THE UNITED NATONS AND ITS SPECIALISED

AGENCIES: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF ITS ROLE IN

REPLACEMENT OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Name: Ankita Swain

Roll no.: 2361811025

Batch: LLM (Corporate and Commercial Law)

Subject: Law And Justice In Globalising World

Subject code: CPII- 03

Submitted to: Ms. ANWESHA TRIPATHY (Assistant Professor)

Introduction

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.

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.

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. 1 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

1
United Nations - Human Rights, Global Peace, International Law | Britannica,
https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-Nations/Human-rights (last visited Apr 15, 2024).
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.

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.
The Covenant
With the ground thus well prepared, and under Wilson’s resolute leadership, the conference
was able to draw up, in a few days of intensive committee work, a document which it called
the Covenant of the League of Nations. This text was published, as a draft, on February 14,
1919. It was subjected to various criticisms, especially in the United States, where Wilson’s
star was already on the decline, and also by the European neutrals, who had had no official
share in the work. In general, however, it was well received. Although the first great impulse
had already weakened and Allied unity had been impaired, a final amended text was adopted
on April 28, 1919, by the unanimous decision of the conference. The Covenant was a short
and concise document of 26 articles. The first seven articles established
the constitutional basis of the new system. Article 1 defined the League’s original members,
which consisted of all the Allied signatories of the peace treaties and those 13 countries
which had been neutral in the war, if the latter chose to join without reservation. Others could
be admitted by a two-thirds majority of the Assembly, and any member could withdraw after
giving two years’ notice.

Articles 2–52 created the directing organs of the League: an Assembly composed of
representatives of all members and a Council composed of representatives of the United
States, Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan as permanent members, with four others elected
by the Assembly. Articles 6 and 7 created a permanent Secretariat, provided for the expenses
of the League, and named Geneva as its headquarters. Articles 8 and 9 dealt with armaments.
All members undertook to reduce their armaments to the lowest possible level,
to suppress the “evil effects” of the private manufacture of arms, and to exchange full
information as to their existing armaments and their programs for the future. A permanent
commission was provided to advise the Council on all military, naval, and air questions.
Articles 10–17 embodied what may be called the central and basic idea of the
League: collective security, together with the various procedures for peaceful settlement of
disputes. Each member undertook (Article 10) to respect the integrity and independence of all
the others and to join in preserving them against aggression. Article 11 declared that any war

2
League of Nations - WWI, Peacekeeping, Intergovernmental | Britannica,
https://www.britannica.com/topic/League-of-Nations/The-Covenant (last visited Apr 15, 2024).
or threat of war was a matter of concern to all members, whether directly affected or not;
every member had the right to demand that the question be considered by the Council and, if
necessary, to insist on an immediate meeting. By Article 12, all bound themselves to submit
all serious disputes to peaceful settlement or to inquiry by the Council and in no case to resort
to war until these procedures had had time to lead to a settlement. Even then, if no settlement
were reached, they promised to wait a further three months before going to war. The various
methods of settlement—arbitration, legal procedure, or action by the Council or the
Assembly—were then set out in some detail (Articles 13–15), and these provisions included
the establishment of a permanent international court. Under Article 16 all members promised
to join in common action against any other which made war in violation of the Covenant.
This action was to take in all cases the form of economic sanctions as its primary coercive
mechanism and, if this were not enough, of military intervention. This article also empowered
the Council to expel a member which violated the Covenant. Article 17 extended the system
so as to provide protection against, and in certain conditions for, nonmember states.

Article 18 was designed to meet the demand for open diplomacy. It required that all future
treaties be registered with, and published by, the Secretariat. Article 19 empowered the
Assembly to propose changes in existing treaties or situations which might be a danger to
peace. By Article 20 all members agreed that any treaty inconsistent with the Covenant was
automatically abrogated and undertook not to enter into any such engagement in the future.

Article 22 declared that the Covenant did not affect the validity of the Monroe Doctrine.
Article 22 established the mandates system. Articles 23 and 24 corresponded to the
proposals for worldwide economic and social cooperation under the authority of the League.
Members undertook to act together in such matters as transport and communications,
commercial relations, health, and supervision of the international arms trade and to bring
existing international agencies, such as the Universal Postal Union, under the direction of the
League. They agreed also to set up an International Labour Organization in order to “secure
and maintain fair and humane conditions of labour.” Article 25 promised support for the Red
Cross. Finally, Article 26 defined the procedure for amending the Covenant; an amendment,
to be effective, must be ratified by a majority of the members, including all those represented
on the Council.

The Covenant purported to cover each of the main proposals which had emerged during the
preparatory period—collective security; arbitration and judicial settlement, including the
creation of an international court; international cooperation or control in economic and social
affairs; disarmament; and open diplomacy. It did not satisfy extreme pacifists, who rejected
any use of force (even to resist aggression), or extreme internationalists, who wished the
League to have its own military forces and to impose all its decisions by its own political and
military authority. In the main the Covenant fully realized the plans made during the war, and
in one essential respect, the creation of efficient working institutions, it went much beyond
them.

For the next 20 years the Covenant continued to be, in theory, not only the guide and
authority for all the activities of the League, but also the criterion by which liberal opinion in
many developed countries judged the conduct of their own and other governments. In
consequence, its text was minutely and repeatedly studied, scrutinized, and debated by
professors, lawyers, and statesmen. This test it bore, on the whole, very successfully. A few
minor problems of interpretation were unearthed, chiefly due to the fact that its English and
French texts were equally authentic. In the actual working of the League it never failed to
provide both the principles and the methods required by each successive question.

This of course is not to say that its principles were always respected or that
its provisions were not capable of improvement. Nevertheless, the Covenant system was
much more complete and well planned than might appear from the fact of the various failures
and final defeat of the League. Before it even started to function, however, it would receive a
blow so severe that it was never possible to apply the system as its founders had intended.

The Covenant was in its nature an entirely separate instrument to which neutral states could
accede even if they objected to other parts of the peace treaties. It was in form a part of these,
however, and when its text was finally settled in April 1919, it could only come into force at
the same time as the Versailles Treaty as a whole, on January 10, 1920. Meanwhile, in
the United States Senate, the leaders of the Republican opposition, by then implacably hostile
to Wilson and all his works, had resolved to return to the policy of isolationism. While they
did not formally propose the rejection of the Covenant, they put forward a number of
reservations which Wilson was certain to refuse.

For his part, Wilson was convinced that most Americans were in favour of the Versailles
Treaty and the League of Nations, and there was ample evidence for his conclusion. Thirty-
two state legislatures and 33 governors had gone on record in support of the League.
Nevertheless, in response to increasing congressional opposition, Wilson undertook an 8,000-
mile (12,900-km) speaking tour to solicit public support in an attempt to compel Congress to
follow his lead. The trip across the continental U.S., on which the president gave 37
addresses, took a mighty toll on Wilson’s health, permanently impairing him and virtually
removing him from the fight for the League. By the end of September 1919, Wilson was so
exhausted that he had to cancel the remaining scheduled speaking engagements.

In November 1919 U.S. Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge, a Republican from Massachusetts,
presented the Senate with a set of reservations to the treaty that would effectively
circumscribe U.S. participation in the League. On November 18 Wilson wrote to U.S.
Sen. Gilbert Hitchcock of Nebraska, urging loyal Democrats to vote against Lodge’s
reservations. The next day, loyal Democrats joined those who were irreconcilably opposed to
the treaty to defeat ratification of it with Lodge’s reservations. For the next vote, on the
question of ratification without reservations, however, the main bulk of senators changed
sides. The irreconcilables again voted against the treaty, but this time they were joined by
those, such as Lodge, who opposed an unqualified U.S. commitment. The total of those in
favour of the treaty fell short of the two-thirds majority required by the U.S. Constitution for
such decisions. In a March 1920 vote, ratification was defeated again in the Senate, and the
hope of U.S. membership disappeared, as it proved, forever.

The effect of this event upon the future of the League was, in one sense, decisive, since it
ruled out all possibility of collective security as embodied in the Covenant. There was no
certainty of a complete economic boycott which, it was confidently expected,
would suffice to make even the most aggressive government prefer to settle its disputes by
negotiation rather than by armed attack. The other component parts of the system could still
function, and did in fact function, though with less effectiveness than if the United States had
fully participated therein. The knowledge that the world’s greatest economic power would
stand aside from sanctions robbed that part of the Covenant of its main threat for the
aggressor and destroyed, in consequence, the confidence that other members could place in it.
However, the League was closely interwoven with the fabric of the peace treaties, and there
was hope that the Senate’s decision might someday be reversed. Public opinion in many
countries would have strongly resisted any proposal to abandon the League. So, in spite of
the absence of the United States, the first meeting of the League Council was held
immediately after the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles. Thus the League entered on the
very active, if not always very successful, existence which ended in fact with the outbreak
of World War II in 1939, though its formal demise did not take place until April 1946.

Structure of the League of Nations

The League quickly became a large and complex structure. The Assembly and the Council—
acting either under the direct terms of the Covenant or on their own initiative—decided the
nature, membership, and competence of the rest of the League’s principal organs and
institutions, directed their work, and provided their budget. The Assembly consisted of one to
three delegates from each member nation, and many countries also sent a large body of
substitutes and experts. The makers of the Covenant had expected that the Assembly would
meet perhaps every third or fourth year, but at its first session in 1920 it decided to meet
every September. Each session opened with a general discussion on the work done during the
past year or planned for the next. This discussion often ranged over problems which the
speaker considered ought to be dealt with by the members of the League instead of outside it.
It then typically settled down to two or three weeks of committee meetings. Since every
delegation was represented on each committee, and these groups held their meetings in
public, the conclusions reached in committee were usually adopted with no more than a few
formal speeches in the plenary Assembly. The Assembly decisions required unanimity among
those who voted. Thus, in theory, any member could veto any decision. In practice, such
a contingency was exceedingly rare. It became customary for those who disagreed with the
proposals of the majority to vote against them in committee, and, having thus put their views
on record, to abstain from voting in the Assembly.

Except that it usually refrained from discussing political issues that were being dealt with by
the Council, the Assembly’s debates covered every part of the activities of the League. A few
matters, such as the admission of new members or the revision of obsolete treaties, were
specifically reserved to the Assembly, and from the beginning it insisted on being the sole
authority in regard to the budget. It showed much zeal for disarmament, on which the smaller
powers, who could there make their voice effectively heard, were dissatisfied with the policy
of the great powers and of the Council.
The Assembly was, by general consent, the most successful as well as the most original of the
many innovations of the League. It was original in its constitutional nature as a worldwide
conference meeting to discuss not some special question but any and all questions
of international relations. It was still more original in its spirit, since it gave equal rights and
opportunities to be heard to all powers, whether great or small, and sought deliberately to
follow the open and direct methods of a parliament rather than the formalities of a diplomatic
gathering.

The Council was originally intended to consist of five great powers—the United States, Great
Britain, France, Italy and Japan—as permanent members, together with four others elected by
the Assembly for limited periods. It was expected that Germany and the U.S.S.R. someday
might become permanent members and that the nonpermanent membership might be
correspondingly increased. However, the United States seat was never occupied, and the
number of elected members was increased to six in 1922 and to nine in 1926, so that the
intended majority of great powers was never realized.

After the first year, when it met almost every month, the Council held three or four regular
sessions a year, though it was not until 1923 that it formally decided to meet at fixed dates in
March, June, September, and December of each year. It also met in special session when
necessary. In the early years, its members were usually represented either by elder statesmen
who had withdrawn from active politics, such as Arthur Balfour or Léon Bourgeois, or by
professional diplomats. In 1923 the European members began to send their foreign ministers
to each meeting, a change which greatly enhanced the authority and importance of the
Council. This continued to be the normal practice until the last days of the League.

The main business of the Council was political. It dealt not only with the major disputes
which might endanger peace but with countless small problems arising out of the peace
treaties or submitted to it by the states concerned: problems of frontier adjustment; disputes
arising from frontier incidents or accusations of wrongs done to minorities; problems
concerning particular areas of constant tension, such as Danzig (now Gdańsk) or the Saar
territory, where treaty settlements entrusted administrative or arbitral decisions to the council;
and reports from committees, such as those dealing with disarmament or with
the mandated territories. In any dispute likely to lead to a rupture, the votes of the parties
concerned did not count. With this exception, all decisions of substance required unanimity,
and all League members concerned in the question under discussion had, for the occasion, the
rights of Council membership. Actual cases of veto or deadlock were very few, but without
doubt the Council tended, in consequence, toward compromise or delay rather than clear-cut
decisions.

In organizing the Secretariat, Sir Eric James Drummond, the first secretary-general (1919–
33), struck out on a completely new path. He and his French and U.S. deputies built up a
strictly international institution in which it was understood from the first that all officials
were to act independently from their own national authorities. If this ideal was not always
realized, it is still true to say that it governed the attitude of the Secretariat as a whole and that
the latter was rarely if ever accused of partiality on national grounds. As regards
its efficiency, the Secretariat early reached a high standard and maintained it. In spite of
predictions to the contrary, officials from many different countries were able to work together
with zeal and cordiality, and the Secretariat was as proud of its corporate spirit as any
national service could be. Its work, however, and that of the League in general, was
throughout hampered by poverty. At each Assembly the League members, especially the
richest ones, made devoted efforts to cut down its expenditure to the bone. The average
annual budget for the League, the International Labour Organization, and the permanent court
combined was less than $5,500,00. This covered not only running costs but also capital
expenditure, including the great Palais des Nations, which was completed in 1937.
Nevertheless, the opponents of the League were able to establish the legend that it was an
expensive and extravagant institution.

The Assembly, Council, and Secretariat were the central organs of an extensive structure
of auxiliary institutions. These fell into two main categories: those of a legal or political
character, set up to assist the League in its duty of preventing tension and settling disputes;
and those of a social or economic character, whose advice was often sought in connection
with political disputes but whose main function was to organize and enhance international
cooperation in social and economic affairs.

The principal organs of the first category were the Permanent Court of International Justice;
the Permanent Mandates Commission; the minorities committees of the Council; and the
commissions concerned with military affairs and with the problems of disarmament. Of these,
the court and the mandates commission were by general consensus highly efficient bodies
which rendered valuable service to the League and to peace. The minorities committees were
bitterly criticized, as indeed was all the Council’s work on the protection of minorities, on
exactly opposite grounds, by the minorities and by the governments concerned. In truth, not a
few injustices were redressed, but the Council’s responsibilities in this field were completely
disproportionate to its powers.

In the second category, the most important organs were—besides the International Labour
Organization, administratively a part of the League but otherwise autonomous—the
Economic and Financial Organization, the Organization for Communications and Transit, the
Health Organization, and the Intellectual Cooperation Organization. To these must be added
those dealing with more strictly humanitarian affairs: the curtailing of the international drug
trade, the protection of women, child welfare, the abolition of slavery, and the refugee
problem. Several of these were in themselves complex organizations, comprising regular
conferences, a standing committee, and numerous subcommittees for special subjects. These
bodies undertook a massive amount of work, whether in the form of general agreements and
treaties, of advice and assistance to particular countries or regions, or of consultation and
exchange of ideas and methods.

This work formed a continuous, often inconspicuous, background to the political action of the
League. Though often frustrated by political realities, it represented in total a great
contribution to human welfare. It was done without payment; the organizations’ members,
usually eminent experts in their own fields, received nothing beyond their expenses.

Failure of league of nations & the formation of UN

While the League of Nations had some success, it ultimately suffered many failures before its
demise during World War II. These failures, especially in the 1930’s, cruelly exposed the
weaknesses of the League of Nations and played a part in the outbreak of World War Two in
1939. During the 1920’s the failures of the League of Nations were essentially small-scale
and did not threaten world peace. However, they did set a marker – that the League of
Nations could not solve problems if the protagonists did not ‘play the game’. Created at the
Paris Peace Conference in 1919, the League’s Covenant was embedded in the text of the
Treaty of Versailles at the insistence of its great patron, Woodrow Wilson. But when the U.S.
Senate expressed reservations regarding the League, to protect U.S. sovereignty and freedom
of action, the President rejected the arguments. The Senate then rejected the Treaty, and the
United States never joined the League of Nations 3. The League did have success in settling
refugees after World War I, and some success with minor territorial disputes in Europe after
the founding of several new countries in the east. However, it did not stop battles from taking
place over territory, sending the message that the League would be weak in enforcing any of
its proposed solutions to diplomatic or militaristic troubles. Article 11 of the League’s
Covenant stated: “Any war or threat of war is a matter of concern to the whole League and
the League shall take action that may safeguard peace.” Therefore, any conflict between
nations, which ended in war and the victory of one state over another, had to be viewed as a
failure by the League. The first crisis the League had to face was in north Italy In 1919,
Italian nationalists, angered that the “Big Three” had broken promises to Italy at the Treaty of
Versailles, captured the small port of Fiume. The Treaty of Versailles had given this port to
Yugoslavia. The newly created played no part in the dispute, even though it had been set up
with the specific task of maintaining peace. The next crisis the League faced was at Teschen,
which was a small town between Poland and Czechoslovakia. Its main importance was that it
had valuable coalmines there, which both the Poles and the Czechs wanted. As both were
newly created nations, both wanted to make their respective economies as strong as possible
and the acquisition of rich coal mines would certainly help in this respect. In January 1919,
Polish and Czech troops fought in the streets of Teschen. The League was called on to help,
and decided that the bulk of the town should go to Poland while Czechoslovakia should have
one of Teschen’s suburbs. This suburb contained the most valuable coalmines and the Poles
refused to accept this decision. Though no more wholesale violence took place, the two
countries continued to argue over the issue for the next twenty years. Many years before
1920, Vilna had been taken over by Russia. Historically, Vilna had been the capital of
Lithuania when the state had existed in the Middle Ages. After World War One, Lithuania had
been re-established and Vilna seemed the natural choice for its capital. However, by 1920,
30% of the population was from Poland with Lithuanians only making up 2% of the city’s
population. In 1920, the Poles seized Vilna. Lithuania asked for League help but the Poles
could not be persuaded to leave the city. Vilna stayed in Polish hands until the outbreak of
World War Two. The use of force by the Poles had won. In 1920, Poland invaded land held
by the Russians. The Poles quickly overwhelmed the Russian army and made a swift advance
into Russia. By 1921, the Russians had no choice but to sign the Treaty of Riga, which
handed over to Poland nearly 80,000 square kilometres of Russian land. This one treaty all
3
D Failure of the League of Nations.pdf,
https://www.chino.k12.ca.us/cms/lib/CA01902308/Centricity/Domain/3696/D%20Failure%20of%20the
%20League%20of%20Nations.pdf (last visited Apr 15, 2024).
but doubled the size of Poland. The League’s response was to take no action. Russia by 1919
was communist and this “plague from the East” was greatly feared by the West. The Treaty of
Versailles had ordered Weimar Germany to pay reparations for war damages. These could
either be paid in money or in kind (goods to the value of a set amount). In 1922, the Germans
failed to pay an instalment. The Allies refused to accept this and the anti-German feeling at
this time was still strong. Both France and Belgium believed that some form of strong action
was needed to ‘teach Germany a lesson’. In 1923, contrary to League rules, French and
Belgian troops invaded the Ruhr – Germany’s most important industrial zone. Within Europe,
France was seen as a senior League member – like Britain – and the anti-German feeling that
was felt throughout Europe allowed both France and Belgium to break their own rules as
were introduced by the League. For the League to enforce its will, it needed the support of its
major backers in Europe, Britain and France. Yet France was one of the invaders and Britain
was a major supporter of her. To other nations, it seemed that if you wanted to break League
rules, you could. Few countries criticized what France and Belgium did. But the example
they set for others in future years was obvious. The League clearly failed on this occasion,
primarily because it was seen to be involved in breaking its own rules. All of these failures
were secondary to the much larger crises in the 1930’s. What they did show the world was
that the League could not enforce a settlement, and dictators were keen to exploit this where
they could. In Asia, Japan defied the League’s directives. In Europe, Mussolini would test the
League’s resolve with Italy’s invasion of Abyssinia. In December 1934, a dispute about the
border between Abyssinia and the Italian Somaliland flared into fighting. In January 1935,
Haile Selassie, the emperor of Abyssinia, asked the League to arbitrate. In July 1935, the
League banned arms sales to either side, and in September 1935, it appointed a five-power
committee to arbitrate. In October 1935, the League's committee suggested that Italy should
have some land in Abyssinia. Instead, Italy's 100,000-strong army invaded Abyssinia. The
Italian troops used poison gas and attacked Red Cross hospitals. Britain and France refused to
intervene. In December 1935, news leaked out about the Hoare-Laval Pact - a secret plan
made by the foreign secretary of Britain and the prime minister of France to give Abyssinia to
Italy. In the end, the League did almost nothing. By May 1936, Italy had conquered
Abyssinia.

On April 26, 1946, the League of Nations officially disbanded and transferred all of its assets
to a new organization, the United Nations. The United Nations, or UN, was officially
established on October 24, 1945. Unlike the League, the UN was created with all major
Allied Powers from the preceding war as members: both the United States and the Soviet
Union were founding states. Today, almost all nations in the world are part of the UN,
including perennial troublemaker North Korea. The only nation-state of any considerable size
or economic power that is not a member is Taiwan (Republic of China), which was replaced
as the legal entity for China in the UN by the People’s Republic of China in 1972

Today, the UN continues all of the same roles as the original League of Nations. Unlike the
UN, it has stronger mandates for peacekeeping and has almost 100,000 military personnel
from 120 member nations. UN Peacekeepers are known for their blue helmets and have
protected civilians and UN humanitarian personnel in many crisis spots since 1948. Aside
from peacekeeping, the UN performs a wide range of humanitarian work and scientific
research in the areas of climate change and international health. Instead of Geneva,
Switzerland, the UN is headquartered in New York City but has sites and offices around the
world.

Specialised agencies of the UN

The United Nations (UN) has a number of specialized agencies, each with a distinct mandate
and responsibilities in specific areas of international cooperation and development. These
agencies function as autonomous organizations within the UN system and work closely with
the UN to achieve its goals. Here is a list of the main specialized agencies of the UN:

1. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)4:

- Works to combat hunger and improve food security worldwide.

- Supports sustainable agricultural practices and rural development.

2. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)5:

- Sets standards and regulations for aviation safety, security, and efficiency.

- Promotes the safe and orderly growth of international civil aviation.

3. International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)6:

4
Katarina Hjortsäter, FAO - DagDok - Guide to the UN Documentation, https://www.dagdok.org/un-system/un-
specialized-agencies/fao/ (last visited Apr 15, 2024).
5
Katarina Hjortsäter, ICAO - DagDok - Guide to the UN Documentation,
https://www.dagdok.org/un-system/un-specialized-agencies/icao/ (last visited Apr 15, 2024).
 - Focuses on rural poverty reduction and agricultural development.

- Provides funding and support for projects that improve the lives of rural populations.

4. International Labour Organization (ILO)7:

- Promotes labor rights, social justice, and decent work.

- Sets international labor standards and works to improve working conditions.

5. International Maritime Organization (IMO)8:

- Regulates international shipping to ensure safety, security, and environmental protection.

- Develops standards and guidelines for maritime safety.

6. International Monetary Fund (IMF)9:

- Promotes global monetary cooperation and financial stability.

- Provides financial assistance and advice to member countries.

7. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)10:

- Promotes education, science, culture, and communication.

- Works to preserve cultural heritage and promote cultural diversity.

8. United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)11:

- Supports industrial development and economic growth in developing countries.

- Promotes sustainable and inclusive industrialization.

9. World Health Organization (WHO)12

6
Katarina Hjortsäter, IFAD - DagDok - Guide to the UN Documentation,
https://www.dagdok.org/un-system/un-specialized-agencies/ifad/ (last visited Apr 15, 2024).
7
About the ILO, https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/lang--en/index.htm (last visited Apr 15, 2024).
8
IMO - International Maritime Organization | Functions and Objectives. India and IMO, BYJUS,
https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/international-maritime-organization/ (last visited Apr 15, 2024).
9
What Is the International Monetary Fund (IMF)?, INVESTOPEDIA,
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/imf.asp (last visited Apr 15, 2024).
10
Mattias Sundholm, UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, OFFICE OF
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL’S ENVOY ON YOUTH (Aug. 23, 2013),
https://www.un.org/youthenvoy/2013/08/unesco-united-nations-educational-scientific-and-cultural-
organization/ (last visited Apr 15, 2024).
11
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) | LDC Portal - International Support Measures
for Least Developed Countries, https://www.un.org/ldcportal/content/united-nations-industrial-development-
organization-unido (last visited Apr 15, 2024).
 - Directs and coordinates international health matters.

- Works to prevent disease, promote health, and respond to health emergencies.

10. World Meteorological Organization (WMO)13:

- Promotes international cooperation in meteorology, climatology, and related sciences.

- Works to improve weather forecasting and climate monitoring.

11. World Tourism Organization (UNWTO)14:

- Promotes responsible and sustainable tourism.

- Works to foster economic growth and job creation through tourism.

These specialized agencies operate independently but coordinate with the UN and other
international organizations to achieve shared goals. They play a crucial role in addressing
global challenges and promoting international cooperation.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF UN’S ROLE AS A REPLACEMENT OF LEAGUE OF

NATION:

The League of Nations was significantly surpassed by the United Nations (UN) and its
specialised agencies, which provide a more all-encompassing and cooperative approach to
tackling global issues. This is a critical examination of the UN's role in replacing the League
of Nations, especially as it relates to its specialised agencies:

 Diverse Strategy;
 Knowledge and Support;
 International Health and Development;
 Interactions in Education and Culture
 Global Governance and Reform
 Humanitarian Assistance and Refugee Protection
 Peacekeeping and Conflict Resolution;

12
United Nations, World Health Organization, UNITED NATIONS, https://www.un.org/en/academic-impact/who
(last visited Apr 15, 2024).
13
World Meteorological Organization (WMO) | Britannica, (2024), https://www.britannica.com/topic/World-
Meteorological-Organization (last visited Apr 15, 2024).
14
World Tourism Organization .:. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform,
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=30022&nr=2584&menu=3170 (last visited
Apr 15, 2024).
  Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment;
 Human Rights Promotion and Protection;
 Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development;

The UN takes a multipronged approach to global challenges, addressing not only security
concerns but also health, education, culture, and other socioeconomic factors. This approach
is shared by the UN and its specialised organisations, such as the World Health Organisation
(WHO), UNESCO, and UNICEF. Specialised agencies help member states by conducting
research, offering technical assistance, and developing their capacity. They also bring
expertise in their particular disciplines. Global health initiatives, disease control, and
humanitarian assistance have been greatly aided by organisations like the WHO and
UNICEF, which have made major contributions to advances in public health and
development results globally. In order to encourage understanding among people and
preserve cultural heritage, UNESCO works to promote international collaboration in the
fields of education, science, culture, and communication. Globally, organisations that address
environmental issues and advance sustainable development techniques include the Food and
Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
The UN's peacekeeping missions have played a crucial role in averting or lessening hostilities
in a number of areas, offering a stage for diplomatic discussions, and supporting efforts
towards reconstruction and reconciliation following a conflict. UN organisations such as the
World Food Programme (WFP) and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) are
essential in giving millions of refugees, internally displaced people, and vulnerable groups
around the world with protection, support, and humanitarian aid. Through programmes like
UN Women and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
Women (CEDAW), which support women's rights, participation, and leadership in all areas of
society, the UN has achieved tremendous progress towards achieving gender equality and
women's empowerment. The UN's human rights institutions, which hold governments and
non-state actors accountable for abuses, monitor, report on, and advocate for the protection
and advancement of human rights worldwide. These mechanisms include the Human Rights
Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The UN
facilitates international cooperation, communication, and negotiation by giving member
states a stage on which to discuss shared issues, work out agreements, and establish
international standards and policies. The approach to global challenges involves specialized
agencies implementing programs, but also faces coordination challenges due to resource
constraints, political interference, and lack of cooperation. UNESCO's effectiveness is
hindered by ideological differences among member states. Progress on environmental
protection and sustainable development is slow due to inadequate funding and competing
interests. Peacekeeping missions face challenges like insufficient resources and unclear
mandates. Humanitarian agencies face security and logistical issues. Gender inequality
persists globally, and the UN's decision-making processes can be slow and cumbersome,
hindering meaningful reform.

The UN's structure, with five permanent members holding veto power, can lead to gridlock
and paralysis in decision-making, hindering its ability to address crises and conflicts. Limited
enforcement mechanisms, resource constraints, geopolitical tensions, humanitarian crises,
violations of international law, and lack of universal compliance also pose challenges. The
UN relies heavily on voluntary contributions from member states, but funding shortages limit
its ability to respond effectively. The UN faces challenges in addressing human rights abuses,
war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and not all member states fully comply with their
obligations. Reform and adaptation are needed to better reflect geopolitical realities and
address emerging global challenges.

In conclusion, despite the fact that the UN and its specialised agencies have significantly
aided in global growth and governance, they continue to encounter difficulties carrying out
their objectives. As the League of Nations' successor, the United Nations (UN) has faced and
still faces several obstacles in carrying out its mandate. In order to ensure that the UN stays
relevant and responsive to the changing requirements of the international community,
overcoming these obstacles will require increased coordination, sufficient resources, political
commitment, and greater diversity.

Bibliography
1. About the ILO, https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/lang--en/index.htm (last
visited Apr 15, 2024).
2. Katarina Hjortsäter, FAO - DagDok - Guide to the UN Documentation,
https://www.dagdok.org/un-system/un-specialized-agencies/fao/ (last visited Apr 15,
2024).
3. Katarina Hjortsäter, ICAO - DagDok - Guide to the UN Documentation,
https://www.dagdok.org/un-system/un-specialized-agencies/icao/ (last visited Apr 15,
2024).
4. League of Nations - WWI, Peacekeeping, Intergovernmental | Britannica,
https://www.britannica.com/topic/League-of-Nations/The-Covenant (last visited Apr
15, 2024).
5. Katarina Hjortsäter, IFAD - DagDok - Guide to the UN Documentation,
https://www.dagdok.org/un-system/un-specialized-agencies/ifad/ (last visited Apr 15,
2024).
6. Mattias Sundholm, UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL’S ENVOY ON YOUTH (Aug. 23,
2013), https://www.un.org/youthenvoy/2013/08/unesco-united-nations-educational-
scientific-and-cultural-organization/ (last visited Apr 15, 2024).
7. United Nations - Human Rights, Global Peace, International Law | Britannica,
https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-Nations/Human-rights (last visited Apr 15,
2024).
8. United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) | LDC Portal -
International Support Measures for Least Developed Countries,
https://www.un.org/ldcportal/content/united-nations-industrial-development-
organization-unido (last visited Apr 15, 2024).
9. What Is the International Monetary Fund (IMF)?, INVESTOPEDIA,
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/imf.asp (last visited Apr 15, 2024).
10. United Nations, World Health Organization, UNITED NATIONS,
https://www.un.org/en/academic-impact/who (last visited Apr 15, 2024).
11. World Meteorological Organization (WMO) | Britannica, (2024),
https://www.britannica.com/topic/World-Meteorological-Organization (last visited
Apr 15, 2024).
12. World Tourism Organization .:. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform,
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?
page=view&type=30022&nr=2584&menu=3170 (last visited Apr 15, 2024).