Nevertheless, by including rights such as rights (collectively or individually), by emphasizing the self-determination of all peoples and in their determination to address issues of common interest34, both the 1919 Covenant and the 1945 Charter is based, in some respects, on the richness of international agreements that have grown since the second half of the 19th century. Nevertheless, they went further by creating an institutional architecture that would address these concerns. This is a major step forward from previous concepts of international treaties: maintaining peace and security by solving the structural problems of international relations.35 However, the Convention and the Charter have linked the broader issues of economic, social and cultural cooperation to the same subject. Although they still regard the sovereign state as the fundamental and legitimate player in international relations, they have been elaborate attempts to address the complex interaction between the various constraints that have led to conflict. They were founded on the realization that no modern international system, no peace not only maintains peaceful relations between states, but also meets public demands for legitimacy and well-being.36 In their recognition of the essential sovereignty of all Member States, the League of Nations Convention and the Charter of the United Nations have deliberately failed to emphasize the establishment of a total “constitutional” order. , although there are strong elements of such a provision that have been incorporated into the agreements. So, although they do not realize the dreams of global governance imagined by visionaries like St. Peter, Penn or Rousseau, they could, at least in their intention to subject the “anarchic” international order to legal forms and procedures, as Grotius, Vitoria and Vattel appreciated. The contours of each of these models are all recognizable in the functioning of international relations in Europe between 1450 and 1950, but never in their entirety.
The expressed objectives and tacit intentions that underlie the behaviour of diplomacy, including alliances and treaties, are marked by the dominant nature or rules of the system, but such attitudes could also determine whether such international agreements operate within the system or attempt to change it. In modern Europe, the key challenge for politicians and scientists involved in international relations was, of course, the search for lasting peace and security, a quest that, under the influence of changing circumstances over four centuries, changed the role and purpose of alliances and treaties. The problem of international law and the extent to which international agreements were subject to this right and to what extent treaties could be used to codify and institutionalize it was fundamental. In other words, the history of alliances and treaties between 1450 and 1950 was a painful but goal-full step, far from an “anarchic” towards a more “constitutional” international order, with the occasional injection of not a small dose of hegemony.