The United Nations was more successful than the League of Nations

The scale of members of UN was bigger than the LN. The League of Nations was created at the PPC (1919), suggested by the president of the USA, Wilson. It was designed to be universal and devoted to the settlement of disputes and the prevention of war. There were only 8 members of the Council, 4 permanent members and 4 non-permanent members which were selected by the Assembly. It was set up in Geneva, Switzerland. In the other side, even before the WW2, the Allies decided to form a new international peace keeping org to replace LN.

In 1942, the 20 Allied nations agreed with the plan for setting up a more comprehensive and permanent peacekeeping body. During the wartime period, the Allies discussed about it, and about to the end of 1945 50 nations joined the UN. It was aimed at maintaining the world peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations according to the principles of equal rights and self-determination, promoting international co-operation and being a center for coordinating the actions for all nations.

With the support of the US, the headquarters of UN was set in the New York City. From the above, it can be seen that the scale of UN is much larger than the LN. The larger scale and more powerfulness of the org are more successful in maintaining world peace. It’s because more participating countries means more people are willing to maintain world peace and willing to contribute to the body and made the body became more powerful and powerful in maintaining the peace with the efforts.

Also, with the participation of the US, the UN became more powerful, it’s because the US is one of the superpowers of the world which can provide many supports to the org. Therefore, the UN was more successful than LN in maintaining world peace by comparing of the scale and powerfulness of members. The United Nations was more successful than the League of Nations in maintaining world peace by comparing with the structure of the general assembly. The general assembly of LN was formed by the representatives of all member states, which met at least once a year.

Each member state had a vote, and most resolutions had to be passed by a unanimous vote. For UN, the general assembly is formed by all member states of the UN, each member state has one vote. The general assembly meets once a year, but extra meetings can be held at any time in care of emergency. All major resolutions must be passed by two-thirds of votes. Others can be passed with a simple majority. The structure was greatly improved when comparing LN and UN. Also, the policies of UN are closer to the reality and meet the social needs.

The regular meeting of LN is just once a year, it is far more not enough and not effective in solving the international affairs. Only one meeting could not solve and help much. Also, the resolutions needed to pass a unanimous vote are time consuming and ineffective, there were so many affairs need the LN to deal with, it was uneasy to have all pass, so it delayed the efficiency when dealing with the problems and solving the conflicts between countries. The UN only needs two-thirds of votes which is easier to achieve and more effective.

Moreover, the LN did not have any solutions for the other less important resolutions while the UN does so. That shows the members of UN are more willing to participate and solve international conflicts and problems than LN. The United Nations was more successful than the League of Nations in maintaining world peace by comparing with their structure. The enforcement power of the UN is stronger than LN as the measures adopt were more effective. The enforcement power of LN was very weak.

The League of Nations could only introduced verbal sanctions to warn an aggressor nation that they must leave the other nation’s territory or face the consequences. If the states in dispute failed to listen to the L, the L could introduce economic sanctions. There was no military force of the L, as no member of the L provides the military force. For example, in 1931, Japan invaded China. China asked the L for help but the L only denounced Japan as an aggressor and declared Japan violated the international agreements. The L was totally unable to stop the Japanese invasion of China.

Also, in 1935, when the Italian troops invaded Abyssinia, the L denounced Italy as an aggressor and imposed economic sanctions on it and failed to stop its invasion. It shows that the L had no enforcement power to stop the aggressors and failed in maintaining peace. Meanwhile, the UN has a stronger enforcement power in solving international conflicts. The UN can adopt economic and trade sanctions, travel bans, arms embargoes, financial or diplomatic restrictions. If the conflict escalates into an armed struggle or a war, the UN will take military action, either peacekeeping operations or enforcement operations.

For example, during the Suez Crisis, a peacekeeping force was sent by the UN to separate the Israelis and the Egyptians. Also, the UN sent troops to Korean War and the Gulf War in 1950s and 1990s respectively. It implies that the UN was more successful in maintaining world peace due to the effective measures and binding military force to the aggressors. In conclusion, the United Nations was more successful than the League of Nations in maintaining world peace by comparing with the scale and powerfulness of members, structure and measures in solving conflicts.