The Similarities and Differences between the League of Nations and the United Nations - Essay Example

? DISCUSS THE SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS AND THE UNITED NATIONS Discuss the similarities and differences between the League of Nations and the United Nations Introduction In 1942, representatives from six nations published a document on the declaration by the United Nations. A declaration that each represented country would join in fighting the Germany Nazis and Japan in the Second World War was present in this document was. This declaration opened up further discussions on the possibilities of forming a United Nations organ and a subsequent substitution of the discredited League of Nations (Jansson, 2012, p. 19). The United Nations Charter was approved in 1945. The League of Nations was formed in 1919 following the world I. It was discredited because of its failure to prevent future wars and conflicts after the lessons from the World War I. The league had failed to prevent the Second World War that realised massive casualty of soldiers and civilians (Jansson, 2012, p. 20). The United Nations The United Nations is an integrated network of international agreements, conventions and organisations that were formulated by United Nations. The UN was shaped in 1945 following the World War II. The UN system comprises of five organs, “the UN Security Council, The UN General Assembly, the UN economic and social council, the trusteeship council, the International court of Justice and the UN secretariat” (Jansson, 2012, p. 17). The five permanent members in the council include USA, China, Britain, France and the Soviet Union (Jansson, 2012, p. 17). The League of Nations (LoN) The League of Nations was formed in 1919. It comprises of three organs that include the Assembly, the Council and the secretariat. Its goal was to oversee world peace by preventing the occurrence of wars (Jansson, 2012, p. 17). Similarities According to Gareau (2002, p. 44), the UN and the League had been founded after appalling world wars. They were both peace structures that aimed at realising permanent solutions for wars. The UN and the LoN were structured around large assemblies and small councils. The council members were mandated to use their collective effort to avert aggression. The councils averted the underlying differences between nations through dialogue and rationality (Gareau, 2002, p. 46). Pierce (2007, p. 12) contends that both UN and LoN promoted rational avenues such as courts, reconciliation and arbitration to thwart the likelihood of war between nations. Both international organs had permanent secretariats that were served by international civil servants. The civil servants did not answer to their national governments. Therefore, averting conflicts was the major goals of LoN and the UN because they were charged with the responsibility of maintaining overall international peace and security. Both organisations have historically relied on peaceful strategies for solutions to international disputes and have requested for punitive measures such as sanctions to the aggressor nations (Pierce, 2007, p. 22). In the LoN, the big powers exercised their influence in shaping its policies. Similarly, in the UN, the big powers of USA, Russia, Britain, China and France played a crucial role of directing the calendar activities (Daniel, 2008, p.30). Similarly, both are deliberate associations of sovereign states established to enhance cooperation among the members on specific political, fiscal and social arenas (Conforti, 2005, p. 34) They are both endowed with similar organisational appendages that include an assembly, council, fiscal and social bodies, trustee committees, court and secretariat. In most instances, these organs were authorised to recommend rather than command (Page & Sonnenburg, 2003, p. 39). Both organisations relied on an assembly with universal membership where members enjoy equality of voting rights. They also instituted a council consisting of major super powers as members and a secretariat that is permanent and international in character. A secretary-general heads the councils as the main executive offices in both institutions (Page & Sonnenburg, 2003, p. 41). The founders of both organisations intended that the actions to prevent the threats to peace be delegated to the control of political councils dominating the great powers. Therefore, many provisions of the United Nations have been extracted from the League with minor changes in names, phrases, and development of ideas that had been proposed by the league (Culver, 2008, p.33). Differences Notwithstanding the similarities, there are many distinctions in the scope and organisational structure of the two international organisations. Notably, the United Nations was established as a successor of the League of Nations. This was after it was widely perceived that the League of Nations had been ineffective in containing world wars and conflicts (Gareau, 2002, p. 44). The incorporation of the convention of League of Nations in the peace treaty of Versailles weakened the league because it appeared that the League of Nations was an attempt on the side of the big powers to forge a political agreement intended to serve their interests. However, the UN had nothing to do with any peace treaties and its mandate was to maintain peace rather than create peace. Organisational structure Page & Sonnenburg, (2003, p. 39), notes that after the transformation of the League of Nations to UN, stronger executive powers were accorded to the Security Council. Member’s states were also required to provide armed forces who would serve as peacekeepers in politically unstable regions. The United Nations has more influence because it accommodated more member countries than the League. When UN was founded, it had only fifty members. The number increased when former colonies of superpowers gained independence and joined the United Nations (Page & Sonnenburg, 2003, p. 40). Presently, UN has 184 member countries. The League of Nations was smaller, it comprised of 42 member states. At its highest, it had 57 members (Page & Sonnenburg, 2003, p. 39). The United Nations Charter includes 11 articles whereas the League of Nations covenant comprised of only 26 articles. The league had three principle organs and the United Nations had six (Culver, 2008, p.40). After colonisation, the UN membership became larger than that of the league. Membership in the organisation differed in that the League council comprised of the principal allied and associated powers as well as four non-permanent members selected intermittently by the assembly(Basu, 2004, p. 66). The league council had the advantage of flexibility because the names and numbers of the great powers were never mentioned. This was a disadvantageous in practice because it destabilized the league council as power kept shifting with powerful members joining and leaving. The United Nations Security Council under article 23 prescribed 15 members (Moore, & Pubantz, 2008, p. 21). Of these, five lasting members are mentioned by name. The general assembly can choose ten temporary and intermittent members for a two-year term. No change in this membership ratio can be made without the revision of the charter (Basu, 2004, p. 69). Notably, the UN, unlike the league had to re-strategize after colonisation. The small states who had been absent from the league had the opportunity of participating effectively within the UN structure (Moore, & Pubantz, 2008, p. 21). Important decision-making within the LoN’s assembly required unanimity while within the United Nations; it is only a two-thirds majority of the members present that are required to decide through a vote. Notably, the powers and responsibilities of the League Assembly and the League Council were not clearly elaborated. The position of the General Assembly and the Security Council within the UN are clearly outlined. The Security Council of UN was given wider authority than the council of the league was because the central responsibility for the maintenance of global peace and security rested in the Security Council. On a general scale, the objectives of the UN charter were more comprehensive and radical compared to the objectives of the convention. For this reason, the league was not an effective instrument for the enforcement of sanctions. However, the framers of the U.N Charter integrated novel and composite security systems (Conforti, 2005, p. 34). Scope Analysing the variations in scope of activities within UN and the league, the league centred on political disputes alone. Its approach presumed that war could be prevented through guarding the political activities. The United Nations adopted this concept but included other activities in its scope (Gareau, 2002, p. 52). The UN charter considers peacekeeping and peace building. This means that the agents must increase the fiscal, social and political involvement that may stand in the way of peace. The human rights issues have become an essential facet of the UN activities. The substantive scopes of the issues considered by each institution vary greatly. Apart from conflicts, the league was largely preoccupied with one problem of creating a stable international system in Europe. Conversely, the United Nations confronted a wider range of issues on racism, decolonisation, and capital redistribution from developed to developing nations, human rights and climate change issues. This is a wider concern compared to the scope assumed by the participants of the League (Moore, & Pubantz, 2008, p. 21). The League of Nations specialised in political issues while the UN has established hundreds of agencies that deal with social problems of refugees, labour, women, children and poverty (Sen, 2009, p. 14). The League of Nations was more unyielding because it stood for the status quo. It lacked the capacity of dealing with the swiftly changing international environment (Sen, 2009, p. 14). Consequently, this led to its downfall. The United Nations restructured its mandate to the changing international scene by expanding its membership and activities scope. The proposal to unite for peace and the concept of peace building are two examples of the UN’s ability to adapt itself to the transformations in the international system (Moore, & Pubantz, 2008, p. 21). The UN does not only have many members, but has given veto rights to the major powers in the Security Council. The LoN was European centred than world-centred (Daniel, 2008, p.30). The league has three organs that were less elaborate compared to the six powerful organs of the United Nations. The League of Nations only met occasionally while the UN organises frequent meetings to discuss current world issues (Conforti, 2005, p. 34). Conclusion The United Nations has so far been successful in maintaining international order. Since the time it was created, there have not been major wars involving the whole world. This is probably because member countries within the UN bodies can position their soldiers in conflict areas. The league did not enjoy these advantages. Originally, the United States and the Soviet Union were not members of the League of Nations but are members of the United Nations. This means that the League of Nations had not accommodated the major super powers. This contributed to its failure to deliver. Concurrently, the United Nations integrated all the super powers that prevented imminent wars in world. The LoN of 1919 had no concrete precedent to learn from whereas the united nations of 1945 had twenty years of experience. In varied respects, the UN was more waterproof than the league (Mackenzie, 2010, p. 62). Reference List Basu, R 2004, The United Nations: structure and functions of an international organisation. New Delhi, Sterling Publishers Private. Conforti, B 2005, The law and practice of the United Nations. Leiden, Nijhoff. Culver, K 2008, Readings in the philosophy of law, Peterborough, Ont, Broadview Press. Daniel, A 2008, The super summary of world history: with a strong emphasis on Western European and American history. [S.l.], Xlibris Corp. Gareau, F 2002, The United Nations and other international institutions: a critical analysis. Chicago, Burnham. Jansson, B. S. (2012). The reluctant welfare state: engaging history to advance social work practice in contemporary society. Belmont, CA, Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning. Mackenzie, D. C 2010, A world beyond borders: an introduction to the history of international organizations. [Toronto], University of Toronto Press. Moore, J. A., & Pubantz, J 2008, Encyclopaedia of the United Nations. New York, Facts on File. Page, M. E., & Sonnenburg, P. M 2003, Colonialism: an international, social, cultural, and political encyclopaedia, Santa Barbara, CA, ABC-CLIO. Pierce, A 2007, Woodrow Wilson & Harry Truman: mission and power in American foreign policy, New Brunswick, N.J., Transaction Publishers. Sen, S 2009, Contemporary world. [S.l.], New Age International Pvt. Read More