By Rachael Lovell
Intergovernmental organisations are two or more countries united through treaties to pursue common goals. One of the first worldwide intergovernmental organisations was the League of Nations (LON) which was created in 1920 and dissolved in 1946. It is often referred to as the predecessor of the United Nations (UN), created in 1945, and is well-known and active today. Both were created to maintain world peace; however, are such organisations successful?
The LON collapsed because of its inability to achieve its mission and prevent the outbreak of World War 2. Its credibility was already low because the US hadn’t joined, and it was further weakened by its response to Japanese actions in Manchuria. In September of 1931, an explosion occurred on the Japanese-owned South Manchurian Railway in China. Japan blamed Chinese nationalists for the event and used it as a justification for invading and occupying Manchuria. China appealed to the LON for help repelling the invasion; however, the LON acted very slowly. A year after the invasion began, the LON concluded that Japan’s actions were unacceptable and that they should give up Manchuria and withdraw their army. Japan, however, believed that the LON – which contained colonial powers such as Britain and France – was being hypocritical by condemning expansion. They withdrew from the LON in March 1933.
No sanctions, economic or military, were placed upon Japan as many countries had important trading connections and, wanting to avoid war at all costs, saw no reason to anger them. This caught the attention of two leaders: Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. They learned that the pacifist LON acted slowly, was indecisive, and lacked power. Germany left the LON a few months after Japan, and Mussolini invaded Abyssinia in 1935 with Britain and France making secret deals to give Abyssinia to Italy despite the LON condemning Mussolini’s actions. This destroyed the authority of the LON. It was then powerless to stop Hitler’s actions after 1935, and by 1938, Britain and France – two permanent members – were ignoring the LON and attempting to appease Hitler instead. The LON, though ideologically sound, was a failure.
The United Nations was created in 1945 and replaced the LON. Like the LON, it has the aim of preventing world wars but also focuses on developing friendly international relations, promoting human rights and development, and supporting progress. While it is true that the UN has had many successful peacekeeping/aid operations and is an improvement on the LON, it suffers from the same inherent flaw. For instance, shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the UN attempted to create a Security Council resolution to stop the attack and call for the withdrawal of all troops. However, the five permanent members of the UN – China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US – have veto power. This means that if any one of them decides to reject a decision, it cannot go through. As a result, Russia inevitably vetoed the resolution. The UN can deliver emergency and financial aid and help the victims of the war, but they have not embarked on military action against Russia, and the war continues today.
Some believe that the UN should be able to halt the conflict, but the reality is that organisations like the LON and the UN work best at preventing wars when all countries wish to remain peaceful and, at least, endure negotiations. If countries decide to ignore the UN and all its rules, they become difficult to stop without the world spiralling into conflict. If other countries become militarily involved in a conflict, the opposing side can declare war on them. As each side draws in their allies and the conflict grows, the result is a world war. Therefore, as the LON shows, wanting to stop a world war prevents intergovernmental organisations from stopping wars. Granted, a large advantage, especially of the UN today, is its normative power. It fosters a global understanding of right and wrong by creating an international diplomatic risk for aggressors that break the norms. However, perhaps global peacekeeping is doomed to one fatal flaw: everyone must want peace.