Rappard’s essay reconstructs the interwar quest for peace as a movement from legal hope to political constraint. He does not dismiss arbitration, collective security, or disarmament as empty ideals; rather, he asks what kinds of conflict each instrument could realistically manage. The tragedy he traces is that states repeatedly endorsed universal formulas while preserving the discretion, reservations, and security anxieties that made those formulas fragile.
The work begins from the difficulty of defining a just peace after victory. Rappard is alert to the danger that anti-German settlement-making might reproduce the very historical reasoning used by German expansionism. His concern is not only territorial but methodological: peace must rest on principles capable of limiting the victors as well as the defeated.
These bases bind the Allies. The historical argument which Germany employed against France to steal Alsace-Lorraine away from her is dangerous. Let us avoid using it.³¹
That warning frames the essay’s larger argument. Peace cannot be secured by moral indignation alone, because indignation easily hardens into selective legality. Nor can it be secured by juridical machinery alone, because some conflicts are not merely legal controversies. Rappard’s discussion of arbitration turns on this distinction. Arbitration is valuable where disputes are bounded, negotiable, and susceptible to impartial judgment; it is weakest where a state treats the issue as one of vital interest or revisionist power. The failure of arbitration in crises such as Ethiopia therefore does not prove that arbitration is useless. It shows that legal settlement has a proper domain and becomes dangerous when mistaken for a universal substitute for political security.
This leads Rappard to collective security, the attempt to place organized force behind law. The Covenant of the League of Nations promised more than arbitration: it aspired to make aggression a matter of common concern. Yet Rappard emphasizes that even the founding texts contained reservations and qualifications. Wilson’s own formulations, often associated with the highest idealism of the postwar settlement, already reflected the tension between universal guarantee and national discretion.
President Wilson had in his successive drafts adopted the same reservation, while slightly modifying Colonel House’s formulation.
For Rappard, this is decisive. Collective security was weakened not only by later cowardice or bad faith but by the original reluctance of governments to bind themselves automatically. Article 10 suggested a general guarantee of territorial integrity; Article 16 appeared to promise sanctions against aggression. But both depended on interpretation, political will, and national calculation. The absence of the United States intensified the problem, while European governments increasingly treated sanctions as conditional rather than obligatory.
The qualifying language attached to obligations is especially revealing. Rappard notes how enforcement was made dependent on circumstances rather than treated as an automatic duty.
the words: “taking into account the political and geographical circumstances of each State.”
Such phrasing captures the gradual dilution of collective security. A universal rule became a discretionary response; a common obligation became a set of nationally assessed risks. The League’s machinery could condemn aggression, coordinate pressure, and recommend sanctions, but it could not reliably compel states to bear costs they had not already accepted. The system therefore possessed moral authority without assured force, and legal form without the political unity required for enforcement.
Rappard’s account of the Mutual Assistance Treaty, the Geneva Protocol, and Locarno extends this diagnosis. France, exposed to German revival, wanted security before disarmament; Britain feared automatic continental commitments and preferred flexibility. The Geneva Protocol failed because it moved too far toward compulsory sanctions. Locarno succeeded because it narrowed obligation: it made guarantees more concrete, but also less universal. The price of practicability was the retreat from general collective security into limited regional assurance.
The essay rejects both cynicism and uncritical optimism. Rappard does not argue that peace institutions are worthless. He argues that each must be matched to the political conditions it presupposes. Arbitration can civilize limited disputes; collective security requires credible precommitment; disarmament cannot precede security where insecurity is acute. The interwar failure was not simply that states lacked ideals, but that they desired the prestige of a universal peace order without accepting the burdens needed to make it real.
This work was divided into 72 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 72 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian