Lest we Forget: Our Failure to Outlaw State Aggressive War

Defining State-Initiated Conflict and the Framework for its Prosecution

State aggressive war refers to the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of another state. It is one of the most serious violations of international law and is aimed at expanding power, control, or influence through military means.

Aggressive war is a brutal act in which one state initiates an unprovoked attack on another, whether through military force or an invasion, intending to subjugate the victim.

Building upon the historical precedents set by the Nuremberg Trials and the evolving international response to state aggression, the development of a robust legal framework became imperative. This framework aimed to codify the principles established during these pivotal moments in history and ensure accountability for future acts of aggression.

The 1945 United Nations Charter’s Article 2(4) emphasises the prohibition of states using force to violate another state’s territorial integrity or political independence. In 2002, the Rome Statute was enacted, specifying the crime of aggression, and empowering the ICC to go after individuals involved in orchestrating, starting, or executing acts of aggression. The Nuremberg Trials were a defining moment, where the world acknowledged the atrocities of state-sponsored aggression as a crime against peace and held those responsible and accountable, setting a precedent for future generations.

The international efforts to criminalise and prevent aggressive war since 1918 have been crucial in shaping a more peaceful and just world.

The Nuremberg Trials were pivotal in creating a legal precedent for the accountability of individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against peace. These trials firmly established that aggressive war is not only morally condemnable but also a punishable offense under international law.

For the first time, the Nuremberg Trials prosecuted individuals for serious breaches of war laws, setting a precedent for international prosecution of such violations, establishing individual accountability. The trials exposed heinous acts against civilians, like murder, extermination, and enslavement, establishing a legal standard for prosecuting crimes against humanity. By holding leaders accountable for waging aggressive wars, the trials reinforced that starting unjust wars would lead to severe legal consequences, solidifying the principle that aggressive war is illegal, that it is a crime against peace.

These principles laid down during the Nuremberg Trials have since influenced the development of international criminal law and establishing institutions dedicated to ensuring justice and accountability on a global scale.

Founded in 1920 in the aftermath of the Treaty of Versailles, the League of Nations sought to preserve global peace and avert future wars by promoting collective security and advocating for disarmament and the Geneva Protocol of 1925 further prohibited the use of chemical and biological weapons in warfare, representing a major advancement in regulating military conduct and protecting human life during conflicts.

World War 2 and its aftermath sped up the legal framework of the conduct of State-on-State aggression. The Nuremberg Trials between 1945 and 1946 prosecuted key Nazi leaders for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against peace. These landmark trials established the principle that individuals, regardless of rank or position, could be held accountable for their actions under international law. Adopting the United Nations Charter in 1945 marked establishing the United Nations. Aiming to prevent future conflicts and foster global harmony, the Charter outlined a framework for promoting international cooperation, peace, and security.

The Geneva Conventions, a series of treaties established in 1949, set international legal standards for the humanitarian treatment of individuals during war. These treaties cover protecting wounded soldiers, treating prisoners of war, and the safeguarding of civilians in conflict zones. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), adopted in 1968, aimed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, promote disarmament, and facilitate the peaceful use of nuclear energy. It represents a key effort in reducing the threat of nuclear war and encouraging global nuclear disarmament.

In the Post-Cold War Era, the International Criminal Court (ICC), established by the Rome Statute in 2002, serves as a vital international tribunal. It prosecutes individuals for the most serious offenses, including genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. This institution marks a significant advancement in international justice, ensuring accountability for grave violations of human rights and international law. And the Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015, is a landmark international treaty within the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It focuses on mitigating climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting sustainable development efforts worldwide. This agreement underscores the global commitment to addressing the pressing challenges of climate change through collective action.

These milestones reflect the ongoing evolution of international legal frameworks aimed at promoting peace, justice, and cooperation among nations. Each development has contributed to a more structured and enforceable system of international law, addressing the complexities of modern global relations.

Wilson’s Fourteen Points and the Failure of International Co-Operation

Here are Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points, presented in his speech to Congress on 8th January 1918:

• Open Diplomacy – End secret treaties and conduct diplomacy openly.
• Freedom of the Seas – Allow free navigation of the seas during peace and war.
• Removal of Economic Barriers Establish equal trade conditions among nations.
• Reduction of Armaments Reduce national armaments to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety.
• Adjustment of Colonial Claims – Adjust colonial claims with fairness to both colonial powers and the colonised.
• Evacuation of Russian Territory – Evacuate Russian territory and allow Russia to determine its own political development.
• Restoration of Belgium – Restore Belgian sovereignty with no restrictions.
• Restoration of French Territory – Return Alsace-Lorraine to France.
• Readjustment of Italian Borders – Redraw Italian borders according to clearly recognisable lines of nationality.
• Autonomy for Austria-Hungary – Provide autonomous development for the peoples of Austria-Hungary.
• Balkan Independence – Ensure the sovereignty of the Balkan states and secure their independence.
• Turkish Sovereignty – Secure sovereignty for the Turkish part of the Ottoman Empire and guarantee free passage through the Dardanelles.
• Polish Independence – Establish an independent Poland with access to the sea.
• League of Nations – Form a general association of nations to guarantee political independence and territorial integrity for all states.

These points should outline a framework for peace and prevent future conflicts, but at this first hurdle, the quest faltered. The U.S. Congress had differing responses to Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points and the League of Nations, the House of Representatives approved the Treaty of Versailles, which included Wilson’s 14 Points, with a vote of three-hundred-and-sixty-one to fifty on November 19th 1919, but the Senate rejected the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations on March 19th 1920, with a vote of forty-nine in favour to thirty-five against falling short of the two-thirds majority required for ratification and starting the hamstringing of international jurisprudence. The Senate’s opposition was largely because of concerns over national sovereignty and the obligations that membership in the League of Nations might impose.

Woodrow Wilson’s lofty vision for a post-WW1 world order, with its grandiose principles of peace, self-determination, and collective security, was nothing more than a naïve fantasy that he utterly failed to sell to his own people. The initial euphoria at the war’s end and the frivolous indulgence of the Roaring Twenties disintegrated in the catastrophic Wall Street Crash. This economic collapse coupled with European re-armament and a blatant retreat into American isolationism, effectively buried Wilson’s high-minded ideals under the rubble of realpolitik and national self-interest. His so-called dream for a better world was nothing more than a tragic illusion, shattered by the harsh realities of a world unwilling and unable to embrace such utopian nonsense.

Wilson believed that his 14 Points, with their emphasis on self-determination, open diplomacy, and the creation of a League of Nations, would collectively foster a more peaceful and just world.

Wilson saw self-determination to address the grievances of oppressed nations and ethnic groups. By allowing people to choose their own political status and form of government, he hoped to reduce the tensions and conflicts that arose from imperial rule and forced assimilation. This principle created a world where nations could govern themselves without external interference, fostering a sense of national pride and stability.

Open diplomacy should replace the secret treaties and backroom deals that had characterised international relations before and during World War 1. Wilson believed transparent negotiations would build trust among nations and prevent misunderstandings that could lead to conflict. By making diplomatic processes public, he hoped to create a more accountable and cooperative international community.

The League of Nations was the cornerstone of Wilson’s vision for collective security. He believed that an international organisation could provide a platform for resolving disputes peacefully and preventing future wars. The League would offer mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity, ensuring that nations could work together to maintain global peace. Wilson saw the League to enforce the principles of self-

Wilson expected these principles to reinforce each other. Self-determination would reduce the causes of conflict by allowing nations to govern themselves. Open diplomacy would build trust and transparency, making it easier to resolve disputes through negotiation rather than war. The League of Nations would provide the institutional framework to support these principles, offering a forum for dialogue and collective action.

However, the U.S. Senate’s rejection of the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations meant that the United States, a key player in global politics, did not join the League. This weakened the League’s ability to enforce its resolutions and maintain global peace. The rise of extremist ideologies and the economic instability of the interwar period further complicated the implementation of Wilson’s principles.

Despite these challenges, Wilson’s Fourteen Points laid the groundwork for future international cooperation and the establishment of the United Nations after World War 2. His vision, though not fully realised, continues to influence the principles of modern international relations.

The Wayward Child of the Interwar Years

In the interwar years, Europe resembled a wayward child, struggling to find stability and direction amidst the chaos left by World War I. The absence of American involvement in European affairs, because of prevalent isolationism in the United States, left Europe to flounder in its own cesspool of iniquity. With economic turmoil, political instability, and the rise of totalitarian regimes, Europe dithered, unable to resolve its own issues.

The metaphor of America as the “Policeman of Europe” highlights the crucial role that the United States could have played in maintaining order and enforcing international norms. With its vast economic and military power, the U.S. had the potential to provide the stability and leadership that Europe desperately needed. However, the U.S. Senate’s rejection of the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations reflected a strong preference for isolationism, leaving Europe to navigate its own turbulent path without American support.

The League of Nations, envisioned by Woodrow Wilson as a platform for collective security and international cooperation, lurched from crisis to farce. Without the economic and military might of the United States, the League struggled to enforce its resolutions. Aggressor nations like Japan, Italy, and Germany exploited this weakness, pursuing their expansionist agendas with little fear of reprisal.

The Great Depression exacerbated economic woes across Europe, undermining political stability and fuelling extremist movements. The League’s inability to address these economic issues further weakened its credibility and effectiveness. Many European countries experienced political instability, with fragile democracies giving way to authoritarian regimes. This fragmentation made collective action through the League even more challenging.

Without the U.S., the principle of collective security was significantly undermined. The League lacked the resources and support to deter aggression effectively. American isolationism left a power vacuum in international relations, encouraging European nations to adopt more self-serving and often conflicting policies. The League’s diplomatic efforts were often hampered by the lack of unified support from major powers, leading to failures in addressing crises such as the Manchurian and Abyssinian invasions.

Although Woodrow Wilson championed self-determination, European powers disregarded this principle in their colonial pursuits, continuing to control and exploit territories for their own benefit. Continued colonialism showed a blatant disregard for the aspirations of colonised peoples. European nations maintained their empires, exploiting resources and suppressing movements for independence.

The British and French empires expanded their control over territories in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, often redrawing borders without consulting the indigenous populations. Colonial powers frequently resorted to military force to quash uprisings and maintain control, contradicting the ideals of self-determination that Wilson had championed.

Wilson’s vision of open diplomacy replaced secret treaties and underhanded dealings with transparent and accountable negotiations. However, European diplomacy in the interwar years often fell short of this ideal.

Despite public commitments to transparency, European nations continued to engage in secret agreements and alliances, contributing to mutual suspicions and hostilities. The Munich Agreement, where Britain and France conceded to Hitler’s demands for the Sudetenland without consulting Czechoslovakia, exemplified the failures of open diplomacy. This appeasement policy, conducted behind closed doors, only emboldened Nazi aggression.

Wilson’s overarching goal was to prevent future wars through collective security and international cooperation. The creation of the League of Nations was central to this vision, aiming to provide a forum for dialogue and a mechanism for enforcing peace. The fear of war, the casualties, and destruction cannot be overemphasised.

An attack on one member of the League would be considered an attack on all, prompting a collective response. This principle should deter aggression and maintain peace. The League fostered cooperation among nations on a wide range of issues, from disarmament to economic development. However, the absence of key powers like the United States and the League’s lack of enforcement capability rendered it ineffective. Europe’s descent into further conflict and the eventual outbreak of World War II highlighted the failure of these idealistic goals in the face of realpolitik and national interests.

The interwar years demonstrated the limitations of Wilson’s vision when confronted with the complexities of international politics. The continued practice of colonialism, the prevalence of secret diplomacy, and the lack of effective collective security mechanisms revealed the gap between idealism and reality in the quest to build a stable and peaceful world order.

Neville Chamberlain was not alone in his noble pursuit of peace in Europe during the interwar years. Several other European leaders and diplomats shared his unwavering commitment to preventing another devastating war. Although often pejoratively labelled as “appeasement,” Chamberlain’s efforts must be seen through the lens of his time. With hindsight, we know Hitler was a psychopath, but the strength and courage required to stand up and say, “No, I will not fight you,” should not be underestimated.

Chamberlain’s diplomatic hard graft was driven by a profound desire to spare his nation and the world from the horrors of another war. His actions reflected a deep-seated hope that rational negotiation could triumph over the forces of aggression. The fortitude to advocate for peace, even when faced with mounting threats, is a testament to his dedication and resilience.

While history has its judgments, it is crucial to acknowledge the genuine intent behind Chamberlain’s policies. His approach was shaped by the trauma of World War I and a sincere belief that diplomatic efforts could avert another catastrophe. The resolve to pursue peace, despite immense pressure, demonstrates a level of moral courage that deserves recognition.

French Prime Minister, Édouard Daladier was involved in the Munich Agreement of 1938, an attempt to avoid war by conceding to some of Hitler’s demands. His actions, like Chamberlain’s, were driven by a deep desire to maintain peace and stability in Europe. Stanley Baldwin, who served as British Prime Minister before Chamberlain, also supported appeasement policies. He hoped that by making concessions, they could prevent the horrors of another war. Léon Blum’s government, though more focused on domestic issues, was part of the broader French policy of appeasement during the late 1930s. Blum’s commitment to peace reflected the widespread hope that diplomatic efforts could avert conflict.

Not to be forgotten, Paul von Hindenburg, as President of Germany, initially supported appeasement, and diplomatic efforts to avoid conflict. Although his later years saw a shift towards more aggressive policies under Hitler, his early attempts at maintaining peace highlight the complexities of leadership during this turbulent period.

Many lesser nations in Europe also aligned with these peace efforts, advocating for stability and diplomatic solutions. Czechoslovakia, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) all supported initiatives aimed at maintaining peace and preventing conflict.

The collective resolve of these leaders and nations to pursue peace amidst rising tensions underscores their extraordinary strength. Their efforts to engage in dialogue, make concessions, and seek diplomatic solutions were driven by a profound hope to spare their nations from the devastation of another war.

Wilson’s Fourteen Points: A Visionary Blueprint for Peace

Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points were a visionary blueprint for a post-WWI world order, rooted in the principles of peace, self-determination, and collective security. His bold proposal aimed to address the root causes of conflict and create a stable, just, and peaceful global community. However, his vision faced significant challenges and was ultimately not fully realised.

Wilson’s emphasis on open diplomacy, freedom of the seas, and the reduction of armaments reflected an idealistic approach to international relations. However, the harsh realities of geopolitics, national interests, and power dynamics often clashed with these lofty goals.

While the principle of self-determination sought to empower nations to govern themselves, it was selectively applied, particularly in the colonial contexts. European powers continued their colonial endeavours, often ignoring the aspirations of the colonised peoples.

The creation of the League of Nations was a cornerstone of Wilson’s vision, aiming to provide a forum for resolving disputes and maintaining peace. However, the U.S. Senate’s rejection of the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations significantly weakened this institution. The absence of American support and the League’s lack of enforcement mechanisms hindered its effectiveness, leading to failures in managing crises such as the Manchurian and Abyssinian invasions.

The interwar years were marked by economic turmoil, political fragmentation, and the rise of totalitarian regimes. Efforts to maintain peace and stability were undermined as the Great Depression exacerbated these issues. The League of Nations struggled to address these complex problems, further diminishing its credibility.

The isolationist policies of the United States left a significant power vacuum in international affairs. Without American involvement, the League of Nations lacked the economic and military support to enforce its resolutions, contributing to its inability to prevent the aggressive actions of nations like Germany, Italy, and Japan.

Despite the challenges and shortcomings, Wilson’s Fourteen Points laid the groundwork for future international cooperation. The principles he championed influenced the establishment of the United Nations after World War II, which aimed to address some of the League of Nations’ deficiencies.

Wilson’s vision, though often seen as an altruistic fantasy, represented a hopeful and progressive approach to international relations. It highlighted the importance of diplomacy, cooperation, and pursuing justice in building a more peaceful world. The enduring legacy of the Fourteen Points reminds us of the potential for visionary leadership to inspire positive change, even in the face of daunting obstacles.

Punishment of Germany After WW1: Creating Bigger Monsters

World War I not only decimated millions but also swept away the ancient European hierarchy with ruthless efficiency. The once-mighty Romanovs were relegated to anonymous graves, murdered without ceremony. The German Kaiser, Wilhelm II, was ignominiously sent into exile in Belgium—oh, the irony! Centuries of Habsburg dominance dissolved into oblivion, and the Ottoman Empire was violently ejected from Europe, thrown back into Asia like discarded refuse.

Victoria’s progeny, those pampered royals, played their bloody games of power and privilege. In their reckless arrogance, they led Europe into a conflagration that engulfed the continent. The only monarchical survivors, the Saxe-Coburg’s in England, watched as their counterparts melted into obscurity, their grand ambitions turned to dust and ploughshares.

The leaders of Europe, in their delusions of grandeur, unleashed chaos and suffering on an unprecedented scale. Their inability to foresee the catastrophic consequences of their actions laid the groundwork for a century of turmoil. They bore the mantle of power with reckless disregard, shattering the lives of millions and obliterating centuries-old empires. Their failure is a testament to the hubris and shortsightedness that brought Europe to its knees.

Let history remember their names not as illustrious rulers, but as architects of disaster whose vainglorious pursuits tore apart the very fabric of European civilization.

Those who followed the architects of World War I proved to be even worse—effete, delusional, paranoid, and murderous. They led the world into a second, even more catastrophic conflict, one that made the first look like the innocent fantasies of children in comparison. The horrors they unleashed caused their own populations to suffer immensely before exporting the bloodbath to other lands. War crimes became fashionable, a horrific trend that stained the global conscience. No nation emerged from World War II unscathed or morally pure.

We celebrate the Nuremberg Trials as a landmark of justice, pointing the finger at the defeated and their atrocities. But I ask you, who points the finger at us? The victors, with their own hands stained by the blood of countless innocents, we conveniently overlook our own war crimes. The bombing of civilian populations, the internment of innocent people, and the use of horrific weapons all stand as unspoken testimonies to the hypocrisy of those who claim moral superiority.

The leaders who took charge after World War I were a disgrace. Their failure to learn from the past, their incompetence, and brutality, plunged the world into an even deeper abyss of suffering. The blame for the atrocities of World War II lies not just with the fascist regimes but with the entire system of international governance that allowed such horrors to unfold. We must hold ourselves to account, recognise our own failings, and ensure that such a devastating chapter in human history never repeats itself.

The Treaty of Versailles: Harsh Terms for Germany

The Treaty of Versailles, signed on June 28th, 1919, marked the formal end of World War I. It imposed severe penalties on Germany, viewed as both punitive and humiliating. As the ink dried, the ominous preparations for future conflict began, setting a direct path to September 3rd, 1939, the onset of World War II.

Germany was forced to accept full responsibility for causing the war through the infamous War Guilt Clause. This clause was a devastating blow to German pride, inflicting deep psychological scars that would fester for years. The admission of guilt laid the groundwork for national humiliation and resentment, creating fertile soil for extremist ideologies to take root.

Germany was required to pay enormous reparations to the Allied powers, intended to compensate for war damages. These payments placed an immense and unsustainable burden on the German economy. The resulting hyperinflation and economic instability plunged the country into financial chaos, exacerbating the suffering of the German populace and fuelling anger and desperation.

The treaty stripped Germany of significant territories, further weakening its position in Europe. Alsace-Lorraine was returned to France, and other regions were ceded to Belgium, Denmark, and Poland, including the creation of the Polish Corridor. These losses not only diminished Germany’s geographical and strategic standing, but also stoked nationalist fervour and a desire for revenge.

The treaty imposed strict limitations on the German military. A limit of 100,000 troops was imposed on the army, and Germany was forbidden from having tanks, military aircraft, or submarines. The Rhineland was demilitarised, with Allied troops occupying the region for several years to ensure compliance. These measures emasculated Germany’s military capabilities and prevent future aggression, but they also contributed to a pervasive sense of vulnerability and indignity.

Germany’s overseas colonies were taken away and placed under the control of the League of Nations, to be administered by other countries. This loss reduced Germany’s global influence and economic opportunities. Germany was required to extradite individuals accused of war crimes, adding to the national sense of disgrace and injustice.

Germany was compelled to recognise the independence of various new nations, including Czechoslovakia and Poland. This further reduced its influence in Europe and contributed to a sense of encirclement and isolation.

The Treaty of Versailles was widely criticised for its harshness and for sowing the seeds of future conflict. The economic hardship, territorial losses, and national humiliation it imposed on Germany created conditions ripe for the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. Exploiting the widespread discontent and desire for retribution, the Nazis built a bulwark of support by promising to overturn the treaty’s injustices and restore Germany’s former glory.

As the ink dried on the Treaty of Versailles, the ducks lined up, pointing inexorably towards September 3rd, 1939. The treaty’s punitive measures, rather than securing lasting peace, set the stage for an even more devastating conflict, proving that the seeds of humiliation and repression can all too easily grow into the thorns of war.

The War Guilt Clause (Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles) was a controversial part of the Treaty of Versailles. It placed full responsibility for the war on Germany and its allies. This clause did not explicitly use the word “guilt,” but it served as the legal basis for demanding reparations from Germany. Many Germans saw this as a national humiliation, and it fuelled resentment and anger in the country.

Reparations were payments that Germany was required to make to the Allied nations to compensate for the damage caused during the war. The initial amount was set at one-hundred-and-thirty-two billion gold marks (about $33 billion at the time), but this figure was later reduced through various plans like the Dawes Plan and the Young Plan. The economic strain of these payments contributed to severe economic problems in Germany, including hyperinflation in the early 1920s.

The Leipzig War Crimes Trials were held in 1921 to try alleged German war criminals before the German Supreme Court. These trials were part of the penalties imposed on Germany under the Treaty of Versailles. Twelve people were tried, with mixed results, and the proceedings were widely regarded as a failure. The trials were a step toward introducing a comprehensive system for prosecuting international law violations.

The Leipzig War Crimes Trials prosecuted alleged German war criminals from World War I. These trials took place at the Reichsgericht (Supreme Court) in Leipzig, Germany, under pressure from the Allied powers.

The Allied leaders, during the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, established the Commission of Responsibilities to recommend the prosecution of war criminals. Articles 228 and 229 of the Treaty of Versailles stipulated the arrest and trial of German officials accused of war crimes. Initially, the Allies planned to extradite up to 900 Germans for trial in Allied courts, but Germany avoided this by promising to prosecute the accused domestically.

Seventeen Germans were tried in twelve separate trials between 1921 and 1922. The charges brought during the Leipzig War Crimes Trials beggar belief. The monumental atrocities of war—the senseless slaughter, the monstrous leadership decisions, the deployment of weapons of mass destruction—were overlooked. Instead, the trials focused on trivialities and minutiae. The architects of war walked free while the robbing of a Belgian innkeeper took centre stage. This ludicrous charade of justice ignored the true horrors and crimes of the conflict, reducing what should have been a solemn reckoning to a farcical courtroom drama. The very essence of war and its catastrophic impact on millions was sidestepped, leaving a bitter legacy of injustice and unresolved guilt.

The indictments brought were:

• Mistreatment of Prisoners of War
• Looting and Pillaging
• Execution of Captured Soldiers
• Destruction of Property
• Sinking of Hospital Ships
• Drowning of Crews
• Abuse of Prisoners of War
• Robbery
• Use of Weapons During Robbery
• Military Crimes

These charges were brought under German military law. The sentences handed down varied, with some defendants receiving prison terms while others were acquitted.

The trials were criticised in both Germany and the Allied countries; In Germany, they were a national disgrace and a violation of national sovereignty. Abroad, they were considered a legal farce, with many believing the sentences were too lenient.

Despite the criticisms, the Leipzig Trials were a significant step towards the establishment of a system for prosecuting international law violations.

The Treaty of Versailles imposed severe penalties in Germany. The infamous War Guilt Clause (Article 231) forced Germany to accept full responsibility for causing the war. This clause was a significant blow to German pride, inflicting deep psychological scars that would fester for years. Germany was also required to pay enormous reparations to the Allied powers, amounting to 132 billion gold marks. These payments placed an immense burden on the already struggling German economy, contributing to hyperinflation and economic instability.

The treaty stripped Germany of significant territories, including Alsace-Lorraine to France, and other regions to Belgium, Denmark, and Poland. Losing these territories weakened Germany’s geopolitical position and fuelled resentment. The treaty imposed strict limitations on the German military, capping the army at 100,000 troops and prohibiting tanks, military aircraft, and submarines. The demilitarisation of the Rhineland and the occupation by Allied troops further emasculated Germany’s defence capabilities.

Germany’s overseas colonies were confiscated and placed under the mandate system of the League of Nations, effectively administered by other countries. This loss diminished Germany’s global influence and economic resources. Germany was required to recognise the independence of various new nations, such as Czechoslovakia and Poland, further reducing its influence and exacerbating feelings of encirclement and isolation.

The economic impact of the Treaty of Versailles on Germany was profound and devastating.

The reparations and economic penalties led to hyperinflation in the early 1920s, rendering the German mark almost worthless. This economic chaos wiped out savings, devastated the middle class, and caused widespread poverty and unemployment. The heavy reparations payments crippled the German economy, leading to a cycle of economic instability. Defaults and punitive measures from the Allies followed as the country struggled to meet its obligations. Losing key industrial territories, such as the Saar Basin to France, reduced Germany’s economic output and further strained its ability to recover economically.

The national sentiment in Germany was equally affected by the Treaty of Versailles. The War Guilt Clause and the harsh terms of the treaty were deeply humiliating. Nationalist and revanchist sentiments flourished as resentment against the treaty and the Allied powers spread widely. The economic hardship and national humiliation contributed to the rise of extremist political movements. The Nazis, under Adolf Hitler, exploited these sentiments by promising to overturn the treaty’s injustices and restore Germany’s former glory. Established after World War I, the Weimar Republic faced challenges in maintaining stability amidst economic crises and political extremism. The harsh terms of the treaty undermined the legitimacy of the democratic government, paving the way for the rise of totalitarianism.

The Treaty of Versailles, with its punitive and humiliating terms, had a profound impact on Germany’s economy and national sentiment. Contributing to the rise of the Nazi Party and the eventual outbreak of World War II, the economic devastation, and national humiliation it imposed sowed the seeds of future conflict.

The Failure of the League of Nations

War leaves deep scars. The inter-war years between 1918 and 1939 were a time of fragile peace and unresolved tensions. Today, we face similar challenges with rising nationalism and geopolitical strife. Peace is always preferable. The Treaty of Versailles in 1919 sowed the seeds of resentment and economic hardship in Germany. Current international agreements must be crafted with care to avoid creating future conflicts.

History repeats itself. The League of Nations aimed to foster global cooperation, yet it lacked the power to enforce its resolutions. Today, organisations like the United Nations strive to maintain peace but often struggle against political divisions. Economic instability fuels unrest. The Great Depression exacerbated the political volatility of the 1930s. In modern times, economic inequality, and crises can lead to populist movements and conflict.

Diplomacy is key. Efforts to disarm and demilitarise were met with mixed success in the inter-war period. Today, disarmament and arms control remain crucial to prevent escalation and promote global security. Learning from the past is essential. By studying the inter-war years, we can understand the importance of diplomacy, economic stability, and international cooperation. Applying these lessons to current global issues can help us build a more peaceful world.

The League of Nations, established after World War I, symbolised a hopeful vision for global peace and cooperation. It represented a collective aspiration to prevent future conflicts and foster diplomacy among nations. However, despite its promising foundation, the League’s potential remained unfulfilled because of several critical issues, including weak enforcement mechanisms and the absence of military power.

One of the League’s primary deficiencies was its inability to enforce its resolutions effectively. Unlike modern institutions with clear authority, the League relied heavily on diplomatic pressure and moral persuasion. This reliance on soft power often proved insufficient in compelling compliance from member states. Economic sanctions, which were its principal tools of enforcement, frequently lacked the backing of a robust enforcement mechanism, making them easy to circumvent or ignore. Countries such as Japan and Italy disregarded these sanctions, exposing the League’s lack of tangible influence.

In 1931, Japan invaded Manchuria, blatantly violating the League’s principles. The League’s impotence became clear as Japan faced minimal consequences for its actions. Despite the League’s condemnation and imposing sanctions, Japan simply withdrew from the League and continued its occupation. This lack of decisive action emboldened Japan, leading to further atrocities, such as the Rape of Nanking in 1937.

Similarly, in 1935, Italy invaded Ethiopia. The League imposed economic sanctions, but these had minimal effect. Major powers like Britain and France were reluctant to enforce stricter measures, fearing conflict with Italy. This reluctance allowed Italy to continue its aggression with impunity. During the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, several massacres occurred, highlighting the brutality of the conflict.

The Addis Ababa Massacre of 1937 was a significant atrocity. Following an assassination attempt on Italian Viceroy Rodolfo Graziani, Italian forces retaliated with a three-day massacre in Addis Ababa, killing up to twenty thousand Ethiopians. The Däbrä Libanos Massacre of 1937 saw Italian forces execute approximately two thousand monks and pilgrims at the Däbrä Libanos monastery, accusing them of supporting Ethiopian resistance. Italian bombing campaigns targeted civilian populations, with over seventeen thousand women and children killed by bombing raids. Around thirty-five thousand Ethiopians died in Italian concentration camps because of harsh conditions and mistreatment.

These historical events highlight the dangers of weak international institutions and the importance of robust enforcement mechanisms. Today, we face similar challenges with rising nationalism and geopolitical strife. Modern organisations like the United Nations strive to maintain peace but often struggle against political divisions and the reluctance of powerful nations to take decisive action. Learning from the failures of the League of Nations, it is crucial to strengthen global institutions and ensure that they have the authority and resources to enforce their resolutions effectively. Only then can we hope to prevent the recurrence of such devastating conflicts and promote lasting peace and cooperation.

The reliance on moral authority without the means to enforce decisions significantly undermined its effectiveness. The League’s structure and procedures did not empower it to compel member states to adhere to international law. This lack of enforcement capabilities ultimately led to its failure to maintain global peace.

Another major issue was the League’s lack of a standing military force. It depended on member states to contribute troops, which led to inconsistent and often reluctant participation. Key powers like Britain and France, while supportive in principle, were hesitant to commit military resources. This hesitation was rooted in their war-weariness and domestic priorities. Without a unified military force, the League was powerless in the face of aggressive acts, such as Japan’s invasion of Manchuria and Italy’s conquest of Ethiopia.

The League’s structural weaknesses were compounded by political and economic instability in the inter-war years. Nationalistic and isolationist tendencies were strengthened during the global economic depression of the 1930’s, weakening international cooperation further. The absence of the United States, one of the world’s most powerful nations, from the League’s membership deprived it of crucial support and legitimacy. The internal conflicts among member states and the divergent interests of major powers made cohesive action difficult.

These issues contributed to a series of failures that eroded the League’s credibility. The inability to prevent the remilitarisation of the Rhineland by Germany and the subsequent aggressive expansionist policies of the Axis powers highlighted the League’s impotence. Ultimately, the League’s failure to maintain peace and its inability to prevent the outbreak of World War II showed the necessity of a more robust international framework, leading to the establishment of the United Nations in 1945.

The League of Nations is a reminder of the complexities and challenges in international diplomacy. It underscores the importance of powerful enforcement mechanisms, the need for a unified military presence, and the critical role of comprehensive international cooperation.

The League of Nations’ failure to stop Hitler’s rearmament and territorial expansion starkly illustrates its limitations and impotence in the face of aggressive nationalism. Despite its founding mission to maintain peace and prevent future conflicts, the League proved unable to enforce its own resolutions, leading to devastating consequences.

When Hitler came to power in 1933, he swiftly began rearming Germany, openly defying the Treaty of Versailles. This treaty, established after World War I, strictly limited the size and strength of the German military to prevent future aggression. However, the League’s response to Hitler’s bold moves was weak. Unlike modern institutions with clearer authority, the League relied on diplomatic pressure and moral persuasion, which fell short in compelling compliance from member states. The Disarmament Conference of 1934 ended in failure, revealing deep divisions among the world’s powers and their unwillingness to confront Germany directly. By 1935, Hitler had reintroduced compulsory military service, flagrantly violating the Treaty of Versailles. This lack of decisive action from the League emboldened Hitler, as he realised his actions would not meet serious resistance.

In 1936, Hitler took another significant step by remilitarising the Rhineland, a demilitarised zone according to the Treaty of Versailles. The League of Nations’ response was again limited to diplomatic protests, which had an insignificant effect in stopping Germany’s actions. This success further encouraged Hitler to pursue more aggressive policies. In 1938, he orchestrated the Anschluss, the annexation of Austria, and subsequently set his sights on Czechoslovakia. The Munich Agreement of 1938, in which Britain and France conceded the Sudetenland to Germany hoping to appease Hitler, only delayed the inevitable conflict. Hitler’s unchecked expansion continued unabated, culminating in the invasion of Poland in 1939, which triggered World War II.

The League’s failure to act decisively against Hitler’s rearmament and territorial ambitions severely undermined its credibility and authority. It became apparent that the League could not enforce its resolutions or prevent aggressive actions by powerful nations. This failure contributed directly to the outbreak of World War II, as Hitler’s unchecked expansion faced no significant opposition from the international community. The inability of the League to stop these actions highlighted the necessity of stronger enforcement mechanisms and a unified response to aggression.

Today, we see echoes of these challenges in international relations. The United Nations, which succeeded the League of Nations, strives to maintain international peace and security. While it has more authority and resources than the League, it often struggles with political divisions and the reluctance of powerful nations to take decisive action. Instances where modern international bodies cannot enforce resolutions or prevent conflicts remind us of the League’s shortcomings.

The lessons from the League of Nations’ failures emphasise the importance of powerful enforcement mechanisms and international cooperation to prevent conflicts and maintain global stability. Robust institutions with clear authority and the willingness of the international community to take decisive actions are crucial in upholding peace and security. By studying these historical events, we can better understand the complexities of international relations and the continuous need for improvement in global governance.

Use of Bi-Lateral Treaties in the Interwar Period

The interwar period, spanning from the end of World War I in 1918 to the onset of World War II in 1939, saw many attempts to secure peace through bi-lateral treaties. Nations, scarred by the devastation of the Great War, sought to create diplomatic agreements aimed at preventing future conflicts. These treaties were a means to foster cooperation, ensure mutual security, and promote disarmament among nations. By addressing specific issues directly between the two countries, these agreements hoped to build a network of peace and stability.

One of the most notable examples of such efforts was the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928. Officially known as the Pact of Paris, it was initially signed by fifteen nations, including major powers such as the United States, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. The pact was an ambitious declaration to renounce war as an instrument of national policy and to settle disputes through peaceful means. Eventually, it was endorsed by over sixty nations, reflecting a widespread desire for lasting peace.

Another significant bi-lateral treaty was the Locarno Treaties, where Germany, France, Belgium, Great Britain, and Italy mutually guaranteed peace in Western Europe. The treaties should ease tensions by reaffirming the borders established by the Treaty of Versailles and promoting reconciliation between former adversaries. The Rhineland Pact, a part of the Locarno Treaties, guaranteed the demilitarisation of the Rhineland, seeking to prevent future German aggression.

Despite these noble efforts, bi-lateral treaties have faced significant limitations in preventing large-scale conflicts. The primary issue was the lack of enforcement mechanisms. Agreements like the Kellogg-Briand Pact, while symbolically powerful, had no means to enforce compliance or punish violations. This reliance on mutual goodwill and moral persuasion often fell short in the face of aggressive nationalism and expansionist policies.

Bilateral treaties were limited in their scope. They addressed the relations between specific countries but failed to create a comprehensive, multilateral framework that could effectively manage broader international tensions. For instance, the Kellogg-Briand Pact did not prevent Japan from invading Manchuria in 1931 or Italy from attacking Ethiopia in 1935. These aggressive actions by major powers highlighted the inadequacy of bilateral treaties in curbing militaristic ambitions.

The rise of totalitarian regimes in Germany, Italy, and Japan further exposed the weaknesses of bilateral agreements. These regimes were driven by ideologies that prioritised national expansion and militarism over diplomatic resolutions. They disregarded international agreements and pursued their aggressive objectives, leading to the outbreak of World War II.

While bi-lateral treaties in the interwar period represented sincere efforts to secure peace and stability, their effectiveness was hindered by the lack of enforcement mechanisms, limited scope, and the rise of aggressive ideologies. The lessons from these historical attempts underscore the importance of robust, enforceable, and multilateral agreements in maintaining global peace and security. These insights remain relevant in contemporary international relations, where the need for strong and cooperative frameworks to prevent conflicts is as critical as ever.

The Nuremberg Trials and International Military Tribunal for the Far East

The Nuremberg Trials, held between 1945 and 1946, were a landmark series of military tribunals conducted by the Allied forces to prosecute prominent leaders of Nazi Germany for their roles in World War II atrocities.

The trials were based on the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT), signed in August 1945. This charter established the legal framework for the trials, defining the crimes and the procedures. The moral basis stemmed from the need to hold individuals accountable for the unprecedented atrocities committed during the war, including the Holocaust.

The defendants were charged with four major categories of crimes:

• Crimes Against Peace – Planning, starting, and waging wars of aggression.
• War Crimes – Violations of the laws and customs of war, including the treatment of prisoners of war and the killing of hostages.
• Crimes Against Humanity – Atrocities committed against civilian populations, including murder, extermination, enslavement, and deportation.
• Conspiracy to Commit the Above Crimes – A common plan or conspiracy to commit the aforementioned crimes.

The Nuremberg Trials established the principle that individuals, including state leaders, could be held criminally responsible for acts of aggression and atrocities committed by their governments. This was a significant departure from the traditional notion of state sovereignty, where states were immune from prosecution for their actions.

The trials led to the formulation of the Nuremberg Principles, which laid the foundation for modern international criminal law. These principles include:

• Principle I – any person who commits an act which makes up a crime under international law handles punishment.
• Principle II – that a person acted under an order of his government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
• Principle III – that a person who committed an act which makes up a crime under international law acted as Head of State or a responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
• Principle IV – that a person acted under an order of his government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
• Principle V – Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
• Principle VI – Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can international law be enforced.

The equivalent trials for Japanese war criminals, known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) or the Tokyo Trials, were held to address the atrocities committed by the Japanese Empire during World War II. These trials, like their counterparts in Nuremberg, played a crucial role in establishing accountability for wartime actions and shaping the future of international law.

The Tokyo Trials were founded on the principles established by the Tokyo Charter, which were modelled after the Nuremberg Charter. This provided the legal framework for prosecuting high-ranking Japanese officials. Morally, the trials were driven by the need to address the severe violations of human rights and wartime atrocities committed by Japanese forces, including the brutal treatment of prisoners of war, the exploitation of occupied territories, and the genocide in regions such as Nanking.

The defendants faced charges in three major categories:

• Crimes Against Peace – This included planning, starting, and waging wars of aggression in violation of international laws, treaties, and agreements.
• War Crimes – These were violations of the laws and customs of war, such as the mistreatment of prisoners of war, mass killings, and the exploitation of occupied territories.
• Crimes Against Humanity – These covered atrocities committed against civilian populations, including murder, enslavement, and other inhumane acts.

The Tokyo Trials, much like the Nuremberg Trials, emphasised the principle of individual accountability for state-led aggression and war crimes. High-ranking officials could not hide behind the veil of state sovereignty or claim they were merely following orders. This principle was critical in underscoring those individuals, regardless of their official positions, could be held responsible for their actions.

The Tokyo Trials and the Nuremberg Trials laid the groundwork for modern international criminal justice. They influenced the establishment of subsequent tribunals, such as those for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, and paved the way for the International Criminal Court (ICC). These tribunals continue to prosecute individuals for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, reinforcing the commitment to international justice and the rule of law.

The Trials were pivotal in addressing the war crimes committed by aggressors and in reinforcing the principles of accountability and justice in international law. The legacy of these trials continues to shape the prosecution of international crimes and the quest for global justice.

The United Nations

The creation of the United Nations (UN) in 1945 was a pivotal moment in global history. It replaced the League of Nations, which had failed to prevent the outbreak of World War II. The UN was founded with the primary goal of maintaining international peace and security, and its formation was driven by the collective desire to prevent another devastating global conflict.

The UN was officially formed on October 24th, 1945, after representatives from 50 countries gathered at the United Nations Conference on International Organisation in San Francisco. They drafted and signed the UN Charter, which laid the foundation for the organisation. The Charter emphasised principles such as collective security, the prevention of aggression, and the promotion of human rights.

The UN Charter outlines several key principles that guide the organisation’s actions. These include:

• Collective Security – The UN aims to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to peace.
• Prevention of Aggression – The Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
• Human Rights – The UN promotes respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.
• Sovereign Equality – All member states are equal under the Charter.

The UN plays a crucial role in promoting international peace and security through various means. It engages in preventive diplomacy, mediation, and peacekeeping operations. The UN Security Council has the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, and it can take enforcement measures, such as economic sanctions or military action, to address threats to peace.

The UN also works to build peace in post-conflict situations through peacebuilding efforts, which aim to address the root causes of conflict and support sustainable development. The General Assembly and the Secretary-General play significant roles in fostering peace and security.

Overall, the United Nations has helped to prevent conflicts, mediating disputes, and promoting peace and security around the world. Its efforts have helped to save countless lives and improve the quality of life for people in many regions.

Establishment of the International Court of Justice

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) was established in 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and began its work in April 1946. It is the principal judicial organ of the UN and is in The Hague, Netherlands. The ICJ serves as a key mechanism for the peaceful resolution of disputes between states and interpreting international law.

The ICJ has two main types of jurisdictions:

• Contentious Cases – The ICJ has jurisdiction over legal disputes submitted by states. Both parties involved in the dispute must consent to the court’s jurisdiction. The court’s decisions in these cases are binding, and states must comply with the rulings.
• Advisory Opinions – The ICJ also provides advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by the United Nations General Assembly, Security Council, or other specialised agencies. These advisory opinions are not binding but carry significant legal and moral weight.

The ICJ plays a crucial role in the development and interpretation of international law. Its judgments and advisory opinions contribute to the clarification and codification of international legal principles. The court addresses a wide range of issues, including territorial disputes, maritime boundaries, diplomatic relations, and human rights.

Territorial Disputes – The ICJ has settled many territorial and boundary disputes, helping to prevent conflicts and promote peaceful coexistence between states.

Maritime Law – The court has made significant contributions to the interpretation and application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), resolving disputes related to maritime boundaries and resource rights.

Human Rights – The ICJ has issued advisory opinions on important human rights issues, such as the legality of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

The ICJ’s work has a profound impact on international relations and the rule of law. By providing a forum for the peaceful resolution of disputes and offering authoritative interpretations of international law, the ICJ helps to promote stability, justice, and adherence to legal norms on a global scale.

The ICJ serves as a cornerstone of the international legal system, playing a vital role in resolving disputes between states, interpreting international law, and providing advisory opinions that guide the actions of the international community. Its establishment and continued function underscore the importance of a rules-based international order.

Structure of the UN Security Council and the Permanent Members (P5)

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the six principal organs of the United Nations, responsible for maintaining international peace and security. It has fifteen members: five permanent members (P5) and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly.

The Permanent Members (P5) are:

• China
• France
• Russia
• United Kingdom
• United States of America

The permanent members may veto on any U.N. resolution.

Impact of the Veto Power on the Security Council’s Ability to Act

The veto power allows any of the P5 to block any substantive resolution, even if it has majority support. This means that for any resolution to pass, it must have the affirmative votes of at least nine members, including all five permanent members. This can significantly hinder the Council’s ability to take decisive action, especially when the interests of the P5 diverge.

Critics argue that the veto system represents a form of neo-colonialism, where the P5 exerts a disproportionate influence over global affairs, often to the detriment of smaller or developing nations. This power dynamic allows the P5 to pursue their geopolitical agendas, sometimes at the expense of international justice and human rights.

• Middle East Conflicts – The United States has frequently used its veto power to block resolutions critical of Israel. This has prevented the Security Council from taking stronger actions to address the Israeli Palestinian conflict and has been seen by many as the US protecting its strategic ally, often ignoring Palestinian grievances and suffering.
• Syrian Civil War – Russia has used its veto power multiple times to shield the Syrian government from international sanctions and investigations. This has allowed the Assad regime to continue its actions with impunity, contributing to prolonged conflict and humanitarian crises.
• Sudanese Conflict – Russia’s recent veto against a resolution calling for a ceasefire in Sudan has been criticised as undermining efforts to protect civilians and provide humanitarian aid, reflecting broader accusations of neo-colonialism and geopolitical manoeuvring.

The veto system has significantly hindered accountability for aggressive actions and human rights abuses. By allowing a single country to block international consensus, the veto has often led to inaction in the face of crises. This lack of response not only undermines the credibility of the UN, but also emboldens aggressors who realise that geopolitical support can shield them from repercussions.

There are increasing calls for reforming the veto power to make the Security Council more democratic and effective. Proposals include limiting the use of the veto in cases of mass atrocities, requiring a supermajority to exercise the veto, or even abolishing it altogether. However, such reforms face significant obstacles, as they would require the agreement of the very powers that benefit from the current system.

While the veto was originally intended to maintain international peace and security by ensuring the cooperation of major powers, its use has often been criticised as a tool of neo-colonialism. It has allowed powerful nations to prioritise their strategic interests over global justice and has impeded the Security Council’s ability to act decisively in the face of conflict and human rights abuses. The need for reform is clear, but achieving it remains a complex and challenging task.

Creation of the International Criminal Court

The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) was a milestone in the evolution of international justice. Beginning with the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials after World War II, which set precedents for prosecuting individuals for war crimes and crimes against humanity, the road to its creation was long and complex. The idea for a permanent international criminal court gained momentum in the latter half of the 20th century.

In 1998, the Rome Conference convened to draft a treaty for the ICC. The resulting document, the Rome Statute, was adopted on July 17th, 1998, and the ICC was officially established on July 1st, 2002, when the statute entered force. This marked the culmination of years of negotiations and the collective desire of the international community to address the most serious crimes of concern for the global community.

The ICC has jurisdiction to prosecute four core international crimes:

• Genocide Acts committed intending to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, racial, or religious group.
• Crimes Against Humanity – Widespread or systematic attacks directed against any civilian population, including murder, enslavement, torture, and rape.
• War Crimes – Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other serious violations of the laws and customs of war, applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts.
• Crime of Aggression – The planning, preparation, initiation, or execution of an act of aggression by a state, which makes up a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.

The ICC and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) serve different purposes within the framework of international law.

1. ICC – The ICC prosecutes individuals, not states, for the most serious international crimes. It holds individuals, including political and military leaders, accountable for their actions, emphasising personal responsibility.
2. ICJ – The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the UN and settles legal disputes between states. It also provides advisory opinions on legal questions referred by UN organs and specialised agencies. The ICJ focuses on issues like territorial disputes, maritime boundaries, and state responsibility.

Despite its achievements, the ICC faces significant challenges:

• Jurisdictional Limitations – The ICC can only prosecute crimes committed on the territory of states that have ratified the Rome Statute or by nationals of those states. This limits its ability to address crimes in non-member states.
• State Cooperation – The ICC relies on state cooperation for investigations, arrests, and enforcement of its rulings. Lack of cooperation can hinder its effectiveness.
• Political Pressure – The ICC operates in a highly political environment, and its decisions can be influenced or undermined by powerful states.
• Security Council Referrals – The ICC can start investigations through referrals by the UN Security Council. However, the P5 members’ veto power can block such referrals, preventing the ICC from addressing certain situations.
• Resource Constraints – The ICC faces financial and logistical challenges that can limit its capacity to conduct thorough and timely investigations and prosecutions.

The creation of the ICC marked a significant advancement in international justice. While it has made important contributions to holding individuals accountable for serious crimes, it continues to navigate complex political, legal, and practical challenges. The ICC’s role in the global legal landscape underscores the ongoing need for robust international mechanisms to address the gravest breaches of human rights and international law.

Progression from Wilson’s Fourteen Points to Present International Legal Framework

The journey of international law and global cooperation began with President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points in 1918, which outlined his vision for a peaceful post-World War I order. These points emphasised self-determination, open diplomacy, free trade, and the establishment of a general association of nations to ensure political independence and territorial integrity for all countries. This vision led to the creation of the League of Nations in 1920, the first major international organisation aimed at maintaining world peace.

However, the League’s inability to prevent aggressive actions and the outbreak of World War II highlighted its weaknesses. This failure underscored the need for a more robust and effective global institution. Thus, in 1945, the United Nations was established, with a more comprehensive framework for promoting international peace and security.

Despite the lofty ideals and significant advancements in international law, the stark reality remains: the world is plagued by a failure to hold aggressors accountable. This systemic failure mocks the principles of justice and international cooperation.

The brazen use of political influence by powerful nations to shield themselves and their allies is a farce. This manipulation of international mechanisms undermines the very foundation of impartial justice, turning it into a tool for geopolitical manoeuvring.

The UN Security Council’s veto power, monopolised by the P5, is a travesty. It enables these permanent members to block any action aimed at addressing aggression or holding violators accountable. The conflicts in Syria and Israel-Palestine are glaring examples of how vetoes have crippled the Council’s effectiveness, leaving innocent lives at the mercy of power politics.

The principle of state sovereignty has become a convenient shield for tyrants and aggressors. It obstructs international intervention and prosecution of leaders responsible for heinous actions, allowing them to operate with impunity.

International courts and tribunals are rendered impotent without the cooperation of states. The refusal to cooperate with investigations, arrests, and enforcement of rulings makes a joke.

To salvage any semblance of the rule of law and prevent aggressive wars, we must urgently reform and strengthen international institutions.

The veto must be reined in. Limiting or abolishing its use in cases of mass atrocities is imperative. The Security Council’s effectiveness hinges on removing this anachronistic privilege that allows the powerful to act with impunity.

The International Criminal Court needs broader jurisdiction and international support. Only then can it effectively prosecute serious crimes and deter would-be aggressors.

We must encourage more countries to ratify international treaties and engage with global institutions. This will enhance their legitimacy and effectiveness, creating a truly inclusive international order.

Stronger mechanisms for enforcing international law are non-negotiable. States must be held accountable, and compliance with international rulings must be ensured. Without this, justice remains an empty promise.

The evolution from Wilson’s Fourteen Points to the current international legal framework is a journey marred by failures and unfulfilled promises. The ongoing challenges underscore the urgent need for continuous reform and strengthening of international institutions. Only by addressing these shortcomings can we hope to uphold the rule of law and prevent future conflicts. It is time to confront these issues head-on, with the resolve to build a just and peaceful world.

WE ARE ALL EQUAL, SOME MORE SO THAN OTHERS