Podcast Episode Summary

Podcast: New Books Network

Episode: Joseph Maiolo and Laura Robson, "The League of Nations" (Cambridge UP, 2025)
Date: January 23, 2026
Host: Lucas (B)
Guests: Joseph Maiolo (D), Laura Robson (C)

Overview of Episode Theme

This episode features an in-depth conversation with Joseph Maiolo and Laura Robson about their co-authored book, The League of Nations (Cambridge UP, 2025). The discussion moves beyond traditional interpretations of the League as a failed peace project, offering a critical analysis of how the League functioned to perpetuate unequal global power structures. The authors challenge established narratives on disarmament, peace, technocracy, and population politics, arguing for a more nuanced understanding of the League's legacy in shaping international institutions and order.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Rethinking Disarmament and Peace (02:18 – 11:50)

• Disarmament as Power Preservation:

  • Maiolo argues that interwar disarmament was less about achieving peace and more about maintaining global power hierarchies.
  • “[Naval disarmament treaties] weren’t really about disarming, they were really about preserving a particular hierarchy of global naval power…” (D, 04:04)

• Legitimization of Other Violence:

  • Robson highlights that efforts to prevent total war left open the avenue for other forms of violence, especially colonial and imperial policing.
  • “Claims of the promotion of peace…left in place the possibility of things like imperial policing...” (C, 04:57)

• Peace and Security for Whom?

  • The concept of “peace” is critiqued as being historically contingent and often linked to securing the supremacy and interests of imperial powers, not to the absence of violence.
  • “Peace simply as some sort of goal that's sort of a Platonic ideal just doesn't make sense historically…we really ought to be asking, well, peace for the benefit of which powers, which categories of people?” (D, 08:15)
  • “The object of that security is the permanent global supremacy of the imperial powers. To the extent that peace serves that end…the League is interested in it.” (C, 10:19)

2. The League, Civil Society, and the Politics of Humanitarianism (13:03 – 17:49)

• Weaponization of Peace Movements:

  • Both authors stress that the League mobilized imagery and language of peace for powerful public relations purposes, channeling the energy of civil society into manageable forms.
  • “Peace … the image of the white dove or the statues at the peace monument…the surge of energy…it works. And it did work.” (D, 13:18)

• Altruism and Technocracy:

  • Robson asserts that the League’s claim to altruism and humanitarianism was designed to shift international governance from the political to the technocratic and humanitarian, thus shielding actions from democratic contestation.
  • “One of the goals of that kind of language is to move the actions of the League out of the realm of the political…into the realm of the humanitarian on the one hand and the technocratic on the other.” (C, 15:54)
  • “The League is a fundamentally anti-democratic institution in the way that many international organizations have been and continue to be.” (C, 16:57)

3. Population Politics and the Organization of the League’s Work (19:09 – 23:48)

• Centering Population Policies:

  • The book opens by analyzing the League’s actions regarding population transfers (notably between Greece and Turkey), rather than the usual focus on war and disarmament.
  • “Some of the earliest decisions…have to do with the construction of particular kinds of controllable states and controllable populations.” (C, 20:17)

• Violence as State-Building:

  • The League formalized population exchanges as a legitimate tool for constructing stable borders and states, embedding violence within its vision of international order.

4. Diversity Within the League & Complicating the Narrative (23:48 – 30:36)

• Internal Debate and Contestation:
  • Lucas challenges the authors on nuance: Are all League bodies, such as the International Labour Organization (ILO), equally implicated?
  • Robson elaborates that while the ILO had worker advocacy elements, its rights protections were racially and geographically segregated, often justifying forced labor in colonies for “development.”
  • “There are real limits to the understanding that anybody working within the ILO had about…universal nature of workers’ rights.” (C, 27:26)
  • “You always need to say, rights for whom?” (C, 29:57)

5. Technocratic Expertise and Continuities of Empire (32:28 – 35:52)

• Technocracy as Camouflage:

  • Both Schmidt (critical) and Zimmerman (supportive) viewed the League as inaugurating a technocratic approach to intervention—one that disguised ongoing imperial interests.
  • “It's masking precisely that…it's successful about the League…it's creating a camouflage for what are forms of intervention that are in the interest of particular powers.” (D, 33:28)

• Enduring Impact:

  • Robson emphasizes the persistence and success of this innovation, arguing that technocratic, “neutral” expertise displaced open political contestation but was always entwined with material interests.

6. The Myth of Inevitability and Historical Alternatives (37:18 – 43:53)

• No Natural Order:

  • Robson warns against accepting technocratic order as inevitable or neutral. Identifying its historically contingent construction can open the space for alternatives.
  • “Nothing is inevitable…they were put together at particular moments for particular reasons, by particular people, and they can equally be dismantled…” (C, 39:26)

• Suppressed Alternatives:

  • Maiolo and Robson bring attention to multiple suppressed visions, both economic and political (“there’s no dearth of imagination here... The thing that the League relies on...is the use of force.” (C, 42:01))

7. Critiquing the Historiography & Pathways for Broader International History (43:53 – 52:21)

• Limitations of Prevailing Literature:

  • The dominant historiography, mostly written by Europeanists, has failed to integrate critical perspectives from the regions most affected by League actions (Africa, Pacific, Middle East).
    • “The issue is not that those critiques have not existed…those critiques have not entered into the body of historiography on the League itself…” (C, 47:55)

• Influence on Other International Organizations:

  • Robson suggests that a critical, ground-level approach to the League’s ordering can and should shape the history of subsequent international bodies, especially the UN, with its own continuities of technocratic, state-centric “solutions.”
  • “…the kind of rise of technocratic institutions is something that is clearly a legacy of the League…” (C, 50:22)

8. The Collaborative Process (52:21 – 56:34)

• Agreement and Synergy:
  • Both authors recount the origins and unexpected ease of their partnership, which grew from distinct areas of expertise but converged organically.
  • “It was a huge pleasure to write with Laura… the fluidity and the way that just all came together was remarkable.” (D, 54:17)
  • “I am not sure we had very much in the way of disagreement… We had come to almost precisely the same conclusions about this and had the same frustrations about the kind of nature of the historiography that surrounded the League...” (C, 54:38)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Maiolo on Disarmament & Power:
  “Those [naval] were the most successful disarmament treaties. But when you understand that they weren't really about disarming, they were really about preserving a particular hierarchy of global naval power…” (D, 04:04)

• Robson on Peace and Security:
  “The object of that security is the permanent global supremacy of the imperial powers. To the extent that peace serves that end, I think that the League is interested in it.” (C, 10:19)

• Robson on Technocracy:
  “It is a much more developed kind of articulation of the nature of technocracy…the defense of professional and scientific and technical knowledge as a much more solid base for the making of political decisions than any kind of public body.” (C, 34:43)

• On Historical Alternatives:
  “Nothing is inevitable and that we can identify genealogies and specificities to the construction of every human system.” (C, 39:38)

• On Historiographical Biases:
  “…the actual impact of an institution like the League of Nations…has been almost exclusively written by Europeanists. And I think that that's a really…huge problem for understanding what the League was…” (C, 48:12)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Disarmament and Its Real Purpose: 02:18 – 06:07
• Peace vs. Security: 07:40 – 11:50
• League and Civil Society: 13:03 – 17:49
• Population Politics as Analytical Starting Point: 19:09 – 23:48
• Internal Contestation and the ILO: 23:48 – 30:36
• Technocracy and Legacy: 32:28 – 35:52
• Challenging Myths of Inevitability: 37:18 – 43:53
• Critiquing the Historiography: 43:53 – 49:27
• Implications for International Organizations: 49:27 – 52:21
• On Collaboration: 52:21 – 56:34

Conclusion

Maiolo and Robson provide a rigorous re-evaluation of the League of Nations, demolishing narratives of it as a naive or failed peace experiment and highlighting its active role in cementing inequitable global order through technocratic expertise, population control, and legitimized violence. Their collaborative approach—built on distinct but deeply complementary expertise—yields a fresh, critical lens that has implications for reinterpreting the history of international organizations into the present.