Talk:League of Nations mandate

message: I would be in favor of reformulating the idea of UN Mandates to meet modern needs. There are a number of countries which are so misgoverned that the world should do something to help. You can make your own list, but I would suggest perhaps Haiti, Congo, Ivory Coast.
Just a simple  outline.
Administering mandates should be done by UN members who are not permanent security council members.
The mandates should be administer to insure:
  A: to insure Efficient government
  B: To eliminate corruption at all levels
  C: To establish health care institutions including schools for training health care workers.
  D: To establish an educational system
  E: To provide training and support for native businesses
  F: To negotiate specific aid projects on behalf of the mandate
  G: To establish a competent police force free of competition
In administering these mandates the administrators must insure that the mandate is protected from exploitation by outside parties.
I would enjoy the comments of others to this idea.
Howard McCarthy
Lakeport, CA
odessaguy@yahoo.cpm
:The UN Charter allows the Organization to appoint trustees or to establish municipal governments and supervise territories directly as it did in Kosovo and East Timor. The UN also adopted a decision to govern Jerusalem and the surrounding area directly. harlan (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern mandates

message: Elsewhere in Wikipedia and the internet it is reported that there was just one Palestinian mandate including present day Israel, Israeli controlled territories, and Jordan (plus a little of Syria). It is implied (but as far as I can tell never explicitly written) that the League of Nations never split the Palestinian mandate.
Did the League of Nations create a separate mandate for TransJordan, or was there only one class A mandate for the whole of Palestine? --Jsolinsky 01:15, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palesine and Transjordan as separate mandates 

message: I had edited the following text "In April 1921, the Emirate of Transjordan was provisionally added as an autonomous area under the United Kingdom" into "In April 1921, the Emirate of Transjordan was separated from Mandatory Palestine and provisionally added as an autonomous area under the United Kingdom" as it more clearly states that this territory was already under a Mandate. This edit was reverted, why? The text implies that this was a new area added as an additional Mandate, which is incorrect and not in dispute.
The Edit Summary for the revertion of my edit states "Undid revision 1211610126 by Dotancohen since Mandatory Palestine did not exist in 1921, Transjordan could not have been removed from it. The text was correct before." however that is incorrect. The Mandatory Palestine page clearly states "Mandatory Palestine was a geopolitical entity that existed between 1920 and 1948" and in fact the Mandate for Palestine concerned both Mandatory Palestine and The Emirate of Transjordan, the latter of which was seperated from the first, leaving only the first to be administered under the Mandate for Palestine.
If nobody has issue, I will add my previous edit back, as the current text is confusing and the fact stated is not disputed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotancohen (talk • contribs) 16:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Addressing the split of the Mandate for Palestine

message: Weren't the Free City of Danzig, the Memelland and the Saarland mandates as well? Känsterle 21:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody says "no" .--Matthead 23:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were certain attempts to impose international regulations on the status of these territories, but it wasn't done through the mandate system, so they aren't related to this article. Newyorkbrad 21:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Germany

message: I linked to the UN Trust article thinking it would explain what happened to Palestine, Iraq, etc after 1946 and found that article only seems to cover the class 2 and 3 mandates.  I have no clue as to what should be there or how to structure it which is why I was here.  Mulp 03:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Palestine/Jordan, Iraq, and Syria/Lebanon never entered the U.N. trusteeship system (Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon were granted full independence before the U.N. was formed, and Palestine's status was, to say the least, contested). For further information you can see the articles on those respective mandates/countries. Newyorkbrad 21:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Connect to UN Trusts

message: I have a vague memory of reading as a child that Norway was offered one or two mandate areas after World War I due to the importance of the Norwegian merchant fleet. As many of you may know Norway was referred to as "The Neutral Ally". Norway however supposedly turned this down an used the goodwill to secure sovereignty over Svalbard. Can anyone confirm this? - Nidator 17:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norway offered mandate areas? 

message: The US Senate refused to ratify the Covenant of the League of Nations. The so-called 'Irreconcilables' completely rejected the proposed system of Mandates as an illegitimate rule by brute force. see Classic Senate Speeches and the denunciation of the Mandates, starting on page 7
The UN Charter addressed the 14 Senate reservations which had prevented the adoption of the former Covenant.    
The Protocols of the Yalta Conference stipulated that future discussions and agreements would be required before the old Mandates were sanctioned or placed under UN trusteeship:
'Territorial trusteeship:
It was agreed that the five nations which will have permanent seats on the Security Council should consult each other prior to the United Nations conference on the question of territorial trusteeship.
The acceptance of this recommendation is subject to its being made clear that territorial trusteeship will only apply to:(a) existing mandates of the League of Nations; (b) territories detached from the enemy as a result of the present war; (c) any other territory which might voluntarily be placed under trusteeship; and (d) no discussion of actual territories is contemplated at the forthcoming United Nations conference or in the preliminary consultations, and it will be a matter for subsequent agreement which territories within the above categories will be place under trusteeship.  
Articles 73-85 of the UN Charter were an attempt to eliminate the old colonial Mandates, not preserve them. New agreements were negotiated on a case-by-case basis:  
'Article 75
The United Nations shall establish under its authority an international trusteeship system for the administration and supervision of such territories as may be placed thereunder by subsequent individual agreements. These territories are hereinafter referred to as trust territories.' see UN Charter Chapter 11 and UN Charter Chapter 12
The Palestine Question was placed before the General Assembly for a recommendation under Article 10 of the Charter, the League of Nations Palestine Mandate itself was never actually placed under any UN trusteeship agreement. see QUESTION OF PALESTINE, A/286, 3 April 1947  
harlan (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  League Mandates Did NOT Automatically Become UN Trusts 

message: ::See Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919 Volume XIII, Annotations to the treaty of peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany, signed at Versailles, June 28, 1919: 'The mandates under which the various territories have been administered were submitted by the mandatory governments to the Council of the League of Nations in accordance with paragraph 8 of article 22. The terms were reviewed by the Council, in some cases revised on its recommendation, and finally approved by it. The following table gives the pertinent data for each territory:
:::"A" Mandates
:::Palestine
:::Trans-Jordan
:::Syria and Lebanon' 
::On November 22, 1947 the United States expressed agreement with the statement made by the Chairman of Ad Hoc Sub-Committee 1 that the plan presented by the Sub-Committee was legal under the Charter. There was nothing in the Charter which prevented an immediate transition from a Class A mandate to independence. Foreign relations of the United States, 1947. The Near East and Africa Volume V 
::Class A mandates consisted of the former Turkish provinces of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. "Class A mandate." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 14 Nov. 2009 http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/120113/Class-A-mandate
::The International Court of Justice explained that "49 ...The responsibility of the United Nations in this matter has its origin in the Mandate and the Partition Resolution concerning Palestine (see paragraphs 70 and 71 below). This responsibility has been described by the General Assembly as "a permanent responsibility towards the question of Palestine until the question is resolved in all its aspects in a satisfactory manner in accordance with international legitimacy" 
::In its brief legal analysis of the legal status of the territory, the International Court of Justice said that "70. Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the First World War, a class 'A' Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain by the League of Nations, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant" see Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory  harlan (talk) 06:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations for Class A Mandate Status

message: The map appears to show British Togoland as being bigger than French Togoland,  which appears not to have been the actual situation.Eregli bob (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you are correct.  The best maps I can find are here:   Zerotalk 11:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Togoland 

message: I read this section as an unbiased observer but noted its unusually high amount of personal analysis. The brunt of the argument that Palestine falls into a Sui Generis case, additionally, was limited to but a few sources. I went to the talk page to investigate whether this had previously been discussed. A number of editors here have demonstrated that nearly all reliable sources claim Palestine was a Class A Mandate. The dispute on this fact was brought in by a fringe viewpoint which was clearly shown to not be consensus in an earlier discussion. Based on these facts, the Sui Generis section is a flagrant POV violation. Why this section has been allowed to stand is beyond me, but I hope that this tag will bring editors back here for additional discussion and review of this issue. 64.231.221.113 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess this is my fault for not rewriting it when I promised.  It is quite unacceptable to have a fringe opinion at the top level instead of the overwhelming classification of Palestine as a Class A Mandate.  A few sentences in the "Class A" section noting that some sources disagree (the 1937 royal commission and Sabel) would be enough.  Anything more, especially unreliable activists like Eli and Hertz, does not belong at all. Zerotalk 23:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's all right. I agree with the inclusion of the viewpoint as a note in the Class A section. Thank you. 64.231.221.113 (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: POV Tag for 'Sui Generis' Section 

message: Dear editors,
Please note that in the text on the mandate system, the UN management of this issue following WWII does not mention the fate of (today's) Western Sahara, currently under occupation by Morocco.
Please insert relevant information, preferably with a reference to the Wikipedia text on Western Sahara, as under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara 
Sincerely,
Bertil Egerö
ass.prof.emer. Lund university, Sweden  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.248.142.223 (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The fate of Spanish Sahara, now Western Sahara, is missing from the text 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on League of Nations mandate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150106103217/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/53/5595.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/53/5595.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706021237/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Galicia is entirely missing from this page. The League of Nations awarded Poland a 25-year Mandate of Galicia in 1919. 2A00:23C4:B617:7D01:AD49:740:466B:5C50 (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't a League of Nations mandate. It was an action of the Supreme Council at the Peace Conference. Zerotalk 14:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Galicia

message: if the last phrase is a duplicate of the general rule on fortifications, it is best removed because causes confusion; otherwise the difference should be made clearer.
Perhaps the phrase is simply in the wrong place (B rather than C class), because I feel useful to state explicitly that this prohibition had the precedence on the integral nature. pietro 151.29.59.56 (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  class B