Exactly six years before the outbreak of World War II, Japan withdrew from the League of Nations—the world’s first universal international organisation (1919–1945)—arguing that the body was incapable of safeguarding the interests of major powers. The move dealt a severe blow to the fragile institution.
From Japan to Germany and Italy
Following Japan, Germany under Adolf Hitler withdrew from the League of Nations in 1933, claiming that the organisation served only the interests of the victors of World War I. Germany’s withdrawal sounded the alarm for the outbreak of war and signalled its disregard for international interests in favour of national and alliance-based priorities.
Four years later, in 1937, Italy also withdrew from the organisation. Benito Mussolini cited the League’s weakness and lack of resolve as the reason for the decision. As a result, an organisation already struggling with a lack of cooperation from its members was effectively pushed toward failure and proved unable to prevent the outbreak of World War II.
After World War II: hope for a new international order
After the end of World War II and the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, the belief emerged that international organisations could play an effective role in ensuring peace and human prosperity. This outlook led, throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, to a significant increase in the number of international organisations alongside the emergence of new states and the strengthening of a spirit of human cooperation.
Today, the number of intergovernmental international organisations exceeds 250, operating in political and specialised fields ranging from peace and development to human rights, democracy, environmental protection and cultural growth.
Washington’s unprecedented move
In an unprecedented and unexpected step, the United States, by presidential order, withdrew from the membership of 66 international organisations, including 31 bodies affiliated with the United Nations. The US government cited the “lack of usefulness and effectiveness” of these organisations for its national interests as the reason for the decision.
Among this long list, the US withdrawal from ten major international bodies has drawn particular attention:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
UN Women
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
International Law Commission
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA)
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
International Trade Centre (ITC)
Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF)
Legal and political consequences of the US withdrawal
The United States’ exit from such a wide range of international organisations challenges the status of international organisations as established legal entities in international law, with a history spanning more than one and a half centuries. Moreover, the withdrawal of a power such as the United States from regional, continental and global institutions will have serious consequences for the stability of global trade, women’s rights, democracy, environmental protection, and the fight against terrorism and organised crime.
This move also weakens the principle of international cooperation—one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law—and could be regarded as the beginning of a dangerous norm in international relations; a norm that will ultimately undermine global peace, security and sustainable development, particularly at a time when the international order is more unbalanced and unstable than ever.
Nasrullah Stanikzai is a political and international affairs analyst and a former professor at the Faculty of Law and Political Science at Kabul University.
The responsibility for the content of opinion articles published in the Opinions section of the Amu TV website lies with their authors.
