International Court. The League of Nations and its role in the development of international relations an abstract on international relations, essays from international relations The main tasks of the League of Nations

THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS(League of Nations), the first world organization of states that existed between the two world wars.

Created by the decision of the Paris Peace Conference (1919–20) as a means of forging cooperation between peoples in order to preserve universal peace and security, the League of Nations originally consisted of 43 members: 30 states that participated in the First World War on the side of the victors (with the exception of the United States of America, who played important role in the creation of the League of Nations, but not ratifying the Treaty of Versailles), and 13 neutral states. In 1926 Germany joined the League of Nations (withdrew in 1933), in 1934 - the USSR (expelled in 1939).

Since one of the goals of the League of Nations was to prevent international conflicts, an important place in its activities was occupied by the problem of national minorities (that is, national and ethnic groups that lived in disseminations in states with a foreign majority, regardless of the presence or absence of their own state). The Jewish aspect of this problem almost immediately came to the fore, since other peoples in a similar situation either continued to strive for their own statehood and did not put up with the status of national minorities (Ukrainians, Armenians, Kurds, etc.), or received protection from the states where their tribesmen made up the majority. For the first time, the League of Nations attempted to place the protection of the rights of national minorities on a firm international political and legal basis, to create and put in place the necessary mechanisms for this. Chief among them was the system of treaties of the League of Nations with a number of countries in Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe, which pledged to ensure their national minorities full equality through the adoption of appropriate legislation and the steady implementation of it in practice (see National Minority Rights). Despite the fact that these treaties applied to all national minorities, their special significance for the Jews was not a secret. Romania, for example, even officially stipulated (December 9, 1919) that its obligations under such an agreement apply only to Jews, and the proposal to bind Germany and Germany by a treaty on national minorities was rejected by the Paris Peace Conference on the grounds that the civil rights of Jews in This country was not infringed upon (British Prime Minister D. Lloyd George then characterized Germany as an exemplary country in terms of the position of Jews and pointed, in particular, to the Jewish origin of half of the members of the official German delegation at the Paris Peace Conference).

The activities of the League of Nations for the protection of national minorities from the very beginning, however, ran into a number of serious difficulties. The very concept of “the rights of national minorities” was already unclear and admitting to various interpretations (instead of the term “national minorities”, the documents of the League of Nations speak of ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities). Disagreements on this issue also existed between the Jewish delegations from Western (especially England and France) and Eastern Europe who attended the Paris Peace Conference: the demands of the former were limited to granting Jews of all countries full individual, civil and political rights, and the latter also insisted on the right of an independent national life and cultural development (see Committee of Jewish Delegations). In this regard, the position taken by the League of Nations on this score turned out to be internally contradictory - the demands of the representatives of Eastern European Jewry were rejected, but a very vague clause on cultural rights was included in the texts of treaties on national minorities. An even more serious obstacle to the League of Nations' defense of the rights of national minorities, especially Jews, was the refusal of England and France to give it a universal character by including a corresponding article in the text of the Versailles Peace Treaty, since this imposed obligations on them in relation to the peoples of their colonies. As a result, the League of Nations was competent to demand respect for the rights of national minorities only from the countries that signed the relevant treaties with it, and only as long as these treaties remained in force.

Nevertheless, in the first period of its activity, the League of Nations sincerely strove (and in many cases successfully) to influence the national policies of two groups of states - those defeated in the war and those newly emerging after it. So, when in 1921 Austria announced its intention to expel tens of thousands of Galician Jews who fled to its territory during the war (citing the fact that they complicate the already difficult economic situation of the country), the Council of the League of Nations, although it approved the report of the investigating This issue of the Balfour Commission (in it, in particular, it recognized the sovereign right of each state to expel any group of foreigners from its territory), however, achieved a compromise that allowed most of the refugees to stay in the country. In 1922, the influence of the League of Nations contributed to the suspension (albeit only temporarily) of the Hungarian law on the six percent rate for the admission of Jews to higher educational institutions, and in 1923 the adoption of a similar law in Poland was prevented. During the same period, the League of Nations tried to alleviate the fate of Jews from Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic States who fled from the pogroms to the countries of Western and Central Europe. In these, as in all other similar cases, the initiative for the consideration of such issues by the League of Nations came mainly from Jewish organizations - the Jewish Agency, the Alliance, the Joint Committee of Board of Delegations, the Anglo-Jewish Association, the Committee of Jewish Delegations, etc.

Since about 1923, due to a change in the general situation in Europe and some other regions of the world (strengthening of American isolationism, German-Soviet rapprochement, exacerbation of nationalism in the newly formed nation states, etc.), an increasing role in the activities of the League of Nations begins to play political pragmatism and narrow political interests to the detriment of its original ideals and principles. The first victims of this changing situation were national minorities, especially Jews - the protection of their rights by the League of Nations is increasingly beginning to qualify as interference in internal affairs. sovereign states, and the League of Nations itself, having taken the path of concessions and the search for a compromise solution to controversial issues, was losing prestige and influence. As a result of this, it was during the period when in a number European countries Discrimination against Jews in culture, education, economics and even civil rights began to revive, the ability of the League of Nations to effectively counter this was noticeably reduced. In the activities of the League of Nations, the tendency to pay priority attention to the demands and ambitions of its member states (primarily the permanent members of the Council of the League of Nations), and everything that did not correspond to this should be considered as issues of secondary importance or ignored. In view of this, starting from 1923, the right of national minorities, in particular, Jewish communities, to file complaints against the members of the League of Nations was limited by a number of difficult procedural conditions, and the failure to fulfill even one of them became the basis for refusing to consider the application. In addition, the meetings of the Commission of 3 established on each complaint took place behind closed doors, representatives of interested national minorities were not allowed to attend, and complaints were transmitted to the Council of the League of Nations, whose sessions were public, only in exceptional cases. A dangerous symptom of the changing situation was the proposal in 1926 by Melo-Franco (Brazil) to define the status of minorities as temporary, meaning the inevitable, as he believed, their inclusion (that is, assimilation, absorption) into the majority. This proposal was rejected, but he already had supporters (for example, only sharp protests of Jewish organizations forced O. Chamberlain to dissociate himself from this idea). The ever worsening situation of Jewish communities in a number of countries was accompanied under these conditions by a noticeable reduction in the number of their complaints to the League of Nations (governments often reacted to them with anti-Jewish measures), and international Jewish organizations began to prefer diplomatic negotiations with such governments to ineffective petitions to the League of Nations about their actions ...

The League of Nations during this period (1923-29) did not renounce the function of protecting the rights of national minorities, but more and more often it was powerless to provide them with real assistance. So, discussing in 1925 the situation of Jews in Hungary, where anti-Jewish discriminatory legislation was already in full force (it applied to persons of mixed origin, and even to Jews who converted to Christianity), the Council of the League of Nations limited itself to taking into account the promises of the Hungarian government change the state of affairs as soon as circumstances permit. The League of Nations at this time did not even try to intervene in similar actions of the Polish government, and the attempt of the League of Nations in 1924–25. to take under the protection of the Jewish community of Thessaloniki (Greece) was ineffectual. Some assistance to Jewish minorities during this period was provided only twice: the Jewish community of Latvia, where in 1923 a reactionary legislation was adopted against national minorities (under pressure from the League of Nations, it was not applied against Jews for some time), and Jewish refugees from Poland, when in 1924 there was a threat of their expulsion from Bavaria (prevented, however, not by the League of Nations, since Germany was not then a member of it, but by the efforts of international Jewish organizations).

Concerned since the late 1920s. mainly by the search for political balance (in view of the deterioration of the general situation in the world), the League of Nations more and more often found itself unable to seriously react even to the most flagrant violations of the rights of national minorities. The actual disregard already in these years by a number of countries for the obligations they had assumed in relation to national minorities, especially Jews, clearly revealed that ethnic and national groups, which are not backed by strong states, have nowhere to wait. real protection... Realization of this led to an almost complete cessation of filing complaints to the League of Nations and on the part of Jewish organizations, which sent during this period only memorandums on rampant anti-Semitism in different countries. The rise of the Nazis to power in Germany revealed the practical ephemerality of the original ideals of the League of Nations. Only in the case of Upper Silesia (May 1933) did the League of Nations manage to achieve a short time restoration of the rights of Jews (see Bernch eima petition). But the petition filed at the same time by the American Jewish Congress and other Jewish organizations about the critical situation of Jews throughout Germany under Nazi rule was not considered by the League of Nations at all. Since, however, the intensified persecution of German Jews was evidenced not only by the renewed numerous complaints in 1933, but also by diplomatic and consular reports, this issue was twice (October 1933 and January 1934) considered by the Council of the League of Nations, but, in addition to the expression hopes that the states that had not signed treaties on national minorities would follow their spirit and institutions, he could no longer do anything.

Germany's withdrawal from the League of Nations (1933), followed by the renunciation of obligations under the treaties on national minorities of Poland, Romania and Hungary, where openly anti-Jewish laws were adopted (virtually all countries of Eastern and Central Europe, with the exception of Czechoslovakia, Estonia and Finland, became on this path), the ineffectiveness of sanctions against Italy, which committed aggression in Abyssinia - all this meant a complete collapse of the system of international relations created by the Versailles Peace Treaty, and the bankruptcy of its guarantor - the League of Nations. After the failure of the last attempt to defend its prestige (in the case of the persecution of the Jews of Danzig, see Gdansk), the League of Nations did not react in any way even to the adoption of the Nuremberg Laws in Germany (September 1935), although they clearly threatened physical existence Jews of this country. The attempt of the League of Nations to alleviate the fate of the flow of Jewish emigrants from Germany with the creation of the office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (not counting the "Nansen passports" issued to persons who lost their citizenship, which gave them a certain legal status) ended with virtually no result.

Slightly more successful was the activity of the League of Nations in that part of the Jewish question, which was associated with the mandate it granted to Great Britain over Palestine (see Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael). Historical sketch. The period of the British Mandate; as well as the Balfour Declaration) and the work of its mandate a commission designed to monitor the fulfillment of the mandate by the mandate country (Palestine was assigned to the mandated territories of the highest category A, which obliged Great Britain to prepare it for independence). The fulfillment of this function by the League of Nations (the Credentials Commission and the Council that approved its decisions), however, also faced increasing difficulties. Despite the fact that the course of Great Britain, which pursued imperial goals and was unable to satisfactorily resolve the Jewish-Arab conflicts in Eretz Yisrael, became more and more anti-Jewish there (see the White Paper), the Credentials Committee, which discussed annually the reports of the mandator country, was practically nothing all that remained was how to renew the mandate every time. As a result, the League of Nations, powerless by the mid-1930s. to protect European Jewry from the outbreak of genocide by Nazi Germany, did not prevent the British policy of limiting aliyah in Eretz Israel, the only place where Jews could find refuge.

Since the beginning of World War II, the activities of the League of Nations have completely ceased. It was formally dissolved in April 1946.

KEE, volume: 4.
Col .: 833–838.
Published: 1988.

League of Nations Map The League of nations the first international intergovernmental organization created with the aim of developing cooperation, achieving peace and security among peoples at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919-20.
Its creation was initiated by US President Woodrow Wilson. According to the charter of the League of Nations, its founders were considered the victorious states in the First World War 1914-18, as well as again the countries of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hijas. At first, 44 countries became members of this organization, later their number increased to 52. The Charter of the League of Nations was included as an integral part of all post-war peace treaties. The main organs of the League of Nations were: an assembly, an assembly of representatives of all members of the organization, the Council of the League, and a permanent secretariat headed by a general secretary. Seat of the main organs of the League of Nations Geneva.
The Assembly of the League of Nations was convened annually. Representatives of each state had one vote at meetings, regardless of the size of the population and the size of the country's territory. The decisions of the Assembly were taken unanimously, with the exception of those specially stipulated. This approach led to numerous fruitless discussions and compromises, ineffective solutions and ultimately weakening the influence of the League of Nations on interstate relations and the resolution of international conflicts. The Council of the League of Nations consisted of four permanent members Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan and four non-permanent members, who were re-elected annually.
Several provisions of the charter dealt with the problems of preventing and resolving interstate conflicts. In the event of a threat of conflicts between the members of the League of Nations, questions were raised for consideration by the Council or the arbitration court of disinterested countries. If necessary, all countries, members of the League of Nations were obliged to terminate all economic and cultural ties with the aggressor, to declare him a general blockade. The crisis in the activities of the League of Nations was especially vividly manifested after the failure of the international conference on disarmament, when Germany and Japan withdrew from it in 1933. The USSR used it not so much for a real solution of international conflicts, but as a platform for political propaganda. The helplessness of the League of Nations manifested itself in the discussion of complaints about Japanese aggression against China, begun in 1931, Italian against Ethiopia 1935-36, Soviet against Finland 1939-40. The League of Nations failed to take a single effective decision against the aggressors. The exclusion of the USSR by organization in December 1939 was a step of despair, not real help victim of aggression.
The tasks of the League of Nations included the defense of the rights of national minorities, guaranteed international treaties, which were signed by the countries that occupied the Ukrainian lands. The emigration governments of the UPR and ZUNR, Ukrainian parliamentarians have repeatedly appealed to the League of Nations with complaints about the violation of rights and freedoms in the occupied Ukrainian lands by the government authorities of Poland, Romania and the USSR. Taking into account the protest of Yevgeny Petrushevich, the League of Nations in its decision of February 23, 1921 recognized that Eastern Galicia was under Polish military occupation and condemned the anti-Ukrainian policy of the Warsaw leadership. In September 1933, the League of Nations held a secret meeting on the Holodomor in Ukraine. The decisions made were of a declarative nature and had no real impact on the situation. The jurisdiction of the League of Nations was the custody of the emigrants. The émigré bureau, headed by an outstanding Norwegian scientist and diplomat, Nobel Prize laureate Fridtjof Nansen, provided assistance to political émigrés from the Dnieper Ukraine.
The interests of the Ukrainian people in the institutions of the League of Nations in 1921-24 were also defended by the Ukrainian Society of the League of Nations, chairman Volodymyr Zheleznyak, later Roman Perfetsky, the Western Ukrainian Society of the League of Nations, which were part of the world union of society. The unofficial representative of the UPR government in exile at the League of Nations was Alexander Shulgin. However, after the recognition by the Lyon Congress of the International Unions of the League of Nations of the decision of the Council of Ambassadors of the Entente States to include Galicia in Poland, Ukrainian societies, rejecting proposals to become a department of Polish society, withdrew from the international unions in protest in 1924. In relation to the Ukrainian question, as well as to other national problems in general, the League of Nations showed inconsistency, did not exercise control over the implementation of the resolutions adopted by it. The complex decision-making system, the lack of a mechanism for their implementation, the declarative nature and inconsistency of individual documents of the League of Nations conditioned its powerlessness against the aggressors and ultimately led to its final collapse since the beginning of World War II 1939-45. The League of Nations formally ceased operations in 1946.

Åland Islands an archipelago with about 6,500 islands between Sweden and Finland. The islands had a Swedish-speaking population, but in 1809 Sweden transferred to Finland and the Aland Islands to the Russian Empire. When Finland declared independence in December 1917 after the October Revolution, the majority of the Åland population expressed their will to become part of Sweden again; Finland, however, believed that the islands were part of their new state, since the Russians included them in the Finnish governorship general established in 1809.The Swedish government raised the issue with the League in 1921. After consideration, the League determined that the islands should be part of Finland, but run autonomously, diverting a potential war between the two countries.
Albania
The border between Albania and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was retained in dispute after the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, and Yugoslav troops occupied part of Albanian territory. The League sent a commission of representatives to the region. The commission concluded in favor of Albania, and the Yugoslav forces withdrew in 1921. The war was again averted.
Upper Silesia
According to the Treaty of Versailles, a plebiscite must be held on the ownership of Upper Silesia and the territory must be part of Germany or Poland. Discrimination and the use of force against Poles led to a series of Silesian uprisings in 1919 and 1920. In a plebiscite, approximately 59.6% of about 500,000 votes were cast for the union with Germany, and this result led to the Third Silesian Uprising in 1921. The League took up the settlement of the conflict. In 1922, after six weeks of research, it was concluded that the land should be divided; this decision was made both by the countries and by the majority of the population of Upper Silesia.
Memel
The port city of Memel, or now Klaipeda and the Klaipeda region, was under the control of the League after the end of World War I and was ruled by a French general for three years. Although the population was mostly German, the Lithuanian government made claims to the territory, and Lithuanian troops invaded in 1923. The League agreed to give the land around Memel to Lithuania, but announced that the port should retain the international zone; Lithuania agreed. The decision was considered as a failure. The league opposed the use of force, but the preservation international status port, without significant bloodshed, was a League victory.
Greece and Bulgaria

After an incident between border guards on the border between Greece and Bulgaria in 1925, Greek soldiers invaded Bulgaria. Bulgaria ordered its soldiers to provide only the appearance of resistance, trusting the League to settle the dispute. The League did indeed condemn the Greek invasion, and called for both the withdrawal of Greek troops and compensation in favor of Bulgaria. Greece conceded, but complained about Corfu. See below .
Saar
Saarland was a province formed from parts of Prussia and Rhineland-Palatinate under the rule of the League, after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. The plebiscite should take place fifteen years after the Treaty of Versailles to determine the region should belong to Germany or France. A referendum was held in 1935, 90.3% of the vote was in favor of Germany, and the land became part of Germany again.
Mosul
The League resolved the dispute between Iraq and Turkey over control of the former Ottoman province of Mosul in 1926. Britain received an A-mandate over Iraq from the League of Nations in 1920 and therefore represented Iraq in its foreign affairs, Mosul belonged to Iraq, on the other hand. the new Turkish Republic claimed the province as part of its historical ancestral home. Three representatives of the League of Nations committee were sent to the region in 1924 to study the situation and in 1925 it was recommended that the region join Iraq, on the condition that Great Britain should have a mandate over Iraq for another 25 years to guarantee the autonomous rights of the Kurdish population. The League Council adopted a recommendation on December 16, 1925, to surrender Mosul to Iraq. Great Britain, Iraq and Turkey signed a treaty on June 5, 1926, which is before the transfer of Mosul to Iraq.
Liberia
Rumors of slavery in the independent African country Liberia, forced the League to begin research, especially the use of forced labor at the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company on rubber plantations in that country. In 1930, the League received information that many government officials were involved in the sale of labor, leading to the resignation of President Charles King, his vice president, and numerous other government officials. The league threatened to establish guardianship over Liberia if only reforms were to be lost.
Colombia and Peru

After several border conflicts between Colombia and Peru in the early 20th century, and the Peruvian takeover of the Colombian city of Letizia on September 1, 1932, led to armed conflict between the two states. After months of diplomatic bickering, the two states accepted mediation from the League of Nations. A temporary peace agreement signed by both sides in May 1933 invited the League to assume control of the disputed territory while bilateral negotiations continued. In May 1934, a final peace agreement was signed, leading to the return of Letizia to Colombia, a formal apology from Peru for the 1932 invasion, the demilitarization of the area around Letizia, free navigation in the Amazon and Putumayo, and a non-aggression pact.
Other successes
The League also fought the international opium trade and sexual slavery and eased the plight of refugees, especially in Turkey in the pre-1926 period. One of its innovations in this area was the 1922 introduction of the Nansen Passport, which was the first internationally recognized statelessness card for refugees.
Tseshin

Leaving him. Teschener Schlesien, Czech Tesinske Slezsko, floor. Slask cieszynski a region of Poland and today's Czech Republic, known for its coal industry. Czechoslovak soldiers took over the region in 1919 while Poland defended itself from invasion Soviet Russia... The League intervened, deciding that Poland should take control of most of the region, and Czechoslovakia should take part of the region, which should have valuable coal mines and the railroad connecting the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The city was divided into the Polish Cieszyn and the Czech Cesky Tesin. Poland refused to accept this decision; although there was no further violence, the diplomatic controversy continued for another 20 years. Finally, the situation led to the Polish military annexation of Cesky Tesin in 1938.
Free

After World War I, Poland and Lithuania regained their independence, which they lost during the third partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1795. Although the countries had centuries common history Rzeczpospolita, the growing Lithuanian nationalism prevented the re-establishment of the former united state. Vilno Lithuanian city Vilnius, Polish Wilno was made the capital of Lithuania. Although Vilnius has been the cultural and political center of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania since 1323, the majority of the population in the 20th century was Polish.
During the Polish-Soviet War in 1920, the Polish army took control of the city. Despite the statement of the Poles who lived in the city, the League asked Poland to withdraw its troops: the Poles did not. The city and its surroundings were declared a separate state in Central Lithuania and on February 20, 1922, the local parliament adopted the Unification Act and the city was united into Poland as the capital of the Vilnius Voivodeship. In theory, British and French troops could comply with the League's decision; however, France did not want a confrontation with Poland, which was considered a possible ally in a future war against Germany or the Soviet Union. Both Britain and France wanted Poland as a buffer zone between Europe and Communist Russia. Finally, the League took over Freely as a Polish city on March 15, 1923. The Poles were in possession until the Soviet invasion in 1939.
The Lithuanian government refused to accept Polish rule over Vilna and viewed it as a constitutional capital, to the Polish ultimatum to Lithuania in 1938, when Lithuania established diplomatic relations with Poland and therefore de facto accepted its neighbor's borders.
Invasion of the Ruhr, 1923

Under the Versailles Treaty, Germany had to pay compensation. They could be paid in money or goods on an agreed list; however, in 1922 Germany was unable to pay. The following year, France and Belgium invaded Germany's industrial heart, the Ruhr, despite this in direct violation of League rules. With France on the Council of the League, and Britain hesitating to rein in her close ally, nothing was done in the League. This was a significant precedent for further non-fulfillment of the League's requirements.
Conflict in Corfu

One major border settlement, remained geographically undefined, after World War I, on the border between Greece and Albania. The league undertook to settle the dispute. The Rada appointed the Italian Enric Tellini as an observer. On August 27, 1923, while inspecting the Greek side of the border, Tellini and his staff were killed. Italian leader Mussolini Benito demanded reparations from Greece and the extradition of the murderers. The Greeks refused.
On August 31, Italian forces occupied the island of Corfu, part of Greece, and killed fifteen people. At first, the League condemned Mussolini's invasion, but advised Greece to pay compensation until Tellini's killers were found. Mussolini, although initially agreeing with the League's decision, made an attempt to change them. Working with the Council of Ambassadors, he managed to get the League to change its mind. Greece was forced to apologize and compensation must be paid directly and immediately. Mussolini could celebrate a victory in Corfu.
Capture of Manchuria, 1931-1933

The capture of Manchuria was one of the League's major failures and was the reason for Japan's exclusion from the organization. In the Mukden Incident, also known as the "Manchurian Incident", the Empire of Japan had control of the South Manchurian Railway in China's Manchuria region. They claimed that Chinese soldiers sabotaged the railroad, which was the main trade artery between the two countries, on September 18, 1931. In fact, the officers of the Japanese Kwantun army created the sabotage without a report from the Japanese government, which led to the Japanese war, which they renamed, which they renamed Manchukuo. This new country was recognized only by Italy and Germany, the rest of the world considered Manchuria a part of the Celestial Empire. In 1932, Japanese military and naval aviation bombarded the Chinese city of Shanghai during the January 28 incident.
The Chinese government asked for help, but after the long voyage of the League of Nations representatives on the ship, League officials became familiar with Chinese claims that the Japanese had invaded illegally, while the Japanese claimed they were acting to maintain peace in the area. Despite the fact that the Japanese were highly revered in the League, Layton's message announced the illegal actions of Japan and the need for the return of Manchuria to China. However, before the vote in the League, Japan announced its intention to invade China. When the message came at 42 in a meeting in 1933, Japan withdrew from the League.
According to the charter of the League of Nations, the League was to declare economic sanctions against Japan, or by gathering troops to declare war against it. However, economic sanctions were almost useless thanks to the US Congress, which voted against the League's sanctions, despite the fact that the US was involved in signing the Treaty of Versailles and joining the League. Any economic sanctions by the League were nonsense, since any state could trade under the US flag. The League was unable to gather an army thanks to the selfishness of many of its members. This meant that countries like Britain and France were reluctant to gather troops for the League to use in its own affairs. Japan was left with Manchuria until the Soviet Red Army liberated the area and returned it to China at the end of World War II in 1945.
War of the Gran Chaco, 1932-1935

The League was unable to prevent the Chaksky War between Bolivia and Paraguay in 1932 in the arid region of Gran Chaco South America... Although the region was sparsely populated, ownership of the region conferred control over the Paraguay River, which would provide one of the two landlocked countries with access to the Atlantic Ocean, and there was also speculation, which was not confirmed, about the presence of oil in the Gran Chaco. Border clashes in the late 1920s culminated in war in 1932, when the Bolivian army, following orders from President Daniel Salamancha Urey, attacked the Paraguayan garrison of Vanguardia. Paraguay appealed to the League of Nations, but the League did not act.
The war was a disaster for both sides, bringing both countries to the brink of an economic crisis. On June 12, 1935, with the signing of an armistice, Paraguay seized control of most of the region. This was recognized in the 1938 armistice, by which Paraguay received three-quarters of the Northern Chaco.
Italian invasion of Abyssinia, 1935-1936

In October 1935, Benito Mussolini sent Badoglio Pietro and 400,000 troops to invade Abyssinia. Italian forces easily defeated the poorly armed Abyssinians, and captured Addis Ababa in May 1936, forcing Emperor Haile Selassie I to flee. Italians used chemical weapon mustard gas and flamethrowers against the Abyssinians.
The League of Nations condemned Italy's aggression and imposed economic sanctions in November 1935, but the sanctions were largely ineffective. As Stanley Balvin, the British Prime Minister, later noted that no one had troops on hand to counter the Italian attack. On October 9, 1935, the United States who were not a member of the League refused to cooperate with the League.
In December 1935, the Hoare-Laval Agreement was an attempt by British Foreign Secretary Hoare and French Prime Minister Laval to end the conflict in Abyssinia, according to a plan to split Abyssinia into two parts, the Italian Sector and the Abyssinian Sector. Mussolini was ready to sign this agreement; however, the agreement sparked a wave of protests as news of the Treaty was leaked in both Britain and France. The governments of these countries refused to sign this agreement.
Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939

On July 17, 1936, an armed conflict began, between the Spanish Republicans of the left government of Spain and the nationalist rebels, officers of the Spanish army. Alvers del Vayo, the Spanish foreign minister, appealed to the League in September 1936 for the League's troops to defend its territorial integrity and political independence. However, the League could not directly enter the Spanish Civil War nor prevent foreign intervention in the conflict. Hitler and Mussolini continued to help General Franco's rebels nationalists, the Soviet Union helped the Spanish Republicans. The league tried to ban volunteer intervention.

League of Nations and its historical role.

The purpose of the League of Nations, its tasks and role in the new post-war system of international relations, the disagreements of the Entente powers over its Charter.

The idea of ​​creating the League of Nations belongs to Great Britain. In late 1915, Foreign Secretary Gray proposed the creation of an international peace organization.

The issue of the League on the agenda turned out to be one of the main ones for at least two main reasons. First, as an international body, the League could indeed make a practical contribution to regulating international relations and reducing the danger of war. Secondly, the League and its Charter were designed to give legal and moral sanction to the policies of the great powers, to legalize it in the eyes of public opinion, which by the 20s of the twentieth century was already becoming important political factor- primarily in democratic and liberal countries.

A commission was created to draw up the charter of the League, headed by Wilson. A struggle began between England, France and the United States over the draft charter. Later, England and the United States merged.

The creation of the League caused serious controversy between the main participants in the conference. At one of the first meetings, it became clear that the plans for its creation, coming from different delegations, differ in the measure of spaciousness and the degree of elaboration of details. The French plan, in particular, was much more detailed than the British. Paris irreconcilably demanded the inclusion in the Charter of a clause on the creation of international armed forces capable of maintaining security in Europe. France hoped to use its superiority in the ground forces and make them the basis of a future international army, which, if necessary, could be directed against Germany. At the same time, the French delegation believed that first it was necessary to prepare and sign an agreement with Germany, and then deal with the creation of an international organization.

In this, Clemenceau met very serious resistance from Wilson, who believed that the creation of a world order should begin with the construction of the League. According to the United States, the League, as the main international organization for the creation of a new system collective security it was even possible to delegate in general the right to develop a peace treaty with Germany. Wilson insisted on the preparation of a project for the creation of the League by a special commission. Within the framework of the conference, a committee was formed (January 25, 1919) to prepare the draft of the League of Nations. The resolution to establish it, proposed by the British delegation, provided that the League:

 will be created to settle all issues related to the establishment of peace and promote international cooperation, the implementation of guarantees for the fulfillment of international obligations;

 will become an integral part of the general peace treaty and will remain open for the accession of every civilized nation that accepts and supports its goals;

 Provide for periodic meetings of its members at international conferences (sessions), in the interests of which a permanent organization and a secretariat will be created to ensure the work of the League in the intervals between conferences (sessions).

The adoption of the resolution was an undoubted success for Wilson, but it did not guarantee the preparation of the Charter of the organization until the end of the work on the treaty with Germany. Wilson's opponents did not hide their hopes that the work of the commission under his chairmanship would fail. But the American delegation persisted. The President of the United States himself, with the help of D.H. Miller, a member of the American delegation, twice revised his original draft of the League. The latter was completed on February 2, 1919.

Members of the League of Nations.

Of the 65 large states that existed on the planet in 1920, all, with the exception of the United States and Saudi Arabia(formed in 1932), at one time or another were members of the League.

Founding countries are marked with an asterisk (*). The year of adoption and / or the year of the withdrawal statement (entered into force after two years) are indicated in brackets.

Australia*
Austria (adopted in 1920, annexed by Germany in 1938)
Albania (adopted in 1920, annexed by Italy in 1939)
Argentina*
Afghanistan (adopted 1934)
Belgium*
Bulgaria (adopted in 1920)
Bolivia*
Brazil (released 1926)
Hungary (adopted in 1922, published in 1939)
Venezuela * (released 1938)
Haiti * (published 1942)
Guatemala * (published 1936)
Germany (adopted in 1926, published in 1933)
Honduras * (released 1936)
Greece*
Denmark*
Dominican Republic (adopted in 1924)
Egypt (adopted 1937)
India*
Iraq (adopted 1932)
Ireland (adopted in 1923)
Spain * (released 1939)
Italy * (published 1937)
Canada*
China*
Colombia*
Costa Rica (adopted in 1920, published in 1925)
Cuba*
Latvia (adopted in 1921)
Liberia*
Lithuania (adopted in 1921)
Luxembourg (adopted in 1920)
Mexico (adopted in 1931)
Netherlands*
Nicaragua * (published 1936)
New Zealand*
Norway*
Panama*
Paraguay * (released 1935)
Persia (Iran) *
Peru * (published 1939)
Poland*
Portugal*
Romania * (released 1940)
El Salvador * (released 1937)
Siam (Thailand) *
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland *
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (adopted in 1934, expelled in 1939)
Turkey (adopted in 1932)
Uruguay*
Finland (adopted in 1920)
France*
Czechoslovakia *
Chile * (released 1938)
Switzerland*
Sweden*
Ecuador (adopted 1934)
Estonia (adopted in 1921)
Ethiopia (adopted 1923)
Yugoslavia*
Union of South Africa *
Japan * (released 1933)

The main tasks of the League of Nations

Peace building through cooperation;

Peace guarantee through collective security;

This was the first time in history that an international organization was to become the guarantor of an international custom.

The main point of the LN Charter. was:

providing guarantees to member countries:

Collective actions in case of violation of the charter and war

Preservation of the independence and territorial integrity of the powers

If the conflict cannot be resolved on their own, its participants can apply to arbitration or the LN Council.

The parties should not resort to military action for 3 months after the convening of the conference on the conflict (that is, the war is resolved!)

Measures against violations:

violation of the peace is seen as a war against all members of the League

Maintaining complete economic and political isolation

Formation of troops from national contingents with the aim of enforcing peace

These sanctions were applied in 1935 against Italy during the aggression in Ethiopia. Ineffective.

Cons of the LN Charter and generally cons

sanctions were not comprehensive

Decisions in the Assembly were made on the principle of unanimity, and any member of the LN could veto and paralyze the activities of the LN

LN did not acquire an influential character due to the absence of the USA and the USSR

The number of committees was not limited - there were a huge number of them. There is no coordinating body and only in recent years 2 Coordination Committees have been created.

Structure.

The League of Nations comprised the member states of the League, the Assembly, the Council, the Secretariat, various technical commissions and support services. The structure, functions and powers of the League were defined in the Charter. The League's annual budget was approx. 6 million dollars. The seat of the main organs of the League was Geneva (Switzerland).

The Assembly included representatives of all states that were members of the League of Nations. Assembly sessions were held annually in September, and special sessions were also convened from time to time. Each member of the Assembly had one vote. The Assembly had broad powers that covered the entire scope of the League. Paragraph 3 of the Charter stated that the Assembly has the right to consider "any matter within the purview of the League or affecting questions of world peace." The internal structure of the Assembly corresponded to the principles of building a legislative body, it included 7 standing commissions, which usually operated in parallel with the technical services of the League.

The council was originally intended for representatives of 9 states. The non-participation of the United States reduced the number of Council members to 8. Over the next 20 years, this figure fluctuated, and on January 1, 1940, the number of Council members reached 14. Membership on the Council could be permanent, non-permanent, and temporary. The purpose of this division was to grant the right of permanent membership of the Council; representation of small powers was carried out on the basis of the principle of rotation. In accordance with the Charter, sessions of the Council were held 4 times a year, excluding special sessions. The functions of the Council, defined by the Charter, were as broad as those of the Assembly, but the Council had exclusive rights in solving problems of minorities, issues related to the mandate system, problems of Danzig (Gdansk), Saar, in resolving conflicts and applying the articles of the Charter on collective security issues.

The Secretariat was the administrative body of the League. The Secretariat acted on a permanent basis and had a strong influence on the politics of the League. The Secretariat was headed by the Secretary General, the administrative head of the League. In 1940, the staff of the Secretariat included employees from 50 countries of the world.

Functions.

The main goals of the League were to preserve peace and improve the conditions of human life. Measures used to maintain peace included the reduction and limitation of armaments; obligations of the member states of the League to oppose any aggression; mutual agreements on arbitration, legal settlement or special investigations of the Council; agreements of the members of the League on mutual actions in the application of economic and military sanctions. In addition to these basic conditions, a number of different provisions have been adopted, for example on the registration of treaties and the protection of minorities.

Causes of the collapse of the League of Nations .

An objective, unbiased approach to assessing the peacekeeping activities of the League of Nations, a balanced analysis of the results of its activities indicate that this international organization had both negative and positive features. And although it turned out to be unable to prevent the Second World War, with its activities at the first stage (the 1920s), the League contributed to the peaceful settlement of dozens of conflicts. For the first time, responsibility for collective action against a violator of international law was embodied in concrete decisions. A new phenomenon was that the League of Nations had a global character and bore a global responsibility for the prevention of war through the concerted actions of its members. The charter provided for guarantees to the members of the organization to preserve their political independence and territorial integrity against external aggression. The organization was created with the aim of ensuring a peaceful solution to conflicts, preventing war. The Charter provided for collective action by all members of the League of Nations in the event of a violation by the aggressor of the Charter and the outbreak of war. A certain procedure for resolving conflicts was established. If the conflicting parties turned out to be untenable to resolve the disputed issue through negotiations, they had to apply to arbitration, the Permanent Court of International Justice or the Council of the League. The conflicting parties should not have resorted to war for at least three months after the decision was made by the body that considered the conflict. But after this period, the hands of the conflicting parties were actually untied. An important drawback of the League Charter was that war as a method of resolving controversial issues was not prohibited. Measures against violators of the peace were regulated by the Charter. Breaking the peace was seen as an act of war against all members of the League. Immediate total economic and political isolation of the violator was assumed. The Council had the right to recommend military sanctions, including the creation of a joint armed forces from the contingents of the League members.

Nevertheless, many important provisions of the Charter were not embodied in life due to the position of the main participants in the organization, primarily England and France, whose interests did not coincide in many respects. The envisaged sanctions were also weakened by the possibility of such an interpretation of the Charter, which made it possible for each member to independently decide issues of participation in the general activities of the organization. And the realities testified that among the members of the League there was no conviction that any war, wherever it began, was a threat to them. The weakness of the League as an instrument for maintaining peace was predetermined by the very Charter of the organization. The decisions of both the Assembly and the Council were made on a unanimous basis. The only exception was voting on procedural issues and on admission to the League, when decisions were made by two-thirds, that is, by a qualified majority. Given the presence of sharp disagreements between the members of the League, obstacles to the organization's adoption of urgent, urgent decisions from political, military and other become understandable. important issues... An important shortcoming of the Charter was the fact that only the decisions of the Assembly and the Council on administrative matters, which concerned the League itself, were binding. Even the sanctions were actually voluntary, since the decisions were in the nature of recommendations.

With the defeat of the Central European powers in 1918, two peace options were considered at the peace negotiations: ending the war on favorable terms for the victors and preventing the next war. The idea of ​​peace in a new world order, which absorbed the proposals of the 19th century and the times of war, was based on current international law and arbitration. In the early years of the war, new formulas developed by the peacekeeping movement emerged. Among them were La Fontaine's concept of peace (1914) and the resolutions adopted a few months later at the women's congress in The Hague, containing, in addition to calling for an end to the bloodshed, the principles of preserving peace. Various peacekeeping societies and groups in virtually all countries put forward peace initiatives, the most significant of which were the proposals of the Fabian Society in England and the League for the consolidation of peace in the United States. All these programs predetermined the idea of ​​creating an international organization and put forward a number of provisions that were subsequently included in the Charter of the League of Nations.

After the end of the war, an attempt was made to build a general and common family of the League of Nations (Woodrow Wilson's words), a system of international peace by means of a "general union of states". In 1919, a new, hitherto unknown historical phenomenon emerged - the first universal international organization. Realized in the form of the League of Nations, this organization, which declared the goals of peace, was not an accidental phenomenon in the historical process. The emergence of the League of Nations was determined by the peculiarities of the peaceful development of this period, associated with the increased internationalization of the socio-economic process and the growing interdependence of states. This caused centripetal tendencies in international relations.

The fourteenth paragraph of the Wilsonian program proclaimed the need for the formation of a general League of Nations "in order to create mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial inviolability, both great and small states."

The issue of the League on the agenda of the Paris Conference turned out to be one of the main ones for at least two main reasons. First, as an international body, the League could indeed make a practical contribution to regulating international relations and reducing the danger of war. Secondly, the League and its Charter were called upon to give legal and moral sanction to the policies of the great powers, to legalize it in the eyes of public opinion, which by the 1920s. The 20th century was already becoming an important political factor, primarily in democratic and liberal countries.

The Charter of the League of Nations begins with the words that the high contracting parties take into account "that for the development of cooperation between peoples and for the guarantee of their peace and security, it is important to take certain obligations, not to resort to war, to maintain in full publicity international relationships based on justice and honor, strictly observe the requirements of international law. "

The League of Nations was an organic part of the Versailles system. This was emphasized by the inclusion of its Charter not only in the text of the Versailles Peace Treaty of 1919 as the first part of this treaty, but also in the peace treaties with Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey.

The idea of ​​the League of Nations came from Britain. Walter Phillimore, who chaired the Foreign Office committee whose report made the proposal, was an international lawyer and author of Three Centuries of Peace Treaties. He was assisted by Robert Cecil, a Tory MP. As the minister in charge of the blockade, he hated trying to force Germany to surrender from hunger, and therefore enthusiastically seized on the idea of ​​the League of Nations. Lord Cecil, having presented the English draft, did much to finalize the final version of the Charter in Paris. Both Phillimore and Cecil saw the League not as a means of combating aggression through the use of collective force, but as a substitute for such force, acting primarily through "moral authority."

All the great powers that fought against Germany (except Russia) and especially the Anglo-American tandem took part in the development of the projects for the creation of the League of Nations, although the French politician and statesman L. Bourgeois introduced not only the French vision of an international organization, but also the legacy of pre-war peacekeeping thought.

The creation of the League caused serious controversy among the main participants in the conference. At one of the first meetings, it became clear that the plans for its creation, coming from different delegations, differ in the measure of spaciousness and the degree of elaboration of details. The United States, represented by President W. Wilson, sought to use this organization to expand its own sales markets, spheres of influence, primarily in order to get the opportunity to actively influence European affairs. The United States was opposed by England and France, two victorious countries, each of which fought for economic and political dominance in Europe.

British military and diplomatic experts did not approve of the idea of ​​a supranational political organization from the very beginning. Political and public figure L. S. Emery expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the body, "in which all peoples would somehow be gathered together in the form of a many-sided assembly of representatives, equal in their legal and moral status and bearing an equal share of responsibility."

In his opinion, the idea of ​​creating world organization deserved attention only on condition that such an organization was meant, which would unite within its framework groups of nations, comparatively the same in their development, which would be equal partners. Such groups would link a common territory and historical development or a common cultural and political worldview.

The British representatives opposed the future international organization having the means of coercion. The British sought to resolve the disputed issues by an arbitration tribunal. Putting forward the demand for a unanimous decision by the Council of the League of Nations on all disputes between states that threaten a rift between them, England tried to secure the role of an arbiter in future clashes on the European continent.

The French plan, in particular, was much more detailed than the British. Paris irreconcilably demanded the inclusion in the Charter of a clause on the creation of international armed forces capable of maintaining security in Europe. France hoped to use its superiority in the ground forces and make them the basis of a future international army, which, if necessary, could be directed against Germany. Behind these proposals was a fear of Germany, which surpassed France both in its industrial and economic base and in human reserves. At the same time, the French delegation believed that first it was necessary to prepare and sign an agreement with Germany, and then deal with the creation of an international organization. In this, Clemenceau met very serious resistance from Wilson, who believed that the creation of a world order should begin with the construction of the League. According to the United States, the League, as the main international organization for creating a new system of collective security, could even be delegated the right to develop a peace treaty with Germany. Wilson insisted on the preparation of a project for the creation of the League by a special commission. Within the framework of the conference, a committee was formed (January 25, 1919) to prepare the draft of the League of Nations.

According to the Washington administration, the reason for the instability of the pre-war world order was the constant violation by the great powers of the principle of self-determination of nations, the observance of which, according to Wilson, could in itself ensure the stability of the world order. That is why the United States proposed the creation of a new permanent international collective security body, which would monitor the provision of a fair settlement of international disputes on the basis of a certain set of agreed principles, including the principle of self-determination of nations. From the point of view of Wilson, this organization, the first in history of this kind, was supposed to be a "universal association of nations to maintain the undisturbed security of sea routes, their universal, unrestricted use by all states of the world, and to prevent any kind of war. started either in violation of contractual obligations, or without warning, with full subordination of all the issues under consideration to world public opinion. " V. Wilson, the central figure in the drafting of the Charter, was greatly influenced by the proposals put forward by General J. H. Smets, the Minister of Defense of South Africa.

Jan Christian Smete was the first Boer to gain resounding fame not only in political but also in academic circles in Great Britain. Since the signing of the armistice in 1918, Smete has dealt with the problems of the post-war world order. Naturally, his focus was on the problems of Great Britain. In a speech at a journalists' banquet on November 14 in London, he said that old Europe, old world who emerged from the French Revolution died. The new world was born, in his opinion, from the interdependence and cooperation of all countries. Europe has been destroyed, and the League of Nations must be the successor to its great legacy.

Analysis of the speeches of J. Smets in the fall of 1918 shows that he already had a theory of the structure of the world. And although his book "Holism and Evolution" appeared only in 1926, the main ideas were thought out and even applied by him in preparing a plan for a new world order after the war. According to Smets, the world is governed by the process of creative evolution, the creation of new wholes. The highest concrete organic integrity is the human personality. The highest form of organization of society is the holistic world. This world consists of systems of wholes. The first holistic integrity for Smets in the field of politics and power - South Africa, which was part of the following integrity - British Commonwealth nations. Finally, the largest holistic entity is the League of Nations, a world unification of states to uphold the values ​​of Western European civilization and create a lasting system of the Versailles Peace.

Having outlined his views on the structure of the world, Smete set about preparing a brochure about the League of Nations. "Practical Proposals" were published on December 16, 1918. The estimate was trying to offer a practical work plan. The League of Nations was, in his opinion, to replace "the destroyed European empires and the old European order." Smete believed that it was not enough to create an organization whose activities would be aimed at resolving the already existing international conflicts; he proposed developing such a management tool that would fight the sources and causes of conflicts. Smets's book contained 21 points of proposals to the charter of the future international organization.

In addition to concluding a peace treaty or even a military security system, J. Smete proposed the establishment of a new world order through the political and social transformation of society. The League of Smetsa was supposed to be a permanent conference of the governments of its member states in order to ensure joint international activities in certain established areas, without encroaching on the independence of these states. The League was supposed to include a general conference, council and courts for conciliation and arbitration. A general conference, where each member state will have the same number of votes, will be convened periodically to discuss the issues presented by the council. These will be issues related to international law or the settlement of conflicts, general proposals for limiting armaments and ensuring peace on Earth.

The Council will be the executive committee of the League and will be composed of plenipotentiary representatives of the great powers, as well as of alternately appointed representatives of other powers and small states, with a certain majority of the great powers. A minority of more than a third of the total vote may veto any action or resolution of the council.4

The estimate determined the following functions of the League Council:

a) exercise the function of an executive body or exercise control in accordance with mandates or with international agreements or conventions;

b) management and control over any property of international importance;

c) development and submission for approval by governments general principles international law, agreements on the limitation of armaments and the preservation of peace on earth.

Much attention was paid to the Estimate of the issue of violation by the member states of the League's decisions. He believed that if one of the members of the League violates the agreement, he "thereby enters into war with all the members of the League, who subject him to economic and financial boycott." The final version of his project was reflected in the Charter of the League of Nations.

Smets's vigorous activity in the imperial cabinet was noticed, and he was invited to participate in the preparation of the peace conference. Smeet discussed many delicate issues and carried out secret missions. He proposed holding an economic conference with the aim of reviving central Europe. The allies did not accept his recommendations. Smets' other recommendations were not heard either: on the preservation of the army in Germany to maintain order, on the creation of a commission in the League of Nations to determine the damage from the war and the amount of reparations.

Smete addressed a memorandum to Lloyd George and W. Wilson, offering to help Europe, especially Germany, instead of dismembering it. There was no answer. Nevertheless, the general put his signature on the Versailles Peace Treaty. He explained this by political considerations: it was impossible to give the press a reason to talk about his disagreements with other political figures.

The final version of the Charter of the League was developed on the basis of the Anglo-American draft and agreed between the three main victorious powers: the USA, England and France. It was imposed on the rest of the participants in the Paris Conference without discussion.

The League of Nations found itself at the center of creating a new world order. But it turned out to be not the most effective means of combating aggression in Europe. The conditions for making decisions on collective actions are formulated in the Charter extremely vaguely, moreover, their implementation required the unanimity of states.

The League of Nations took shape as a permanent organization with a secretariat and headquarters in Geneva. Its governing body was the annual Assembly, with the participation of all member states. Executive power was delegated to a Council made up of representatives of the victorious Allied Powers as well as four other elected states.

The headquarters of the League of Nations in Geneva was home to a nascent international civil service system with responsibilities for economic, social and humanitarian affairs. The League involved in its work Germany and the USSR, which were not initially members of the organization, as well as the United States, which refused to officially participate. The number of states and so-called autonomous colonies that entered the League of Nations for its first General Assembly reached 40. The member countries of the League occupied about 63% of the world's territory, about 70% of the world's population lived in them.

The League of Nations Secretariat consisted of several departments. The first developed documents on the protection of the rights of religious and national minorities in Eastern Europe and in Turkey. The League of Nations, acting as the guarantor of such treaties, has developed a special procedure for their implementation. In the 20s. this system worked quite successfully, but subsequently disintegrated.

The League's economic and financial organization provided extensive economic information. The Transport and Trade Section has developed a Convention on the Rules for the Operation of International Ports and Railways. The Opium Selling Board was a pioneer in the fight against drugs. Other committees were concerned with the protection of the rights of children and women. The most successful was the activities of the health organization, which oversaw the state of health in the world, collected medical information, and coordinated international campaigns to combat epidemics.

Arose on the initiative of the victorious states, the League of Nations was supposed to legally consolidate the fruits of their victory and preserve the status quo in a divided world. However, the Charter not only certainly did not prohibit war, but also retained the possibility of different interpretations of it in Articles 10-13, 15. The concept of aggression was not reflected in the Charter either. He legalized recourse to war, regardless of its nature and goals, providing only for the observance of a certain procedure and a short-term (3 months) postponement of hostilities (Article 12). It is characteristic that in Western literature there are attempts to interpret the essence of the League, which would serve as a justification for the indicated gap in its Charter. "The League, it was believed, was conceived as an investigative body, which was supposed to invade dangerous disputes and establish the guilt of one side or another," writes the English researcher F. Northhead. The prerogative of the relevant statement, in his opinion, belonged to the Council, the International Court of Justice or another body. As for the further, he believed that public opinion should have compelled the guilty party to correct the situation.

This interpretation of the Statutes of the League was naive to say the least. Moreover, life has shown that it was erroneous, the aggressor states openly ignored the Charter. During the existence of the League of Nations, wars were actively prepared and then unleashed: Japan invaded Manchuria and China, Italy occupied Abyssinia and Albania, Germany - Austria, Czechoslovakia and part of Lithuania. Germany and Italy intervened in Spain.

The impotence of the League of Nations stemmed from the fact that its Charter required the unanimity of all its members for the acceptance of all political decisions(Article 5) adopted by its Council and Assembly, which depersonalized the role and responsibility of various states in maintaining international peace and preventing aggression.

In a number of cases, even those few provisions of the Charter that provided any opportunities for the League of Nations to actively intervene in life were not only not used for their intended purpose, but were so altered that they turned into their opposite. This was the case with the question of sanctions and disarmament.

Article 16 of the Charter provided for military and economic sanctions against the aggressor. The implementation of military sanctions was envisaged by the provision by individual states of a certain contingent of armed forces at the disposal of the League. It is not hard to imagine that military sanctions would be an effective means of maintaining peace. However, the issue of military sanctions was not even on the agenda of her Council. Economic sanctions were used only once - in 1935 - against Italy, but in such an insufficient form that they could not cool the ardor of Mussolini. Then, in May 1938, the Council of the League of Nations authorized the members of the League to recognize Italian sovereignty over Abyssinia. And on the eve of World War II, the majority of the League's members gave such an interpretation of Article 16 of its Charter that the implementation of the sanctions recommended by the Council of the League of Nations was made dependent on the decision of each interested state. In this regard, some members of the League of Nations have warned in advance that they consider it unnecessary for themselves to participate in the sanctions. Thus, instead of decisive action, the League of Nations took the path of non-intervention.

The League of Nations, born of the Versailles Peace, shared its failure. This inconsistency as an "instrument of peace" was especially manifested in its inability to seriously raise the problem of disarmament. The Charter of the League of Nations spoke of the need for disarmament (Article 8). In fact, this resulted in fruitless discussions. At the very first plenary meeting of the League on January 16, 1920. Lord Curzon announced the impossibility of reducing armaments. In the summer of 1922, Great Britain submitted to the League a half-hearted British project for a partial reduction of armaments, but it was not considered. According to some reports, the military spending of France, England, Italy, the United States and Japan in 1923-24. in comparison with 1913 have doubled. The limitation of national armaments was conditioned by the vague concept of "national security", " geographic location and special conditions of each state. "The prepared commission of the League of Nations on disarmament was created only in December 1925.

However, propaganda portrayed the League of Nations as the most reliable "instrument of peace." Indeed, its Charter included a number of articles related to guarantees of international security (Articles 10-13, 15-16). But they were so vaguely worded that the League over the years has been busy interpreting or supplementing the provisions of the Charter.

From the outset, three different opinions were circulated about the League of Nations and the obligations imposed by its Charter. The point of view that W. Churchill adhered to was the point of view of both the French and the new states, which received everything they wanted under the peace treaty, or even more. Supporters of this opinion believed that the main purpose of the League was to maintain the new European status quo; the possibility of using the League more broadly was of purely academic interest - as a tribune for the preaching of the principles of justice. But it was precisely this possibility of using the League of Nations in a broader sense, its universality, that attracted idealists all over the world. They believed that the principle of "open doors" for joining the League created new moral norms for the organization of the world, based on the possibility of forcefully imposing a federal organization on the world, and only cowardice and betrayal of the League members could prevent the successful establishment of a lasting peace with its natural consequence - disarmament during all over the world.

Still others looked more realistically at the League of Nations: in it they saw important remedy for the expansion of mutual understanding and cooperation between nations, a ready-to-operate apparatus of reconciliation, accessible to all who seek reconciliation; the center of ever expanding charitable international activities; a forum of world public opinion, whose authority would grow with each new success, and whose entire activity would be based on moral influence, and not on coercion. Those who held this point of view knew that the Charter of the League of Nations contained certain clauses, such as Articles 10 and 16, which provided for coercion. But they doubted that any great power could ever be sanctioned, especially after the United States chose to ignore the League of Nations.

The incompatibility of these points of view affected the activities of the League of Nations from the very beginning of its existence. The occupation of Corfu by Mussolini, the capture of Vilna by Poland and the liquidation of Western Ukraine, the annexation of Memel by Lithuania were acts of aggression and violation of peace treaties, which called for the urgent use of force. But such actions did not follow. Those who believed in the League as an instrument of peace-making by force believed that its disadvantage was the lack of an operative and effective coercive apparatus. They strove for the League to get rid of this shortcoming, which was reflected first in the Mutual Assistance Treaty, and then, when the British government rejected it, in the Geneva Protocol, which provided for a general strengthening of sanctions and the actual transfer of armed forces to the General Staff of the League of Nations. ... It is difficult to say how much this would have contributed to the greater efficiency and clarity of the decisions of the League of Nations, but England did not accept this protocol.

The British government proposed a positive policy of more specific, more direct and individual commitments, embodied in the Locarno system of agreements.

There were two distinct stages in the activities of the League of Nations. At the first (1920-1934) it was an international organization of broad competence, the main point which was a struggle and compromises within the organization and a united struggle against the USSR. The end of the first stage, determined by the crisis of the Versailles-Washington system, found expression in a deep crisis of the organization in 1931-1933, accompanied by the withdrawal of Japan and Germany from the League of Nations and the failure of the disarmament conference. At the end of the 30s. it was already widely believed that the League of Nations had exhausted itself.

The second stage (1934-1939) is associated with the entry into the League of Nations of the USSR, which made it a common international organization. The main content of this stage was the struggle in two directions: the policy of the USSR, aimed at using the international organization to combat the threat of war and to implement the policy of peaceful coexistence, and the policy of the Western powers, which sought to use the international organization to pacify aggressive states and to carry out anti-Soviet actions.

In the second period, the most significant event in the history of the League of Nations - the Locarno Conference. After Locarno, the League of Nations was ruled by the newly created triumvirate (N. Chamberlain, A. Briand, G. Stresemann), which received the name "Locarno camarilla". In fact, the Council of the League of Nations for the next several years did not deal with serious problems of international relations. During this period, Briand, Chamberlain and Stresemann tried to reach a compromise on the fundamental problems of foreign policy.

The activities of the League in connection with the struggle for European security are of particular interest. In the interwar years, the relationship between the problems of peace and security was constantly changing, the originality of the moment was that the first decade was post-war, and the second - the pre-war period. Moreover, each state had its own approaches to the problem of security. Some saw it as an international policy of peaceful change, others as neutrality, others as a policy of appeasement, and still others as collective security.

Most of the diplomatic activity in the 20s. was aimed at agreeing on the possibility of revising peace treaties with ensuring security. Collective security in the broadest sense implied a system of defensive alliances - joint actions of several powers in response to a military threat from one of them. However, in the special new sense in which this term was used in the Charter (Articles 10-17), collective security meant the obligation of joint action by all members of the League of Nations against any state that started hostilities and did not make a preliminary attempt at a peaceful settlement. At the same time, the Charter left some questions unanswered: under what conditions and how can collective force be used; how cruel it is to use it.

The League of Nations instructed special commissions to submit proposals on the organization of arbitration, on security and disarmament problems. On October 2, 1924, the Assembly adopted a draft protocol on the peaceful settlement of international conflicts and recommended that all members of the league consider it.

About the essence of this document, E. Herriot, the initiator of the project, said: “Given the failure of the pacts of limited security, I set as my goal the creation of a general security pact. states belonging to the League of Nations ".

This project went down in history under the name of the Geneva Protocol of 1924. It offered the members of the League of Nations a system of arbitration, security and reduction of structures. The protocol was signed by 19 countries, but of all the permanent members of the Council, only France signed it. The British government believed that the obligations imposed by the protocol could involve England in the war for the sake of "other people's interests." It preferred regional treaties in the spirit of the Charter of the League of Nations, but without guarantees from the latter. This document clearly linked collective sanctions against the aggressor and general disarmament with the procedure for the legal and arbitration of conflicts. Although the concept of collective security was reflected in the Charter of the League of Nations, it did not work due to the ambiguity of a number of formulations and was not perceived by many as serious.

At the end of 1925, the League of Nations seemed to have decided to tackle the problem of disarmament. In December, the Preparatory Commission for the Conference on Disarmament was established, which was charged with preparing for the conference on arms reduction and limitation. Germany, the USA and the USSR were invited to the Preparatory Commission along with the members of the League. The Arbitration and Security Committee was created, which distracted the commission from discussing the disarmament problem. By the end of 1927, the League had adopted 111 resolutions on the issue of disarmament, but did not take a single real step towards its implementation. In dealing with issues of peace and security, the League did not go beyond the framework of general considerations and resolutions, which were only advisory in nature.

Proceeding from the fact that Germany was looking for opportunities to remove international legal obstacles to remilitarization, which carried a military threat to Europe and, first of all, France, E. Herriot developed and proposed a "plan for organizing peace" to the Geneva Conference on Disarmament, opened in February 1932. He proceeded from the formal recognition of German "equality", proposing a "gradual equalization of the military statuses" of the states that would take part in the agreement. The agreement boiled down to the creation, under the auspices of the League of Nations, of an organization of European states linked by mutual assistance pacts. To fight against aggression, this organization had to dispose of armed forces, the combat equipment of which would be superior to the national armies.

Herriot's "plan" was put forward in the days when Hitlerite fascism was striving for power in Germany. In this situation, among the leadership of the Third Republic, the fear of France's international isolation in the face of Germany came to the fore. This fear played an important role in the agreement of the Herriot cabinet to hold negotiations in Geneva between the powers participating in the Locarno Treaty with the participation of the United States. During the negotiations, the French were able to achieve only the adoption of the "declaration of five states", which boiled down to recognizing Germany's "equality" in armaments "within the framework of a system that ensures the security of all peoples, subject to international control." The signing of this declaration was a political miscalculation of the Herriot cabinet.

In the context of aggravated contradictions between the leading European powers, the French government, hoping to strengthen its positions in Europe, proposed that the United States conclude an agreement on "eternal" friendship and renunciation of war as a means of national policy. But the US leaders were not interested in strengthening French influence in Europe and instead of a bilateral treaty put forward a draft multilateral "Pact of Renunciation of War." On August 27, 1928, the Briand-Kellogg Pact was signed in Paris. The text of the pact provided for the rejection of war as a national policy, but only between the parties to the pact. The original participants in the pact included: the USA, France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan, the participants of the Locarno agreements and the British dominions. Article 1 of the pact stated that the parties to the pact "renounce in their mutual relations the war as an instrument of national policy." Article 2 said that the settlement or resolution of all disagreements or conflicts, regardless of the nature of their origin, which may arise between the parties to the pact, should be carried out only by peaceful means. Article 3 declared that the pact was open to all other states. Although the pact did not have articles relating to measures for its implementation, and the signatory countries reserved the right of armed protection, this treaty extended the principle of renunciation of hostilities, enshrined in the Charter, and to countries that are not members of the League of Nations. 9 February in Moscow was signed a protocol on the immediate introduction of the Paris Treaty on the renunciation of war as a national policy. 24 July, the Briand-Kellogg Pact entered into force.

Despite some positive value Of the Paris Pact, he did not stop either the arms race, or the struggle for domination or military dominance in Europe, so that the old problems remained relevant. The Briand-Kellogg Pact served as the basis for the Soviet Union's proposed convention for defining aggression.

The Paris Pact and the Charter of the League of Nations are often cited together, defining aggression as a crime under international law. Despite the fact that the Charter of the League of Nations, the Paris Pact and the Convention for the Definition of Aggression were later violated by their signatory countries, the idea was appreciated as a new approach to peace and international law. For a short time, the universality of this principle overshadowed the special interests of the states that proclaimed it. However, clarity came after a series of events that challenged the League of Nations' ability to act collectively. Japan committed aggression in Manchuria, Italy - in Ethiopia, Germany occupied the Rhineland. Only in the case of the Italian-Ethiopian conflict was an attempt made to use collective sanctions, but this was also thwarted by the policy of pacification of Italy by France and Great Britain, as well as by the neutrality of the United States.

The coming to power of fascism in Germany created a new situation in Europe. A new formulation of the problem has arisen European security, which stemmed from the threat hanging over Europe from fascist Germany... The achievements of European civilization were threatened.

The League of Nations, as the main guiding and defining pivot of foreign policy, had to solve all these problems. The solution required a revision of the stereotypes of political thought, abandonment of attempts to isolate the Soviet Union and a willingness to create a system of European security, which in this situation acquired the significance of an important common European phenomenon.

The new situation in Europe that arose after Hitler came to power did not make any fundamental changes in England's policy towards the USSR. As Germany's aggressiveness grew, the intensity of the "appeasement of the aggressor" policy increased. The political leaders of Europe cherished the idea that they would be able to direct the spearhead of German aggression to the east, to push Germany against the USSR. This calculation served as the mainspring of the "appeasement" policy. The temptation to weaken the USSR with the hands of Germany, and restrain Germany with the help of the USSR in those years clearly made itself felt in the minds and actions of French politicians.

England was the main driving force behind the "appeasement" policy. She was interested in a disintegrated Europe, where she could play on the mutual contradictions of the European powers. The line of British politicians did not change even when Germany got down to business. British ruling circles were ready to sacrifice both Austria and Czechoslovakia in order to achieve their goals. British political leaders did not want to cooperate with a socialist country, did not seek to create a common European security system, believing that in this case England would lose a bridgehead for maneuvering and for playing at "European equilibrium".

On April 18, 1946, the League of Nations formally ended its existence, but in fact it ceased all activity in 1939 with the outbreak of the Second World War.

As we can see, the first post-war decade was almost completely spent on creating a new international order and tools that could support it in relations between states. For all its shortcomings, the current world order is focused on reducing the risk of repetition. big war, to a certain extent, affirmed positive moral guidelines and created some organizational foundations for limiting conflicts through the use of multilateral negotiation mechanisms both within the League of Nations and outside of it. The new order remained fragile, and the mechanisms of its regulation were insufficiently effective. International institutions did not possess any authority, experience, or powers that would correspond to the acuteness of the problems of the international situation, which sharply worsened in the early 30s. largely influenced by the global economic crisis. British Undersecretary of War Duff Cooper described the atmosphere in the League of Nations as follows: “Countless committees, endless speeches, committees that do nothing and never really hope to achieve anything. The gossip spread by cosmopolitan politicians, the endless boring formal dinners and receptions gave the impression of confusion and despondency. "

The League of Nations was not a universal European organization, it was a narrow grouping of 20 European countries with the participation of several non-European ones, and many European states were excluded from its membership. In addition, the activities of the League were directed against some of them, in particular the Soviet Union, due to ideological differences. The imperfections of the Charter led to the fact that war and aggression were not unconditionally prohibited. The most important failure of the League of Nations was the admission of the outbreak of war by fascist Germany.

Thus, we can say that from the point of view of the development of international law, the creation of such an organization as the League of Nations meant a step forward. For the first time in history, an obligation, albeit limited, was recorded not to resort to war, a distinction was drawn between the victim of aggression and the attacker, and sanctions against the aggressor were envisaged. However, the principles declared in the Charter of the League have never been used in international practice. There were loopholes in the Charter for justifying aggression; measures to combat the threat of war were not clearly formulated. The weakness of the Charter was that in the analysis of conflicts between countries in the Council of the League of Nations, in the absence of unanimity, all its members retained their freedom of action. But at the same time, the League's Charter did not even mention in a declarative form the principle of the sovereign equality of states. The new international organization legitimized the dictatorship of the great powers.

Lessons from the 30s were not in vain. They were used during the Second World War in the formation and activity of the anti-Hitler coalition, in the Resistance movement. It is necessary to take into account the lessons of that time in our days.



"... a collegium of independent judges, elected, regardless of their citizenship, from among persons of high moral character ..."

Statute of the International Court of Justice, 1945

International Court(MC) is the main judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). It was established, signed on June 26, 1945 in San Francisco, in order to achieve one of the main goals of the UN: “to carry out by peaceful means, in accordance with the principles of justice and international law, the settlement or resolution of international disputes or situations that may lead to the violation of peace ".

The Court operates in accordance with, which is part of the Statute, and its Rules of Procedure. It began operations in 1946, replacing the Permanent Court of International Justice (PIPJ), which was established in 1920 under the auspices of the League of Nations.

The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands. Of the six main organs of the United Nations, the Court is the only organ located outside New York. The other five main organs of the United Nations are the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council and the Secretariat.

The Court has a dual function: to resolve, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States and to issue advisory opinions on legal matters, duly requested by the authorized bodies and specialized agencies of the United Nations.

The court consists of 15 judges and is served by the Secretariat, its administrative body. Its official languages ​​are English and French.

When was the idea of ​​settling international disputes on the basis of law born?

The establishment of the International Court of Justice was the culmination of a long process in the course of which methods for the peaceful settlement of international disputes were gradually developed.

Beyond negotiation, mediation and conciliation, the idea of ​​going to an impartial body to resolve a dispute on the basis of law is rooted in antiquity. It is known as arbitration.

Arbitration was known in ancient india and Greece, early Islamic civilization and medieval Europe.

Admittedly, modern history Arbitration dates back to the Jay Treaty between the United States of America and Great Britain in 1794. This Treaty of Friendship, Trade and Shipping provided for the creation of mixed commissions, composed of an equal number of American citizens and British subjects, to resolve several outstanding issues. Thanks to the work of these mixed commissions, the institution of arbitration developed in the nineteenth century.

The Alabama arbitration in 1872 marks another crucial stage. The United States and the United Kingdom have submitted to arbitration the United States' claims related to Britain's alleged breaches of neutrality during the American Civil War. The arbitral tribunal, composed of members nominated by the parties and three other countries, ruled that the UK should pay compensation. The UK's exemplary implementation of the award has demonstrated the effectiveness of arbitration in resolving a major dispute.

Has the success of arbitration stimulated the creation of new institutions?

Yes. This success has prompted States to consider a permanent international tribunal responsible for the amicable settlement of disputes, in order to eliminate the need for a dedicated tribunal to resolve each individual dispute that can be resolved through arbitration.

This proposal began to take shape at the Hague Peace Conferences convened in 1899 and 1907 at the initiative of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. The 26 states represented at the first conference signed the Convention on the Peaceful Resolution of International Conflicts and the Establishment of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), the first multilateral institution of its kind.

The PPTS, which began operating in 1902, still exists. It is independent of all other international organizations, and as of 2000, 89 states are parties to the Convention. Although it has an International Bureau based in The Hague and fulfills functions similar to those of a judicial office, it is not really a permanent court or arbitration body. The Office maintains a list of lawyers (up to four persons from one participating State, who together constitute the so-called “national group” of that state) from which the relevant parties to the dispute can select the members of the arbitral tribunal.

How did the work of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) develop?

The Permanent Court of Arbitration, adjacent to the Court at the Peace Palace in The Hague, no longer deals exclusively with disputes between states. Over the years, the volume of services provided by it has increased significantly.

It currently offers a wide range of dispute resolution procedures (fact-finding, conciliation and various types of arbitration) to states and non-state parties (eg international organizations, private entities or individuals). As a result, she is increasingly involved in the resolution of commercial and financial disputes. The PCA International Bureau also acts as a secretariat during various arbitral proceedings (for example, the Eritrea-Yemen dispute arbitration over rights to islands in the Red Sea, which was concluded in 1999) and provides technical or administrative assistance to arbitration tribunals established outside of the PCA (for example, the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, established by the two countries to consider the claims of American citizens against Iran and Iranian citizens against the United States following the crisis that resulted from the hostage-taking of 52 American citizens at the United States Embassy in Tehran in 1979).

Over the 100-year period of its existence, the PCA has considered about 30 cases.

PCA procedures are based solely on the consent of the parties who reach agreement on various practical points and procedures (for example, the wording of the questions to be submitted to arbitration and the appointment of arbitrators) prior to the commencement of the arbitration.

This - main reason, according to which, at the second Hague Peace Conference in 1907, several states called for the establishment of a permanent international tribunal that would resolve disputes using judicial procedures characterized more by an element of coercion than of arbitration.

However, differences of opinion regarding the procedure for the selection of judges forced the delegations to the 1907 Conference to confine themselves to amending the 1899 Convention and improving the rules governing arbitration.

Is the ICJ the first international judicial body to use judicial dispute resolution methods?

No. The first international judicial body in the history of the peaceful settlement of disputes was the Permanent Court of International Justice (PIPJ), established in 1920 under the auspices of the League of Nations, which was succeeded by the ICJ in 1945.

With the establishment of the League of Nations after the First World War, an acceptable functional mechanism for the election of judges of the Court emerged, which until then had created insurmountable obstacles.

What's new in the Permanent Court of International Justice (PJJJ)?

As in the case of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice depends on the willingness of the parties to refer disputes to it, however, a new feature was that the state could declare in advance that it accepts the compulsory jurisdiction of the Chamber in respect of any dispute that may arise in future with another state that made the same statement. Thus, a state could apply to the Chamber unilaterally and bring another state to trial without the need for prior agreement between the parties to refer the case to the Chamber.

The PMPU, established by the League of Nations, dealt with many of the controversies surrounding the First World War.

PPMP also differed in other features. It consisted of permanent judges who represented the major legal systems of the world and were elected by the Council and Assembly of the League. Its activities were governed by its Statute and Rules of Procedure, which were already in force and binding on the parties who applied to it; it had the power to give advisory opinions on any legal matter referred to it by the Council or the Assembly of the League of Nations, and, finally, its meetings were largely public.

Although the Peace Palace Chamber was created and funded by the League of Nations, it was nevertheless not part of the League and its Statute was not part of the League's Statute. A member state of the League of Nations was not automatically a party to the PPMP Statute. At the same time, many states have recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Chamber. Several hundred treaties have been signed, providing for the jurisdiction of the PCMP in disputes arising from these treaties.

The PMPP has been extremely successful. Between 1922 and 1940, it rendered decisions on 29 disputes between states and 27 advisory opinions, of which almost all were executed. The Chamber has also made an important contribution to the development of international law.

The activities of the Chamber were interrupted by the Second World War, and in 1946 it was dissolved together with the League of Nations.

Why was a new court (IC) established within the United Nations?

The ICJ should also be distinguished from the European Court of Justice (based in Luxembourg), which deals exclusively with cases related to The European Union and from the European Court of Human Rights (Strasbourg, France) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (San José, Costa Rica), which examine allegations of violations of the human rights conventions under which they were established. These three courts can hear cases brought before them by private individuals (against states and other defendants), which the International Court of Justice cannot accept.

The International Court of Justice also differs from specialized international tribunals such as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLA).

The ICJ is also not a supreme court in which decisions of national courts can be appealed; he is not the highest authority for individuals and is not a court of appeal considering the decision of any international tribunal. However, he has the power to rule on the legality of arbitral awards in cases over which he has jurisdiction.

What is the relationship between the Court and other United Nations organs charged with the maintenance of peace?

The Charter of the United Nations assigns the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security to. The Security Council may investigate any dispute and recommend measures for its settlement, bearing in mind that legal disputes should, as a rule, be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice.

For its part, it can discuss issues related to the maintenance of international peace and security, and make recommendations.

In the exercise of their functions, both the Security Council and the General Assembly may request the Court for an advisory opinion on any legal matter.

In addition, the Court may adjudicate on disputes related to the maintenance of international peace and security and brought before it, even if such disputes are also considered by the Security Council or The General Assembly... The court is limited legal aspects these disputes. Thus, he makes a special contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security.

Peace Palace - seat of the MC

Built from 1907 to 1913 for the Permanent Court of Arbitration with funds donated by the American industrialist and philanthropist Andrew Carnegie, the Peace Palace is located in a 7-hectare park in the center of The Hague.

Constructed of granite, sandstone and red brick, the building, designed by the French architect Luis Cordonier, combines the Romanesque and Byzantine styles with a sloping gray-tiled roof. On the façade, in front of which there are lawns, there are several sculptures testifying to the purpose of the Palace. On the left there is a clock tower with chimes 80 meters high. Inside, wooden sculptures, stained glass windows, mosaics, tapestries and art donated by states that have participated in the two Hague Peace Conferences reflect the diversity of the world's cultures.

Since 1946, the Court, like the PMP (its predecessor), has occupied the premises allocated to it by the Netherlands Carnegie Endowment, which owns and administers the Palace. The new wing, built in 1978 behind the palace, houses the offices of the judges and the deliberation room of the Court. It was expanded in 1997, in particular to accommodate an increased number of ad hoc judges. In the same year, the attic of the palace was refurbished, where new office space for officials of the Registry of the Court.

The palace, which also houses one of the world's largest libraries for public international law (the Peace Palace library, which is public unlike the Court's library) and hosts the summer courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, can be visited on weekdays. Information can be obtained from the Carnegie Endowment
(tel .: + 31 70 302 4137).

The Museum of the History and Activities of the Court and of other organizations operating at the Peace Palace was opened in May 1999 by Mr and Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, respectively, by the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the President of the Court at the time. It is located in the south wing of the building.