The League helped Finland and Sweden agree over the Aland Islands in 1921. In 1923, Italy occupied Corfu and received compensation before withdrawing. Why did the League find one dispute easier to settle fairly? Compare the explanations below.
Which explanation accounts for the different outcomes most directly?
The League needed better rules
- The Covenant set out peaceful procedures.
- The League depended on members for enforcement.
Rules provided a way to settle disputes, but they could not act by themselves. Because it relied on governments to act, the League could struggle when powerful members refused to cooperate.
The same basic institution existed in both cases. Rules alone do not explain why parties cooperated in one and resisted in the other.
The parties and major powers had to cooperate
- Finland and Sweden accepted the Aland settlement.
- Italy used force in Corfu and the Conference of Ambassadors handled the settlement.
Acceptance enabled mediation in Aland; great-power pressure limited the League's authority in Corfu. This best connects different behaviour to different outcomes.
Cooperation was shaped by power, interests and the specific dispute. One successful case does not prove that goodwill always suffices.
US absence explains everything
- The United States never joined the League.
- Its absence reduced the resources behind collective action.
Without US membership, the League lacked the full backing of a major economic and military power. This weakened it across the decade.
It was absent in both 1921 and 1923, so the fact alone cannot explain the contrast or erase successful mediation.