Representation in the International Commission of the Danube

1937 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 414-430
Author(s):  
Ruth E. Bacon
Keyword(s):  
Technical Committee ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
The Other ◽  
International Commission ◽  
Treaty Of Versailles ◽  
German States ◽  
Difference Of Opinion ◽  
Modus Vivendi ◽  
Constitutional Changes

A difference of opinion of more than usual interest has recently developed with regard to the composition of the International Commission of the Danube. The question at issue turns upon the interpretation of certain articles of the Treaty of Versailles in the light of the important constitutional changes which have occurred within Germany since 1919. Under the Treaty of Versailles, the International Commission was to include “two representatives of German riparian States,” in addition to representatives of the other riparian and certain non-riparian States. Since the signature of the Treaty, there has been a gradual redistribution of powers within Germany, culminating in 1934 when the sovereign powers of the German states were transferred to the Reich. When the German representatives at the session of the International Commission in December, 1934, presented full powers issued in the name of the Reich alone, their eligibility was challenged, and they were allowed to take their seats only under a modus vivendi pending settlement of the issue. At the request of the British and French Governments, in which other States represented on the International Commission subsequently joined, the dispute was referred to the League of Nations Advisory and Technical Committee for Communications and Transit.

Should the Council of the League of Nations Establish a Permanent Minorities Commission?

1933 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 250-259
Author(s):  
Howard B. Calderwood
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
British Empire ◽  
The United States ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
International Justice ◽  
The Other ◽  
Difference Of Opinion ◽  
Polish Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
International Character

The guarantee clause of the Polish Minorities Treaty, which is the model for the treaties signed by eight other states, is as follows: “Poland agrees that the stipulations in the foregoing articles, so far as they affect persons belonging to racial, religious, or linguistic minorities, constitute obligations of international concern and shall be placed under the guarantee of the League of Nations. They shall not be modified without the assent of a majority of the Council of the League of Nations. The United States, British Empire, France, Italy, and Japan agree not to withhold their assent from any modification in these articles which is in due form assented to by a majority of the Council of the League of Nations. Poland agrees that any member of the Council of the League of Nations shall have the right to bring to the attention of the Council any infraction, or danger of infraction, of any of these obligations, and the Council may thereupon take such action and give such direction as it may deem proper and effective in the circumstances. Poland further agrees that any difference of opinion as to questions of law or fact arising out of these articles between the Polish government and any one of the principal Allied and Associated Powers or any other Power, a member of the Council of the League of Nations, shall be held to be a dispute of an international character under Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Polish government hereby consents that any such dispute shall, if the other party thereto demands, be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The decisions of the Permanent Court shall be final, and shall have the same force and effect as an award under Article 13 of the Covenant.”

The Saar Plebiscite

1935 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 275-282
Author(s):  
James K. Pollock
Keyword(s):  
League Of Nations ◽  
The Other ◽  
Treaty Of Versailles ◽  
Right To Vote ◽  
The Right

The Treaty of Versailles provided that at the termination of a period of fifteen years from its coming into force, a plebiscite should be held in the Saar Territory to determine under what sovereignty its inhabitants desired to be placed. The following conditions were laid down for the plebiscite: “A vote will take place by communes or districts on the three following alternatives: (a) maintenance of the régime established by the present Treaty and by this Annex; (b) union with France; (c) union with Germany. All persons, without distinction of sex, more than 20 years old at the date of voting, resident in the Territory at the date of signature of the present Treaty, will have the right to vote. The other conditions, methods, and the date of voting shall be fixed by the Council of the League of Nations in such a way as to secure the freedom, secrecy,and trustworthiness of the voting.”

Revenants of the German Empire

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Andrew Wempe
Keyword(s):  
South African ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
International Governance ◽  
German Empire ◽  
Liberal Internationalism ◽  
Treaty Of Versailles ◽  
The First World War ◽  
German Investment ◽  
Nazi Era ◽  
First World

This book addresses the various ways in which Colonial Germans attempted to cope with the loss of the German colonies after the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. The German colonial advocates who are the focus of this monograph comprised not only those individuals who had been allowed to remain in the mandates as new subjects of the Allies, but also former colonial officials, settlers, and missionaries who were forcibly repatriated by the mandatory powers after the First World War. These Kolonialdeutsche (Colonial Germans) had invested substantial time and money in German imperialism. This work places particular emphasis on how colonial officials, settlers, and colonial lobbies made use of the League of Nations framework, and investigates the involvement of former settlers and colonial officials in such diplomatic flashpoints as the Naturalization Controversy in South African-administered Southwest Africa, and German participation in the Permanent Mandates Commission (PMC) from 1927 to 1933. The period of analysis ends in 1933 with an investigation of the involvement of one of Germany’s former colonial governors in the League of Nations’ commission sent to assess the Manchurian Crisis between China and Japan. This study revises standard historical portrayals of the League of Nations’ form of international governance, German participation in the League, the role of interest groups in international organizations and diplomacy, and liberal imperialism. In analyzing colonial German investment and participation in interwar liberal internationalism, the project also challenges the idea of a direct continuity between Germany’s colonial period and the Nazi era.

Sovereignty at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard V. Smith
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International System ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Great Power ◽  
World War ◽  
Treaty Of Versailles ◽  
The World ◽  
Paris Peace Conference

We have long known that the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 “failed” in the sense that it did not prevent the outbreak of World War II. This book investigates not whether the conference succeeded or failed, but the historically specific international system it created. It explores the rules under which that system operated, and the kinds of states and empires that inhabited it. Deepening the dialogue between history and international relations theory makes it possible to think about sovereignty at the conference in new ways. Sovereignty in 1919 was about remaking “the world”—not just determining of answers demarcating the international system, but also the questions. Most histories of the Paris Peace Conference stop with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles with Germany on June 28, 1919. This book considers all five treaties produced by the conference as well as the Treaty of Lausanne with Turkey in 1923. It is organized not chronologically or geographically, but according to specific problems of sovereignty. A peace based on “justice” produced a criminalized Great Power in Germany, and a template problematically applied in the other treaties. The conference as sovereign sought to “unmix” lands and peoples in the defeated multinational empires by drawing boundaries and defining ethnicities. It sought less to oppose revolution than to instrumentalize it. The League of Nations, so often taken as the supreme symbol of the conference’s failure, is better considered as a continuation of the laboratory of sovereignty established in Paris.

Latin America and the League of Nations

1926 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-30
Author(s):  
Percy Alvin Martin
Keyword(s):  
Latin America ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Latin American ◽  
The United States ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
World War ◽  
The Past ◽  
Treaty Of Versailles ◽  
Post War ◽  
International Status

To students of international relations it has become almost a commonplace that among the most significant and permanent results of the World War has been the changed international status of the republics of Latin America. As a result of the war and post-war developments in these states, the traditional New World isolation in South America, as well as in North America, is a thing of the past. To our leading sister republics is no longer applicable the half-contemptuous phrase, current in the far-off days before 1914, that Latin America stands on the margin of international life. The new place in the comity of nations won by a number of these states is evidenced—to take one of the most obvious examples—by the raising of the legations of certain non-American powers to the rank of embassies, either during or immediately after the war. In the case of Brazil, for instance, where prior to 1914 only the United States maintained an ambassador, at the present time Great Britain, France, Italy, Belgium, Portugal, and Japan maintain diplomatic representatives of this rank.Yet all things considered one of the most fruitful developments in the domain of international relations has been the share taken by our southern neighbors in the work of the League of Nations. All of the Latin American republics which severed relations with Germany or declared war against that country were entitled to participate in the Peace Conference. As a consequence, eleven of these states affixed their signatures to the Treaty of Versailles, an action subsequently ratified in all cases except Ecuador.

The First Capitulation: France and the Rhineland Crisis of 1936

1956 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 355-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. A. C. Parker
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Armed Attack ◽  
The West ◽  
German Army ◽  
Treaty Of Versailles ◽  
Demilitarized Zone ◽  
Peace Settlements

ON March 7, 1936, German troops entered the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland. Germany thus violated Articles 42 and 43 of the Treaty of Versailles and Articles 1 and 2 of the Treaty of Locarno of 1925. Remilitarization moved forward for about one hundred miles the areas of concentration for any German armed attack in the west and advanced the defensive line that could be held by the German army. It severely weakened France and, in consequence, all the other powers concerned to maintain the Paris peace settlements and to preserve the peace of Europe.

On the Rationale of certain Actuarial Estimates

1860 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 310-316
Author(s):  
Charles Jellicoe
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Great Care ◽  
Difference Of Opinion ◽  
The Subject

Some three or four years ago, I submitted to the members of the Institute a few observations on the valuation of property held for life and in reversion, and on the due apportionment of it when questions arise between the life tenant and the owner of the fee. I was induced to bring this subject under the notice of the members from observing the great difference of opinion prevailing in regard to it generally, and especially in the discussions on the subject of church leases and of other property similarly circumstanced—in which discussions no sort of agreement appears to have been come to as to the true principles upon which the value of the interests of the several parties concerned should be estimated. In the paper in question, I endeavoured to point out some of these principles; and my object now is to enlarge somewhat on the arguments therein laid down, to show that the question at issue almost always resolves itself into one whether a property is to be bought or sold, to call attention to the vast difference in value which arises under the two conditions, and to point out the imperative character of the causes, from which this difference originates; finally, to urge the necessity of great care and circumspection in dealing with the questions submitted to us, so that all risk of confounding one of the conditions above referred to with the other may be avoided.

Anthropology and the classics: war, violence, and the statelesspolis

2000 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 257-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moshe Berent
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Classical Tradition ◽  
Birth Control ◽  
Ancient Greece ◽  
The Other ◽  
Value System ◽  
Persian Wars ◽  
Intellectual Revolution ◽  
Greek Civilization ◽  
Constitutional Changes

I. INTRODUCTIONIt has become a commonplace in contemporary historiography to note the frequency of war in ancient Greece. Yvon Garlan says that, during the century and a half from the Persian wars (490 and 480–479 B.C.) to the battle of Chaeronea (338 B.C.), Athens was at war, on average, more than two years out of every three, and never enjoyed a period of peace for as long as ten consecutive years. ‘Given these conditions’, says Garlan, ‘one would expect them (i.e. the Greeks) to consider war as a problem …. But this was far from being the case.’ The Greek acceptance of war as inevitable was contrasted by Momigliano and others with the attention given to constitutional changes and to the prevention ofstasis: ‘the Greeks came to accept war like birth and death about which nothing could be done …. On the other hand constitutions were men-made and could be modified by men.’Moralist overtones were not absent from this re-evaluation of Greek civilization. Havelock observed that the Greeks exalted, legitimized, and placed organized warfare at the heart of the European value system, and Momigliano suggested that:The idea of controlling wars, like the idea of the emancipation of women and the idea of birth control, is a part of the intellectual revolution of the nineteenth century and meant a break with the classical tradition of historiography of wars.

Marx and Engels On The Distributive Justice of Capitalism

1981 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 221-250
Author(s):  
Derek P.H. Allen
Keyword(s):  
Distributive Justice ◽  
The Other ◽  
Surplus Value ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Difference Of Opinion

A difference of opinion exists among some philosophers who have recently inquired whether Marx thinks that capitalism is distributively unjust. What has to be determined is whether in Marx's view the wage worker suffers an injustice in not receiving most or all of the surplus value he creates. Allen Wood argues that this is not Marx's view, and George Brenkert agrees, for quite similar reasons; but Ziyad Husami and Gary Young, on the other hand, argue in reply to Wood, and on overlapping grounds, for the opposite interpretation; Wood, in turn, has defended himself against Husami.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document