The League of Nations and Its Problems: Three LecturesOppenheim, L. (Lassa)
History
The League of Nations and Its Problems: Three Lectures
Oppenheim, L. (Lassa)
League of Nations
Now there may be said to be about fifty civilised States in existence.
Of these, as I have just pointed out, twenty-five are fighting against
the Central Powers, four have broken off relations with Germany, the
Central Powers themselves are four in number, with the consequence that
thirty-three of the fifty States are implicated in the war. Only the
seventeen remaining States are neutral, namely: Sweden, Norway, Denmark,
Holland, Luxemburg, Switzerland, Spain, Lichtenstein, and Monaco in
Europe; Mexico, Salvador, Colombia, Venezuela, Chile, Argentina, and
Paraguay in America; and Persia in Asia.
It may be taken for granted that all the neutral States, and all the
States fighting on the side of the Allies, and also the four States
which, although they are not fighting on the side of the Allies, have
broken off relations with Germany, are prepared to enter into a League
of Nations.
But what about the Central Powers, and Germany in especial? I shall
discuss in my next lecture the question whether the Central Powers are
to become members of the League. To-day it must suffice to say that,
when once utterly defeated, they will be only too glad to be received as
members. On the other hand, if they were excluded, the world would again
be divided into two rival camps, just as before the war the Triple
Alliance was faced by the Entente. No disarmament would be possible, and
with regard to every other matter progress would be equally impossible.
Therefore the Central Powers must become members of a League of Nations
for such a League to be of any great use, which postulates as a _sine
qua non_ that Germany must be utterly defeated in the present war. If
she were victorious, or if peace were concluded with an undefeated
Germany, the world would not be ripe for a League of Nations because
militarism would not have been exterminated.
XI. I have hitherto discussed the League of Nations only in a general
way, without mentioning that there is no unanimity concerning its aims
or concerning the details of its organisation. Many people think that it
would be possible to do away with war for ever, and they therefore
demand a World State, a Federal State comprising all the single States
of the world on the pattern of the United States of America. And for
this reason the demand is raised not only for an International Court and
for an International Council of Conciliation, but also for an
International Government, an International Parliament, and an
International Army and Navy,--a so-called International Police.
I believe that these demands go much too far and are impossible of
realisation. A Federal State comprising all the single States of the
whole civilised world is a Utopia, and an International Army and Navy
would be a danger to the peace of the world.
Why is a World State not possible, at any rate not in our time?
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account