The evolution of international relations from the end of the 19th century to the middle of the 20th century

De Baripedia

Based on a course by Victor Monnier[1][2][3]

International law, which governs relations between states and international organisations, has undergone significant change since the end of the twentieth century, particularly with regard to state sovereignty and the emergence of coercive mechanisms at international level. Historically, international law has been shaped by the will of sovereign states, through treaties and agreements. These treaties, such as the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 or the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944, established norms and rules governing international relations. However, unlike domestic law, where the authority of legal rules is ensured by a central authority, international law is based on the voluntary recognition of these norms by sovereign states. This voluntary submission is the cornerstone of international law and fundamentally distinguishes its operation from that of domestic law.

However, the end of the twentieth century saw the emergence of international bodies with coercive powers, calling into question the traditional sovereignty of States. The creation of the International Criminal Court in 1998, for example, with its ability to prosecute individuals for war crimes and genocide, illustrates this trend. This trend has been reinforced by UN intervention in conflicts such as the 1991 Gulf War, when a coalition of countries acted under a UN mandate to restore sovereignty to Kuwait, which had been invaded by Iraq. However, this evolution towards more robust coercive mechanisms remains fragile and complex. The effectiveness of these bodies depends largely on the cooperation of states. For example, the United States' decision not to ratify the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court, highlights the limits of these international institutions and the continuing pre-eminence of national sovereignty.

The tension between state sovereignty and the application of international norms remains a major challenge. States are often reluctant to submit to supranational authorities, which can lead to conflicts and difficulties in applying international law. For example, the crisis in Syria and the international response have highlighted the complexities and limits of international action in the face of serious violations of international law.

The Congress of Vienna in 1815[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The Congress of Vienna, held in 1815, marked a pivotal moment in European history, aimed at restoring peace and order after the upheavals caused by the Napoleonic Wars. A diplomatic meeting on a scale unprecedented at the time, the main aim of the Congress was to redraw the political map of Europe following the fall of the Napoleonic Empire. One of the major achievements of the Congress of Vienna was to establish a balance of power between the major European nations, in order to prevent future large-scale conflicts. The key players in what would later be known as the "European Concert" were the great powers of the day: Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, Austria and, significantly, France itself, despite being the defeated country. This inclusion of France in the decision-making process was a strategic move to ensure lasting stability.

The "European Concert" established by the Congress of Vienna was based on the principle of ongoing and regular cooperation between these great powers. Its aim was to maintain peace and the balance of power in Europe, by avoiding the hegemony of a single nation and dealing with international issues collectively. This cooperation took the form of periodic congresses and conferences at which the powers discussed international problems and tensions. This system worked with some success for much of the 19th century, preventing another major war in Europe until the First World War in 1914. However, despite its initial successes, the "European Concert" was also limited. It relied on the willingness of the powers to cooperate and respect the established balance, which was not always the case. What's more, the system did not take sufficient account of the nationalist aspirations and revolutionary movements that were on the rise in Europe, which ultimately contributed to its destabilisation.

The European concertation established at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 played a crucial role in the development of international law. By establishing a framework for cooperation and dialogue between the major European powers, the "European Concert" contributed to the adoption of important international rules and the formation of a kind of positive international law, marking a turning point in international relations. One of the significant achievements of this European Concert was the adoption of measures against the slave trade. Although the abolition of the trade was not immediate, the Congress of Vienna laid the foundations for international condemnation of the practice. The great powers, notably Great Britain, which had abolished the transatlantic slave trade in 1807, exerted significant pressure for other nations to follow suit. This was an important step towards the eventual abolition of slavery and the slave trade on an international scale. Another crucial aspect of the development of positive international law was the establishment of a special status for diplomatic agents. The Congress of Vienna helped to formalise the rules and norms governing diplomacy, laying the foundations for modern diplomatic practice. This included the recognition of diplomatic immunity and the definition of the rights and responsibilities of ambassadors and other diplomatic agents. This standardisation of diplomatic relations was essential to facilitate international communication and cooperation in a more stable and predictable environment. These developments from the Congress of Vienna and the European Concert illustrate how nations can work together to establish international standards and solve transnational problems. Although limited in some respects, notably by failing to take account of nationalist aspirations or emerging social movements, the European Concert nevertheless laid the foundations for increased international cooperation and the formation of a more structured and effective body of international law. These early efforts at international codification and cooperation paved the way for later developments in international law, such as the creation of the League of Nations after the First World War and, later, the United Nations, illustrating the continuing international effort to maintain peace, security and cooperation between nations.

The recognition of Switzerland's perpetual neutrality at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 is an emblematic example of the impact of this international consultation on European geopolitics. As well as redrawing the borders and restoring order after the Napoleonic wars, the Congress also ratified Switzerland's neutrality, a principle that was to play a crucial role in its national identity and foreign policy in the centuries to come. This neutrality, officially recognised by the major European powers, enabled Switzerland to remain aloof from successive European conflicts. This unique position has given it an important role as a mediator in international affairs and as the seat of numerous international organisations, notably in Geneva. The Congress of Vienna not only set a precedent for the recognition of a state's neutrality, but also paved the way for more structured international collaboration throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. This collaboration took different forms, from diplomatic alliances to international organisations. It evolved to meet the changing challenges of the time, notably with the creation of the League of Nations after the First World War and later the United Nations after the Second World War. These organisations aimed to promote peace, cooperation and dialogue between nations, building on the idea of international collaboration established at the Congress of Vienna.

The impact of the Industrial Revolution and the evolution of communications on the development of international law[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The Industrial Revolution and the evolution of communications have had a profound impact on the development of international law and the dynamics of international relations. This process, which began in the eighteenth century and accelerated in the nineteenth, not only transformed economies and societies, but also intensified and broadened human interactions on a global scale.

One of the major impacts of the Industrial Revolution on international law was the significant increase in international trade and commerce. Industrialisation created a greater need for raw materials and new markets, prompting nations to establish more structured trade rules and international agreements. This period saw a gradual transition from bilateral agreements, often limited to two states, to multilateral agreements involving several countries. These multilateral agreements facilitated the establishment of common standards and rules, contributing to the development of what is now recognised as international law. In addition, the communications revolution, characterised by innovations such as the telegraph and, later, the telephone, enabled faster and more effective communication between states. This made closer coordination and faster negotiations between nations possible, which was essential for managing complex international relations.

In parallel with these developments, the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries saw the emergence of many new states, often as a result of decolonisation processes or the dissolution of empires. These new states sought to assert their sovereignty and participate in the international system, increasing the diversity and complexity of international relations. This emergence of new states has also led to the need to recognise and respect national sovereignty within the framework of international law, while dealing with issues such as borders, resources and the protection of human rights.

Thus, the Industrial Revolution and advances in communications have played a crucial role in transforming the landscape of international relations and international law. These changes have not only facilitated greater international cooperation and integration, but have also posed new challenges and needs in terms of global regulation and governance.

The Geneva Convention of 22 August 1864 or the origins of contemporary humanitarian law[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Henry Dunant à Solferino.

Henri Dunant, a Swiss businessman from Geneva, played a significant role in history, particularly through his humanitarian work, which marked the beginnings of the Red Cross. His encounter with history took place in 1859 during a trip to Northern Italy, where he hoped to meet the French emperor Napoleon III. In 1859, Napoleon III was campaigning in Northern Italy, supporting his ally Victor-Emmanuel II, King of Piedmont-Sardinia. The aim of this alliance was to support the efforts to unify Italy, a historic process known as the Risorgimento. The campaign also had a confrontational dimension against the powerful Habsburg dynasty, which ruled much of central Europe and had possessions in Italy.

Dunant arrived in Italy for commercial reasons and witnessed the horrors of the Battle of Solferino, one of the bloodiest battles of the Risorgimento. Deeply affected by the suffering of the wounded soldiers and the inadequacy of medical care, he organised emergency assistance for the victims, regardless of their nationality. This experience was the catalyst for his commitment to humanitarian aid. His experience at Solferino and his desire to improve the lot of the war-wounded led him to write "Un Souvenir de Solférino", a book published in 1862, in which he called for the creation of national relief societies and the establishment of an international treaty for the protection of war victims. These ideas led to the founding of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in 1863 and the adoption of the first Geneva Conventions. Henri Dunant's chance encounter with history in northern Italy triggered a series of events that led to major advances in international humanitarian law. His vision and actions laid the foundations for modern humanitarian aid and have profoundly influenced the way victims of armed conflict are treated today.

Henri Dunant's presence at Solferino on 24 June 1859 was a decisive moment in the history of humanitarian aid. The Battle of Solferino, where Austrian forces were defeated by a Franco-Italian alliance, has gone down in history as a striking example of the brutality of modern warfare at the time. During the battle, around 40,000 soldiers were killed, wounded or reported missing, highlighting the terrible reality of war and the inadequacy of the medical care available. Dunant, who had arrived in the region for business reasons, was deeply shocked by the scenes of suffering and death he encountered there. He later described these scenes in his book "Un Souvenir de Solférino", published in 1862, which had a considerable impact on public perception of the war. Faced with this reality, Dunant took the initiative of organising aid for the wounded, regardless of nationality. With the help of the local population, he set up emergency care for wounded soldiers, illustrating through his actions the principles of humanity and impartiality that would become the foundations of the Red Cross. He was also struck by the seriousness of the injuries caused by the new weapons of the time, which made conflicts even more deadly and highlighted the urgent need for better care facilities for war victims. Dunant's experience at Solferino not only highlighted the need to improve medical care on the battlefield, but also underlined the importance of international regulation for the protection of war victims. This led to the creation of the International Committee of the Red Cross and the adoption of the first Geneva Conventions, laying the foundations of modern international humanitarian law.

The book "Un Souvenir de Solférino", published by Henri Dunant in 1862, is a poignant testimony to the horror of war and a visionary plea for a more humanitarian world. In it, Dunant not only describes the scenes of suffering and death he witnessed in the aftermath of the Battle of Solferino, but also proposes concrete solutions for improving the care of the war-wounded. Dunant's first suggestion was the creation of voluntary relief societies. The idea was to form groups of volunteer citizens, trained and prepared to provide medical care in wartime. These societies would work alongside the military health services and provide care for the wounded, regardless of nationality. The aim was to ensure that wounded soldiers, whatever their nationality, received the necessary medical care on the battlefield. His second proposal was to convene an international congress in Geneva to obtain government approval for the project. The aim was to create an international legal framework that would enable relief societies to operate effectively in wartime and guarantee the protection of the wounded and medical workers.

These revolutionary proposals laid the foundations of the Red Cross and international humanitarian law. In 1863, on the initiative of Dunant and others, the International Committee of the Red Cross was founded in Geneva. Then, in 1864, the first Geneva Convention was adopted, establishing legal standards for the treatment and protection of war wounded. The impact of "A souvenir of Solferino" and Henri Dunant's initiatives was considerable. Not only did they lead to the formation of one of the world's largest and most respected humanitarian organisations, but they also laid the foundations for international humanitarian law, radically changing the way victims of armed conflict are treated around the world.

Gustave Moynier, an eminent Swiss jurist, played a fundamental role in giving concrete form and structure to Henri Dunant's humanitarian ideas. After Dunant published "Un Souvenir de Solférino", Moynier recognised the importance and potential of these ideas to transform the care of the war wounded. In 1863, Moynier took the initiative of setting up a committee under the leadership of General Guillaume-Henri Dufour, a respected Swiss officer and engineer. This committee, made up of five members, including Dunant and Dufour, became the first International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The committee's mission was to develop Dunant's ideas and create an organisation that could implement these concepts in a practical and effective way. Moynier's role was crucial in the organisational and legal structuring of the Red Cross. As a lawyer, he helped to develop the principles and legal frameworks necessary for the organisation to function effectively, particularly in times of conflict. Moynier also played a key role in promoting the idea of an international convention for the protection of war victims, which led to the first Geneva Convention in 1864. The creation of the ICRC marked a turning point in the history of humanitarian aid. The organisation quickly gained recognition and influence, setting standards for the fair treatment of the wounded on the battlefield, regardless of their nationality. The principles established by the ICRC, such as neutrality, impartiality and independence, became cornerstones of international humanitarian law.

The International Committee of the Red Cross, spurred on by the ideas of Henri Dunant and with the legal structure provided by Gustave Moynier, organised an international congress in 1863 that marked a major milestone in the history of humanitarianism. This meeting brought together representatives of government committees and experts to discuss ways of improving health services in armed conflicts. The outcome of this congress was the creation of a charter, adopted on 29 October 1863, which laid the fundamental foundations of the Red Cross. These innovative principles included the formation in each country of relief committees to come to the aid of the wounded on the battlefield, regardless of their nationality. In addition, the charter emphasised the importance of neutralising the wounded and medical personnel, thus protecting them from attack and hostility during conflicts.

A distinctive element of this charter was the adoption of a universally recognised distinctive sign: the red cross on a white background. This symbol, chosen in part for its simplicity and visibility, would be used to identify medical personnel and equipment on the battlefield. The choice of the red cross was initially more pragmatic than emblematic, moving away from the original idea of a white armband. It was not until 1870 that the symbolic interpretation of the red cross as a reversal of the colours of the Swiss national flag (a white cross on a red background) was proposed, thus strengthening the links between the Red Cross and its country of origin. The adoption of this charter and the choice of the red cross symbol had a considerable impact on international humanitarian law. They formalised the principles of humanity, neutrality and impartiality that continue to guide humanitarian action throughout the world. The Red Cross has thus become a key player in efforts to protect and assist the victims of war and armed conflict, playing a crucial role in the development of international humanitarian law.

In August 1864, the Swiss Federal Council, under the influence of the International Committee of the Red Cross, played a decisive role in promoting and adopting the humanitarian principles established at the 1863 Congress. The Federal Council invited the States of Europe, as well as the United States, Brazil and Mexico, to take part in an international conference. The aim of the conference, which was held in Geneva, was to formalise the resolutions adopted the previous year and transform them into an international treaty. This historic conference resulted in the adoption of the first Geneva Convention, officially entitled "Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Military Wounded in the Field". This convention represented a significant advance in international humanitarian law. It established clear rules for the neutralisation and protection of medical personnel in wartime, as well as for the humanitarian treatment of wounded soldiers.

Although the Geneva Convention was adopted in 1864, its effective application in armed conflicts took time. It was first implemented in a limited way during the Austro-Prussian War of 1866. However, it was not until 1885, during the Serb-Bulgarian war, that the Geneva Convention was fully applied by both parties to the conflict. This event marked a turning point in the history of warfare, as for the first time an international agreement governing the treatment of the wounded on the battlefield was respected by all parties involved in a conflict. The progressive adoption and application of the Geneva Convention underlined the growing importance of international humanitarian law and set a precedent for future treaties and conventions. The Geneva Convention of 1864, and its subsequent revisions, continue to form the basis of international humanitarian law, governing the conduct of war and the protection of non-combatants.

The Geneva Convention, a central pillar of humanitarian law, was originally designed to improve the lot of wounded soldiers in wartime. Its origins date back to the first Geneva Convention, adopted in 1864, following Henri Dunant's humanitarian initiative after the Battle of Solferino in 1859. This battle, marked by untold suffering and massive casualties, inspired Dunant to advocate more humane treatment of the war wounded, whatever their nationality. The Geneva Convention of 1864, supported by the International Committee of the Red Cross founded a year earlier, established fundamental principles for the care of wounded soldiers on the battlefield. It introduced the revolutionary idea of neutralising medical personnel and medical facilities, thus protecting them from attack during conflicts. It also established the principle of humane treatment of the wounded, without discrimination on the basis of nationality, marking a significant advance in the way war was conducted.

Over the years, the requirements of humanitarian law have evolved with changes in the nature of armed conflicts. The Geneva Conventions have been revised and extended on several occasions to meet these new challenges. For example, the 1949 revision, which took place after the horrors of the Second World War, considerably broadened the scope of the Conventions. This revision gave rise to four separate conventions, covering not only wounded soldiers and prisoners of war, but also the protection of civilians, including those under enemy occupation. These conventions, together with their additional protocols, now form the basis of international humanitarian law. They establish essential rules for the conduct of hostilities and the protection of non-combatants. Their application in various conflicts, such as the Austro-Prussian War in 1866 and the Serb-Bulgarian War in 1885, has demonstrated their importance and effectiveness, although compliance with them remains a constant challenge in conflict zones around the world.

The major innovation of the Geneva Conventions lies in the establishment of permanent written standards, universal in scope, designed to protect the victims of conflicts. For the first time in history, a multilateral treaty defined clear and binding rules for the treatment of war victims, applicable to all States that ratified it. This universality and permanence mark a decisive turning point in international humanitarian law. The principles established by the Geneva Conventions mainly concern the obligation to treat wounded soldiers without discrimination. This rule represents a radical departure from previous practice, in which captured or wounded soldiers were often left untreated or even mistreated. The Convention establishes a moral and legal obligation to provide medical care to all wounded, regardless of their nationality or role in the conflict. Another crucial aspect of these standards is the obligation to respect the medical personnel dedicated to caring for these wounded, as well as the medical equipment and supplies. These elements are protected by the Red Cross emblem, which has become a universally recognised symbol of neutrality and protection in conflict situations. This symbol ensures that medical personnel and medical facilities are not targeted and can operate safely in war zones. The adoption of these rules represented a major step forward in respect for human rights in wartime. These standards have laid the foundations for an international legal framework that guarantees a certain humanity in armed conflicts, striving to reduce suffering and protecting the most vulnerable individuals. The universal scope and acceptance of the Geneva Convention testifies to its continuing importance and relevance in the contemporary world, despite the constant challenges associated with its application and observance in various conflict situations across the globe.

The various treaties derived from the Geneva Conventions form the cornerstone of international humanitarian law (IHL). These Conventions, together with their Additional Protocols, establish a detailed legal framework for the protection of persons who are not, or are no longer, taking part in hostilities, including the wounded, sick, shipwrecked, prisoners of war and civilians. International humanitarian law, often referred to as the "law of war" or the "law of armed conflict", is a specific branch of international law that regulates the methods and means of conducting hostilities and seeks to limit their effects. It aims to balance humanitarian considerations with military necessity, protecting those who are not, or are no longer, engaged in combat and regulating the way in which combat is conducted.

The fundamental principles of IHL, such as the prohibition of torture, the humane treatment of prisoners, the protection of civilians and the obligation to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, derive from the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols. These treaties have been supplemented and strengthened over time by other international agreements, such as the Hague Conventions and various treaties on specific weapons (such as the treaties banning the use of landmines and chemical weapons). In addition to their normative role, the Geneva Conventions also have an important symbolic role. They embody a global commitment to humanitarian principles, even in the most difficult circumstances of armed conflict. Their existence and observance underline the importance of human dignity and respect for human rights, regardless of the circumstances.

The League of Nations[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The Palais Wilson in Geneva in 1928, the first headquarters of the League of Nations.

The creation of the League of Nations on 28 April 1919 was a milestone in the history of international relations and international law. Born of the ashes of the First World War, the organisation's ambition was to establish a system of collective security on a global scale, an innovative idea at the time.

The concept of the League of Nations was largely a response to the horrors of the First World War (1914-1918), a war that had devastating consequences and left a deep impression on people's minds at the time. The main aim was to prevent future large-scale conflicts by promoting international cooperation and resolving disputes between states peacefully. The founding pact of the League of Nations was included in the peace treaties that ended the First World War, notably the Treaty of Versailles. This pact established the guiding principles of the organisation, including the promotion of international cooperation, respect for the sovereignty of states, and a commitment to the peaceful resolution of conflicts. The League of Nations was an ambitious attempt to create a new international order, based on dialogue and consensus rather than confrontation and conflict. It comprised various bodies, including a General Assembly where each member state had one vote, and an Executive Council made up of permanent and non-permanent members.

Despite its high ideals and laudable efforts, the League of Nations encountered a number of challenges and limitations. It failed to prevent the rising tensions that led to the Second World War. Several major countries, such as the United States, never joined, and others, such as Germany and the Soviet Union, were only members for a limited period. In addition, the League had no armed force of its own to enforce its resolutions, which limited its ability to intervene effectively in conflicts. Despite its shortcomings, the League of Nations laid the foundations for modern international cooperation and influenced the creation of the United Nations in 1945. Many of its principles and structures have been adopted and improved by the United Nations, which has sought to correct the mistakes and fill the gaps left by the League of Nations. So, although the League of Nations failed to fully realise its goal of world peace, its legacy lives on in ongoing efforts for effective international cooperation and governance.

The international enthusiasm that followed the creation of the League of Nations after the First World War was rooted in a deep desire to end the permanent state of war and establish a system of collective security. The aim of the League of Nations was ambitious: to fundamentally transform the way nations interacted, with an emphasis on the limitation of war, disarmament, the peaceful settlement of disputes and the application of sanctions against aggressor states. Limiting war was a central principle of the League of Nations. The idea was to make war less likely by encouraging nations to discuss their differences rather than resorting immediately to arms. This approach aimed to establish international standards of conduct that would discourage aggression and encourage dialogue. Disarmament was also a key objective. After the massive destruction and loss of life of the First World War, there was a strong movement to reduce military armaments. The hope was that, by limiting the military capabilities of nations, the likelihood and scale of future conflicts could be reduced. Peaceful conflict resolution was another pillar. The League of Nations sought to provide a forum where disputes could be resolved by negotiation, mediation, arbitration or judicial recourse, rather than by force. This approach was revolutionary at the time, as it offered systematic alternatives to war. Finally, the Society provided for sanctions against aggressor states. The idea was that if one state violated the principles of the Society by attacking another, the other members could impose economic sanctions or even collective military action to restore peace. Despite these lofty goals, the League of Nations encountered a number of challenges in implementing these ideals. Structural limitations, the absence of some major countries, and the lack of means to enforce its decisions have hampered its effectiveness. However, the framework and principles established by the League of Nations laid the foundations for international cooperation in the pursuit of peace and security, profoundly influencing the formation of the United Nations and the conduct of modern international relations.

The Covenant of the League of Nations, adopted after the First World War, established an organisational structure with three main bodies, each with a specific role in the functioning of this international organisation. Firstly, the General Assembly was the deliberative body in which each member state was represented by a delegation. Each member had a single vote, which ensured fair representation of both large and small states. The General Assembly met regularly to discuss and decide on important issues affecting international peace and security. Secondly, the Council of the League of Nations was made up of permanent and non-permanent members. The permanent members were the representatives of the victorious Great Powers of the First World War, notably Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan. Initially, the United States was also intended to be a permanent member, but the Republican-dominated US Senate after the 1918 elections voted against ratification of the Treaty of Versailles. This prevented US participation in the League of Nations and marked a return to the country's isolationist policy. The absence of the United States, a major world power, was a serious blow to the credibility and effectiveness of the League. Finally, the Secretariat, headed by the Secretary General, was the third main body of the League of Nations. The Secretariat was responsible for the administrative management of the organisation, the preparation of meetings and the implementation of the decisions of the Assembly and the Council. These three bodies formed the basic structure of the League of Nations, each playing a crucial role in its efforts to maintain international peace and security. Although the League faced significant challenges and failed to prevent the Second World War, its existence marked an important milestone in the development of international governance and laid the foundations for the United Nations, which succeeded it after 1945.

The organisational structure of the League of Nations, comprising the Assembly and the Council, was designed to ensure continuity and efficiency in the management of international affairs, particularly with regard to the maintenance of world peace. Both the General Assembly and the Council were political bodies with similar competences, particularly in the crucial areas of international peace and security. Their role was to work together to prevent conflict, facilitate international cooperation and respond to various international crises. The General Assembly, made up of all the Member States, met at regular intervals to discuss and take decisions on issues of global importance. During its sessions, the Assembly had the power to deliberate and take decisions on matters normally dealt with by the Council. This arrangement allowed flexibility in the management of global affairs, ensuring that important issues could be dealt with effectively even when the Council was not in session. For its part, the Council, made up of permanent and non-permanent members, acted when the General Assembly was not in session. The Council was responsible for managing the day-to-day business of the Society and for taking decisions on urgent or sensitive matters relating to world peace. In the absence of the Assembly, the Council therefore assumed the functions and responsibilities of the Assembly, thus ensuring continuous oversight and action on peace and security issues. This organisational structure was designed to allow a degree of flexibility in decision-making and in responding to international crises. However, in practice, the distinction between the roles of the Assembly and the Council was not always clear, and this sometimes led to overlaps and inefficiencies in the operation of the League of Nations. Despite this, the framework established by the League of Nations laid important foundations for the subsequent development of international organisations, in particular the United Nations, which adopted and refined many of its principles and organisational structures.

The Covenant of the League of Nations established the "unanimity rule" for decisions taken by its Council and Assembly, with the exception of procedural matters. This rule meant that for a decision to be adopted, all voting members had to be in agreement. This unanimity requirement was both a guarantee of respect for the sovereignty of Member States and a potential obstacle to effective action by the Society, particularly in situations requiring a rapid or determined response. The unanimity rule reflected the caution with which the Member States of the League of Nations approached the question of national sovereignty. Although the Pact introduced significant innovations in international governance, notably by promoting cooperation and the peaceful resolution of conflicts, it never called into question the sovereignty of States. Each Member State retained its autonomy and decision-making powers, including the right of veto over the Society's decisions.

This approach reflected the context of the time, when the idea of giving up part of national sovereignty for collective international action was still widely controversial. However, the unanimity rule proved to be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it ensured that the decisions taken had broad support among the Member States, thereby respecting their sovereignty. On the other hand, it made it difficult to adopt firm measures, particularly in crisis situations where consensus was difficult to achieve. The difficulty of achieving unanimity often hampered the League of Nations' effectiveness in preventing conflicts and responding to international crises. This limitation was particularly apparent in the years leading up to the Second World War, when the League proved incapable of effectively countering aggression by certain member states.

The unanimity rule within the League of Nations, which gave every member state, large or small, a right of veto, was one of the most distinctive and at the same time problematic features of its operation. This rule meant that any important decision required the agreement of all the members of the Council or the General Assembly, giving each state considerable power over all the Society's decisions. Although this provision was designed to protect the sovereignty of Member States and ensure consensual decision-making, it had the unintended effect of often paralysing the operation of the institution. In practice, the need to achieve unanimity for important decisions made the League of Nations particularly vulnerable to paralysis, especially in situations requiring swift and decisive action.

For example, when a Member State was involved in an international conflict or crisis, it could use its veto to block any action or resolution that did not correspond to its national interests. This dynamic made it difficult for the League of Nations to respond effectively to international aggression or treaty violations. The unanimity rule has been widely criticised for contributing to the ineffectiveness of the League of Nations, particularly in the 1930s, when it faced major challenges such as Italy's invasion of Ethiopia and Nazi Germany's expansionism. These failures highlighted the limitations of a structure based on unanimity and contributed to the evolution towards a different system with the United Nations after 1945, where the right of veto was limited to the permanent members of the Security Council.

The fundamental approach of the League of Nations was based on the search for compromise and consensus rather than the exercise of the veto. The idea was that the most balanced and fair decisions could be taken when all member states reached unanimous agreement after thorough deliberation. This approach aimed to ensure that the interests and concerns of all Member States, large and small, were taken into account, reflecting true international cooperation. However, the challenge of achieving consensus in an increasingly polarised world became particularly acute with the advent of totalitarian regimes in Europe in the 1930s. Countries such as Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and later Franco's Spain adopted aggressive and expansionist policies that were in direct conflict with the League of Nations' principles of peace and cooperation.

These totalitarian regimes, by their very nature, were often unwilling to seek compromise or conform to established international norms. Their unilateral and often aggressive approach seriously undermined the ability of the League of Nations to function effectively as a forum for consultation and peaceful conflict resolution. Events such as Italy's invasion of Ethiopia in 1935 and Germany's remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936 demonstrated the League's inability to counter such aggression, undermining its credibility and authority. Ultimately, the rise of totalitarianism in Europe not only called into question the League of Nations' ideal of concerted action, but also precipitated its decline and led to its inability to prevent the Second World War. These failures underlined the limits of an international organisation based on the principle of unanimity in a world where divergent national and ideological interests were often irreconcilable. The dissolution of the League of Nations after the Second World War and the creation of the United Nations represented an attempt to learn from these challenges and establish a new framework for international cooperation and peacekeeping.

The refusal of the United States to join the League of Nations in November 1919, following a vote in the Senate, represents a significant moment in the history of international diplomacy and had important implications for the functioning and effectiveness of the organisation. This refusal was largely due to concerns about the League of Nations' principle of universalism and the fear that membership of the League would compromise the sovereignty of the United States and involve it in international conflicts against its will. US Senators, particularly those from the Republican party, were concerned about the clauses of the League of Nations Covenant, particularly those that appeared to oblige member states to take part in collective military action to maintain peace. They feared that this would lead to compulsory military intervention without the consent of the US Congress.

This position was largely influenced by a desire for isolationism, a political and ideological trend in the United States that advocated a non-interventionist foreign policy and maintaining a distance from European affairs. After the human and financial costs of the First World War, many Americans were reluctant to commit themselves to international alliances and commitments that could drag them into further conflicts. President Woodrow Wilson, who had played a key role in the creation of the League of Nations and had championed its membership, was deeply disappointed by this rejection. The absence of the United States, one of the world's greatest powers at the time, weakened the legitimacy and effectiveness of the League of Nations. Without the participation of the United States, the League had difficulty imposing its authority and achieving its objectives of collective security and conflict prevention.

Article 16 of the Covenant of the League of Nations illustrates the organisation's central commitment to the promotion of international justice and international law. This article reflects the desire of the members of the League of Nations to preserve international peace and security by establishing clear consequences for any member state that resorts to war in violation of its commitments. The fundamental principle was that maintaining the territorial integrity and independence of all states was vital to international peace. Under this article, any member of the League that unilaterally initiated hostilities was considered to have declared war on all other members. This provision was intended to deter aggression by imposing severe economic and financial sanctions, as well as severing all commercial and personal relations with the aggressor state. In addition, Article 16 called on the members of the League to support each other in the application of these sanctions and, if necessary, to contribute to the armed forces to enforce the League's commitments. This provision implied a form of collective security, with Member States working together to resist aggression and maintain peace. In practice, however, the application of Article 16 proved difficult. The need for consensus for collective action, the reluctance of Member States to engage in military conflict, and the absence of a standing armed force under the direct control of the League have limited its effectiveness. Cases such as Italy's invasion of Ethiopia in 1935 demonstrated the limits of the League's ability to impose such sanctions effectively.

Article 16 of the Covenant of the League of Nations provided that certain sanctions would be automatic in the event of violation of the commitments undertaken by the Member States, particularly in the context of the illegitimate use of military force. The purpose of these sanctions was to provide a coordinated and immediate response to any act of aggression, in order to deter States from resorting to war and to maintain international peace. The automatic sanctions mainly involved severing all trade and financial relations with the aggressor state. This meant that other members of the League of Nations were obliged to cease all forms of trade and financial exchange with the state in breach of the Covenant. These economic measures were designed to isolate the aggressor state and exert economic pressure, in the hope of forcing it to return to conduct consistent with international law and the principles of the League. Alongside economic sanctions, Article 16 also stipulated that military measures could be recommended by the Council of the League of Nations. These recommendations could include the determination of the military, naval or air forces which the members of the League would respectively contribute to the armed forces intended to enforce the League's commitments. In other words, it implied a form of collective military response against the aggressor state. However, implementing these military measures proved problematic in practice. The need for consensus within the League, the absence of a permanent military force under its control, and the reluctance of some Member States to engage in military action have limited the League's effectiveness in applying military sanctions. In addition, the complex political dynamics of the time often hampered the League's ability to respond to aggression in a unified and decisive manner.

The League of Nations, founded in 1919 in the hope of establishing a system of collective security to maintain world peace, faced major challenges from the 1930s onwards, marking a turning point in its history. This system, based on the idea that all member states should collectively defend a member under attack, was intended to guarantee the territorial integrity and independence of each nation. In theory, this collective solidarity would act as a powerful deterrent against any aggression. However, the rise of totalitarian regimes in Europe posed a major challenge to this principle. Germany under Adolf Hitler, Italy under Benito Mussolini, and later Imperial Japan adopted aggressive expansionist policies, in flagrant violation of the principles of the League of Nations. These actions put the collective security system to the test, revealing its intrinsic weaknesses. The inability of the League of Nations to act in a unified and decisive manner was highlighted by several major crises. In 1935, Italy invaded Ethiopia, a clear act of aggression that should have triggered a strong collective response according to the principles of the League. However, the economic sanctions imposed on Italy were too little too late to deter Mussolini. Similarly, in 1936, Germany's reoccupation of the Rhineland marked another breach of international commitments, without leading to any significant response from the League.

These failures highlighted the limits of a system requiring perfect unity and firm political will among its members, conditions rarely met in the complex reality of international relations. The fear of another war, divergent national interests, and the absence of a key player like the United States, which had chosen not to join the League, all contributed to a lack of cohesion and determination. The Second World War, which broke out in 1939, was the final straw for the League of Nations. The failure of the collective security system was a key factor in the inability to prevent this conflict. After the war, the creation of the United Nations attempted to correct the mistakes of the League of Nations, by putting in place a more robust and realistic system of international security, with the creation of the Security Council and permanent members with the right of veto. The aim of this new organisation was to build a more stable and effective world order, drawing lessons from the limitations and failures of the League of Nations.

The history of the League of Nations in the 1930s is marked by a series of international crises that gradually eroded its credibility and underlined its limitations as a peacekeeping organisation. Each of these crises represented a flagrant violation of the principles on which the League had been founded, and their ineffective management revealed the structural and political weaknesses of the organisation. Japan's aggression against Manchuria in 1931 was the first of these major tests. Japan, seeking to expand its empire in Asia, invaded Manchuria, a region in north-eastern China. The reaction of the League of Nations was widely regarded as ineffective, limited to verbal condemnations without concrete measures to counter Japanese aggression. In response, Japan simply left the League in 1933, illustrating the organisation's inability to enforce its resolutions.

The second major crisis was Italy's invasion of Abyssinia (now Ethiopia) in 1935. This aggression, orchestrated by Mussolini as part of his imperialist ambitions, was another blow to the Society. Although economic sanctions were imposed on Italy, they proved insufficient and too late to have a deterrent effect. Italy eventually succeeded in conquering Abyssinia, and the lack of an effective response from the League of Nations further weakened its reputation. The successive annexations of Austria and Czechoslovakia by Nazi Germany in 1938, followed by the invasion of Poland in 1939, were the ultimate proof of the League of Nations' inability to keep the peace. These actions, led by Adolf Hitler, were in direct violation of the principles of non-aggression and respect for national sovereignty. The League of Nations failed to take effective measures to prevent these annexations or to protect Poland, which led directly to the outbreak of the Second World War.

The failure of the League of Nations to prevent aggression by some of its members in the 1930s can be attributed to a lack of political will on the part of its members to fully implement the principles set out in its pact. This led to a period where impunity prevailed, despite flagrant violations of established international norms.

There were several reasons for the reluctance of Member States to apply the measures provided for in the Pact, particularly as regards economic and military sanctions against aggressor states. Firstly, there was a widespread fear of another major war. After the traumatic experience of the First World War, many countries were reluctant to engage in conflicts that could degenerate into another large-scale confrontation. Secondly, divergent national interests often took precedence over collective commitment to the Society's principles. Countries were more inclined to protect their own economic and political interests rather than risk potentially serious consequences by imposing sanctions on other nations. Finally, the absence of certain key players, in particular the United States, weakened the authority and effectiveness of the League. Without the participation of all the major world powers, it was difficult for the League of Nations to present itself as a unified and powerful front against aggression.

The combination of these factors led to a situation where violations of the pact were often treated with indifference or inaction, allowing aggressor states to act without fear of significant reprisals. This period of impunity contributed to the rising tensions that eventually led to the Second World War, and marked the failure of the League of Nations as an effective tool for maintaining international peace. This failure served as a crucial lesson in the creation of the United Nations, underlining the importance of more decisive collective action and better coordination between nations to preserve global peace and security.

Consideration of the need to limit state sovereignty in favour of supranational bodies, such as the League of Nations, is a central debate in the history of international cooperation. Indeed, one of the main lessons learned from the failure of the League of Nations in the 1930s was the recognition of the need for a stronger international system, capable of enforcing international order and sanctioning states that violate established norms. The idea of establishing international justice and a genuine international police force was envisaged as a means of ensuring that decisions taken by international bodies were enforced. Such an approach would potentially have made it possible to monitor and punish states that fail to comply with international rules, by providing coercive means of enforcing the commitments made. However, implementing such a system would have required a significant degree of transfer of sovereignty from States to an international authority. This would have involved the creation of supranational entities with real powers, capable of taking decisions binding on Member States, and the means to enforce them, including international police or military forces.

In the context of the time, such a proposal was extremely ambitious and raised complex questions about sovereignty, national independence and the global balance of power. Many states were reluctant to cede part of their sovereignty to an international organisation, fearing that this would compromise their independence and their ability to defend their own national interests. The experience of the League of Nations nevertheless laid the foundations for thinking about global governance and influenced the creation of the United Nations after the Second World War. Although the UN also has its own limitations and challenges, it has attempted to address some of these concerns by establishing a more robust system for conflict resolution and international crisis management, including the establishment of international tribunals and peacekeeping missions.

The International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are two success stories from the League of Nations era that have continued to play an important role in global governance long after its dissolution. The International Labour Organization, founded in 1919 as an affiliated agency of the League of Nations, aims to promote workers' rights, improve working conditions and advance social justice. The ILO was innovative in its tripartite structure, including representatives of governments, employers and workers, to discuss and formulate policies and international labour standards. Its ability to adapt and respond to changes in the world of work has enabled the ILO to remain relevant and influential, playing a key role in the formulation of international labour standards and the promotion of human rights at work.

On the other hand, the International Court of Justice, although officially established in 1945 as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, has its roots in the Permanent Court of International Justice, created in 1922 under the auspices of the League of Nations. The ICJ, based in The Hague in the Netherlands, plays a crucial role in the peaceful settlement of disputes between states by providing a platform for the legal resolution of international disputes. The ICJ also contributes to the development of international law by providing advisory opinions on important legal questions submitted by United Nations bodies and specialised agencies. The continuity and success of the ILO and ICJ demonstrate that, despite the failures of the League of Nations in maintaining international peace and security, some of its principles and institutions have had a lasting and positive impact on global governance. These organisations have evolved and adapted to the changing world, while preserving the legacy and ideals of international cooperation and peaceful conflict resolution initiated by the League of Nations.

Appendices[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

References[modifier | modifier le wikicode]