2

THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Of all the predecessors of the United Nations, the League of

Nations was the most signiticant one. It contributed innovative
ideas, practices and experiences which were later taken up by the
United Nations. The League a s the brainchild of President
Woodrow Wilson of the United States. In the last of the famous 14
points that set out the war aims of his government, he proposed:
A general association of nations must be formed under specific
covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of
political independence and territorial integrity to great and small
states alike.
This idea, together with plans developed by Great Britain and
France, became the basis of negotiations at the Versailles Peace
Conference of 1919. The outcome was the Covenant of the League
of Nations, an integral part of the Versailles Treaty that was
intended to formally terminate World War I. The principal
purpose of the League, as might be expected after a war, was to
prevent repetition of such a disaster ever again.
Starting as a permanent organisation, the League of Nations
can be understood as the institutional version of the ad hoc
conferences of the Concert of Europe. In between the
annual conferences, its several organs met periodically. It had a
League's
permanent staff headed by a
Secretary-General, and a permanernt
headquarter at Geneva. In order to promote the general purposes
offostering international cooperation and maintenance of peace
and security, members of the League, all of them sovereign states,
accepted certain obligations. They committed themselves to
The League of Nations 13

solving mutual contlicts without going to war. Such conflicts were

tobe put betore the organs of the League and parties to them were
expected to defer to their decisions, some of which were legally
binding. It a state went to war in defiance of the Covenant of the
League ot Nations, the members could employ diplomatic, financial
and even military sanctions against the offender.
Never before the setting up of the League had so much
organisation taken place at the international level. It served as an
important, unparalleled experiment having both deliberative
organs and procedures. Besides its political bodies, the League
system included the most ambitious court of law ever established
to settle disputes among states and a permanent staff
internationally recruited with headquarters in Geneva. A neW
inroad was made to simplify the decolonisation process. This was
the League's supervision of the Mandatory system. It was one of
the most important functions devised by the League Covenant.
The Mandate system was the name given to the method adopted
by the League to deal with the colonies taken over from Germany
and Turkey after World War I. Under the Mandate system these
colonies were handed over for administration on behalf of the
League to certain imperialist powers. The administering powers
were to protect local interests and rule according toa framework
set by the League. The concept of international accountability of
colonies was theretore introduced by the Mandate system.
The Permanent Court of International Justice, affiliated with
the League, consisted of a bench of 15 justices. They enjoyed a
stature derived from appointment by the Council and Assembly
of the League, acting jointly. The court accepted several landmark
cases referred to it by governments and also made significant
advisory pronouncements from its chambers at The Hague.
Meanwhile, in Geneva, the first Secretary-General of the League,
Sir Eric Drummond, put together a skilful permanent staff to build
up the first International Secretariat, which laid down the
functional principles of what came to be known as the
International Civil Service.
The principal responsibility for settling disputes, however,
was shared concurrently by the Assembly, on which all members
were represented and the smaller Council, on which the principal
 14 The lnited Nalions: Structure nd
Functions
powers were always represented. Both organs
had oauat
authority and could deal with any matter that was
the either within
competence of the
organisation threatened international
or
peace. Normally, disputes came belore the Council,
be sumoned short notice. In matters of
at
which would
ould see the influence of the old decision-making
international conference one
at work. for the system
principal
with the wishes of the
poweTs could not be
forced to
majority. comply
required unanimity, which in ettectConsequently,
meant that
all decisions
state had the right to veto. every member
Despite this lack of formal authority, the methods
to be used
by the League in settling disputes were
institutionalised diplomatic practices thatcarefully
had
elaborated and
well earlier. Members
agreed in frequently served
to arbitration or to principle to subject their
disputes
put them before the Permanent
International Justice. But if a dispute was not Court of
of the kind to be
treated legally by a tribunal, it was to be
(or, for less specific treatment, to the submitted to the Council
In handling a Assembly).
dispute, the League Council was to
serious effort to find a settlement. If make a
it did not succeed in
effort, the Council then was to this
prepare
dispute and to make recommendations forreport
a the
on facts of the
undertook not to resort to war
a settlement. Members
during cooling-off
a
arbitral or court decision, or a period
months after of three
an
Council. During that period, resort to war report by the
would be considered an
attack against all (this was the
which was a League innovation), concept of 'collective
security'
The Council could invoking automatic sanctions.
organise these actions and go beyond them to
supply armed forces to counter the
aggressor. The members
declared themselves
prepared to give each other mutual financial
support in order to make action against the
aggression possible.
They also had the obligation to allow the passage of armed forces
on the
way to act against the violator of the
Covenant. obligations of the
Causes of the Failure of the
From the very
League
some of the
beginning the League lacked the cooperation of
major When the
powers. League was founded in 1919,
it was assumed that all states in the world
would join it, that is, its
The Leaguc of Nations 15

membership would be universal. Presicdent Wilson of the United

States, who initiated the institution, caused the first major
disappointment. Influenced by both isolationist and utopian
tendencies, the US Senate refused to approve the Treaty of
Versailles which the senators feared would mean abandonment of
the time-honoured US principle of non-involvement in European
affairs. Thus, the most important major power never joined the
system of collective security.
Without US participation, the predominantly European
character of the new organisation gained further emphasis. Japan
was the only non-European member of any importance. EXcept tor
Great Britain and France, which remained members during the
entire life of the League, most of the major powers joined it only
for brief periods. Germany joined in 1926, but withdrew in 1933,
when Japan also left after having been condemned for its
intervention in Manchuria. Italy withdrew in 1937 after its
conquest of Ethiopia. The Soviet Union joined in 1934, but was
thrown out after its attack on Finland in 1939.
The failure to obtain universality of membership and the
unwillingness of some states to renounce war as a means of policy
came in conflict with the fundamental principles of the League.
Moreover, the members declined to accept the rule that an attack
on any one state was to be considered an attack on all others,
which was the main idea behind the League's concept of collective
security. Since the sense of community and mutual confidence
needed for the system of collective security was singularly lacking
in the 1930s, the rather positive results achieved in the first decade
of the existence of the League could not be repeated. During the
first half of its existence, the League had comparatively more
members and fewer disputes. It successfully brought several of
the disputes to an end. These included hostilities between

Bulgaria and Greece and disputes between Sweden and Finland

over the Aaland Island in 1925.
When the League attempted, during the next decade, to deal
with more serious conflicts involving more powerful states, it did
not succeed. Japan gave no heed to demands by the League that it
should cease attacking China, and Italy's Mussolini directed the
conquest of Ethiopia before the sanctions ordered by the League
could have any effect.
 Structure and Functious
The Uited Nations:
16
were invoked (without success
sanctions
Theonly time when war. great
After a deal of
however) wasduring the Abyssinian
were applied against Italy
except as

delay economic sanctions

to carry out her share of
almost unwilliing
regards oil. France was

to kcep ltaly as a potential ally

the sanctions due to her eagerness Britain applied
witlh Germany. Great
in any future combat was not prepared
Sanctions
and made it clear that it
half-heartedly
sanctionsin any case wer
to risk any war with Italy. Military
under the League and the Anglo-French
never attempted and
turther weakened the League. England
appeasement policy
afraid of driving Fascist Italy into
the open arms of
France were so
turned a deaf ear to the helpless
Hitler's Germany that they
appeals of Abyssinia.
Rearmament Germany, the Italian
of
on Manchuria and
invasion of Abyssinia, the Japanese aggression
the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis, followed by the unprovoked
on Austria, Czechoslovakia, Algeria
and Poland
aggression
brought about the dissolution of the League.
In fact, after the conquest of Ethiopia and the resignation of
Italy, the League had little political significance. The Spanish Civil
War never figured on its agenda in a meaningtul way, despite the
intervention of Italy, Germany and the Soviet Union. The German
demands on Czechoslovakia were considered outside the League
at the Munich Conference. The expulsion of the Soviet Union for
its attack on Finland did little for the embattled Finns. The German
attack on Poland in 1939, which was the signal for the beginning of
World War I, never came on the League agenda.
Many analysts of the failure of the League attribute it to the
unwillingness of the major powers of the League, England and
France, to use this device of collective security. The non-
universality of membership, itself a crippling blow to collective
security, pointed to a broader lack of agreement among the Great
Powers than the hesitance of the British and the French
governments. In addition, the unanimity rule of voting in the
Council and the Assemblycreated a structural obstacle to action.
Nevertheless, in limited conflicts among small states, the
often found it possible to League
produce useful effects,, even if it could
not cope with a deliberate
policy of aggression, such as that of
Japan, Italy, Germany and the Soviet Union.
 The League of Nations
17
The League could
were needed the apply sanctions. Whenever these
never
nmajor
nation states, who could
carry them out,
withdreW support, nor could the
states took too much time League apply them as these
to decide. There was
no
sanctions as the League did not way to enforce
United Nations, could not possess armed force and, unlike
an

The period of existence of

play role of
the
peacekeeping
the League was one of
political instability in the international constant
not been arena, with which it had
prepared to deal. The international system was faced
with one of the worst economic
crises. The League had taken
itself very few functions in the upon
economic and social
concept of peace-building was then a spheres. The
concern. It attracted interest relatively neglected area of
only after WNorld War .
The nations of the world who
were still used to old
practices were suspicious of the new methods of diplomatic
open diplomacy
practised by the League. The League Covenant was a
part of the
Treaty of Versailles and the members, therefore, used the
to fulfil its treaty League
obligations.
reflected in the working of the
The political fallout of this was
League. Any changes in the League
Covenant needed
unanimity, which was extremely difficult to
attain in such a large
body as the League.
Moreover, there were other potentially
explosive issues of
European boundaries and national self-determination which had
not been settled
amicably by the peace treaties concluded after
World War I. The European state
system was still in a ferment and
a
general feeling existed that the League was an imposition of the
victorious powers of World War I. Until a
political settlement
acceptable to all the relevant nation states was made, the League
system was bound to face disruptive forces signalled time and
again, by disgruntled elements to whom the Paris Peace Treaties
did not appear
just. Coupled with this was the frequent use by
nations, of the plea of "domestic jurisdiction" which made it
increasingly difticult on the part of the League to interfere in many
conflicts. The League's attempt at disarmament was also not
successful, especially in the field of general and comprehensive
disarmament.
18 The United Nations: Structure and Functions

In the final analysis, what must be stressed upon is that the

political environment was not conducive to international peace
and to the recognition of the demands of interdependence.
National interest and state sovereignty were the greatest
hindrances to the effective functioning of the League.
Cited Works
Carr, E.H., The Twenty Years Crisis 1919-1939. Toronto: Macmillan, 1946.
Rendiner, Elmer, A Time for Angels: Tragicomic History of the League of
Nations. London: Weidenfield and Nicolson, 1975.
Scott, George, The Rise and Fall of the League of Nations. New York:
Macmillan 1974.
Webster, C.K. & Herbert Sydney, The League of Nations in Theory and
Practice. Boston: Houghton, 1933.
Zimmern, Alfred, The League of Nations and the Rule of Law, 1918-1935.
London: Macmillan, 1936.