On November 19, 1919, there were actually two votes, rather than one, in the Senate. The first was on a resolution to ratify the Treaty and Covenant unamended. The second included fourteen reservations proposed by Lodge, in close consultation with the Republican caucus. Neither passed. At first people thought the Kellogg-Briand Pact, also known as the Pact of Paris, was something ridiculous,” Shapiro said. “It was thought to be something ridiculous.” However, far from being ridiculous, he continued, “the Pact became transformative to the practice of international politics.” For Shapiro, “outlawing war also seems ridiculous from our standpoint because war appears to be the breakdown of the system. But before 1928, war was the system.” Menand, Louis (2017-09-11). "What Happens When War Is Outlawed". The New Yorker. ISSN 0028-792X . Retrieved 2017-11-13. English–Arabic English–Bengali English–Catalan English–Czech English–Danish English–Hindi English–Korean English–Malay English–Marathi English–Russian English–Tamil English–Telugu English–Thai English–Turkish English–Ukrainian English–Vietnamese

Anyone interested in the meaning of internationalism in the second half of the 20th century would have been wise to visit Algiers. When Algeria won independence from the French in 1962 – after an unspeakably brutal eight-year war of decolonization – it embraced wholeheartedly those who had supported the struggle from abroad. The new government instituted an ‘open-door policy of aid to the oppressed’, inviting ‘liberation and opposition movements and personalities from around the world’ to its capital city, as Elaine Mokhtefi writes in her memoir Algiers, Third World Capital. Russian President Putin has spoken out about the “catastrophic” civilian deaths in Gaza, but publicly accepted no responsibility for a single civilian death in Ukraine (which officially stands at 10,000, but could be much higher). A Peace Conference at the Quai d'Orsay," by William Orpen (1919) (left); the "Big Four" at the WWI Paris peace conference, May 27, 1919: British Prime Minister David Lloyd George; Italian Premier Vittorio Orlando; French Premier Georges Clemenceau; U.S. President Woodrow Wilson (right). Please list any fees and grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in or any close relationship with, at any time over the preceding 36 months, any organisation whose interests may be affected by the publication of the response. Please also list any non-financial associations or interests (personal, professional, political, institutional, religious or other) that a reasonable reader would want to know about in relation to the submitted work. This pertains to all the authors of the piece, their spouses or partners. Both President Donald Trump’s supporters and opponents advocate competing forms of internationalism— free-trading and Christian in the case of Mike Pence, for example; pacific and juridical in the case of the recently founded, Trump-skeptical Quincy Institute. The sooner we recognize this, the sooner a more open, intelligent and productive debate on the U.S.’s place in the world will be possible.Hathaway, Oona (2005). "Between Power and Principle: An Integrated Theory of International Law". University of Chicago Law Review. 71. SSRN 655221– via Social Science Research Network. NCSS.D2.His.5.9-12. Analyze how historical contexts shaped and continue to shape people’s perspectives. So the future of liberal internationalism hinges on two questions. First, can the United States and other liberal democracies recapture their progressive political orientation? America's ‘brand’—as seen in parts of the non-western world—is perceived to be neo-liberal, that is, single-minded in its commitment to capital and markets. It is absolutely essential that the United States shatter this idea. Outside the West—and indeed in most parts of Europe—this is not the core of the liberal democratic vision of modern society. If there is an ideological ‘centre of gravity’ in the wider world of democracies, it is more social democratic and solidarist than neo-liberal. Or, to put it simply: it looks more like the vision of liberal democracy that was articulated by the United States during the New Deal and early postwar decades. This was a period when economic growth was more inclusive and was built around efforts to promote economic stability and social protections. If liberal internationalism is to thrive, it will need to be built again on these sorts of progressive foundations. In addition, students should be able to locate the following on a blank map of Europe during World War II: Internationalists were split between those who believed that reform would come about mainly or solely through a shift in norms (international morality) and those who thought that the only feasible route was through significant institutional construction at the international level. The former (including Cobden) focused on transforming the values of society, and in particular they promoted democracy. The latter proposed the creation of a variety of institutional structures, including regional and global federations, and transnational organizations, including international arbitration bodies.

The traditional way in which the Treaty fight was long remembered is as a conflict between Wilsonian internationalists and so-called “isolationists.” According to this narrative, the former wanted deeper American participation in global affairs and international organizations. The latter desired to isolate the U.S. from the power politics of the Old World. The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World". NewAmerica.org . Retrieved September 12, 2017. Hathaway further argued that “the United Nations Charter builds on the foundations of the Kellogg-Briand Pact.” One of the major discoveries of Internationalists is the finding by Hathaway and Shapiro that the first draft of the UN Charter, now contained in Article 2 (4), was written by the same person—James T. Shotwell—who penned the first draft of the Pact of Paris for Aristide Briand, the Prime Minister of France. The new perspective on “the prohibition of force,” as Hathaway called it, “was the direct result of the transformation of international law initiated by Kellogg-Briand Pact.”All songs published by EMI Music Publishing Ltd. All administrative rights for the U.S. and Canada controlled by Colgems-EMI Music Inc. ASCAP except:

In reality, the Treaty fight was not a two-way contest. Besides the Wilsonian internationalists, who wanted the Treaty and Covenant ratified unchanged, there were those who wanted to add so-called reservations to the treaties: conditions to U.S. acceptance and participation in the League that the other signatories would have to accept. There were extremists on both sides of the debate. There were some who openly favored a German victory, and others who advocated an immediate U.S. declaration of war on Germany. These, however, tended to be irrelevant. The vast majority of Americans hoped that Great Britain would win, but were equally determined that the United States stay out of the war. The real debate was between those who believed that extending direct military and economic aid to Great Britain would make actual U.S. entry into the war less likely, and those who argued that it would increase the chances of U.S. involvement. It is likely no coincidence that Grotius’s new theory favored sovereigns and their trading companies,” Hathaway and Shapiro note. Well, yes. International law is the superstructure for the system of geopolitical relations. In writing his law of war, Grotius claimed to be deducing from the principles of natural law the proper rights of states. But he was clearly inducing from the actual actions and ambitions of powers like the Netherlands a set of rules that legalized their behavior. Ideas like Grotius’s mattered because they provided a coherent rationale for what was happening in the world willy-nilly. Grotius made the world safe for imperialists.The irony of this type of internationalism is that it has often been most effective when working hand in hand with nationalism. The internationalists of the 19th century, like Giuseppe Garibaldi (see timeline), fought for national republics to dislodge the aristocracy. The Second International, a congress of global socialist parties that lasted from 1889 to 1916, was made up of nationally bounded parties that contested national elections. This is something that can be under-recognized in political histories, where the emphasis tends to be on material conditions and relations of power. Hathaway and Shapiro further believe that ideas are produced by human beings, something that can be under-recognized in intellectual histories, which often take the form of books talking to books. “The Internationalists” is a story about individuals who used ideas to change the world. Like The Clash of Civilizations and The End of History, this brilliant book lays out a vision that makes sense of the world today in the context of centuries of history. Hathaway and Shapiro tell their story with literary flair, analytical depth, and historical meticulousness. It will change the way you remember the 20th century and read the news in the 21st.”