The League of Nations Flashcards
Outline the development of the League of Nations
- As part of 1919-20 settlements the League reflected the inherent tensions and divisions of relations, absence of Germany, USSR and USA detracted from its effectiveness
- League’s golden era coincided with the stability created by Locarno
Briefly assess the League’s Covenant
a. Retrospectively, the League’s constitution provided too many loopholes for war, supported the status quo favouring the great powers and lacked the machinery for collective action against an aggressor, perhaps this is irrelevant though – British commentary ‘if the nations of the future are in the main selfish, grasping and warlike, no instrument or machinery will restrain them’
Explain the organs of the League
- Initial members were the 32 allied states which had signed the peace treaties and 12 neutral states
- By 1926 all the ex-enemy states had joined, but the USSR not until 1934 and the USA never
- Assembly
a. A deliberative chamber where each state had three representatives
b. Jealously guarded principle that even the smallest state had a say on international issues - Council
a. Council in 1920 had four permanent members: Britain, France, Italy and Japan, 1926 Germany joined
b. Smaller states represented by a changing rota of four temporary members, later increased to seven all selected by the Assembly
c. As the Council met more frequently and the Assembly was dominated by the Great powers, it gradually developed as an executive committee of the assembly, implementing the policies the Assembly had endorsed in principle
d. Decisions in both bodies normally taken by unanimous vote, the votes of states involved in a dispute under League discussion were discounted on recommendations for its settlement, prevented from vetoing otherwise unanimous decisions - Permanent Secretariat
a. Routine administrative work was carried out by the Permanent Secretariat, staffed by a small international civil service - Permanent Court of International Justice
a. 1921, a fourth organ added at the Hague in the Netherlands, to advise the council on legal matters and judging cases submitted to it by individual states
Explain the powers of the League to solve international disputes
• Heart of the covenant, articles 8-17 was primarily concerned with the overriding question of the prevention of war, long term strategy outlined in article 8:
o ‘maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety, and the enforcement by common action of international obligations’
• Process for solving disputes defined in Articles 12-17, initially as of A12 disputes would be submitted to a form of arbitration or League enquiry, simultaneously there would be a 3 month cooling off period
• By A13 members committed to carrying out the judgements of the Court or council recommendations, even if not submitted to arbitration, under A15 the Council could set up inquiry into its origins
• Assumption that states would be willing to eliminate war using this arbitration machinery, if a state ignored recommendations though A16:
o Deemed to have committed an act of war against all other members, severance of trade or financial relations
o Council’s duty to recommend to concerned governments what armed forces shall be contributed to protect the covenant
• A17 League’s powers were extended by its right to intervene in disputes between non-members, A11 member states encouraged to refer to the assembly or council any international problem which might threaten the peace
• In theory the League had formidable power, but not a world government in the making with powers to coerce independent nations
• Existence was based A10 on the recognition of the political and territorial interdependence of member states, A15 recognised if a dispute arose from an internal issue, the League had no right to intervene
• Gaps in the Covenant allowing potential aggressors to wage war without sanction, war had to be officially declared before the League could act effectively, had not formula for dealing with guerrilla warfare which instigating states could disown
• Even in the event of formal declaration of war, if the Court or Council could not agree a verdict, League members were free to continue their war
Explain how the League of Nations struggled to find a role in the 1920s
- January 1920 Great Powers viewed the League with cynicism or open hostility, French doubted its ability to outlaw war, Germans saw it as a means for enforcing Versailles, after Republican victory November 1920 he US was openly hostile to the League, its officials instructed to avoid cooperation
- Under Versailles the League administered the Saar and Danzig, inevitably associated it with allied policy, in the Saar made the mistake of appointing a French chairman to the governing commission, administered for French interests
- League the guarantor of agreements signed by the allies and successor states created in 1919, aimed at ensuring various racial minorities left isolated behind new frontiers had civil rights
Explain the League’s mandates
- A22 marked a potentially revolutionary concept of international affairs, citizens and territories no longer under the sovereignty of states formerly governing them before the war, would have their well-being and development protected by the Covenant
- When the allies distributed the former German and Turkish territories among themselves, they were divided into three groups according to their development, most advanced were in the Middle East, most backward were the ex-German islands in the Pacific
- League had to avoid being a façade for colonialism, mandate powers were required to send in annual reports on their territories to the League’s Permanent Mandate Commission, gained a reputation for expertise and authority
- League’s attitude towards the mandates was paternalistic and condescending, nevertheless F.S. Northedge – ‘helped transform the entire climate of colonialism’, imperialist powers were forced by moral pressure to consider the interests of the native population and contemplate their eventual independence
Explain the League’s welfare, medical and economic work
a. League was excluded from dealing with reparations and war debts, nevertheless in 1922 allies trusted its Financial Committee with rebuilding Austria’s and then Hungary’s economies
b. Its Economic Committee had the greater task of persuading powers to abolish protectionism and creating world free trade
c. Organised two world economic conferences 1927 and 1933, both Russian and USA attended, due to the strong protectionist climate it failed to make progress towards free trade
2. ILO
a. One of the League’s greatest successes, originally created independently by Versailles, but financed by the League, in some ways a League miniature
b. A permanent office at Geneva staffed by 1000 officials, work discussed annually by a conference of Labour delegates
c. Up to 1939 the ILO turned out an impressive stream of reports, recommendations and statistics providing important information for industries globally
3. Health Organisation
a. League’s HO was a forum for drawing up common policies on the treatment diseases, design of hospitals and health education
b. League set up committees to advise on limiting opium production and other addictive drugs, on the outlawing of the sale of women and children for prostitution and on the effective abolition of slavery
Explain the League as a peacemaker and arbitrator 1920-1925
- Until 1926, when the Foreign Ministers of Britain, France and Germany attended Council meetings and turned it into a body in regular discussion of the main problems of the day, the League’s role in post war crises was subordinate to the Allied leaders and Conference of Ambassadors set up to supervise Versailles, therefore mainly dealt with small crises
- 1920, League’s inability to act effectively without great power backing was demonstrated when it failed to protect Armenia from Russo-Turkish attack, neither Britain, France or Italy was ready to protect it with force, a French delegate caustically observed in the Assembly that he and his colleagues were in the ridiculous position of an Assembly which considers what steps should be taken, though it is aware that it is impossible to carry them out
Explain the Polish-Lithuanian quarrel over Vilna
a. October 1920, in response to appeals from the Polish Foreign Minister, the League imitated an armistice between Poland and Lithuania, whose quarrel over borders was escalating into war
b. Ceasefire did not hold, shortly after General Zegilowski with a Polish force, the Warsaw government pretending independent, occupied Vilna and set up the new puppet government of Central Lithuania under his protection
c. League called for a plebiscite, when rejected then attempted in vain to negotiate a compromise settlement, March 1922 Poland annexed Vilna
d. Year later, after it was obvious the League could not impose a solution without the Great Powers, the Conference of Ambassadors recognised Polish sovereignty over Vilna, Britain, France and Italy, by failing to use League machinery to stop Polish aggressions, effectively marginalised it
Explain the Aalands islands dispute
a. In less stubborn disputes where states involved were willing to accept a verdict, the League worked as a mediator
b. A rare success in a dispute between Finland and Sweden over the Aaland Islands, these had belonged to the Grand Duchy of Finland when part of the Russian Empire, once Finland broke away from the Empire, the ethnically Swedish islanders appealed to Stockholm to take over the island
c. When Sweden began to threaten force, Britain referred the matter to the League, 1921 League supported the status quo leaving the islands under Finnish sovereignty, but itself ensuring the civil rights of the population there, neither government liked the verdict, but both accepted it and it worked
Explain the Corfu incident
a. August-September 1923, League efforts to intervene blocked by a great power again
b. crisis triggered by the assassination in Greek territory near the Albanian border of three Italians, part of an Allied team tracing the Albanian frontiers for the Conference of Ambassadors
c. Mussolini seized the chance to issue an unacceptable ultimatum to Athens, when the Greeks rejected three of its demands, Italy occupied Corfu, Greece wanted to refer this to the League, while the Italians insisted the CoA should deal with it
d. The Conference, whilst accepting some League help, seized the case ad insisted Greece should pay 50m lire compensation to Italy
e. Once agreed, Italian forces would withdraw, like the Ruhr crisis, Corfu underlined the continuing ability of Great Powers to ignore the League and take unilateral action as they wished
Explain the League’s success: Mosul and the Greco-Bulgarian dispute
- 1924 League successfully mediated, provided a face-saving means of retreat for Turkey in its dispute with Britain over the future of Mosul which according to Lausanne was to be decided by direct Anglo-Turkish negotiations
- When these talks broke down, the British issued in October an ultimatum to Turkey to withdraw its forces within 48 hours, League intervened and recommended a temporary demarcation line behind which Turkey withdrew
- Then sent a commission of inquiry to consult with the local Kurdish population, as total independence was not an option, preferred British to Turkish rule
- League’s recommendation that Mosul become a mandate of Iraq for 25 years was then accepted, as Iraq was a British mandate, effectively under British control
- October 1925, League’s handling of the Greco-Bulgarian crisis like in the Alands was a rare example of success, when Bulgaria appealed to the Council, it requested ceasefire and was heeded by both sides, so too was the verdict of its commission of inquiry, finding favour with Bulgaria
- An example of what the League could do, autumn 1925 this success with the ‘Locarno spirit’ augured well for the future, Briand could claim at the Council meeting October 1925 that ‘a nation which appealed to the League when it felt its existence threatened, could be sure that the Council would be at its post to undertake conciliation’
- League was not put to the test again until Manchuria 1931, Briand’s optimism shown to be premature, League could only function with Great Power agreement
Explain the aims of the League of Nations
1) Maintain peace through collective security. The main way in which this would be achieved is that if one country was attacked, the League members would join to act against the aggressor. However, it also included the following elements:
● Public debate in the Council and Assembly of actions carried out by states
● Arbitration of disputes organised by the Council of the League
● Economic sanctions against an aggressor state
● Pursuit of disarmament
● Guaranteeing rights of national minorities
● Independent international administration of territories which posed particular security problems
2) Encourage international co-operation in order to solve economic and social problems
Explain the initial problems of the LEague
Purpose
There were different views on what the LoN should do:
● Some believed that they should serve to resolve international problems
● Some believed it was a device to enforce the Treaty of Versailles and a ‘victor’s peace’.
However, if the League was to be even-handed in future disputes, could it really be tied to maintaining the post war status quo in Europe.
The unanimity rule meant agreement by all nations required on big decisions,and was therefore slower.
Collective security vs. disarmament
If all members agreed to defend each other from attack, they would all have to automatically declare war against any aggressor named by League.
However, declaring war remained the choice of individual nations and world wide disarmament would not be possible if there was aggression
Sanctions:
If the League was to impose peace on those who illegally declared war, then it would need a League army but no such existed due to problems with command, troops etc.
If the League was to be a forum of negotiation and arbitration, impartiality was needed as well as a more realistic chance that armies would be involved to resolve disputes
Also, why should League membres fight wars to which they have no connection or are affected by?
Lack of USA means economic sanctions ineffective
Germany:
Germany couldn’t be a member if target of LoN activity. As an equal member, it would be able to veto policies to enforce punishment against her.
However, membership of League would encourage Germany to accept the post war status quo, and promote international cooperation.
Enforcement or arbitration?:
French wanted a League able to enforce the peace treaties and preserve the peace - a tool of French policy against Germany.
The Americans wanted a League able to head off potential disputes through negotiation and arbitration. The League would be an honest broker.
Britain wanted the League to keep Europe stable without restricting British imperial policy or dragging Britain into disputes.
The result was a compromise - doomed to fail?
Explain the Covenant of the League of Nations
Article 5: Unanimity rule
● Explicitly confirmed the sovereignty of member states
● All powers of the Council had a veto on League issues - create inability of the Council to reach decisions in moments of international crisis.
● The Assembly had some power of veto in the event of a dispute being transferred by the Council, though this was rare (though did in Manchuria)
● Only if a member state was party to a dispute would this veto be lost. However, in practice this could be bypassed
Article 10: Territorial
● Driven by the USA, this demanded respect for the territorial integrity of member states, and promised protection by the League membership as a whole in the face of aggression.
● Wilson admitted that his article had moral, not legal, power behind it
● Whether breaking Article 10 should trigger automatic sanctions was controversial, but the ultimate decision of action taken ultimately remained with the member state in order to uphold sovereignty (Article 5)
Article 11
● Article 11 enabled any member to ask the Council for assistance if they feared attack. Members did not even have to be party to attack to do this.
● However, there was no effective machinery to resolve disputes as the unanimity rule meant that parties to the dispute themselves having a vote if they were represented on the Council, for no provision to exclude their veto power
Article 12: War
● There was to be no resort to war until three months after award by arbitrators, judicial decision or report.
● Believed that war occurred due to breakdown in machinery and diplomacy (ie. quick series of events after WW2) and an establishment of permanent negotiations would fill this gap. Also, it was believed that this time period would decrease chance of war as nations would have more cool, rational voices.
● They did not outlaw war due to a question of national sovereignty, and no country would sign this.
Article 16: Sanctions
● If a state broke article 12 and went to an illegal war, then financial sanctions would be automatically incurred.
● Economic and military sanctions were not automatic, and depended upon Council recommendations. Individual states could accept or deny however.
● However, economic sanctions were difficult e.g. France were not willing to alienate Italy by backing a full programme of economic sanctions in the Abyssinian crisis
