Covenant of the League of Nations

• 1. Origins And Early Drafts

  ›

  The London-based Bryce Group began making proposals for a possible League of Nations even before World War I ended. Their ideas were adopted by the British League of Nations Society, which had been founded in 1915. Another group formed in the United States included Hamilton Holt and William B. Howland at the Century Association in New York City. This American plan received strong support from the League to Enforce Peace, an organization led by former U.S. President William Howard Taft. In December 1916, Lord Robert Cecil suggested that an official committee be set up to draft a covenant for a future league. The British committee was finally appointed in February 1918 and became known as the Phillimore Committee. Walter Phillimore led this group alongside Eyre Crowe, William Tyrrell, and Cecil Hurst. U.S. President Woodrow Wilson was not impressed with the Phillimore Committee's report. He would eventually produce three draft covenants of his own with help from his friend Colonel House. Suggestions were also made by Jan Christiaan Smuts in December 1920.

• 2. Paris Conference Negotiations

  ›

  At the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, a commission was appointed to agree on a covenant. Members included Woodrow Wilson as chair, Colonel House representing the U.S., Robert Cecil and Jan Smuts for the British Empire, Léon Bourgeois and Ferdinand Larnaude from France, Prime Minister Vittorio Orlando and Vittorio Scialoja from Italy, Foreign Minister Makino Nobuaki and Chinda Sutemi from Japan, Paul Hymans from Belgium, Epitácio Pessoa from Brazil, Wellington Koo from China, Jayme Batalha Reis from Portugal, and Milenko Radomar Vesnitch from Serbia. Further representatives of Czechoslovakia, Greece, Poland and Romania were later added. The group considered a preliminary draft co-written by Hurst and President Wilson's adviser David Hunter Miller. During the first four months of 1919 the group met on ten separate occasions attempting to negotiate the exact terms of the foundational Covenant agreement. France wanted the League to form an international army to enforce its decisions but the British worried such an army would be dominated by the French. The Americans could not agree since only Congress could declare war. Japan requested that a clause upholding the principle of racial equality should be inserted parallel to the existing religious equality clause.

• 3. Structural Framework Design

  ›

  The new League would include a General Assembly representing all member states. It also included an Executive Council with membership limited to major powers. A permanent secretariat was established to handle administrative duties. Member states were expected to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity of other members. All states were required to submit complaints for arbitration or judicial inquiry before going to war. The Executive Council would create a Permanent Court of International Justice to make judgements on disputes. Articles 4, 6, 12, 13, and 15 were amended in 1924. The treaty entered into force on the 10th of January 1920. The League of Nations Covenant shares similar provisions and structures with the UN Charter. Walter Dorn later published a side-by-side comparison titled League of Nations Covenant and United Nations Charter: A Side-by-Side (Full Text) Comparison. This structural framework aimed to prevent future conflicts through collective security mechanisms.

• 4. Article Ten Controversy

  ›

  Article 10 of the Covenant obliged members to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. U.S. President Woodrow Wilson had secured his proposal to apply to become part of the League of Nations in the final draft of the Treaty of Versailles. The United States Senate failed to consent to the ratification of the Treaty. It had voted in favor of ratification but could not reach the necessary two-thirds majority. For many Republicans in the Senate Article 10 was the most objectionable provision. Their objections were based on the fact that by ratifying such a document the United States would be bound by an international contract to defend a League of Nations member if it was attacked. Henry Cabot Lodge from Massachusetts and Frank B. Brandegee from Connecticut led the fight in the U.S. Senate against ratification. They believed that it was best not to become involved in international conflicts. Under the United States Constitution the President may not ratify a treaty unless the Senate gives its advice and consent by a two-thirds vote. In a statement to the Senate Wilson described Article 10 as advisory in nature. He claimed Congress under the War Powers Clause was free to interpret or reject even a unanimous vote of the League Council invoking Article 10.

• 5. Sanctions Enforcement Failures

  ›

  Article 16 gave members the power to levy sanctions or use force against another member that committed a war of aggression. However this article was very weak in practice since the Covenant had been written under the assumption that League members would cooperate with each other. During the Great Depression the great powers were reluctant to further damage their own economies by sanctioning another great power. The policy used was largely appeasement. During the Japanese invasion of Manchuria there was no attempt by the great powers to invoke Article 16 despite calls to do so from small powers. The League of Nations Council did attempt to pass a resolution stating that the Empire of Japan must withdraw but it was vetoed by the single negative vote of the Empire of Japan. Afterward the League invoked Article 15 treating the invasion as a dispute. The Assembly voted 421 to recognize Manchuria as territory under Chinese sovereignty with the negative vote of the Empire of Japan not counting under Article 15 rules. Without Article 16 there was no way for the League to enforce this resolution and the Empire of Japan withdrew from the League a month later. During the invasion and occupation of Ethiopia by Italy under Mussolini Article 16 was invoked for the first and only time.

• 6. Mandate System Implementation

  ›

  Article 22 referred to the creation of Mandate territories which were given over to be administered by European powers. Though most Mandates were given to countries such as Britain and France which possessed considerable colonial empires the Covenant made the clear distinction that a Mandate territory was not a colony. The Covenant asserted that such territories were inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world. The tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources experience or geographical position could best undertake this responsibility as a sacred trust of civilization. Communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire were considered to have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations could be provisionally recognized. Regarding other peoples especially those of Central Africa the Mandatory powers were charged to guarantee freedom of conscience and religion subject only to maintenance of public order and morals. Territories such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands were assumed owing to sparseness of population small size remoteness or geographical contiguity to be best administered under laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory. This reference clearly related to South West Africa now Namibia being made a Mandate of South Africa rather than of Britain.