Skip to main content
main-content

Über dieses Buch

This book is the second volume in a trilogy that traces the development of the academic subject of International Relations, or what was often referred to in the interwar years as International Studies. In this volume, the author begins with the 1932 Mission to China and conference in Milan, examines the International Studies Conference, reviews the Hoover Plan, the MacDonald Plan, the fate of the World Disarmament Conference, and the League of Nations’ role in the discipline. This one of a kind project takes on the task of reviewing the development of IR, aptly published in celebration of the discipline’s centenary. ​

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Frontmatter

Chapter 1. 1932: Material and Moral Disarmament, a Mission to China and a Conference in Milan

Abstract
The shadow of Manchuria hung over the opening of the Disarmament Conference in February 1932, reinforcing the French thesis that disarmament must be preceded by security. On the initiative of the Polish government and with the support of the International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation (ICIC) of the League of Nations (LON) and non-government organisations, a campaign in favour of moral disarmament was launched. The conference thus established a committee on moral disarmament, charging it with the drafting of a text of an agreement. A provisional text was submitted to the ICIC on 21 July, eleven days after the submission to it of the report of the LON’s Mission of Educational Experts to China. The first actual study conference of the Conference of Institutions for the Scientific Study of International Relations, a body which had emerged from a meeting of savants in Berlin in March 1928 held in association with the ICIC and which was soon to be renamed the International Studies Conference (ISC), took place in Milan in May 1932. Entitled The State and Economic Life, the conference was noted for the attempt by its Italian hosts to have it give its adhesion to the Fascist corporative system.
Jo-Anne Pemberton

Chapter 2. The International Studies Conference

Abstract
From 29 May to 2 June 1933, the ISC met in London, just two weeks before the World Economic Conference was scheduled to open there. Discussion of the Open Door and Imperial Preference saw Italian and German speakers raise the issues of emigration and access to markets and raw materials. An Italian speaker championed the Open Door, observing that it mitigated the disadvantages of an uneven distribution of colonies. The conference heard that due to the national revolution in Germany, the Deutsche Hochschule für Politik, the host of the ISC’s founding conference, had been transferred to the new ministry of propaganda. A French plan for the international organisation of force inspired the ISC’s choice of collective security as the topic for its 1933–1935 study cycle. Between 14 and 26 August, the IPR’s Fifth Biennial Conference was held at Banff under the heading of Economic Conflict and Control in the Pacific. In addition to economic matters, the conference discussed such concerns as the need to fill in the lacunae in the world’s peace machinery as it pertained to the Pacific given Japan’s pending withdrawal from the LON and the continuing absence of the United States and the USSR from it.
Jo-Anne Pemberton

Chapter 3. The Hoover Plan, Reparations and the French Constructive Plan

Abstract
On 22 June 1932, the Hoover administration put forward a bold proposal for disarmament which, however, lacked any plan for easing the insecurities of states. Due to end on 30 June, was the one-year moratorium on war debts and reparations proposed by President Hoover and accepted by all major creditor nations. In view of this and the questions raised in a report of a committee of experts on the German situation in respect to reparations, a conference was convened in Lausanne which sat from 16 June to 8 July. The Lausanne Agreement declared in its preamble that reparations were at an end. Alluding to war debts owed to the United States, Ramsay MacDonald stated after signing the accord that it must have a response elsewhere. Against the background of Germany’s withdrawal from the Disarmament Conference, the French government on 14 November, proposed a plan for the organisation of peace that it hoped might satisfy the German demand for equality through permitting certain revisions of the Treaty of Versailles and providing for weighty reductions in the size of European armies. On 11 December, the issuing of the Five-Power Declaration marked the return of Germany to the conference fold.
Jo-Anne Pemberton

Chapter 4. The MacDonald Plan

Abstract
The Disarmament Conference reconvened 2 February 1933, whereupon it proceeded to examine the French Constructive Plan and a British proposal for a convention based on a synthesis of all the proposals submitted of which there had been acceptance. It soon became clear that the conference had reached a deadlock in light of German rearmament plans and France’s concern for its security. Fearing that the conference would collapse and that an unregulated arms race would ensue, the British delegation produced a provisional draft convention which provided for more disarmament than under the French plan and to which they hoped Germany would bind itself in preference to being condemned by world opinion. For its critics, however, the so-called MacDonald Plan of 16 March, which proposed that its terms replace the disarmament provisions of the peace treaties, was a rearmament convention. That it provided only for consultation among the powers should there arise a violation or threatened violation of the Pact of Paris, was wholly unsatisfactory for many in France. In attacking the plan on 23 March, Churchill declared, ‘Thank God for the French army,’ and went on to warn that revision of the peace treaties at that time was ‘appallingly dangerous.’
Jo-Anne Pemberton

Chapter 5. The Fate of the Disarmament Conference

Abstract
The National Socialists’ domestic aggression and obstructionism at the Disarmament Conference caused the ‘liberal’ powers to harden their attitude to German demands for treaty revision and armaments rights. On 16 May 1933, Roosevelt urged the adoption of the British draft convention and a pact of non-aggression. In his ambiguously worded ‘Peace Speech’ of 17 May, Hitler declared that the ‘English plan’ might be a basis for a solution. On 22 May, Washington affirmed its willingness to confer should there be a threatened or actual breach of the Pact of Paris, calling attention nonetheless to America’s right of independent judgement. On 24 May, the conference’s Committee on Security Questions proposed a definition of aggression. The British draft was adopted on 7 June as the basis for a future convention and the conference was adjourned. London and Paris developed a two-phased plan, involving first the testing of a supervisory regime during which the powers would limit but not reduce armaments and second the application of the disarmament provisions of the convention on a basis of equality. On 14 October, Germany announced its withdrawal from the conference and from the LON, declaring that the former would not bring about general disarmament.
Jo-Anne Pemberton

Chapter 6. Collective Security, Air Police and Defining the Aggressor

Abstract
Germany’s withdrawal from Geneva refocused attention on the question of mutual guarantees. From 24 to 26 May 1934, the ISC’s preliminary conference on collective security met at the Sorbonne. Germany is not represented. Certain continental European participants insist that collective security should be approached from the angle of supporting remedies against aggression and not that of sovereignty. Certain Britons argue that any discussion of sanctions and international police must be preceded by a critical examination of collective security and an account of the political aspirations expressed by the terms sovereignty and independence. Italian representatives maintained that collective security is anti-historical and anti-human: it is a futile attempt to freeze the course of history and stifle the pursuit of essential interests and vital needs. The conference discussed the importance of defining aggression given the use of the potentially restrictive term war in the Covenant and Pact of Paris. In addition to a debate concerning the question of peace enforcement such as in the form of an air police, the discussion of collective security lead to a debate concerning treaty revision. Some championed revisionism as a means of war-prevention whereas others insisted that it is destructive of international law.
Jo-Anne Pemberton

Chapter 7. The League of Nations and Collective Security

Abstract
In June 1935, the ISC’s second conference on collective security heard the following from Italian, American and German delegates respectively: that the post-war settlement could not withstand the forces of history calling for change; that a strong reason why the United States wished to isolate itself from European affairs was because they did not want to help maintain a particular status quo; that there must be a discussion of the grievances of dissatisfied states before there could be a discussion of the problem of collective security. The ISC then decided that the topic of its next study-cycle would be peaceful change. On 3 October, Italy announced that its forces in Eritrea had been ordered to mobilise so as to take the necessary measures for ‘self-defence’ against Ethiopia. On 7 October, the LON Council found that a ‘state of war’ existed between Ethiopia and Italy and it had been resorted to by Italy. A patchwork of economic and financial sanctions followed. On 9 May 1936, four days after Italy’s occupation of Addis Ababa, Mussolini boasted of the creation of a Fascist empire. On 4 July, the LON Assembly announced the termination of sanctions: the LON was completely humiliated.
Jo-Anne Pemberton

Backmatter

Weitere Informationen

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise