An output from the peacemaking process after the Great War was the Covenant of the League of Nations, a charter for a multi-national group designed to talk through problems as a way to avoid war.  This idea was neither novel nor unique.

• The 15th century King of Bohemia, George of Poděbrady, suggested a treaty among “all Christian powers” (meaning Europe) comprising: a pledge to settle differences peacefully; a common parliament; common institutions; supranational insignia.
• Henry IV of France’s friend and advisor, Maximilien de Béthune, proposed in the early 17th century “a Europe composed of 15 roughly equal states, under the direction of a Very Christian Council of Europe, charged with resolving differences and disposing of a common army“.
• The Holy Alliance was created in 1815 after the defeat of Napoleon by Russia, Austria and Prussia to encourage those states to act in “Justice, Christian Charity, and Peace“, both in internal and foreign affairs.
• Around the same time the Concert of Europe began which existed, on and off, until 1914.  It “had no written rules or permanent institutions but at times of crisis any of them could propose a conference.“
• During the nineteenth century there was huge international co-operation, driven by improvements in communications technology and trade transport capability.  Treaties were rapidly agreed on postal services, railways, sea port and shipping arrangements, disease control, the abolition of slavery and right up to1914 with the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea.
• The Permanent Court of Arbitration, established in 1899, is the oldest institution for international dispute resolution.  It “provides services for the arbitration and resolution of disputes involving states, state entities, intergovernmental organizations, and private parties“.
• In 1918 US President Thomas Woodrow Wilson demanded “A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.”  This was the trigger for the formation of the League of Nations.

There have been many of these ideas—including those based around religion, political ideology, trade, shared enemies or common constitutional tradition—and the above are only referring to Europe and only up to 1919.  We’ve learned much since then, too, especially in the rest of the world, about truth, peace and reconciliation.

There are variations on this theme, meaning many ways such an international body can be defined:

• Should it be a supranational power?
• Should national sovereignty be left fully intact?
• Should it treat nations as equal or give preference to superpowers?
• Is it there to threaten a determined aggressor with war with the others?
• Is it there to guarantee the territorial integrity of members or to permit peaceful changes to frontiers?
• Does it recognise the political independence of members or provide a forum for unsuitable treaties to be renegotiated?
• Is it there for the purpose of preventing escalation into war or the sole forum for all diplomacy?
• Is it a permanently standing body or only called when needed?
• Is it optional or mandatory?
• Can disputes be settled law and an international court?
• Attended by leaders or diplomats?  Politicians or civil servants?
• How binding are the decisions?

So many more questions exist too.

I wonder which permutation of answers will work in future?

And the quotes like “Jaw-jaw, not war-war” come from some geezer called Winston Churchill.