Bismarck once said: "I do not want any colonies at all. Their only use is to provide sinecures. That is all England at present gets out of her colonies, and Spain too. And as for us Gennans, colonies would be exactly like the silks and sables of the Polish nobleman who had no shirt to wear under them. " 1 It may be debated whether Bismarck was right or wrong, but the subsequent course of history e. g. , the Anglo French rivalry in Egypt, the Sino-Japanese war of 1894-1895, the Spa nish-American war of 1898, the Boer war of 1899-1902, the Russo Japanese war of 1904-1905, the Morocco crisis of 1906, the Turco Italian war of 1911, showed that the colonial territories, which were often treated as pawns in the diplomatic game for power, prestige, and markets were potential causes of war. 2 The chief cause of modern wars, if Hobson's analysis is accepted, is the competitive struggle of modern nations for economic privileges of one kind or another for powerful financial and trading groups of their 3 nationals. The keen desire of the Colonial Powers to acquire new mar kets and sources of raw materials by diplomatic pressure or force have been, according to him, "the chief directing influences in foreign policy, the chief causes of competing armaments, and the pennanent under lying menaces to peace.

This book considers the past and present legacies, continuities and change of the United Nations Trusteeship System by assessing consequences and legacies of decolonization in contemporary society, international organizations and international politics. International contributors address the UN Trusteeship System as a venue for multiple state and non- state actors and its effect on the international system. Rather than viewing UN trusteeship as a bygone phenomenon, the volume underscores its current relevance, particularly in view of the recent resurgence of trusteeship models such as in Kosovo and East Timor. Offering a novel and robust, yet simple and intuitive analytical framework through which to understand a broad range of cases related to the Trusteeship System and its impact on the international system, the book places emphasis on the agency of states in the Global South and highlights the importance of multiple actors in global governance. It will be of interest to scholars of international relations theory and history in a variety of fields, ranging from African Politics to Intergovernmental Organizations and Comparative Politics.

The emergence of new states and independence movements after the Cold War has intensified the long-standing disagreement among international lawyers over the right of self-determination, especially the right of secession. Knop shifts the discussion from the articulation of the right to its interpretation. She argues that the practice of interpretation involves and illuminates a problem of diversity raised by the exclusion of many of the groups that self-determination most affects. Distinguishing different types of exclusion and the relationships between them reveals the deep structures, biases and stakes in the decisions and scholarship on self-determination. Knop's analysis also reveals that the leading cases have grappled with these embedded inequalities. Challenges by colonies, ethnic nations, indigenous peoples, women and others to the gender and cultural biases of international law emerge as integral to the interpretation of self-determination historically, as do attempts by judges and other institutional interpreters to meet these challenges.

Compares the impact of the League of Nations mandates system on British and French rule in African mandated territories.

The second volume explains how the League of Nations mandates system fused two of the predominant and compelling global forces of the twentieth century: imperialism and Wilsonian internationalism. After the First World War, Britain and France administered most of Germany's former tropical African colonies as "mandates" under the supervision of the League as "a sacred trust of civilization." This system of international trusteeship changed British and French rule in Africa. In short, "mandates" were not "colonies." Mandates meant less militarism, more commercial equality, a greater emphasis on the interests of Africans, and an end to the extension of European national sovereignty over colonized peoples. Accountability to the League also required the British and French to reconsider traditional economic, strategic, and ideological assumptions about their empires. In the process, the "sacred trust" sowed the seeds of self-doubt about the very purpose and future of European imperialism. The mandates system continued to represent a genuine internationalisation and reformation of colonialism and had long-term economic, political, and cultural consequences for Africans and Europeans within the mandated territories. Despite the Depression, repeated Anglo-French foreign policy failures, growing humiliations for Geneva, and war in Africa and Europe, the principles and practices of international trusteeship proved persistent. Mandates demonstrated the relevance of international law, the importance of the League of Nations, and the impact of Wilsonian principles on international relations and European imperialism.