International Relations Locarno Era Questions
Q1 (20)
'The League of Nations was doomed to failure.' How far do you agree?
The view that the League of Nations was doomed to failure is based firstly on problems with
the membership of the organisation, which arguably made its failure inevitable before it had even
been properly established. Regarding membership, it must be highlighted that major powers such as
Germany, Russia and the successor states of the Austro-Hungarian Empire were excluded from
joining the League. This did nothing to facilitate peace and reconciliation in Europe as these powers,
all defeated in the First World War, resented that they became further isolated and saw the new
organisation as a ‘League of Victors’. Given that Britain and France, two declining empires who had
nonetheless won the First World War, were charged with leading the League it is certainly a viable
interpretation that it was merely a ‘League of Victors’ intended to perpetuate the interests of mainly
Britain and France as opposed to maintaining world peace. Both countries viewed the League with
cynicism and hostility, doubting its ability to outlaw war and subsequently did not take advantage of
its peacekeeping powers at a time when it was crucial to do so. Article 22 of the Covenant allowed
for the creation of mandates to administer colonies of the defeated powers; the fact that Britain and
France made substantial territorial gains in the Middle East and elsewhere, albeit temporarily, gives
credence to the view that the organisation was a ‘League of Victors’ and that it was biased towards
the interests of the two victorious nations. The USA’s absence was another significant issue that
perhaps did doom the League to failure – emerging as the world’s most powerful nation after the
weakening of the British and French empires in the First World War, the USA’s membership in the
League would have given it much greater scope in matters of peacekeeping. The USA had the
economic and military resources to take direct action against an aggressor, whereas Britain and
France had to consider their own interests before the collective security of the League as a result of
their post-war struggles. The absence of the USA also meant that it was excluded from trade
embargoes applied on aggressor states, which proved to be key reasons for the failure of the League
of Nations to prevent the invasions of Manchuria and Abyssinia by Japan and Italy. Without an
effective leader, therefore, the League was doomed to failure.
However, in its aims and powers the League of Nations had the theoretical opportunity to
succeed and maintain world peace. That it did not was largely because of the failure of the Great
Powers in stabilising Europe after the First World War and not by its own doing. The League began
with 42 member states who were each allotted with three representatives in the Assembly,
regardless of the size or status of the member. This disputes the view that the League was
dominated by the Great Powers since even the smallest state had the right to be heard on
international issues. This was crucial in terms of ensuring harmonious relations among member
states and preventing war between them. The League’s Covenant gave it significant powers in
peacekeeping; Article 17 significantly extended the League’s powers by giving it the right to
intervene in disputes between non-members of the League, which meant that it could claim to be a
genuine upholder of the interests of all nations’ interest and not just its member states. It limited
the initial problems of the membership of the League, empowering it to act even if an aggressor or
victim state did not trust the organisation. By Article 13, members were committed to carrying out
the judgements of the Permanent Court of International Justice or the recommendations of the
Council. Legally binding states to act on decisions taken by the League gave it considerable powers
to prevent aggression and suggests that it was not doomed to failure at the time of its inception. In
Q1 (20)
'The League of Nations was doomed to failure.' How far do you agree?
The view that the League of Nations was doomed to failure is based firstly on problems with
the membership of the organisation, which arguably made its failure inevitable before it had even
been properly established. Regarding membership, it must be highlighted that major powers such as
Germany, Russia and the successor states of the Austro-Hungarian Empire were excluded from
joining the League. This did nothing to facilitate peace and reconciliation in Europe as these powers,
all defeated in the First World War, resented that they became further isolated and saw the new
organisation as a ‘League of Victors’. Given that Britain and France, two declining empires who had
nonetheless won the First World War, were charged with leading the League it is certainly a viable
interpretation that it was merely a ‘League of Victors’ intended to perpetuate the interests of mainly
Britain and France as opposed to maintaining world peace. Both countries viewed the League with
cynicism and hostility, doubting its ability to outlaw war and subsequently did not take advantage of
its peacekeeping powers at a time when it was crucial to do so. Article 22 of the Covenant allowed
for the creation of mandates to administer colonies of the defeated powers; the fact that Britain and
France made substantial territorial gains in the Middle East and elsewhere, albeit temporarily, gives
credence to the view that the organisation was a ‘League of Victors’ and that it was biased towards
the interests of the two victorious nations. The USA’s absence was another significant issue that
perhaps did doom the League to failure – emerging as the world’s most powerful nation after the
weakening of the British and French empires in the First World War, the USA’s membership in the
League would have given it much greater scope in matters of peacekeeping. The USA had the
economic and military resources to take direct action against an aggressor, whereas Britain and
France had to consider their own interests before the collective security of the League as a result of
their post-war struggles. The absence of the USA also meant that it was excluded from trade
embargoes applied on aggressor states, which proved to be key reasons for the failure of the League
of Nations to prevent the invasions of Manchuria and Abyssinia by Japan and Italy. Without an
effective leader, therefore, the League was doomed to failure.
However, in its aims and powers the League of Nations had the theoretical opportunity to
succeed and maintain world peace. That it did not was largely because of the failure of the Great
Powers in stabilising Europe after the First World War and not by its own doing. The League began
with 42 member states who were each allotted with three representatives in the Assembly,
regardless of the size or status of the member. This disputes the view that the League was
dominated by the Great Powers since even the smallest state had the right to be heard on
international issues. This was crucial in terms of ensuring harmonious relations among member
states and preventing war between them. The League’s Covenant gave it significant powers in
peacekeeping; Article 17 significantly extended the League’s powers by giving it the right to
intervene in disputes between non-members of the League, which meant that it could claim to be a
genuine upholder of the interests of all nations’ interest and not just its member states. It limited
the initial problems of the membership of the League, empowering it to act even if an aggressor or
victim state did not trust the organisation. By Article 13, members were committed to carrying out
the judgements of the Permanent Court of International Justice or the recommendations of the
Council. Legally binding states to act on decisions taken by the League gave it considerable powers
to prevent aggression and suggests that it was not doomed to failure at the time of its inception. In
