Collective Security
However, it was his own nation that rejected the language of the Treaty of Versailles and ultimately the League. While a disappointment for President Wilson, in hindsight, the U.S. Congress’ rejection of the League was to be expected as the presi- dent was seeking not only a major policy shift in numerous foreign countries, but also in the pro- cess by which the United States would engage itself in the affairs with those foreign nations.
90
Particularly important in Wilson’s “Fourteen Points” speech and calling for the world to em- brace the idea of collective security, was his un- derstanding of why the United States entered the war. Certain “violations of right,” Wilson believed, created conditions that were impossible for even the American people, a non-party to the conflict, to idly stand by and allow. These violations were many, namely the rights of a state and its citizens to be free from outside aggressors and also to be protected should such a violation occur. Those violations required rectification and it was this, in conjunction with the necessity to ensure that such a war never happen again, which drew the U.S. into the war.
In addition, forming the modern day notion of collective security was Wilson’s understanding of the nature and preservation of humankind and its morality. One of the reasons why Presi- dent Wilson waited so long to propose to the U. S. Congress a declaration of war was his keen awareness of the moral damage that was likely to occur should the war escalate to such heights. Wilson understood that most individuals and states, desired, like the United States, to live freely and be secure in their access to justice and fair dealing by the rest of the world. It was this desire that made everyone partners with the interests of upholding the principle of collec- tive security for themselves and for one another. Nevertheless, all did not share President Wilson’s views – particularly his view on Member States’ obligations relating to collective security under the newly penned Covenant of the League of Na-
ILSA Quarterly » volume 20 » issue 3 » February 2012
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112