By Sophia Angelina Baerend
Introduction
11 of November, 1918 saw the first day of relative international peace in four years, three months and two days. The end of World War I sparked the collapse of empires, the drawing of new borders, and the creation of armistices (a formal agreement to stop active combat) and treaties that later aided in post World War II approaches to international security, including the establishment of the United Nations and NATO (The Great War, 2018: United Nations, 2023; Rehman et al., 2022) . Such developments demonstrate an ongoing effort to manage international tensions through institutional means, shaping the foundations of collective security which continue to affect international relations today (Mingst, 2019). This article examines how security in the early 20th century (following World War I, the interwar period and, the aftermath of World War II) compared to international tension in the modern day. By examining these patterns, it can be possible to identify how unresolved security challenges can influence country behavior over time.
Security Failures after World War I
The collapse of European security following World War I can best be attributed to the collapse of centuries old empires (including Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire), punitive peace treaties, economic instability, and mutual mistrust among countries (The Great War, 2018). The fragmentation of a once-whole country often created internally unstable nation-states, such as the former Czechoslovakia, leading to smaller conflicts within territories. At the same time, post-war treaties assigned primary responsibility to defeated countries in such a way that created lasting resentment.
One such example of this is the existence of Article 231 in the Treaty of Versailles. This specific part of the treaty forced Germany and its allies to accept full responsibility for starting World War I, and laid the foundation for debilitating reparation payments and severe military restrictions (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2025). Some historians have stated that Article 231 was later politicized by extremist movements, including the Nazi Party, as they exploited it to unite the German people against a common enemy: the Allied forces (Zhu, 2021). The politicization of postwar frustrations also exposed the limits of the international community, particularly the League of Nations, which lacked the resources to be ‘truly effective’ . The organization, created by the American president Woodrow Wilson, was intended to be at the forefront of post-war peace as the (first) global body for international cooperation and collective security (United Nations, 2023). However, due to a multitude of reasons including limited effectiveness, no solid military force, and, of course, its inability to prevent large-scale conflict, such as World War 2, the League was disbanded in 1946. Its limitations aided in the creation of the United Nations (Department of State, 2008; Providence, 2018).
The same factors that prevented the League from being seen as a legitimate authority figure also contributed to early instability and growing distrust among nations. Great Britain and France frequently prioritized their own national interests, which undermined the ideal of collective security that the League was trying to uphold (Providence, 2018). Furthermore, territorial losses and demilitarisation fuelled resentment and extremism, which the 1929 Great Depression and arbitrary redrawing of borders by the Allies further intensified international tensions.
Post WWII Security Systems
Post World War II development of international security protocols and organisations were a direct result of the rampant failures of the interwar era. Chief among these was the inability of the League of Nations to prevent aggression or manage rivalries between major powers (United Nations, 2023). In 1945, the United Nations was founded in response to these failures, introducing broader membership, more effective legal authority, and enforcement mechanisms such as the Security Council. Furthermore, collective security organisations, most notably the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), were established to provide legitimate defense against external threats, such as terrorism or the rise of enemy countries as systemic rivals. The creation of such a defense was a strong contrast to the League of Nations’ reliance on moral condemnation and limited sanctions.
These institutions were, at their core, designed to avoid repeating previous mistakes by including military, political, and economic cooperation into the planning of security (Rehman et al., 2022; NATO, 2025). However, although these measures aided in avoiding direct conflict between major powers, it introduced a new form of hostility between nations. For example, during the Cold War proxy conflict replaced direct large scale conflict, limiting the actions that could have been taken. Strategic hostility and selective authority within such organizations has continued to shape modern international tensions. This suggests that, although institutions based on postwar regrets reduced certain risks, they did not eliminate the foundational challenge that has plagued such organisations since the beginning: issues of mistrust, counteracting interests, and unreliable commitments to collective security (Rehman et al., 2022).
Parallels to Modern Security Issues
Modern international tensions show several parallels to earlier periods of security failures, particularly in challenges faced by international organizations. Similarly to the interwar period, modern organizations such as the United Nations often struggle to effectively enforce their decisions, despite housing the Security Council, where the veto power of permanent members, otherwise known as the P5, frequently limits collective action (United Nations, 2023; Crisis Group, 2025). Further political division among major powers is common, and the UN has been accused of selectively applying international law. Such constraints have contributed to an increased reliance on unilateral action, which reflects historical patterns where states act independently once institutions are perceived as ineffective, defeating one of the core purposes of the United Nations. Comparisons between historical and modern responses to aggression highlight these patterns; for example, Nazi Germany’s annexation of Austria through Anschluss was met with diplomatic protest, but no military intervention. This reflects the limits of appeasement and collective security in the interwar period. (The Second World War, 2017). Similarly, Russia’s formal, but illegal annexation of Crimea, which is still regarded as a part of Ukraine, incited widespread condemnation, economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation, but no effective military response by a major power. In both cases, enforcement relied on diplomatic measures, raising questions about deterrence and how effective non military responses could be to territorial revisionism (Compass by RAU’s IAS, 2025).
Key differences between Past and Present
Despite continuing parallels between early 20th-century security failures and modern international issues, several aspects distinguish the current system. Most notably, the existence of nuclear weapons have introduced deterrent measures that significantly alter country behavior. This reduces the likelihood of direct, large-scale conflict between major powers, as the threat of mutually assured destruction acts as a powerful deterrent, but could increase escalation through proxy conflicts and limited engagements (Rehman et al., 2025).
Contrasting to the interwar era, today’s economy is characterised by international dependence, raising costs of conflict throughout trade relationships and financial markets. The modern international environment is also shaped by vast legal and institutional frameworks, such as international courts (Crisis Group, 2025). Furthermore, norms which govern the use of force in terms of military or other hostile response, which were mostly absent or weakly enforced in the early 20th century have become more common (United Nations, 2023). Additionally, technological advancements have transformed how we view hostility as cyber operations, information warfare and cyberterrorism give influence without traditional military engagement (Weimann, 2004). These differences suggest that, while historical patterns of security are relevant, modern conflicts operate in a significantly more complex and multifaceted domain than the interwar period.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this article has examined early 20th century security failures alongside modern international conflicts, showing that instability more often arises from systematic weakness in collective security than individual acts of violence. The collapse of post World War I security systems worsened by punitive peace treaties, ineffective organisations and inconsistent enforcement contributed to an environment where unilateral action and appeasement became increasingly normalized. Although post World War II security architecture, including the United Nations and collective security mechanisms such as NATO addressed several of those issues , it did not eliminate the challenges relating to mistrust, competing national interests and selective commitment and enforcement (United Nations, 2023; Rehman et al., 2022). Comparison to modern international systems reveal both an ongoing pattern and a deviation. While nuclear deterrence, economic interdependence and technological advancements have altered how nations undergo conflict, modern tensions maintain long standing difficulties to maintain effective cooperation. Together, these findings suggest that the ongoing nature of international hostility is linked closely to the ability of security institutions to emphasize the continuing relevance of historical patterns and understanding current day global politics.
Sources
Mingst, K. (2019). International organization. In Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/international-organization
The Great War. (2018). Conflicts & Wars In The Aftermath of WW1 I THE GREAT WAR Epilogue. On YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNoF5gNLrzA
Zhu, S. (2021). The War Guilt Clause and the Rise of Adolf Hitler. European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(3), 41–44. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejsocial.2021.1.3.68
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. (2025). Treaty of Versailles. Ushmm.org; United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/treaty-of-versailles
United Nations. (2023). The League of Nations. The United Nations Office at Geneva; United Nations. https://www.ungeneva.org/en/about/league-of-nations/overview
Why the League Failed: 13 Crippling Shortcomings. (2018, January 26). Providence. https://providencemag.com/2018/01/why-the-league-of-nations-failed/
Department Of State. The Office of Electronic Information, B. of P. A. (2008, January 11). The League of Nations, 1920. 2001-2009.State.gov. https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwi/99150.htm
Rehman, F., Khan, Y., & Khan, I. (2022). The Role of the NATO in Collective Security and how it has transformed and evolved over the years. Global Strategic & Securities Studies Review, VII(II), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.31703/gsssr.2022(vii-ii).01
Collective defence and Article 5. (2025). Site Name Seo. https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/collective-defence-and-article-5
ANI. (2025, March 6). The Abyssinia Crisis – a Lesson for today | The Australian Naval Institute. Navalinstitute.com.au. https://navalinstitute.com.au/the-abyssinia-crisis-a-lesson-for-today/
The League of Nations. (2017). Thesecondworldwar.org. https://www.thesecondworldwar.org/interbellum-1918-1936/1919/paris-peace-conference/the-league-of-nations
Ten Challenges for the UN in 2025-2026 | International Crisis Group. (2025, September 9). Crisisgroup.org. https://www.crisisgroup.org/global/sb13-ten-challenges-un-2025-2026
Why has the United Nations Lost Relevance? – Rau’s IAS. (2025, September 19). Compass by Rau’s IAS. https://compass.rauias.com/current-affairs/united-nations-lost-relevance/
Renè. (2024, September 25). Statement by Minister Ronald Lamola at the United Nations Security Council High-Level Open Debate under the Agenda Item, Maintenance of International Peace and Security, Leadership for Peace: United in respect of the UN Charter, in search of a Secure Future, 25 September 2024. DIRCO. https://dirco.gov.za/statement-by-minister-ronald-lamola-at-the-united-nations-security-council-high-level-open-debate-under-the-agenda-item-maintenance-of-international-peace-and-security-leadership-for-peace-united-i/
Weimann, G. (2004). Cyberterrorism: How Real Is the Threat? United States Institute of Peace. https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/sr119.pdf
While we are transparent about all sources used in this article and double-checked all the given information, we make no claims about its completeness, accuracy or reliability. If you notice a mistake or misleading phrasing, please contact centuria-sa@hhs.nl .
This article also contains links to other third-party websites, which have only been placed for the convenience of the reader and does not imply endorsement of contents of said third-party websites.
Home | Centuria Study Association 
Leave a comment