Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Contemporary History
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stone, D. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Imperialism and Sovereignty: The League of Nations' Drive to Control the Global Arms Trade

David R. Stone

Kansas State University

Great Power efforts to control arms trafficking began in the late nineteenth century, but were applied only to colonial territories and were motivated by concerns for the stability of European empires. The first world war altered the international consensus that the arms trade was essentially free, and the 1919 Treaty of Saint-Germain tried to impose new restrictions on arms trading. Though Saint-Germain was never ratified, the League of Nations continued its efforts to control the arms trade at a conference in Geneva in 1925. The League's efforts had the endorsement of the major arms-producing powers and even the USA, which had refused to join the League. The Geneva conference made clear, however, that smaller, non-producing states saw free trade in arms as essential to their security, and resisted what they saw as infringements on their sovereignty and security. The compromise Geneva Convention did not assuage small states, and, like its predecessor, was never ratified. The League's force of moral example, however, did produce long-term changes in state policies on arms trading. This suggests that the League's legacy should be judged not just by its failure to avert the second world war, but by its success in establishing norms of international behaviour. Also, smaller states, not just Great Powers, had the ability to block League initiatives.

Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 35, No. 2, 213-230 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/002200940003500204


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?