Session Abstract

This panel analyzes the League of Nations, the first “international” governing body, as a site of activism. Arab women, European Jews, and European diplomats concerned about the plight of stateless Russian refugees all engaged the League on behalf of their various causes: women’s rights and Arab independence, action to stop the persecution of Europe’s Jews, and a refugee’s right to nationality.

This panel seeks to address several questions about the relationship between minority populations and the League of Nations. How did minority communities without a state to represent them at the League imagine the emergent international sphere? What happened when the conceptualization of the League as a truly representative international institution of governance abutted the true structures of the League? What are the legacies of the League’s centralization of power in the hands of a trans-Atlantic elite?

The case studies collected for this panel explore how populations without representation at the League all struggled to expand the boundaries of the League’s constituencies to include them. The unrepresented minorities worked to have the League address their issues; their engagement forced the League to define what issues were “international,” and therefore fell within the purview of the organization, and which issues were national in nature and therefore outside of the League’s domain.

Minority activism at the League varied in its content and its target. At the League women’s rights were transformed from a national to an international concern. Arab women tried to use this transformation to get a representative of an “Eastern” woman on the League. “International” for Arab women meant representation of men and women from all parts of the globe. Nansen passports issued to refugees fleeing interwar crises represented a different conceptualization of “international.” People who were neither stateless, nor refugees, plied the League for these passports, which many understood as representing a new form of supranational citizenship.

Most people who appealed for League engagement with their issue received a form letter informing the sender their petition had been received. Sometimes the petitions were forwarded to a commission, but most often the petitions or telegrams were filed away. Bureaucratic indifference to the suffering of Europe’s Jews provides an example of Jewish activists’ attempts to make claims against “universal” rights, only to have their claims-making ignored. Memories of the potential of “international” to be an inclusive sphere shaped how Jewish activists engaged subsequent international forums.

The activism of Arab women, European Jews, and that of Nansen passport applicants, all highlighted issues that transcended the bounds of any particular state—women’s rights, the right to freedom from religious persecution, and the right to a nationality. Because these issues spread beyond the “state,” the populations that lobbied the League for action saw these issues as being international in nature. Categorizing the issues as such caused the League to expand or contract its definition of “international.” The League’s response to these “international” claims established a precedent for which issues and which populations can claim international status.