Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Vilket folk förtjänar ett land? - En undersökning av statssuveränitetsprincipens utveckling mellan Förenta Nationerna och Nationernas Förbund

Jasim, Roy LU (2024) JURM02 20242
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
The principle of state sovereignty has long been a central principle in public international law, but its interpretation and application have varied greatly through history. One of the most interesting time periods for the develop-ment of state sovereignty can be seen between the establishment of the League of Nations and the foundation of the United Nations. The League of Nations was an attempt to establish a global system of peace and security as a result of the atrocities witnessed in World War I, a system heavily in-spired by Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points and the idea of diplomacy as the solution to international conflicts. Despite this, the organisation suffered from several structural flaws. The unanimity requirement in the voting... (More)
The principle of state sovereignty has long been a central principle in public international law, but its interpretation and application have varied greatly through history. One of the most interesting time periods for the develop-ment of state sovereignty can be seen between the establishment of the League of Nations and the foundation of the United Nations. The League of Nations was an attempt to establish a global system of peace and security as a result of the atrocities witnessed in World War I, a system heavily in-spired by Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points and the idea of diplomacy as the solution to international conflicts. Despite this, the organisation suffered from several structural flaws. The unanimity requirement in the voting pro-cess hindered the organisation’s ability to act, a lack of an independent mili-tary or effective military sanctions, and great powers such as the USA, Germany, and the Soviet Union were only members briefly or not at all. De-spite its goal of collective security and diplomatic cooperation, the organisa-tion lacked the necessary resources to put it into practise – a consequence of states unwillingness to restrict their own sovereignty and self-determination. Additionally, public international law at the time contained several contra-dictions. Despite Wilson emphasising the importance of nation-states found-ed on a common ethnicity or race, the principle was almost only applied to European states. This was a direct consequence of the problematic legacy of public international law, a history riddled with racism, eurocentrism and even racial science, a history that traces its roots back to the Roman empire. The Montevideo convention showed that the recognition of states and peo-ple was not a legal question, but a political one.
After World War II, states were once again forced to redraw both public international law and the League of Nations as an organisation. State sover-eignty was redefined and restricted by several means such as jus cogens rules and through the establishment of the United Nations (UN). The UN gave a clearer and stronger structure for public international law through a more powerful Security Council, a stronger protection for human rights, gained its own court and military forces, and started the decolonisation pro-cess. Despite this, many criticisms levied against the League of Nations can be applied on the UN: the right to self-determination was not given to peo-ples in non-colonial contexts, colonialism was replaced with neo-colonialism, and the Security Council is still hampered by the 5 permanent members’ veto rights. Despite the UN addressing several structural problems found in the League of Nations, several problems are still present, especially in regard to great power dominance and infringements on state sovereignty. Through a legal historical analysis, the aim of this essay is to compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of the League of Nations and the UN to contrib-ute to a deeper understanding of how the principle works and needs to change for future generations. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Statssuveränitet har länge varit en central princip i folkrätten, men dess tolk-ning och tillämpning har varierat stort genom historien: från romarrikets ius gentium till vår moderna folkrätt har många förändringar skett ekonomiskt, politiskt, kulturellt och inte minst rättsligt. En av de mest intressanta tidspe-rioderna i statssuveränitetens utveckling skedde mellan upprättandet av Nat-ionernas Förbund och bildandet av Förenta Nationerna. NF grundades som ett försök att etablera ett globalt system för fred och säkerhet till följd av första världskrigets hemskheter, ett system påverkat av Woodrow Wilsons 14 punkter och idén om diplomati som det nya lösningsmedlet för folkrätts-liga konflikter. Organisationen led dock av flera strukturella... (More)
Statssuveränitet har länge varit en central princip i folkrätten, men dess tolk-ning och tillämpning har varierat stort genom historien: från romarrikets ius gentium till vår moderna folkrätt har många förändringar skett ekonomiskt, politiskt, kulturellt och inte minst rättsligt. En av de mest intressanta tidspe-rioderna i statssuveränitetens utveckling skedde mellan upprättandet av Nat-ionernas Förbund och bildandet av Förenta Nationerna. NF grundades som ett försök att etablera ett globalt system för fred och säkerhet till följd av första världskrigets hemskheter, ett system påverkat av Woodrow Wilsons 14 punkter och idén om diplomati som det nya lösningsmedlet för folkrätts-liga konflikter. Organisationen led dock av flera strukturella svagheter. Kra-vet på enhällighet i beslutsfattandet förlamade organisationens handlings-förmåga, en brist på verkställighetsmedel som en egen militär eller effektiva ekonomiska sanktioner, och stormakter som USA, Tyskland och Sovjetun-ionen deltog antingen inte alls eller endast under få tidsperioder. Trots att NF:s mål var kollektiv säkerhet och diplomatiskt samarbete saknade organi-sationen de nödvändiga medlen för att införliva sina ideal – en konsekvens av staters ovilja att inskränka sin suveränitet och självbestämmande. Dessu-tom innehöll folkrätten i sig flera motsägelser. Trots att Wilson betonade vikten av nationalstater grundade på gemensam etnicitet och kultur tilläm-pades principen nästan uteslutande i Europa. Detta var en direkt konsekvens av folkrättens historiska arv, präglat av rasism, eurocentrism och även rasbio-logi, ett arv ända från romarriket. Montevideokonventionen visade att er-kännandet av stater och folk oftast inte var en folkrättslig fråga, utan en politisk fråga.
Efter andra världskriget tvingades världens länder återigen rita om både folkrätten och NF som organisation. Statssuveräniteten omtolkades och fick flera inskränkningar både genom folkrättsliga jus cogens regler som aldrig får brytas och genom FN:s bildande. FN gav folkrätten en tydligare struktur genom ett mer handlingskraftigt Säkerhetsråd, ett starkare skydd för mänsk-liga rättigheter, inrättandet av en FN-domstol och genom avkoloniseringen. Däremot kan mycket av kritiken mot NF också riktas mot FN: rätt till själv-bestämmande gavs inte åt folk i icke-koloniala kontexter, kolonialism byttes bara ut mot nykolonialism, och Säkerhetsrådets beslutsfattande förlamning består fortfarande till följd av vetosystemet. Trots att FN har åtgärdat flera av NF:s brister består flera av organisationens strukturella problem, särskilt i fråga om stormaktsdominans och gränserna för suveränitetsinskränkningar. Med denna uppsats hoppas jag att genom en rättshistorisk jämförelse av statssuveräniteten i NF och FN kunna belysa styrkor och svagheter i deras tolkningar och bidra till en djupare förståelse av hur principen bör utvecklas för framtida generationer. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Jasim, Roy LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Which people deserve a nation? - An examination of the development on the principle of state sovereignty from the League of Nations to the United Nations
course
JURM02 20242
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
folkrätt, public international law, rättshistoria, legal history
language
Swedish
id
9179970
date added to LUP
2025-01-17 11:19:59
date last changed
2025-01-17 11:19:59
@misc{9179970,
  abstract     = {{The principle of state sovereignty has long been a central principle in public international law, but its interpretation and application have varied greatly through history. One of the most interesting time periods for the develop-ment of state sovereignty can be seen between the establishment of the League of Nations and the foundation of the United Nations. The League of Nations was an attempt to establish a global system of peace and security as a result of the atrocities witnessed in World War I, a system heavily in-spired by Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points and the idea of diplomacy as the solution to international conflicts. Despite this, the organisation suffered from several structural flaws. The unanimity requirement in the voting pro-cess hindered the organisation’s ability to act, a lack of an independent mili-tary or effective military sanctions, and great powers such as the USA, Germany, and the Soviet Union were only members briefly or not at all. De-spite its goal of collective security and diplomatic cooperation, the organisa-tion lacked the necessary resources to put it into practise – a consequence of states unwillingness to restrict their own sovereignty and self-determination. Additionally, public international law at the time contained several contra-dictions. Despite Wilson emphasising the importance of nation-states found-ed on a common ethnicity or race, the principle was almost only applied to European states. This was a direct consequence of the problematic legacy of public international law, a history riddled with racism, eurocentrism and even racial science, a history that traces its roots back to the Roman empire. The Montevideo convention showed that the recognition of states and peo-ple was not a legal question, but a political one.
After World War II, states were once again forced to redraw both public international law and the League of Nations as an organisation. State sover-eignty was redefined and restricted by several means such as jus cogens rules and through the establishment of the United Nations (UN). The UN gave a clearer and stronger structure for public international law through a more powerful Security Council, a stronger protection for human rights, gained its own court and military forces, and started the decolonisation pro-cess. Despite this, many criticisms levied against the League of Nations can be applied on the UN: the right to self-determination was not given to peo-ples in non-colonial contexts, colonialism was replaced with neo-colonialism, and the Security Council is still hampered by the 5 permanent members’ veto rights. Despite the UN addressing several structural problems found in the League of Nations, several problems are still present, especially in regard to great power dominance and infringements on state sovereignty. Through a legal historical analysis, the aim of this essay is to compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of the League of Nations and the UN to contrib-ute to a deeper understanding of how the principle works and needs to change for future generations.}},
  author       = {{Jasim, Roy}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Vilket folk förtjänar ett land? - En undersökning av statssuveränitetsprincipens utveckling mellan Förenta Nationerna och Nationernas Förbund}},
  year         = {{2024}},
}