You are on page 1of 15

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS International Organization, membership group that operates across national borders for specific purposes.

Scholars of international relations consider international organizations to have growing importance in world politics. Examples of international organizations include the United Nations (UN), the World Bank (see International Bank for Reconstruction and Development), the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Greenpeace. Most international organizations operate as part of one or more international regimes. An international regime is a set of rules, standards, and procedures that govern national behavior in a particular area. Examples of international regimes include arms control, foreign trade, and Antarctic exploration. International organizations are often central to the functioning of an international regime, giving structure and procedures to the “rules of the game” by which nations must play. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the European Union (EU) are key organizations that define the international trade regime. TYPES OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS: International organizations fall into two main categories: intergovernmental organizations and nongovernmental organizations. Intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) have national governments as members. Hundreds of IGOs operate in all parts of the world. Member nations have created each of these organizations to serve a purpose that those nations find useful. Membership can range from as few as two member nations to virtually all nations. The UN and its various agencies are IGOs. So are most of the world’s economic coordinating institutions, such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the Group of Eight (G-8). The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) seeks to coordinate the production and pricing policies of its 11 member states. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) seeks to regulate the flow of nuclear technology to developing nations. The WTO helps negotiate and monitor agreements among 146 nations to lower trade barriers. Military alliances, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and political groupings, such as the Arab League and the African Union, are also IGOs. In general, regional IGOs have experienced more success than global ones, and those with specific purposes have worked better than those with broad aims. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are private organizations whose memberships and activities are international in scope. NGOs do not possess the legal status of national governments. However, the UN and other international forums recognize many NGOs as important political institutions. Examples of NGOs include the Roman Catholic Church, Greenpeace, the International Olympic Committee, and the International Committee of the Red Cross. Although multinational corporations (MNCs)

share many characteristics of NGOs, they are not international organizations because they do not coordinate the actions of members for mutual gain. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS Historically, international organizations and regimes have reflected the interests of the world’s most powerful nations, or great powers. Many international organizations and regimes were established during times of global hegemony—that is, when one nation has predominated in international power. These periods have often followed a major war among the great powers. Today’s international organizations—such as the UN, the Organization of American States (OAS), and the World Bank—were created after World War II ended in 1945, when the United States was powerful enough to create rules and institutions that other countries would follow. Although rooted in power, international organizations and regimes generally serve the interests of most participating nations and usually endure even when hegemony wanes. Most countries share mutual interests, yet find it hard to coordinate their actions for mutual benefit because of the lack of a central authority. Nations also face the temptation to bend the rules in their own favor. For example, it is in everyone’s interest to halt production of chemicals that damage the earth’s ozone layer. However, a country can save money by continuing to use those chemicals. The coordination of efforts to write new rules and monitor them requires an international organization. For example, the United Nations Environment Program helped countries negotiate a treaty to stop producing ozone-destroying chemicals. Thus, nations find it useful to give international organizations some power to enforce rules. Most countries follow the rules most of the time. International organizations are also able to make countries aware of the need to act on emerging issues. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations were instrumental in focusing attention on acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) as a global crisis. In the 18th century, German philosopher Immanuel Kant and French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau broadly outlined the concept of a global federation of countries resembling today’s UN. Nations joined the first IGOs in the 19th century. These were practical organizations through which nations managed specific issues, such as international mail service and control of traffic on European rivers. Such organizations proliferated in the 20th century to cover a wide variety of specific issues. At the same time, the scope of international organizations expanded, culminating with the creation of the League of Nations in 1920.

The development of European regional organizations after World War II ended in 1945 mirrored the growth of IGOs historically, in that narrowly focused organizations preceded broader and more encompassing international institutions. The European Coal and Steel Community, predecessor of the European Union, coordinated coal and steel production. Today, the European Commission, executive agency of the European Union, enforces regulations concerning labor, the environment, agriculture, and a host of other issues that affect the daily lives of virtually every citizen in Europe. NGOs similarly developed from the need to coordinate specific, narrowly defined activities across national borders. Beginning in the 19th century, churches and professional and scientific occupational groups formed the first NGOs. The Red Cross was organized in 1863 to establish and monitor the laws of warfare. It was one of the first NGOs to actively work to change the behavior of states. Some political parties—notably communist parties in the early 20th century—organized internationally and began to function as NGOs. In the 20th century, specialized NGOs also sprang up in such areas as sports, business, tourism, and communication. Between 1945 and 1995, the number of international organizations increased fivefold, reaching about 500 IGOs and 5,000 NGOs. By 2003, the number of international organizations increased fivefold again, to nearly 25,000—mostly due to the proliferation of NGOs made possible by new technologies such as the Internet. On average, a new NGO is created somewhere in the world every few days. This trend reflects the growing importance of international coordination for both governmental and private institutions in an interdependent world. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS TODAY One sign of the important role of international organizations is how they have endured as international power relations shift. In 1991, the Soviet Union dissolved and the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States ended. Russia and other formerly communist countries in Eastern Europe ceased to pose a threat to the capitalist democracies of Western Europe. One might have expected NATO, which defended Western European nations, to go out of business, but it did not. Similarly, the creation of the WTO did not cause smaller free-trade associations such as NAFTA to end. Instead, the mosaic of international organizations continues to expand, particularly as new communications and informationprocessing technologies make international groups more practical and effective. International organizations have emerged as important actors in international relations. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 for its work coordinating the efforts of IGOs, NGOs, and states to write, sign, and ratify the international treaty banning the use of land mines. International organizations are now able to pressure states into adopting certain courses of action. When a state will not act,


and to prevent the Invasions which during so many years have desolated the World. and of £30 for cavalry. Austria. have also determined to enter. the party requiring and the parties called upon. moreover. the further succours to be furnished during the subsequent year. to keep in the field during a certain This treaty in terms includes only Austria and Russia. to settle the methods of maintaining against every attack the order of things which shall have been the happy result of their efforts. to invite the accession to the present treaty of defensive alliance of the monarchies of Spain. Portugal. on the conclusion of a peace with France. The High Contracting Parties. The present Treaty of Defensive Alliance having for its object to maintain the equilibrium of Europe. the others shall employ their most strenuous efforts to prevent it. nor Convention. Therefore. have agreed to sanction by a solemn Treaty. and wishing at the same time. mutually understood and agreed upon. Considering the necessity which may exist after the conclusion of a defensive treaty of peace with France. To effect this. the High Contracting Parties have agreed to extend the duration of it to 20 years. each of them. to be kept against the Enemy. in consequence of furnishing the stipulated Succours. Italy divided into independent states. they agree that in the event of one of the High Contracting Parties being threatened with an Attack on the part of France. Nor can private groups and individuals rely on national governments to solve major world problems. that in case they shall be reciprocally engaged in organizations can mobilize individuals to take action. Russia. if Providence blesses their pacific intentions. in execution of article 15 of the open treaty. and Prussia engage by the present Treaty to keep in the field. Treaty of Chaumont March 1. having forwarded to the French Government proposals for the conclusion of a general peace. Sweden. in order to obtain for themselves and for Europe a General Peace. The High Contracting Parties reciprocally engage not to treat separately with the common Enemy.000 for the service of the year 1814. King of Hungary and of Bohemia. As the most comprehensive and typical of the series of treaties which created and controlled the alliance against France the terms of this document should be carefully noted. and they reserve to themselves to concert upon its ulterior prolongation three years before its expiration. and desiring. The terms alluded to in article 1 were those offered to Napoleon at the Congress of Châtillon. to be divided in equal proportions amongst the three Powers. this double engagement. the continuance of the Peace. to arrange before the 1st of January in each year. The High Contracting Parties mutually promise. both governments and individuals will continue to turn to international organizations as an important way to address these problems and to protect their own interests. Holland. EARLY COOPERATION AMONG STATES 1. by uniting for their common defence the Powers the most exposed to a French invasion. In order to render more effectual the Defensive Engagements above stipulated. Spain governed by King Ferdinand VII in its former limits. 1814. and acting as Auxiliaries in the War. signed separately by each of the four Powers with the other three. His Britannic Majesty reserves the right of furnishing his contingent to the requiring Power in Foreign Troops in his pay. but Great Britain and Prussia were included in similar treaties formed at the same time. moreover. to secure the repose and Independence of its States. and His Royal Highness the Prince of Orange. His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias. and to employ them in perfect concert. or other circumstances. under the sovereignty of the Prince of Orange. with an increase of territory and the establishment of a suitable frontier. exclusive of garrisons.000 effective men. The Swiss Confederation in its former limits and in an independence placed under the guarantee of the great powers of Europe. until the stipulated succour shall be complete. states have come to rely on international organizations to provide essential services that states are unwilling or unable to offer. Secret Articles The re-establishment of an equilibrium of the powers and a just distribution of the forces among them being the aim of the present war. and it is understood that the Courts of England. engage not to lay down their Arms until the object of the War. Although dated March 1 the treaty was not actually signed until March 9. to apply all the means of their respective States to the vigorous prosecution of the War against that Power. or to pay annually to that Power a sum of money. such as disaster assistance or aid for refugees. The high confederated parties agree. The High Contracting Parties above named solemnly engage by the present Treaty. the High Contracting Parties promise to come to the immediate assistance of the Power attacked. As the situation of the Seat of War. and to maintain the same on a War establishment. into defensive engagements for the Protection of their respective States in Europe against every attempt which France might make to infringe the order of things resulting from such Pacification. with their imperial and Royal Majesties.000 men. to be employed in active service against the common Enemy. Truce. and to admit to it likewise other sovereigns and states according to the exigency of the case. and in the event of France refusing to accede to the Conditions of Peace now proposed. as to the means best adapted to guarantee to Europe. intermediaries between the Austrian possessions in Italy and France. France included. under the Protection of which the Rights and Liberties of all Nations may be established and secured.000. to draw closer the bonds which unite them for the vigorous prosecution of a war undertaken with the salutary purpose of putting an end to the misfortunes of Europe by assuring future repose through the re-establishment of a just equilibrium of the Powers. each with a body of 60. in case France should refuse the conditions of that peace. might render it difficult for Great Britain to furnish the stipulated succours in English troops within the term prescribed. their Imperial and Royal Majesties obligate themselves to direct their efforts toward the actual establishment of the following system in Europe. shall not make Peace but by common consent. reserving to themselves to concert together. without delay. the High Contracting Parties engage to invite those Powers to accede to the present Treaty of Defensive Alliance. to take date from the day of its signature. In case of these endeavours proving ineffectual. and His said Majesty promises. at the rate of £20 per man for infantry. His Majesty the King of Prussia. should circumstances require it. His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. nor to sign Peace. and to themselves reciprocally. In some matters. 150. to wit: Germany composed of sovereign princes united by a federative bond which assures and guarantees the independence of Germany. free and independent state. His Imperial Majesty and Royal Highness the Emperor of Austria. In order to contribute in the most prompt and decisive manner to fulfill this great object. by friendly interposition. but with common consent. shall have been attained. They. This engagement shall in no respect affect the Stipulations which the several Powers have already contracted relative to the number of Troops 2 . if (which God forbid) the War should so long continue. His Britannic Majesty engages to furnish a Subsidy of £5. The interdependence of nations in the modern world means that no single nation can dictate the outcome of international conflicts.

Corsica. 2. our very dear and very beloved brother. and the full powers granted by John II. and its eastern side. The Treaty of Tordesillas shifted the demarcation line to a circle passing 370 leagues West of the Cape Verde Islands and thus set the legal base for the colonization of the eastern coast of the land now known as Brazil by the Portuguese explorer Pedro Alvarez Cabral. word for word. magistrate of civil cases in his court and member of his desembargo. from the Arctic to the Antarctic pole. Valencia. that from this date no ships shall be despatched-namely as follows: the said King and Queen of Castile. the lord and lady Don Ferdinand and Dona Isabella. etc. and by Portugal on September 5. the date of this treaty. to Ruy de Sousa. on sailing thus on this side of the said bound. found and discovered already. Treaty of Tordesillas The Treaty of Tordesillas was concluded on June 7 1494 to settle the contentious matter of the possession of the newly discovered lands of the non Christian world between Portugal and Spain. and authorized in our name in regard to the above-mentioned. is discovered in the ocean sea. there being present the honorable Don Enrique Enriques. heir of our aforesaid kingdoms and lordships.. He landed there on April 22. and Doctor Rodrigo Maldonado. both islands and mainlands. and of the aforesaid King of Portugal and the Algarves. None of the high confederated powers shall be required to furnish forces. and their Highnesses shall order them to be surrendered to him immediately. his son.. their said representatives. who came to us in regard to the controversy over what part belongs to us and what part to the said Most Serene King our brother. provided the distance shall be no greater than abovesaid. etc. Leon. their qualified representatives of the one part. Leon. adjusted. Algeciras. and England shall be at liberty to furnish its contingent in the manner stipulated in article 9. or conquest of any kind. Whereas by Don Enrique Enriques. and remain in the possession of. Aragon. which pertains to the said King of Portugal and the Algarves. duke and duchess of Athens and Neopatras. both islands and mainlands. three truly separate and distinct persons and only one divine essence. determined as above. and the honorable Ruy de Sousa. king of Portugal and of the Algarves on this side and beyond the sea in Africa. Leon. without its express and voluntary consent. Leon. The margin of the maneuver given to Portugal by the papal bull was small.] That. our chief auditor. And all lands. and to their successors. Be it manifest and known to all who shall see this public instrument. as abovesaid. Aragon. Aragon. chief inspector of weights and measures of the said Most Serene King our brother. Father. etc. etc. and Doctor Rodrigo Maldonado. in which said agreement our aforesaid representatives promised among other things that within a certain term specified in it we should sanction. Leon. which have been discovered or shall be discovered by the said King and Queen of Castile.. 1494. Sicily. and Dr. Cordova. discovered or to be discovered hereafter. Granada. and with Ruy de Sousa. of that which up to this seventh day of the present month of June. the said King of Portugal and his successors. and Holy Ghost. issued on May 4. The judiciary precedent of the treaty was the Inter Caetera Papal Bull. they. for the sake of peace and concord. etc. lord of Sagres and Berenguel. Aragon. Murcia. on the said ocean sea. nor the said King of Portugal to the other part of the said bound which pertains to the said King and Queen of Castile. Aragon. Aragon. found or to be found hereafter. chief auditor of the said lords. This division gave the entire New World to Spain and Africa and India to Portugal. to the said King of Portugal. or for the purpose of trade.. 1493 by the Spanish Pope Alexander VI. on this side the said bound. count and countess of Roussillon and Cerdagne. or to be found and discovered hereafter. shall belong to. on the eastern side of the said bound provided the said bound is not crossed. But should it come to pass that the said ships of the said King and Queen of Castile. Rodrigo Maldonado on June 5. by the grace of God king and queen of Castile. and his qualified ambassadors and representatives. Granada. the said representatives promise and affirm by virtue of the powers aforesaid. after having passed the said bound toward the west. in either its north or south latitude. wishing to fulfill and fulfilling all that which was thus adjusted. Don Gutierre de Cardenas. swear to.: [I. whereas a certain controversy exists between the said lords. should discover any mainlands or islands in the region pertaining. as to what lands. barter. and Ayres de Almada. all members of our council. and notaries public subscribed below. the tenor of which. according to the need of the circumstances. Galiciaj Majorca Seville. Translation of the Treaty Don Ferdinand and Dona Isabella. Sicily. and by their vessels. of all those discovered in the ocean sea up to the present day. Don Gutierre de Cardenas. Aragon. Don Gutierre de Cardenas. the king and queen. his son. Sardinia. the high confederated powers have decided to concert among themselves. Sagres and Berenguel. And all other lands. all such lands shall belong to and remain forever in the possession of the said King and Queen of Castile. acting in their name and by virtue of their powers herein described. during more than one year. shall belong to. our very dear and very beloved first-born son. and their heirs. confirm. chief inspector of weights and measures of the very exalted and very excellent lord Dom John. pertain to each one of the said parts respectively. the secretaries.. not only over the necessity. Algarve. from pole to pole. or by any other manner as may be considered the best and readiest. our chief steward. Leon. covenanted and agreed that a boundary or straight line be determined and drawn north and south. ordered the said instrument of the aforesaid agreement and treaty to be brought before us that we might see and examine it. is as follows: In the name of God Almighty. and approve the above-mentioned agreement in person: we. by the grace of God king of Portugal and of the Algarves on this side and beyond the sea in Africa. lord of Guinea. it being the pleasure of their Highnesses. for this part of the bound. the date of this instrument. etc. but over the sum and the distribution of the forces to be kept upon foot. chief steward of the very exalted and very mighty princes. on the seventh day of the month of June.. for the purpose set forth above. ratify. count and countess of Barcelona. Leon. as aforesaid. 1500 claimed the land and named it:Tierra da Vera Cruz (land of the true cross). [2. all members of the council of the said lords. etc. by the grace of God king and queen of Castile. etc. Granada. Dom Joao de Sousa. Sicily. marquis and marchioness of Oristano and Gociano. Dom Juan de Sousa. the tenor of which. together with the Prince Don John. Granada. Jaen.. their constituents. This boundary or line shall be drawn straight. in the presence of us. And if the said ships of the said King of Portugal discover any islands and mainlands in the regions of the said King and Queen of Castile. as was proved by both the said parties by means of the letters of authorization and procurations from the said lords their constituents.. on the western side of the said bound. and Ayres de Almada. Sicily. lord of 3 . [and acting] in his name and by virtue of his power. 1494. and pertain forever to. etc. and the said King of Portugal shall cause such lands to be surrendered immediately. agreed upon. etc. by the said King of Portugal and by his vessels on this side of the said line and bound determined as above. is as follows: [Here follow the full powers granted by Ferdinand and Isabella to Don Enrique Enriques. Aragon.-for the purpose of discovering and seeking any mainlands or islands. Aragon. Leon. Gibraltar. Leon. his ambassadors. all of the council of the said lord King of Portugal. magistrate of the civil cases in his court and member of his desembargo.. word for word. The Inter Caetera Bull fixed the demarcation line along a circle passing 100 leagues W of the Cape Verde Islands and through the two poles. lord and lady of Biscay and Molina. etc. in either north or south latitude. Son. and for the preservation of the relationship and love of the said King of Portugal for the said King and Queen of Castile. and pertain forever to. at a distance of three hundred and seventy leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands. such mainlands or islands shall pertain to and belong forever to the said King of Portugal and his heirs. etc. clerks. it was treated. and agreed for us and in our name and by virtue of our power with the most serene Dom John.. Aragon. lord of Guinea. and the Canary Islands. chief commissary of Leon.. in the year of the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ 1494. being calculated by degrees. by the grace of God. Aragon. Joao de Sousa. that at the village of Tordesillas. 1494. etc. the said King and Queen of Castile. Toledo. therefore.time sufficient forces to protect the arrangements which the allies must make among themselves for the re-establishment of the situation of Europe. 1494. and Ayres Almada on March 8. It was ratified by Spain on July 2. toward the east. the king and queen of Castile. and remain in the possession of.] Item.] "Thereupon it was declared by the above-mentioned representatives of the aforesaid King and Queen of Castile. all members of the council of the aforesaid Most Serene King our brother.

The said Don Enrique Enriques. observe.. and treaty shall continue in force and remain firm. even to the said poles. and each one of the said parties shall send certain persons in them. it should be given to them. as aforesaid. and the degrees of the sun or of north latitude. These vessels shall meet at the Grand Canary Island during this time. Aragon. so that they may jointly study and examine to better advantage the sea. determining a boundary or straight line from pole to pole. Aragon.. [4. shall be unable to deny it. Leon. and should their said ships find anything before crossing the said line. where the said two hundred and fifty leagues end. and under those same penalties. bonds. acting in the said name. forever and ever. stable. inside the said three hundred and seventy leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands. some kind of mark or tower shall be erected. provided that they lie within the first two hundred and fifty leagues of the said three hundred and seventy leagues reckoned west of the Cape Verde Islands to the above-mentioned line-in whatsoever part. the Algarves. or either of them. Dom Joao de Sousa. or in any other manner. on either side. and each part and parcel of it. as aforesaid. it is therefore concerted and agreed that the said ships of the said King and Queen of Castile. shall draw up a writing concerning it and affix thereto their signatures. they will not make use of it. some islands and mainlands within the said line. the lord king of Portugal and of the Algarves on this side and beyond the sea in Africa. and deem it expedient. they. freely. may discover before the twentieth day of this present month of June. of each of their respective parties. then prince in the former year of 1479. rather. following the date of this treaty. fulfilled. and fulfill.. etc. will keep. really and effectively. and whether the fine be paid or not paid. evasion. in like manner certain of the said persons sent by the said King of Portugal shall embark in the ship or ships of the said King and Queen of Castile.. must be determined. this line shall be considered as a perpetual mark and bound. etc. Likewise all the islands and mainlands found and discovered up to the said twentieth day of this present month of June by the ships and subjects of the said King and Queen of Castile. or in any other manner at any time. and their Highnesses shall order it surrendered immediately. Granada. and Arias de Almadana. shall. Aragon. perform. all sent and empowered by both the said parties in the said vessels. They shall take their courses direct to the desired region and for any purpose desired therein.. evasion. that all such islands and mainlands found and discovered in any manner whatsoever up to the said twentieth day of this said month of June. and the subjects of the said parties shall not dare. chief auditor.. and fulfill all the aforesaid and each part and parcel of it. and obligations. measured as the said persons shall agree. in order that. or those acting in their name. those sent by each of the aforesaid parties. and performed as everything which is set forth in the treaty of peace concluded and ratified between the said lord and lady. Don Gutierre de Cardenas. in the name of their said constituents. and performed.] Item. in order that the said line or bound of the said division may be made straight and as nearly as possible the said distance of three hundred and seventy leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands. a like number in each case. And whenever their Highnesses and their successors wish to do so. premeditated or not premeditated. the present ruler of Portugal. in determining the line and boundary. promised. deceit. chief steward. they swore before God and the Blessed Mary and upon the sign of the Cross. and valid forever and ever. And when this line has been determined as abovesaid.. to enter the territory of the other. one or two by each one of them. etc. namely. And since it is possible that the ships and subjects of the said King and Queen of Castile. drawn straight from pole to pole. and on the consciences of their said constituents. etc. and the said Ruy de Sousa. possessed and to be possessed. Leon. They shall do this provided that. [saying that they and their successors and kingdoms and lordships. and the lord Dom Alfonso. shall pertain to and remain forever in the possession of the said King of Portugal and the Algarves. his son. jointly and severally. pertaining to the said King of Portugal. is and must be theirs. over the said seas of the said King of Portugal. Aragon. and for the greater security and stability of the aforesaid. directly or indirectly. as hereinbefore stated. etc. conquest. securities. and within the said line. These said vessels shall continue their course together to the said Cape Verde Islands. which is incorporated above. sailors. then they shall pertain to the said King of Portugal as is set forth in the above. or in any manner whatsoever. everything set forth in this treaty. or that may or can be. And if. by crossing the said mark or bound in such island or mainland. deceit. in accordance with and in the manner set forth in the said treaty of peace. on which they placed their right hands. under the penalties set forth in the said agreement of the said peace. Sicily. Aragon. pilots. in such wise that the said parties. and of his successors and kingdoms. and Doctor Rodrigo Maldonado. although the said one hundred and twenty leagues are within the said bound of the said three hundred and seventy leagues pertaining to the said King of Portugal. must cross the seas on this side of the line. astrologers. the king and queen of Castile. Leon. and are discovered after the expiration of that time. entreat 4 . intersect any island or mainland. as aforesaid. which is incorporated above. movable and real. etc. And should.[3. sailing as before declared. a greater or less number. or in any other manner that shall mutually be deemed better. or erase or remove it. renouncing all fraud. and lay out the leagues aforesaid. proprio motu. their said ships may take their courses and routes direct from their kingdoms to any region within their line and bound to which they desire to despatch expeditions of discovery. or graciously remitted. etc. Also they bound themselves [by the promise]that neither the said parties nor any of them nor their successors forever should violate or oppose that which is abovesaid and specified. to the distance of the said three hundred and seventy degrees. as aforesaid. within the other one hundred and twenty leagues that still remain of the said three hundred and seventy leagues where the said bound that is to be drawn from pole to pole. that they. they shall not seize or take possession of anything discovered in his said region by the said King of Portugal. and they desired and authorized that everything set forth in this said agreement and every part and parcel of it be observed. and measured without prejudice to the said parties. falsehood. and shall not leave their course. shall embark in the ships of the said King of Portugal and the Algarves. They renounced all laws and rights of which the said parties or either of them might take advantage to violate or oppose the foregoing or any part of it. fulfilled. that is to say. and a succession of similar marks shall be erected in a straight line from such mark or tower. These marks shall separate those portions of such land belonging to each one of the said parties. But there must be as many on one side as on the other. no lands are discovered by the said ships of their Highnesses within the said one hundred and twenty leagues. such point will constitute the place and mark for measuring degrees of the sun or of north latitude either by daily runs measured in leagues. and pay everything. When this point is reached.] Item. and certain of the said pilots. and who are experienced. renouncing all fraud. even to the said poles. in order to remove all doubt. inasmuch as the said ships of the said King and Queen of Castile. acting in the name of their said constituents.. and of their subjects and vassals. just as whatever is or shall be found on the other side of the said three hundred and seventy leagues pertaining to their Highnesses. unless compelled to do so by contrary weather. etc. from whence they shall lay a direct course to the west. and that they will not contradict it at any time or in any manner. although found by ships and subjects of the said King and Queen of Castile. perchance.. from their kingdoms and seigniories to their said possessions on the other side of the said line. to determine the said mark and bound. representatives and ambassadors of the said very exalted and very excellent prince. Aragon. the king and queen of Castile. etc. sail in either direction. the lord and lady. Aragon. And even though. would keep. and upon the words of the Holy Gospels. from the said Arctic pole to the said Antarctic pole. falsehood. patrimonial and fiscal. lord of Guinea. And under the same oath they swore not to seek absolution or release from it from our most Holy Father or from any other legate or prelate who could give it to them. as they may mutually consider necessary. representatives of the said very exalted and very mighty princes. his son. pledged the property. This said line shall be drawn north and south as aforesaid. and any others they may deem desirable. Leon.. and of their successors and kingdoms. shall jointly concur. Aragon. securely. and in whatever part of the said one hundred and twenty leagues. winds. by virtue of their said power. nor any part or parcel of it. and others of those sent by the said King and Queen of Castile. and pretense. by virtue of their said power. and peacefully. or their future successors. by this present agreement.-they that are found up to the said day shall pertain to and remain forever in the possession of the said King and Queen of Castile. observe. and affirmed. astrologers. to whom each one of the said parties must delegate his own authority and power. in a line identical with the above-mentioned bound. at any time and without any hindrance. as aforesaid. must be observed. before crossing the said line. That thus they will keep. it is hereby agreed and determined. king of Portugal (may he rest in glory) and the said king. etc. agreement.. of the said two hundred and fifty leagues they may be found. wheresoever they are written at greatest length. it shall belong to the said King of Portugal. Aragon. the said representatives. up to the said twentieth day of this said month of June. to wit. etc. And when determined by the mutual consent of all of them. and pretense. at the first point of such intersection of such island or mainland by the said line. really and effectively. and trade. as aforesaid. at any time or in any manner whatsoever. that this obligation. observe. the said representatives of both the said parties agree and assent that within the ten months immediately following the date of this treaty their said constituent lords shall despatch two or four caravels. sailors. the said line and bound from pole to pole. courses.

because in Him alone are found all the treasures of love. at any time or in any manner whatsoever. in consequence of the great events which have marked the course of the three last years in Europe. shall be that of doing each other reciprocal service. and fulfill all the abovesaid that is set forth therein. Aragon. evasion. and year aforesaid. and Duarte Pacheco. confirm. I. regarding themselves towards their subjects and armies as fathers of families. we sign our name to this our letter and order it to be sealed with our leaden seal' hanging by threads of colored silk. member of their council. and considering each other as fellow countrymen. agreed to. secretary of the said King of Portugal. we approve. who declined to sign on constitutional grounds. falsehood. This treaty. bound themselves under the same penalty and oath. it shall be as valid as if both the copies which were made and executed in the said town of Tordesillas. and which alone is more durable. and every part and parcel of it. and Justice. whether between the said Governments or between their Subjects. in the same spirit of fraternity with which they are animated. as the sole means of enjoying that Peace. to strengthen themselves 5 . which arise from a good conscience. together with the said witnesses and with Estevan Vaez. thus confessing that the Christian world. I. as is abovesaid. and guide all their steps. which contains the names of the aforesaid persons and my sign. In attestation and corroboration whereof. the precepts of Justice. And in witness I here make my sign. and infinite wisdom. and of testifying by unalterable good will the mutual affection with which they ought to be animated. together with the said Fernando Alvarez. observe. Given in the town of Arevalo. Of all the foregoing they authorized two copies. on the said day. And I. namely. both in the administration of their respective States. It is written on these six leaves of paper. Christian Charity. which. agreement. lend each other aid and assistance. and ratify it. as being the only means of consolidating human institutions and remedying their imperfections. to take for their sole guide the precepts of that Holy Religion. and in their political relations with every other Government. and we promise to keep. Dom Joao de Sousa. they will. really and effectively. to consider themselves all as members of one and the same Christian nation. and for our said kingdoms and lordships. far from being applicable only to private concerns. and pretense. residents of the town of Valladolid. of which they and their people form a part. THE KING. which is thus. written on parchment. and the Sultan of Turkey. Licentiate Ayres. Principles of Christian Religion: Conformably to the words of the Holy Scriptures. the king and queen of Castile. ambassadors and representatives of the said Most Serene King of Portugal. Prussia. and the bottom of every page is marked with the notarial mark of my name and that of the said Estevan Vaez. 3. both of the same tenor exactly. secretary of the king and of the queen. and at the request and with the authorization of all the said representatives and ambassadors. we and the said prince Don John. and sanctioned by the very noble and most illustrious lord. FERNANDO ALVAREZ de Toledo.our most Holy Father that his Holiness be pleased to confirm and approve this said agreement. The chief deputy. And I. who refused to treat with Protestant monarchs. Dom Juan de Sousa. acting in the said names. For greater security. in their reciprocal relations. the said representatives. and we shall not violate or oppose it. in the year of the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ. and the subjects and natives of them. so far as it is incumbent upon us. must be signed. the Word of Life. their Majesties have agreed on the following Articles: ART. having been examined and understood by us and by the said Prince Don John. their son. THE PRINCE. our son. they will lead them. bonds and abjurements set forth in the said contract of agreement and concord above written. and take the said oath: The deputy Pedro de Leon and the deputy Fernando de Torres. the king and queen of Castile. their constituents. have caused it to be written by their mandate. II. 1494. which command all men to consider each other as brethren. Prince Don Juan. The said deed of treaty. to make it public throughout their kingdoms and lordships. We renounce all fraud. that is to say. Ruy Leme. and Licentiate Ayres de Almada. and Peace. the King of Prussia. should have to issue. Likewise. and sealed with their hanging leaden seals. and it had little influence on the policies of the signatories. our Divine Saviour. the Word of the Most High. should be produced. the Three contracting Monarchs will remain united by the bonds of a true and indissoluble fraternity. drawn up by Tsar Alexander. our brother. etc. who by the authority given him by the said king and queen. and upon the sign of the Cross upon which we actually placed our right hands. in entire sheets. THE QUEEN. one for each party. Austria. really and effectively. Fernando Alvarez de Toledo. must have an immediate influence on the councils of Princes. Doctor Rodrigo Maldonado. contino of the house of the said king and queen. with the most tender solicitude. Pope Pius VII. Witnesses who were present and who saw the said representatives and ambassadors sign their names here and execute the aforesaid. having. under the penalties and obligations. In consequence. It was subsequently acceded to by all the monarchs of Europe except the King of Great Britain. swear before God and Holy Mary. I. and Russia. wheresoever they are written at greatest length. and by the words of the Holy Gospels. on the second day of the month of July. and that he lay his censures upon those who shall violate or oppose it at any time whatsoever. science. and that the instrument which the said lords. signed with the names of the said lords. and the Emperor of Russia. continos of the house of the said King of Portugal. together with this leaf. Their Majesties consequently recommend to their people. and notary public in their court and throughout their realms and lordships. reckoned from the day of the date of this agreement. our lords. and fulfill it. And whichever copy is produced. month. the three allied Princes looking on themselves as merely designated by Providence to govern three branches of the One family. commend. reflects the return to conservative politics in Europe after the long struggle against Revolutionary and Imperial France. for ourselves and for our heirs and successors. their fixed resolution. written on both sides. deputy of Zagra and Cenete. Peace. our lords. 1815 observed by the Powers. and that he order his bulls in regard to it to be issued to the parties or to whichever of the parties may solicit them. our lords.. I. witnessed all the aforesaid. God. and every part and parcel of it. who in my presence and his here signed their names. the sole principle of force. upon the sublime truths which the Holy Religion of our Saviour teaches: Government and Political Relations They solemnly declare that the present Act has no other object than to publish. I. in testimony and assurance thereof signed it here with my public sign. that within the one hundred days next following. and concord. namely. in the presence of the said Ruy de Sousa. and their scrivener of the high court of justice. also witnessed the abovesaid. at the request and summons of the said ambassadors and representatives witnessed everything). the parties would mutually exchange the approbation and ratification of this said agreement. Both Castlereagh and Metternich dismissed the wording of treaty as largely meaningless. Don Enrique. and of Leon. The Holy Alliance Treaty. acquired the intimate conviction of the necessity of settling the steps to be ART. in the face of the whole world. Ruy de Sousa. the deputy Fernando de Gamarra. has in reality no other Sovereign than Him to whom alone power really belongs. and Joao Suares de Sequeira. on all occasions and in all places. In testimony of truth: Fernando Alvarez. execute. according to what is set forth therein. with the tenor of this agreement incorporated therein. which is thus. which they signed with their names and executed before the undersigned secretaries and notaries public. or any part of it. I caused this public instrument of agreement to be written. secretary of the king and queen. thus to keep. our son.September 26. and especially of the blessings which it has pleased Divine Providence to shower down upon those States which place their confidence and their hope on it alone. to certify to this act in their kingdoms. observe. the said Estevan Vaez (who by the authority given me by the said lords. above incorporated. summoned for that purpose. to protect Religion. Fraternity and Affection: In consequence. The treaty of Holy Alliance THEIR Majesties the Emperor of Austria. our lords. and.

a widespread revival of both isolationism and unilateralism could be observed. may even have contributed to hastening the end of the Cold War in 1989–1991. As will be seen. IGOs. but more often than not no time restriction is applied. Despite recurrent bouts of political isolationism. devastation. Accession of Foreign Powers. While INGOs help to clarify international rules and regulations that enable at least two societal actors (parties. the latter normally do not infringe on the sovereignty of their member states. After the end of the East-West conflict and the gradual realignment of eastern and western Europe. ART. to name some of the best-known ones. and environmental conflicts posed entirely new challenges. and signed at Paris. It is helpful to differentiate between supranational or semi-supranational IGOs. and lawful republics could overcome the inherent anarchy of the international system. IOs can either have a global or a regional character. the unprecedented terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 11 September 2001 had a fundamental impact on American political strategy. the establishment of the United Nations in 1945 and the formation of many other international political and economic institutions. in the last few decades of the twentieth century many of the allegedly technical and "apolitical" suborganizations of the United Nations (for example. IOs are important participants of the international system. and many other IOs. and shall acknowledge how important it is for the happiness of nations. The breakdown of the international system in the 1910s and late 1930s and the global bloodshed. Although estimates differ profoundly. IOs can either be open to new members or consist of a closed system. interdependent. which led to the shelving of the dream of a new cooperative world order for more than four decades: the politics and culture of bipolar containment. economic. Democracy and cooperative multilateralism within (but also outside) international organizations were thus seen as the best vehicles for the creation of a more stable and peaceful world. He was in favor of the establishment of peace-creating confederations and thus. In the immediate wake of the attack no one could say whether it would result in the abandonment of unilateralism. The formation of an initially fairly loose bond among the participants is generally fortified by the development of more or less stringent institutional structures and organs to pursue certain more or less clearly defined common aims in the international arena. and even many large multinational corporations. are all dominated by the established great powers. led by the United States and Britain. developed into highly politicized organizations with a multitude of political aims. too long agitated. or looser confederations of states and nonsupranational IGOs. in fact a hierarchy of power and influence exists even within nonsupranational IGOs. Yet in the post–Cold War era the policies of the United States toward international organizations remained ambiguous. Genuine multilateralism was sidelined during much of the second half of the twentieth century. others focus their attention on a multitude of issues. Washington was even instrumental in the creation of two of the most important IOs ever: the League of Nations founded in 1919 after World War I and the United Nations established in 1945 at the end of World War II. as well as economic and financial globalization and. Despite the equality of recognized nation-states in international law. It makes much more sense to differentiate between international governmental organizations (IGOs) like the United Nations. political. The UN Security Council. and therefore the permanent danger of the outbreak of war. of bringing about the interdependence of nation-states. the year of Grace 1815. this led to the formation of a host of new international organizations and institutions. With the exception of China and Russia. in the form of the Helsinki process inaugurated in 1975. the former referring to military and political alliances to further the power of their member states and the latter referring to organizations dealing with mere administrative and technical issues. and corporations) to cooperate in the coordination of certain specified transnational and cross-border issues. However. the International Monetary Fund. as well as such wideranging entities as the International Olympic Committee. the IMF. Done in triplicate. dominated by its five permanent members. are based on the cooperation of nation-states. international businesses. Beginning with the Atlantic Charter of 1941 and continuing with the 1944 Dumbarton Oaks and Bretton Woods conferences. From the mid-1970s. The growth of transnational IOs was greatly facilitated by the rise of an increasing number of tenuous networks of nation-states in political. with the latter in general displaying a more centralized structure due to the limited number of regional state actors available. the pillars for a new multilateral order were created. In the late twentieth and early twentyfirst centuries not only globalization and fragmentation but also the influence of more sophisticated means of transportation and communication and the increasingly transnational character of military. The dangers of an everincreasing nuclear arms race. however. that these truths should henceforth exercise over the destinies of mankind all the influence which belongs to them. mediation. While many IOs are singleissue organizations. but many policy analysts believed that it might well lead to a much greater American reengagement with international organizations to fight global terrorism. as well as the IMF. as described by Thomas Hobbes. associations. the United States first participated in the development of IOs in a relatively minor way in the first two decades after the Civil War and in a more important way when American statesmen attended the Hague conferences of 1899 and 1907. In the course of World War II traditional American political isolationism was marginalized to a considerable degree. The differentiation between political and technical IOs is therefore unhelpful. like the United Nations and NATO.every day more and more in the principles and exercise of the duties which the Divine Saviour has taught to mankind. economic. and unsurpassed misery brought about by two world wars convinced the international community. the simultaneous development of a politically and culturally ever more fragmented world. Instead international institutions. issue groups. NATO. and the World Bank. On occasion IOs are established for a certain duration as specified in their respective charters. In some of the older literature IOs tend to be subdivided into political and apolitical organizations. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS International organizations (IOs) serve as crucial forces of coordination and cooperation on many political. not least on account of their political and military influence and capabilities as well as their financial and economic clout. and arbitration. 14/26th September. paradoxically. with which this essay is mostly concerned. will be received with equal ardour and affection into this Holy Alliance. For much of the twentieth century the United States remained a leading proponent of the formation and development of IOs. unions. a cautious revival of multilateralism. While the former limit the sovereignty of the participating nations to a lesser or greater degree. they therefore tend to have only a limited degree of influence over their members. in effect. like the European Union. Aside from the traditional domination of international politics by established or recently codified nation-states. in particular the 6 . were frequently exploited as a mere talking shop and a forum for ventilating hostile rhetoric. Intellectually the development of IOs was rooted in Immanuel Kant's eighteenthcentury insight that only the "pacific federation" of liberal democratic. the influential powers of the early twenty-first century all come from the ranks of the West. They began to proliferate in the course of the nineteenth century. the Atomic Energy Commission and the World Health Organization). social. They were organized in the Union of International Organizations (founded 1907). III. While Hobbes believed that a strong authoritarian state and the balance of power among the world's greatest powers could rectify this situation and provide lasting international security. the United States—like most other countries—recognized the impossibility of addressing contemporary problems merely on a nation-state basis. Over time these insights developed into the contemporary conviction that interdependent democratic states will hardly ever embark on military action against one another. of the urgency for the establishment of a new universal and cooperative order. once again gave IOs a crucial role as a forum for consultation. What Are International Organizations? In general international organizations are based on multilateral treaties between at least two sovereign nation-states. and international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) like Amnesty International and the International Red Cross. The Cold War soon added another dimension to this. which is based in Brussels and publishes the annual Yearbook of International Organizations. Kant was not convinced. military and cultural issues. General Assembly of the United Nations. An IGO is usually based on a multilateral treaty of two or more sovereign nationstates for the pursuit of certain common aims in the international arena. However. and financial affairs in early modern Europe. the World Bank.All the powers who shall choose solemnly to avow the sacred principles which have dictated the present Act. at the turn of the twenty-first century at least five hundred IGOs and eleven thousand INGOs were in existence.

an affirmation of the intention to play a role that this country had never before assumed in international relations. one can take it as approximately correct that by 1900 the United States was a member of ten international bodies. the nation that had hitherto dominated the international system. the twentieth century has been the era of its multiplication. in addition to the IGOs and INGOs. and hope for the strengthening of international law combined to inspire the ideal of applying international organization to the politico-legal realm. however. preparing studies and proposals. international organization has become a major phenomenon in international politics. more positively. Presumably the United States has gone along with. American statesman had been very active in planning for the postwar world. if not an inveterate. It also gave impetus to the institution-building disposition of statesmen. Indeed it was clear that changes in the former spheres contributed to difficulties in the latter. Thus. It has also shared the ideal of creating a global mechanism better adapted to promoting and maintaining peace and human welfare. instead these loose organizational structures are only very temporary alliances of a hybrid nature. the Pan American Union (1890). The United States could bring itself neither to join nor to abstain entirely from the League. The country's subsequent role in the distribution of Marshall Plan aid to western 7 . And the habit of creating new ones and maintaining old ones remains well established among statesmen. which played such an important role in overcoming the Cold War. It was. It was a short step. regulatory and promotional. The well-known isolationist tradition of the United States and the fact that it rejected membership in the League of Nations but joined the United Nations at its creation should not be taken as evidence that America is a latecomer to international organization. represented an effort to provide a central focus for the varied organizational activities that had emerged in the preceding century. it gradually developed cooperative relationships with the league in many areas of activity and ultimately assumed a formal role in several of its component parts. and it was hoped that organized collaboration in the first might contribute to improvement in the second. the leading powers in the league. American participation in the nineteenth-century organizing process was at least as active as might reasonably have been expected given the country's geographic remoteness from the European center of the movement and its modest standing among the powers. If the nineteenth century was the period of the beginning of the movement toward international organization. On the contrary. single-purpose and multipurpose. By any test of quantity and variety. The beginning of the trend toward international organization in the nineteenth century and the proliferation of that trend in the next substantially involved the United States. and once Hitler had declared war on the United States. The League of Nations embodied that extension. Even though idealistic and quite unrealistic plans predominated—such as Franklin Roosevelt's strong advocacy of a "one world" system including something approaching a world government. Among these are the increasingly controversial G7/G8 meetings of developed nations and the meetings of the World Trade Organization as well as summit meetings between heads of states and. has generally inclined to the view that it can ill afford to be unrepresented in their functioning or to give the appearance of being indifferent to the ideals they purport to serve. not least on the European continent. from convening a meeting of the several or many states whose interests were involved in a given problem and whose cooperation was essential to solving it. the United States. Although the United States never accepted membership. Even when it has been skeptical of the utility or importance of particular multilateral institutions. Although the determination of the dates of establishment of international organizations and of adherence by particular states is by no means an exact science. has been very ambivalent. Washington began planning for the postwar world before the country had even become a belligerent power. and administering schemes agreed upon by the participating states. joiner of unions or leagues of nations. modest and ambitious. In fact they are not IGOs. This record would seem to substantiate Henry Reiff's assertion that "The United States … is a veteran. While the British hesitated to embark on any postwar planning exercises for fear of undermining the war effort. International organization was an outgrowth of the multilateral consultation that came into vogue. After Pearl Harbor. like most other states. already during World War II. America's joining the United Nations with New York as the new organization's headquarters and San Francisco as the venue for the ceremonial signing of the UN Charter was much more than a mere symbolic denial of indifference to the high ideals enunciated in the charter. New forms of production and new methods of transport and communication created problems and opportunities that necessitated more elaborate and systematic responses than those traditionally associated with bilateral diplomacy. The effort to do this at the end of the Napoleonic wars had yielded meager results. the organizing process for essentially the same reasons that have moved other states: it has recognized the practical necessity. technical and political. In addition." despite its failure to affiliate with the League of Nations and the Permanent Court of International Justice. In the post–Cold War world the landscape is dotted with international agencies: global and regional. Moreover. anxiety about the problems of preventing and limiting war. America's record of interest and involvement in international organization made it less surprising that President Woodrow Wilson took the lead in creating the League of Nations than that the United States refrained from joining it. American initiative contributed to the formation of such multilateral agencies as the Universal Postal Union (1874) and. Awareness of the increasing complexity of international politics. law and order. and Secretary of State Cordell Hull's enthusiasm for uninhibited global free trade—this still compared favorably to the passivity of Britain. a declaration of resolve to accept a position of leadership in world affairs. concern about the orderly balancing of stability and change. America's limited and informal engagement in the operation of the League of Nations illustrated the first of these points. It remained for the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 to stimulate the hope. between the world wars the United States continued to join organizations outside the league family to such an extent that by 1940 it held a greater number of organizational memberships than did Britain and France. and that by the outbreak of World War I it participated in twenty-seven. Its enthusiastic adherence to the United Nations in 1945 can be interpreted as in part a symbolic act of repentance and reversal. A considerable number of separate and limited-purpose agencies had accumulated by the outbreak of World War I. and accelerated the growth of the organizing process among states. The American rejection of the league. In the final analysis the United States became a more active and more useful participant in the operation of the league than many of the states that were officially listed as members. the abolition of the balance-of-power concept and of geographical spheres of influence. consultative and operational. and has sometimes displayed enthusiasm for. it was unlikely that a return to the political isolationism of the interwar years would occur despite the continuation of a strong isolationist strand in American thinking. The organization-creating tendency of this period was stimulated primarily by the interdependencies engendered by the Industrial Revolution. to establishing permanent machinery for collecting information. was an aberration rather than a continuation of settled policy regarding international organization. for example. as against twenty-eight for Great Britain and thirty-six for France. In this sense American ratification of the UN Charter was a unique act.There are some institutionalized meetings and conferences that can easily be mistaken as IGOs. within the Western Hemisphere. must be characterized as a third—albeit no less ambiguous and still largely unexplored—actor in international diplomacy. it did not presage a drastically altered policy. Following World War II the United States became the world's unchallenged leader in promoting and supporting the development of international organizations of every sort. Development of IOs and the Role of the United States International organizations began to appear during the nineteenth century in the predominantly European state system. arranging recurrent consultations. and sometimes an almost imperceptible one. of developing and participating in systematic arrangements for dealing with the complex problems of the modern world. a dramatization of an event of peculiar significance: the decision of the United States to transform its approach to world affairs. and for World War I to demonstrate the necessity. the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). The collapse of the League and the outbreak of World War II gave rise to the establishment of the United Nations and a network of affiliated organizations. historically considered. politics and security. but the idea of giving firm institutional shape to the Concert of Europe persisted and was supplemented during the nineteenth century by the ideal of developing judicial means for the resolution of international disputes. of extending the concept of international organization into the "higher" sphere of international relations. American Ambiguity Toward IOs The attitude of the United States toward international organization. that has produced scores of agencies of almost every conceivable size and concern. in its own interest. But they are increasingly important and. Moreover. a conscious repudiation of the American abandonment of the League. The nineteenth-century concern with the challenge of developing rational multilateral responses to the changes wrought by steam and electricity in the economic and social spheres did not exclude concern with either the perennial or the newly developing problems of the "higher" sphere of international relations: war and peace.

Despite the vogue of creating new international organizations since the 1990s and the strong trend toward economic and financial globalization. circumscribed. the perennial tension between control and autonomy remains. that jealous regard for sovereignty. interpreted as the retention of a free hand. and maintaining the sharpness of the break was deemed essential to retaining the valued newness of the qualities of American political society. It has received peculiar emphasis in American policy for reasons that go beyond the attitudes that were initially associated with an isolated position and 8 . when. improperly penetrated by foreign influences flowing through those institutional channels. It could also be observed in the careful hedging of obligations under the various bilateral and multilateral security treaties concluded during the Cold War. however. This concern for sovereignty. The covenant prescribed commitments that seemed to restrict America's freedom to keep its distance. not to economic and commercial ties. is shared by all states. American "sovereigntyism" was originally linked with isolationism. The United States has wanted to put the world on notice as to its future strategy while retaining the possibility of deciding its policy ad hoc. Fixation on sovereignty reflected the conviction that prudence required the fledgling state to go its own way. Moreover. However. World War II convinced most Americans that the advance and well-understood commitment of the United States to throw its weight onto the scales was essential to the preservation of world peace. NATO membership carried more concrete obligations and more definite alliance commitments than did membership in the United Nations. and operating multilateral agencies. Neither in the case of the United States nor in other instances does it make sense to regard acceptance or support of international organizations as in itself a demonstration of virtue comparable with the virtue sometimes attributed to the individual because he goes to church and pays his tithe. The right to be unpredictable constituted a major part of the substance of the American idea of sovereignty. International agencies are not embodiments of a sacred cause but. and the United States made the shift from the policy of the free hand to the policy of commitment that it had rejected when Wilson proposed it. expressed this idea succinctly: "If our people are ever to decide upon war they will choose to decide according to our own national conscience at the time and in the constitutional manner without advance commitment. or the advice and consent of any other power. The fact that states need and want international organizations does not eliminate their desire to retain as much as possible of the autonomy that the traditionally decentralized international system affords them. The campaign that defeated American affiliation with the league concentrated as heavily upon what might be done to this country by and through the organization as upon what the United States might be required to do on behalf of the league. the capacity to fend off external intrusions into domestic affairs. This concern was rooted in the original American sense of separateness and differentiation from Europe. It is perhaps unfair to accuse them of harboring the illogical desire to have their cake and eat it too. and how to become involved in the quarrels of other states. Senate insisted that the last decision of how the United States would react to any such emergency had to be left to Congress. Sovereignty. willingness to cooperate. Wilson's successor. The New World had broken off from the Old World." When the league actually dealt with political and military crises. The strength of that urge was demonstrated in American insistence upon having the power to veto substantive decisions in the UN Security Council.Europe and. it was weak and vulnerable to exploitation in any intimate association with European powers. Article 5 of the NATO treaty pledged all member states to regard an attack on a member state as an attack on itself. While it has rarely prevented the joining of organizations. In the Western world both NATO and in particular the European Union are prime examples of this. with the formation of the League of Nations. misgivings about the United Nations and the specialized agencies have often expressed the belief that the United States has been. Although during the ratification process the U. instruments of the purposes of their members. Harding. Warren G. President Wilson's leading contribution to the formulation of the covenant made the league largely an American enterprise. The Role of Domestic Jurisdiction The American conception of sovereignty has traditionally included another element: the right to national privacy. the central feature of which was untrammeled discretion concerning engagement and disengagement. rather. nurtured in the era of isolationism. and absorbed by international bodies. The tension between the desire for effective and useful international organization and the urge to continue to enjoy and exploit the freewheeling possibilities of a simpler era profoundly affects the behavior of states in creating. By this time the United States had lost its isolation and the cogency of much of the rationale for isolationism had faded. the real question is not which to choose but how much of each to include in the package. and the mere act of affiliation typically provides no solid information about the constructiveness. nothing can be done with the collaboration of. American enthusiasm for international organization has always been qualified by fear of expanding the national vulnerability to external interference. and different. capitalizing upon its peculiar situation to maintain political distance between itself and the leading states of the day. Nevertheless the urge to keep options open has not been displaced by recognition of the value of clear and credible commitments. for in the relations between organization and sovereignty. "Sovereigntyism" as a subjective phenomenon is a more important factor in international relations than sovereignty as an objective fact. Sovereignty and Autonomy Although sovereignty may figure as an abstract concept with definable meaning in legal and political scholarship. Concern about sovereignty has pervaded America's policy with respect to international institutions from the earliest days to the present. in the real world of states and peoples it is a symbol and slogan no less powerful for its having indistinct and highly variable meaning. susceptible of use to promote both noble and ignoble causes. joining. and membership in the league was regarded as involving the drastic curtailment of that right. unilaterally and ad hoc. In most cases decisions by the United States to take part in international agencies can be assumed to be motivated in much the same way and can be assigned essentially the same meaning as such decisions by other states. the United States was sometimes willing and eager to take an active role. translated as domestic jurisdiction. it is clear that all states maintain some measure of reluctance to become too encompassed. just as in the relations between national society and individualism. It has wanted to enjoy the benefits of being committed without paying the price of losing the national freedom to choose its course of action. Wilson lost his battle for American affiliation with the league not to nineteenthcentury isolationists who believed that their country was safely encapsulated by the huge continent it had ruthlessly conquered and now inhabited without challenge but to proponents of the idea that the United States should continue its recently espoused auxiliary role in world affairs. America's inhibitions and reservations concerning international organization are a blend of the typical and the peculiar. which was based upon the fact that the new state was substantially isolated from the European cockpit of world affairs. The latter concern is typically expressed with reference to international organization by the concept of domestic jurisdiction. to stand aside. The league promised or threatened to involve the United States deeply and systematically in the political and security problems of a world that was still fundamentally Europe-centered. above all. a concern that was manifested in the drafting of both the League Covenant and the UN Charter by vigorous insistence upon provisions protecting domestic jurisdiction. separate. After all. It was when international organization turned political. States join them for mixed reasons. came to the fore as an impediment to American involvement. but it was never willing to accept an obligation to do so.S. and it becomes especially acute when circumstances require reconsideration of the necessary and proper balance between them. whether. Americans continued to value the freedom to decide. and for that reason it did not significantly inhibit American participation in the public international unions that began to emerge in the nineteenth century. a member state without something being done to that state. or the fear that it might be. or for the benefit of. The fear that organizational involvements might cut more deeply into national autonomy than originally intended or agreed has never been far beneath the surface of American politics. or the peacefulness of the intentions of the state concerned. reaffirmed the same point and even strengthened it. it was distant. In either the domestic or the international case. Isolationist doctrine related to political and military embroilments. but it was nevertheless profoundly un-American in certain fundamental respects. The isolationist tradition combined cautions against being drawn into European affairs and against Europe's poking into American affairs. article 5 imposed a firm obligation of some form of assistance on NATO member states. it has always affected American contributions to their design and the style of participation in their functioning. Similarly. its adherence to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in April 1949. continues to have a major impact upon American policy regarding international organization. Participation in multilateral agencies necessarily involves exposure as well as commitment.

Constitution. to maintain the freedom of a press that zealously guards the right to self-definition of its responsibility. or to countenance the enlargement of. the United States accepted the biblical proposition that it was more blessed to give than to receive.S. The international legal sanctity of national commitments is challenged by the democratic legitimacy of popularly inspired decisions to violate or repudiate such commitments. policymakers began to embrace the idea that even the territory of such a vast and powerful and geographically protected country like the United States could not do without the support of the international community to safeguard its physical security. In this respect the American situation was analogous to that of a great rural landowner. Another set of difficulties and inhibitions that affected American participation in international organization in the twentieth century might be said to derive from the reverse of the attitude toward national sovereignty discussed above. establish further limitations upon the capacity of those who speak and act officially for the United States to engage the country fully and reliably in the work of international organizations. no less than democracy. they are at least as likely to exhibit concern about the enlargement as about the diminution of the sovereign competence of the U. capacities to make and carry out commitments. for mechanisms of coordination to facilitate interchange across state boundaries. The government of the United States came face to face with this problem in the 1960s and 1970s. effective international organization requires the participation of broadly competent states—states that are able as well as willing to meet their obligations. Less than two decades later there emerged a political mood dominated by insistence that 9 . and to respect individual rights enshrined in a written constitution and interpreted by an independent judiciary. Unfortunately for international organizations. led to a much greater sense of the inevitability of American involvement with the rest of the world. Consent theory implies the right of a nation to change its mind and the obligation of a government to accept the implications of the withdrawal of popular consent. wealthy. the United States never shared the keen need for international organization to serve its particular interests—as distinguished from its broader interest in a stable and peaceful world—that most other states have felt. and territories to the degree required for dependable cooperation in multilateral activities. changed this attitude dramatically at the beginning of the twenty-first century. now matched by states on other continents with numerous national divisions. To say that the American public is dedicated to the preservation of the system of constitutional democracy is to emphasize its reluctance to enlarge. Democracy implies that government must be responsive to the majority will more than. The essence of the matter is that the United States is a political society dedicated to the ideal of constitutional democracy. States deficient in these respects are frequently pressed by involvement in international organization to remedy their deficiencies. So long as the United States undertakes to combine international responsibility with domestic democracy. On the contrary. usually associated with the concept of sovereignty. Yet the development of so-called international rogue states like Iraq and North Korea in the 1990s. Democratic Constitutionalism versus International Commitments One should not conclude that the relationship between national sovereignty and international organization is in all respects a competitive one. which shares in the control of foreign policy. instead of. could plausibly consider its engagement in organized international activities as predominantly a means of contributing to the general welfare of the global body politic rather than as a means of acquiring particular benefits for itself. or should be. that may be required for loyal and effective performance in foreign relations. a state whose central government is designed to operate within a framework of limitations derived from the principles of democracy and constitutionalism. and uncertainty will prevail in international organizations as to what can be expected from the United States. With regard to the impact of multilateral programs and activities upon and within national societies. or to engage in cooperative arrangements. Holland (1920). to act decisively. This feeling of independence and omnipotence even increased at the end of the Cold War. the United States appeared not to require the relief of difficulties posed by cramped territorial area that many other states have been compelled to seek through international organizations. The formal constitutional renunciation of the doctrine was obviated by assurances that it would not be exploited. not dependent upon others for protection or for economic and technical assistance. and in case of conflict.S. early enthusiasm for membership in the United Nations was reflected in a widespread tendency to acquiesce in a broad interpretation of executive authority to act as might be required for effective collaboration with the organization. the meaningfulness and effectiveness of their sovereignty. When Americans worry about the implications of membership in international bodies. and the agencies of the United Nations system have attempted to give attention to building up the capabilities of particularly deficient member states to increasing. a situation in which the weakening of the latter is the condition of the strengthening of the former. more than most other states. Yet the campaign revealed the high regard for the U. that are capable of formulating responsible positions and reaching meaningful decisions. He must compete and cooperate with the Congress. The problem posed by the tension between international commitment to order and domestic commitment to democracy is a real one for the United States. creates difficulties for the United States as a participant in international agencies. however. the democratic principle is not exhausted by the proposition that national commitment requires popular consent. A wide spectrum of U. in contrast with that of residents in congested urban areas. International agencies are not engaged in a zero-sum game with states. International organizations inevitably cut into the sovereignty of participating states in the sense that they require them to accept commitments—thereby restricting in some measure their freedom to decide what they will and will not do—and in the sense that states' domestic exposure to external impacts is enhanced. There is a constitutional doctrine. To say that the United States is a constitutional democracy is to say that the body politic has not conferred upon its central government the full powers. The national commitments to preserve a significant degree of autonomy for the private sector of the economy. and to exercise the degree of control over a variety of internal matters that may be entailed by acceptance of international schemes of regulation or cooperation. including the management of American participation in international organizations. thereby diminishing their sense of national privacy. people. Democracy coexists uncomfortably with international law and organization. As a big country. its leaders will confront serious dilemmas. This acquiescence proved to be short-lived. and that can manage their isolationist doctrine. The president's responsibility for the conduct of American foreign relations. Constitutionalism. Throughout the twentieth century the United States perceived itself as a powerful. The sudden awareness of the exposure of the hitherto invulnerable American continent to international terrorism. The division of powers associated with American federalism limits the capacity of the federal government to accept and carry out obligations. the exigencies of the international situation. when the popular consensus that had supported the acceptance of commitments in the two preceding decades began to dissolve. Given these characteristics it is perhaps understandable that the United States tended to conceive of participation in international agencies as a matter more of giving than of receiving. under the auspices of international bodies. America's engagement in international organizations has always been handicapped by limited possession of the kind of national sovereignty essential for effective and reliable participation. government. and the more the country becomes involved in multilateral agencies and activities the more intense it becomes. and in particular the increasing vulnerability of the United States to international terrorism. the rules or decisions or pressures of the organs of international agencies. expressions of collective idealism and altruism. Perhaps for this reason Americans appeared especially prone to believe that international organizations were. In the 1950s the Bricker amendment campaign argued—at least according to President Eisenhower—in favor of curtailing presidential power and empowering Congress with the obligation to ratify all treaties negotiated by the executive. It did not fully share the need of European states. Its collaboration in multilateral enterprises has been restrained by reluctance to bend to pressure for strengthening the national capabilities in question. including the country's effective performance in international organizations. The United States could afford to resist having undesired things done to it by international organizations because it had little stake in having essential things done for it by those bodies. America. and highly developed state. The doctrine of Missouri v. rather than diminishing. perhaps until very recently. Moreover. It seems probable that. derived from the Supreme Court opinion in Missouri v. is not fully matched by his legal authority or his political power to exercise this responsibility. governmental capacities relevant to involvement in multilateral enterprises. supporting the view that the valid acceptance of international obligations carries with it the enhancement of federal powers to the extent required for meeting those obligations.S. or the obligations prescribed either by general international law or by treaties. Holland was more generally feared as a threat to the integrity of the American constitutional system than valued as a promise of the adaptability of that system to the requirements of the age of international organization. a continental state. and that it insisted upon limiting both what it gave and what it received.

not by American commitment to share in the hard. It certainly did not refer to the obligation to participate in military sanctions against disturbers of the peace. set forth during World War I by the League to Enforce Peace and by similar organizations in Europe. it appeared that Americans were more concerned about preventing involvement in international organization from impinging upon the distribution of authority within their political system than about preventing the peculiarities of their domestic arrangements from handicapping the nation's performance in international organization. America's opportunity to exercise leadership declined as much as its inclination to do so. rather. Nineteenth-century isolationist doctrine. The symbolic significance of American membership in the United Nations and its many suborganizations was drastically reduced. not of constructive leadership and loyal support. the diminishing Soviet threat—the shift from isolationism to international engagement that occurred during World War II was temporarily reversed. Traditional American misgivings about involvement in international political organization was thus confirmed. and the United Nations. supporting. In the eyes of selfpitying Americans. Calling for an essentially political approach to world order supported ultimately by national obligation to engage in military sanctions. the European Union. True. solution to the problem of order. The image of the responsible defender of international order was overshadowed by the image of the irresponsible adventurer and imperialist. and the ground was prepared for the perennial popularity of the "rule of law" in American internationalist thought. It required that the luxury of pure adherence to principle be sacrificed in favor of the more ambiguous and less satisfying morality of responsibility. must serve as just one example for the claim that an increasing concentration on domestic affairs and a neglect of American 10 . it was committed to pay the outstanding amount of $582 million in 2001 and the remainder of $244 million in 2002. Washington's manifold policy of suspicion toward the United Nations. dangerous. The American peace movement had hoped for the appointment of a judge. it would also reduce its contributions for UN peacekeeping missions from 31 to 27 percent of the overall costs. Washington's reluctance to pay its full dues to the United Nations was indicative of the United States's ambiguous position toward its involvement and responsibilities in international affairs. once again American suspicion of restrictive international commitments and American preference for unilateral activities increased dramatically. the United States would now finance only 22 percent of the UN's regular budget. By late 2001 Washington still owed a substantial amount to the world organization. tended to conceive organization for peace in essentially apolitical terms. World courts figured more prominently than diplomatic forums or international armies in favored formulations. But widespread talk of "American decline" and the loss of will to preserve the standing of the United States as one of two superpowers proved premature. by the fear of involvement in the political league through adherence to its judicial annex. did much to achieve a relatively peaceful and stable transition to the post–Cold War era. which compelled the president to consult with Congress about sending American troops into combat abroad and required him to withdraw these troops within sixty days unless Congress gave its approval for a longer mission abroad. and operating the United Nations reflected the official abandonment of preoccupation with legal system-building and of aversion to engagement in the political and military aspects of international affairs. to the realm of law. In 1973. and there was massive American support throughout the life of the league for membership in that body. Those who put the matter as the abdication of a discredited tyrant and those who put it as the retirement of a weary servant were advocating the same thing: the diminution of the American role in world affairs. IOs in the Cold War and the Post–cold War World During the Cold War the role of the United States in creating. and the dirtying of national hands. this led a Democratic Congress to pass the War Powers Act. Fighting for peace. the frustration of national efforts. It was not surprising that the United States failed to find this work inspiring or pleasant. From the late 1960s to the 1980s—strongly influenced by the disastrous involvement in Vietnam. Self-critical Americans are inclined to interpret the performance of the United States in the early years of the United Nations as a record of shameful manipulation and abuse of the organization. with its emphasis upon aloofness from European political entanglements and intrigues. and. After the end of the Cold War and the collapse and disappearance of the Soviet Union in December 1991. The movement to join the court was ultimately frustrated. The American legalistic tradition demanded acceptance of a court. The appeal of this prescription was strengthened by the rise to dominance in the United Nations of political forces and factions that the United States could neither lead nor control. The league promised not reliance upon predictable legal process but involvement in the uncertainties of political and military activity. the United States paid some of the $1 billion it had promised to contribute belatedly to the UN coffers. and Reagan administrations. Discounting the excesses of guilt and self-pity. (Instead of 25 percent. It offered a painful. The mood engendered by the Vietnam War was characterized by the revival of the tendency to conceive national virtue in terms of innocence rather than of responsibility. owing it $15 million. but it did not permit acceptance of that particular court. The pursuit of the national right to make foreign policy decisions unfettered by promises to.the competence of the president to commit the country in international affairs should be significantly reduced. an ideal of national virtue defined as innocent abstention from the evils of power politics. involvement in the "two-plus-four" negotiations (the two German states and the United States. Nineteenthcentury Americans. In particular the vision of the future did not include the involvement of the United States in the international political arena or the burdening of the United States with weighty political responsibilities. Franklin Roosevelt's harbinger of hope.3 billion. Global salvation was to be achieved by formula and gadget. in view of the lost war in Vietnam and the Watergate crisis. it must nevertheless be concluded that participation in the United Nations entailed the disappointment of national hopes. the country's subsequent severe economic problems. The dominance of this concern had a great deal to do with American rejection of the League of Nations. after passage of the Helms-Biden act. the new machinery included the World Court. Carter. however. The glamour of sharing in the formulation of a grand design gave way to the never-finished work of international housekeeping and the never-solved problem of managing the affairs of an almost unmanageable international system. then formulated in the League of Nations Covenant under the leadership of President Wilson. Nevertheless the Cold War record contains numerous indications of the survival of these sentiments. along with constructive American engagement with the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. tended to be regarded not as paradoxical but as inconsistent at best and hypocritical at worst. due to East-West détente. the world was to be purified by being persuaded to rise above politics. arguing that it was asked to pay too much to the United Nations. Above all. however. with the United States remaining the only global superpower and by far the most powerful nation on earth. leading U.S. it was confronted by the demand that the United States serve as a policeman. While the American superpower was unwilling to pay its dues to the United Nations. and dirty work of an organized political system. Between 1994 and 1999 the United States built up a bill of $2. or participation by. Soviet Union. the central motif of the twentieth-century ideal of collective security. other states was vigorously asserted by the Nixon. European Union. In return the United States had asked for and obtained various UN reforms and the elimination of the rest of the American debt and a reduction of its future annual dues. the UN itself was in debt to some poor countries such as Bangladesh. ranging from spokesmen for the various peace societies that sprang up after 1815 to leaders in government. Instead the crisis situation brought about by the end of the Cold War and the subsequent Gulf War of 1990–1991 to liberate Kuwait from the Iraqi invasion saw impressive American leadership and the country's constructive reengagement with IOs like NATO. Generally.) While the Senate accepted this. the repayment of the remaining debt was controversial among Republican leaders in the House of Representatives who wished to impose further conditions and asked for greater UN reforms. emphasizing legal formulas and arbitral or judicial settlement of disputes. and United Nations framework. Britain. it violated the basic tenets of the traditional American creed. The attitude of the House of Representatives was partially also a reaction to the fact that the United States was voted off the UN Human Rights Commission in May 2001 by some UN members (including some of America's European allies) who were running out of patience with Washington's less than constructive role in the human rights body and the administration's general lack of support for the United Nations. America was not to be contaminated by being dragged into power politics. Acceptance of the United Nations clearly has not eliminated this element from the American attitude toward involvement in world affairs. This heritage of moral distaste for international politics colored early American thinking about international organization to promote world peace and order. Instead attention was focused once more upon the dangers of overcommitment and the advantages of unilateralism. the national image was that of an overloaded and insufficiently appreciated bearer of international burdens. was not in accord with this American vision. not a painless. In 1999 and 2000. expressed not only a pragmatic judgment concerning the best way for the United States to survive in a dangerous world but also a moral aspiration. and France) for bringing about German unification within the NATO. The scheme.

Alexis de Tocqueville's statement in his famous Democracy in America (1835) that the United States was a nation without neighbors. The Economist wrote presciently that the United States and the entire world realized that America was "not merely vulnerable to terrorism. W." For example. In fact globalization demanded the opposite. it demonstrated the value of IOs to the hitherto unilateral Bush administration. While America's allies would be consulted and informed and would hopefully participate in the project.'" The value of American reengagement with IOs was recognized in many quarters almost immediately.involvement in IOs was indeed the dominant feature of American policy in the 1990s. it was not Vice President Al Gore but Texas governor George W. The new president immediately surrounded himself with many right-wing and unilateralist if not isolationist advisers. The administration's ambiguity toward the United Nations had disastrous consequences in the East Timor crisis of 1999–2000. securely enveloped in a huge continent and thus separate from the problems of the rest of the world. In a 1999 article in Foreign Affairs. while the bipolar order of the Cold War years came to an end in 1989–1991. The Bush administration also threatened to abandon several other contractual pillars of the postwar world. Not even Britain. the dense economic and political "web of multilateralist institutions" and thus the "world order created in the 1940s is still with us. Above all. including alleged American disinterest in Europe in favor of a Pacific-first policy. this became frequently mixed with a strong dose of American unilateralism. they may well have contributed to inflaming even more hatred of the United States in the Islamic world. it also shook the Bush administration to its core. Thus the occasional bouts of American neo-isolationism that could frequently be 11 . John Ikenberry wrote in 1996. Bush's somewhat rash announcement of a "new world order" in 1990 and the occasional brief burst of peacemaking activities that characterized the foreign policy of the Clinton administration after 1993— must be regarded as exceptions rather than the rule. Or so it seemed. Unilateralism was triumphing. After the drama of the presidential election of 2000. Yet his years in office may well be primarily remembered for his administration's ability to maintain and increase America's prosperity and the achievement of a substantial budget surplus rather than for a farsighted foreign policy. it was recognized that America was no longer invulnerable. In fact. Moreover. The European Union and many other IOs followed suit. For the first time in its history the North Atlantic Alliance invoked article 5 of its charter. The terrorist attacks in New York and Washington were interpreted as a military attack on a NATO member state. the Bush administration showed scant regard for international institutions like NATO by making clear that the missile shield decision had already been made. This explained the regret voiced in many parts of the world of Clinton's departure in January 2001.S. Multilateralism and constructive open-minded engagement with IOs had been abandoned for good. when the lack of U. Still. Clinton's unsuccessful and unilateral bombing raids on buildings in Sudan and elsewhere in response to terrorist attacks on American diplomatic and military targets abroad also turned out to be illadvised. above all. The same applied to the political sphere. This was not only a severe shock to the American people. the post–Cold War world at times saw a vigorous and often constructive reengagement of the United States in many parts of the world. and its power attracts the hatred of enemies of freedom everywhere. traditionally America's closest ally. which obliged all NATO members to come to the common defense of NATO territory. Clinton called this "assertive multilateralism. It is the most open and technologically dependent country in the world. She wrote that a Republican administration would "proceed from the firm ground of the national interest. not from the interest of an illusory international community. The few years of renewed international activism at the end of the Cold War—President George H. the president's reputation as an international peacemaker far surpassed his embattled and scandal-ridden standing within the United States. became out of date within a matter of hours. NATO went even further. who became Bush's national security adviser in January 2001. Yet his administration did not appear to consist of a vigorous modernizing team prepared to tackle the international problems of globalization and fragmentation. for largely domestic reasons the Clinton administration insisted on preventing a UN treaty controlling the trade in small arms. It is unlikely that the successful NATO pursuit of the 1999 Kosovo war and the ousting and subsequent handover of Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic to the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague in 2001 would have been achieved without strong American involvement. and probably even because of it. despite Clinton's contempt for the United Nations and his many other unilateral activities. Engagement with international organizations like NATO and the United Nations and cooperative multilateralism appeared to be decisive. Then. America's allies reasoned that not least for financial reasons the implementation of Bush's missile shield scheme would in all likelihood prevent the United States from giving equal attention to the development of other defensive and military schemes that deserved greater priority. The efforts the Clinton administration made for the full implementation and expansion of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and for enabling China to become a member of the World Trade Organization. Bush who moved into the White House. who for so long had felt secure on a continent that was geographically very distant from most of the world's battlegrounds. but more vulnerable than others. despite much international pressure. and the administration made sure that the United States would continue to dominate the World Bank and the increasingly important International Monetary Fund." Despite a tendency to focus on the domestic enjoyment of the prosperity and rising share values of the multiplying "dot com" companies of the Clinton years. However." Yet as G. The attacks have shattered the illusions of post-cold war peace and replaced them with an uncertain world of 'asymmetric threats. are further examples that indicate that the Clinton administration had no intention to revert to economic isolationism. Although Washington agreed with the principle of establishing such a court. Bush's insistence on implementing a national missile defense (NMD) to protect the United States (and perhaps its NATO allies) from nuclear attacks from rogue states like North Korea and Iraq caused great unease in the Western world. including the use of armed force" if a member state was attacked from abroad. the Bush administration treated the United Nations with even greater disdain and suspicion than Clinton had done. The administration also withheld support from the establishment of the World Court to be based in The Hague. notably the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty concluded between Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev to contain the nuclear arms race. allowing it to enjoy most-favorednation status. support induced a withdrawal of UN troops. despite the administration's ambiguous if not outright negative attitude to the United Nations and the many petty trade wars with the European Union. a plan that had not been tested successfully and would cost billions of dollars. it was equally improbable that even a state as powerful as the United States could win this fight by itself. it did not wish any of its nationals ever to appear before it. Suddenly the United States was not merely the provider of benefits to the international community but could also greatly benefit itself from a close cooperative engagement with IOs. which in turn led to the wholesale slaughter of many East Timorese people in the Indonesian civil war." Indeed. Among the treaties the United States opposed were the Kyoto Protocol on climate change supported by much of the rest of the world and a treaty for the enforcement of the important Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention of 1972. Senate majority leader and 1996 Republican presidential candidate Robert Dole's assessment in the mid1990s reflected the deep and widespread American unease about IOs. in September 2001. which obliged each member to take "such action as it deems necessary. the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon occurred. Condoleezza Rice. The Clinton administration's attempts to act as a neutral arbiter in the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland and in the reconciliation between South and North Korea were also relatively successful. Many of these people were very experienced policymakers who had already served under Bush's father in the early 1990s and even under Presidents Ford and Reagan in the 1970s and 1980s. Paradoxically. Dole believed that frequently IOs either "reflect a consensus that opposes American interests or do not reflect American principles and ideas. Within a matter of days the Security Council of the United Nations had unanimously condemned the attack in the strongest terms and pledged its support to the American intention to embark on a prolonged war against international terrorism. American peacemaking efforts in cooperation with IOs during the Clinton era often added a constructive element to the frequently chaotic and very violent developments in such embattled regions as the Middle East and the Balkans. During its first eight months in office the new administration walked out of five international treaties (and withdrew from the conference on racism in protest at anti-Israel passages in the draft communiqué in South Africa in early September 2001). tellingly talked at length about the importance of the pursuit of America's "national interest" but rather less about American international involvement and engagement in IOs. which was only narrowly decided by the Supreme Court in December. Despite its superpower status. any allied advice to abandon the project would not be heeded. the United States was unable and indeed unwilling to abdicate its global leadership. was able to show much enthusiasm for a missile plan that had not been tested successfully and would cost billions of dollars and resembled Reagan's ill-fated Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars"). This was unprecedented. The Clinton administration was careful to denounce any talk of a new isolationism in the post–Cold War world. While it was unlikely that the Bush administration would not resort to unilateralist activities in the fight against international terrorism.

Quite understandably. including the ability to fight international crime. Mandated territories were given different degrees of independence. to achieve this goal. An American correspondent put it succinctly in a letter to the International Herald Tribune in early October 2001: "The Bush administration's unilateralism has been revealed as hollow. Although Germany joined the league in 1926." Similarly. at that time the league was superseded by the United Nations (UN). In view of the Bush administration's active engagement with the international community to fight the "war against international terrorism. The league existed from 1920 to 1946. therefore. in 1919." the Financial Times concluded that multilateralism was "no longer a dirty word. called the World Court. 1920. During the league's 26 years. including settlement of disputes between Finland and Sweden over the Åland Islands in 1921 and between Greece and Bulgaria over their mutual border in 1925. a member since 1934. The USSR. France occupied the Ruhr. a total of 63 nations belonged at one time or another. whereupon much of its property and organization were transferred to the UN. after 11 September it appeared that unilateralism and isolationism were no longer regarded as viable political concepts. Where no date is given. both the American people and the Bush administration were sufficiently enraged by the appalling attacks that cost the lives of more than six thousand people and caused damage in excess of $30 billion to "go it alone" if Western and indeed international unity could not be preserved. The covenant was formulated as part of the Treaty of Versailles. Still. The efficacy of the league was. Before World War II (1939-1945). preferred to handle their own affairs. international institutions enhance our ability to perform the functions of national government. however. The last meeting was held on April 8. the league was powerless to prevent the events in Europe that led to World War II. each state having one vote. a council. and their economic status. the 26 articles that served as operating rules for the league. LEAGUE OF NATIONS Never truly effective as a peacekeeping organization. in spite of the league. The first meeting was held in Geneva. that this could well take the form of the controversial American "assertive multilateralism" that the world had to put up with during the Clinton years. as one of his Fourteen Points summarizing Allied aims in World War I. aiding refugees of World War I. it was composed of three representatives for every member state. However. and Italy occupied Corfu (Kérkira). the league had some minor successes. The league may be credited with certain social achievements. limited though they were. formed after World War II. Unfortunately. Although President Wilson was a member of the committee that drafted the covenant. not only profited by the mistakes of the League of Nations but borrowed much of the organizational machinery of the league. The decisions of the council had to be unanimous. Finally. and later Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)—and several nonpermanent members elected by the assembly. it was composed of several permanent members—France. In the area of preserving peace. American diplomats encouraged the league's activities and attended its meetings unofficially. 28 were members for the entire . 1946. on November 15. The secretariat was the administrative branch of the league and consisted of a secretary general and a staff of 500 people. 12 . and the International Labor Organization. the league rarely implemented its available resources. Rather than infringe our sovereignty. the assembly convened regularly at Geneva in September. These include curbing international traffic in narcotics and prostitution. This. this is unlikely. the country was an original member of the league. Japan also withdrew in 1933. The league failed to end the war between Bolivia and Paraguay over the Chaco Boreal between 1932 and 1935 and to stop the Italian conquest of Ethiopia begun in 1935. the lasting importance of the League of Nations lies in the fact that it provided the groundwork for the UN." LEAGUE OF NATIONS League of Nations. Several other bodies were allied with the league. Italy. In 1918. it was never ratified by the U. United States president Woodrow Wilson presented a plan for a general association of nations. such as the Permanent Court of International Justice. even to joint action against aggression. and a secretariat. and surveying and improving health and labor conditions around the world. however. This international alliance. after Japanese attacks on China were condemned by the league. which contained the requirement that all members preserve the territorial independence of all other members.S. British Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed the belief that the answer to the unprecedented challenge confronting the world was "not isolationism but the world coming together with America as a community. and several small service units were moved to Canada and the United States. Japan. in accordance with their stage of development. which ended World War I. In 1940 the secretariat in Geneva was reduced to a skeleton staff. Senate because of Article X. with 42 nations represented. at least. MEMBERSHIP The accompanying table lists the countries that were members of the international organization. The council met at least three times each year to consider political disputes and reduction of armaments. Britain. their geographic situation. and other military options. Multilateralist engagement with international organizations and acting in concert with its allies appeared to be the best chance of reestablishing a degree of national and international security. WORLD INVOLVEMENT The league was based on a new concept: collective security against the “criminal” threat of war. after all even an entirely isolationist America would continue to be exposed to the threats posed by international terrorism. During the next two decades. Supervision of these territories was awarded to league members in the form of mandates. the country that hosted the terrorist network responsible for planning the attacks. but the United States never became a member. the National Socialist (Nazi) government withdrew in 1933. One important activity of the league was the disposition of certain territories that had been colonies of Germany and the Ottoman Empire before World War I. The year in parentheses is the year of admission to the league unless otherwise indicated." It was generally recognized that the world had to look beyond bombing Afghanistan. would also depend on whether or not the unity of NATO and its member states could be upheld for a prolonged period of time. considerably lessened. While the danger existed that the attacks might have the opposite effect and induce America to withdraw from international engagement altogether.observed in the 1990s were thought by many to be largely a thing of the past. was expelled following the Soviet attack on Finland in 1939. both in 1923. The plan formed the basis of the Covenant of the League of Nations. international alliance for the preservation of peace. it was thought abroad. In 1946 the league voted to effect its own dissolution. The Great Powers. STRUCTURE The machinery of the league consisted of an assembly.

However. therefore. No one could dispute this choice especially as an international organisation such as the Red Cross was already based in Switzerland. The League also had other weaknesses : The country. the League could introduce economic sanctions.and neither was enthusiastic to get involved in disputes that did not affect western Europe. The two most powerful members were Britain and France . The only two countries in the League that could have provided any military might were Britain and France and both had been severely depleted strength-wise in World War One and could not provide the League with the backing it needed. The only way to avoid a repetition of such a disaster. she was not invited to join. This would be arranged by the League’s Council. therefore. the League had a fine ideal . many looked to the League to bring stability to the world. was to create an international body whose sole purpose was to maintain world peace and which would sort out international disputes as and when they occurred. the League decided to split Upper Silesia between Germany and Poland. The country as a whole and the president . the League could introduce verbal sanctions . This would be the task of the League of Nations. the Treaty of Versailles had put Memel and the land surrounding the port under the control of the League. Turkey (1923) The League failed to stop a bloody war in Turkey (see League failures) but it did respond to the humanitarian crisis caused by this war.000 voted for Germany and 500. After a six-week inquiry. They had traditionally belonged to Finland but most of the islanders wanted to be governed by Sweden.000 refugees had been created by this war with 80% of them being women and children. if this failed. Therefore. all the League could do was enforce economic sanctions and hope that these worked as it had no chance or enforcing its decisions using military might. However. three of the world’s most powerful nations (potentially for Russia and Germany) played no part in supporting the League. The League’s decision was accepted y both countries and by the people in Upper Silesia. This was a great blow to Germany but it also meant that the League could not use whatever strength Germany had to support its campaign against aggressor nations. After the turmoil caused by the Versailles Treaty. it could not carry out any threats and any country defying its authority would have been very aware of this weakness.Background The League of Nations came into being after the end of World War ensure that war never broke out again. The League sent doctors from the Health Organisation to check the spread of disease and it spent £10 million on building farms.Woodrow Wilson in particular . As Germany had started the war. The League intervened and gave the area surrounding Memel to Lithuania but they made the port an "international zone".unlike the current United Nations. This close result resulted in rioting between those who expected Silesia to be made part of Germany and those who wanted to be part of Poland. Typhoid and cholera were rampant. the only criteria that can be used to classify a success. support for such a good idea was great (except in America where isolationism was taking root). The League could order League members not to do any trade with an aggressor nation in an effort to bring that aggressor nation to heel. Switzerland. For three years. Money was also invested in seeds. Upper Silesia (1921) The Treaty of Versailles had given the people of Upper Silesia the right to have a referendum on whether they wanted to be part of Germany or part of Poland. Though this can be seen as a League success – as the issue was settled – a counter argument is that what happened was the result of the use of force and that the League responded in a positive manner to those (the Lithuanians) who had used end war for good. If the states in dispute failed to listen to the Assembly’s decision. the Russian royal family the Romanovs . The League of Nation's task was simple . This meant that military force would be used to put into place the League’s decision. If a dispute did occur. one of her punishments was that she was not considered to be a member of the international community and. so that the people in that state would take out their anger on their government forcing them to accept the League’s decision. fitted in with her desire to have an isolationist policy throughout the world.000 people. Most people who lived in Memel were Lithuanians and. this was a serious blow to the prestige of the League. the League could introduce physical sanctions.both had suffered financially and militarily during the war . The logic behind it was to push an aggressor nation towards bankruptcy. work was found for 600.400. Russia was also not allowed to join as in 1917.America . The Organization of the League of Nations The League of Nations was to be based in Geneva. Germany was not allowed to join the League in 1919. 700. Memel (1923) Memel was/is a port in Lithuania. the government of Lithuania believed that the port should be governed by it. if an aggressor nation was determined enough to ignore the League’s verbal warnings. whose president. homes etc for the refugees. a French general acted as a governor of the port but in 1923 the Lithuanians invaded the port. America’s refusal to join the League. America entered World War One in 1917.refused to join it. The League experienced success in: The Aaland Islands (1921) These islands are near enough equal distant between Finland and Sweden. However. 13 .000 for Poland. After the devastation of the war. Such a country could not be allowed to take its place in the League. 1. could do three things these were known as its sanctions: It could call on the states in dispute to sit down and discuss the problem in an orderly and peaceful manner. Also both Britain and France were not in a position to use their finances to pay for an expanded army as both were financially hit very hard by World War One. according to the Treaty of Versailles. In this referendum. This choice was natural as Switzerland was a neutral country and had not fought in World War One. The League’s decision was that they should remain with Finland but that no weapons should ever be kept there. Therefore. the League did not have a military force at its disposal and no member of the League had to provide one under the terms of joining . Lithuania agreed to this decision. However.was murdered. she had a communist government that generated fear in western Europe. The purpose of this sanction was to financially hit the aggressor nation so that she would have to do as the League required. This would be done in the League’s Assembly which was essentially the League’s parliament which would listen to disputes and come to a decision on how to proceed. Neither Sweden nor Finland could come to a decision as to who owned the islands and in 1921 they asked the League to adjudicate. Therefore. wells and digging tools and by 1926. under its Covenant. the League.was horrified by the slaughter that had taken place in what was meant to be a civilised part of the world. and in 1918. If one nation was seen to be the offender. Both countries accepted the decision and it remains in force to this day. The successes of the League of Nations In view of the League’s desire to end war. As America was the world’s most powerful nation. The League was asked to settle this dispute. had dreamt up the idea of the League .warning an aggressor nation that she would need to leave another nation's territory or face the consequences. Woodrow Wilson. was whether war was avoided and a peaceful settlement formulated after a crisis between two nations.

contrary to League rules. The League clearly failed on this occasion.A member of the League called this work "the greatest work of mercy which mankind has undertaken. Many of the groups that work for the United Nations now. In all this the League played no part despite the fact that it had just been set up with the specific task of maintaining peace. In 1920. Russia by 1919 was communist and this "plague from the East" was greatly feared by the West. In response. After World War One. Poland invaded land held by the Russians. To other nations. What did the League do about this violation of another country by Poland? The answer is simple – nothing. The League was called on to help and decided that the bulk of the town The Treaty of Versailles had ordered Weimar Germany to pay reparations for war damages. The invasion of the Ruhr (1923) In 1923. The newly created League did nothing. This idea . 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. Greece refused to pay up. Whilst travelling to the disputed area. Though no more wholesale violence took place. Within Europe. Both the French and the Belgium’s believed that some form of strong action was needed to ‘teach Germany a lesson’. persuaded the League via the Conference of Ambassadors. Once again. Vilna had been the capital of Lithuania when the state had existed in the Middle Ages. The Treaty of Versailles had given Fiume to Yugoslavia but with the evidence of a bombarded Corfu. captured the small port of Fiume. In 1925. In fact. For the League to enforce its will. The Greek army invaded Bulgaria as a result. However. any conflict between nations which ended in war and the victor of one over the other must be considered a League failure. The failures of the League of Nations Article 11 of the League’s Covenant stated: should go to Poland while Czechoslovakia should have one of Teschen’s suburbs. This port had been given to Yugoslavia by the Treaty of Versailles. The Allies refused to accept this and the anti-German feeling at this time was still strong.was taken up by the United Nations with its smallpox campaign. the Germans failed to pay an installment. Here were two League members clearly breaking League rules and nothing was done about it. It was a constant source of irritation between both nations. The five Italians were shot by gunmen who had been in hiding. Britain and France.of wiping out from the world a disease . The League then sent experts to the area and decided that Greece was to blame and fined her £45. Lithuania asked for League help but the Poles could not be persuaded to leave the city. to outsiders. the British War Minister. But the example they set for others in future years was obvious. The use of force by the Poles had won. broken promises to Italy at the Treaty of Versailles. it seemed that if you wanted to break League rules.000. Italy and Albania (1923) The border between Italy and Albania was far from clear and the Treaty of Versailles had never really addressed this issue. The Poles quickly overwhelmed the Russian army and made a swift advance into Russia. For 15 months. the two countries continued to argue over the issue for the next twenty years. the French and the Belgium’s invaded the Ruhr – Germany’s most important industrial zone." Therefore. War between Russia and Poland (1920 to 1921) In 1920. Winston Churchill. To follow up this success. Few countries criticised what France and Belgium did. Vilna (1920) Many years before 1920. France and America sent troops to attack Russia after the League had been set up. The situation was solved by the Italian government who could not accept that d’Annunzio was seemingly more popular than they were – so they bombarded the port of Fiume and enforced a surrender. Polish and Czech troops fought in the streets of Teschen. the Yugoslavs handed over the port to Italy with little argument "Any war of threat of war is a matter of concern to the whole League and the League shall take action that may safe guard peace. to fine Greece 50 million lire. This one treaty all but doubled the size of Poland. Britain. Historically. it needed the support of its major backers in Europe. the Russians had no choice but to sign the Treaty of Riga which handed over to Poland nearly 80." Greece and Bulgaria (1925) Both these nations have a common border. a mixed nationality survey team was sent out to settle the issue. the Health Organisation started a campaign to wipe out leprosy. both wanted to make their respective economies as strong as possible and the acquisition of rich coal mines would certainly help in this respect. angered that the "Big Three" had. the Italian section of the survey team. They claimed that they simply could not rather than did not want to. In 1923. stated openly that the plan was to strangle Communist Russia at birth. These could either be paid in money or in kind (goods to the value of a set amount) In 1922. In January 1919. By 1921. Its main importance was that it had valuable coal mines there which both the Poles and the Czechs wanted. Both nations accepted the decision. Teams were sent to the Third World to dig fresh water wells. Vilna had been taken over by Russia. 14 . the Poles seized Vilna. Italian nationalists. by 1920.000 square kilometres of Russian land. Mussolini invited the Yugoslavian government to discuss ownership of Fiume. As both were newly created nations. you could. grew out of what was established by the League. Italy accused Greece of planning the whole incident and demanded payment of a large fine. Italy (1919) In 1919. lead by Benito Mussolini. in their opinion. Lithuania had been re-established and Vilna seemed the natural choice for its capital. Greece appealed to the League for help but Italy. The social successes of the League of Nations At a social level the League did have success and most of this is easily forgotten with its failure at a political level. the Italians sent its navy to the Greek island of Corfu and bombarded the coastline. primarily because it was seen to be involved in breaking its own rules. became separated from the main party. Teschen (1919) Teschen was a small town between Poland and Czechoslovakia. sentries patrolling this border fired on one another and a Greek soldier was killed. it seemed as if League members were selecting which countries were acceptable and ones which were not. 30% of the population was from Poland with Lithuanians only making up 2% of the city’s population. Yet France was one of the invaders and Britain was a major supporter of her. The Bulgarians asked the League for help and the League ordered both armies to stop fighting and that the Greeks should pull out of Bulgaria. This suburb contained the most valuable coal mines and the Poles refused to accept this decision. Vilna stayed in Polish hands until the outbreak of World War Two. Fiume was governed by an Italian nationalist called d’Annunzio. The Allied invasion of Russia was a failure and it only served to make Communist Russia even more antagonistic to the West. Many died.

The outbreak of this Crimean War in 1853. and Great Britain. in doing so they ended up sacrificing the peace. It aimed to preserve peace by concerted diplomatic action reinforced by periodic conferences dealing with problems of mutual concern. Crushing liberal forces in these two countries proved to be positive as they enhanced the Concert's integrity by proving to the world that it had the muscle to uphold its resolutions. Russia was no longer allowed to have their battleships in the Black Sea or in the Straits. These problems are still with us in the C21st . He was a brilliant and effective public speaker. and no longer motivated to uphold its goals. to designate a loose agreement by the major European powers to act together on European questions of common interest. and to protect "legitimate" governments. Crimean War In 1853. weapons reduction.” freedom of the seas. and the Concert was unable to stop the unifications of Germany and Italy. When the new government found copies of secret treaties the Allies had made with the tsar. and thus from nationalistic interest refused to cooperate. For his efforts in this direction. firmly centered the great burden imposed on the almost lifeless balance of power. Now Russia was at a disadvantage with the other powers in the Concert of Europe. Britain reasoned that it would lose trade profit from the Spanish if the rebellions were ended. He was. THE CONCERT OF EUROPE Concert of Europe. enacted significant reform legislation and led the United States during World War I (1914-1918). His belief was that a league of nations could force them to act on behalf of peace and equity whether they wanted to do so or not. but the programs he so earnestly advocated inspired the next generation of political leaders and were reflected in the New Deal of President Franklin D. The Ottoman Empire bountifully rewarded Russia with the Treaty of UnikarSkelessi in 1833. in private. which gave Russia an advantageous access to the straits between Bosporus and Dardanelles. which prevented any European nation from gaining control of Latin America. If we cannot do this now. The resolution of this meeting was that no foreign warships were to enter the Straits . a warm. Prussia. along with some aid from Sardinia. Wilson was not disillusioned to learn that the Allies had been plotting the dissolution of the German Empire. Wilson offered his own plan for peace. he was awarded the 1919 Nobel Prize for peace. These social problems may have continued but the fact that they were now being actively investigated by the League and were then taken onboard by the United Nations must be viewed as a success. France as well. Fortuitously. the League had a far more difficult task then with more limited resources. fun-loving man who energetically pursued his ideals. and Wilson's dearest cause. Prussia. and Russia. Drug addiction and drug smuggling were also attacked. Impact of Nationalism In the 1840s. The Concert of Europe was formulated in 1815 as a mechanism to enforce the decisions of the Congress of Vienna. His dream of humanizing “every process of our common life” was shattered in his lifetime by the arrival of the war. The new regime was opposed to all warring nations and was eager to undermine them.Work was done in the Third World to improve the status of women there and child slave labour was also targeted. The greatest success the League had involving these social issues. even though it only lasted for a few decades. The concert emerged after the Congress of Vienna (1814–15) and included the Quadruple Alliance powers of Great Britain. Wilson's belief in international cooperation through an association of nations led to the creation of the League of Nations and ultimately to the United Nations. As these two countries had shown. which left Russia with a southern border in need of defense. He was well aware that Allied leaders were primarily concerned with national self-interest. as of 1818. Austria. the goals of the Concert lay in shattered remnants. Wilson's program imagined “open covenants of peace. territorial adjustments between nations. But the strain of years in office. and thus. The Concert was angered that Russia was permitted to use this area. 1918. Britain Checks Out The first major roadblock for the Concert was their decision to intervene in Latin American revolutions and Briatin's subsequent refusal to do so. but he found it difficult to work well with other government officials. No organisation had done this before the League. Addressing Congress on January 8. and the public's disillusionment following World War I transformed Wilson's image to that of a humorless crusader for a feeble League of Nations. The treaties revealed that the Allies had not entered the war for purely idealistic purposes any more than Germany had. the League of Nations: 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. signified the downfall of the Concert of Europe because the great papers were fighting against each other for national interests. a tragic illness. and in 1831 when Russia defended the Ottomans from Egyptian attack. To counter a peace plan suggested by the Bolsheviks. Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924). Europeans were filled with a new spirit of "real politics" that was strongly nationalistic and not afraid to use force to accomplish their goals. the problem was solved by the United States' issue of the Monroe Doctrine in 1820. its main priorities were to establish a balance of power. Fourteen Point Agenda Wilson's crusade for democracy received a severe shock when the Russian Revolution was superseded in October 1917 by a Communist Party uprising and a new regime headed by Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky. nationalism began to assert a strong hold among many European countries. and in an effort to peaceably solve the problem and curtail Russian expansionism. 15 . Eastern Question Russia began to exercise her military strength during theRusso-Turkish Wars of 1828. went to war with Russia in the flimsy hope of preserving the balance of power. Headed by Prince Metternich of Austria. Composed of the Quadruple Alliance: Russia. thereby preserving the territorial status quo. Wilson was responsible for increasing United States participation in world affairs. Wilson outlined what he called his Fourteen Points. the Concert's function became obsolete. Wilson possessed considerable political skill. however. 28th president of the United States (1913-1921). The Treaty of Paris reached in 1856. France and it would be wrong to criticise the League for failing to eradicate them. from whom he tolerated no disagreement. they immediately published them. held the Straits Convention of 1841. term used in the 19th cent. by the end of treaty negotiations. was simply informing the world at large that these problems did exist and that they should be tackled. Austria. Russia gave up any sort of a pretense at supporting an altruistic "balance of powers" and made an expansionary thrust at the Ottoman Empire. openly arrived at. More than any president before him. the Concert of Europe was one of the first serious attempts in modern times to establish an international society to maintain the peace. Woodrow Wilson A political novice who had held only one public office before becoming president. Roosevelt. Communication between the powers had reached a complete stand-still. Internal Uprisings The Concert of Europe was successful in suppressing uprisings for constitutional governments in both Spain and Italy in the respective years of 1820 and 1822. and. This made it a significant event in world history.