Name Abiq Aqeel

Roll No 12th

Department Political Science

Semester 8th

Assignment Causes of Failure of League of Nation as

International Organization

Submitted To Sir Waqar Samar

 LEAGUE OF NATIONS

League of Nations, an organization for international cooperation established on January

10, 1920, at the initiative of the victorious Allied powers at the end of World War I.

The terrible losses of World War I produced, as years went by and peace seemed no
nearer, an ever-growing public demand that some method be found to prevent the
renewal of the suffering and destruction which were now seen to be an inescapable part
of modern war. So great was the force of this demand that within a few weeks after the
opening of the Paris Peace Conference in January 1919, unanimous agreement had been
reached on the text of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Although the League was
unable to fulfill the hopes of its founders, its creation was an event of decisive importance
in the history of international relations. The League was formally disbanded on April 19,
1946; its powers and functions had been transferred to the nascent United Nations.

Origins of The League Of Nations

The central, basic idea of the movement was that aggressive war is a crime not only
against the immediate victim but against the whole human community. Accordingly it is
the right and duty of all states to join in preventing it; if it is certain that they will so act,
no aggression is likely to take place. Such affirmations might be found in the writings of
philosophers or moralists but had never before emerged onto the plane of practical
politics. Statesmen and lawyers alike held and acted on the view that there was no natural
or supreme law by which the rights of sovereign states, including that of making war as
and when they chose, could be judged or limited. Many of the attributes of the League of
Nations were developed from existing institutions or from time-honoured proposals for
the reform of previous diplomatic methods. However, the premise of collective
security was, for practical purposes, a new concept engendered by the unprecedented
pressures of World War I.
 Treaty of Versailles Dignitaries gathered in the Galerie des Glaces (Hall of Mirrors) at
the Palace of Versailles for the signing of the peace treaty ending World War I,
1919.Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. (digital. id. ppmsca 07634)

When the peace conference met, it was generally agreed that its task should include the
establishment of a League of Nations capable of ensuring future peace. U.S.
Pres. Woodrow Wilson insisted that this should be among the first questions to be dealt
with by the conference. The work proceeded with far greater speed than that of territorial
and military settlement, chiefly because the subject had been exhaustively studied during
the war years. Unofficial societies in the United States, Great Britain, France, and some
neutral countries had drawn up many plans and proposals, and in doing so they in turn
had availed themselves of the efforts of earlier thinkers.

Over many years lawyers had worked out plans for the settlement of disputes between
states by legal means or, failing these, by third-party arbitration, and the Hague
conferences of 1899 and 1907 had held long debates on these subjects. The results had
been unimpressive; the 1907 conference tried in vain to set up an international court, and
though many arbitration treaties were signed between individual states, they all contained
reservations which precluded their application in more dangerous disputes. However,
though the diplomatists thus kept the free hand as long as possible, the general principle
of arbitration—which in popular language included juridical settlement and also
settlement through mediation—had become widely accepted by public opinion and was
embodied as a matter of course in the Covenant.

Another 19th-century development which had influenced the plan makers was the growth
of international bureaus, such as the Universal Postal Union, the International Institute of
Agriculture, and numerous others, set up to deal with particular fields of work in which
international cooperation was plainly essential. They had no political function or
influence, but within their very narrow limits they worked efficiently. It was concluded
that wider fields of social and economic life, in which each passing year made
international cooperation more and more necessary, might with advantage be entrusted to
similar international administrative institutions. Such ideas were strengthened by the fact
that, during the war, joint Allied commissions controlling trade, shipping, and
procurement of raw materials had gradually developed into powerful and effective
administrative bodies. Planners questioned whether these entities, admitting first the
neutrals and later the enemy states into their councils, could become worldwide centres of
cooperation in their respective fields.

Other lessons of the war concerned the problems of armaments on the one hand and of
diplomacy on the other. It was widely believed that the enormous increase in armaments
undertaken by the great powers of Europe during the immediate prewar period had been
not only a consequence, but also in itself a cause, of tension, hostility, and finally war.
The naval arms race between the United Kingdom and Germany was an especially
obvious manifestation of this phenomenon. Equally strong was the belief that “secret
diplomacy,” that is, the existence, under secret treaty, of commitments
for reciprocal diplomatic or military support, had enabled statesmen and generals to run
risks which public opinion would never have countenanced had they been known.

Dreadnought HMS Dreadnought, a British battleship launched at Portsmouth, England,

in February 1906, inaugurated a new era of battleship design based on steam-turbine
engines and batteries of big guns.National Archives, Washington, D.C.

These general propositions—collective security, arbitration, economic and social

cooperation, reduction of armaments, and open diplomacy—inspired in various degrees
the plans drawn up during the war. It was urged from the first that they could become
effective only through the creation of a great international organization charged with the
duty of applying them and invested with the powers necessary to that end. Already in
spring 1915 the name “League of Nations” was in general use among the small groups
which were discussing the future organization of peace. Their ideas, encouraged by
statesmen such as former Pres. William H. Taft in the United States and Sir Edward
Grey and Lord Robert Cecil in Great Britain, gradually became known and supported.
The League to Enforce Peace in the United States and the League of Nations societies
in Britain acted as centres of discussion. In the presidential election of 1916 both parties
advocated U.S. membership in a future league. A few months later the United States was
a belligerent, and Wilson, entering on his second term, became, by right both of his
personality and of his position as leader of the greatest world power, the chief spokesman
of the Allied coalition. In January 1918, in the historic Fourteen Points in which he
summed up U.S. war aims, he called for the formation of “a general association of
nations…affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to
great and small States alike.” The Fourteen Points were in due course accepted by all the
Allies as an authentic statement of their war aims also. Thus what had seemed hardly
more than a utopian hope was transmuted in a few months into the formal and official
purpose of the soon-to-be-victorious Allies.

Meanwhile, both the British and French governments had appointed special committees
to draw up plans for the new organization, and their reports were transmitted to
Washington, where Wilson and his confidential adviser Edward M. House were drafting
proposals in their turn. A further contribution of great importance was made by South
African statesman Jan Smuts, who published in December 1918 The League of Nations:
A Practical Suggestion. Smuts declared that the League must not be a mere diplomatic
defense against war but “a great organ of the ordinary peaceful life of civilisation…
woven into the very texture of our political system,” and that in the long run its power to
prevent war would depend upon the extent of its action in peace. To many of his
contemporaries, this was a new vision of the real nature of an effective League of
Nations.
 CAUSES OF FAILURE OF LEAGUE OF NATIONS
League Of Nations was created after WWI and was first comprehensive organization
which came into existence on Jan.10 1920. with hopes that this organization may provide
a forum to nations where they can settle out their disputes at International level and can
prevent world from another war.

The success of League of Nations can be judge on the basis of its handling disputes and
international conflicts incidents. The authenticity of any organization can be checked by
its utility of solving political and social issues.

During 1920's League provided a useful but modest addition to international diplomacy
where round of negotiations and diplomatic relations develop. Stress was made on sitting
together of nations for the settlement of disputes. Security was provided to frontiers and
problems of Disarmaments was solved. but unfortunately League was helping and
solving matters of minor states because of influence of BIG POWERS on world League
failed to implement its will on them which gave a true picture of its contradiction of
covenant.

League failed in its main object of maintaining peace in the world . Inspite of its efforts
for two decades , the whole world was involved in a war in 1939. By that time , the
machinery of the League Of Nations had completely broken down.

The failure of League of Nations can be attributed to many causes.

They are: 1.

Absence of Great Powers:

It was unfortunate that the covenant of the League of Nations was made a part parcel of
the peace settlement. It would have been better if it had kept separate. There were many
states which consider the Treaty of Versailles as a treaty of revenge, and were not
prepared to ratify the same. By not retifying the treaty, they refused to be the members of
the League. The absence of the great powers from the international organization
weakened her and was partly responsible for its ultimate failure. Japan , Germany and
Italy also left the League and their defection must have weakened the League.
2. Domination Of France and England:
It was felt that the League of Nations was dominated by England and France and
consequently the other states began to lose their confidence in that organization.

3. Rise of Dictatorship:
The rise of dictatorship in Italy, Japan and Germany also weakened the chances of
success of the League of Nations. Japan was determined to acquire fresh territories and
her unscrupulous patriotism threw to the winds of all principles of international law and
morality. If the League was to prepared to condone her fault of conquering Manchuria.
She was to prepare to give up her membership of the League and that is exactly what she
actually did. When League decided to take action against Italy on account for her
aggression in Abyssinia , Italy left the League. In the wake up spreading dictatorship
states continued to be the members of the League so long as their national interests were
not in any way endangered and sacrificed.

4. Limitations of Legal Methods:

The League of Nations demonstrated the limitations of the legal methods. The League
was fairly efficient in structure and probably would have worked if there had existed a
realization of a community of interest.

Law grows out of public opinion cannot operate in disjunction with it. In the case of
League law proposed and opinion disposed.

According to Lincoln:
“Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment nothing can be fail; without it
nothing can be succeed.”

5. Loss of Faith in League:

Small nations lost their faith in the effectiveness of The League to save them from any
aggression. The principle of collective security was not applied in actual practice. Each
state decided to follow her own policy, the principle of security weakened and thus there
was nothing to check the aggressive policy of Hitler.

6. Constitutional Defect:
The League of Nations failed because of certain constitutional defects. In the cases of
disputes brought before the council of the League under Article 11, decisions of the
council had to be unanimous in order to adjudge a nation guilty of having violated the
covenant by resort to war or unjustifiable aggression, In Article 15. If the decisions were
not unanimous verdict under Article 11, the disputing parties were free to resume the
hostilities after a period of 3 months. By allowing exceptions , the covenant seemed to
assumed that was remained the normal solution of international disputes.

5. Loss of Faith In League:

Small nations lost their faith in the effectiveness of The League to save them from any
aggression. The principle of collective security was not applied in actual practice. Each
state decided to follow her own policy, the principle of security weakened and thus there
was nothing to check the aggressive policy of Hitler.

6. Constitutional Defect:
The League of Nations failed because of certain constitutional defects. In the cases of
disputes brought before the council of the League under Article 11, decisions of the
council had to be unanimous in order to adjudge a nation guilty of having violated the
covenant by resort to war or unjustifiable aggression, In Article 15. If the decisions were
not unanimous verdict under Article 11, the disputing parties were free to resume the
hostilities after a period of 3 months. By allowing exceptions, the covenant seemed to
assume that was remained the normal solution of international disputes.

7. Narrow Nationalism:
Narrow nationalism was still the dominant among the peoples of the world. France was
increasingly concerned with her national security , while Great Britain considered that
problem less urgent than promoting commerce by fostering international trade. Japan
intoxicated by her emergence as a world power , while Italy was desperate to redress her
damage . Germany was indulge to retain her national prestige even at the cost of an
aggressive military adventure.

8. Lack Of Mutual Co-Operation:

The member of the league lack mutual co-operation which is always essential for the
success of an organization. For France the League was an instrument for providing her
security from Germany. On the other hand Great Britain wanted League protecting her
imperialist interest. Hitler found League a great hurdle on the way of rise of Germany.

9. Separate Lines Of Thoughts:

The League was the offspring of a marriage of two separate lines of thoughts. In one of
these which were developed my Mr. Taft and others in the U.S.

The stress was on organized forces. There has to be “League of enforced peace” On the
other hand the British attitude was extremely hessistant in its approach to the nation os
enforced peace.

If the fourteen points of Woodrow Wilson are consulted we find that a general
association of nation is projected “for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of
political independence and territorial integrity. In its proposal the world peace is not
mentioned and international co-operation is restricted to one limited object. These two
inconsistent principles were incorporated in the fabric of the League itself and no wonder
it failed.

10. Manchurian Crisis:

On the night of Sep. 18-19, 1931 some Japanese soldiers making an attempt to blow off
the railway line near Mukdan .Japan took full advantage of this minor incident and on the
18th Sep.1931 She invaded Manchuria and also occupied all Japanese cities north of
Mukdan. League of Nations failed to implement sanctions on Japan and on March 27 ,
1933 Japan decided to withdraw her membership of League of Nation.

CONCLUSION:
According to most of the thinkers, existence of League Of Nations was at wrong time.
Then, all the nations was indulge in the concept of narrow nationalism and sovereignty.
Situation would have been much more different had except the concept of
Internationalism.