The collective security idea was limited. There was peace maintained during it's existence. No invading forces came to take over the participating countries. Within these contexts, the collective security was successful. The Animosity that rose out of the impending nationalist and democratic interests would eventually lead to World War I. It was only successful in its immediacy.
The concert of Europe was a successful collective security regime. The security was a good presence to keep all safe while at the same time not being overbearing and harassing the people that attended. The riight amount of security is usually difficult to judge, especially for very large events such as this.
I do not believe that the Concert of Europe should be considered a successful collective security regime. I think that while it helped to keep peace, it at no point was the reason for it. Most of the main countries that ran the organization later became some of the most fiercest enemies just a few decades later.
No, the Concert of Europe was not a successful collective security regime, because it was not successful. Ultimately, it broke down to the point of World War I. The monarchy leadership was not a bad idea, along with Christian values. However, it was not a strong enough coalition, because it ultimately did not work.
no, it was not all that successful, and i do not think that it did a whole lot for the cause that they were going for. I think that they should of done a whole lot different than they did, and that it would have made a big difference in it.