Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
  • Home

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Send to Kindle
  • Send to Dropbox
  • Send to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

54 results

Page 1 of 3

  • 4 - Excluding Revolutionary States
    • from Part II - Institutions and Orders
  • Edited by Kathryn Greenman, University of Technology, Sydney, Anne Orford, University of Melbourne, Anna Saunders, Harvard Law School, Massachusetts, Ntina Tzouvala, Australian National University, Canberra
  • Book: Revolutions in International Law
  • Published online: 21 January 2021
  • Print publication: 18 February 2021, pp 85-111
  • View extract

    Summary

    With these phrases the president spoke of the Allied Powers’ plan to establish a new organisation – one based on the principles of universality and freedom. Nevertheless, while this association would not ‘shut out anybody’, it was clear that the terms of its creation would be dictated by a limited group – the delegates of the states who would constitute the Commission on the League of Nations. Of course, the leaders who heard this address on 18 January 1919 were by no means representative of the international community. The most notable absences were the former enemy powers, but there were others not present at the meeting in Paris, including Russia and Mexico. While the absence of the former was keenly felt by the Allied Powers, and the ‘Russian question’ was the subject of much discussion, the lack of an invitation to Mexico, as a neutral power, did not excite the same interest, at least in the formal discussions.2

Page 1 of 3