The Roles of Transnational Associations in the World Order in the 1919 Paris Peace Settlement: A Comparative Assessment of Proposals and Their Influence

Abstract

In contrast to previous state-centric accounts, this article sheds new transnational light on the 1919 Paris peace settlement through its investigation of proposals for transnational associations’ roles in the envisaged new world order. The popularity of some of these proposals, and their perceived potential to contribute towards a more democratic, legitimate and peaceful international order, stimulated their consideration during official negotiations at the Paris Peace Conference, and subsequent League of Nations practice was also perceived to have reflected some of the ideas put forward in the proposals. This article provides a typology of these proposals, and it critically evaluates the claims made with respect to their repercussions for democracy, legitimacy and peace. The article further elucidates how, despite their limitations, these proposals helped open up diplomacy to transnational associations both at the Paris Peace Conference and in the League of Nations era.

Introduction

Given its status as one of the ‘benchmark’ events in modern international history,¹ the 1919 Paris Peace Conference is the subject of a rich and diverse historical literature, including assessments of the preparations and policies of participating states,² the course of the negotiations,³ and the repercussions of the settlement,⁴ among many other aspects. In common with much of the traditional literature on international and diplomatic history more generally, a significant proportion of existing historical analysis of the Paris Peace Conference has been focused on the activities and perspectives of governments, with state sovereignty being an important aspect of the settlement.⁵ The aim in this article is to contribute to the increasingly rich literature seeking to offer a transnational perspective on European and international history,⁶ through turning attention to proposals for the roles of transnational associations in the peace settlement following the First World War. This article provides a comparative analysis of the content of these proposals, their consideration in official discussions at the Paris Peace Conference and their subsequent influence in the League of Nations era.

Plans for a new world order that were put forward for the peace settlement to follow the end of the First World War have been subjected to growing attention, with much of the literature having focused on government preparations, as well as some consideration of private proposals.⁷ With respect to unofficial proposals, a key focus has been on those put forward by national associations such as the League to Enforce Peace in the United States, the League of Nations Union in Great Britain and the French Association for the League of Nations (Association Française pour la Société des Nations).⁸ Some of the most significant unofficial proposals were put forward by leaders of transnational associations such as the International Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU),⁹ the Union of International Associations (UIA),¹⁰ and the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF),¹¹ each of which are explored in this article. The influence of transnational associations’ proposals for international cooperation and organisation of states has been acknowledged in existing work, including the influence of international trade union proposals in the origins of the International Labour Organization,¹² and the influence of WILPF proposals in plans for the League of Nations.¹³ In contrast to the focus in existing literature on transnational associations’ plans for intergovernmental organisations in the peace settlement, this article focuses on proposals regarding the place of transnational associations in the institutional framework of the planned post-war order. In so doing, it aims to offer a novel transnational perspective on a peace settlement primarily known for its implications for organisation and relations of states.

This article seeks to offer both an innovative typology of approaches to the prospective representation of transnational associations in the envisaged new institutional settlement following the First World War, and an assessment of the anticipated repercussions of these arrangements for legitimacy, democracy and peace in the new world order. One of the best-known features of peace activism during the First World War was promotion of ‘democratic control’ of foreign policy, as put forward by groups such as the Union of Democratic Control and the Dutch Anti-War Council.¹⁴ In contrast to approaches promoting peace through democratic representation at the national level, this article explores previously neglected proposals concerning the ways in which transnational associations were considered to advance legitimacy, democracy and peace beyond state-centric institutions through their own activities.¹⁵

Transnational associations are distinguished from intergovernmental organisations by their non-state composition, a contrast rooted in the early twentieth-century distinction between ‘private’ and ‘public’ international bodies.¹⁶ Transnational associations comprise both universal membership organisations consisting of individual members in multiple countries and international federations of national private associations.¹⁷ At the time of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, transnational associations were generally referred to as ‘private international associations’, while today they are often labelled ‘international non-governmental organisations’.¹⁸ For consistency, the term ‘transnational associations’ will be used throughout this article.

It has been estimated that at the outbreak of the First World War, approximately five hundred transnational associations were operating, encompassing – as observers at the time noted – nearly every field of human activity.¹⁹ Some of the most significant among them that were to be important in the development of peace plans for the post-First World War settlement included the UIA, which aimed to advance the interests of all transnational associations,²⁰ IFTU, which aimed to represent the international trade union movement,²¹ and the International Peace Bureau (IPB), which aimed to represent the international peace movement.²² Although some transnational associations were not to survive the conflict, the First World War stimulated establishment of a new generation of transnational associations aiming to manage its consequences, including WILPF, a pioneering women's peace association that was established by leading figures in the transnational movement for women's suffrage.²³

In exploring the proposals put forward among transnational associations for their anticipated future role in the new world order that they envisaged following the First World War, this article considers both proposals from the older generation of transnational associations such as the UIA, the IPB and IFTU, and proposals from the newer generation such as WILPF. The analysis in this article aims to offer a novel contribution to the increasingly rich body of literature on these associations in three ways: (i) through a focus on their proposals for transnational associations rather than for the international organisation of states; (ii) by providing a typology of their approaches that places these groups’ proposals in comparative perspective; and (iii) by evaluating their claims for these proposals’ repercussions for legitimacy, democracy and peace. Moreover, by considering the influence of these proposals in the peace settlement and subsequently, the article sheds new light on the context for the later contributions of transnational associations to the work of the League of Nations, a key theme in growing transnational historical literature on the interwar years.²⁴

The fourfold typology of proposals elucidated in the next section of this article is elaborated with reference to the most representative and thorough exposition of each perspective in the typology: (i) the proposals of Paul Otlet of the UIA with respect to direct general representation of transnational associations; (ii) the proposals of the international trade union movement with respect to direct sectoral representation of transnational associations; (iii) perspectives from WILPF on popular representation; and (iv) the proposals of Henri La Fontaine of the IPB on indirect representation of transnational associations.

In the subsequent analysis, the article considers the claims of the proponents of each of these approaches with respect to: (i) their potential enhancement of the legitimacy of the post-war order through the specialist sectoral expertise and social functional legitimacy of transnational associations; (ii) their potential contribution to transnational democracy through the prospective representation in international diplomacy of previously marginalised sectors of society and through transnational associations’ allegedly democratic internal practices; and (iii) their potential contribution towards peace through voluntary cooperation, addressing the social roots of violence and taking into consideration the common goals of humanity.

The article also highlights the limitations of such claims given the conflicts among transnational associations and their own questionable legitimacy and democratic accountability. Problems such as these were recognised by the peace makers at Paris, leading – in combination with the structural constraints of the international context of the time – to the marginalisation of these proposals in the peace settlement. Notwithstanding this setback, the advancement of transnational associations’ roles in world order at the Paris Peace Conference established significant precedents for the League of Nations era. Where the representation of transnational actors in international decision making dovetailed with the wider interests of states and the League of Nations, aspects envisaged in the wartime proposals were to be put into practice in the period following the First World War.

Proposals for the Roles of Transnational Associations in the Envisaged New World Order

As US peace campaigner Jane Addams was to note in her reflections on the First World War, the leaders of transnational associations during this conflict shared a common concern that the post-war order should not be left exclusively in the hands of diplomats whom they considered to be ‘seldom representative of modern social thought’; instead they urged recognition of ‘the importance of certain interests which have hitherto been inarticulate in foreign affairs’ which these associations sought to advance.²⁵ Four principal approaches to the proposed representation of transnational associations in the institutional settlement envisaged to follow the end of the First World War can be identified. The first two approaches involved direct representation of transnational associations: in the first case, open to all transnational associations; and in the second case, open only to specific sectors. The other two approaches involved popular representation and indirect representation of transnational associations respectively. The subsequent paragraphs elucidate each of these four approaches in turn, and consider their envisaged repercussions for legitimacy, democracy and peace in the prospective global order.

The most ambitious approach to the proposed representation of transnational associations in the envisaged new world order was put forward by Belgian bibliographer Paul Otlet of the UIA, who prior to onset of the First World War had catalogued the world's transnational associations and convened them in two large international congresses.²⁶ Following the outbreak of the war, Otlet was one of the first to put forward ideas for the establishment of a ‘confederation of the states of the world’ in his ‘World Charter’ of 1914, and his peace plans are considered to have been ‘the most accomplished’ of any put forward during the conflict.²⁷ His proposals for representation of transnational associations in the new world order may be considered particularly significant since they drew on a survey he sent to the leaders of transnational associations around the world, eliciting their views on the subject.²⁸

Like many other plans of the time, Otlet's proposals envisaged a world organisation comprising international executive, legislative and judicial bodies. However, whereas most of the other proposals envisaged that these institutions would consist exclusively of the appointees of sovereign states, Otlet envisaged provision for the direct representation of transnational associations in his proposals for an international parliament, which he recommended should consist not only of a ‘Lower Chamber’, comprising ‘deputies elected by the parliaments of different States’, but also an ‘Upper Chamber’ consisting of ‘representatives appointed by international associations’ and other ‘collectivities having for their object the universal representation by classes of interests and large functions relative to biologic, economic, social, political and intellectual life’.²⁹ In this scheme, transnational associations were to be granted both the capacity to initiate and the right to vote on international legislation. The charter is also notable for envisaging the granting of rights and international legal personality to transnational associations, as well as the international protection of human rights.³⁰

In his subsequent 1916 work on International Problems and War (Les problèmes internationaux et la guerre), Otlet elucidated his assumptions concerning the implications of these proposals for legitimacy, democracy and peace in his envisaged new world order.³¹ According to Otlet, providing for direct representation of transnational associations in the global confederation would ensure a new world order grounded in two bases of legitimacy: not only the national and territorial legitimacy of states, but also the specialist sectoral expertise and social functional legitimacy of transnational associations.³² This built on Otlet's previous argument that whereas ‘states correspond to no more than the grouping of interests on a territorial basis and, in large part, an ethnic base’, transnational associations offer ‘an alternative basis of representation, the importance of which increases with the progress of civilisation . . . that of professional economic and scientific specialism’.³³

For Otlet, provision for direct representation of transnational associations would also ensure a more democratic world order. He considered the general meetings of transnational associations to represent ‘little global parliaments’ with respect to their respective areas of expertise and social function,³⁴ and he considered the voluntary cooperation that these associations embodied to represent a more democratic approach than the enforced cooperation embodied in government legislation.³⁵ In consequence, Otlet claimed that providing for direct representation of transnational associations in global decision making would ensure that the apparently democratic practices of transnational associations could effectively influence global policy, and would also provide a counter-weight to the power of states.³⁶ This in turn, he claimed, would have repercussions for peace, since (i) the voluntary cooperative approach of associations would provide a counter-balance to the enforced cooperative approach of states; and (ii) through their representation of diverse sectors of society crossing national boundaries, transnational associations were envisaged to facilitate social equilibrium among the various social, political, religious and economic concerns.³⁷ This perspective relied on his – somewhat questionable – assumptions that transnational associations were genuinely representative of different social groups, and that they would not duplicate activities, compete with one another with respect to a particular functional area or sector of society, or seek to advance the interests of one sector of society at the expense of others.

More attuned to such potential clashes of societal interests were the approaches of those who proposed instead more limited sectoral representation of transnational associations in proposals for a new world order to follow the First World War. Representative of such an approach are the proposals put forward among the international labour movement calling for permanent international labour representation in the new world order. A common demand in international labour movement proposals put forward during the conflict was for the establishment of a permanent International Labour Office including trade union representation. Initial demands were limited: the August 1916 international labour conference in Leeds proposed merely an office to consolidate data on labour laws across the world, plus a governmental international commission supervising labour standards with a court of labour arbitration.³⁸ The later proposals of the International Conference of Trade Unions in Berne in October 1917 demanded formal representation of trade unions in the international labour office, but leaving the formation of labour conventions to intergovernmental congresses.³⁹ More ambitious were the February 1919 proposals of the International Trade Union Congress at Berne, calling for both an international labour office and an international labour parliament responsible for international labour legislation, each comprising one half representatives of states and one half trade union representatives.⁴⁰

Proposals for specialist sectoral representation of transnational associations in international organisations were not limited to the labour movement. They were also put forward among some transnational women's associations at the establishment of the League of Nations. Chrystal Macmillan of the International Woman Suffrage Alliance, for example, put forward in May 1919 a draft ‘Convention Creating a Permanent Organisation in Connection with the League of Nations for the Improvement in the Status of Women’ which envisaged a ‘General Conference of Women’ to be composed not only of state representatives but also delegates from transnational women's associations, and envisaging every member to be a woman.⁴¹

The limitation of transnational association representation to specific sectors was perceived to address several deficits in the existing world order. Most fundamentally, the proposals aimed to promote a more democratic world order through facilitating representation of sectors of society previously marginalised, such as labour and women. Those putting forward these proposals believed that whereas the interests of sectors such as employers and men were already well-represented in world politics by states, the interests of other sectors such as labour and women were not: in consequence, the representatives of international labour associations and transnational women's associations were envisaged to be given a formal role in international decision making alongside states, but not representatives of already well-represented groups such as international business.⁴² This approach shares with Otlet's proposals the assumption that a new world order could be more legitimate through representation of groups claiming specialist sectoral expertise and serving particular social functions. However, this approach differs from Otlet's in claiming differential representation should be applied to different sectors, depending on how well represented they already are by states.

Proposals for sectoral representation such as those of the international trade union movement and international women's associations also aimed to promote a more peaceful world through ensuring that social and economic inequalities with the potential to exacerbate conflict would be better addressed by the work of envisaged new specialist international institutions including representatives of previously marginalised sectors.⁴³ The leaders of transnational women's associations further argued that through their direct participation in international affairs, they could ‘make good the wrongdoing of men’ by providing previously marginalised pacific perspectives formerly eschewed in male-dominated international diplomacy.⁴⁴ In the case of the mainstream labour movement, prevention of international class war and communist revolution was a further motivating factor for proposals for representation of trade unions in international decision making.⁴⁵

A third approach focused less on representation of sectoral interests through transnational associations, and instead involved more general calls for representation of ‘the people’ beyond state officials. One of the most notable examples here is contained in the peace proposals put forward by WILPF in 1915, which included demands for decision making following the conflict to involve ‘representatives of the people’, including women.⁴⁶ The logic behind this approach was quite different to that put forward by Otlet and Macmillan concerning transnational associations: for the founders of WILPF, peace would not be advanced through representation of special interests in transnational associations since, in their view, ‘war is commonly brought about not by the mass of the people, who do not desire it, but by groups representing particular interests’, requiring an alternative approach to democratic representation.⁴⁷ In such an approach, transnational associations were to be bypassed, with popularly elected representatives responsible for decision making.⁴⁸ One of the most common variations of this approach was the suggestion that the post-war peace settlement should develop a representative assembly, either to be directly elected, as put forward by the international peace movements’ March 1919 Berne conference for a League of Nations, or – more commonly – to consist of representatives from national parliaments, as put forward at the February 1919 Berne conference on International Socialism and World Peace.⁴⁹ For some, parliamentary representation and transnational association representation could be combined, either in one assembly involving both types of representatives, as was later considered in official negotiations at the Paris Peace Conference, or in separate assemblies, as was suggested by Otlet.

Proposals for the unmediated representation of ‘the people’ in global decision making considered the bypassing of transnational associations in this manner to avoid the problem of the questionable legitimacy of these associations and their representation of only a limited set of interests: a directly elected parliament, by contrast, was considered to have the potential to represent ‘the unity of humanity’.⁵⁰ In such perspectives, democracy at the global level would be better advanced by those with a direct popular mandate from those voting for them, enabling ‘a union of peoples’ rather than of special interests.⁵¹

The fourth – indirect – approach to the proposed role of transnational associations in the new world order was the most conservative, retaining states as the principal decision-making actors but providing for formal mechanisms through which transnational associations could seek to influence states’ decisions, an approach frequently advanced among international peace societies, including by the leadership of the International Peace Bureau and by the national societies for the establishment of a League of Nations that united to form an international federation in Brussels in 1919.⁵² The richest exposition of the indirect approach to transnational association representation was put forward by Nobel Peace Prize-winning lawyer and pacifist Henri La Fontaine, who served as president of the International Peace Bureau from 1907 and was another leading figure in the UIA alongside Otlet.⁵³ His ideas on post-war order were set out in the boldly-titled The Great Solution: Magnissima Charta, published in 1916.⁵⁴ In it, he advocated comparatively modest proposals for the establishment of a permanent ‘conference of states’ to meet every two years and negotiate international conventions, with each state allocated one vote.⁵⁵ With states monopolising decision-making authority in this scheme, the envisaged role for transnational associations was limited to ‘a right of petition’, restricted to those associations ‘enjoying a legal status for all matters susceptible of legislative unification or for conventional, juridical or administrative provisions’; these petitions were envisaged to be circulated at each conference of states by its administrative organs, with each petition getting a dedicated plenary sitting of the conference to address it.⁵⁶

Given the extensive time envisaged to be dedicated to discussion of petitions, the legitimate proposers of these petitions were anticipated to be circumscribed to ‘legally constituted’ transnational associations, a requirement that La Fontaine hoped ‘would compel men wanting to make propositions to discuss them with others, to come together, and especially to think internationally’.⁵⁷ Advocates of the right of petition for transnational associations considered that it would facilitate more democratic international policy making, since it would provide a means for the wider public to influence inter-governmental policy making through the institutions (i.e. transnational associations) that La Fontaine considered to ‘represent more particularly the international aspirations of the peoples’.⁵⁸ As the League of Nations Societies put it at their meeting in Paris in January 1919, whereas states could claim to represent ‘peoples’, ‘the people themselves’ can speak through the intermediary of transnational associations.⁵⁹ Advocates of transnational associations’ right of petition also envisaged repercussions for more pacific international relations, since they believed the limitation of the right of petition to cross-border associations would encourage development of sympathy for others around the world; La Fontaine argued: ‘The obligation for every man, desiring to improve his condition and the condition of those surrounding him, to consider from a universal point of view the problems which interest him, will widen his horizon and transform him into a useful and active element of international public opinion; and he will thus furnish a necessary support to those who, within the Conference of States, try to promote, facilitate and develop collaboration and understanding between all peoples of the earth’.⁶⁰

The Influence of Proposals for the Roles of Transnational Associations in the Paris Peace Conference and the League of Nations Era

Proposals for a place for transnational associations in plans for the post-First World War order were influential in debates concerning the establishment of both the International Labour Organization and the League of Nations at the Paris Peace Conference. Each of these will be discussed in turn in this section, followed by consideration of features of subsequent League of Nations practice taking forward a range of roles for transnational associations in international governance.

Among the most influential proposals for transnational associations in discussions at the Paris Peace Conference were the recommendations for sectoral representation put forward by the international trade union movement. Governmental preparations for the Paris Peace Conference made explicit reference to the demands of the Leeds and Berne conferences of the international trade union movement,⁶¹ and the Council of Ten proposed on 23 January 1919 a commission to consider the establishment of a permanent international labour agency, with David Lloyd George urging for the commission's composition to include representatives of both labour and employers.⁶² Although labour representation in the commission proved to be limited, it agreed that delegates to the International Labour Office (ILO) would consist of one quarter labour representatives in addition to one quarter employer representatives and one half government representatives.⁶³ These provisions were silent on the role of IFTU, which subsequently demanded that it be granted a monopoly on selection of labour delegates to the ILO: although that demand was initially rejected, it was subsequently to become established practice.⁶⁴ A similar function in relation to employer representation in the ILO was to be served by the International Organisation of Industrial Employers.⁶⁵ The success in promotion of a role for specific sectoral transnational associations in the labour dimensions of the post-war international institutional order may be attributed to several factors: (i) the organisational strength of the international labour movement at the time, its representation in national parliaments, and concern at the Bolshevik revolution; (ii) the sectorally limited nature of the proposals; and (iii) the restricted decision-making capability of the institution providing this role for transnational associations: as Tosstorff notes, ‘the ILO was merely a pale reflection of the demands and expectations’ of the labour movement, serving as ‘just a public platform for trade-union demands, not the decisive lever by which they could be realized’.⁶⁶

The marginalisation of labour in this manner reflected a problem with the specialist sectoral approach that was envisaged by opponents of such an approach among transnational women's associations: Marion Philips, speaking on behalf of the Joint Standing Committee of Industrial Women's Organisations in September 1919, for instance, asserted that a specialist women's international organisation analogous to the ILO could become ‘a little corner where women would be kept, thus losing the opportunity to participate in larger issues’, and in the face of such opposition plans for an international women's organisation put forward by the nascent League of Nations Secretariat in summer 1919 were abandoned.⁶⁷

With respect to proposals for the general representation of transnational associations in the post-war institutional order, the topic was considered in the Commission on the League of Nations in February 1919. The issue arose in the context of the wider discussion of the possibility of establishing a ‘Representative Assembly’ in addition to the Council and Body of Delegates – a proposal that conference diarist David Hunter Miller considered ‘was rather insistently pressed in some quarters’, especially among the transnational labour movement.⁶⁸ Its principal advocate on the commission was South African delegate Jan Smuts, who had entertained the idea of extending participation in the Body of Delegates to groups beyond states in his proposals for a League of Nations of 16 December 1918.⁶⁹ At the commission meeting of 13 February 1919 Smuts proposed ‘with a view to satisfying that element of public opinion which desired that the Body of Delegates might include representatives of the leading social groups’, an amendment stating: ‘At least once in four years, an extraordinary meeting of the Body of Delegates shall be held, which shall include representatives of national parliaments and other bodies representative of public opinion’.⁷⁰

In the course of the discussion of this proposal, some of the major problems with schemes for the general representation of transnational associations were brought up. Belgian delegate Paul Hymans observed that ‘nothing is more difficult than to plan a scheme of adequate representation’, given the vast number of competing interests and groups demanding representation.⁷¹ He argued that ‘if representation were given to one of these social groups, it would be necessary to give it to all the others’.⁷² Moreover, he argued that in a body representative of large numbers of competing interests, ‘the custom would grow up of bringing up all sorts of questions before the League of Nations, and in that way its scope and action would be too widely extended’.⁷³ As a result, plans for establishment of a representative assembly were abandoned, on account of the ‘great difficulty in devising any satisfactory plan for the purpose’, and in recognition of the structural constraints of a world order in which states were understood to aggregate diverse interests.⁷⁴

Despite the failure of the commission to agree to establishment of a representative assembly, a significant change in the text of the League of Nations Covenant was agreed at the meeting of 13 February 1919: the Body of Delegates (i.e. League of Nations Assembly) was no longer to consist of ‘the Ambassadors or Ministers’ of member states, but instead it would consist of ‘representatives’, to be chosen on any basis governments might wish to use.⁷⁵ French delegate Ferdinand Larnaude argued that this revised composition of the Body of Delegates satisfied the demands for a representative body, since ‘It is not necessary that the choice fall upon an Ambassador or upon a Minister. It may just as well fall upon a member of parliament or even upon a representative of some large peace association’.⁷⁶ Similarly, British delegate Robert Cecil anticipated that British representatives might for instance include representatives of labour, women's and religious interests.⁷⁷ According to Wilson, ‘Every government which will be a member of the League of Nations will be a responsible government, and if it does not satisfy public opinion, it will be subject to criticism and so compelled to choose representatives who will satisfy public opinion’.⁷⁸ It should be noted that this change also reflected concerns Cecil had expressed as to how British dominions might be represented in the League in the absence of ambassadors and ministers.⁷⁹ In this manner, the interests of transnational associations and of a pre-eminent state in opening up representation beyond traditional criteria appeared to dovetail to bring about this concession.

Although direct representation of transnational associations was limited in the arrangements for the League of Nations Assembly to the possibility that governments might from time to time nominate as their representatives’ leaders of these associations, this was to be seen in practice in the later experience of the League of Nations. Assembly delegates were to include, for instance, secretary general of the Inter-Parliamentary Union Christian Lange, who represented Norway on twenty-one occasions, president of the International Peace Bureau Henri La Fontaine, who represented Belgium at the first two assemblies, and president of the British section of WILPF Helena Swanwick, who represented the British Empire in 1924 and 1929.⁸⁰ The appointment of the representatives of transnational associations as assembly delegates appears to have been motivated by their alleged sectoral expertise, with Swanwick noting that her appointment was motivated by the assumption that as a women's movement leader she would be ‘well-informed about Opium, Refugees, Protection of Children, Relief after Earthquakes, Prison Reform, Municipal Cooperation, Alcoholism, Traffic in Women’.⁸¹

An alternative possibility for the direct participation of transnational associations in the League of Nations that was quickly swept aside at the Paris Peace Conference envisaged their unification and co-ordination alongside all existing intergovernmental bodies within the League of Nations system: this appeared in article 8 of the Italian draft scheme for a League of Nations put forward at the first meeting of the Commission of the League of Nations, which stated ‘all international unions . . . shall form part of the general constitution of the Society of Nations’.⁸² The Italian proposal was overlooked in favour of those put forward by British delegates Smuts and Cecil on 13 February 1919, which recommended instead only placing ‘under the control of the League all international bureaux established by general treaties’ and not private international associations, which for the most part jealously guarded their independence. The Smuts and Cecil proposals were adopted with little discussion, becoming Article 24 of the Covenant which limited League responsibility to ‘international bureaux already established by general treaties’.⁸³

Despite the exclusion of private international associations from Article 24, one transnational association was granted a permanent role in the League of Nations framework on account of its area of specialism: as Miller argued, ‘the Red Cross was rather in a class by itself as an international organization’ given that ‘For fifty years and more it had worked with extraordinary success and the beneficence of its purposes had met with world-wide recognition’.⁸⁴ The proposal of League of Red Cross Societies founder Henry Davison that governments ‘agree to facilitate so far as is appropriate the work that is undertaken by the Red Cross League’⁸⁵ therefore resulted in adoption of Article 25 of the Covenant of the League of Nations that aimed to advance the work of the Red Cross societies, despite British objections that it gave too high a status to non-governmental authority, and despite French objections that other similar associations should also be referred to.⁸⁶

As for indirect representation of transnational associations in the peace settlement, no provisions were made in the Covenant of the League of Nations for consultative arrangements with non-governmental organisations. Nevertheless, the proceedings of the Paris Peace Conference set important precedents for subsequent League of Nations practice in the reception of deputations from representatives of transnational associations, and in the circulation among official delegates of the petitions of transnational associations.

One of the most significant petitions to the peace makers was the joint memorial of the International Council of Women and the International Alliance of Women for Suffrage and Equal Citizenship, the demands of which included women's right to be appointed to all League organs.⁸⁷ This was agreed by the Commission of the League of Nations on 26 March 1919 with minimal opposition.⁸⁸ Earlier, a meeting with representatives of the International Alliance of Women had led Clemenceau to propose on 11 March 1919 that each of the Commissions on Labour and the League of Nations should receive women's deputations, although their demand for direct representation in the peace settlement negotiations was rejected.⁸⁹ These deputations took place in March and April 1919 respectively, and in subsequent years similar deputations by transnational associations were to be made to the League of Nations Assembly and Council and their respective presidents, as well as to League conferences.⁹⁰ The women's deputations left a lasting impression on decision makers, with Wilson noting how they set ‘a strong example of dignity and competence’.⁹¹ In subsequently granting permission for transnational association deputations, the League of Nations Secretariat was also conscious of the deficiencies of the League's own legitimacy, and considered transnational associations by virtue of the ‘quality and range of their membership’ to render ‘inestimable service’ to the organisation in supporting its work.⁹²

Government circulation of the petitions of transnational associations was pioneered by the US delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, which printed them – sometimes in full, and sometimes in summary format – in regular bulletins.⁹³ This anticipated the later efforts of the League of Nations Secretariat to circulate to Council members summaries of transnational associations’ petitions, and to print in the journal of the Assembly transnational associations’ resolutions.⁹⁴ The Secretariat circulated to the Council summaries only of the petitions of transnational associations, and not the petitions of national associations, since due to the latter's territorially-bounded composition they were perceived to be better-directed to their respective governments.⁹⁵ In circulating the petitions of international associations, it was considered that the ‘right of petition’ that was perceived as vital to functioning democracy at the national level was extended to the global level; moreover, it was argued that since ‘the Covenant gave the League very limited political power, it would lack authority unless it exerted itself through the respect and confidence of public opinion’ mediated by transnational associations’ petitions.⁹⁶

Despite the lack of formal provisions for liaison with transnational associations in its Covenant, the League of Nations was to cooperate in many ways unanticipated by the peace makers at Paris. The League's interactions with transnational associations were to include, inter alia, appointment of officials to liaise with transnational associations including attending their conferences,⁹⁷ circulation of a bulletin summarising transnational associations’ work,⁹⁸ and appointment of representatives from transnational associations to specialist League committees on human trafficking, social questions and communications, among other topics.⁹⁹ The appointment of assessors from transnational voluntary associations to these committees was motivated by two principal considerations: their capacity to mobilise public opinion behind the League's work, and their specialist expertise.¹⁰⁰

In consequence of the League's extensive relations with transnational associations, Bertram Pickard was to argue in 1936 that private international associations constituted ‘the Greater League of Nations’;¹⁰¹ and Alfred Zimmern was to claim that the League's relationship with transnational associations facilitated democratic decision making beyond the state since, for him, ‘As local government is to national democracy, so voluntary international movements are to international government’, and should ‘we want to have really efficient international government we must build it up from international voluntary societies, so that at every step voluntary associations watch over the work of the governments in those subjects in which they are dealing’.¹⁰² There was, however, considerable tension between the claims to enhanced democratic deliberation at the international level through transnational voluntary associations’ alleged connection to public opinion, and the reliance of the League of Nations on a small elite of technical experts appointed from these associations: the ‘thinly masked divergence between the intellectual who should be the leader of public opinion, and the man on the street, who constitutes its rank and file’ was a problem critics such as E. H. Carr were keen to point out.¹⁰³

Notwithstanding such critiques, representatives of transnational associations seized the opportunities they were given in the League of Nations system. Christian Lange, for example, used his position as delegate to the First Assembly to advance the International Peace Bureau's longstanding goal of general disarmament, setting the League's initial agenda in this field as rapporteur of its first subcommittee on disarmament.¹⁰⁴ The most remarkable example of the League's openness to transnational associations’ petitions is provided by Eglantyne Jebb's successful persuasion of delegates at the 1924 League Assembly to discuss and adopt Save the Children International Union's Declaration on the Rights of the Child, which is often viewed as a forerunner to the wider international human rights regimes of the later twentieth century.¹⁰⁵

Conclusions

Proposals for the roles of transnational associations in the world order following the First World War is a significant yet previously insufficiently interrogated topic. In contrast to better-known state-centric proposals for a new world order based on intergovernmental co-operation and organisation,¹⁰⁶ the proposals regarding transnational associations investigated in this article considered the potential role of politics beyond states in bringing about a more legitimate, democratic and peaceful order in the aftermath of the First World War. Despite the limitations of their arguments, features of their proposals were to be put into practice in the League of Nations era, and continue in the present day.

Four approaches to the proposed role of transnational associations in institutions of world order following the First World War were disaggregated in this article: (i) direct representation of transnational associations in general; (ii) direct representation of specialist sectoral transnational associations; (iii) indirect representation of transnational associations such as through a right of petition; and (iv) popular representation beyond transnational associations. Providing a formal role for transnational associations was perceived by its advocates to have the potential to enhance the legitimacy of global decision making through the participation of actors claiming specialist expertise and to serve particular social functions. It was also considered to have the potential to contribute towards more democratic international relations, through representation of otherwise under-represented social groups, and to contribute towards peace through encouraging consideration of issues as they pertain to humanity as a whole (rather than merely as they pertain to individual states) by granting rights specifically to transnational associations rather than to national associations.

The provisions of the Paris peace settlement were to disappoint the proponents of officially sanctioned roles for transnational associations in the new world order, with scarcely any provisions being made for either direct or indirect representation. Besides the role played by the structural constraints of the international system of the time, this outcome in part reflected weaknesses in proposals for representation of transnational associations, with peace makers noting the potential problems involved in trying to facilitate representation of each of the many different competing social groups and the potential over-extension of League of Nations work that might result.

Nevertheless, as outlined in the previous section, a significant concession was granted to transnational associations at the Paris Peace Conference: the potential for governments to appoint representatives of transnational associations as delegates to the League of Nations Assembly, a concession made possible by the convergence of the aim of transnational association representation with Great Britain's goal to enable representation of its dominions. Moreover, the deliberations at the Paris Peace Conference set significant precedents for subsequent League of Nations practice that was to involve both direct representation of transnational associations such as in specialist committees, and indirect representation of transnational associations such as through receiving their deputations and circulating their petitions. These concessions to transnational associations were perceived by the League of Nations Secretariat to address apparent deficiencies in the League of Nations’ legitimacy. Notable writers of the interwar period such as Zimmern considered these practices also to make League-era international decision making more democratic than previously, taking forward the arguments of the earlier proponents of transnational associations during the First World War.

It is apparent from the discussion in this article that features of today's global governance – where intergovernmental and transnational actors each play significant roles in international policy – were anticipated in the debates concerning the post-First World War settlement. Liaison between intergovernmental organisations and transnational associations has become routine, as has the appointment of representatives of transnational associations to national delegations and to intergovernmental organisations and congresses.¹⁰⁷ Now, as then, it is common to see claims put forward as to how integrating transnational associations in global policy making may facilitate more legitimate and democratic governance – or even represent an ‘answer to war’.¹⁰⁸ However, whereas the proponents of transnational associations during the First World War emphasised the importance of transnational associations’ sectoral social functions to international legitimacy, democracy and peace, in the present day there is greater emphasis on the deliberative democratic role of transnational associations.¹⁰⁹ The debates concerning the settlement to follow the First World War are also significant in highlighting problems with the assumptions behind claims to transnational associations’ enhancement of global governance, on account of the deficits in the internal democracy and legitimacy of transnational associations, as well as their duplication of activities and competition.¹¹⁰ As this article has shown, WILPF argued that a much more direct approach to global democracy was needed than leaving it to competing ‘groups representing particular interests’.¹¹¹