TY - JOUR
T1 - How Peace Operations Did Not Emerge as a Norm after the First World War
AU - Kertcher, Chen
N1 - Funding Information: On 26 March, it was decided that the International Commission would be ‘assisted, in case of need, by the necessary forces’. After the evacuation of German military forces in January 1920, Great Britain and France dispatched an occupation force of approximately 3,000 soldiers and assembled a bi-national ground force. The American force, which was intended to be dispatched, did not arrive. The international forces were funded by Germany and Denmark. Both states executed vast propaganda campaigns to encourage people to vote. The political tension was high. To curtail the tension, the Commission banned propaganda by civil servants such as teachers and priests. Eventually, the plebiscite took place in relative peace. They took place in Zone I on 10 February and in Zone II on 14 March 1920. The first plebiscite clearly favored the Danes and the second favored the Germans. The French and Norwegians requested that additional territories in the central area be annexed to Denmark on the basis of economic and geographical considerations, but they were rebuffed by the British and Swedes, who claimed that consideration of self-determination outweighed those considerations. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - The execution of international plebiscites and international administrations in post-World War I Germany was chosen as a case study because it is accepted as an early model of peace operations. It held promise for the emergence of a new norm for resolving territorial disputes according to the principle of self-determination. In order to understand why the norm failed in its early emergence stage process, the paper analyzes the discussions on Germany territorial disputes among the three main Powers − France, Great-Britain and the United States − during the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 as the constitutive stage. Then it compares it with the execution of international operations in Germany. The paper combines IR theory with international history. It shows that a ‘norm amalgamation’ is a precondition for a norm to emerge. The norm entrepreneurs have to amalgamate an ideational-constitutive process with an operational-appropriateness. In the case studies it shows that during the discussions of the victorious Powers there were several tensions and dilemmas: a tension between the ‘old norm’ and ‘new norms’. Moreover, The Powers were also divided concerning the process of operational-procedures.
AB - The execution of international plebiscites and international administrations in post-World War I Germany was chosen as a case study because it is accepted as an early model of peace operations. It held promise for the emergence of a new norm for resolving territorial disputes according to the principle of self-determination. In order to understand why the norm failed in its early emergence stage process, the paper analyzes the discussions on Germany territorial disputes among the three main Powers − France, Great-Britain and the United States − during the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 as the constitutive stage. Then it compares it with the execution of international operations in Germany. The paper combines IR theory with international history. It shows that a ‘norm amalgamation’ is a precondition for a norm to emerge. The norm entrepreneurs have to amalgamate an ideational-constitutive process with an operational-appropriateness. In the case studies it shows that during the discussions of the victorious Powers there were several tensions and dilemmas: a tension between the ‘old norm’ and ‘new norms’. Moreover, The Powers were also divided concerning the process of operational-procedures.
KW - Germany
KW - Norm emergence
KW - international administration
KW - international plebiscites
KW - post First World War
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85115639743
U2 - 10.1080/07075332.2021.1964094
DO - 10.1080/07075332.2021.1964094
M3 - Article
SN - 0707-5332
VL - 44
SP - 524
EP - 539
JO - International History Review
JF - International History Review
IS - 3
ER -