The great novelty incorporated in the Paris Peace Treaties

In a world in which we are familiar with the work of the United Nations on our television screens and for many of us, more closely to home, as we see their work in the field so to speak (whilst MUNers, of course, get to experience its work in a very real way), it is perhaps hard to understand just what a novelty the League of Nations was. So, what was it?

Essentially it was an international body that set out to persuade individual states, and if necessary, force states to bow to the will of the international community. This covered things like border disputes arising from the Paris treaties but also any other territorial disputes between states. But how to deal with non-member states? And what of civil wars? These would be much more contentious matters (and in the time frame you are looking at there were civil wars in Russia, a non-member state, and Spain). It also set out to deal with social issues such as basic human rights and decent living and working conditions throughout the world. This ranged widely and included the plight of refugees, slavery, health matters, safety in the work place, and so on.

All well and good, except for one crucially important thing. Nation states had got used to the idea of seeing themselves as ‘sovereign powers’, and new states expected to be regarded in the same manner. So what is meant by a ‘sovereign power’? Essentially, it means that the government of an individual country is solely responsible for that country’s laws and other policies, both domestic and foreign. No outside authority has any rights to impose anything it doesn’t agree with.

So, we have a potential clash of interests, whether it is the imposition of minimum health standards or the imposition of relations with another state. Countrie’s are happy to have things “imposed” if it is to their benefit (especially if it is paid for by the international community). For example, health care or education provisions. But they are less happy if it goes against their cultural values. Freedom of religion, for example, might be a contentious issue. Whilst things that come with a cost, minimum health standards or educational rights, might be considered unaffordable or not a priority. As for imposing decisions with respect to territorial matters. Well, that is going to be seen as highly contentious for the country that considers itself to be losing out. Added to this is the cost incurred by countries that might be required to impose the League’s will: military force doesn’t come cheap. And what about the potential cost in lives? It is difficult for a government to say to its own people that the cost of its citizens lives in dealing with a problem not of its own making, and not directly affecting the country, was a price worth paying. And in democracies, politicians are always aware of the next election.

So, we can see how the League of Nations, a seemingly wonderful idea, had significant issues to face when theory came to be put into practice