Resource #1 “At the end of the First World War, the League of Nations had been designed to implement the principle of ‘collective security.’ This was the principle that, wherever an act of ‘aggression’ occurred, the whole international community would combine to defend the victim of that aggression. In so doing, the League would defend not only the particular country concerned, but peace itself. . . .

In theory this system should have been foolproof. If the principle had been fully implemented, no nation would have ever taken action to breach the peace because doing so would have united against it the combined forces of the rest of the world. Japan would not have invaded Manchuria. Italy would not have invaded Ethiopia. Nazi Germany would not have invaded Czechoslovakia or Poland. The fact that these things did nonetheless happen suggests that there was something wrong with the theory. What this was was clear: while nations would readily accept the abstract theory of ‘collective security,’ they were not usually willing, in concrete situations, to undergo the strenuous sacrifices involved in going to war to fulfill it.”

Evan Luard, historian

Resource #2

“The founders of the UN created a system which theoretically prohibited states from using force unilaterally other than in self-defense. Instead, the system aimed to centralize the use of force under the control of the UN’s Security Council. Under the UN Charter, the Security Council was to act in cases of breaches of peace and acts of aggression. It could take measures such as political and economic sanctions or measures involving the use of force. The Security Council was to have its own standing army and a Military Staff Committee. . . .

However, the Charter’s collective security scheme did not operate as planned. Not surprising, the prohibition on the use of force did not stop states from using force—there have been over 100 major conflicts since 1945. Especially during the Cold War, the veto (or the threat of veto) by the five Permanent Members—the USA, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, and China—obstructed the Council’s ability to act. A standing UN army that could maintain or restore international peace was never established.

Nevertheless, the UN system proved sufficiently flexible to allow the Security Council to take action in ways not expressly provided for in the Charter. The UN created the institution of peacekeeping, even though there was no express basis for it in the Charter. UN peacekeeping operations were to be conducted with the consent of the host state, to be impartial in nature, and were not to involve the use of force by the peacekeepers, except in self-defense. Despite these limitations and the ongoing problem of securing adequate resources, peacekeeping has been a relatively effective way of containing some international conflicts.”

Christine Gray, international relations expert

Which of the following is a similarity between the two historical interpretations above?

A. Both interpretations are written from an overtly nationalist perspective that questions the very idea of international cooperation to resolve conflicts.

B. Both interpretations offer critical evaluations of the effectiveness of international organizations relative to their respective missions.

C. Both interpretations use newly discovered evidence to re-evaluate commonly held views about the primary purpose of international organizations.

D. Both interpretations focus on foundational principles such as collective security but neglect to provide historical details on how international organizations sought to implement these principles.