Prior to the League of Nations, was there a common place for heads of state to discuss their responses to events happening in other countries?

by tetrabrach

Inspired by Obama's recent sanctions against Russian officers (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/world/europe/obamas-statement-on-new-sanctions-against-russia.html). I'm not trying to discuss modern politics.

This news has made me wonder how international relations were handled in Europe before the advent of the League of Nations. Additionally, how old is the idea that, strictly for example, the United States government should concern itself with secession in the Ukraine?

I understand that this may bring up an obnoxious amount of flaming and trolling. If this thread becomes too aggressive I am fine with the mods deleting it.

smurfyjenkins

Two examples of pre-League of Nations global governance:

  • The Concert of Europe - Emerged with the End of the Napoleonic Wars. Major powers came together to make systemwide decisions by negotiation and consensus. The Concert of Europe had no written rules or permanent institutions, but at times of crisis any of the member countries could propose a conference. The Concert legitimized the independence of new European states (Greece, Belgium) and divided up uncolonized parts of Africa. The Concert did not have any explicit mechanisms for collective action. Served as a model for the G8 and UN Security Council.
  • The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 ("The Hague System") - Conferences that addressed the conducts of warfare and included big, small and non-european states (unlike the Concert). The Permanent Court of Arbitration was created at the first Hague Conference.
allak

It is true that before the League there was no stable forum to handle diplomacy.

The meetings were more ad hoc, but were a lot only in the nineteenth century. The major ones were: the Congress of Vienna (1814-15), which settled the status of Europe after the napoleonic wars, the Congress of Paris (1856) after the Crimean War, the Congress of Berlin (1878) about the situation in the Balkans, the Berlin Conference (1884–85) about the colonization of Africa.

Beside this official diplomacy, there was another kind no less important: the family relations of the europeans monarchs. For example, Queen Victoria was the mother or the grandmother of the rulers or the spouse of the rulers of Germany, Russia, Denmark, Greece, Sweden and Norway. And all royal houses were connected to one other.

Those royals did keep up direct communications with their families, and a lot of back channel diplomacy was handled this way.

Goatley2

Hi I may be able to help here (currently studying my MA in International relations)

Prior to the League of Nations (which did fail in the end) there was the 'Concert of Europe' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_of_Europe) during the 1815-1914 Period. It was very much about the maintenance of the 'Balance of Power' In Europe. The issue is that because of Imperialism (This being the high point of the practice, though this is open to debate) there was not that much other forums outside of bilateral negotiation and the US existed in a position of Isolation which it maintained after the league of nations was instituted (again, often held as a reason for the LoN's Failure). As far as I am aware, the US prior to this point did not have a huge interest in events outside of its sphere of influence in the Atlantic/Pacific regions where it held dominance.

Hobsbawm's age of empire or age of extremes would shed some light on this. their pretty available in most places in the UK at the very least and offer a great introduction into history in this period. another good introduction is the Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, which while realist in outlook is again a great introductory text. (in my opinion anyway)

Hope this helps