League of Nations


“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.” These words, as generic as they may appear at first read, served to help breathe some life into the practical application of an “association of nations”; a league of nations or even the United Nations of modern times. The idea that the modern intergovernmental organizations of our times were initiated from such underdeveloped statements and vague assumptions about international cooperation and world peace may be surprising to some. However, it is possible that many of the political blunders of history were and continue to be a direct result of this practice of thinning out loosely attached and primitive concepts over the practical solutions to the world’s problems. This forum, along with the conference in a general sense, will encourage you to assess the methods by which the participating nations of intergovernmental organizations attempted to put into effect ‘solutions’, ideas and concepts lacking careful consideration of details, limitations, constraints and real-world applications. We also ask that you consider the consequences of this process in the past while also offering viable alternatives that take into account all the realistic restrictions that yesterday’s problem-solvers may have failed to keep in mind. Each topic in this forum will involve a different period from history, the first being shortly after WW1, the second after WW2 and the final one occurring during the Cold War. Therefore, delegates are required to be consciously aware of not only their country’s stances but also their history and how the specific point in time may change the country’s stance on an issue.

This third and final topic will be the last test of your endurance to facing the sheer failure of the past. If, by this point, after conducting all of your research, you feel somewhat frustrated then you are doing excellently. This frustration, after all, only stems from a righteous feeling of disgust at the injustices occurring so many times throughout history that have never truly ceased to repeat themselves. Originally, this topic was meant to be the Suez crisis which occurred in the same year; an example of the UN stepping in to unite both East and West, the US and the USSR, Capitalism and Communism, stringing the world together to maturely prevent escalation of a crisis occurring in a rapidly changing and evolving country. There is not much point, however, to gloating over the past’s successes when the future, or rather, our present, lacks so much of what gave life to the cooperation and unity of these fringe moments in history. The UN’s involvement, or lack thereof, in the Hungarian revolution of 1956 was, for all intents and purposes, a complete and utter failure. But it is only from facing failure directly that we may move on, only from the tearing of our muscles that they may grow stronger and only from this destructive crisis that you, delegates, can find the strength to build on the decisions of your predecessors.


Mousa AbuGhosh

President of the League of Nations

Mousa AbuGhosh
President of the League of Nations

Email: mousaabughosh18@kingsacademy.edu.jo

Phone Number: +962 7 7551 1550

Topic 1: Division of former Ottoman territories in the Middle East and North Africa.

With the end of the First World War came many consequences on the shape of the world’s maps, specifically in terms of borders. By the end of the war, both the Russian and German Empires had fallen, naturally leading to territorial changes in their former lands. In their stead, independent nations and states were formed, many of which still exist today. In the former territories of the Ottoman Empire, however, we continue to see continuous shifting of the territorial boundaries and ‘states’ that have been established since. The consequences of its demise exist as an ongoing process in the modern world, one that many delegates will undoubtedly hold some personal opinion on, considering its influence on modern Middle Eastern politics. Rather than debate the modern implications of territorial disputes as a general topic, delegates will put aside their inherent biases and instead discuss the conflict from a historical lens; specifically in regards to its origin in the distribution of land following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. By forcing the delegates to understand the source of the modern conflicts we see today, and by constraining the issue to the MENA in particular, delegates will be able to utilize the required research effectively and benefit from their respective country’s stance on the issue at hand.

President Packet 1: link

Topic 2: The relocation of German Jews, Poles, disabled persons, gypsies, and homosexuals following the Holocaust.

Building on the ‘historical’ theme of this forum, this topic will take after the end of World War 2, prompting each delegate to research their country’s changing stances throughout time, or, quite simply, the history of their assigned country. Like Topic 1, this is an issue that holds significant ties to those of the modern world, to some extent. One might argue that the entire Arab-Israeli conflict originated from the influx of Jewish immigrants into Palestine in the 1920s. As for the other victims of the holocaust, the explicit reference to them is very much intentional as many of these victims were moved out of the concentration camps to harsher conditions or other containment camps or facilities. This will allow delegates to analyze the actual proposed solutions of the past, understand why they failed, and propose new solutions that befit their country’s stance at that point in time. In a sense, it is almost a rewriting of history, which is somewhat appropriate considering the failure of the League of Nations and the weak performance of the United Nations.

Presidential Packet 2: link

Topic 3: Stabilizing the situation in Hungary as a result of the revolution of 1956.

The idea for this topic stemmed from my initial desire to discuss the Suez Canal Crisis of Egypt which occurred around the same time, as per the suggestion that the forum focus on Arab Issues. Upon reflection, however, I concluded that this would not be an appropriate topic for the forum as the Suez Crisis would be familiar to most delegates, it would not incite a sense of Cold War tension considering the US’s similar stance to that of the US throughout this crisis, and simply because this was a rare case in which the UN effectively and quickly tackled the issue at hand. Thus, the delegates could simply borrow from the solutions of the past and preventing them from doing so would be unreasonable and difficult to enforce as policy, especially considering the already complex process of changing stance for each topic. I found that the Hungarian Revolution on the other hand, another Cold War era topic, could serve a similar purpose. It is also interesting to note that Stalin had already been dead for 3 years at this point in time, meaning that the political atmosphere of the USSR and, by extension, the Soviet-backed countries was changing. The primary reason for the Hungarian Revolution’s inclusion in the forum, however, is that the General Assembly did in fact pass a resolution ordering the Soviets to leave Hungary which was completely and utterly ignored by Soviet forces. Once again, this topic will give delegates a frame of reference for the failures of the past, allowing them the opportunity to reinvent the world based on their understanding of the implications of actions taken throughout the crisis.

President Packet 3: link

*Note that delegates in the League of Nations have the power to declare war.