1. Origins of the League of Nation:
It is wrong to say that President Wilson alone was the author of the League of Nations. Private initiative also played an important part in this connection.
During the World War I many suggestions were made from time to time for the creation of an international organisation which could check wars in the future.
Popular interests in the possibility of such a league began to manifest itself in the United States after the outbreak of the World War I and grew rapidly during the period of American neutrality.
Image Source:conspiracyofwords.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/league-of-nations.jpg
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Contents:
- Origins of the League of Nation
- Membership
- The Assembly
- Council
- Secretariat
- Permanent Court of International Justice
- International Labour Organisation
- Mandate System
- Work of the League
- Collective Security and the League
- Causes of failure of League
A “League to Enforce Peace” was established by a group of public leaders including many outstanding Republicans headed by Taft. The organisation held a Conference in June 1915 and adopted a Four Point Programme which received wide publicity.
It called for the submission of all justifiable international disputes to arbitration, the submission of all disputes to a Council of Conciliation, the application of economic and military force by all states against any state resorting to war without submitting its disputes to pacific settlement and convocation of periodical congresses to codify international law.
At another conference held in May 1916, President Wilson declared that the United States was willing to become a partner in any association of nations formed to check aggression. In January 1917, he addressed the American Senate on a “World League for Peace.”
ADVERTISEMENTS:
When the United States entered the War, President Wilson insisted in his war message that peace in future can never be maintained except by a world-wide partnership of democratic nations. One of the 14 points of Wilson was an Association of Nations formed for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to all States, whether small or big.
In 1915 was published a draft known as “Proposals for the Avoidance of War” to which a Preface was written by Lord Bryce. “The League of Nations Society” was set up in 1915 and “The League of Free Nations Associations” was started in 1918. Later on both the Associations were amalgamated into, the “League of Nations Union.” In March 1918, a Committee of the British Foreign Office with Phillimore as Chairman prepared a draft convention. In July 1918, President Wilson prepared his first draft.
In December 1918, General Smuts prepared a plan containing the germs of the Council and the Mandate System. President Wilson prepared a second draft on 10 January 1919 and a third draft 10 days after. The third draft was submitted to Hurst and Miller for revision and the composite draft prepared by them was used by the League of Nations Commission of the Peace Conference as a basis for discussion.
A Commission of 19 members was set up under the Chairmanship of President Wilson and on 14 February 1919, the tentative draft was presented to the Peace Conference for its consideration. On 28 April 1919, the revised draft was adopted unanimously and the Covenant of the League of Nations was incorporated into the Treaty of Versailles which was signed by the German Delegation on 28 June 1919. On 10 January 1920, the League of Nations officially came into existence and its headquarters were fixed at Geneva in Switzerland.
2. Membership:
There were two kinds of members of the League, original and non-original members. The original members were those states and dominions who had signed the Treaty of Peace and who were invited to accede to the Covenant and actually did so before 20 March 1920. Provision was made for the admission of other states into the League of Nations.
3. The Assembly:
The main organs of the League were the Assembly, the Council and the Secretariat. The Assembly was the supreme body and consisted of the representatives of the various states which were members of the League. Every member-state was given the right of one vote in the Assembly and all its decisions were required to be unanimous.
The Assembly held deliberations on interactional, political and economic matters which were likely to endanger the peace of the world. It was to advise the members to reconsider the question of amendment of the Treaties which had become inapplicable on account of the lapse of time and change of circumstances. It was to revise the budget prepared by the Secretariat. It was to supervise the work of the Council.
4. Council:
The Council was the executive of the League and it consisted of permanent members, non-permanent members and ad hoc representatives. Only the Great Powers were the permanent members of the Council but additional permanent members could be admitted with the approval of the Assembly and the Council. There were as many as eleventh non-permanent members of the Council.
The Council was to meet at least once a year. It was required to deal with any matter within the sphere of the action of the League or affecting the peace of the world. It was required to formulate plans for the reduction of armaments by the various states. It was required to suggest ways and means to avoid the evil effects of the manufacture of munitions and implements of war by private enterprises.
It was to make suggestions regarding the methods by which the territorial, integrity of the states could be ensured if a dispute among the states was likely to lead to a conflict, the Council was required to enquire into the matter and submit a report within six months of the submission of the dispute to it.
If any member of the League resorted to war, the Council was required to recommend to the other governments the effective military, naval or air force to be contributed by the various members of the League of Nations with a view to protect the aggrieved party. If there was a dispute between a member state and a non-member state or among the non-member states alone, the Council was required to go into the matter and make its recommendations for the settlement of the dispute.
5. Secretariat:
The Secretariat of the League consisted of the Secretary-General who was appointed by the Council with the approval of the Assembly and of such other staff as were required for its work The Secretariat was located at Geneva and the staff was appointed by the Secretary General in consultation with the Council. The member states had to pay towards the expenses of the Secretariat in certain proportions. While the meetings of the Council and the Assembly were held from time to time, the Secretariat continued to work throughout the year. The officials of the League enjoyed certain privileges and immunities while engaged in the work of the League.
6. Permanent Court of International Justice:
The Permanent Court of International Justice was opened on 15 February 1922 and it continued to work till October 1945. Its Judges were elected by the Council and the Assembly and the League of Nations had no power to remove them. The budget of the Court was under the control of the Assembly. The jurisdiction of the Court comprised all cases which the parties referred to it and all matters specifically provided for in the Treaties and Conventions in force.
The Council and the Assembly were given the powers to ask for the advisory opinion of the Court. The decisions of the Court were binding only on the parties in dispute and in respect to the particular case alone. There was no provision for appeal although the Court could review its own judgment in the light of the facts brought before it.
7. International Labour Organisation:
The International Labour Organisation was also attached to the League of Nations. Its object was to improve the labour conditions in various parts of the world. Its governing body consisted of the representatives of the governments, employers and workers. Important decisions were taken on the occasion of its annual meetings.
Many international unions and organisations were put under the direction of the League and some of them were the International Hydro-graphic Bureau, Central International Office for the Control of Liquor Traffic in Africa, International Bureau for Information and Enquiries regarding Relief to Foreigners, International Commission for Air Navigation, Nansen International Office for Refugees, International Exhibitions Bureau, International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation, International Institute for the Unification of Private Law, International Centre for the Study of Leprosy, International Educational Cinematographic Institute, etc.
It’s Functions:
The main function of the League of Nations was to avoid wars and maintain peace in the world, and it was required to do all that lay in its power to achieve that ideal. A check was to be put on armaments. The size of the army was to be reduced to such an extent that it was just sufficient for the maintenance of law and order and defence from foreign aggression.
The members of the League were required not to go to war without exhausting all the pacific means for the settlement of disputes. The Assembly, the Council and the Permanent Court of International Justice were to help in the matter of maintaining peace. Provision was made for collective action against a state which dared to violate the provisions of the Covenant of the Leaue. Coerecive action could be taken against the rebellious states. Provision was also made for the enforcement of economic sanctions against an aggressor country.
8. Mandate System:
Provision was made for the Mandate System under the League of Nations. The territories captured from the Central Powers and Turkey was not to be restored to them and was also not to be given to any victorious country in full sovereignty. The administration of those countries was to be given to the various powers under the supervision of the League of Nations.
While appointing the Mandatory powers, their resources, experience and geographical position were taken into consideration. The mandatory territories were considered to be inhabited by backward communities and were to be regarded as a sacred trust of civilization. The mandate was not a form of annexation and a mandated territory could not be annexed or ceded without the consent of the League of Nations.
The mandated territories were divided into three classes. Class A mandated territories were those which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire and had reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations could be provisionally recognised, but they were to get administrative advice and assistance by the mandatory power.
The mandate for Iraq and Palestine was given to Great Britain. Syria and Labanon were put under the mandate of France. Class B Mandatory territories were those in respect of which the mandatory power was to be responsible for its administration. She was required to guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, stop such abuses as slave trade, arms and liquor traffic, prevent the establishment of fortifications, or military and naval bases and secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other members of the League.
Under this category Great Britain was given the mandate for British Cameroon, British Togoland and Tanganyika. France was given mandate for French Cameroon and French Togoland. Belgium was given mandate for Ruanda Urundi. Class C Mandatory Territories were those which on account of their small size, sparseness of population, remoteness from centres of civilization and their geographical contiguity to the territory of the mandatory power could best be administered under the laws of the mandatory state as an integral part of that state under the category.
South-West Africa was put under the mandate of the Union of South Africa, Samoa under New Zealand, Nauru under Great Britain and Australia and New Zealand and the Pacific Islands, North of Equator under Japan and those south of the Equator under Australia.
The mandatory powers were required to administer the mandatory territory in such a way as to help the political, social and economic development of that territory. They were required to submit every year a report on the working of the mandate. The League could send its own nominees to see how much progress was made by the territories under the mandate system.
It is true that the mandate system suffered from certain shortcomings, but it cannot be denied that it represented an important adventure in international supervision over backward areas. The very feeling that those who were entrusted with the mandates owed some responsibility towards the civilized world was distinct improvement in colonial administration. In 1932, Iraq was granted independence and she became a member of the League. The Mandates’ Section of the League collected information and focused the world public opinion upon the deeds or misdeeds of the mandatory powers.
9. Work of the League:
It is true that the League of Nations was called a League of notions, a league of robbers and a league of procrastinators. It was also said that the League could only bark and did not bite. However, in spite of it, it did a lot of useful work during its existence for about twenty years. The League was called upon to examine about forty disputes.
As a rule, the cases were handled by the Council, but a few of them were referred to the Assembly, the Council of Ambassadors or the Permanent Court of International Justice. Some of the earlier disputes such as that of 1923 between Italy and Greece over the murder of several Italians on Greek soil were serious threats to world peace. Disputes such as that of 1921-22 between Finland and Soviet Russia over the treatment of inhabitants of Eastern Karelia were of lesser importance.
There were also some disputes which the League was not able to settle at all On the whole, the League was able to assert its political mission more successfully where small nations were involved. The larger nations were more likely to regard investigations by the League as an infringement of their sovereign rights. They were also in a position to bring pressure on their behalf.
(1) The Aaland Island:
One of the first disputes brought to the attention of the Council of the League concerned the Aaland Islands which lie between Sweden and Finland. Both Finland and the Islands once belonged to Sweden, but those were acquired in 1809 by Russia. In 1917 Finland declared her independence which was recognised by Sweden in January 1918 without making any reservation with regard to the Aaland Islands. This was so, in spite of the fact that the inhabitants of the islands were chiefly of Swedish stock and spoke the Swedish language.
The inhabitants of the islands began to agitate for their union with Sweden, The Government of Sweden kept aloof from the movement, but her people sympathised with the agitators who were arrested by the Government of Finland. The people of Sweden demanded that their government must send help to the Islanders and there was every possibility of a war.
In June 1920, Great Britain directed the attention of the League to the happenings in the Islands. A meeting of the Council was held in London and both the parties represented their case. The matter was referred to a Committee of Jurists. The Council gave its decision in June 1921. Finland was to have sovereignty over the Islands whose people were guaranteed autonomy and protection of their political rights.
The rights of private property and the use of the Swedish language in schools were to be preserved. The area was to be neutralised and unfortified. In April 1922, an international convention was made which guaranteed the neutrality of the Islands and also gave them the requisite international protection.
(2) Mosul Boundary Dispute:
According to the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923, the frontier separating Turkey from Iraq was to be drawn in a friendly manner by Turkey and Great Britain and if no agreement was arrived at within 9 months, the matter was to be referred to the Council of the League. Both failed to agree on a mutually acceptable boundary line as they both claimed the Mosul Vilayat which was rich in oil.
The matter was referred to the League in 1924. The situation was very grave. There occurred a number of frontier incidents. An emergency session of the League Council was called at Brussels. A provisional boundary line was drawn pending the final judgment. Turkey was to maintain order north of the Brussels line and Great Britain was to maintain order to the south of that line. A neutral Commission of Enquiry heard both the parties to the dispute and submitted its report to the League Council in September 1925.
The report established the sovereignty of Turkey over the Vilayat and explained that neither Great Britain nor Iraq had a right to claim it by conquest. Certain points were referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice, but the dispute was not solved ultimately the League Council gave its final judgment on the subject.
The Brussels line was to be the permanent boundary line between Turkey and Iraq. Great Britain was to take steps to secure the extension of her control over Iraq for a further period of 25 years. The Kurdish minority in Mosul was to be guaranteed the appointment of Kurdish local officials and the use of Kurdish language in its schools. Great Britain and Iraq accepted the award but Turkey refused.
As Turkey began to lean more on the Soviet Union, Great Britain entered into a compromise. In June 1926 a Treaty was made between Turkey and Great Britain by which a small part of the Vilayat was given to Turkey. Some royalties from the Mosul oil fields, were also given to Turkey.
(3) Dispute between Bolivia and Uruguay:
In December 1928, an armed clash took place between Bolivia and Paraguay. The matter was taken up by the League Council and a telegram was sent by it expressing its full conviction that the two States would resolve their differences through peaceful means. Both the states agreed to accept the good offices of the Pan-American Conference on Arbitration and Conciliation.
The result was that the immediate quarrel was resolved, but the underlying causes of the dispute remained. Fresh trouble occurred in May 1929. The representatives of the two states met in Washington to conclude a non-aggression pact and hostilities were suspended. There was trouble again in 1932. Efforts were made by the neighbouring states to stop the war, but with no success. Bloody conflict continued.
The League of Nations appointed a Commission of Enquiry which reported that the struggle was inhuman and criminal. When attempts to restore peace failed, it was decided to put an embargo on arms shipment to Bolivia and Paraguay. Some states cooperated while others did not. As Paraguay had the upper hand, she refused to accept a compromise formula. Paraguay also gave a notice to resign from the membership of the League.
The League did not take any interest in the matter after March 1935. However, as a result of the efforts of Argentine, Brazil, Chile, Peru and the United States, the Foreign Ministers of Bolivia and Paraguay signed in June 1935 a protocol outlining the machinery for the negotiation of peace. It was in July 1938 that a Peace Treaty was signed. It is obvious that the League did not succeed in the dispute between Bolivia and Paraguay.
(4) Eupen and Malmedy:
In 1920 and 1921, Germany addressed to the League Council a series of protests against the giving of Eupen and Malmedy to Belgium. The League Council discussed the matter in September 1920 and wrote to the German Government, that its decision regarding the transfer of Eupen and Malmedy to Belgium was final.
(5) The Corfu Incident:
In August 1923, an Italian General, two officers and one chauffeur were murdered on Greek soil. The Italian Government demanded apologies and full reparation for the crime. As Greece refused to accept all demands of Italy, the latter occupied the island of Corfu. In September 1923, Greece referred the matter to the League Council. It was notified by the President of the League Council that a communication had been received from the Conference of Ambassadors announcing the settlement of the dispute as a result of diplomatic negotiations undertaken by the Conference.
(6) The Corfu Incident:
In August 1923, an Italian General, two arose a dispute between France and Great Britain over the nationality decrees in Tunis and Morocco. The decrees issued by France in Tunis and Morocco provided that any person born in France or on the territory of French colonies would be a French citizen.
These decrees conflicted with the British nationality laws. The British Government asked the French Government to refer the matter to arbitration but the contention of France was that it was a purely domestic affair. Ultimately, it was decided by the Permanent Court of International Justice that the matter was not purely one of domestic jurisdiction. The dispute was finally decided by mutual negotiations between the foreign ministers of the two countries.
(7) Dispute between Greece and Bulgaria:
There was some trouble on the frontier between Greece and Bulgaria on account of the activity of Macedonian brigands. In October 1925, the commander of a Greek frontier post and one of his men were killed. By way of reprisal, a Greek army marched into Bulgaria. The latter appealed to the League.
The League Council met and asked the Greek Government to withdraw its troops. The Governments of Great Britain, France and Italy were asked to send military officers to the spot to see what was happening. These measures had a deterrent effect on the Greek Government. The Greek forces were withdrawn and Greece was asked to pay compensation to Bulgaria for the violation of her territory on a scale to be fixed by a League Commission.
The League also did a lot of non-political work. A Slavery- convention was set up at Geneva in 1925. In 1932, it was decided to set up a Permanent Slavery Commission. The Financial Committee of the League advised the Council on financial matters in general, on financial assistance to Governments and on financial problems which could be solved by international co-operation it helped to tackle the problem of counterfeiting, falsification of commercial documents, double taxation and fluctuating value of gold.
The Financial Committee was responsible for the issue and supervision of various League loans for Austria, Hungary, Greece, etc. A genera finance conference was held in Brussels in 1920. The Economic Committee of the League did the preliminary work for the World Economic Conference of 1927 and the Monetary and Economic Conference of 1933.
In order to implement the provisions of Article 23 of the Covenant of the League, the autonomous Communications and Transit Organisation was set up in 1920. This Organisation co-operated with river commissions, labour unions, railway agencies, air traffic associations, etc.
The League also set up in 1923 the Health Organisation with a Health Committee and a secretariat. It performed a lot of useful work in organising action against malaria, small-pox, leprosy, rabies, cancer tuberculosis, syphilis, heart disease, etc. It helped researches in medicine. It helped the nations to improve national health. It organised technical conferences. It co-operated with governments in reporting epidemics and their spread.
The League helped to fight typhus and prevented cholera and plague from the East. It brought home from Russia 4, 27,000 prisoners of war. It co-operated with China to organise relief work in flood areas. It helped the Greek Government to settle 15 lakhs of refugees. Dr. Nansen played an important part in the work of the settlement of refugees under the aegis of the League.
In 1922 the League appointed an International Committee on Intellectual Co-operation. In 1926 was established the International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation at Paris. It tried to co-ordinate “international collaboration with a view to promoting the progress of general civilisation and human knowledge and notably the development and diffusion of science, letters and arts.”
The League did a lot of useful work in the field of the control of traffic in dangerous drugs, prohibition of traffic in women, suppression of trade in obscene literature, promotion of child welfare, etc. It was responsible for drawing up a large number of very valuable international agreements and conventions. An attempt was made to codify the law regarding nationality, territorial waters and state responsibility.
When Austria was on the verge of economic collapse in 1921-22, the League arranged an international loan to put the country back on her feet. Similar help was given to Hungary, Greece and Bulgaria. The League gave valuable financial advice at the international conference in Brussels in 1920, in Geneva in 1927 and in London in 1933. It established international conventions regarding customs, export of certain commodities, suppression of counterfeit currency, etc.
It tried to simplify administrative formalities with a view to facilitate passenger and goods traffic. In 1920, a model passport for general use was adopted and it was recommended that stringent passport and visa regulations should be removed. Conventions were drawn up with regard to transport in international rivers, maritime signals, the lighting of coasts and road traffic.
Expert help was given to the Polish Government to settle certain inland shipping questions and the Chinese Government for road development and improvement of certain waterways. Cordell Hull says, “The League of Nations has been responsible for more humanitarian and scientific endeavor than any other organisation in history.”
10. Collective Security and the League:
The Covenant of the League provided for a system of collective security so that peace could be maintained in the world. Members of the League undertook to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all the members. In the event of an aggression or threat or danger of aggression, the Council of the League was required to decide what measures were necessary to meet the situation.
In case an emergency arose, the Secretary General of the League was required to summon at once a meeting of the Council on the request of any member of the League. It was the right of every member of the League to bring to the notice of the Council or the Assembly any circumstances which could threaten or disturb international peace.
The members of the League agreed among themselves that if there was a dispute among them which could lead to war, they would submit the same either to arbitration or judicial settlement or enquiry by the Council. They agreed not to resort to war until three months after the award of the arbitrators or the judicial decision or the report of the Council.
Certain disputes were declared to be among those which were generally to be submitted to arbitration or judicial settlement and those were to be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice, or any Tribunal agreed upon by the parties to the dispute. The members of the League also agreed to abide by the decision or award that might be given.
They undertook not to resort to war against a member of the League which complied with the award or decision. If there arose between the members of the League any dispute likely to lead to a rupture which was not submitted to arbitration or judicial settlement, the members of the League were required to submit the same to the Council which was to give full consideration to the same.
If any member of the League resorted to war in disregard of the provisions of the Covenant, it was deemed to have committed an act of war against all other members of the League and the latter were required to subject that member state to the severance of all trade, financial, commercial or personal intercourse between nationals of the Covenant-breaking state and the nationals of any other state, whether a member of the League or ‘not.’ It was the duty of the Council in such a case to recommend what effective measures could be taken to meet the situation.
The members of the League agreed that they would mutually support one another in the financial and economic measures which were taken in order to minimise the loss or inconvenience resulting from the above measures. They also agreed mutually to support one another in resisting any special measures aimed at one of the members of the Covenant-breaking state.
They also undertook to take necessary steps to afford the passage through their territories to the forces of those members of the League who were cooperating to protect the Covenant of the League. Any member of the League who violated the Covenant was to be removed from the membership of the League.
If any dispute involved a state which was not a member of the League, that state was to be invited to accept the obligations of the members of the League for the purposes of that dispute alone, and if the invitation was accepted, the Council was required to institute immediately an enquiry into the circumstances of the dispute and recommend measures which were considered to be effective. If a non-member rejected the invitation, all members of the League were required to take collective action against that state.
As regards the working of the system of collective security as established under the League, some Italian Commissioners were murdered in 1923 by the bandits on Greek territory near the Albanian frontier. The contention of Greece was that the murderers were Albanians and the Albanians blamed Greece. Italy held Greece responsible and bombarded and besieged the island of Corfu. Greece appealed to the League of Nations but Italy refused to accept the invitation of the League and the result was that the League took no action against Italy.
In 1925, there was a border dispute between the soldiers of Greece and Bulgaria and the Greek army marched into Bulgaria. When Bulgaria appealed to the League, the latter asked the Greek Government to withdraw its troops. The Governments of Great Britain, France and Italy were directed to send military officers to the spot and the result was that the Greek forces were withdrawn and Greece agreed to pay compensation to Bulgaria for the violation of her territory.
There were armed clashes between Bolivia and Paraguay in 1928. The matter was taken to the Council of the League and the parties were requested to act in accordance with the pledges given by them as members of the League. The matter was settled through the good offices of the Pan-American Conference on Arbitration and Conciliation.
There was trouble again in 1932 and the neighbouring states failed to stop the war between the two countries. A Commission of Enquiry appointed by the League of Nations reported that the war between the two states was inhuman and criminal. As the efforts to stop the war failed, it was decided to put as embargo on the shipment of arms to both Bolivia and Paraguay.
Some states cooperated, while the others did not. As Paraguay had the upper hand, she refused to accept the suggested compromise and threatened to give up her membership of the League of Nations. The result was that the League did not take any further interest in the matter.
Japan had an eye on Manchuria for a long time and she took action in 1931. Within four days, all the Chinese towns within a radius of 200 miles north of Mukden were captured by the Japanese. By November 1931, practically the whole of North Manchuria was in the hands of Japan. China appealed to the League of Nations which after waste of a lot of time, appointed the Lytton Commission to go to the spot and make a report.
The report was submitted in 1932. Its recommendations were couched in a very guarded language. The report avoided to mention Japan as the aggressor. When the Lytton Report was discussed by the Assembly of the League of Nations, the Japanese delegation left the hall and Japan gave a notice giving up her membership of the League. The result was that the members of the League did not take any action against Japan and the whole of Manchuria was occupied and annexed by Japan.
The system of collective security was tested again in Abyssinia and there also it failed. There were clashes between the troops of Abyssinia and Italy in 1934-35. Italy put forward unreasonable claims for compensation and subsequently conquered the whole of Abyssinia in spite of the fact that sanctions were enforced by the League of Nations against Italy. The result was that the system of collective security was completely discredited and every state felt that it could do what it pleased without any fear of collective action against her.
When the German troops marched into the Rhineland in March 1936 in violation of the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, no action was taken against Germany although the safety of both France and Belgium was endangered. When the civil war broke out in Spain in 1936, General Franco was backed by Hitler and Mussolini and was given all possible assistance but countries like Great Britain and France did nothing to help the Republican regime.
When Hitler annexed Austria in 1938, no action was taken by the League. When there was a crisis in Czechoslovakia, nobody came to her help and Germany was allowed to dismember her in October 1938. No action was taken by the League when the rest of Czechoslovakia was merged into Germany in March 1939. Within six months the World War II started in which practically all the states of the world were involved at one stage or the other and the system of collective security collapsed completely.
Many reasons have been given for the failure of the system of collective security under the League. One reason was that the interests of all the states were not identical and in many cases clashed with one another. Each state was determined to follow that policy which was in her own interests and such an attitude was not congenial to any collective action.
The result was that each state was left to defend herself and there was no question of the other states coming to her help. Experience shows that a country was prepared to support another country if it was friendly towards her even if she was guilty of aggression. Such an attitude was fatal to the success of the system of collective security.
Experience also showed that every state was afraid of being involved in a war for the sake of another state. In every war heavy losses are certain and nobody is sure about the final outcome of the war and hence all states tried to avoid war instead of joining hands to stop the aggressor.
They were not prepared to pay the price involved in defending others although they could expect a similar treatment for themselves in future. The League had a very effective weapon in the form of economic sanctions but the same were not applied strictly. Their effectiveness was tested in 1931, 1955-56, but they failed.
As regards diplomatic sanctions, they were merely an expression of disapproval but as a means of coercion, they were merely a slap on the wrist. The world was rent as under by conflicting ideologies and many states were trying for global dominance and in such circumstances, the system of collective security could not work.
11. Causes of failure of League:
There were many causes which were responsible for the failure of the League of Nations. The Covenant of the League was made a part and parcel of the peace settlement. It would have been better if it had been kept separate. There were many states which considered the Treaty of Versailles as a treaty of revenge and were not prepared to ratify the same. By not ratifying the Treaty, they could not be members of the League.
The absence of the great Powers from the international organisation weakened her from the very beginning and that was partly responsible for its ultimate failure. Japan, Germany and Italy left the League and that certainly weakened it. The League was dominated by England and France and consequently, the other states began to lose their confidence in that organisation. The League was intended to perform a miracle by doing the impossible task of maintaining the status quo in the world.
That would have been possible if the peace settlement of 1919-20 had been based on justice and fair play further, as countries like Germany were completely humiliated by that settlement, there were no chances of peace. Germany was bound to defy the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles and that she actually did under Hitler.
The rise of dictatorship in Italy, Japan and Germany weakened the chances of success of the League. Japan was determined to acquire fresh territories and as the League criticised her on the question of Manchuria, Japan left the League. Germany was not prepared to honour her commitments under the Treaty of Versailles with regard to her armaments, and consequently she decided to leave the League.
The states continued to be the members of the League so long as their national interests were not in any way endangered or sacrificed. They preferred to pursue and achieve their national aspirations than to care for the strengthening and perpetuation of the international organisation which was the only hope of the world. Small nations lost their faith in the effectiveness of the League to save them from any aggression.
The examples of Manchuria, Abyssinia, Austria and Czechoslovakia could be cited as examples in this connection. The League was given an effective weapon in the form of economic sanctions, but that weapon was not used effectively to produce good results. The economic sanctions against Italy were applied in a halting manner.
The League failed because it was an organisation of the governmental authorities and the people of the various states had no say in its deliberations. There was no popular backing or enthusiasm. While Great Britain and France joined the League, they did not change their attitude. Great Britain looked upon the League as a means to perpetuate the balance of power. France looked upon the League as a means to encircle Germany. She did not transform French security into collective security.
The League failed because it was based on the principle of equality. The idea of one nation, one vote led to Liberia being as important as the United Kingdom or France or the Soviet Union. That was not a sound basis on which to found an international organisation. The League though conceived as universal was in fact never universal.
The narrow nationalism prevailing in the world was also responsible for the failure of the League. If the nations of the world were not prepared to sacrifice their national interests for the sake of the League or world interests, the League was bound to fail.