveness of military and security mechanisms in reality.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

From a traditional perspective, there is a correlation between military and security, since military plays a vital role in shaping security [1]. Based on their connection, it is essential to identify relevant mechanisms on a global scale and evaluate if they have played their roles and achieved their goals. This paper explores current global military and security mechanisms and their effectiveness. There is a wide range of military and security mechanisms globally, and most of them have been observed for many years based on the origins of mechanisms’ generation. However, it is puzzling that few scholars continue investigating the development of these military and security mechanisms because they are likely to ignore the dynamics and effectiveness of mechanisms after they are generated, since, sometimes, the mechanisms change between effective and ineffective, which leads to the lack of theories to interpret military and security mechanisms. For instance, the U.S. and China’s military and security mechanisms change over time because of their unstable relationship and threats to mutual interests. Hence, it is difficult to use existing theories to analyze this kind of change [2]. In addition, the tendency of current research about military and security mechanisms is economic-concentrated, which is overly macro, and it is no longer limited by the classic sense of security as a political means [3]. These current gaps inspire the author to explore the dynamics of military and security mechanisms particularly and discover some new perspectives regarding their effectiveness. This research will help find important factors that impact the dynamics of security mechanisms in bilateral or multilateral relations.With the continuous development of military and security mechanisms, it can be summarized as an uneven process. Most mechanisms have a positive process because the states that are involved in military and security mechanisms focus on the maximum of their benefits under the context of peace and stability. Then, all sides try their best to maintain their mechanisms to achieve the win-win cooperation. When states decide to develop military and security mechanisms, one of the prerequisites is without threatening each other’s interests, or it would damage their mechanisms. It represents that the failure of some mechanisms derives from the conflicts of interest. If so, mechanisms will not last for a long time and will devastate states’ relations. The reasons that lead to these changes are controversial because of rapid changes in power relations among states [1]. Overall, the establishment of military and security mechanisms is relatively well-documented, however, the relative description is superficial without in-depth interpretations about why they have different performances. Thus, it is necessary to understand global military and security mechanisms in a systemic way as it provides a big picture of the overall development of mechanisms and reflects if they are effective mechanisms for involving states. Also, it can be used as a reference to compare with other kinds of mechanisms and review their developments.This research aims to discuss military and security mechanisms by their narrow definition to investigate the microlevel and understand the research question from a more detailed perspective, i.e., which factors will influence the effectiveness of current military and security mechanisms? To demonstrate the effectiveness of military and security mechanisms, it will explain how to define military and security mechanisms and how to evaluate them based on different perspectives. These interpretations will be shown through the analysis of military and security mechanisms on a global scale. Therefore, the paper is divided into several sections. After the introduction, the author will discuss previous research and existing theories related to this research, summarize these scholars’ perspectives, and evaluate their studies. Next, the author will introduce the methodology to reveal how to describe and analyze the evidence and what the author will achieve in the research. Then, this paper will analyze and interpret the factors that will influence the effectiveness of military and security mechanisms in the findings and discussion section. The three situations about the evaluation of effectiveness are effective mechanisms, ineffective mechanisms, and the ongoing mechanisms that may not evaluate the effectiveness. The conclusion part will summarize previous sections, emphasize the significance of this research, and discuss potential limitations and future recommendations on this topic.


## 2. Literature Review

### 2.1. Effectiveness of Military Mechanisms

According to Millett et al. [4], the effectiveness of military mechanisms was reflected in converting available resources into maximum fighting power, which increased the efficiency of military in a practical way. In this process, they mentioned that the evaluation of military mechanisms’ effectiveness was not only about victory, since military mechanisms included different levels, such as political, strategic, operational, and tactical. Effectiveness is needed to be assessed separately among these levels. When these levels caused conflicts with one another, mechanisms would destroy one level’s effectiveness to intensify other levels. From political effectiveness, it was significant for military mechanisms to secure resources. Millett et al. [4] used the British army and the French air force to prove that resources, such as financial support, military bases, sufficient soldiers, and equipment, were needed by military mechanisms. Strategic effectiveness, strategic objectives, political goals of the nation, and political leadership played crucial roles in deciding military mechanisms’ strategies by analyzing the example of German defeat in World War II. From operational effectiveness and U.S. plans in World War II, the development of institutional concepts, specific campaigns, and preparation of military activity would achieve strategic goals, even though it depended on missions and enemies. From tactical effectiveness, suitable techniques were used to secure operational level in military mechanisms. However, based on their research, they failed to consider attitudes, behaviors, and relationships beyond different levels in military mechanisms, which might lead to the lack of interpretations on the effectiveness of military and security mechanisms. Also, the size of one mechanism need not be considered in this research. Hence, the examples were explained with limitation in this research.Janowitz [5] argued that political elites decided the effectiveness of military mechanisms, since they managed military forces. They used authoritarian rule to increase the effectiveness, and then this pattern would help them increase their roles in the regime and preserve their power. Political legitimacy and military regime would enhance the formulation of military mechanisms by increasing the effectiveness of government. Organizational effectiveness also had a similar role with government, however, it was difficult to maintain by comparing with other ways. Greater coercive units would consolidate military rule, and then military mechanisms would become more effective. Janowitz had similar stances with Millett et al. when he presented that victory impacted the effectiveness of military mechanisms by exemplifying African military mechanisms, however, he concluded that victory had lower levels of effectiveness in military mechanisms [5]. At this stage, his research was limited by previous research fields, since this topic had limited references and perspectives at that time. He focused on the interpretations of theories without much evidence. Hence, his research existed in uncertainties based on the lack of examples.


### 2.2. Global Security Development

In the post-Cold War, Buzan [6] analyzed a series of new patterns of global security development and how they impacted the relationships between the North (center) and the South (periphery). To evaluate the effects of military security on the center and periphery, he discussed the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s mechanisms in the Third World, such as Southeast Asia and Southern Africa, to show how great powers played a significant role in military confrontations in the periphery. Under the stimulation of global collective security regime, great powers strengthened security and regional management for powerful military and security mechanisms, even though some issues appeared to challenge the role of great powers in the periphery, especially on the issue of nuclear weapons. The dispute among states with and without nuclear weapons has not solved completely under the intervention of great powers, which has affected the effectiveness of military and security mechanisms under the frameworks of the center and the periphery, and it raised another issue of whether great powers could solve military and security problems in the periphery. Although great powers were more dominant than the periphery in the international community, the structure of great powers was weak to shape stronger military and security mechanisms in the periphery. The lack of communication and uncertainties should be responsible for this weakness. Unclear military security in the center-periphery relations might lead to ineffective military and security policies, which means that it would be difficult to bridge the gap between great powers and the periphery based on military and security aspects.Acharya [7] used ASEAN as an example of regional military-security cooperation in the third world to explain if ASEAN’s role is effective under autonomous and hegemonic frameworks of regionalism. Under these two frameworks, there were four criteria to evaluate them, such as ASEAN’s role in its members’ conflicts, the structure of military and security mechanisms, and the types of military and security mechanisms. In the beginning, ASEAN created a mechanism that contributed to regional peace and stability to prevent future disputes in its members. Eventually, ASEAN hoped to shape a pluralist security community and used it to solve problems. In this case, military-security cooperation was needed to consolidate security environment and deal with external threats. Military-security cooperation included two main forms: one was internal threats to member states, and the other was external threats to regional security. These mechanisms were involved in military exercises, training, and the exchange of weapons and personnel for being familiar with each other’s military. By comparing with Millett et al. and Janowitz, Acharya was successful at showing ASEAN’s attitudes, behaviors, and relationships with its member states, which made ASEAN’s measures reasonable, however, some weaknesses existed in ASEAN’s military and security arrangements. ASEAN had weak military. Hence, it could not guarantee its security environment, which has impacted the effectiveness of military and security mechanisms based on this, because ASEAN did not consider the size of mechanisms.Harbottle’s work [3] reflected twentieth century’s military and security mechanisms from various perspectives, which provided an in-depth view of considering military and security mechanisms on a global scale. He argued that the definition of security was not only limited to the military field but also needed new perceptions and perspectives to preserve peace and stability. Security relied on both national and regional situations, which was a kind of collective security system under different regions in this world, such as the United Nations. Harbottle presented the idea that a broader definition of security would broaden the military service in his work, which was a new idea that was different from traditional sense of military and security, however, his examples were limited in his work. When he discussed subregional structure and regional organizations, he focused on the interpretations of these terms instead of providing more evidence to support his arguments. In this case, his work might not determine if military and security mechanisms were effective, since his interpretations lacked examples and failed to think about uncertainties.Avant [8] focused on effective governance mechanisms based on military and security services, and he emphasized the U.S. as an effective global governor. Through the pragmatism and network theory, he explained that there was a player (the U.S.) in global governance, and the wide range of governors would provide more effective governance mechanisms. By interpreting the dynamics in military and security services from effective governance mechanisms, Avant summarized that fragmented governance could increase its effectiveness when states, NGOs, and international organizations influenced the outcomes of military and security, since their efforts were to improve the effectiveness of governance mechanisms and clarify their common interests on military and security. However, Avant only paid his attention to the Western countries and ignored other regions. Hence, his aim of global governance was not persuasive based on this aspect. It was like a unilateral mechanism led by the U.S. without a global scale of governance. In this case, the size of mechanism needed to be considered and explained by comparing with other mechanisms.


### 2.3. Military and Security Mechanisms

Szpyra’s military security studies contributed to new perspectives of understanding global military and security mechanisms [1]. Unlike traditional thinking of military and security, Szpyra not only emphasized that military power shaped the security but also combined both military’s strategic studies and security studies to form a new thinking concept of the relationship between military and security. Through his military security model, the awareness of the state played a key role in military power, since military power was based on the state’s defense (collective security or self-defense). On the contrary, if military struggle emerged in the process of enhancing military power, states’ balance of power was used to equate struggle and maintain peace among involving states. Szpyra paid more attention to conceptual and theoretical interpretations of military security studies rather than using some real examples to support his studies. He pointed out the significance of power in analyzing military security model, however, he failed to expand this idea in a broader range, such as the communication of states’ power. His work was like a theoretical framework for military security without explaining the effectiveness in more detail, which was similar to Harbottle’s work. If his military security studies could add on states’ communication with the application of evidence in reality, it would link to the discussion whether military and security mechanisms were effective based on the gap of national power.In their article, Frazier and Hutto used multinational military exercises (MMEs) to explain their role in improving cooperation and solving common security problems. By identifying security threats, the role of MMEs was not only limited to fields, such as “strategy, technology, experience, and organizational culture” [9] but also consolidated state socialization by enhancing military and security mechanisms under the framework of MMEs, especially in challenging the traditional sense of military power and practicing new military and security orders. Through doctrine development across the strategic, operational, and tactical levels of MMEs, it could be seen that MMEs were effective mechanisms to develop its role in military and security. Based on given examples, such as NATO, U.S. and UN, these levels interacted with each other and contributed to shared doctrine in MMEs, which could improve state relationships and strengthen military and security cooperation. Although Frazier and Hutto mentioned multilateral approaches of MMEs that shaped security and defense interests, they did not compare with bilateral mechanisms to prove which one was more effective.Yalçınkaya tackles the subject of how and to what degree foreign military forces might assist nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in armed wars and postconflict settings. As nonstate actors, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) face major security challenges, and their existing protection is insufficient to ensure humanitarian operations. To address this issue, the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office (ANSO) was founded in 2002. The ANSO invention resulted in a new mechanism for NGO–military security coordination. In particular, the article investigates whether the NGO–military security collaboration mechanism established by NATO International Security Assistance Force, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, and the ANSO could be a fourth way, in addition to the existing three ways of closing the security gap between NGOs from judicial, theoretical, and practical aspects. Yalçınkaya’s suggests that international military forces should consider the ANSO model organizations to fulfill their responsibilities to safeguard NGOs in armed wars and postconflict domains [10]. From his analysis, his focus was about the relationship between power and effectiveness, which seems to be a very common research method to analyze the effectiveness of military and security mechanisms. If his research could link to other regional mechanisms and compare with each other, he would provide more perspectives for his research.Pelykh discusses the theoretical basis of evaluating the effectiveness of the state mechanism of reaction to threats to military security in his paper. He identifies the field of methodological challenges in the building of such an evaluation’s scorecard. A comparative review of the ways to evaluate the efficiency of the state mechanism of reaction to threats to military security, namely economic, social, legal, socially-oriented, expert, and pragmatic, resulted in the last one being identified as the most promising. His use of pragmatic approach is not limited to distinguishing between resulting and economic effectiveness but also allows for the definition of purposeful effectiveness of public policy in terms of the conformity of its goals to normative ideals and value standards accepted by a given society at a given stage of development. He proposes distinguishing between the general and present effectiveness of the state’s reaction mechanism to threats to military security. In the military arena, general efficiency is a level of national interest preservation. The current effectiveness is decided by the work efficiency of public authorities and state military administration bodies, which consists in the formulation, adoption, and organization of administrative choices concerning state reaction to threats to military security. The suggested approach for assessing complex effectiveness provides a more precise instrument for evaluating the performance of public authorities in the sphere of reaction to threats to military security, considerably increasing the practical value of the findings of this assessment [11].From the viewpoint of Adler and Greve, international relations today are rife with debates about many types of international order. These disagreements include debates over the security mechanisms, institutions, and practices that support international orders, such as the balance of power and alliances, hegemony, security regimes based on regional or global institutions, public, private, and hybrid security networks, and various types of security communities. However, the way these hierarchies coexist throughout time and space has not been well-theorized. Adler and Greve hope to demonstrate in this article that while analytically and normatively separate, profoundly diverse orders, particularly the security systems of governance that they are built on, can coexist or overlap in political speech and practice. Adler and Greve show that the overlap of security governance systems has crucial theoretical and empirical implications. Firstly, their theoretical argument regards “balance of power” and “security community” not only as analytically separate structures of security arrangements but also as processes based on a unique mix of actions. Secondly, this step opens the door to a more complex view of regional security governance. Thirdly, their reasoning may be useful in informing new empirical research on the overlap of various security governance systems and the behaviors that underpin them. Finally, their argument has the potential to influence how Adler and Greve think about regional boundaries. Beyond the traditional geopolitical notion of regional boundaries and the social or cognitive notion of boundaries defined with reference to identity, their focus on overlapping mechanisms envisions a “practical” notion of boundaries in which the practices that constitute regions determine the boundaries of regions [12].Kosevtsov et al. proposed to solve the problem of substantiating choices by upgrading the mechanism and technology for identifying the target function in the system of assuring the state’s military security. The level of military security is used as an integrated measure of the degree of achievement of national interests in the sphere of military security. It is recommended to build an effective framework for analyzing decisions taken to improve the effectiveness of the system of safeguarding the state’s military security. The improved decision-making procedure entails comparing the achieved value of the degree of military security with its allowable level, which should be sufficient to the current circumstances, the state’s resource capabilities, and the level of risk posed by actual threats. The new approach will also make it easier to organize the planning processes for the employment of defense troops in emergency scenarios. The article substantiates a set of indicators for determining the state of military security. The following indicators best represent the degree to which national goals are realized in various domains of military security, taking into consideration the interrelationships between them. In the absence of reliable statistical data, the value of these indicators is decided by an expert survey. The suggested framework for substantiating state choices in the military security system permits the use of multidimensional comparative qualitative and quantitative data. Based on these data, it is feasible to select priority steps to strengthen the efficiency of choices and the degree of military security of the state, practically on a time scale as near to actual as possible. The enhanced technique is recommended for use both during decision-making and after choices are implemented by the military security system. The following are the prerequisites, features of the suggested methodology’s application, and possibilities for its adaptation for solving the issues of defensive force control during their implementation [13].


### 2.4. Discussion

Overall, these secondary sources regarding the theoretical framework, evidence, and effectiveness of military and security mechanisms include the discussion of power, status, and benefits in common, which, to some extent, limit their depth of research and contributions to new perspectives on analyzing the effectiveness of military and security mechanisms.Janowitz analyzed how political elites played a significant role in military and security mechanisms, however, his limited examples could not convince others to support his argument. Harbottle had the same issue in his research, and his examples did not summarize the uncertainties on the effectiveness of mechanisms, even though they depicted many twentieth century’s military and security mechanisms. Buzan compared different period’s mechanisms, however, while he analyzed the effectiveness, he did not interpret the factors of uncertainties and communication. Szpyra also failed to consider the communication in analyzing the mechanisms’ effectiveness and used many theories within limited evidence, even if utilized military security studies to discuss mechanisms. Pelykh, Adler and Greve, and Kosevtsov et al. only focused on the use of theories, rather than using evidence to explain theories and analyze which factors would cause impacts on the mechanisms’ effectiveness. Millett al. mentioned how the conversion of resources into military power maximized the effectiveness of mechanisms, however, they did not consider the involving countries’ attitudes, behaviors, and relationships. Acharya did explore the ASEAN mechanisms from these three aspects but failed to explain how the size of mechanisms influenced the effectiveness. Similarly, Avant, Frazier and Hutto, and Yalçınkaya did not compare different sizes of military and security mechanisms. Avant only focused on the U.S.-led mechanisms without considering a global trend of mechanisms. Frazier and Hutto used the multilateral mechanisms (MMEs) as their main focus but did not exemplify bilateral mechanisms to discuss which one was more effective. Yalçınkaya emphasized the role of NGOs’ mechanisms in Afghanistan without linking them to other bilateral and multilateral mechanisms.In this research, the success of military and security mechanisms will depend on if the mechanisms achieve their goals, which is a measure to decide the effectiveness of these mechanisms. Then, the author will use the size of mechanisms (bilateral or multilateral mechanisms), communication, and uncertainties as factors to discuss the effectiveness of global military and security mechanisms. In terms of mechanism size, this research argues that the effectiveness of bilateral mechanisms is greater than multilateral mechanisms. The lack of communication will weaken the effectiveness of military and security mechanisms, and uncertain situations will be the primary factor to evaluate those undeterminable mechanisms; for this kind of mechanisms, it means that those ones are continuing without the consequences.


## 2.1. Effectiveness of Military Mechanisms

According to Millett et al. [4], the effectiveness of military mechanisms was reflected in converting available resources into maximum fighting power, which increased the efficiency of military in a practical way. In this process, they mentioned that the evaluation of military mechanisms’ effectiveness was not only about victory, since military mechanisms included different levels, such as political, strategic, operational, and tactical. Effectiveness is needed to be assessed separately among these levels. When these levels caused conflicts with one another, mechanisms would destroy one level’s effectiveness to intensify other levels. From political effectiveness, it was significant for military mechanisms to secure resources. Millett et al. [4] used the British army and the French air force to prove that resources, such as financial support, military bases, sufficient soldiers, and equipment, were needed by military mechanisms. Strategic effectiveness, strategic objectives, political goals of the nation, and political leadership played crucial roles in deciding military mechanisms’ strategies by analyzing the example of German defeat in World War II. From operational effectiveness and U.S. plans in World War II, the development of institutional concepts, specific campaigns, and preparation of military activity would achieve strategic goals, even though it depended on missions and enemies. From tactical effectiveness, suitable techniques were used to secure operational level in military mechanisms. However, based on their research, they failed to consider attitudes, behaviors, and relationships beyond different levels in military mechanisms, which might lead to the lack of interpretations on the effectiveness of military and security mechanisms. Also, the size of one mechanism need not be considered in this research. Hence, the examples were explained with limitation in this research.Janowitz [5] argued that political elites decided the effectiveness of military mechanisms, since they managed military forces. They used authoritarian rule to increase the effectiveness, and then this pattern would help them increase their roles in the regime and preserve their power. Political legitimacy and military regime would enhance the formulation of military mechanisms by increasing the effectiveness of government. Organizational effectiveness also had a similar role with government, however, it was difficult to maintain by comparing with other ways. Greater coercive units would consolidate military rule, and then military mechanisms would become more effective. Janowitz had similar stances with Millett et al. when he presented that victory impacted the effectiveness of military mechanisms by exemplifying African military mechanisms, however, he concluded that victory had lower levels of effectiveness in military mechanisms [5]. At this stage, his research was limited by previous research fields, since this topic had limited references and perspectives at that time. He focused on the interpretations of theories without much evidence. Hence, his research existed in uncertainties based on the lack of examples.


## 2.2. Global Security Development

In the post-Cold War, Buzan [6] analyzed a series of new patterns of global security development and how they impacted the relationships between the North (center) and the South (periphery). To evaluate the effects of military security on the center and periphery, he discussed the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s mechanisms in the Third World, such as Southeast Asia and Southern Africa, to show how great powers played a significant role in military confrontations in the periphery. Under the stimulation of global collective security regime, great powers strengthened security and regional management for powerful military and security mechanisms, even though some issues appeared to challenge the role of great powers in the periphery, especially on the issue of nuclear weapons. The dispute among states with and without nuclear weapons has not solved completely under the intervention of great powers, which has affected the effectiveness of military and security mechanisms under the frameworks of the center and the periphery, and it raised another issue of whether great powers could solve military and security problems in the periphery. Although great powers were more dominant than the periphery in the international community, the structure of great powers was weak to shape stronger military and security mechanisms in the periphery. The lack of communication and uncertainties should be responsible for this weakness. Unclear military security in the center-periphery relations might lead to ineffective military and security policies, which means that it would be difficult to bridge the gap between great powers and the periphery based on military and security aspects.Acharya [7] used ASEAN as an example of regional military-security cooperation in the third world to explain if ASEAN’s role is effective under autonomous and hegemonic frameworks of regionalism. Under these two frameworks, there were four criteria to evaluate them, such as ASEAN’s role in its members’ conflicts, the structure of military and security mechanisms, and the types of military and security mechanisms. In the beginning, ASEAN created a mechanism that contributed to regional peace and stability to prevent future disputes in its members. Eventually, ASEAN hoped to shape a pluralist security community and used it to solve problems. In this case, military-security cooperation was needed to consolidate security environment and deal with external threats. Military-security cooperation included two main forms: one was internal threats to member states, and the other was external threats to regional security. These mechanisms were involved in military exercises, training, and the exchange of weapons and personnel for being familiar with each other’s military. By comparing with Millett et al. and Janowitz, Acharya was successful at showing ASEAN’s attitudes, behaviors, and relationships with its member states, which made ASEAN’s measures reasonable, however, some weaknesses existed in ASEAN’s military and security arrangements. ASEAN had weak military. Hence, it could not guarantee its security environment, which has impacted the effectiveness of military and security mechanisms based on this, because ASEAN did not consider the size of mechanisms.Harbottle’s work [3] reflected twentieth century’s military and security mechanisms from various perspectives, which provided an in-depth view of considering military and security mechanisms on a global scale. He argued that the definition of security was not only limited to the military field but also needed new perceptions and perspectives to preserve peace and stability. Security relied on both national and regional situations, which was a kind of collective security system under different regions in this world, such as the United Nations. Harbottle presented the idea that a broader definition of security would broaden the military service in his work, which was a new idea that was different from traditional sense of military and security, however, his examples were limited in his work. When he discussed subregional structure and regional organizations, he focused on the interpretations of these terms instead of providing more evidence to support his arguments. In this case, his work might not determine if military and security mechanisms were effective, since his interpretations lacked examples and failed to think about uncertainties.Avant [8] focused on effective governance mechanisms based on military and security services, and he emphasized the U.S. as an effective global governor. Through the pragmatism and network theory, he explained that there was a player (the U.S.) in global governance, and the wide range of governors would provide more effective governance mechanisms. By interpreting the dynamics in military and security services from effective governance mechanisms, Avant summarized that fragmented governance could increase its effectiveness when states, NGOs, and international organizations influenced the outcomes of military and security, since their efforts were to improve the effectiveness of governance mechanisms and clarify their common interests on military and security. However, Avant only paid his attention to the Western countries and ignored other regions. Hence, his aim of global governance was not persuasive based on this aspect. It was like a unilateral mechanism led by the U.S. without a global scale of governance. In this case, the size of mechanism needed to be considered and explained by comparing with other mechanisms.


## 2.3. Military and Security Mechanisms

Szpyra’s military security studies contributed to new perspectives of understanding global military and security mechanisms [1]. Unlike traditional thinking of military and security, Szpyra not only emphasized that military power shaped the security but also combined both military’s strategic studies and security studies to form a new thinking concept of the relationship between military and security. Through his military security model, the awareness of the state played a key role in military power, since military power was based on the state’s defense (collective security or self-defense). On the contrary, if military struggle emerged in the process of enhancing military power, states’ balance of power was used to equate struggle and maintain peace among involving states. Szpyra paid more attention to conceptual and theoretical interpretations of military security studies rather than using some real examples to support his studies. He pointed out the significance of power in analyzing military security model, however, he failed to expand this idea in a broader range, such as the communication of states’ power. His work was like a theoretical framework for military security without explaining the effectiveness in more detail, which was similar to Harbottle’s work. If his military security studies could add on states’ communication with the application of evidence in reality, it would link to the discussion whether military and security mechanisms were effective based on the gap of national power.In their article, Frazier and Hutto used multinational military exercises (MMEs) to explain their role in improving cooperation and solving common security problems. By identifying security threats, the role of MMEs was not only limited to fields, such as “strategy, technology, experience, and organizational culture” [9] but also consolidated state socialization by enhancing military and security mechanisms under the framework of MMEs, especially in challenging the traditional sense of military power and practicing new military and security orders. Through doctrine development across the strategic, operational, and tactical levels of MMEs, it could be seen that MMEs were effective mechanisms to develop its role in military and security. Based on given examples, such as NATO, U.S. and UN, these levels interacted with each other and contributed to shared doctrine in MMEs, which could improve state relationships and strengthen military and security cooperation. Although Frazier and Hutto mentioned multilateral approaches of MMEs that shaped security and defense interests, they did not compare with bilateral mechanisms to prove which one was more effective.Yalçınkaya tackles the subject of how and to what degree foreign military forces might assist nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in armed wars and postconflict settings. As nonstate actors, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) face major security challenges, and their existing protection is insufficient to ensure humanitarian operations. To address this issue, the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office (ANSO) was founded in 2002. The ANSO invention resulted in a new mechanism for NGO–military security coordination. In particular, the article investigates whether the NGO–military security collaboration mechanism established by NATO International Security Assistance Force, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, and the ANSO could be a fourth way, in addition to the existing three ways of closing the security gap between NGOs from judicial, theoretical, and practical aspects. Yalçınkaya’s suggests that international military forces should consider the ANSO model organizations to fulfill their responsibilities to safeguard NGOs in armed wars and postconflict domains [10]. From his analysis, his focus was about the relationship between power and effectiveness, which seems to be a very common research method to analyze the effectiveness of military and security mechanisms. If his research could link to other regional mechanisms and compare with each other, he would provide more perspectives for his research.Pelykh discusses the theoretical basis of evaluating the effectiveness of the state mechanism of reaction to threats to military security in his paper. He identifies the field of methodological challenges in the building of such an evaluation’s scorecard. A comparative review of the ways to evaluate the efficiency of the state mechanism of reaction to threats to military security, namely economic, social, legal, socially-oriented, expert, and pragmatic, resulted in the last one being identified as the most promising. His use of pragmatic approach is not limited to distinguishing between resulting and economic effectiveness but also allows for the definition of purposeful effectiveness of public policy in terms of the conformity of its goals to normative ideals and value standards accepted by a given society at a given stage of development. He proposes distinguishing between the general and present effectiveness of the state’s reaction mechanism to threats to military security. In the military arena, general efficiency is a level of national interest preservation. The current effectiveness is decided by the work efficiency of public authorities and state military administration bodies, which consists in the formulation, adoption, and organization of administrative choices concerning state reaction to threats to military security. The suggested approach for assessing complex effectiveness provides a more precise instrument for evaluating the performance of public authorities in the sphere of reaction to threats to military security, considerably increasing the practical value of the findings of this assessment [11].From the viewpoint of Adler and Greve, international relations today are rife with debates about many types of international order. These disagreements include debates over the security mechanisms, institutions, and practices that support international orders, such as the balance of power and alliances, hegemony, security regimes based on regional or global institutions, public, private, and hybrid security networks, and various types of security communities. However, the way these hierarchies coexist throughout time and space has not been well-theorized. Adler and Greve hope to demonstrate in this article that while analytically and normatively separate, profoundly diverse orders, particularly the security systems of governance that they are built on, can coexist or overlap in political speech and practice. Adler and Greve show that the overlap of security governance systems has crucial theoretical and empirical implications. Firstly, their theoretical argument regards “balance of power” and “security community” not only as analytically separate structures of security arrangements but also as processes based on a unique mix of actions. Secondly, this step opens the door to a more complex view of regional security governance. Thirdly, their reasoning may be useful in informing new empirical research on the overlap of various security governance systems and the behaviors that underpin them. Finally, their argument has the potential to influence how Adler and Greve think about regional boundaries. Beyond the traditional geopolitical notion of regional boundaries and the social or cognitive notion of boundaries defined with reference to identity, their focus on overlapping mechanisms envisions a “practical” notion of boundaries in which the practices that constitute regions determine the boundaries of regions [12].Kosevtsov et al. proposed to solve the problem of substantiating choices by upgrading the mechanism and technology for identifying the target function in the system of assuring the state’s military security. The level of military security is used as an integrated measure of the degree of achievement of national interests in the sphere of military security. It is recommended to build an effective framework for analyzing decisions taken to improve the effectiveness of the system of safeguarding the state’s military security. The improved decision-making procedure entails comparing the achieved value of the degree of military security with its allowable level, which should be sufficient to the current circumstances, the state’s resource capabilities, and the level of risk posed by actual threats. The new approach will also make it easier to organize the planning processes for the employment of defense troops in emergency scenarios. The article substantiates a set of indicators for determining the state of military security. The following indicators best represent the degree to which national goals are realized in various domains of military security, taking into consideration the interrelationships between them. In the absence of reliable statistical data, the value of these indicators is decided by an expert survey. The suggested framework for substantiating state choices in the military security system permits the use of multidimensional comparative qualitative and quantitative data. Based on these data, it is feasible to select priority steps to strengthen the efficiency of choices and the degree of military security of the state, practically on a time scale as near to actual as possible. The enhanced technique is recommended for use both during decision-making and after choices are implemented by the military security system. The following are the prerequisites, features of the suggested methodology’s application, and possibilities for its adaptation for solving the issues of defensive force control during their implementation [13].


## 2.4. Discussion

Overall, these secondary sources regarding the theoretical framework, evidence, and effectiveness of military and security mechanisms include the discussion of power, status, and benefits in common, which, to some extent, limit their depth of research and contributions to new perspectives on analyzing the effectiveness of military and security mechanisms.Janowitz analyzed how political elites played a significant role in military and security mechanisms, however, his limited examples could not convince others to support his argument. Harbottle had the same issue in his research, and his examples did not summarize the uncertainties on the effectiveness of mechanisms, even though they depicted many twentieth century’s military and security mechanisms. Buzan compared different period’s mechanisms, however, while he analyzed the effectiveness, he did not interpret the factors of uncertainties and communication. Szpyra also failed to consider the communication in analyzing the mechanisms’ effectiveness and used many theories within limited evidence, even if utilized military security studies to discuss mechanisms. Pelykh, Adler and Greve, and Kosevtsov et al. only focused on the use of theories, rather than using evidence to explain theories and analyze which factors would cause impacts on the mechanisms’ effectiveness. Millett al. mentioned how the conversion of resources into military power maximized the effectiveness of mechanisms, however, they did not consider the involving countries’ attitudes, behaviors, and relationships. Acharya did explore the ASEAN mechanisms from these three aspects but failed to explain how the size of mechanisms influenced the effectiveness. Similarly, Avant, Frazier and Hutto, and Yalçınkaya did not compare different sizes of military and security mechanisms. Avant only focused on the U.S.-led mechanisms without considering a global trend of mechanisms. Frazier and Hutto used the multilateral mechanisms (MMEs) as their main focus but did not exemplify bilateral mechanisms to discuss which one was more effective. Yalçınkaya emphasized the role of NGOs’ mechanisms in Afghanistan without linking them to other bilateral and multilateral mechanisms.In this research, the success of military and security mechanisms will depend on if the mechanisms achieve their goals, which is a measure to decide the effectiveness of these mechanisms. Then, the author will use the size of mechanisms (bilateral or multilateral mechanisms), communication, and uncertainties as factors to discuss the effectiveness of global military and security mechanisms. In terms of mechanism size, this research argues that the effectiveness of bilateral mechanisms is greater than multilateral mechanisms. The lack of communication will weaken the effectiveness of military and security mechanisms, and uncertain situations will be the primary factor to evaluate those undeterminable mechanisms; for this kind of mechanisms, it means that those ones are continuing without the consequences.


## 3. Methodology

### 3.1. Data

This paper will collect data about global military and security mechanisms from online reports and official websites, including the implementation period, implementation scope, and implementation effect of military and security mechanisms to solve the research questions and topics. The author will consider the key words related to the research and select relative reports and secondary sources. The author will then analyze how these sources present these mechanisms’ consequences and effectiveness, evaluate which ones are more helpful for research, and compare these mechanisms to show their differences and contributions to the research. Lastly, the author will summarize the findings and limitations of this research.Before analyzing the effectiveness of these mechanisms, it is important to define military and security mechanisms. Next, this research will ensure whether online documents and official websites have already clarified the aims and results of these mechanisms. Once these contents are confirmed, it is likely to move on the part of analyzing the factors that influence the effectiveness.In this case, the author will, firstly, discuss if these military and security mechanisms achieve their goals, and, respectively, label each one as effective or ineffective. It is worth noting that it is difficult to define the effectiveness of some of these mechanisms as they are ongoing. Then, the author will investigate three aspects for different kinds of mechanisms: the size of mechanism will result in more effective mechanisms, the lack of communication will lead to the failure of mechanisms, and uncertainties exist in those continuing mechanisms that cannot evaluate their effectiveness.


### 3.2. Progress

Based on these research themes, the author used these key terms in the searches: global military and security mechanisms, Asian military and security mechanisms, European military and security mechanisms, American military and security mechanisms, African military and security mechanisms, the effectiveness of military and security mechanisms, military security theories, and military and security collaboration.In this process, the author found it difficult to find relevant sources, since few reports directly pointed out their research field on military and security mechanisms, and few scholars did relevant research, which created many barriers when the author of this paper was searching for sources. In the beginning, the author was unfamiliar with most sources’ research directions. Hence, the author spent much time reading them and finding additional sources to provide more perspectives to explore this topic. It is worth mentioning that most of them contributed to the author’s understanding of the effectiveness of military and security mechanisms, especially on analyzing how these sources depicted these mechanisms based on the summary and scholars’ work, compare them to figure out why they were different from each other, and summarize what the author has done and some limitations in the author’s research.Online research constitutes a large part of this paper overall. Online reports, websites, and secondary sources are from searches using Google and Google Scholar. A potential limitation of these materials may be the major focus on the allocation of different tasks in these sources, thereby somewhat ignoring the author’s research aim, which is analyzing the factors that influence military and security mechanisms. Online reports and websites are the introduction of global military and security mechanisms, and secondary sources are used to discuss the trend of the existing research about this topic and bridge the gap between previous research and the author’s research through the analysis of the research question.


## 3.1. Data

This paper will collect data about global military and security mechanisms from online reports and official websites, including the implementation period, implementation scope, and implementation effect of military and security mechanisms to solve the research questions and topics. The author will consider the key words related to the research and select relative reports and secondary sources. The author will then analyze how these sources present these mechanisms’ consequences and effectiveness, evaluate which ones are more helpful for research, and compare these mechanisms to show their differences and contributions to the research. Lastly, the author will summarize the findings and limitations of this research.Before analyzing the effectiveness of these mechanisms, it is important to define military and security mechanisms. Next, this research will ensure whether online documents and official websites have already clarified the aims and results of these mechanisms. Once these contents are confirmed, it is likely to move on the part of analyzing the factors that influence the effectiveness.In this case, the author will, firstly, discuss if these military and security mechanisms achieve their goals, and, respectively, label each one as effective or ineffective. It is worth noting that it is difficult to define the effectiveness of some of these mechanisms as they are ongoing. Then, the author will investigate three aspects for different kinds of mechanisms: the size of mechanism will result in more effective mechanisms, the lack of communication will lead to the failure of mechanisms, and uncertainties exist in those continuing mechanisms that cannot evaluate their effectiveness.


## 3.2. Progress

Based on these research themes, the author used these key terms in the searches: global military and security mechanisms, Asian military and security mechanisms, European military and security mechanisms, American military and security mechanisms, African military and security mechanisms, the effectiveness of military and security mechanisms, military security theories, and military and security collaboration.In this process, the author found it difficult to find relevant sources, since few reports directly pointed out their research field on military and security mechanisms, and few scholars did relevant research, which created many barriers when the author of this paper was searching for sources. In the beginning, the author was unfamiliar with most sources’ research directions. Hence, the author spent much time reading them and finding additional sources to provide more perspectives to explore this topic. It is worth mentioning that most of them contributed to the author’s understanding of the effectiveness of military and security mechanisms, especially on analyzing how these sources depicted these mechanisms based on the summary and scholars’ work, compare them to figure out why they were different from each other, and summarize what the author has done and some limitations in the author’s research.Online research constitutes a large part of this paper overall. Online reports, websites, and secondary sources are from searches using Google and Google Scholar. A potential limitation of these materials may be the major focus on the allocation of different tasks in these sources, thereby somewhat ignoring the author’s research aim, which is analyzing the factors that influence military and security mechanisms. Online reports and websites are the introduction of global military and security mechanisms, and secondary sources are used to discuss the trend of the existing research about this topic and bridge the gap between previous research and the author’s research through the analysis of the research question.


## 4. Factors Affecting the Effectiveness of Military and Security Mechanisms

Military cooperation, the establishment of military bases, military training, military exchange, and security agreement are included in military and security mechanisms. As Szpyra argued that security relates to military science, something related to military could be considered the parts of military and security mechanisms [1]. After 2000, there were various military and security mechanisms around the world. In general, most of them were effective, some of them were ineffective, and the others could not be identified because of ongoing implementation. As a criterion, their different aims impacted these mechanisms’ validity. These mechanisms are collected from online documents, websites, and previous articles. In 102 cases, there were 58 effective mechanisms, 19 ineffective ones, and the rest could not be evaluated since they were in progress.


## 5. Effective Mechanisms: A Small Size

### 5.1. Overview

According to effective military and security mechanisms, the author finds that most countries, regions, and organizations could reach a consensus and satisfy their self-interests. They knew that if they achieved the goals successfully, mutual cooperation and benefits were the most significant factors, and then they would take their military and security cooperation to the next level. The mechanism size has influenced their effectiveness as well. The size of the mechanism refers to the scope of the application of the mechanism.Strategic partnership was the most common goal in those effective mechanisms. In the 2000s, the United Kingdom and Germany promoted defense cooperation [14]. In the same year, the U.S. and Japan developed a security mechanism in Southeast Asia to enhance security and stability in Southeast Asia and provide security assistance to Southeast Asia [15]. In 2000, Russia developed military soft power in Africa for enhancing Russia’s international influence and allowing Africa to reap the benefits of Russia as an arms power [16]. Sino-Singapore security cooperation aimed to more closely link to enhance military training and weapons exchange [17].


### 5.2. Developing Course

In 2001, China and the U.S. military dialogue strengthened military exchanges to institutionalize development [18].Rome Summit was held in 2002, which aimed to consolidate consensus and cooperation in NATO and Russian Council mechanisms to maintain Euro-Atlantic security [19]. At the same time, China and Kyrgyzstan’s security cooperation was used to interconnect to form a specific model to satisfy China’s long-standing military ambitions [17]. African Union (AU)-NATO Council was created to have a consensus to promote mutual military and security cooperation with clear decision-making and operational power [20].In 2004, the U.S.-Thai cooperation mechanism recognized Thailand as the U.S.’s most loyal ally and promoted the U.S.-Thailand strategic partnership [17]. AU-NATO in Sudan maintained national security and stability in Sudan for subsequent operations [20].In 2005, the U.S. and Singapore became security and defense partners, which brought the two sides closer together, promoted the development of a strategic framework, and strengthened cooperation [17].In 2006, the U.S. and Japan started military cooperation for military integration [18]. In the same year, Japan, the U.S., and Australia dialogue provided a framework for subsequent security cooperation and allowed the United States to build up regional security architecture that supports its regional strategy. It offered training and exercise opportunities for militaries with similar equipment, and many analysts said that for Australia and Japan, it offered a degree of strategic flexibility to assuage fears that the U.S.’s commitment to the region could wane [15].China and India created a defense mechanism in 2007 to maintain security and stability along the Sino-Indian border [17]. AU-NATO in Somalia laid an important role in providing military aid that facilitated military security cooperation between the two sides [20].In 2008 NATO’s crisis in Russia and Georgia, NATO refused to let Georgia join NATO because of its own security concerns with Russia [21].In 2011, both Russia and the U.S. did military training in Indonesia as they maintained their military and consolidated strategic partnership [22]. The U.S., Japan, and India dialogue strengthened and consolidated alliance cooperation [15].In 2012, China and the EU implemented security policies based on their discussion of future developments in defense, promotion of military training, and close ties between China and Europe [17].In 2013, Russia and Egypt had military cooperation because the two sides shared airbases and had also strengthened inter-regional military power [16]. Japan and India strategic partnership strengthened military ties between Japan and India and emphasized the importance of maritime security in the Indo-Pacific region. Japan and NATO security agreement enhanced maritime security, contributed shares to NATO security programs, and participated in military training [15]. The U.S. and Vietnam security cooperation significantly increased security cooperation between the two countries against China. The U.S. and New Zealand security cooperation broke the previous unpleasant security cooperation and took a step forward. The U.S. had a security dialogue with Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei because having military security cooperation with these countries would satisfy the U.S.’s ambitions. Japan, the Philippines, and Australia became strategic partners, strengthened inter-regional cooperation, and amplified strategic vision [17].In 2014, China and Australia had a defense strategic dialogue, and after that, the maritime defense was prepared, a strategic policy was developed, and military exercises began. Japan and France defense cooperation mechanism promoted mutual defense cooperation and development and strengthened ties between Japan and NATO. The U.S. and Australia cooperation mechanism focused on security, and Australia sent troops to support the U.S. fight against Islamic states. The EU and South Korea became strategic security partners by having a basic knowledge of the security framework. It was hoped that Korea would become the first EU security partner [17]. Vietnam and Japan had a joint defense arms transfer agreement because China never provided more weapons for Vietnam. Hence, Vietnam needed to find other ways. Russia and India’s navy training in Vietnam aimed to exclude China and acquired more weapons [22].China could conduct military exercises in Malaysia in 2015 to keep the biggest weapon supplier [22]. The success of China-Russia military cooperation mechanism lied in their positive interactions from 2015 to 2016. In this time range, China and India conducted military cooperation to maintain peace and stability in borders and strengthen military exchange. In 2015, in Russia-Africa military cooperation, Russia could provide more weapons for Africa and visit ports and bases to boost strength. China, India, and Russia military and security mechanism promoted military security cooperation and strategic partnerships in developing countries. Shanghai Cooperation Organization developed cooperation in the field of security and promoted the sustainable development of bilateral relations with other member states [23]. Japan and India signed a security agreement because the exchange of defense weapons and technology also contributed to the subsequent military integration. The U.S. and India navy training strengthened bilateral military cooperation and joint response to China [15].Vietnam granted Chinese access to conduct military exchange in their shared maritime borderlines and conducted military exercises in 2016 and 2018. In Japan and the Philippines’ cooperation mechanism, Japan sold military weapons, exchanged defense technology, and provided military training to the Philippines. East Asia Summit strengthened nontraditional security cooperation and explored regional security architecture building. ASEAN Regional Forum jointly addressed nontraditional security threats and made greater contributions to the promotion of regional peace and security [23].In 2017, Laos was willing to incorporate with Russia and China from 2017 to 2018, since China could sell weapons to Laos and Russia could provide air defense system for Laos [22]. Djibouti allowed China to establish military bases to enhance its strategic partnership and security exercises. In Russia and the Central African Republic military cooperation mechanism, military aid and activities have boosted military capabilities, and Russia has benefited from them [16]. The U.S., Japan, India, and Australia formed a security alliance that enhanced international cooperation mechanisms and strengthened the efficiency of quadrilateral cooperation [15].In 2018, Russia could establish military bases in Sudan for the most important strategic location: the Red Sea [16]. In the same year, China could also visit navy bases in Cambodia since China was the biggest weapon supplier in Cambodia. Hence, Cambodia would not hope to lose its strategic partner China [22]. China and Japan military exchange aimed to ease Sino-Japanese tensions and enhance military development on both sides [15].In 2019, Japan, Iran, and the U.S. mechanism played peacemaker roles in easing the U.S.-Iranian relations, avoiding security crises and enhancing its own geopolitical capabilities. Japan and the U.S. missile defense cooperation mechanism strengthened the strategic partnership between both parties to enhance technology development [15]. China’s visit in Cambodia’s navy base strengthened their strategic partnership since China was the biggest weapon supplier [22].Thus, most mechanisms were bilateral ones, which could be more effective than multilateral mechanisms since they had major focus on their issues, and they positively incorporate with each other to achieve a win-win situation based on the consensus of their benefits and balance of power.


## 5.1. Overview

According to effective military and security mechanisms, the author finds that most countries, regions, and organizations could reach a consensus and satisfy their self-interests. They knew that if they achieved the goals successfully, mutual cooperation and benefits were the most significant factors, and then they would take their military and security cooperation to the next level. The mechanism size has influenced their effectiveness as well. The size of the mechanism refers to the scope of the application of the mechanism.Strategic partnership was the most common goal in those effective mechanisms. In the 2000s, the United Kingdom and Germany promoted defense cooperation [14]. In the same year, the U.S. and Japan developed a security mechanism in Southeast Asia to enhance security and stability in Southeast Asia and provide security assistance to Southeast Asia [15]. In 2000, Russia developed military soft power in Africa for enhancing Russia’s international influence and allowing Africa to reap the benefits of Russia as an arms power [16]. Sino-Singapore security cooperation aimed to more closely link to enhance military training and weapons exchange [17].


## 5.2. Developing Course

In 2001, China and the U.S. military dialogue strengthened military exchanges to institutionalize development [18].Rome Summit was held in 2002, which aimed to consolidate consensus and cooperation in NATO and Russian Council mechanisms to maintain Euro-Atlantic security [19]. At the same time, China and Kyrgyzstan’s security cooperation was used to interconnect to form a specific model to satisfy China’s long-standing military ambitions [17]. African Union (AU)-NATO Council was created to have a consensus to promote mutual military and security cooperation with clear decision-making and operational power [20].In 2004, the U.S.-Thai cooperation mechanism recognized Thailand as the U.S.’s most loyal ally and promoted the U.S.-Thailand strategic partnership [17]. AU-NATO in Sudan maintained national security and stability in Sudan for subsequent operations [20].In 2005, the U.S. and Singapore became security and defense partners, which brought the two sides closer together, promoted the development of a strategic framework, and strengthened cooperation [17].In 2006, the U.S. and Japan started military cooperation for military integration [18]. In the same year, Japan, the U.S., and Australia dialogue provided a framework for subsequent security cooperation and allowed the United States to build up regional security architecture that supports its regional strategy. It offered training and exercise opportunities for militaries with similar equipment, and many analysts said that for Australia and Japan, it offered a degree of strategic flexibility to assuage fears that the U.S.’s commitment to the region could wane [15].China and India created a defense mechanism in 2007 to maintain security and stability along the Sino-Indian border [17]. AU-NATO in Somalia laid an important role in providing military aid that facilitated military security cooperation between the two sides [20].In 2008 NATO’s crisis in Russia and Georgia, NATO refused to let Georgia join NATO because of its own security concerns with Russia [21].In 2011, both Russia and the U.S. did military training in Indonesia as they maintained their military and consolidated strategic partnership [22]. The U.S., Japan, and India dialogue strengthened and consolidated alliance cooperation [15].In 2012, China and the EU implemented security policies based on their discussion of future developments in defense, promotion of military training, and close ties between China and Europe [17].In 2013, Russia and Egypt had military cooperation because the two sides shared airbases and had also strengthened inter-regional military power [16]. Japan and India strategic partnership strengthened military ties between Japan and India and emphasized the importance of maritime security in the Indo-Pacific region. Japan and NATO security agreement enhanced maritime security, contributed shares to NATO security programs, and participated in military training [15]. The U.S. and Vietnam security cooperation significantly increased security cooperation between the two countries against China. The U.S. and New Zealand security cooperation broke the previous unpleasant security cooperation and took a step forward. The U.S. had a security dialogue with Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei because having military security cooperation with these countries would satisfy the U.S.’s ambitions. Japan, the Philippines, and Australia became strategic partners, strengthened inter-regional cooperation, and amplified strategic vision [17].In 2014, China and Australia had a defense strategic dialogue, and after that, the maritime defense was prepared, a strategic policy was developed, and military exercises began. Japan and France defense cooperation mechanism promoted mutual defense cooperation and development and strengthened ties between Japan and NATO. The U.S. and Australia cooperation mechanism focused on security, and Australia sent troops to support the U.S. fight against Islamic states. The EU and South Korea became strategic security partners by having a basic knowledge of the security framework. It was hoped that Korea would become the first EU security partner [17]. Vietnam and Japan had a joint defense arms transfer agreement because China never provided more weapons for Vietnam. Hence, Vietnam needed to find other ways. Russia and India’s navy training in Vietnam aimed to exclude China and acquired more weapons [22].China could conduct military exercises in Malaysia in 2015 to keep the biggest weapon supplier [22]. The success of China-Russia military cooperation mechanism lied in their positive interactions from 2015 to 2016. In this time range, China and India conducted military cooperation to maintain peace and stability in borders and strengthen military exchange. In 2015, in Russia-Africa military cooperation, Russia could provide more weapons for Africa and visit ports and bases to boost strength. China, India, and Russia military and security mechanism promoted military security cooperation and strategic partnerships in developing countries. Shanghai Cooperation Organization developed cooperation in the field of security and promoted the sustainable development of bilateral relations with other member states [23]. Japan and India signed a security agreement because the exchange of defense weapons and technology also contributed to the subsequent military integration. The U.S. and India navy training strengthened bilateral military cooperation and joint response to China [15].Vietnam granted Chinese access to conduct military exchange in their shared maritime borderlines and conducted military exercises in 2016 and 2018. In Japan and the Philippines’ cooperation mechanism, Japan sold military weapons, exchanged defense technology, and provided military training to the Philippines. East Asia Summit strengthened nontraditional security cooperation and explored regional security architecture building. ASEAN Regional Forum jointly addressed nontraditional security threats and made greater contributions to the promotion of regional peace and security [23].In 2017, Laos was willing to incorporate with Russia and China from 2017 to 2018, since China could sell weapons to Laos and Russia could provide air defense system for Laos [22]. Djibouti allowed China to establish military bases to enhance its strategic partnership and security exercises. In Russia and the Central African Republic military cooperation mechanism, military aid and activities have boosted military capabilities, and Russia has benefited from them [16]. The U.S., Japan, India, and Australia formed a security alliance that enhanced international cooperation mechanisms and strengthened the efficiency of quadrilateral cooperation [15].In 2018, Russia could establish military bases in Sudan for the most important strategic location: the Red Sea [16]. In the same year, China could also visit navy bases in Cambodia since China was the biggest weapon supplier in Cambodia. Hence, Cambodia would not hope to lose its strategic partner China [22]. China and Japan military exchange aimed to ease Sino-Japanese tensions and enhance military development on both sides [15].In 2019, Japan, Iran, and the U.S. mechanism played peacemaker roles in easing the U.S.-Iranian relations, avoiding security crises and enhancing its own geopolitical capabilities. Japan and the U.S. missile defense cooperation mechanism strengthened the strategic partnership between both parties to enhance technology development [15]. China’s visit in Cambodia’s navy base strengthened their strategic partnership since China was the biggest weapon supplier [22].Thus, most mechanisms were bilateral ones, which could be more effective than multilateral mechanisms since they had major focus on their issues, and they positively incorporate with each other to achieve a win-win situation based on the consensus of their benefits and balance of power.


## 6. Ineffective Mechanisms: Lack of Communication

### 6.1. Overview

The effectiveness of military and security mechanisms is whether their implementation achieves the desired results. Through the summary of ineffective military and security mechanisms, most ineffective mechanisms derived from unfinished goals, and the causes were the lack of communication about their consensus on self-interests and global strategic development, which led to the failure of their mechanisms.Since the 2000s, the UK and the EU had developed military and security mechanisms to promote mutual military defense and security cooperation through the sharing of military weapons and enhanced security oversight, however, because of Brexit, this mechanism became ineffective in the end [24]. At the same time, China, the U.S., and Japan military cooperation also failed because of the doubts about bilateral alliances or trilateral alliances, even though they aimed to promote security cooperation and military exchange to preserve multilateral alliances in Asia [17]. In 2000, the U.S., Japan, and South Korea security cooperation was also unsuccessful. They originally intended to promote security cooperation, whereas the North-South Korea summit had further complicated the U.S. and Japanese policy toward the Korean Peninsula, leading to considerable criticism of South Korea, and eventually, their cooperation failed based on this reason [25].


### 6.2. Developing Course

The Six-Party Talks started in 2003 to resolve the DPRK nuclear issue for peaceful and military purposes and maintain security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region, however, it ended in 2009 when North Korea left from this mechanism [26].Through Regional Forums in the U.S. and East Asia, the U.S. aimed to promote regional forum activities beyond military cooperation in the beginning. However, it ended in 2011 since the U.S. was not represented anymore, and the U.S. united with other countries against China [17].The U.S. was not allowed to visit military base in Thailand in 2006 and 2014, even though they desired to strengthen strategic partnership and the United States could conduct military exercises [22]. China was not allowed to conduct military exercises in Myanmar in the mid-2010s and Indonesia in 2011. Myanmar experienced transition to a new government at that time, however, this new government opposed China, which caused the failure of military mechanism. Indonesia was concerned about its own maritime borderlines and believed that China was a potential threat to maritime security and stability since China and Indonesia shared parts of borderlines. These unsuccessful mechanisms deteriorated their relations and resulted in conflicts among them. In 2016, the Philippines did not allow the United States to visit military bases because the Philippines developed strategic partnership with China and Russia [22].Japan and Australia military agreement aimed to exchange defense weapons and technology and update military terms in 2012, 2014, and 2017. Finally, the agreement was ineffective because Japan and Australia did not allow them to conduct military exercises together [15].2013 NATO and Japan conversation was regarded as an ineffective mechanism as NATO did not consider China a threat even when Japan believed that NATO had similar strategic interests and allied with NATO to isolate China [17].In 2014, NATO supported Ukraine and cancelled cooperation with Russia in Ukraine crisis because Russia destroyed the regional security mechanism [21].In 2016, the failure of multilateral military discussion among the United States, Japan, and North and South Korea was based on Japanese security reliance and could not treat others equally, which also led to the failure of military agreement between Japan and South Korea (rarely used) and the U.S.-Japan military sanctions on North Korea’s nuclear weapons. The U.S., Japan, and North Korea military sanction was also a failure, even if the U.S. and Japan sanctioned North Korea based on the development of nuclear weapons [15], these failures were a chain of reactions.In 2018, China-ASEAN military cooperation also failed because of the lack of recognition. The purpose of their cooperation was to complete their partnership successfully and provide weapons and military aid through navy training [22].From 2018 to 2019, the negotiations between Russia and Japan showed Russia’s ambitions on destroying the U.S.-Japan relations. Russia attempted to create a peace treaty with Japan by handing over two islands to Japan. Had Japan agreed to it, it would have threatened the peace treaty between Japan and the United States and caused tensions in this alliance. This mechanism finally failed because of Japanese reliance on the United States. The cooperation between Taiwan and Japan failed in 2019 because they could not ignore the relations between China and Japan, or they would not enhance security cooperation in East Asia [15].In 2019, China, Japan, and South Korea cooperation ended because of the disagreements over historical issues between Japan and South Korea, even though they had common interests to promote regional peace [27].Overall, the involving countries paid more attention to their self-interests, and if they endangered their own interests, they would not reach a consensus and would not initiate communication, which resulted in ineffective mechanisms.


## 6.1. Overview

The effectiveness of military and security mechanisms is whether their implementation achieves the desired results. Through the summary of ineffective military and security mechanisms, most ineffective mechanisms derived from unfinished goals, and the causes were the lack of communication about their consensus on self-interests and global strategic development, which led to the failure of their mechanisms.Since the 2000s, the UK and the EU had developed military and security mechanisms to promote mutual military defense and security cooperation through the sharing of military weapons and enhanced security oversight, however, because of Brexit, this mechanism became ineffective in the end [24]. At the same time, China, the U.S., and Japan military cooperation also failed because of the doubts about bilateral alliances or trilateral alliances, even though they aimed to promote security cooperation and military exchange to preserve multilateral alliances in Asia [17]. In 2000, the U.S., Japan, and South Korea security cooperation was also unsuccessful. They originally intended to promote security cooperation, whereas the North-South Korea summit had further complicated the U.S. and Japanese policy toward the Korean Peninsula, leading to considerable criticism of South Korea, and eventually, their cooperation failed based on this reason [25].


## 6.2. Developing Course

The Six-Party Talks started in 2003 to resolve the DPRK nuclear issue for peaceful and military purposes and maintain security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region, however, it ended in 2009 when North Korea left from this mechanism [26].Through Regional Forums in the U.S. and East Asia, the U.S. aimed to promote regional forum activities beyond military cooperation in the beginning. However, it ended in 2011 since the U.S. was not represented anymore, and the U.S. united with other countries against China [17].The U.S. was not allowed to visit military base in Thailand in 2006 and 2014, even though they desired to strengthen strategic partnership and the United States could conduct military exercises [22]. China was not allowed to conduct military exercises in Myanmar in the mid-2010s and Indonesia in 2011. Myanmar experienced transition to a new government at that time, however, this new government opposed China, which caused the failure of military mechanism. Indonesia was concerned about its own maritime borderlines and believed that China was a potential threat to maritime security and stability since China and Indonesia shared parts of borderlines. These unsuccessful mechanisms deteriorated their relations and resulted in conflicts among them. In 2016, the Philippines did not allow the United States to visit military bases because the Philippines developed strategic partnership with China and Russia [22].Japan and Australia military agreement aimed to exchange defense weapons and technology and update military terms in 2012, 2014, and 2017. Finally, the agreement was ineffective because Japan and Australia did not allow them to conduct military exercises together [15].2013 NATO and Japan conversation was regarded as an ineffective mechanism as NATO did not consider China a threat even when Japan believed that NATO had similar strategic interests and allied with NATO to isolate China [17].In 2014, NATO supported Ukraine and cancelled cooperation with Russia in Ukraine crisis because Russia destroyed the regional security mechanism [21].In 2016, the failure of multilateral military discussion among the United States, Japan, and North and South Korea was based on Japanese security reliance and could not treat others equally, which also led to the failure of military agreement between Japan and South Korea (rarely used) and the U.S.-Japan military sanctions on North Korea’s nuclear weapons. The U.S., Japan, and North Korea military sanction was also a failure, even if the U.S. and Japan sanctioned North Korea based on the development of nuclear weapons [15], these failures were a chain of reactions.In 2018, China-ASEAN military cooperation also failed because of the lack of recognition. The purpose of their cooperation was to complete their partnership successfully and provide weapons and military aid through navy training [22].From 2018 to 2019, the negotiations between Russia and Japan showed Russia’s ambitions on destroying the U.S.-Japan relations. Russia attempted to create a peace treaty with Japan by handing over two islands to Japan. Had Japan agreed to it, it would have threatened the peace treaty between Japan and the United States and caused tensions in this alliance. This mechanism finally failed because of Japanese reliance on the United States. The cooperation between Taiwan and Japan failed in 2019 because they could not ignore the relations between China and Japan, or they would not enhance security cooperation in East Asia [15].In 2019, China, Japan, and South Korea cooperation ended because of the disagreements over historical issues between Japan and South Korea, even though they had common interests to promote regional peace [27].Overall, the involving countries paid more attention to their self-interests, and if they endangered their own interests, they would not reach a consensus and would not initiate communication, which resulted in ineffective mechanisms.


## 7. Ongoing Mechanisms-Uncertainties

### 7.1. Exceptional Situations

Furthermore, there were some exceptional situations that could not regard as effective or ineffective mechanisms, because they were in progress and changed over time, which were filled with uncertainties in these mechanisms.In the 2000s, the U.S. and Japan formed an alliance, however, it could not be evaluated as effective or ineffective. Since Japan had a complex security mechanism, the U.S. had to adjust plans for several times to improve military power for both sides. In the same year, the U.S. and Japan developed a mechanism regarding defense technology that aimed to stimulate weapons’ production, development, and evaluation, and improve military power, which was similar to their alliance [15]. At the same time, the military cooperation of the UK, the U.S., and France in Africa failed to summarize as effective or ineffective since it was a long-term mechanism to support African peacekeeping by providing more weapons and military training [28]. In 2000, the emergence of Forum on China-Africa Cooperation aimed to foster cooperation among developing nations against Western hegemony, however, it was a dynamic long-term mechanism, and it was difficult to summarize its patterns and sort it out [29].In 2001, NATO-Russia security mechanism changed when they preserved stability in international community and opposed terrorism [19]. Also, the security mechanism between EU and Africa changed since it developed policies, made experiments, and enhanced Europeanization based on EU security policies [30].The US-Japan Security Consultative Commission (2002) could not be explained as an effective or ineffective mechanism when it improved the structure of alliance and adapted into further security atmosphere [15]. The U.S. and Japan’s defense policy evolved and changed in 2002, 2006, and 2012. Although these changes were positive to expand the influences of their alliance, it did not belong to both effective and ineffective mechanisms because of changes over time. The Shangri-La Dialogue (2002) had the same circumstance, which maintained multilateral security mechanism and always updated the changes of security agenda in Asia-Pacific regions [31].In 2005, the multilateral security mechanism among China, the U.S., South Korea, and Northeast Asia changed the structure of alliance, cooperation, and mechanism over time. Hence, it could not sort it out as an effective or ineffective mechanism [32]. The security mechanism between the U.S. and India also could not be predicted even though they updated the 10-year security framework and advanced their cooperation. Now, their ultimate goal is against China in this mechanism [17].In 2008, the mechanism between the U.S. and Asia-Pacific was created to promote military and security development, however, it continued without any consequences [17]. At the same time, China-Africa strategic mechanism (2008) changed in 2018 and continued to solve the problems of African security with African Union and cooperated with peacekeeping forces in Africa [29].


### 7.2. Uncertainties

The U.S. and Japan Dialogue in 2010 had no conclusion about their perception of strategic environment for both sides and the role of the U.S. because they often negotiated relevant matters with each other [15]. In the same year, the security issue among China, the U.S., the Philippines, and Vietnam was a long-term concern for these countries to reflect their security mechanisms. Until now, there is no solution to this issue [17]. China-Brunei strategic partnership in the 2010s emphasized the significance of preserving peace in the Southern Sea and enhancing military cooperation, which was a long-term mission [22].In 2012, EU and ASEAN military cooperation could not be evaluated because it was a long-term cooperation to increase their strategic partnership [17].In 2013, the U.S. and Japan space Dialogue was similar to their 2010 dialogue, which had no conclusion about regional security cooperation [15].In 2015, the U.S. and Japan defense cooperation mechanism was also a long-term cooperation to enhance the development of military technology and improve Japanese military and complex security threats [15].In 2016, EU and NATO security cooperation dealt with security challenges and enhanced their cooperation, however, a long-term cooperation could not evaluate its effectiveness [33]. The U.S. and ASEAN cooperation from 2016 to 2020 changed their principles to strengthen regional maritime security, and there is no particular pattern for their cooperation now.In 2017, Japan, the multilateral mechanism among the U.S., South Korea, Australia, India, and Southeast Asia was a long-term cooperation to increase the influences of security mechanism [34].In 2018, the U.S. and Japan defense project improved Japan’s defense system and promoted their security cooperation, which was also a long-term project [15]. The multilateral cooperation among ASEAN, China, Japan, and South Korea maintained regional peace, security, and stability from 2018 to 2022 [35].The UK, the U.S., and Australia security cooperation formed in 2021, which aimed to combat China by recognizing that the Asia-Pacific Security Agreement was a heavy blow to the nuclear order. It could not be evaluated because of uncertainties in progress [36].As stated above, these military and security mechanisms did not have a particular pattern since they changed over time or were in progress. Hence, they could not be predicted and labelled as effective or ineffective mechanisms, until these mechanisms eventually reflected if they achieved their goals.


## 7.1. Exceptional Situations

Furthermore, there were some exceptional situations that could not regard as effective or ineffective mechanisms, because they were in progress and changed over time, which were filled with uncertainties in these mechanisms.In the 2000s, the U.S. and Japan formed an alliance, however, it could not be evaluated as effective or ineffective. Since Japan had a complex security mechanism, the U.S. had to adjust plans for several times to improve military power for both sides. In the same year, the U.S. and Japan developed a mechanism regarding defense technology that aimed to stimulate weapons’ production, development, and evaluation, and improve military power, which was similar to their alliance [15]. At the same time, the military cooperation of the UK, the U.S., and France in Africa failed to summarize as effective or ineffective since it was a long-term mechanism to support African peacekeeping by providing more weapons and military training [28]. In 2000, the emergence of Forum on China-Africa Cooperation aimed to foster cooperation among developing nations against Western hegemony, however, it was a dynamic long-term mechanism, and it was difficult to summarize its patterns and sort it out [29].In 2001, NATO-Russia security mechanism changed when they preserved stability in international community and opposed terrorism [19]. Also, the security mechanism between EU and Africa changed since it developed policies, made experiments, and enhanced Europeanization based on EU security policies [30].The US-Japan Security Consultative Commission (2002) could not be explained as an effective or ineffective mechanism when it improved the structure of alliance and adapted into further security atmosphere [15]. The U.S. and Japan’s defense policy evolved and changed in 2002, 2006, and 2012. Although these changes were positive to expand the influences of their alliance, it did not belong to both effective and ineffective mechanisms because of changes over time. The Shangri-La Dialogue (2002) had the same circumstance, which maintained multilateral security mechanism and always updated the changes of security agenda in Asia-Pacific regions [31].In 2005, the multilateral security mechanism among China, the U.S., South Korea, and Northeast Asia changed the structure of alliance, cooperation, and mechanism over time. Hence, it could not sort it out as an effective or ineffective mechanism [32]. The security mechanism between the U.S. and India also could not be predicted even though they updated the 10-year security framework and advanced their cooperation. Now, their ultimate goal is against China in this mechanism [17].In 2008, the mechanism between the U.S. and Asia-Pacific was created to promote military and security development, however, it continued without any consequences [17]. At the same time, China-Africa strategic mechanism (2008) changed in 2018 and continued to solve the problems of African security with African Union and cooperated with peacekeeping forces in Africa [29].


## 7.2. Uncertainties

The U.S. and Japan Dialogue in 2010 had no conclusion about their perception of strategic environment for both sides and the role of the U.S. because they often negotiated relevant matters with each other [15]. In the same year, the security issue among China, the U.S., the Philippines, and Vietnam was a long-term concern for these countries to reflect their security mechanisms. Until now, there is no solution to this issue [17]. China-Brunei strategic partnership in the 2010s emphasized the significance of preserving peace in the Southern Sea and enhancing military cooperation, which was a long-term mission [22].In 2012, EU and ASEAN military cooperation could not be evaluated because it was a long-term cooperation to increase their strategic partnership [17].In 2013, the U.S. and Japan space Dialogue was similar to their 2010 dialogue, which had no conclusion about regional security cooperation [15].In 2015, the U.S. and Japan defense cooperation mechanism was also a long-term cooperation to enhance the development of military technology and improve Japanese military and complex security threats [15].In 2016, EU and NATO security cooperation dealt with security challenges and enhanced their cooperation, however, a long-term cooperation could not evaluate its effectiveness [33]. The U.S. and ASEAN cooperation from 2016 to 2020 changed their principles to strengthen regional maritime security, and there is no particular pattern for their cooperation now.In 2017, Japan, the multilateral mechanism among the U.S., South Korea, Australia, India, and Southeast Asia was a long-term cooperation to increase the influences of security mechanism [34].In 2018, the U.S. and Japan defense project improved Japan’s defense system and promoted their security cooperation, which was also a long-term project [15]. The multilateral cooperation among ASEAN, China, Japan, and South Korea maintained regional peace, security, and stability from 2018 to 2022 [35].The UK, the U.S., and Australia security cooperation formed in 2021, which aimed to combat China by recognizing that the Asia-Pacific Security Agreement was a heavy blow to the nuclear order. It could not be evaluated because of uncertainties in progress [36].As stated above, these military and security mechanisms did not have a particular pattern since they changed over time or were in progress. Hence, they could not be predicted and labelled as effective or ineffective mechanisms, until these mechanisms eventually reflected if they achieved their goals.


## 8. Conclusion

In summary, the paper, firstly, has demonstrated previous studies and their gaps about the author’s research question and analyzed some factors, such as mechanism size, the lack of communication, and uncertainties based on the evaluation of previous research. Then, the paper has introduced the author’s data and method about the effectiveness of military and security mechanisms. Following that, the finding and discussion have been interpreted and discussed. By doing so, the paper managed to answer the research question from the perspectives of those factors. When the mechanisms’ size is smaller, the mechanisms will be more effective. The lack of communication will weaken the effectiveness of mechanisms. While mechanisms have uncertainties (in progress or change over time), it will be difficult to evaluate their effectiveness.Most ineffective mechanics stem from unfinished goals. By summarizing the ineffectiveness of military and security mechanisms, this paper finds that their failure is because of the lack of communication between their own interests and the consensus of global strategic development. For a military and security mechanism, the scope of implementation and strategic alliance should be well-controlled on the basis of paying attention to the purpose of implementation. A mechanism that is too large or too small can adversely affect its successful implementation.The paper has several limitations. The analysis may be incomplete, and there are some other ways to evaluate the effectiveness of military and security mechanisms. The research method provides limited interpretations and may not fully explain other mechanisms. Future studies can compare with other kinds of mechanisms and explore other factors that can influence the effectiveness of military and security mechanisms to develop a clearer perception and have a deeper insight toward this topic. Furthermore, quantitative research methods will be considered for future analyses to provide a more systematic review of the findings in this article.



---

*Source: 8208892-2022-06-08.xml*