The United Kingdom and the Beginning of the Mandates System, 1919–1922

1969 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
WM. Roger Louis
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
World War I ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
World War ◽  
Good Opportunity ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
Supreme Council ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Government

The decision of the Supreme Council of the Paris Peace Conference in January 1919 to place the German colonies and Turkish territories under the supervision of the League of Nations raised serious political and legal questions to which no one had satisfactory answers. But, by contrast with the numerous recent studies of World War I and the Peace Conference that deal at least in passing with the origins and establishment of the mandates system, there are very few satisfactory scholarly essays that analyzer the aftermath of the Peace Conference's deliberations on international colonial affairs. The opening of the archives of the government of the United Kingdom after 1919 provides a good opportunity to review the subject and to examine what the unpublished records reveal about international supervision in colonial areas.

Topical Pension Problems (A Personal Overview).

1985 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 115-133
Author(s):  
Geraldine Kaye
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Pension Funds ◽  
National Association ◽  
Policy Studies ◽  
British Industry ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Government ◽  
Different Sources

Much discussion is taking place currently in the United Kingdom on the subject of pensions. Conferences and symposia have been conducted at various times on many aspects of pensions by such diverse bodies as the Policy Studies Institute (1), the Institute of Fiscal Studies (2), the Trades Union Congress (3), the Pensions Management Institute, the Confederation of British Industry, the National Association of Pension Funds and even our own Institute (4) (in the case of our Institute, on the whole field). The Government announced an all-embracing enquiry on 16 December 1983. This has been divided into separate parts. Evidence for the first part concerned with ‘portable pensions’ was required by 31 January 1984. Despite the very tight deadline, written evidence was obtained from over 1,500 different sources. This serves to show just how much interest was currently being aroused. The final results of the full Government enquiry are not yet available (September 1984). The unprecedented speed with which the Government has proceeded demonstrates the importance that it attaches to the issues raised, and suggests that any prompted legislation will be given a degree of priority.

Treaty-Making Procedure in the British Dominions

1938 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 467-487 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert B. Stewart
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Prime Minister ◽  
World War ◽  
Separate Representation ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Mother Country ◽  
The World ◽  
Paris Peace Conference ◽  
The Government

The British Dominions prior to the World War had already achieved practically unrestricted freedom with respect to technical and commercial treaties. They had not attained any comparable freedom with respect to “political” treaties. They were, with rare exceptions, excluded from participation in the conclusion of such treaties but were, nevertheless, bound automatically by the obligations undertaken by the mother country. The Government of the United Kingdom, subject to its responsibility to the Imperial Parliament at Westminster, exercised sole authority in all matters relating to the conduct of foreign policy, the maintenance of peace, and the declaration of war. That authority, Prime Minister Asquith declared at the Imperial Conference of 1911, could not be shared with the Dominions. Yet at the close of the War the Dominions were given separate representation at the Paris Peace Conference.

scholarly journals Działania wojenne gen. Żeligowskiego wobec Litwy. Próby rozstrzygnięcia konfliktu przez ligę narodów

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 75-90
Author(s):  
Wiesław Łach
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Mutual Understanding ◽  
World War ◽  
Political Activities ◽  
The Subject

The situation after World War I was far from stabilizing, and the area of the Vilnius region became the subject of a conflict that for many years cast a shadow on Polish-Lithuanian relations. One should look at this conflict from the perspective of one hundred years, remembering that it turned into an antagonism so sharp and fierce that it even aroused the amazement of bystanders. The taken up topic has been presented in many aspects: events in August and September 1920 preceding the occupation of Vilnius, the position of General Lucjan Żeligowski to this situation, warfare (called "rebellion"), the establishment of Central Lithuania and an attempt to sanction the situation in the League of Nations forum. This paper is about a military and political activities of occupation of Vilnius and its neighboring areas by the Poland in October 1920. The originator of this undertaking was Józef Piłsudski. He admitted to it after years, exactly on the 24th and 25th of August 1923 during the lectures in the hall of the Grand Theater in Vilnius. Polish-Lithuanian relations in the analyzed years should be considered far from accepted international standards. Both Poles and Lithuanians can be held responsible in point of above facts. Awareness of these events is extremely important for both nations for mutual understanding and agreement.

The Beginning of the Debate on the Codification of Polish Law after the World War I: The Issue of the Codification Commission Autonomy in the Light of Political Declarations

2019 ◽  
Vol 80 ◽  
pp. 119-134
Author(s):  
Michał Gałędek
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
World War ◽  
Second Republic ◽  
Self Sufficiency ◽  
The World ◽  
Subsequent Application ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Government ◽  
Polish Law

The purpose of this article is to analyze the ideological basis of concepts that underpinned the establishment of the Codification Commission by virtue of the Act of 3 June 1919 and to assess its position within the system of authorities of the Second Republic of Poland. The author has found that the issues around shaping the relations of the Codification Commission with the Government and the Sejm have been covered in literature of the subject in a one-sided manner. Authors who have devoted their attention to the issue of autonomy of the Codification Commission formulated their evaluations based on the interpretation of the regulations in the drafts of the Act that established the Commission, as well as on their subsequent application that enabled the restriction of this autonomy. They did not, however, sufficiently account for the ideological declarations, thus in fact rejecting the deputies’ assertions of their striving to ensure “complete autonomy and self-sufficiency” of the Codification Commission, and the Government’s affirmations that it did not aim to “subject” the Commission to its control. Meanwhile, the author’s intention is to show that there was a widespread consensus at the time, especially at the Sejm, which sovereignly decided on the wording of the Act on the Codification Commission, that deputies had adopted a law that sufficiently protected the autonomous status of the Commission and its apolitical nature.

An Innovation in International Arbitral Tribunals–The Swiss–Allied Accord

1952 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 464-482 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nat B. King
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
World War I ◽  
Private Property ◽  
The United States ◽  
World War ◽  
The United Kingdom

Private property of enemies lost its absolute inviolability when at the end of World War I it was subjected to the claims of Allied nationals against Germany. After World War II enemy exterior assets became the object of reparations at the Potsdam Conference between the Governments of the United States, the Union of Soviet Socialist Eepublics, and the United Kingdom. To implement the Potsdam Agreement the Allied Control Council for Germany on October 30, 1945, enacted Law No. 5 which, inter alia, purported to vest in the Council title to German private assets in the neutral countries. In Switzerland this action eventually culminated in the Swiss-Allied Accord of May 25,1946, between France, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Switzerland, which provided for the liquidation of German property in Switzerland4 valued at approximately 150 million dollars. The proceeds of liquidation are to go fifty percent to Switzerland and fifty percent to the several governments signatory to the Paris Reparations Agreement of December 21, 1945.

Constitutional Crisis in the United Kingdom: Scotland and the Devolution Controversy

1977 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Meadows
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
White Paper ◽  
Home Rule ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Government ◽  
Constitutional Issue

The United Kingdom, already beleaguered in the mid-1970's by a number of serious problems—economic, social, political, diplomatic and even climatic—in addition has had to contend with a far-reaching constitutional crisis. Involving the subject of devolution of power (better known as home rule), it has been described as “the most crucial constitutional issue which has confronted the United Kingdom since it came into being.” The controversy over devolution has reached a new level of intensity since November, 1975, when the government, in an effort to resolve the dispute, published a White Paper entitled Our Changing Democracy: Devolution to Scotland and Wales. This article examines the following aspects of the devolution issue: its background, why it has emerged at this time, why the White Paper was issued, reasons for the hostile reaction to the White Paper, the prospects for parliamentary passage of devolution legislation, and the issue's political repercussions and implications, both domestic and international.

United States Attitude Toward Domestic Jurisdiction in the United Nations

1959 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-37
Author(s):  
M. S. Rajan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
World War I ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Dominant Role ◽  
The United States ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
World War ◽  
Domestic Jurisdiction ◽  
The Subject

The United States has played a dominant role in the establishment of international organizations since World War I, especially with respect to the League of Nations and the UN. However, the United States is also largely responsible for some vital limitations on the functioning of these organizations. One, perhaps the most important, is the subject of this study.

Victors Defeated

2020 ◽  
pp. 32-62
Author(s):  
Martin Crotty ◽  
Neil J. Diamant ◽  
Mark Edele
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
World War I ◽  
The United States ◽  
World War ◽  
Simple Correlation ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
War Effort

This chapter look at cases that complicate any simple correlation between victorious wars and veterans' high postwar status. It examines the United States and the United Kingdom after World War I, the United Kingdom after World War II, Soviet veterans after both world wars, and China. It also elaborates how victory did not prevent many former soldiers from feeling betrayed by their governments, and often by society as well. The chapter discusses American World War I veterans that point to some gains after a limited contribution to the war effort and after many years of agitation. It describes the United Kingdom, long-suffering frontoviki in the USSR, and China's veterans that languished in obscurity for decades despite having paid a far higher price for their victory.

The United Kingdom and Germany

2020 ◽  
pp. 126-137
Author(s):  
Matthew Kroenig
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Middle East ◽  
World War I ◽  
World War ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Financial Power ◽  
The Uk

This chapter considers the United Kingdom’s rivalry with Germany in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. After nearly two centuries of ascendancy, the UK was challenged by an autocratic Germany growing in the heart of Europe. The two clashed in World War I, and the United Kingdom emerged victorious and with its largest-ever territorial expanse, expanding its empire into the Middle East. World War II took a harder toll on the UK, but, again, with the help of its navy, its financial power, and its democratic allies—and in no small part to the heedless decision-making of its autocratic rival—it once again prevailed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document