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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
