From the League to the UN
On the first anniversary of the Senate's ratification of the United Nations Charter, it is time to consider whether the UN is a weaker instrument for peace than the League.
TL;DR
- The League of Nations aimed to replace force with reason in international relations, pledging members to settle disputes by arbitration and support collective security.
- Governments did not take the League's Covenant seriously, unwilling to relinquish sovereignty or the right to wage war.
- The League was a compromise between public will for peace and the prepossessions of diplomats and politicians, often used as an excuse for inaction.
- The League was a 'corporate person,' hiding the personal responsibility of the individuals behind its decisions.
- Diplomats used the League to take credit for successes and blame it for failures, as seen in incidents involving Mussolini, Japan in China, and the Spanish Civil War.