Lecture 4 - The United Nations: main historical developments
The League of Nation (I)
The Foundation of the first international security organization (League of Nations) has to do/was to deal with 3 big concerns:
-WW1 destruction; needed a sophisticated form of organization in the field of security (tentative to prevent Wars);
-Bolshevik threat, they carried on the Soviet rev. Communist model would become more attractive if Western countries failed to
ensure prosperity/well-being; there was risk of expansion+clash between Western-Soviet worlds.
-Wilson’s principle of self-determination: to avoid conflict people must be allowed to decide their fate, create prosperity
conditions so one not tempted to wage war and steal resources from others.
League of Nations created with the signature of Covenant as part of Treaty of Versailles, 1919. It established the principles that will
characterize also UN (who replaced LoN) up to the present day:
→ Collective security (art. 10/16): if a member is attacked that attack is considered as an attack against all the members.
→ Crisis management: before a dispute escalates to conflict, solutions can be taken (dipl conversat, comprms, ext party)
→ Disarmament: organizations commits itself to disarming countries;
→ Dispute resolution: if countries can’t find agreement, LoN provides 2 mechanisms to solve it: they could ask LoN to help, it can
propose an arbitrate (3rd impartial country to resolve conflict, they commit them to accept) or Permanent Court of Int Justice decides.
→ Social/economic issues: important factor for security that is linked to Wilson’s idea. Sort of practical application of 4th principle: if
you don't solve social/economic issues, countries steal from others. LoN must ensure development in both social/economic terms
→ Trusteeship: task of take colonies towards independence; not stop it, but for security reasons colonial powers must improve
conditions with prospect of independence: no condemnation, FR-UK signed it, main colonial powers.
→ Organizational principles: structure of LoN: 1919 idea was have a GA where all members are represented; a SC, smaller organ
(not all members represented) most important questions is IP/S; SG one person elected to represent this organization.
The League of Nations (II) - Reasons for LoN failure:
Lack of universality: not all great powers were part of it; strong assertion of national sovereignty, each state did what it wanted.
Security: not successful, faced a lot of major crises: 1930 GER/JPN invaded CHN territory of Manchurian, ITA invaded Ethiopia in
1936. LoN unable to deal with these because they were big for the time. Not organized/prepared to face them, 1° because
balance of
power between big powers was artificial/unstable →
Wrong assumption after WW1 big power thought power distribution will
remain stable. Also economic depression in 2929 created economic sanctions crisis: they weren't convenient bc extremely costly,
many not in favor of adopting them. Association with Versailles Treaty: many countries, especially ones who lost WWI, perceived
treaty unfair and LoN creation associated with treaty. Covenant had ambiguities, loopholes, too ambitious for the time: dream rather
than practical instrument. In the end, failure of LoN was the failure of Anglo-French diplomacy. Why the IO process not doomed?
Covenant could be improved; all powers realized they needed a place to communicate with others, so convenient to have IO for
discussion. It was one of the answers to problems persisted after WW1/2: LoN not failure, beginning,
Foundation of the United Nation - Differences from the LoN:
Charter was more professional/considered: ‘41-’42 Allies started talking about new IO to be prepared for the post-war era, designing
it before the end. Aimed at creating well-functional IO to prevent these disasters. Common effort US-URSS conferences held in both
countries, with Charter signed in San Francisco 1945. Novelty is veto, accepted only 5 members could have it: they realized only
way to involve bigger powers as it didn’t happened in LoN; in exchange they have power to stop decision vs their national interest;
Charter was inspired by US principles, not BRIT as it was in LoN; US emerged as major world power after WW2, whereas Britain
or France after WW1 were declining and couldn’t claim the same respect as they did before;
Role in economic/social matters: these were more considered: if prosperity/jobs/decent life conflict possibility will diminish.
Step forward in colonial affairs and HR : Charter establish principle that all countries should decide their faith: colonies must
disappear and colonial powers must do their best to give independence; 3 years after, Universal Declaration HR, result of principle
established in Charter: protection of fundamental right of each person regardless race/political/religious orientation.
The Charter of the United Nations – Chapter 1 - Article 1
Maintain IP/S; that's why problematic UN doesn’t have active role in UKR/GAZ/LYB/SYR: it’s failing in its primary role.
Develop relations based on respect of equal rights to not reach war; and promoting self-determination principle: decide their faith.
Achieve int coop in solving int problems: promoting cooperation to solve problems, HR respect and freedoms w/out distinctions.
To pursue these objectives: UN should be a benchmark for coordinating international community actions to achieve these goals.
The Charter of the United Nations – Chapter 1 - Article 2
Organization based on principle of sovereign equality, no state has right to interfere in domestic affairs of other states;
All Members has to fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed towards the UN;
All Members has to settle their international disputes by peaceful means;
All Members has to refrain from threat or use of force: there’s dispute, we commit ourselves to resolve it peacefully;
All Members has to give UN assistance in any action and refrain from giving to state vs which UN is taking action.
Nothing contained in Charter authorize UN to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.
The UN security operations
UN can’t intervene in domestic affair of a country unless it’s international threat: UN can adopt 3 forms of intervention:
Peacekeeping: impartial towards disputers: there’s a disagreement, 2 parts ask UN to help, it sends blue helmets to stand between so
they don't kill each other, nothing more: nothing to do whether you're right/wrong. They can only use force to defend themselves.
Peace enforcement: conflict inside same country, risk becomes international affair: one try to suppress other killing lot of my people
violating the HR of my ethnic group; domestic affair BUT you violated principle respect HR; UN must be impartial towards
mandate: if you are massacring people, they come to deliver humanitarian aid to my ethnic group, if you try to stop UN they can
shoot you: you tried stop to complete mandate. Force can be used in execution of the mandate.
Collective security: one state atks another. It involves use of force (Chapter VII); NOT impartial, measures are taken vs aggressors to
reject it. Consent is irrelevant. Blue helmets are fully armored. These are UN operations with the delegation to one or more countries.
Peacebuilding (pk or pb): Kosovo 1999-now; UN is/isn’t partial depending on mandate. Consent is irrelevant because UN also
manages reconstruction if needed. Force can be an option for self-defense and to complete the mandate.
