To What Extent Was the League of Nations a Flawed Model of Collective Governance?

1915 Words8 Pages
The role of collective governance involves an arrangement where one or more public agencies directly engage non-state stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus-oriented, and deliberative and that aims to make or implement public policy or manage public programs or assets. However, the League of Nations, whom intended to act as collective governance, failed to abide by these terms causing an overwhelming magnitude of international tension. The League failed to perform formal and deliberative decisions, restricted non-state stakeholders, showed ineffective structure of governance, proved inability to maintain effective relationships, and consecutive refusals to implement public policies and manage public programs, flawing the League’s potential and intentions of collective governance to an overwhelming magnitude. This led to an outbreak worldwide distress and WWII that forced voluntary dismissal of the League of Nations. The League’s failure to maintain relationships between potential aggressor members and communicate with them effectively was a major factor that contributed to the gradual demise of the League and a favorable argument to the ongoing debate of the Leagues inability to perform collective governance. Britain, France, Italy and Japan had the power to veto the assembly’s decisions, even if they were unanimous. This gave those found countries a distinct advantage over the rest. There were 42 original members of the League of Nations. They included Australia, the Republic of China, Columbia, Canada and Peru. Despite United States President Wilson formulating the concept of the League, the United States never joined the League of Nations. While ex-enemy nations were allowed to join, they were required to prove their intentions to abide by the peaceful terms of the League. The Paris Peace Conference adopted the
Open Document