Principles for resolving disputed leagues of nations. International Court. Background and reasons for the creation of the League of Nations
In the 20-30s of the twentieth century. In the world, many territorial disputes arose between states, aggressive acts of some countries were committed against others, annexations, hotbeds of tension were created with impunity, which, taken together, led to the Second World War. The League of Nations not only failed to solve at least one of the problems, but often itself condoned aggression.
In 1920, in violation of the agreement just signed between Poland and Lithuania, Poland seized the capital of Lithuania, the city of Vilna, with an area inhabited by Belarusians, Lithuanians and Poles. Lithuania, which became a member of the League of Nations in September 1921, turned to the Council of this organization with a request for support. After lengthy discussions and delays, the League of Nations recognized the occupied territory as Polish.
In the 1920s a dispute also arose between Lithuania and Germany over the port city of Memel (Klaipeda) and the entire Memel region. Germany considered them part of East Prussia. After World War I, Memel was occupied by the allied forces. In the Paris (Versailles) agreements, the issue of Memel was not resolved. In 1924, an agreement was signed between the Entente allies and Lithuania, which considered Memel as an autonomous entity within Lithuania. After Hitler came to power, Germany began to challenge the status of Memel, and on March 23, 1939, Lithuania signed an agreement with Nazi Germany, according to which it abandoned the Memel region with the city of Memel in favor of Germany. On the same day, German troops entered Memel. The League of Nations regarded these processes with indifference.
In 1921, disputes began between Sweden and Finland over the Åland Islands, whose inhabitants speak Swedish. During the plebiscite on the question of the nationality of the disputed territory, the absolute majority of the population of the islands spoke in favor of joining Sweden, which was more developed at that time. However, the League of Nations decided to transfer the islands to Finland with the conditions that, firstly, they must have internal self-government (have their own local council elected on the basis of universal suffrage and an executive bureau), and, secondly, Finland will be limited in the right to build fortifications on them and use the islands for military purposes.
In 1923, fascist Italy occupied the Greek island of Corfu. The League of Nations, to which Greece turned, discussed the conflict for a long time and, in the end, resigned itself to an act of aggression. In 1925, border disputes began between Greece and Bulgaria, but the League of Nations again failed to help resolve them.
In 1931, Japan committed an act of aggression against China, occupying Manchuria and announcing the creation of the puppet state of Manchukuo there. The League of Nations, of which Japan was a permanent member of the Council, considered this conflict at the request of China. In October 1932, she accepted the recommendation to withdraw Japanese forces from Manchuria, to restore Chinese sovereignty over the province, but with greater autonomy for the province. The League of Nations called on all states to refuse recognition of the puppet state. In response, Japan withdrew from the League of Nations (1933), and in 1937 its troops moved from Manchuria to Beijing, Shanghai, Nanjing and Inner Mongolia, from where it began to threaten the Soviet Union as well. The League of Nations only contemplated these aggressive acts, being unable to take any effective action to organize a rebuff to the aggressors.
In 1935, Italy provoked a conflict on the border between Somalia under its control and Ethiopia, an independent state, a member of the League of Nations. Ethiopia offered to resolve the conflict through international arbitration, but Mussolini rejected this proposal and organized an intervention in a sovereign country. On April 9, 1936, the capital of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, was occupied, and the King of Italy, Victor Emmanuel III, was declared Emperor of Ethiopia. Attempts by the Negus of Ethiopia, Haile Selassie, to find support from the League of Nations were unsuccessful. True, the League of Nations condemned the Italian aggression, and the Council of the League voted to impose economic sanctions on the aggressor, but they turned out to be ineffective due to the fact that the leading countries of Europe did not comply with them, because they did not want to spoil relations with Mussolini.
She could not prevent the war between Bolivia and Paraguay in 1932-1935. The Anschluss of Austria and the occupation of sovereign Czechoslovakia by Germany are classic examples of the helplessness of the League of Nations. The only country with respect to which the League showed unanimity was the USSR.
When US President F. Roosevelt asked British Prime Minister W. Churchill to characterize the Second World War with one formula, he chose the words "unnecessary war." In his memoirs of World War II, this statesman, world-famous for his principles and responsibility, wrote: "There has never been a war easier to prevent" than this one. Who is to blame for not stopping her? The answer is contained in the plot of the first volume formulated by the author of the memoirs, which describes the events that immediately preceded the war and led to it. She says: “how the English-speaking peoples, due to their imprudence, carelessness and good nature, allowed evil (Germany - D.M.) rearm" . This sounds in complete dissonance with the allegations that the USSR, which signed the Non-Aggression Pact with Germany and the secret protocol to it, is also to blame for the start of the war.
The signing of the Soviet-German non-aggression pact really came as a surprise to the majority of contemporaries and aroused in many of them a feeling of surprise and bitterness. This feeling was due to the fact that throughout the expansion from Italy, Germany and Japan, the USSR remained the only country that did not recognize the legality of aggressive actions and persistently advocated collective action to curb the aggressors. Western countries then they did not want to see and hear the efforts and voices of the USSR. Encouraging Hitler, they pushed him to the East in every possible way, hoping to pit Germany and the USSR against each other.
In 1938, France and England "sacrificeed Czechoslovakia, and the ruling circles of Poland not only refused to let Soviet troops through their territory, but also declared, flirting with Hitler, that they would never conclude an agreement on mutual assistance with the USSR, ”Churchill testifies. When Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland fell upon the victim of aggression from the north, trying to snatch a piece for itself. “But soon she will have to pay for it,” the author of the memoirs summed up.
Soviet government, concerned about the occupation of Czechoslovakia by Germany, turned on March 19, 1939 to the Western powers-members of the League of Nations with a proposal to convene a conference of the six leading countries at that time to develop effective measures to ensure collective security. British premier Chamberlain, one of the culprits behind the surrender of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, reacted negatively to this proposal. In a private letter dated March 26, the text of which is reproduced by Churchill in his memoirs, he confessed “to deep distrust of Russia. I do not believe in her ability to carry out an effective offensive, even if she wants to, nor in her motives, which, it seems to me, have little to do with our ideas of freedom ... Moreover, she is hated and suspicious by many small countries, namely Poland, Romania and Finland,” Chamberlain wrote. Churchill did not agree with his prime minister and believed that without Soviet Russia, no appeasement in Europe was already possible: “If the USSR, France and Great Britain had united, Hitler would not have been able to start a war on two fronts,” he testifies.
Who is to blame for the fact that these countries - permanent members of the Council of the League of Nations - did not unite against the aggressor? In search of an answer to this question, let us turn again to Churchill. And not because there is no other evidence, but only because the assessments by a convinced opponent of Bolshevism of a situation where the USSR is a party to international relations are very instructive.
On April 16, 1939, the USSR made a proposal to France and Great Britain to conclude an alliance of three countries - permanent members of the Council of the League of Nations. If "Mr. Chamberlain, upon receiving this Soviet proposal, had replied: 'Yes, let's unite and break Hitler's neck,' or words of similar force, and Parliament had supported," writes Churchill, "Stalin would have understood and history would have taken a different turn." But they didn't. England responded to the Soviet proposal only on May 7, and then evasively. On May 17, this proposal was discussed in the British Parliament. England's oldest politician, Lloyd George, spoke out strongly in support of the Soviet proposal. “Germany has always wanted a lightning war,” he said. - A prolonged war is like a peninsula of war, leading it to the bottom. The great Russian defense defeated Napoleon. The same thing happened in 1914, when Germany expected to achieve victory over the summer, but it turned out differently. Churchill supported Lloyd George. But Chamberlain again spoke out against accepting the Soviet proposal. He stated that cooperation with Russia should be avoided in every possible way, that “a country with such a huge size, population and unlimited resources is negative factor in the situation we are facing."
On May 31, the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR repeated the proposal of the Soviet Union and spoke in favor of ensuring minimum conditions for security in Europe, namely:
1) the conclusion between Britain, France and the USSR of an effective pact on mutual assistance against aggression;
2) guarantee on the part of these three powers of the states of Central and Eastern Europe, including here also Latvia, Estonia and Finland, from attacks by aggressors;
3) the conclusion of a specific agreement between the USSR, Great Britain and France on the forms and amounts of immediate and effective assistance provided to each other and to the guaranteed states in the event of an attack by aggressors.
Unfortunately, this proposal was not accepted either. France followed England, while Poland, Romania and the Baltic republics made no secret of their hostility towards the USSR. As early as the beginning of 1934, Poland signed a “friendship agreement” with Nazi Germany, and the offer of “friendship” came from Poland. On March 23, 1939 Lithuania signed the treaty with Germany. On June 7, 1939, non-aggression pacts with Germany were signed by Latvia and Estonia.
When, in the summer of 1939, attacks on Western countries intensified in the German press, Britain and France decided to resume negotiations with the USSR. It was decided to send delegations to Moscow. Former British Foreign Secretary A. Eden, who resigned as a sign of disagreement with Chamberlain's foreign policy, expressed his readiness to head the British delegation. But Chamberlain appointed a completely unknown person in diplomatic circles as the head of the delegation. Churchill calls this "another mistake" by Chamberlain. The negotiations in Moscow ended with an agreement on ... new negotiations.
On August 10, the British government sent Admiral Drex to Moscow. He had only verbal authority to negotiate. The French delegation was headed by General Dumaine. Negotiations dragged on in every possible way, the partners of the USSR refused to take on any serious obligations. Excerpts from the transcript of the negotiations, as evidence of the frivolity of their intentions, are reproduced in Churchill's memoirs. “Probably the Russians came to the conclusion that neither Britain nor France would fight unless they were attacked,” he was forced to state. “The looming storm was about to break and Russia should worry about itself.”
Under these conditions, on August 15, Moscow receives a request from the German Foreign Minister to meet with him to negotiate the signing of a non-aggression pact. Since the USSR left the request unanswered, it was repeated on 20 August. This time Moscow agreed, and three days later the German Foreign Minister arrived there, and a day later the non-aggression pact was signed. What grounds could the USSR have for refusing the proposal made to it? Yes, none! The Charter of the League of Nations (Art. 13) obliged all member states not to enter into military conflicts with each other. The Protocol to the Charter of the League of October 2, 1920 "On the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes" (Article 10) required the member states of this organization to resolve all problems through negotiations and the signing of bilateral agreements. In the early 30s. The League of Nations recommended that all states sign non-aggression pacts among themselves. Dozens of states have already signed such pacts. The permanent member of the Council of the League, which the USSR had been since 1934, could not refuse the offer to sign such a pact.
Lessons from the League of Nations
After the withdrawal of Germany, Italy and Japan from the League of Nations, the exclusion of the USSR, the cessation of the existence of the independent states of Austria and Czechoslovakia, this organization actually lost even the appearance of efficiency and ceased to function. During World War II, some League of Nations services were transferred from Geneva to Canada and the United States. The last meeting of the Council of the League of Nations took place after the creation of the UN - April 8, 1946 - to decide on "self-dissolution".
Thus, the League of Nations, as the first universal institution for the maintenance of peace and security, proved to be ineffective from the very beginning. This happened because the ruling circles of the leading European countries forced to establish this institution at the request of their peoples, in fact did not want to have a relatively independent center of world politics, the decisions of which they would be obliged to follow. The rivalry between the founders of the League of Nations was also strong, which could not but affect the activities of this institution. Having invested in the Charter of the League of Nations the principle of unanimity in decision-making, the founders of this institution doomed it to sterility. But, as they say, even negative experience is the experience of history, which will guide posterity. Indeed, lessons learned from this history have been learned from the founding of the United Nations.
Similar information.
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/
Introduction
1. The League of Nations and the history of its creation
2. The main tasks of the League of Nations
3. Cons of the Charter of the League of Nations
4. Structure of the League of Nations
5. Functions of the League of Nations
6. Influence of the League of Nations on International Relations
Conclusion
Introduction
The relevance of the research topic lies in the fact that the study of the history of the League of Nations makes it possible to understand a deeper problem, namely, how can undeveloped legal framework large international organization lead to the impossibility of its opposition in practice, again, to major international conflicts.
The purpose of the work: to study the history of the creation and functioning of the organization - the League of Nations.
Goals and objectives of the study:
The main objectives of this study were to:
1) study the process of creating this organization at the Paris Peace Conference on the basis of the draft Charter of the organization;
2) consider the internal structure of the League of Nations;
3) analyze the influence of the League of Nations on international relationships;
4) to consider the order of work set forth in the Charter of the League of Nations;
5) study the activities of the League of Nations in the field of resolving international disputes;
6) analyze the work of the organization aimed at preventing international conflicts.
The degree of scientific development of the problem and the source base of the study. The most consistent requirements for specialists in international relations were identified by O. A. Afanasyeva, O. G. Zaitseva, L. N. Ivanov, R. M. Ilyukhina, and A. Kolsky. However, the question arises of further data structuring.
1. League of Nations history of its creation
nation international conflict
The idea of creating the League of Nations belongs to Great Britain. At the end of 1915, Foreign Secretary Gray proposed the creation of an international organization to fight for peace. The issue of the League on the agenda turned out to be one of the main ones for at least two main reasons. First, how international body The League could indeed make a practical contribution to the regulation of international relations and the reduction of the danger of war. Secondly, the League and its Charter were called upon to give legal and moral sanction to the policy of the great powers, to legalize it in the eyes of public opinion, which by the 1920s was already becoming important. political factor- especially in democratic and liberal countries.
A commission was set up to draw up the League's charter, headed by Wilson. A struggle began between England, France and the United States regarding the draft charter. Later, England and the United States united.
The creation of the League caused serious controversy among the main participants of the conference. At one of the first meetings, it turned out that the plans for its creation, coming from different delegations, differ in terms of length and degree of elaboration of details. The French plan, in particular, was much more detailed than the British. Paris irreconcilably demanded the inclusion in the Charter of a clause on the creation of international armed forces capable of maintaining security in Europe. France hoped to use its superiority in land forces and make them the basis of a future international army, which, if necessary, could be directed against Germany. At the same time, the French delegation believed that it was first necessary to prepare and sign an agreement with Germany, and then to engage in the creation of an international organization.
In this, Clemenceau met with very serious resistance from Wilson, who believed that the creation of a world order should begin precisely with the building of the League. According to the United States, the League, as the main international organization for the creation new system collective security could even be generally delegated the right to develop a peace treaty with Germany. Wilson insisted on the preparation of a project for the creation of the League by a special commission. Within the framework of the conference, a committee was formed (January 25, 1919) to prepare the project of the League of Nations. The resolution establishing it, proposed by the British delegation, provided that the League:
It will be created to resolve all issues related to the establishment of peace and assistance international cooperation, the implementation of guarantees for the implementation of the adopted international obligations;
Become an integral part of the general peace treaty and remain open to the accession of every civilized nation that will accept and support its goals;
Ensure periodic meetings of its members at international conferences(sessions), in the interests of which a permanent organization and a secretariat will be created to ensure the work of the League in between conferences (sessions).
The adoption of the resolution was Wilson's undoubted success, but it did not guarantee the preparation of the Charter of the organization before the work on the treaty with Germany was completed. Wilson's opponents did not hide their hopes that the work of the commission under his chairmanship would fail. But the American delegation showed stubbornness. The President of the United States himself, with the help of a member American delegation D. H. Miller revised his original draft of the League twice. The last one was completed on February 2, 1919.
The main bodies of the League of Nations were the Assembly - an annual meeting of representatives of all members of the organization and the Council of the League of Nations (gathered 107 times during its existence) - consisting of permanent and periodically elected non-permanent members by the Assembly.
The total number of members of the League of Nations varied within 45-60 states.
In addition to the main organs, the League of Nations also had auxiliary ones in the form of permanent and temporary commissions. There were also autonomous bodies (for example, the International Labor Organization, the Permanent Court of International Justice, etc.).
The official languages of the League of Nations were French and English.
2. The main tasks of the League of Nations
Building peace through cooperation;
Guaranteeing peace through collective security;
This was the first time in history that an international organization had to become the guarantor of an international custom.
The main point of the Charter of the LN. was:
providing guarantees to member countries:
Collective action in case of violation of the charter and war
Preservation of the independence and territorial integrity of the powers
If the conflict cannot be resolved on their own, its participants may apply to arbitration or the LN Council.
The parties must not resort to military action for 3 months after the convening of a conference on the conflict (that is, war is allowed!)
Measures against violations:
breaking the peace is seen as a war against all members of the League
Waging complete economic and political isolation
Formation of troops from national contingents to enforce peace
These sanctions were applied in 1935 against Italy during the aggression in Ethiopia, but ineffectively.
3. Cons of the Charter of the League of Nations
An important shortcoming of the Charter of the League was that war as a method of resolving controversial issues was not prohibited.
The sanctions were not comprehensive
Decisions in the Assembly were made on the principle of unanimity, and any member of the LN could put a veto and paralyze the activities of the LN
LN did not acquire an influential character due to the absence of the USA and the USSR
(The USSR joined the League of Nations in 1934. In December 1939, after the outbreak of the Soviet-Finnish war (1939-1940), the Council of the League expelled the USSR from the League of Nations.)
The number of committees was not limited - there were a huge number of them. The missing coordinating body and only in last years 2 Coordination Committees were created.
4. Structure
The League of Nations included the member states of the League, the Assembly, the Council, the Secretariat, various technical commissions and auxiliary services. The structure, functions and powers of the League were defined in the Charter. The annual budget of the League was about 6 million dollars. The headquarters of the main organs of the League was Geneva (Switzerland).
The Assembly included representatives of all states that were members of the League of Nations. The sessions of the Assembly were held annually in September, in addition, special sessions were convened from time to time. Each member of the Assembly had one vote. The Assembly had broad powers that covered the entire scope of the League's activities. Paragraph 3 of the Charter stated that the Assembly had the right to consider "any question within the League's powers or affecting the peace of the world." The internal structure of the Assembly met the principles of building legislature, it included 7 permanent commissions, which usually operated in parallel with the technical services of the League.
The Council was originally intended for representatives of 9 states. US non-participation reduced the number of members of the Council to 8. Over the next 20 years, this figure fluctuated, and on January 1, 1940, the number of members of the Council reached 14. Membership in the Council could be permanent, non-permanent and temporary. The purpose of this division was to grant the right to permanent membership in the Council; the representation of small powers was carried out on the basis of the principle of rotation. In accordance with the Charter, Council sessions were held 4 times a year, not counting special sessions. The functions of the Council, defined by the Charter, were as broad as the functions of the Assembly, however, the Council had exclusive rights in solving minority problems, issues related to the system of mandates, the problems of Danzig (Gdansk), Saar, in resolving conflicts and applying the articles of the Charter, dedicated to collective security.
The Secretariat was the administrative body of the League. The secretariat acted on a permanent basis and had a strong influence on the policy of the League. The Secretariat was headed by the Secretary General, the administrative head of the League. In 1940, the staff of the Secretariat included employees from 50 countries of the world.
5. Functions
The main goals of the League were to keep the peace and improve conditions human life. Among the measures used to preserve peace were the reduction and limitation of armaments; the obligations of the member states of the League to oppose any aggression; mutual agreements to arbitrate, legally settle or conduct special investigations by the Board; agreements of the members of the League on mutual actions in the application of economic and military sanctions. In addition to these basic conditions, a number of different provisions have been adopted, such as the registration of contracts and the protection of minorities.
6. The influence of the League of Nations on international relations
An objective, unprejudiced approach to assessing the peacekeeping activities of the League of Nations, a balanced analysis of the results of its activities indicate that this international organization had both negative and positive features. And although it was unable to prevent the Second World War, through its activities in the first stage (20s), the League contributed to the peaceful settlement of dozens of conflicts.
For the first time, the responsibility for collective action against the violator of international law was embodied in concrete decisions. Another new phenomenon was that the League of Nations had a global character and had a global responsibility for the prevention of war by the concerted actions of its members. The charter provided guarantees to the members of the organization in maintaining their political independence and territorial integrity against external aggression. The organization was created with the aim of ensuring a peaceful solution to conflicts and preventing war. The Charter provided for the collective action of all members of the League of Nations in the event that the aggressor violated the Charter and unleashed a war. A certain procedure for resolving conflicts was established. If the conflicting parties were unable to resolve the disputed issue through negotiations, they had to apply to arbitration, the Permanent Court of International Justice or the Council of the League.
The parties to the conflict were not to resort to war for at least three months after the decision was made by the body that dealt with the conflict. But after this period, the hands of the conflicting parties were actually untied. An important shortcoming of the Charter of the League was that war as a method of resolving controversial issues was not prohibited. Measures against violators of the peace were regulated by the Charter. Breaking the peace was seen as an act of war against all members of the League. Immediate total economic and political isolation of the violator was assumed. The Council also had the right to recommend military sanctions, including the creation of a unified armed force from contingents of League members.
The League of Nations played a positive role in a number of cases in solving post-war problems. Thus, during the first 10 years of its existence (1919-1929), the League of Nations considered 30 international conflicts, and most of them were resolved. The failures of the League in solving political problems often obscure its achievements in the social and humanitarian fields, downplay the importance of its activities in the field of international economic policy and financial regulation, international communications and transit systems, in improving the health care system in many countries of the world, scientific cooperation, the codification of international law, the preparation of conferences on disarmament and other social and humanitarian fields.
Successes include establishing control over the spread of opium and the slave trade (mainly by women). In addition, significant progress has been made in protecting the rights and interests of young people. The League was closely connected with its legal body - the Permanent Court of International Justice, which had its own structure and made independent decisions. In addition, the League worked closely with many international organizations who had no official or historical ties with her.
It should be noted that the first attempt at official codification was made within the framework of the League of Nations. In 1924, the Council of the League formed a committee of experts of 16 jurists, which was to deal with the codification of international law, including the law of treaties. A report was prepared on this branch of law, which was never discussed. The first international legal act that codified the most established norms of the law of treaties was the Inter-American Convention on International Treaties of 1928, which consisted of only 21 articles.
The lessons and experience of the League of Nations were used in the creation of the United Nations. The very fact of the creation of a permanent international organization of a general political nature with a permanent apparatus was an event of great historical significance. The League of Nations was built as a body of collective peacekeeping, which meant a step towards the internationalization of responsibility for maintaining peace. When studying the experience of the League of Nations, one should take into account the discrepancy in the assessments of its activities given by different authors at different historical stages. Summarizing the existing concepts, it is not difficult to see, first of all, two trends: the desire of some to portray the actions of the League in a rosy light and the opposite effort of others - to paint the entire history of this international organization with one black paint, focusing only on its shortcomings and mistakes. The latter trend is clearly seen in the publications of Soviet authors, who analyzed the actions of the League of Nations mainly from the point of view of the extent to which they contradicted or met the interests of the Soviet state. The helplessness of the League of Nations in the context of the outbreak of the Second World War undermined the confidence of the world community in this international organization as an instrument of peace and common security.
By January 1940, the League ceased its activities in the settlement of political issues. At the last session of the Assembly on April 18, 1946, a decision was made to transfer property and material assets League of the United Nations, and its social and economic functions were combined with the activities of the Economic and Social Council.
Conclusion
The creation of the League of Nations had a huge impact on the development of world diplomacy and became the origin of new principles of international relations, such as: the principle of mutual guarantee of the territorial integrity of countries and the sovereignty of states; the principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes; the principle of non-intervention; the principle of non-use of force; the principle of publicity in international relations, etc.
The creation of the League of Nations was a new experience in international diplomacy that had previously served the interests of the few great powers that dominated the world stage. The very fact of the creation of a permanent international organization of a general political nature with a permanent apparatus was an event of important historical significance, because the League of Nations was built as an organ for the collective maintenance of peace, which meant a step towards the internationalization of responsibility for its preservation. The Charter of the League of Nations itself was a huge step forward in diplomacy and international law in general. The principles of organizing the activities of the League of Nations were completely new and laid the foundation for a new system of civil international service, the main aspects of which are still in force.
Despite the various shortcomings in the organization of the League's activities, the idea of resolving world conflicts by peaceful means, first put into practice, still outweighed these shortcomings. Humane and fair goals were not only proclaimed, but also supported legally.
In the process of creating the League of Nations, many states had to sacrifice their interests for the sake of a peaceful post-war order of the planet. As a result, during the development of the Charter, the countries, more than ever, felt the need for compromises and mutual concessions in resolving international problems which led to the development of new, humane and more just legal principles of international law.
The League of Nations made an attempt to give international relations new forms for mankind, based on mutual respect, humanism and hostility to war.
However, it is worth noting that the legal principles of the League of Nations turned out to be rather difficult to implement, because the states still continued to divide the world into spheres of influence. The face of international relations has changed, but inside it has remained the same and unchanged.
Nevertheless, despite significant gaps in legislation, the new international organization became an integral part of the post-war world, and its principles, having gone through a process of refinement and improvement, being supplemented by new legal norms and principles, formed the basis of modern international law.
Bibliography
1. Afanas'eva O. A. Brief essay on the history of the League of Nations. M., 1945.
2. Zaitsev. OG International intergovernmental organizations. M., 1983.
3. Ilyukhina R. M. League of Nations. M., 1982.
4. Kolsky A. League of Nations. M., 1934.
5. Protopopov A.S. History of international relations and foreign policy Russia 1648-2005, M, 2010
6. Porokhnya V.S. Russia in World History, M, 2003
7. Chubaryan A.O. Peaceful coexistence: theory and practice, M, 1976
8. Yazkov E.F. History of the countries of Europe and America in modern times (1918-1945), M, 2000
Hosted on Allbest.ru
Similar Documents
Countries that participated in the Paris Peace Conference. The purpose of the creation and articles of the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations. Principles of a new world order. Solution of international crises by the League of Nations. Regulation of trade and humanitarian relations.
term paper, added 12/14/2012
An international organization founded as a result of the Versailles-Washington system of the Versailles Agreement of 1919-1920. The decision to dissolve the League of Nations. History of the United Nations. Harmonization of relations between states.
presentation, added 11/25/2015
The concept and legal framework, the structure and interaction of participants, the prerequisites and reasons for the creation of the League of Nations. The evolution of UN peacekeeping as a new attempt to establish international stability, peace and order, evaluation of effectiveness.
term paper, added 05/12/2015
Goals, official languages and symbols of the League of Nations. Agencies and commissions created to solve international problems. Limiting the spread of opium. Settlement of disputes between countries through diplomatic negotiations. Protection of the rights and interests of young people.
presentation, added 12/20/2016
League of Nations: history of creation and results of work. Signing of the UN Charter. Activities of the United Nations, structure, main goals and objectives. The concept of "human rights". Diplomacy during the Second World War. The role of the UN in the modern world.
abstract, added 04/23/2014
History of creation, composition and functions of the United Nations (UN). The role of the UN in the peaceful settlement of international disputes and conflicts, as well as in the fight against terrorism. Strengthening the effectiveness of the principle of the non-use of force in international relations.
abstract, added 10/15/2013
The Commonwealth of Nations is an organization that emerged as a result of the collapse of the colonial empire. Key milestones in the history of the development of the Commonwealth of Nations before and after World War II. Features of the structure, membership and main areas of activity of the Commonwealth of Nations.
abstract, added 07.10.2010
Consideration of types, functions, types and characteristics of international organizations. Conducting an analysis of the structure and functioning of the North Atlantic Defense Alliance, the United Nations, European Union, Organization of the Islamic Conference.
term paper, added 03/01/2010
The history of the emergence of the UN peacekeeping institute, the legal framework, tasks, principles and mechanisms of its activities. UN peacekeeping operations at the present stage. The main prospects for the development of the UN in the settlement of international crises and conflicts.
thesis, added 11/07/2010
Prerequisites for the conclusion of the Westphalian peace treaty. League of Nations as a link of the Versailles system and its guarantor. Contents of the Charter of the United Nations. Sovereign equality of states, non-interference in internal affairs and self-determination of peoples.
With the defeat of the powers of Central Europe in 1918, two options for peace were considered at peace negotiations: ending the war on favorable terms for the winners and preventing the next war. The idea of peace in a new world order, which absorbed the proposals of the 19th century and times of war, was based on the current international law and arbitration. In the early years of the war, new formulas developed by the peacekeeping movement arose. Among them, La Fontaine's concept of peace (1914) and the resolutions adopted a few months later at the Women's Congress in The Hague, containing, in addition to calling for an end to the bloodshed, the principles of maintaining peace, stood out. Various peacemaking societies and groups in almost all countries put forward peace initiatives, the most significant of which were the proposals of the Fabian Society in England and the Peace League in the USA. All these programs predetermined the idea of creating an international organization and put forward a number of provisions that later became part of the Charter of the League of Nations.
After the end of the war, an attempt was made to build a general and common family of the League of Nations ("a large common family League of Nations" - the words of Woodrow Wilson), the system of international peace. In 1919, a new, hitherto unknown historical phenomenon arose - the first universal international organization. Implemented in the form of the League of Nations, this organization, which declared the goals of peace, was not an accidental phenomenon in the historical process The emergence of the League of Nations was due to the peculiarities of the peaceful development of this period, associated with the strengthening of the internationalization of the socio-economic process and the growing interdependence of states.This caused centripetal tendencies in international relations.
The fourteenth point of Wilson's program proclaimed the need for the formation of a universal League of Nations "in order to create mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial inviolability, both great and small states."
The issue of the League on the agenda of the Paris Conference turned out to be one of the main ones for at least two main reasons. First, as an international body, the League could indeed make a practical contribution to the regulation of international relations and the reduction of the danger of war. Secondly, the League and its Charter were called upon to give legal and moral sanction to the policy of the great powers, to legalize it in the eyes of public opinion, which by the 1920s. XX century has already become an important political factor - especially in democratic and liberal countries.
The Charter of the League of Nations begins with the words that the high contracting parties take into account "that in order to develop cooperation between peoples and to guarantee their peace and security, it is important to accept certain obligations, not to resort to war, to maintain in full publicity international relations based on justice and honor, strictly comply with the requirements of international law".
The League of Nations was an organic part of the Versailles system. This was emphasized by the inclusion of its Charter not only in the text of the Versailles Peace Treaty of 1919 as the first part of this treaty, but also in the peace treaties with Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey.
The idea of the League of Nations came from Britain. Walter Phillimore, who chaired the Foreign Office committee whose report advanced this proposal, was an international jurist and author of Three Centuries of Peace Treaties. He was assisted by Robert Cecil, a Tory MP. As minister in charge of the blockade, he hated attempts to force Germany to surrender from starvation, and so enthusiastically seized on the idea of a League of Nations. Lord Cecil, having presented the English draft, did much to finalize the Charter in Paris. Both Phillimore and Cecil saw the League not as a means of combating aggression through the use of collective force, but as a substitute for such force, operating primarily through "moral authority."
All the great powers that fought against Germany (except Russia) and especially the Anglo-American tandem took part in the development of projects for the creation of the League of Nations, although the French politician and statesman L. Bourgeois brought not only the French vision of the international organization, but also the legacy of pre-war peacekeeping thought.
The creation of the League caused serious controversy among the main participants of the conference. At one of the first meetings, it turned out that the plans for its creation, coming from different delegations, differ in terms of length and degree of elaboration of details. The United States, represented by President Wilson, sought to use this organization to expand its own markets, spheres of influence, primarily in order to gain the opportunity to actively influence European affairs. The United States was opposed by England and France, two victorious countries, each of which fought for economic and political dominance in Europe.
British military and diplomatic experts did not approve of the idea of a supranational political organization from the very beginning. Political and public figure L. S. Emery expressed doubts about the effectiveness of a body "in which all peoples would somehow be gathered together in the form of a many-sided assembly of representatives, equal in their legal and moral status and bearing an equal share of responsibility."
In his opinion, the idea of creating a world organization deserved attention only if it meant such an organization that would unite within its framework groups of nations that were relatively similar in their development, which would be equal partners. Such groups would be bound together by a common territory and historical development, or by a common cultural and political worldview.
The representatives of England opposed the fact that the future international organization had the means of coercion at its disposal. The British sought to resolve disputed issues by arbitration. Putting forward the demand for a unanimous decision of the Council of the League of Nations on all disputes between states that threatened to break between them, England tried to secure the role of an arbitrator in future clashes on the European continent.
The French plan, in particular, was much more detailed than the British. Paris irreconcilably demanded the inclusion in the Charter of a clause on the creation of international armed forces capable of maintaining security in Europe. France hoped to use its superiority in land forces and make them the basis of a future international army, which, if necessary, could be directed against Germany. Behind these proposals was a fear of Germany, which was superior to France both in terms of its industrial and economic base and in terms of human reserves. At the same time, the French delegation believed that it was first necessary to prepare and sign an agreement with Germany, and then to engage in the creation of an international organization. In this, Clemenceau met with very serious resistance from Wilson, who believed that the creation of a world order should begin precisely with the building of the League. According to the United States, the League, as the main international organization for creating a new system of collective security, could even be delegated the right to develop a peace treaty with Germany. Wilson insisted on the preparation of a project for the creation of the League by a special commission. Within the framework of the conference, a committee was formed (January 25, 1919) to prepare the project of the League of Nations.
According to the Washington administration, the reason for the instability of the pre-war world order was the constant violation by the great powers of the principle of self-determination of nations, the observance of which, according to Wilson, could in itself ensure the stability of the world order. That is why the United States has proposed the creation of a new permanent international body of collective security, which would oversee the fair resolution of international disputes on the basis of a set of agreed principles, including the principle of self-determination of nations. From Wilson's point of view, this organization, the first of its kind in history, was to be "a universal association of nations to maintain the undisturbed security of sea routes, their universal, unrestricted use by all states of the world, and to prevent any kind of wars, initiated either in violation of contractual obligations, or without warning, with the complete subordination of all issues under consideration to world public opinion. W. Wilson, the central figure in the development of the Charter, was greatly influenced by the proposals put forward by General J. H. Smets, Minister of Defense of South Africa.
Jan Christian Smete was the first Boer who won great fame not only in the political, but also in the academic circles of Great Britain. Since the signing of the armistice in 1918, Smeté has been concerned with the problems of the post-war order of the world. The focus of his attention, of course, were the problems of Great Britain. In a speech at a banquet of journalists on November 14 in London, he said that old Europe, old world, who emerged from the French Revolution, died. The new world was born, in his opinion, from the interdependence and cooperation of all countries. Europe is destroyed, and the League of Nations must be the successor to its great legacy.
An analysis of the speeches of J. Smets in the autumn of 1918 shows that even then he had a theory of the structure of the world. And although his book Holism and Evolution did not appear until 1926, the main ideas were thought through and even applied by him in preparing the plan for a new world order after the war. According to Smets, the world is governed by the process of creative evolution, the creation of new wholes. The highest concrete organic integrity is the human personality. The highest form of organization of society is the holistic world. This world consists of systems of integrity. The first for Smets holistic integrity in the field of politics and power - South Africa, which was part of the next integrity - the British Commonwealth of Nations. Finally, the largest holistic integrity is the League of Nations, a world association of states to maintain the values of Western European civilization and create a solid system of the Versailles Peace.
Having outlined his views on the structure of the world, Smete began to prepare a pamphlet on the League of Nations. "Practical Suggestions" were published on December 16, 1918. Smet tried to come up with a practical work plan. The League of Nations was supposed, in his opinion, to replace "the ruined European empires and the old European order." Smet believed that it was not enough to create an organization whose activities would be aimed at resolving international conflicts that had already arisen; he proposed to develop such a management tool that would deal with the sources and causes of conflicts. Smets' book contained 21 paragraphs of proposals for the charter of the future international organization.
In addition to concluding a peace treaty or even a military security system, J. Smet proposed the establishment of a new world order through the political and social transformation of society. The Smets League was to be a permanent conference of the governments of its constituent states in order to ensure joint international activity in certain established areas without encroaching on the independence of these states. The League was supposed to include a general conference, a council, and courts of conciliation and arbitration. A general conference, with each member state having the same number of votes, will be convened periodically to discuss matters submitted by the council. These will be issues related to international law or conflict resolution, general proposals for limiting weapons and ensuring peace on Earth.
The Council shall be the executive committee of the League and shall be composed of plenipotentiaries of the Great Powers, as well as representatives of the other Powers and of the smaller States appointed in turn, with a certain majority of the Great Powers. A minority, more than a third of total number may veto any action or resolution of the council.4
The estimate was determined following features League Council:
a) exercise the function of an executive body or exercise control in accordance with mandates or with international agreements or conventions;
b) management and control of any property of international importance;
c) development and submission for government approval general principles international law, agreements on the limitation of armaments and the preservation of peace on earth.
Smet paid much attention to the question of the violation by the member states of the decisions of the League. He believed that if one of the members of the League violated the agreement, he "thereby goes to war with all members of the League, who subject him to an economic and financial boycott." The final version of his project was reflected in the Charter of the League of Nations.
The activity of Smets in the imperial cabinet was noticed, and he was invited to participate in the preparation of the peace conference. Smete discussed many sensitive issues and carried out secret missions. He suggested that an economic conference be held with the aim of reviving central Europe. The Allies did not accept his recommendations. Other recommendations of Smets were not heard either: on the preservation of the army in Germany to maintain order, on the creation of a commission in the League of Nations to determine the damage from the war and the amount of reparations.
Smete addressed a memorandum to Lloyd George and W. Wilson, offering to help Europe, especially Germany, instead of dismembering it. There was no answer. Nevertheless, the general put his signature under the Versailles peace treaty. He explained this with political considerations: it was impossible to give the press a reason to talk about his disagreements with other political figures.
The final version of the Charter of the League was developed on the basis of the Anglo-American project and agreed between the three main victorious powers: the USA, England and France. It was imposed on the rest of the participants in the Paris Conference without discussion.
The League of Nations found itself at the center of the creation of a new world order. But it turned out to be not the most effective means of combating aggression in Europe. The conditions for making decisions on collective actions are formulated in the Charter in an extremely vague way; moreover, their implementation required the unanimity of states.
The League of Nations took shape as a permanent organization with a secretariat and headquarters in Geneva. Her governing body was an annual Assembly, with the participation of all member states. Executive power was delegated to a Council composed of representatives of the victorious Allied Powers, as well as four other elected states.
The headquarters of the League of Nations in Geneva became home to the nascent system of the international civil service, which was responsible for economic, social and humanitarian matters. The League involved in its work Germany and the USSR, which were not originally members of the organization, as well as the United States, which refused to officially participate. The number of states and so-called autonomous colonies that entered the League of Nations by its first general meeting, reached 40. The member countries of the League occupied about 63% of the globe, about 70% of the world's population lived in them.
The secretariat of the League of Nations consisted of several departments. The first developed documents on the protection of the rights of religious and national minorities in Eastern Europe and Turkey. The League of Nations, acting as the guarantor of such agreements, has developed a special procedure for their implementation. In the 20s. this system worked quite successfully, but subsequently fell apart.
The economic and financial organization of the League provided extensive economic information. The Transport and Trade Section developed the Convention on the Rules of International Ports and Railways. The Opium Board was a pioneer in the fight against drugs. Other committees dealt with the protection of the rights of children and women. The most successful was the activity of a health organization that oversaw global health issues, collected medical information, and coordinated international campaigns to combat epidemics.
Arising on the initiative of the victorious states, the League of Nations was supposed to legally consolidate the fruits of their victory and maintain the status quo in a divided world. However, the Charter not only, of course, did not prohibit war, but also retained the possibility of its various interpretations in Articles 10-13, 15. The concept of aggression was not reflected in the Charter either. He legalized the appeal to war regardless of its nature and goals, providing only for the observance of a certain procedure and a short-term (3 months) postponement of hostilities (Article 12). It is characteristic that in Western literature there are attempts at such an interpretation of the essence of the League, which would serve as a justification for the indicated gap in its Charter. "The League, it was believed, was conceived as an investigative body that was supposed to intervene in dangerous disputes and establish the guilt of one or another party and parties," writes the English researcher F. Northedge. The prerogative of the relevant ascertainment, in his opinion, belonged to the Council, the International Court of Justice or another body. As for the future, he believed that public opinion should have forced the guilty party to correct the situation.
Such an interpretation of the Charter of the League was, to say the least, naive. Moreover, life has shown that it was erroneous, the aggressor states openly ignored the Charter. During the existence of the League of Nations, wars were actively prepared and then unleashed: Japan invaded Manchuria and China, Italy occupied Abyssinia and Albania, Germany occupied Austria, Czechoslovakia and part of Lithuania. Germany and Italy intervened in Spain.
The impotence of the League of Nations stemmed from the fact that its Charter required the unanimity of all its members for the adoption of all political decisions (Article 5) taken by its Council and Assembly, which depersonalized the role and responsibility of various states in maintaining international peace and prevention of aggression.
In a number of cases, even those few provisions of the Charter, which gave some opportunities for the active intervention of the League of Nations in life, were not only not used for their intended purpose, but were so altered that they turned into their opposite. So it was with the issue of sanctions and disarmament.
Article 16 of the Charter provided for military and economic sanctions against the aggressor. The implementation of military sanctions was envisaged by placing a certain contingent of armed forces at the disposal of the League by individual states. It is not difficult to imagine that military sanctions would be an effective means of maintaining peace. However, the question of military sanctions was not even placed on the agenda of its Council. Economic sanctions were applied only once - in 1935 - against Italy, but in such an insufficient form that they could not cool the ardor of Mussolini. Then, in May 1938, the Council of the League of Nations allowed the members of the League to recognize Italian sovereignty over Abyssinia. And on the eve of the Second World War, the majority of the members of the League gave such an interpretation of Article 16 of its Charter that the implementation of the sanctions recommended by the Council of the League of Nations was made dependent on the decision of each interested state. In this regard, some members of the League of Nations warned in advance that they consider it unnecessary for them to participate in the sanctions. So instead decisive action The League of Nations took the path of non-intervention.
The League of Nations, born of the Treaty of Versailles, shared its failure. This failure as an "instrument of peace" was especially evident in its inability to seriously raise the problem of disarmament. The Charter of the League of Nations spoke of the need for disarmament (Article 8). In fact, this resulted in fruitless discussions. At the very first plenary meeting of the League on January 16, 1920. Lord Curzon announced the impossibility of reducing armaments. In the summer of 1922, Great Britain submitted to the League a half-hearted English draft for a partial reduction in armaments, but it was not considered. According to some reports, the military spending of France, England, Italy, the USA and Japan in 1923-24. doubled compared to 1913. The limitation of national armaments was conditioned by the vague concept of "national security", "geographical position and special conditions of each state". The prepared commission of the League of Nations for disarmament was created only in December 1925.
However, propaganda portrayed the League of Nations as the most reliable "instrument of peace." Its Charter, indeed, included a number of articles relating to guarantees of international security (Articles 10-13, 15-16). But they were formulated so vaguely that the League was busy for many years interpreting or supplementing the provisions of the Charter.
From the outset, three different opinions have proliferated with regard to the League of Nations and the obligations imposed by its Charter. The point of view that Winston Churchill adhered to was the point of view of both the French and the new states, which received everything they wanted under the peace treaty, or even more. Supporters of this opinion believed that the main purpose of the League was to maintain the new European status quo; the possibility of using the League in a broader sense was of purely academic interest - as a tribune for preaching the principles of justice. But it was this broader use of the League of Nations, its universality, that attracted the idealists of the world. They believed that the principle of "open doors" for joining the League created new moral standards world order based on the ability to impose a federal organization on the world by force, and only cowardice and betrayal of the League members can prevent the successful establishment of a lasting peace with its natural consequence - disarmament throughout the world.
Still others looked at the League of Nations more realistically: they saw in it an important means for expanding mutual understanding and cooperation between nations, a reconciliation apparatus ready for action, available to all who sought reconciliation; the center of an ever-expanding philanthropic international activity; a forum of world public opinion, whose authority would increase with each new success, and whose entire activity would be based on moral influence, and not on coercion. Those who held this view knew that the Charter of the League of Nations contained certain clauses, such as Articles 10 and 16, which provided for coercion. But they doubted any great power would ever be sanctioned, especially after the US chose to ignore the League of Nations.
The incompatibility of these points of view affected the activities of the League of Nations from the very beginning of its existence. The occupation of Corfu by Mussolini, the capture of Vilna by Poland and the liquidation of Western Ukraine, the annexation of Memel by Lithuania were acts of aggression and violation of peace treaties that called for the urgent use of force. But no such action followed. Those who believed in the League as a tool for establishing peace by force considered that its disadvantage was the lack of an efficient and effective apparatus of coercion. They wanted the League to get rid of this shortcoming, which was reflected first in the Treaty of Mutual Assistance, and then, when the British government rejected it, in the Geneva Protocol, which provided for a general strengthening of sanctions and the actual transfer of the armed forces to the disposal of the General Staff of the League of Nations. . It is difficult to say how much this would have contributed to greater efficiency and clarity in the decisions of the League of Nations, but England did not accept this protocol.
The British government proposed a positive policy of more concrete, more direct and individual commitments, which was embodied in the system of Locarno agreements.
There were two distinct phases in the activities of the League of Nations. At the first (1920-1934) it was an international organization of broad competence, main point which was the struggle and compromises within the organization and the united struggle against the USSR. The end of the first stage, determined by the crisis of the Versailles-Washington system, found expression in a deep crisis of the organization in 1931-1933, accompanied by the withdrawal of Japan and Germany from the League of Nations and the failure of the disarmament conference. At the end of the 30s. it was already widely believed that the League of Nations had exhausted itself.
The second stage (1934-1939) is associated with the entry into the League of Nations of the USSR, which made it a common international organization. The main content of this stage was the struggle in it of two directions: the policy of the USSR, aimed at using the international organization to combat the threat of war and to implement the policy of peaceful coexistence, and the policy of the Western powers, which sought to use the international organization to appease aggressive states and to carry out anti-Soviet actions.
In the second period, the most significant event in the history of the League of Nations took place - the Locarno Conference. After Locarno, the League of Nations was controlled by the triumvirate that had been created (N. Chamberlain, A. Briand, G. Stresemann), which was called the "Locarno camarilla". In essence, the Council of the League of Nations for the next few years did not deal with the serious problems of international relations. During this period, Briand, Chamberlain and Stresemann tried to reach a compromise on the fundamental problems of foreign policy.
Of particular interest is the activities of the League in connection with the struggle for European security. In the interwar years, the relationship between the problems of peace and security was constantly changing, the peculiarity of the moment was that the first decade was the post-war period, and the second - the pre-war period. Moreover, each state had its own approaches to the problem of security. Some viewed it as international politics peaceful change, others as neutrality, still others as appeasement, and still others as collective security.
Most of the diplomatic activity in the 20s. was aimed at coordinating the possibility of revising peace treaties while ensuring security. Collective security in the broadest sense implied a system of defensive alliances - the joint actions of several powers in response to the military threat of one of them. However, in the special new sense in which the term was used in the Charter (Articles 10-17), collective security meant the obligation of joint action by all members of the League of Nations against any state that began hostilities and did not make a preliminary attempt at a peaceful settlement. At the same time, the Charter left some questions unanswered: under what conditions and how can collective force be used; how cruel is its application.
The League of Nations instructed special commissions to submit proposals on the organization of arbitration, on problems of security and disarmament. On October 2, 1924, the Assembly adopted a draft protocol on the peaceful settlement of international conflicts and recommended that all members of the league consider it.
E. Herriot, the initiator of the project, spoke about the essence of this document as follows: “Given the failure of limited security pacts, I set as my goal the creation of a universal security pact. states belonging to the League of Nations.
This project went down in history under the name of the Geneva Protocol of 1924. It offered the members of the League of Nations a system of arbitration, security and reduction of structures. The protocol was signed by 19 countries, but of all the permanent members of the Council, only France signed it. The British government believed that the obligations imposed by the protocol could involve England in the war for the sake of "foreign interests." It preferred regional treaties in the spirit of the Charter of the League of Nations, but without guarantees from the latter. This document clearly linked collective sanctions against the aggressor and general disarmament with the procedure for the legal and arbitration resolution of conflicts. Although the concept of collective security was reflected in the Charter of the League of Nations, it did not work due to the vagueness of a number of formulations and was not perceived by many as serious.
At the end of 1925, the League of Nations seemed to have decided to tackle the problem of disarmament in earnest. In December, the Preparatory Commission for the Conference on Disarmament was set up, which was entrusted with preparing for the conference on the reduction and limitation of armaments. Along with the members of the League, Germany, the USA and the USSR were invited to the Preparatory Commission. An Arbitration and Security Committee was created, which led the commission away from discussing the problem of disarmament. By the end of 1927, the League had adopted 111 resolutions on the question of disarmament, but had not taken a single real step towards its implementation. Dealing with issues of peace and security, the League did not go beyond the framework of general discussions and resolutions, which were only advisory in nature.
Proceeding from the fact that Germany was looking for opportunities to remove international legal obstacles to remilitarization, which posed a military threat to Europe and, above all, France, E. Herriot developed and proposed to the Geneva Conference on Disarmament, opened in February 1932, a "plan for organizing peace." He proceeded from the formal recognition of German "equality of rights", proposing "gradual equalization of the military statuses" of the states that would take part in the agreement. The agreement boiled down to the creation, under the auspices of the League of Nations, of an organization of European states linked by pacts of mutual assistance. To fight against aggression, this organization had to have armed forces, military equipment which would be superior to the national armies.
Herriot's "plan" was put forward in those days when Hitler's fascism was rushing to power in Germany. In this situation, fear of the international isolation of France in the face of Germany came to the fore among the leadership of the Third Republic. This fear played an important role in the Herriot Cabinet's agreement to hold talks in Geneva between the Locarno Treaty powers, with the participation of the United States. During the negotiations, the French were only able to achieve the adoption of the "declaration of five states", which amounted to the recognition of Germany's "equality" in armaments "within the framework of a system that ensures the security of all peoples, subject to international control The signing of this declaration was a political miscalculation by the Herriot cabinet.
In the context of escalating contradictions between the European leading powers, the French government, hoping to strengthen its position in Europe, proposed to the United States to conclude an agreement on "eternal" friendship and on the renunciation of war as a means of national policy. But US leaders were not interested in strengthening French influence in Europe and instead of a bilateral treaty, they put forward a draft multilateral "Pact for the Renunciation of War." On August 27, 1928, the Briand-Kellogg Pact was signed in Paris. The text of the pact provided for the rejection of war as a national policy, but only between the parties to the pact. The original participants in the pact included: the United States, France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan, participants in the Locarno agreements and the British dominions. Article 1 of the pact stated that the parties to the pact "refuse in their mutual relations from war as an instrument of national policy". Article 2 said that the settlement or resolution of all disagreements or conflicts, regardless of the nature of their origin, which may arise between the parties to the pact, should be carried out only by peaceful means. Article 3 declared that the pact was open to all other states. Although the pact had no articles relating to measures to implement it, and the signatory countries reserved the right to armed defense, this agreement extended the principle of renunciation of hostilities enshrined in the Charter to countries not members of the League of Nations. February 9 in Moscow was a protocol was signed on the immediate introduction of the Paris Treaty on the renunciation of war as a national policy. On July 24, the Briand-Kellogg pact entered into force.
Despite the certain positive significance of the Paris Pact, it did not stop either the arms race or the struggle for dominance or military predominance in Europe, so that the old problems have retained their relevance. The Briand-Kellogg Pact served as the basis for the Soviet Union's proposed definition of aggression.
The Pact of Paris and the Charter of the League of Nations are often cited together, defining aggression under international law as a crime. Despite the fact that the Charter of the League of Nations, the Paris Pact and the Convention for the Definition of Aggression were later violated by the countries that signed them, the idea was appreciated as a new approach to peace and international law. For a short time, the universality of this principle overshadowed the special interests of the states that proclaimed it. However, clarity came after a series of events that called into question the ability of the League of Nations to act collectively. Japan committed aggression in Manchuria, Italy - in Ethiopia, Germany occupied the Rhineland. Only in the case of the Italo-Ethiopian conflict was an attempt made to use collective sanctions, but this was also thwarted by the policy of appeasement of Italy by France and Great Britain, as well as the neutrality of the United States.
The coming to power of fascism in Germany created a new situation in Europe. A new problem has arisen European security, which stemmed from the threat looming over Europe from Nazi Germany. The achievements of European civilization were threatened.
The League of Nations, as the main guiding and determining rod of foreign policy, had to solve all these problems. The solution required a revision of the stereotypes of political thought, a rejection of attempts to isolate the Soviet Union and a readiness to create a European security system, which in this situation acquired the significance of an important pan-European phenomenon.
The new situation in Europe that arose after Hitler came to power did not introduce fundamental changes in Britain's policy towards the USSR. As Germany's aggressiveness grew, the intensity of the policy of "appeasement of the aggressor" increased. The political leaders of Europe cherished the idea that they would be able to direct the spearhead of German aggression to the east, to push Germany against the USSR. This calculation served as the mainspring of the "appeasement" policy. The temptation to weaken the USSR with the hands of Germany, and to hold Germany back with the help of the USSR in those years clearly made itself felt in the minds and actions of French politicians.
England was the main driving force appeasement policy. She was interested in a disintegrated Europe, where she could play on the mutual contradictions of the European powers. The line of British politicians did not change even when Germany got down to business. The British ruling circles were ready to sacrifice both Austria and Czechoslovakia in order to achieve their goals. British political leaders did not want to cooperate with socialist country, did not strive to create a pan-European security system, believing that in this case England would lose a foothold for maneuvering and for playing "European equilibrium".
On April 18, 1946, the League of Nations formally ended its existence, but in fact it ceased all activity in 1939 with the outbreak of World War II.
As we can see, the first post-war decade was spent almost entirely on the creation of a new international order and instruments that could support it in relations between states. For all its shortcomings, the current world order is focused on reducing the risk of a recurrence of a major war, to a certain extent affirmed positive moral guidelines and created some organizational foundations for limiting conflict through the use of multilateral negotiating mechanisms both within the League of Nations and outside it. The new order remained fragile, and the mechanisms for its regulation were not effective enough. International institutions had neither the authority, nor the experience, nor the powers that would correspond to the acuteness of the problems of the international situation, which sharply worsened in the early 1930s. largely under the influence of the global economic crisis. British Deputy Secretary of War Duff Cooper spoke of the atmosphere in the League of Nations: "Countless committees, endless speeches, committees in which nothing is done and in which they never really hope to achieve anything. Gossip spread by cosmopolitan politicians, endless tedious official dinners and receptions gave the impression of confusion and despondency.
The League of Nations was not universal European organization, it was a narrow grouping of 20 European countries with the participation of several non-European ones, many European states were excluded from membership in its ranks. In addition, the activities of the League were directed against some of them, in particular the Soviet Union, due to ideological differences. The imperfections of the Charter meant that war and aggression were not unconditionally prohibited. The most important failure of the League of Nations was the admission of the outbreak of war by fascist Germany.
Thus, it can be said that from the point of view of the development of international law, the creation of such an organization as the League of Nations meant a step forward. For the first time in history, the obligation not to resort to war was fixed, albeit limited, the distinction between the victim of aggression and the attacker was outlined, and sanctions were provided against the aggressor. However, the principles declared in the Charter of the League have never been used in international practice. There were loopholes in the Charter to justify aggression, and measures to combat the threat of war were not clearly formulated. The weakness of the Charter was that in the analysis of conflicts between countries in the Council of the League of Nations, in the absence of unanimity, all its members retained freedom of action. But at the same time, the Charter of the League did not mention, even in a declarative form, the principle sovereign equality states. The new international organization legitimized the dictates of the great powers.
Lessons from the 1930s have not been in vain. They were used during the Second World War in the process of folding and activities of the anti-Hitler coalition, in the resistance movement. The lessons of that time must be taken into account today.
The content of the article
THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, first world organization, the purpose of which was to preserve peace and develop international cooperation. It was formally founded on January 10, 1920 and ceased to exist on April 18, 1946 with the formation of the UN. The League of Nations found its practical expression in the ideas and projects proposed since the 17th century. up until the First World War. Of the 65 large states that existed on the planet in 1920, all, with the exception of the United States and Saudi Arabia (formed in 1932), were members of the League at one time or another.
Structure
The League of Nations included the member states of the League, the Assembly, the Council, the Secretariat, various technical commissions and auxiliary services. The structure, functions and powers of the League were defined in the Charter. The League's annual budget was ca. 6 million dollars. The headquarters of the main organs of the League was Geneva (Switzerland).
The Assembly included representatives of all states that were members of the League of Nations. The sessions of the Assembly were held annually in September, in addition, special sessions were convened from time to time. Each member of the Assembly had one vote. The Assembly had broad powers that covered the entire scope of the League's activities. Paragraph 3 of the Charter stated that the Assembly had the right to consider "any question within the League's powers or affecting the peace of the world." The internal structure of the Assembly corresponded to the principles of building a legislative body, it included 7 standing committees, which usually acted in parallel with the technical services of the League.
The Council was originally intended for representatives of 9 states. US non-participation reduced the number of members of the Council to 8. Over the next 20 years, this figure fluctuated, and on January 1, 1940, the number of members of the Council reached 14. Membership in the Council could be permanent, non-permanent and temporary. The purpose of this division was to grant the right to permanent membership in the Council; the representation of small powers was carried out on the basis of the principle of rotation. In accordance with the Charter, Council sessions were held 4 times a year, not counting special sessions. The functions of the Council, defined by the Charter, were as broad as the functions of the Assembly, however, the Council had exclusive rights in resolving minority problems, issues related to the system of mandates, the problems of Danzig (Gdansk), Saar, in resolving conflicts and applying the articles of the Charter devoted to collective security issues.
The Secretariat was the administrative body of the League. The secretariat acted on a permanent basis and had a strong influence on the policy of the League. The Secretariat was headed by the Secretary General, the administrative head of the League. In 1940, the staff of the Secretariat included employees from 50 countries of the world.
Members of the League of Nations
Founding countries are marked with an asterisk (*). The year of adoption and/or the year of the declaration of withdrawal (which came into effect after two years) are indicated in brackets.
Australia *
Austria (adopted in 1920, annexed by Germany in 1938)
Albania (adopted 1920, annexed by Italy 1939)
Argentina *
Afghanistan (adopted in 1934)
Belgium *
Bulgaria (adopted in 1920)
Bolivia *
Brazil (withdrew in 1926)
Hungary (adopted in 1922, withdrew in 1939)
Venezuela* (withdrew in 1938)
Haiti* (withdrew in 1942)
Guatemala* (withdrew in 1936)
Germany (accepted in 1926, withdrew in 1933)
Honduras* (withdrew in 1936)
Greece *
Denmark *
Dominican Republic (adopted 1924)
Egypt (adopted in 1937)
India *
Iraq (adopted in 1932)
Ireland (adopted 1923)
Spain* (withdrew in 1939)
Italy* (withdrew in 1937)
Canada *
China *
Colombia *
Costa Rica (adopted in 1920, withdrew in 1925)
Cuba *
Latvia (adopted in 1921)
Liberia*
Lithuania (adopted in 1921)
Luxembourg (adopted in 1920)
Mexico (adopted in 1931)
Netherlands *
Nicaragua* (withdrew in 1936)
New Zealand *
Norway *
Panama *
Paraguay* (withdrew in 1935)
Persia (Iran)*
Peru* (withdrew in 1939)
Poland *
Portugal *
Romania* (withdrew in 1940)
Salvador* (released 1937)
Siam (Thailand)*
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland *
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (adopted in 1934, excluded in 1939)
Turkey (adopted in 1932)
Uruguay *
Finland (adopted in 1920)
France *
Czechoslovakia *
Chile* (withdrew in 1938)
Switzerland*
Sweden *
Ecuador (adopted in 1934)
Estonia (adopted in 1921)
Ethiopia (adopted 1923)
Yugoslavia*
Union of South Africa *
Japan* (withdrew in 1933)
Functions
The main goals of the League were to preserve peace and improve the conditions of human life. Among the measures used to preserve peace were the reduction and limitation of armaments; the obligations of the member states of the League to oppose any aggression; mutual agreements to arbitrate, legally settle or conduct special investigations by the Board; agreements of the members of the League on mutual actions in the application of economic and military sanctions. In addition to these basic conditions, a number of different provisions have been adopted, such as the registration of contracts and the protection of minorities.
Despite the fact that the League managed to resolve - to varying degrees successfully - more than forty political conflicts, its efforts to resolve the main contradictions through the use of paragraph 16 of the League's Collective Security Charter led to its weakening and termination of activity. The unsuccessful attempt of the League in 1931 to apply effective sanctions against Japan, which attacked Manchuria, and the even more serious failure to influence events during the Italian aggression against Ethiopia, clearly demonstrated to potential aggressors the weakness of the mechanism for the use of force in a peaceful settlement.
The failures of the League in solving political problems often overshadow its achievements in the social and humanitarian fields, downplay the importance of its activities in the field of international economic policy and financial regulation, international communications and transit systems, in improving the health system in many countries of the world, scientific cooperation, codification of international law , preparing conferences on disarmament and other social and humanitarian fields. Successes include establishing control over the spread of opium and the slave trade (mainly by women). In addition, significant progress has been made in protecting the rights and interests of young people. The League was closely connected with its legal body - the Permanent Court of International Justice, which had its own structure and made independent decisions. In addition, the League worked closely with many international organizations that did not have formal or historical ties with it.
The exclusion of the USSR from the League in 1939 led to the fact that only one great power remained in its composition - Great Britain. In the critical days leading up to September 1939, not a single country resorted to the help of the League; by January 1940, the League ceased its activities in settling political issues. At the last session of the Assembly on April 18, 1946, a decision was made to transfer the property and material assets of the League to the United Nations, and its social and economic functions were combined with the activities of the Economic and Social Council.
APPENDIX
CHARTER OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
High Contracting Parties,
Bearing in mind that in order to develop cooperation among peoples and to guarantee their peace and security, it is important
make certain commitments not to resort to war,
maintain in full publicity international relations based on justice and honor,
strictly observe the prescriptions of international law, which are now recognized as the valid rule of conduct for governments,
establish the rule of justice and observe in good faith all the obligations imposed by treaties in the mutual relations of organized peoples who accept the present Charter, which establishes the League of Nations.
1. The original Members of the League of Nations are those of the signatories whose names appear in the Appendix to this Constitution, and also the States alike named in the Appendix, which shall accede to this Constitution without any reservation, by means of a declaration deposited with the Secretariat within two months before the entry into force of the Charter, of which the other Members of the League will be notified.
2. All States, Dominions or Colonies which are freely governed and which are not listed in the Appendix may become Members of the League if two-thirds of the Assembly (Assembly) vote for their admission, insofar as they will give effective guarantees of their sincere intention to comply with international obligations and in so far as they will accept the regulations laid down by the League regarding their military, naval and air forces and armaments.
3. Any Member of the League may, after two years' prior warning, withdraw from the League, provided that by that time he has fulfilled all his international obligations, including those under this Charter.
The activities of the League, as defined in these Statutes, are carried out by the Assembly and the Council, which has a permanent Secretariat.
1. The Assembly consists of representatives of the Members of the League.
2. It shall convene at the appointed time, and at such other time as the circumstances require, at the seat of the League, or at such other place as may be appointed.
3. The Assembly is in charge of all matters which fall within the League's sphere of action and which affect the peace of the world.
4. Each Member of the League may have no more than three representatives in the Assembly and shall have only one vote.
1. The Council shall be composed of representatives of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers (Note: USA, British Empire, France, Italy and Japan), as well as representatives of four other Members of the League. These four Members of the League shall be appointed at the discretion of the Assembly and for such terms as it may wish to elect. Pending their first appointment by the Assembly, the representatives of Belgium, Brazil, Spain and Greece shall be members of the Council.
2. With the approval of a majority of the Assembly, the Council may appoint other Members of the League, whose representation on the Council shall henceforth be permanent. He may, with the same approval, increase the number of Members of the League to be elected by the Assembly to be represented on the Council (Note. On September 25, 1922, the number of Council members to be chosen by the Assembly was increased to six, and on September 8, 1926, to nine ).
2-a. The Assembly will establish, by a two-thirds majority, the procedure for electing temporary members of the Council, in particular, determine the period of their participation in it and the conditions for a new election. (This amendment went into effect July 29, 1926.)
3. The Council meets when circumstances so require, and at least once a year, at the seat of the League or such other place as may be appointed.
4. The Council is in charge of all matters within the scope of the League and affecting the peace of the world.
5. Any Member of the League not represented on the Council is invited to send a representative to attend when a question is brought before the Council that particularly affects its interests.
6. Each Member of the League represented in the Council has only one vote and has only one representative.
1. Insofar as there are no specifically contrary provisions of this Statute or provisions of this Treaty, the decisions of the Assembly or the Council shall be taken unanimously by the Members of the League represented in the assembly.
2. Any question of procedure arising at meetings of the Assembly or Council, including the appointment of commissions charged with investigating special cases, shall be decided by the Assembly or Council and decided by a majority of the Members of the League represented at the meeting. [...]
1. The Permanent Secretariat is established at the seat of the League. It includes the Secretary General, as well as the necessary secretaries and necessary staff. [...]
1. The seat of the League shall be Geneva.
1. The members of the League recognize that the preservation of peace requires the limitation of national armaments to the minimum compatible with national security and with the fulfillment of the international obligations imposed by the general action.
2. The Council, taking into account the geographical location and special conditions of each State, shall prepare plans for this limitation for the consideration and decision of the various Governments.
3. These plans shall be the subject of a new review and, if necessary, revision at least every ten years.
4. After they have been adopted by the various Governments, the armaments limit so fixed may not be exceeded without the consent of the Council.
5. Considering that the private production of munitions and war material is seriously objected to, the Members of the League instruct the Council to give an opinion on measures capable of eliminating its harmful effects, taking into account the needs of those Members of the League who are unable to manufacture equipment and war material necessary for their security.
6. The Members of the League undertake to exchange in the most frank and exhaustive manner all information relating to the extent of their armaments, to their military, naval and air programs, and to the state of those branches of their industry that can be used for war.
A permanent commission will be formed to present to the Council its opinions on the implementation of the provisions of Articles 1 and 8 and likewise on general military, naval and air matters.
The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve, against any external attack, the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In the event of an attack, threat or danger of attack, the Council shall indicate the measures to ensure the fulfillment of this obligation.
1. Declares expressly that every war or threat of war, whether directly or not affecting any of the Members of the League, is of interest to the League as a whole, and that the latter must take measures capable of effectively safeguarding the peace of nations. In such a case, the General Secretary shall immediately convene the Council at the request of any Member of the League.
2. In addition, it is declared that every Member of the League has the right to draw the attention of the Assembly or Council in a friendly manner to any circumstance capable of affecting international relations and, therefore, threatening to shake the peace or good harmony among nations, on which the world depends.
1. The Members of the League agree that if a dispute arises between them which may lead to a rupture, they shall submit it either to arbitration, or to a judicial decision, or to the consideration of the Council. They also agree that they must in no case resort to war before the expiration of a period of three months after the decision of the arbitrators or the judgment, or the report of the Council.
2. In all cases provided for in this article, the decision of the arbitrators or the judgment must be made within a reasonable time, and the report of the Board must be drawn up within six months from the date the dispute was submitted to it.
1. The Members of the League agree that if a dispute arises between them, which, in their opinion, may be resolved by arbitration or judicial decision, and if this dispute cannot be satisfactorily settled by diplomatic means, then the matter will be fully submitted to arbitration or judicial decision.
2. Disputes which relate to the interpretation of a treaty, to any question of international law, to the existence of any fact which, if established, would amount to a breach of an international obligation, or to the amount and manner of remedy to be awarded for such breach.
3. The tribunal to which all such disputes are to be referred shall be the Permanent Court of Justice of the International Court of Justice established under Article 14, or any other tribunal on which the parties to the dispute agree among themselves, or which is established by some existing convention between them.
4. Members of the League undertake to carry out in good faith the decisions or resolutions passed and not to resort to war against a Member of the League who will comply with them. In case of non-compliance with the decision or regulation, the Council proposes measures to ensure their implementation.
The Council is instructed to draw up a draft of the Permanent Court of the International Court of Justice and present it to the Members of the League. This Chamber shall be in charge of all disputes of an international character which the parties submit to it. It will also give advisory opinions on all disputes and on all questions that are brought before it by the Council or the Assembly.
1. If a dispute arises between the Members of the League which may result in a rupture, and if such dispute is not subject to the arbitration or judicial proceedings provided for in Article 13, then the Members of the League agree to submit it to the Council. It is enough for one of them to point this dispute to the Secretary General, who takes all measures for a full investigation and consideration.
2. In the shortest time The parties must communicate to him the statement of their case with all relevant facts and supporting documents. The Council may order their immediate publication.
3. The Council shall endeavor to secure a settlement of the dispute. If he succeeds, he publishes, to the extent he sees fit, a statement conveying the facts, the relevant explanations and the terms of this settlement.
4. If the dispute could not be settled, the Council shall draw up and publish a report, adopted either unanimously or by a majority vote, to inform about the circumstances of the dispute, as well as the solutions proposed by it, as the most just and most suitable for the case.
5. Any Member of the League represented on the Council may likewise publish a statement of the facts relating to the dispute and its own conclusions.
6. If the report of the Council is adopted unanimously, and the votes of the representatives of the parties are not taken into account in establishing this unanimity, then the Members of the League undertake not to resort to war against any side that is consistent with the conclusions of the report.
7. In the event that the Council fails to achieve acceptance of its report by all its members other than the Representatives of the Parties to the dispute, the Members of the League reserve the right to do as they see fit for the preservation of law and justice.
8. If one of the Parties asserts, and if the Council accepts, that the dispute relates to a matter conferred by international law exclusively within the domestic jurisdiction of that Party, the Council shall so state in the report without proposing any solution to the matter.
9. The Council may, in all cases provided for in this article, bring the dispute before the Assembly. The Assembly will have to deal with the dispute also at the request of one of the Parties; this motion must be submitted within fourteen days from the date the dispute was brought before the Council.
10. In any case referred to the Assembly, the provisions of this Article and Article 12 relating to the actions and powers of the Council shall equally apply to the actions and powers of the Assembly. It is agreed that a report drawn up by the Assembly with the approval of the representatives of the Members of the League represented on the Council and of the majority of the other Members of the League, except in each case the Representatives of the Parties to the dispute, shall have the same validity as a report of the Council unanimously accepted by its Members, except Representatives of the parties to the dispute.
1. If a Member of the League resorts to war contrary to the obligations assumed in Articles 12, 13 or 15, then he is ipso facto considered to have committed an act of war against all other Members of the League. The latter undertake to immediately break off all commercial or financial relations with him, to prohibit all communications between their own citizens and the citizens of the state that has violated the Charter, and to cut off financial, commercial or personal communications between the citizens of this state and the citizens of any other state, whether it is a Member of the League or not. .
2. In this case, the Council is obliged to propose to the various Governments concerned the strength of the military, naval or air force by which the Members of the League shall, by affiliation, participate in a military force intended to maintain respect for the obligations of the League.
3. The Members of the League furthermore agree to give each other mutual support in the application of the financial and economic measures to be taken by virtue of this article, in order to reduce to a minimum the losses and inconveniences which may result therefrom. They likewise give mutual support to counter any special measure directed against one of them by a state that has violated the Charter. They shall make the necessary arrangements to facilitate the passage through their territory of the forces of any Member of the League participating in the general action, in order to maintain respect for the obligations of the League.
4. Any Member found guilty of violating one of the obligations arising from the Charter may be expelled from the League. The exception is decided by the votes of all other members of the League represented in the Council.
1. In the event of a dispute between two States, of which only one is a Member of the League, or of which neither is a member of the League, the State or States outside the League shall be invited to submit to the obligations of its Members, for the purpose of settling the dispute on terms, deemed fair by the Council. If this invitation is accepted, the provisions of Articles 12 to 16 shall apply, subject to modifications deemed necessary by the Council.
2. After this invitation has been sent, the Council shall open an inquiry into the circumstances of the dispute and propose such measure as seems to it the best and most effective in the present case.
3. If the invited State, refusing to assume the duties of a Member of the League for the purpose of settling a dispute, resorts to war against a Member of the League, the provisions of Article 16 shall apply to it.
4. If both invited parties refuse to assume the duties of a Member of the League for the purpose of settling the dispute, then the Council may take all measures and make any proposals that can prevent hostile actions and lead to a solution of the conflict.
Any international treaties or international obligations entered into in the future by a Member of the League must be immediately registered with the Secretariat and published as soon as possible. None of these international treaties or agreements will become binding until they are registered.
The Assembly may, from time to time, invite the Members of the League to reconsider treaties which have become inapplicable, and international provisions the preservation of which could endanger the peace of the world.
1. The Members of the League recognize, each insofar as it concerns him, that this Charter revokes all inter se obligations or agreements inconsistent with its terms, and solemnly undertake not to enter into such in the future.
2. If, before joining the League, a Member has assumed obligations inconsistent with the terms of the Charter, then he must accept immediate action to free yourself from these obligations.
International obligations, such as arbitration treaties, and agreements limited to known areas, such as the Monroe Doctrine, which ensure the preservation of peace, shall not be considered inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Charter.
1. The following principles apply to colonies and territories which, as a result of the war, have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the states that previously ruled them, and which are inhabited by peoples who are not yet capable of self-governing themselves in especially difficult conditions modern world. The well-being and development of these peoples is the sacred mission of civilization, and it is appropriate to include guarantees for the fulfillment of this mission in the present Charter.
2. best method to put this principle into practice is to entrust the guardianship of these peoples to the advanced nations [...] who are willing to accept it: they would exercise this guardianship in their capacity as Mandate-holders and in the name of the League.
3. The nature of the mandate must vary according to the degree of development of the people, geographic location territory, its economic conditions and any other similar circumstances. [...]
7. In all cases, the Mandatory shall send to the Council an annual report concerning the territories assigned to him. [...]
In compliance with the regulations international agreements which are now in existence or which will be subsequently concluded, and in agreement with them, the Members of the League:
(a) endeavor to secure and maintain just and humane conditions of work for men, women and children in their own territories, as well as in all countries to which their commercial and industrial relations extend. [...]
1. All international bureaus previously established collective agreements, will, subject to the consent of the Parties, be placed under the leadership of the League. Any other international bureaus and any commissions for settling cases of international importance which are subsequently set up will be placed under the leadership of the League. [...]
League of Nations and its historical role.
The purpose of the creation of the League of Nations, its tasks and role in the new post-war system of international relations, the differences of the Entente powers regarding its Charter.
The idea of creating the League of Nations belongs to Great Britain. At the end of 1915, Foreign Secretary Gray proposed the creation of an international organization to fight for peace.
The issue of the League on the agenda turned out to be one of the main ones for at least two main reasons. First, as an international body, the League could indeed make a practical contribution to the regulation of international relations and the reduction of the danger of war. Secondly, the League and its Charter were called upon to give legal and moral sanction to the policy of the great powers, to legalize it in the eyes of public opinion, which by the 1920s was already becoming an important political factor, primarily in democratic and liberal countries.
A commission was set up to draw up the League's charter, headed by Wilson. A struggle began between England, France and the United States regarding the draft charter. Later, England and the United States united.
The creation of the League caused serious controversy among the main participants of the conference. At one of the first meetings, it turned out that the plans for its creation, coming from different delegations, differ in terms of length and degree of elaboration of details. The French plan, in particular, was much more detailed than the British. Paris irreconcilably demanded the inclusion in the Charter of a clause on the creation of international armed forces capable of maintaining security in Europe. France hoped to use its superiority in land forces and make them the basis of a future international army, which, if necessary, could be directed against Germany. At the same time, the French delegation believed that it was first necessary to prepare and sign an agreement with Germany, and then to engage in the creation of an international organization.
In this, Clemenceau met with very serious resistance from Wilson, who believed that the creation of a world order should begin precisely with the building of the League. According to the United States, the League, as the main international organization for creating a new system of collective security, could even be delegated the right to develop a peace treaty with Germany. Wilson insisted on the preparation of a project for the creation of the League by a special commission. Within the framework of the conference, a committee was formed (January 25, 1919) to prepare the project of the League of Nations. The resolution establishing it, proposed by the British delegation, provided that the League:
will be created to resolve all issues related to the establishment of peace and the promotion of international cooperation, the implementation of guarantees for the fulfillment of accepted international obligations;
become an integral part of the general peace treaty and remain open to accession by every civilized nation that accepts and supports its goals;
ensure periodic meetings of its members at international conferences (sessions), in the interests of which a permanent organization and a secretariat will be created to ensure the work of the League during breaks between conferences (sessions).
The adoption of the resolution was Wilson's undoubted success, but it did not guarantee the preparation of the Charter of the organization before the work on the treaty with Germany was completed. Wilson's opponents did not hide their hopes that the work of the commission under his chairmanship would fail. But the American delegation showed stubbornness. The President of the United States himself, with the help of a member of the American delegation, D. H. Miller, twice revised his initial draft of the League. The last one was completed on February 2, 1919.
Members of the League of Nations.
Of the 65 major states that existed on the planet in 1920, all except the United States and Saudi Arabia(formed in 1932), at one time or another were members of the League.
Founding countries are marked with an asterisk (*). The year of adoption and/or the year of the declaration of withdrawal (which came into effect after two years) are indicated in brackets.
Australia*
Austria (adopted in 1920, annexed by Germany in 1938)
Albania (adopted 1920, annexed by Italy 1939)
Argentina*
Afghanistan (adopted in 1934)
Belgium*
Bulgaria (adopted in 1920)
Bolivia*
Brazil (withdrew in 1926)
Hungary (adopted in 1922, withdrew in 1939)
Venezuela* (withdrew in 1938)
Haiti* (withdrew in 1942)
Guatemala* (withdrew in 1936)
Germany (accepted in 1926, withdrew in 1933)
Honduras* (withdrew in 1936)
Greece*
Denmark*
Dominican Republic (adopted 1924)
Egypt (adopted in 1937)
India*
Iraq (adopted in 1932)
Ireland (adopted 1923)
Spain* (withdrew in 1939)
Italy* (withdrew in 1937)
Canada*
China*
Colombia*
Costa Rica (adopted in 1920, withdrew in 1925)
Cuba*
Latvia (adopted in 1921)
Liberia*
Lithuania (adopted in 1921)
Luxembourg (adopted in 1920)
Mexico (adopted in 1931)
Netherlands*
Nicaragua* (withdrew in 1936)
New Zealand*
Norway*
Panama*
Paraguay* (withdrew in 1935)
Persia (Iran)*
Peru* (withdrew in 1939)
Poland*
Portugal*
Romania* (withdrew in 1940)
Salvador* (released in 1937)
Siam (Thailand)*
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland*
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (adopted in 1934, excluded in 1939)
Turkey (adopted in 1932)
Uruguay*
Finland (adopted in 1920)
France*
Czechoslovakia*
Chile* (withdrew in 1938)
Switzerland*
Sweden*
Ecuador (adopted in 1934)
Estonia (adopted in 1921)
Ethiopia (adopted 1923)
Yugoslavia*
Union of South Africa*
Japan* (withdrew in 1933)
The main tasks of the League of Nations
Building peace through cooperation;
Guaranteeing peace through collective security;
This was the first time in history that an international organization had to become the guarantor of an international custom.
The main point of the Charter of the LN. was:
providing guarantees to member countries:
Collective action in case of violation of the charter and war
Preservation of the independence and territorial integrity of the powers
If the conflict cannot be resolved on their own, its participants may apply to arbitration or the LN Council.
The parties must not resort to military action for 3 months after the convening of a conference on the conflict (that is, war is allowed!)
Measures against violations:
breaking the peace is seen as a war against all members of the League
Waging complete economic and political isolation
Formation of troops from national contingents to enforce peace
These sanctions were applied in 1935 against Italy during the aggression against Ethiopia. Ineffective.
Cons of the Charter of LN and generally cons
sanctions were not comprehensive
Decisions in the Assembly were made on the principle of unanimity, and any member of the LN could put a veto and paralyze the activities of the LN
LN did not acquire an influential character due to the absence of the USA and the USSR
The number of committees was not limited - there were a huge number of them. There is no coordinating body and only in recent years 2 Coordinating Committees have been established.
Structure.
The League of Nations included the member states of the League, the Assembly, the Council, the Secretariat, various technical commissions and auxiliary services. The structure, functions and powers of the League were defined in the Charter. The League's annual budget was ca. 6 million dollars. The headquarters of the main organs of the League was Geneva (Switzerland).
The Assembly included representatives of all states that were members of the League of Nations. The sessions of the Assembly were held annually in September, in addition, special sessions were convened from time to time. Each member of the Assembly had one vote. The Assembly had broad powers that covered the entire scope of the League's activities. Paragraph 3 of the Charter stated that the Assembly had the right to consider "any question within the League's powers or affecting the peace of the world." The internal structure of the Assembly corresponded to the principles of building a legislative body, it included 7 standing committees, which usually acted in parallel with the technical services of the League.
The Council was originally intended for representatives of 9 states. US non-participation reduced the number of members of the Council to 8. Over the next 20 years, this figure fluctuated, and on January 1, 1940, the number of members of the Council reached 14. Membership in the Council could be permanent, non-permanent and temporary. The purpose of this division was to grant the right to permanent membership in the Council; the representation of small powers was carried out on the basis of the principle of rotation. In accordance with the Charter, Council sessions were held 4 times a year, not counting special sessions. The functions of the Council, defined by the Charter, were as broad as the functions of the Assembly, however, the Council had exclusive rights in resolving minority problems, issues related to the system of mandates, the problems of Danzig (Gdansk), Saar, in resolving conflicts and applying the articles of the Charter devoted to collective security issues.
The Secretariat was the administrative body of the League. The secretariat acted on a permanent basis and had a strong influence on the policy of the League. The Secretariat was headed by the Secretary General, the administrative head of the League. In 1940, the staff of the Secretariat included employees from 50 countries of the world.
Functions.
The main goals of the League were to preserve peace and improve the conditions of human life. Among the measures used to preserve peace were the reduction and limitation of armaments; the obligations of the member states of the League to oppose any aggression; mutual agreements to arbitrate, legally settle or conduct special investigations by the Board; agreements of the members of the League on mutual actions in the application of economic and military sanctions. In addition to these basic conditions, a number of different provisions have been adopted, such as the registration of contracts and the protection of minorities.
Reasons for the collapse of the League of Nations .
An objective, unprejudiced approach to evaluating the peacekeeping activities of the League of Nations, a balanced analysis of the results of its activities indicate that this international organization had both negative and positive features inherent in it. And although it was unable to prevent the Second World War, through its activities in the first stage (20s), the League contributed to the peaceful settlement of dozens of conflicts. For the first time, the responsibility for collective action against the violator of international law was embodied in concrete decisions. Another new phenomenon was that the League of Nations had a global character and had a global responsibility for the prevention of war by the concerted actions of its members. The charter provided guarantees to the members of the organization in maintaining their political independence and territorial integrity against external aggression. The organization was created with the aim of ensuring a peaceful solution to conflicts and preventing war. The Charter provided for the collective action of all members of the League of Nations in the event that the aggressor violated the Charter and unleashed a war. A certain procedure for resolving conflicts was established. If the conflicting parties were unable to resolve the disputed issue through negotiations, they had to apply to arbitration, the Permanent Court of International Justice or the Council of the League. The parties to the conflict were not to resort to war for at least three months after the decision was made by the body that dealt with the conflict. But after this period, the hands of the conflicting parties were actually untied. An important shortcoming of the Charter of the League was that war as a method of resolving controversial issues was not prohibited. Measures against violators of the peace were regulated by the Charter. Breaking the peace was seen as an act of war against all members of the League. Immediate total economic and political isolation of the violator was assumed. The Council also had the right to recommend military sanctions, including the creation of a unified armed force from contingents of League members.
Nevertheless, many important provisions of the Charter were not implemented due to the position of the main participants in the organization, primarily England and France, whose interests did not coincide in many respects. The envisaged sanctions were also weakened by the possibility of such an interpretation of the Charter, which made it possible for each member to decide independently on participation in the general activities of the organization. And the reality testified that among the members of the League there was no conviction that any war, wherever it began, was a threat to them. The weakness of the League as an instrument for maintaining peace was already predetermined by the Charter of the organization itself. Decisions of both the Assembly and the Council were taken by unanimity. The only exception was voting on procedural issues and on admission to the League, when decisions were made by two-thirds, that is, by a qualified majority. Considering the presence of sharp disagreements between the members of the League, the obstacles on the way to the adoption by the organization of urgent, urgent decisions from political, military and other important issues. An important shortcoming of the Charter was the fact that only the decision of the Assembly and the Council on administrative issues that concerned the League itself had binding force. Even the sanctions were actually voluntary, since the decisions had the character of recommendations.