Essay Networks

The League of Nations Union (the League) was established in 1918 to “promote international cooperation and to achieve international peace and security” and operated until 1945. The unprecedented slaughter of the ‘war to end all wars’ was the impetus for a diversion from the realist approach to relations between states towards an idealist conception, which applies liberal theory to international relations. The League worked towards collective security, multilateral disarmament, recognized and respected international law, and world government as means of attaining world peace. This paper will discuss these ideas and examine their feasibility and will show that although realism provides an effective criticism, application of idealist conceptions would provide a mechanism for world peace.

The League of Nations Union was comprised of a Secretariat, Council (for Great Powers) and a General Assembly (all members), bound by a Covenant which set out its aims, ideals and regulations, to create a “temple of lasting peace built on the foundations of secure justice.” Idealists conceived of collective security as a means of organizing world affairs to prevent great wars and deterring aggressors. The Members of the League would “undertake to… preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Member of the League under Section 10 of the Covenant.” Nations would act first diplomatically, then economically through sanctions, and if this was insufficient military forces from all the states would be used against the aggressor. Collective security was held to be an achievable ideal which would be fulfilled by nations for towards a peaceful international system “as a safeguard against war.”

The greatest flaw in the idea of collective security is its conflict with “the concept of interest defined in terms of power” which realists claim is the only motivator in international relations. Realists mocked the idea of collective security as unnatural and hopeless because states should and would always act in their own interests translated as power, even at the expense of their alliances and moral standpoints. While “the principle of mutual protection upon which the League is based” was its main defense against war, realist assumptions of self-interest were proved correct in the history of the League. During its time of influence assaults were launched against Manchuria, Abyssinia (Ethiopia), China, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Albania and Finland, and no action was taken except for reserved censure and limited sanctions for Italy in 1935-36. Diplomatic pressure was mounted against the Soviet Union in its expulsion from the League for invading Finland, however Morgenthau attributes action such as this as being in the power interests of England and France. Territorial integrity was repeatedly compromised but international will to apply remedies did not exist. This is not to say that collective security could never be successful in creating world peace by enforcing the peaceful conduct of nations. The Gulf War, intervention in Kosovo and recent acts to counter terrorism shows that collective security is an effective means of enforcing peace. The “impotence of the League in effectively organizing the mutual protection of its Members” was due to the ultimate lack of interest and consent of the members. Times and conditions have changed and in the age of a ‘global village’ and a growing perception of interconnectedness, collective security is likely to provide an effective deterrent to aggression and war and could lead to a far more peaceful world.

While collective security would provide a deterrent to war, idealists believed that “the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety.” Human history has seen disarmament in various forms such as imposed disarmament of victims by victors, mutual agreements between warring states, proposals for simultaneous reduction of armed forces and conventions on disarmament and non-proliferation. Disarmament was advanced by idealists such as Bertrand Russell as “the hope of producing greater sanity in the world… doing the best for not only our own country… but the future of mankind” but was a topic “fraught with emotional overtones.” It would involve multi-lateral restrictions on the size and composition of armed forces as a process of doing away with them altogether. Disarmament in the inter-war period was fraught with difficulties both domestic and international. Pacifism was criticized as naive and dangerous, and in Britain disarmament was a national policy while at the same time ignored in the increase of the British armed forces. The proposed arms treaties could not be agreed to by any nation because of divergence in security requirements and the national self interest.

Although the assumptions of realism are beyond the scope of this essay its conclusions such as power interests and balance of power directly challenge the ideas of disarmament. Realism has had success in analyzing the relationships between peaceful and warring states and repeatedly finds that states will always act in their own interests to maintain or increase their power. In realist terms states will not voluntarily reduce their power, to do otherwise will leave them vulnerable, and as they exist in a state of nature, they will necessarily attempt to exploit the weakness of other states if it will advance their own interests. The disarmament ideas of the League were a reflection of liberal standards and morality and were shown not to be viable at the time, but would be an effective means of establishing world peace. In the future the world will see that arms races and proliferation of WMD’s will only cause perpetual misery, and although the powers of the world will maintain their hegemony, international organizations will facilitate the reduction of arms towards a complete disarmament.

Idealists hoped the Covenant would provide the basis for a lasting and strong international legal system which would ensure world peace. International law was based on liberal legal doctrines of the rule of law and natural justice, in accordance with the liberalist origins of idealism. The League established the Permanent Court of International Justice in 1920 which was “competent both to settle international disputes… and to render advisory opinions…” Although members of the League agreed to submit to the Council “any dispute likely to lead to a rupture” the Court proved to be a failure in prevention of armed combat, sufficient only to resolve small disputes.

The failure could be due to the international anarchy which implies that without law or an overarching governing body states will conflict and struggle. Currently we see a less anarchical system, with effective courts for arbitration, international war crimes tribunals, general adherence to Geneva Conventions and some enforcement of international law by the UN or other organizations such as NATO. International law may provide a framework for world peace.

While collective security, disarmament and international law are vital components of world peace they require a strong international organization to coordinate and enforce them, and idealist Bertrand Russell suggested that “a world government… might thus come into existence.” World government was held to be the key in achieving world peace, an idea which gained support amongst members of the League during the 1920′s and early 1930′s. The idea of world government developed in contrast to the ideas of liberal internationalists who believed world peace could emerge without such a union which would require the dissolution of sovereign states. Unlike realists, liberals and idealists believe that the state of nature could be changed as sovereign states acting in their own interests can be forced to co-exist peacefully by the establishment of a world government. This would have the added benefit of facilitating disarmament without the necessary evil of collective security.

It is the exact nature of the idea of world government that realists find so absurd. Waltz states that “proposals for peace stipulating that world government be established… are political utopianism.” The realist assumptions that states are the only real actors in global politics and that they will always act in their own interests, are in direct conflict with the idea of a world government which strips away sovereignty. A world government would be impossible to institute, as “were world government attempted, we might find ourselves dying in the attempt to unite.” The inherent driving force behind states and the system of international anarchy militate against the plausibility of world government as a means to world peace. Realist assumptions are not necessarily correct, shown by globalisation and the growing importance of non-state actors. It is unlikely that such a vicious state of nature is actually in constant play, or that it underwrites civil and international relationships. The idealists who proposed world government as a means to achieving world peace were certainly fanciful at the time, but the future of a non-exclusive and representational world government is a firm possibility.

World peace is a subject which has occupied the theorists, policy makers and states-people for the majority of this century and the desire for world peace is expressed by all peoples (except for fundamentalists). With this outpouring of longing and an obvious motive, why has humanity not disarmed, formed a unified governing organization or at least operated with efficient collective security? An answer must in part contain acknowledgment of realist assumptions, however realism’s bleak and pessimistic assumptions will not advance world peace and foreign policies informed by realpolitik have caused untold deprivation and suffering since World War Two; solutions must be sought elsewhere. Nations are currently cooperating in collective security measures against terrorist threats, and defended Kosovo against Serbian aggression. International law operates and is enforced to a degree by the United Nations and international courts, while independent states act to safeguard the rule of law and global rights. While superpower disarmament has not occurred for some time, stockpiles have decreased and non-proliferation treaties for weapons of all kinds are increasing global safety immeasurably. World government is far from a reality, however the increased power of the UN, regional groupings and NGO’s combined with rapid globalisation indicate that a global sense of unity is increasing to a highly influential point. It is likely that the future will bring a governing world body which in its enforcement of disarmament, security and international law will fulfill the idealist conceptions about achieving world peace.

Bibliography

Birn, Donald S. “The League of Nations Union 1918-1945″ Oxford UP New York 1981

Carr, E.H “International Relations Since the Peace Treaties” R&R Clark Ltd Edinburgh 1940

Dunne, Tim “Liberalism” in John Baylis and Steve Smith “The Globalisation of World Politics” 2d Ed. Oxford University Press New York 2001 pp. 163-181

Hunter, Rosemary, Richard Ingleby, Richard Johnstone, “Thinking About Law” (1995) Allen & Unwin Pty. Ltd. Sydney

Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S. “Transnational Relations and World Politics” Harvard University Press 1973 Harvard

Luard, Evan “Conflict and Peace in the International System” Macmillan Press London 1988

Morgenthau, Hans J. “Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace” Fifth Edition, Revised, Knopf, New York 1978

Ostrower, Gary B. “League of Nations,” Discovery Channel School, original content provided by World Book Online

worldbook/atozhistory/l/316860.html 8/10/2001 Copy of article retained on file

Rappard, William E. “The Geneva Experiment” Oxford University Press London 1931

Russell, Bertrand “Which Way to Peace?” Mayflower Press Plymouth 1936

Waltz, Kenneth “Man, the State, and War” Columbia University Press New York 1969