12 differences between United Nations and League of Nations

If you know even a little about:

The League of Nations and United Nations

And want to know about the:

Differences between United Nations (UN) and League of Nations (LoN)

Contrasts between United Nations Organisation (UNO) and League of Nations (LoN)

Differences between Charter of United Nations (UN) and Covenant of League of Nations (LoN)

Or

Working Areas/ General Approach Differences between United Nations (UN) and 'Charter' Vs League of Nations (LoN) and its 'Covenant'

Then we are happy that you are at the right place, and we at IRWF welcome you on the forum. 

Because, in this article, we will try sincerely to put forward the major differences between the League of Nations (LoN) and United Nations Organisation (UN), by making a comparison of the 'Covenant' of the League of Nations and 'Charter' of the United Nations (you know? as League of Nations was based on its Covenant, and United Nations (UN) on its still high-held Charter).

In reality, there are nearly uncountable differences between the two organisations, as yours and mine differences in the counting between the stars!! ☺
Anyhow, people can at times figure out their "own" differences among the two. But we have tried here to make a comprehensive comparison- in 12 points of differences- which also shows that "how United Nations is better"- on being different with the League of Nations.

So let's have a slight and quick flashback from 1919- which shows the situations producing these two orgs.!

Because as we know that up till now, two world wars have been fought, killing over a 100 million people before we all realized that: "war is a curse". After that realizations (in different times of history), some efforts were made to maintain a sustainable peace, collective security and pursue human development goals for future. These sincere or careless efforts- whatever you may say, based on your "own" comparisons- are known in the history of states, and mankind, as The League of Nations (LoN) and The United Nations Organisation (UNO).

After the World War-1, the Treaty of Versailles (1919), in its part, gave birth to the "Covenant"- of the League of Nations- with 26 articles, which illustrated the framework for the "innately anti-aggression organisation"- the League of Nations.

While on the other hand, the UNO's "Charter" after being framed was debated in the United Nations Conference by 51 states at San Francisco, in 1945. And this Charter finally came up with 111 articles,delimiting the Dos and Don'ts of the world's new caretaker organisation- The United Nations.

Now let's compare with each other, the Covenant of the League and Charter of the UN. Which "You" don't have to compare actually, because I have already done that, and will take a lot of your time also, to do so. ☺

So let's see what I have found out of their comparison:

Similarities B/W The League of Nations(LoN) And United Nations (UNO):

Do you know?
Both the United Nations and the League of Nations aimed at the pace and security- as their basic goals, both were voluntary associations of the sovereign states, both had an assembly with a diverse membership, both provided the states with equal rights to vote, both instituted a council with powerful states as members and both held a secretariat headed by a Secretary General, and indeed, both were very formal organisations- basing their structure and functions on the basic documents envisioning their codes of conduct i.e. the Covenant and the Charters were there absolutely.

Differences between the League of Nations (LoN) and United Nations (UNO):

Do you also remember that: One devastated, and the other is still standing proud and alive. One was the predecessor and the other its successor. One- the mother, and the other- its a grown up daughter now. One was the experiment, and the other- an improved invention. One was an initiative, and the other- its a follow-up.
So consequently, one seems a really improved version of its precedent, and the other- a weaker one i.e. the League of Nations.

But, how stronger or weaker:

1) The League Vs The UN's "Principal Organs":

The different number of the principal organs is the first difference between the two, as the League had 3 principal organs, while the UN has 6, being the following:
1. The Secretariat
2. The Security Council
3. The General Assembly
4. The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
5. The UN Trusteeship Council, and
6. The International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Among the above six organs of the United Nations, only the first three were present in the League's "own" structural domains. "Own" is important because the UN's today's "ICJ was present" during the League's surviving time and decades as the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ). And even though it was created under the chapter XIV of the League's covenant, PCIJ was still an autonomous body i.e. not being governed under the direct and immediate jurisdictions of the League of Nations.

2) The General Membership Trends And The Mass Participation:

The trends of the membership and voting varied significantly in both the organisations i.e. LoN and the UN.

Unlike the League, the UN had to pass through an era of decolonization, thus resulting into a larger, effective and active common state participation, including that of the smaller states, with a voting chit in the hands of each on the basis of the "right to vote" and the "right to equal participation". This enhanced participation caused a shift in the voting trends of the UN General Assembly, after and along the phase of decolonization.

Now a days (as in Nov 2018), there are 193 members of the United Nations Organisation (UNO).

Whereas the League of Nations, due to the lack of a universal membership & participation, suffered at every now and then, because as a whole, a very few states from Latin America, South America, Asia, Europe and Africa participated in the organisation, which resulted in the League's failure.
It is also said that "the League of Nations was never a representative of the international community".(Scroll to Pg:176 and read" League of Nations" from Book: The key concepts of IR)

At its height, only a total of 63 states participated (randomly and in different times), in its entire span of the 26 years from 1920 to 1946. This participation is a roughly one-third (1/3rd) of the today's UN participation.

3) League P5 Vs UN's P5  &  The "Hidden Stability Principle":

Apart from the General membership lacks and weaknesses, the League's council comprised of an uncertain, non-persistent and a roughly estimated number and identity of the members of the council. A rough Council formula, which followed by the League, consisted of some principal allied powers + four non-permanent members selected periodically by the Assembly.

This bestowed the League with an advantage of "flexibility", but this flexibility later proved a weakness and a cause of its instability of the organisation.

But, on the contrary stands the UN Security Council's formula, of 5 permanent + 10 non-permanent members (elected by the General Assembly), as prescribed under Article 23 of the Charter (which cannot be changed or compromised without the revision of the Charter).

It is quite evident that as the permanent five (P5) members are clearly mentioned as: Britain, USA, France, China and Russia, this proves a reason for the UN's stability, even till today.

In my opinion: as the permanent members/care-takers are mentioned in the Charter, it is a sole strong cause of the UN's stability, although this P5 permanency is often remarked negatively, as the permanent ones are also levied with some distinct powers and privileges (e.g. veto power and extra-influences)  often leading to several injustices with the states, and malfunctioning of the organisation.

4) Expansion In The Spheres Of UN's Working Areas:

Taking a holistic view, the League of Nations was an international organisation of more or less the same objectives and aimed targets as that of today's United Nations. But, a vital expansion in the issue and working areas of the United Nations is observed including the:

Human Rights promotion, Peacekeeping & Peace-building operations and deep concerns over the problems and sufferings of the: refugees, laborers, women and children etc.

Thus making it a more concerned, likely to be effective, active and  favorable, organisation for the world peace & security, and collective humanitarian welfare and progresses.  

5) UN's International Adaptability And The Flexible Variability Features:

If we search, read and explore the dynamics of the Uniting For Peace Proposal or United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 377-A, and if the concepts and notions of the Peacekeeping Forces are thought about, then this conclusion emerges that the UN seems far more adaptable to the changes in the international system than the League of Nations, which was more rigid, due to which, it failed to keep up with the changing international system, thus causing its consequent failure.

6) Membership Withdrawal Provisions:

The League's covenant permitted under certain conditions its members to withdraw from the general membership. But the UN's charter says nothing for a state opting to quit the platform, whereas a moral obligation still exist to continue as a member, for the collective betterment.

7) League's Ridiculous "Resort To War":

It seems very ridiculous, that the covenant did not consider the use of force, in a material sense, as a "resort to war", until the war is openly declared against a state. :)   It means that one can continue to ambush another, and still remain a peaceful state/nation, until or unless it openly declares the war already waged.

Whereas the charter, under Article 2 and paragraph 4 says that: "members should refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state".
Which clearly means that any aggression is clearly "encircled" and "pointed out" as an ideologically unacceptable act of war.

8) UN Distinguishing The SC Mandate:

Differentiation and demarcation between the functions and powers of the Security Council (SC) and the General Assembly is more addressed by the UN's charter, which makes the Security Council, primarily responsible for the maintenance of peace and security matters, and the charter also limits the transfer of a matter from the Security Council, to the General Assembly, for its solution or resolution, at the request of a state who is itself a party to the problem, conflict or crisis.

Whereas the League's covenant under Article 15, para 9, permitted this transfer of issues, thus giving the same general competence to the League's Council and the Assembly, which indeed lessens the significance, specialty and specifications of the Council's approaches and its legitimate authority, so as to be effective and more influential for the crisis management and solution.

9) League's Unanimity Vs UN's 2/3rd Majority:

No doubt, there is a significant difference between a resolution to get passed in the Assembly of  the League, and that of the United Nations. In the League's Assembly, a unanimous voting is required to get the resolution passed, but with an abstention principle being followed i.e. the members neither voting in favor, nor against a resolution/decision, are not to be counted as present in the voting procedures, which is abstention. 

But still after the abstention flexibility (which prevents the rigidity of the counting of non-voters as against), a unanimous (i.e. complete, uniform and throughout) voting could only make a resolution get passed in the League's Assembly.

On the contrary, the charter under Article 18, requires a two-third majority of the General Assembly to get pass a resolution, in order to take a decision (i.e. to make a recommendation, because the "General Assembly's decision is only a recommendation").

But in case of the SC, both the League of Nations and the United Nations required a unanimous assent of the big seats "at least".      

10) Charter's Providence Of Right To Self-Defense:

The Covenant did not provide the states with, or did not make them clear over, their right to self-defense. However, this condition is addressed under the Article 51 of the Charter of UN, which specifies this right as:

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security".

                                                                                                                   (Article no. 51 of the Charter of the United Nations)

In my opinion: This addressing of a seemingly insignificant/self-understood and a routine behavior/right of the nations (i.e. their right to the self-defense addressed in the Charter), is important to be addressed because any issue when is addressed and talked about on the collective forums and platforms, generates a breeze of an invisible confidence in the nerves of all, produced as a result of the feeling that either a nation's problem, solution or its parts being faced and observed, do exist and are implied, applied and faced by all other nations  as well on uniform basis.   

11) Emphasis Upon The Regional Organisational Establishments:

The League's Covenant did not emphasize upon the establishment of regional arrangements for the maintenance of regional peace and security, which then leads to the collective world peace.

But on the other hand, the UN's Charter under Article. 52, gives a recognition, and even a greater recognition to the regional arrangements, and along with that, also directs the members formulating, devising and entering those regional arrangements for their regional pacific solutions, to achieve the solutions to their regional and local disputes on their own at first, so as to avoid knocking the Security Council's doors at every now and then.

In my opinion: The League was unable to stress upon such regional arrangements, because if observed, the League's most of the membership was from Europe, and very less states were included from the other regions/continents of: Asia, Africa, Latin and South America etc. 

So as a League of Europe, it was nearly impossible to even think of such establishments, in the regions ''whose masses were even absent and unaddressed in the League''.

12) The League's Mandates System & The UN's Trusteeship Council:

There were colonies across the globe which were also known as the non-self governing territories, and whose looking after, supervision and a check and balance was, and is, deemed to be included in the responsibilities of "any" sort of "global organisation", especially the one founded especially for the "collective peace and global humanitarian welfare". 

So for that purpose (i.e. to regulate the colonies), there existed, in the League of Nations, such a body called the Mandates System, which used to look after those colonies held by the big powers. 

This was used to be done by asserting and exercising their right to discuss with, and make  recommendations to, the colonial masters.Those discussions were used to be concerned usually with the administration of those mandated territories, and not about the strategic affairs and areas of the discussion.

However the Mandates System was not very much effective and influential, as was the League itself.

On the other hand, the Charter of the United Nations endows it with a Trusteeship Council (with certain provisions and rights), which under chapter XI's declaration of Non-Self Governing Territories, binds the colonial administrator states to make regular reports to the UN authority. And a provision for the "periodical visits" enables the UN authorities to visit the trusteeship territories themselves, and also enables the visiting Trusteeship authorities to cross-check the data of the regular periodical reports, provided by the colonial administrators to the UN Trusteeship authorities on their own selves.

All the above powers embodied in the Trusteeship Council proves it far more advanced, effective and a fair colony regulating body, than that of the capabilities and approaches of the Mandates System of the League of Nations.

                                 

Now finally replace your before reading questions with our:

12 Differences between United Nations (UN) and League of Nations (LoN)

12 Contrasts between United Nations Organisation (UNO) and League of Nations (LoN)

12 Differences between Charter of United Nations (UN) and Covenant of League of Nations (LoN)

AND

12 Working Areas/ General Approach Differences between United Nations (UN) and 'Charter' Vs League of Nations (LoN) and its 'Covenant' ???

And mind again what we've discussed: How United Nations is really"Different" And "Better" From The League Of Nations:

Summary:
(1) Differences in Principal Organs of the UN and League of Nations.
(2) The General Membership Trends And The Mass Participation differences.
(3) League's P5 Vs UN's P5  &  The "Hidden Stability Principle".
(4) Expansion In The Spheres Of UN's Working Areas.
(5) UN's international adaptability and the flexible variability features > that of the League of Nations.
(6) Membership Withdrawal Provisions differences.
(7) League's Ridiculous "Resort To War" differing with that of the UN.
(8) UN Distinguishing The SC Mandate.
(9) League's Unanimity Vs UN's 2/3rd Majority.
(10) Charter's Providence Of Right To Self-Defense to the states.
(11) Emphasis Upon The Regional Organisational Establishments in the UN Charter, and
(12) The League's Mandates System & The UN's Trusteeship Council functions.


My work Ends here! But my hopes still survive!
And I think that "my" these 12 may not be the words of  a verdict, especially for any two substantive historical landmarks!

So if you have some others in your mind, please let me know down in the comments,
and, Feel free to participate!

Contact us with your queries!
Help us improve our 12 differences, ☝
Help us improve United Nations!☺

Have a good real learning day. If you liked the post, please share: "The 12 differences between United Nations and League of Nations" with your friends and mates. ❤

------------------------------------------------------------------