Before the formation of the international organizations and regimes, the international system was characterized by wars, tensions and fears. The organizations were formed to bring sanity and restore peace in the world. The actors in the international system had experienced one of the most devastating events in human history.
As Held[1] could observe, the First World War brought about many problems in the international system that could not be handled by individual states. States had to cooperate in order to do away with problems associated with wars. Therefore, the League of Nations was erected to prevent the future occurrence of war. Unfortunately, the League was unable to prevent the occurrence of the Second World War due to its poor structure. This paper will compare the effectiveness of the two world organizations.
Firstly, the organizations differ in that the United Nations receive overwhelmingly support from the superpower. The League of Nation never received any support from the world powers. States were initially concerned about their interests. For instance, Britain and France supported the rearmament program in Germany since they feared the resurgence of Russia.
Unlike the League of Nations, the United Nations has the power to utilize force in solving conflicts. This is due to the realization that it reaches a time when the only language understood by man is violence. For instance, the United Nations Security Council slapped various economic and political sanctions to the Egyptian and Libyan regimes.
The UN Security Council resorted to the use of no fly zone policy to enforce compliance in the desert states. The League of Nations could not achieve its aims and objectives since it could not utilize force to restore peace and democracy. In Germany for instance, the League of Nations engaged Germany in extensive discussions to drop its rearmament program. The organization bent low by trying to appease Germany to comply with its policies.
The use of force was considered violation of state sovereignty and independence. The United Nations adjusted some policies of the defunct League of Nations mainly due to the changing nature of the international system. World leaders noted that war had to be avoided under all costs. The Second World War proved that each actor in the international system was not safe. The use of weapons of mass destruction showed that world security was very important.
Another difference is that actors in the international system are willing to support and act on the proposals of the United Nations. After the First World War, the major powers never cared about the interests of other states. The US employed non-interventionist that is, isolationist policy.
This meant that the US would never interfere with the affairs of any other actor in the international system. This was a big problem to the League of Nations since it could not receive funding from the well to do states such as the US. The United Nations enjoys the support of more than ninety states in the world. The powerful states are in control of the organization implying that funding is not a problem. In fact, the powerful states use the organization to further their interests.
However, the two organizations share many things including the organs, fundamental objectives and ideologies. Furthermore, the focus of the two organizations is the same. Schneider[2] notes that the major problem to the two organizations was the maintenance of world peace.
The international system exists according to the Hobbestain state of nature, which was a big problem to the two organizations. The organizations were put in place to serve as the Leviathan but they power and the authority to act unilaterally. In this case, the international system remains anarchic and brutal. The conditions experienced in the state of nature are not yet eliminated in the international system.
Bibliography
Held, David. Reframing Global Gorvernance:Apocalypse Soon or Reform. New Political Economy, 11.2, 2006, 158-176.
Schneider, Peter. The Wall Jumper. Chicago: University of Chicago press, 1998.
Footnotes
- David, Held. Reframing Global Governance: Apocalypse Soon or Reform. New Political Economy, 11.2, 2006, 158-176.
- Peter, Schneider. The Wall Jumper. Chicago: University of Chicago press, 1998. P. 46.