Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The league of nations
The failures of the league of nations
Failures for the league of nations
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The League of Nations has been seen as a seriously flawed international organisation and its failure to prevent World War Two has been well documented. Provide something of an alternative perspective by identifying and highlighting important policy-areas in which the League made valuable progress.
The League of Nations was an Intergovernmental Organisation which persisted from 1919 up until 1946 where it was formally replaced with the United Nations towards the end of the Second World War. Many consider the League as one of the International Systems greatest failures due to it being widely regarded as an ‘ineffective instrument to tackle aggressors’ (Catterall, 1999, p. 52) and its inherent failure to prevent international conflict. However,
…show more content…
Origins for the cooperation amongst powers necessary to tackle international disputes can be traced back to the 19th century, however the formation of the League of Nations was eagerly prompted by the First World War. After the horrors in which the world observed, leaders merged together and rejoiced in the potential for a new international system. The League of Nations foremost objective was to secure peace through collective efforts of ‘peace-loving’ powers (Steans, Pettiford, & Diez, 2005, p. 31). President Woodrow Wilson was a lead proponent in the creation of such a body, suggesting it- within his message on the Conditions of Peace- as a means of ‘affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike’ (Wilson, 1918). The following year a detailed scheme was presented at the Versailles Peace Conference and the league was swiftly established with the addition of a permanent secretariat in Geneva. (Catterall, 1999, p. 50). The League was very much considered the ‘most daring and innovative proposal’ (Wilkinson, 2007, p. 85) …show more content…
&., 2005, p. 67) , the United States Congress refused to cooperate with America joining the League and viewed Woodrow Wilsons idea of the League and his foreign policy as too ‘ideational’. With the absence of the US rendering the League without access to Americas forceful military and economic power- which left the Covenants ability stated within Article 16 to “institute economic or military sanctions against a recalcitrant state” (Orjinta, 2010, p. 10) considerably weaker- German, Japanese and Italian dictatorships rejected the sovereignty of the League (Wilkinson, 2007, p. 86). Yet although it can be agreed the League failed in regards to its main purpose of maintaining peace and security, it did however provide a desire among states for an Intergovernmental Organisation (IGO) to ‘recognise that it is in their [governments] national interests to obtain multilateral agreements and pursue actions to deal with threats, challenges, or problems that cannot be dealt with effectively at the unilateral level’ (Wilkinson, 2007, p. 79). From this perspective, the League of Nations opened up a place for the United Nations to thus continue on a path of maintaining peace in an improved and effective manner. It is true that the UN Charter commandeered elements of the Leagues
According to Kissinger, Wilson had dreamed of a “Community of Power” that would collectively provide international security. This community would come to be known as the “League of Nations.” Thanks in great part to Wilson’s grand vision, global cooperation is now being achieved through organizations such as the United Nations (UN) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). International organizations like the UN and NATO have deep Wilsonian roots. Since 2004, NATO has added nine Baltic states to the organization (making a total of 28 members), which has arguably strengthened security cooperation efforts in that region. It is apparent Wilson’s dream of a “Community of Power” has persevered, due to the continued U.S. practice of promoting democracy as an instrument of conflict
There is no excuse for the horrible things Nazi Germany did during World War II. But one can get a better idea how that war started by learning about how World War I ended. The Treaty of Versailles was created by the winners of World War I, like France, Great Britain, and the United States, to make peace. So how did it help contribute to an even worse war less than twenty years later? It was mainly because it was too hard on Germany’s territory, military, economy, and national pride.
International organizations such as NATO and the UN are essential not only for global peace, but also as a place where middle powers can exert their influence. It is understandable that since the inception of such organizations that many crises have been averted, resolved, or dealt with in some way thro...
“The Treaty of Versailles” was written to prevent future wars, it didn’t. “The Treaty of Versailles” is a document that cut down Germany as a country, it did this to prevent Germany for ever rising to power again. World War I, the supposed “The War to End All Wars” was a War between the Central Powers (Austria-Hungary, The Ottoman Empire, and Germany) and the Allied Powers (France, Great Britain, Russia, and other smaller nations). The Allied Powers had defeated the Central Powers November 11, 1918. A weakened economy sparked anger and humiliation in the German people. Which lead to the uprise of Hitler.
In theory the League of Nations was a good idea and did have some early successes. But ultimately it was a failure. The whole world was hit by a depression in the late 1920s where by trade was reduced and unemployment rose. This led many nations to abandon their seeking of interdependency and revert to the pursuit of self sufficient economy. This would lead to the failure of the League of
Ushistory.org (2013). The Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations [ushistory.org]. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.ushistory.org/us/45d.asp [Accessed: 17 Nov 2013].
Lets do it my way!” Such arguments portrayed in the expressions above meant that it took long periods of time to get agreement for any action due to differing perspectives on how to preserve international peace. In conclusion the League of Nations was only successful to a certain extent like improvements to economic and political well being of small nations. However it failed to enforce the treaty of Versailles terms and ambitions of preserving international peace. The failure of the League of Nations to preserve international world peace and prevent further conflicts of the major powers that were heavy impacted by World War I, in addition to the League of Nations being a significant factor, is portrayed in a quote expressed by Hjalmar Branting , a swedish politician who brought Sweden into League of Nations ” It is a commonplace that the League of Nations is not yet-what its most enthusiastic protagonists intended it to
"We cannot sit huddled within our own borders and avow ourselves merely an assemblage of well-to-do hucksters who care nothing for what happens beyond. Such a policy would defeat even its own end; for as the nations grow to have ever wider and wider interests, and are brought into closer and closer contact, if we are to hold our own in the struggle for naval and commercial supremacy, we must build up our Dower without our own borders." 1899, Theodore roosevelt his book, The Strenuous Life.
First, in order to compare the two, we must talk about how the two formed. The League Of Nations formed after ww1. In his Fourteen Point speech, Woodrow Wilson claims the League of Nations should be set up to maintain world peace, “For such arrangements and covenants we are willing to fight and to continue to fight until they are achieved; but only because we wish the right to prevail and desire a just and stable peace such as can be secured only by removing the chief provocations to war, which this program does remove. ”(Wilson)
The League of Nations sounds like a superhero team and in a sense, the goal that The League was trying to achieve could have been something straight out of a comic book. Originally proposed by President Woodrow Wilson during World War I, The League was born after some alterations. The League of Nations’ main intention was to bring an end to the war and prevent another one of the same atrocious proportions from happening in the future. Forty zealous countries joined this fight, but the most powerful country of all was not among them: The United States of America. While many Americans agreed with the goal of The League, many did not and those that did not were ones in power. The portion of the “mission statement” for The League that caused
In the United States the league was met with fierce opposition from those who thought it unwise to enter America into a collective organization, which would restrict its power and influence. Congress especially concerned with Article X, which morally bound the U.S. to aid any member of the League of Nations that was victimized by aggression, and revoke...
The Treaty of Versailles, one of the most controversial international agreements(“D.1. The Treaty of Versailles."), had been negotiated between January and June of 1919 (History. Staff). Although it was negotiated between January and June, the Treaty of Versailles was officially signed on June 28, 1919 (Hashall) at Versailles, a suburb of Paris (Benson). This treaty involved Germany and all allies of World War I (Benson). The peace agreement was established to aid in the termination of World War I.
In the First World War approximately 16,543,185 people were killed within the four year span (World War I Casualties 4). After this devastation countries from all over the world gathered in France for Peace Conferences. Their goal; to prevent anything reminiscent of what had happened during the Great War from ever occurring again. It was during these conferences that the League of Nations (LON) came into existence. Their first meeting was held on the sixteenth of January 1920, six days after the Versailles Conferences had come into effect (MacMillan 94). The League showed a serious attempt by many countries throughout the world at international cooperation, and offered the idea of a collective, global, security. The LON was to act as a governing body in the post WWI landscape for all states, offering them security and the hope of peace continued world peace. The League’s aspirations were outlined in its covenant, which was divided into twenty six different articles. All of the member counties had to agree the articles outlined in the Covenant, “in order to promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security” (The Covenant of the League of Nations 1). However, the League failed in this goal, as only twenty years after its creation World War Two broke out. By this point the League was an absolute and utter failure, and considered to be irrelevant by the majority of the world’s powers. Despite the fact that it had been created to prevent another World War, a much worse one broke barely two decades after its creation. One of the many problems with the League, and a reason for its breakdown, was with the countries themselves, and how it was run internally. The failure of the League of Nation...
The League of Nations was an international organisation formed in 1920 with its primary objective being to uphold world peace and promote collective security. This was based on the idea that if one of the League’s members was invaded, the other countries would stand up against the aggressor together. The League had a variety of successes, including settling the Aaland Islands dispute between Sweden and Finland, as well as failures, such as the Corfu incident between Greece and Italy.
However, Hedley Bull, in his most famous analysis ‘The Anarchical Society’, rebuts these realist criticisms, writing about the primacy of International Law and insists that it is a ‘negligible factor in the actual conduct of international relations’ alongside the fact that states ‘so often judge it in their interests to conform to it’. This directly opposes the idea that realists put forward, as it suggests that states are actually inclined to adhere to international law, and it is crucial to the success of it. Although there is an element of truth in realists’ analyses, it is not to the extent of which realists contend and it should be noted that they fail to acknowledge the fact that the favourable conditions order would bring serves an incentive for states to cooperate within the realms of an international society. Furthermore, realist critiques do not actually deny the existence of an international society, but there critiques revolve around an evaluation of its effectiveness. Opposing the popular conception of neo-realists that the current political climate consists of an anarchical system with all else following from this by chance, therefore assuming that it is a contingent, is Brown’s emphasis on there being ‘a reason we have and need an international society’: to achieve a good amongst all states. This is shown by international organisations such as the European Union and United Nations, the latter of which has the ability to impose sanctions and other punishments on states if it does not adhere to international laws. The United Nations mandate explains how it seeks to ‘save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’, as it was initially born out of the League of Nations which was set up after the end of World Wa...