CEVAP:

The League of Nations cannot be considered as the responsible party for the failures between 1920 and 1939. From its onset, neither its design nor its power matched its responsibility to manage international politics. The effectiveness of the organization was closely tied to the support, coordination, cohesion, and cooperation of its members as well as their mutual understanding of peace. However, this was never achieved. Besides, states were always inclined to protect their own interests rather supporting common goals (MacMillan, 2001: 95). The League was the first international institution that was built on the positive and negative experiences of the previous centuries. However, the post-war system proved to be problematic for the League to sustain multiple contradictory roles. The League was never able to produce regulations and norms for the post-war order and failed to promote the international law. The League also fell short of creating a sense of equality among its members, since it was open to the interference of the great powers. The League evidently showed that international organizations were the most effective ways of institutionalization in international relations. However, it also revealed that states might be reluctant to share their sovereignty with international bodies. Therefore, the League’s potential was circumscribed by state sovereignty, which prevented the organization from receiving the necesssary support to keep the peace. Nevertheless, the League of Nations constitutes a significant case in the history of international organizations. It was the first institution with such a complex structure and designed to operate as an actor with some degree of autonomy. Its legacy, both negative and positive, was instrumental in designing a more advanced organization: the UN.