Intergovernmental Organ izations 215It settled territorial disputes between Lithuania and Poland, Finland and Rus sia, and
Bulgaria and Greece. However, the League failed to act decisively against the aggression
of Italy and Japan in the 1930s. Britain and France pursued their national interests,
causing collective security to fail. Voluntary sanctions carried little effect. The absence of
great- power support for the League was evident in the failure even to attract the United
States to join the organ ization. The League could not prevent the outbreak of World
Wa r II.
The United Nations built on the League’s successes and tried to correct some of its
weaknesses.
Bas Ic PrIncI Ples and changIng InterPretatIOns
The United Nations, like the League of Nations, was founded on three fundamental
princi ples. Yet, over the life of the United Nations, changing realities have significantly
challenged each of these princi ples.^5
First, the United Nations is based on the notion of the sovereign equality of member
states, consistent with the Westphalian tradition. Each state— the United States, Lith-
uania, India, or Suriname, irrespective of size or population—is legally the equivalent
of every other state. This legal equality is the basis for each state’s having one vote in
the General Assembly. However, the actual in e qual ity of states is recognized in the veto
power given to the five permanent members of the Security Council, the special role
reserved for the wealthy states in bud get negotiations, and the weighted voting system
used by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
Second is the princi ple that only international prob lems fall within the jurisdiction
of the United Nations. Indicative of the Westphalian influence, the UN Charter does
not “authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within
the domestic jurisdiction of any state” (Article 2, Section 7). Over the life of the
United Nations, the once- rigid distinction between domestic and international issues
has weakened, leading to an erosion of sovereignty. Global telecommunications and
economic interdependencies, international human rights, election monitoring, and
environmental regulation all infringe on traditional areas of domestic jurisdiction
and hence on states’ sovereignty. War is increasingly civil war, which is not legally
under the purview of the United Nations. Yet because international human rights are
being abrogated, because refugees cross national borders, and because weapons are
supplied through transnational networks, such conflicts are increasingly viewed as
international, and the United Nations is viewed by some as the appropriate venue for
action. These changes have led to a growing body of pre ce dent for humanitarian inter-
vention without the consent of the host country.
The third princi ple is that the United Nations is designed primarily to maintain
international peace and security. This princi ple has meant that member states should