How Historians Have Approached the Success and Failures of Internationalist Movements

The interwar period, which represents the time between the end of First World War and the beginning of the Second World War, was a short but significant era in the worlds history. The period presented a radical shift in the social, economic, and political sectors in various countries across the globe. However, one common factor that it gave to these nations was the urge for peaceful coexistence since peace stands out to be the prerequisite recipe for growth and development of any country. From the historical perspective, attainment of tranquility has been difficult for humanity. Historians have perceived socio-political and economic undertones that shape the world political economy from different points of view, each depending not only on their school of thought but also the realities of their time. From century to the other, and historian to historian, new concepts of the nature of international relations have been redefined as expressed in this essay.

The nineteenth-century historians such as Bentham construed the world as being guided by some sense of universal divinity. They believed that within the international spheres, people would strive to attain that which would contribute to the overall good of the most significant number. According to Benthams concept of utilitarianism, people and actors within the international scene would infallibly conform to the natural law by inclining towards activities and choices that promote the good general leading to happiness and joy for the majority. In essence, they held a utopic perception of the world actors as being guided by reason. In reality, they advanced the idea that influential individuals or social organizations that influenced the international sphere were rational enough to adhere to the moral dictates and avoid the things that would jeopardize peace and promote anarchy. In fact, the medieval historians believed that the world polity was a universal system which embraced and practiced divine authority just like the church did. In fact, according to people like Sir Norman Angell, the world was supposed to be devoid of any aggression or war. The historians who belonged to this school of thought perceived conflict as non-beneficial to the nations and individuals who perpetrated them. They advanced the idea that war only served to expose some form of misunderstanding without any accruing benefits.

In the 19th century, historians and philosophers began to cast aspersions on the practicality of the Benthamite rationalism. Liberal Democrats began to conceive that even if it were true that some sense of morality guides the world politics, then such is twisted towards some form of vested interests. According to the liberal democrats, political players in any part of the world would only seek to ascribe various moral attributes to their activities if such actions assure them of vested interests. Without such a promise, aggression, coercion, and agitation become common trends. Through the postulations of these 19th-century historians, it is evident that liberal democracy could be better practiced at the national level. Attempts to apply to the regional or international scope would not only be practical but also a recipe for anarchy. For instance, the creation of the League of Nations was a deliberate attempt by the world community to practice liberal democracy at the global level, but individual states still struggled to pursue vested national interest thus turning the world to be in a state of a dynamic scramble.

The twentieth-century historians who embraced realpolitik gave a realist impression of the state of international community occasioned by the failure of the League of Nations to foster global peace. Conservative historians subscribe to the notion that the world can achieve a state of static stability may argue that the League of nations failed to be useful as initially intended. However, the historians who embrace the paradigm of realpolitik presented the world as a conglomeration of state actors who operate in an anarchic environment with each struggling to attain power. With the power, the actors perceive that it is possible to achieve more significant resources allocation, more considerable influence on international operations and respect from the rest of the countries. According to the realpolitik, the League of Nations could not survive in such an environment that is replete with jostling and struggles for political and economic strength.

In the 21st century, historians have shifted towards the concept of internationalism. Ideally, internationalism does not negate the principles of realpolitik but instead calls for workers of the world to unite to create some form of economic ties. With emerging trends such as globalization and economic integration that brings together different countries, advocates of internationalism intend to create an economically united world. However, even with the concerted calls for transnationalism and globalism, historians contend with the fact that individual countries have different regulations for human capital and individual economic policies that advance their interests in the world political economy.

According to Carr (2001), the League of Nations was born because of disillusionment and destruction that arise from World War I; it had the ambitious apt to create a peaceful global environment. The organization was concerned to make a comprehensive and liberal ways of pre-war within the international system. One of the main ideas of the league that was to be formed was to root out the four direful weaknesses of old European states and carry out disarmament within the nations. Before the formation of the body, one of the approaches to the international political system was the Congress whereby the European powers held an occasional summit to discuss urgent issues. However, the league started to fall when there was lack of commitment to observe the statutes. The failure and success of this body have been published in various forms with several historians giving different approaches mainly to explain the shortcomings.

Carr in his writings articulated some of the most striking reasons that perhaps led to the failure of League of Nations. He pointed out that upon searching the wealth of the numerous scholarships concerning the issues that led to the failure of this body, it was clearer that contrast could be observed between many academic opinions that were published in the interwar during the life of League of Nations. Consequently, this article seeks to address the importance of the issue concerning how Carr was capable of seeing the failure of the league as well as its compatibility with the power structure that was governing the interwar year. Early American academics scholarships reflected the political elite had had many opinions over the league while looking at the structure of the organization was closely monitored.

Potter supported the nation of Carr on the sustainability of international organizations in sustaining peace and stability in the world sate. In his writings of 1932, he conceived the League of Nations as subdued and relaying to the optimism; because this was a passage of time and increasing instability, which was occurring during this period. He articulated the problems as well as the need to shape and strengthen the league to aid becoming a member of United States. In his assertions, Potter suggested that the organization was less effective than it was mainly hoped. Instead, what was looming was the sharp difference, ineffective of the unions systems and uncertainties in the future times because the members had overstepped their mandates. He concluded by attracting attention to the valueless covenant as well as the immediate need for legislative strengthening of the body to be implemented if its future was to be guaranteed.

Contrary to the assertions of Carr (2001), the Harriman documentation of 1935 expresses the historians optimism about the future of the league and any other international organizations such as the United Nations. However, he articulated that administrative side of the league was imperfectly developed. In referencing factors of the establishment of the international law for the first time, Harriman noted every member state of the league was bound to respect the league. Respect to the rules of the League had replicated Roosevelts promise of the oneness and enfranchized ordinary tribunal. Alternatively, much analysis revealed that the inner working of the league developed varied perspective emerges. It was factual that Court did not have distinct jurisdiction over other members of the League. Nonetheless, the high powers refused to incorporate the ratified mandatory jurisdictions. This was one of the significant indicators of the trouble, which presented lack of core authority as well to the duty of enforcing the laws of the league of the nation. The conclusion of Harriman concerning the League as noted by Carr and asserted by Hinsley was that league would be a critical event in the history. His thought about the league was, however, the league would evolve naturally into an initial superstate by ironing all its problems according to goals utopian word united in accord with peace while too strong to fail.

Bibliographies

Carr, Edward Hallett. "The twenty years' crisis, 1919-1939: an introduction to the study of international relations." (1946).

Ceadel, Martin. 2007. Semi-detached idealists: the British peace movement and international relations, 1854-1945. Oxford [u.a.]: Oxford Univ. Press

Cox, Robert W., and Timothy J. Sinclair. 1999. Approaches to world order. Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Ellis, Charles Howard. 2003. The origin, structure & working of the League of Nations. Clark, N.J.: Lawbook Exchange.

Hinsley, F. H. 1963. Power and the pursuit of peace: theory and practice in the history of relations between states. Cambridge [England]: University Press

McCarthy, Helen. 2016. The British people and the League of Nations: democracy, citizenship and internationalism c.1918-45.

Sluga, Glenda, and Patricia Clavin, eds. Internationalisms: A Twentieth-century History. Cambridge University Press, 2016.

Palen, Marc-William. "The Guardians: The League of Nations and the Crisis of Empire, by Susan Pedersen." The English Historical Review (2017).