Howard-Ellis, C. The Origin, Structure & Working of the League of Nations. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1929. 528 pp. Reprinted 2003 by The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. LCCN 2002041362. ISBN 1-58477-320-0. Cloth. $95. * Surveys the League's components and the role of its chief associated bodies, the International Court of Justice and the International Labor Organization. Other sections consider its approach to open and secret diplomacy, the ratification of conventions and the function of related technical organizations. The author, though enthusiastic about the League, appreciates the weaknesses in its charter and organization. He argues that these flaws are not inherent but are a consequence of the League's reliance on prior international law, which is plagued by weakness and ambiguity.

The League of Nations occupies a fascinating yet paradoxical place in human history. Over time, it’s come to symbolize both a path to peace and to war, a promising vision of world order and a utopian illusion, an artifact of a bygone era and a beacon for one that may still come. As the first experiment in world organization, the League played a pivotal, but often overlooked role in the creation of the United Nations and the modern architecture of global governance. In contrast to conventional accounts, which chronicle the institution’s successes and failures during the interwar period, Cottrell explores the enduring relevance of the League of Nations for the present and future of global politics. He asks: What are the legacies of the League experiment? How do they inform current debates on the health of global order and US leadership? Is there a "dark side" to these legacies? Cottrell demonstrates how the League of Nations’ soul continues to shape modern international relations, for better and for worse. Written in a manner accessible to students of international history, international relations and global politics, it will also be of interest to graduates and scholars.

The end of the Cold War ushered in a moment of nearly pure American dominance on the world stage, yet that era now seems ages ago. Since 9/11 many informed commentators have focused on the relative decline of American power in the global system. While some have welcomed this as a salutary development, outspoken proponents of American power--particularly neoconservatives--have lamented this turn of events. As Jeanne Morefield argues in Empires Without Imperialism, the defenders of a liberal international order steered by the US have both invoked nostalgia for a golden liberal past and succumbed to amnesia, forgetting the decidedly illiberal trajectory of US continental and global expansion. Yet as she shows, the US is not the first liberal hegemon to experience a wave of misguided nostalgia for a bygone liberal order; England had a remarkably similar experience in the early part of the twentieth century. The empires of the US and the United Kingdom were different in character--the UK's was territorially based while the US relied more on pure economic power--yet both nations mouthed the rhetoric of free markets and political liberty. And elites in both painted pictures of the past in which first England and then the US advanced the cause of economic and political liberty throughout the world. Morefield contends that at the times of their decline, elites in both nations utilized the attributes of an imagined past to essentialize the nature of the liberal state. Working from that framework, they bemoaned the possibility of liberalism's decline and suggested a return to a true liberal order as a solution to current woes. By treating liberalism as fixed through time, however, they actively forgot their illiberal pasts as colonizers and economic imperialists. According to Morefield, these nostalgic narratives generate a cynical 'politics in the passive' where the liberal state gets to have it both ways: it is both compelled to act imperially to save the world from illiberalism and yet is never responsible for the outcome of its own illiberal actions in the world or at home. By comparing the practice and memory of liberalism in early nineteenth century England and the contemporary United States, Empires Without Imperialism addresses a major gap in the literature. While there are many examinations of current neoliberal imperialism by critical theorists as well as analyses of liberal imperialism by scholars of the history of political thought, no one has of yet combined the two approaches. It thus provides a much fuller picture of the rhetorical strategies behind liberal imperialist uses of history. At the same time, the book challenges presentist assumptions about the novelty of our current political moment.

"Teachers' bulletin", vol. 4- issued as part of v. 23, no. 9-

This work investigates the ‘Janus face’ of international relations, refracted through the prism of the duality of Jan Christian Smuts, as it manifested in his contribution to the League of Nations and his struggle against the emerging peace treaty. A predominant characteristic of international relations is its requirement to face two different ways at the same time - its Janus face. States profess their adherence to lofty ideals for humanity alongside the pursuit of their own immediate self-interest. This phenomenon in the behaviour of states has been referred to as the distance between vision and reality, and the gap between rhetoric and reality. International relations is, and is likely to remain, suspended between these two extremes: on the one hand, the pursuit of utopian ideals for the world, and, on the other, a defence of narrow self-interest, often prompted by the dictates of the realpolitik of the moment. How, then, are the values that underlie the founding of the first cornerstone of the current international order — the League of Nations — to be understood? An under-explored case study in understanding the complex framework of international relations is that of the visionary and controversial South African, Jan Christian Smuts (1870-1950). On the one hand, Smuts was one of the principal authors of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and the person directly responsible for the recognition of human rights as a founding value of the Charter of the United Nations. On the other, the Premier of racially segregated South Africa.