The U.S. And The World Court: 1923-1926

After the First World War, the U.S. refused the Versailles Treaty and the League of Nations, and returned to isolationism. However, due to some historical causes, the U.S. couldn't be blind to the World Court, which had dangerous relations to the League of Nations. Whether the U.S. should join the World Court? On which conditions should the U.S. join in order to avoid the compulsion and obligation of the League of Nations? Focused on these two questions, the statesmen of the U.S. had debated for several years. Consequently, in 1923 and 1926, the Hughes Reservation and the Swanson Resolution had been proposed respectively.The first part of the thesis introduces the process of conceiving and proposing the Hughes Reservation, and analyses the principles of the U.S. joining: the World Court must be separated from the League of Nations, and the U.S. must obtain the same right as the members of the League of Nations without assuming any obligation and compulsion.The second part of the thesis describes the course from the emergence of advisory opinion issue to the formation of the Swanson Resolution. Based on the Hughes principles, the Swanson Resolution, especially the fifth reservation about the advisory opinion, integrally and definitely expressed the policy of the U.S. toward the World Court.The third part analyses the attitude of international society toward the Swanson Resolution and the failure of the World Court movement.Owing to the isolationism approach, the U.S. policy of the World Court fell into a contradiction: the U.S. wanted to join the World Court, but it didn't want to assume any obligation and compulsion. Finally, as a result of the contradiction development, the U.S. destroyed the advisory opinion system of the World Court, impaired the function of the League of Nations, and trampled the authority of the international institution. The World Court movement adequately revealed the dilemma of the isolationism foreign policy during the 1920s.