Abstract
The idealist peace project after the end of World War I realized various principles-based regulations and conventions to provide a new international peace and stability. One such arrangement was the rule that conflicts and disputes should be resolved under the auspices of these principles within the League of Nations. Representing the international community, the League successfully fulfilled this responsibility in many cases and established procedures for settling territorial disputes. However the case of Mosul Question between 1925-1926, considerable divergences in that structure became evident. This article examines Mosul Question as a mediation process through the arguements and proposals that reveal the expectations of the parties or their departure from the idealist peace project. Findings based on archival documents, commission reports, and sources from that period reveal that while the British government avoided practices of the idealist peace project, the Turkish government made more explicit appeals to implement them in the case considered as an opportunity for the League of Nations to foster confidence between the Eastern and Western parts of the World.
Publisher
Kafkas Universitesi Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Fakultesi Dergisi
Reference39 articles.
1. Åkermark, S. S. (2009). The Åland Islands question in the League of Nations: The ideal minority case? Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory, 13(1), 195-205.
2. Akın, P. (2009). The formation of Iraqi nationalism under British mandate (1920-1932). (Ma). The graduate school of social sciences of Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
3. Alantar, Ö. Z. (1992). Turkey on the agenda of the League of Nations. (PhD). Boğaziçi University, Institute for Atatürk's Principles and the history of Turkish Renovation, İstanbul.
4. Barros, J. (1964). The Greek-Bulgarian incident of 1925: The League of Nations and the great powers. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 108(4), 354-385.
5. Beck, P. J. (1981). ‘A tedious and perilous controversy’: Britain and the settlement of the Mosul dispute, 1918–1926. Middle Eastern Studies, 17(2), 256-276.