The “Covenant” embodied the idea of a contract for peace in 1919. The “Charter” of 1945 appeared more boldly to embody a world constitution for peace. This article analyses the United Nations and its predecessor organisation, the League of Nations, to demonstrate how each organisation was primarily a product of the conflict that preceded it and how each captured the post-war status quo. Despite this shared backward-looking aspect, both treaties were sufficiently broad to accommodate significant constitutional developments with the potential to shape the collective security systems to meet changing geopolitical conditions. Members of the League failed to seize this opportunity but the promise of an improved collective security system, moreover one based on fundamental laws, offered by the drafters of the Charter, is found to be problematic. The transference of competence from member states to organisation that marked the transition from League to UN, which, when combined with the legalisation of hierarchy by the Charter, have meant that the UN order, despite appearing to be more obviously constitutionalised, was potentially less able to achieve peace through law than its predecessor.

《盟约》体现了1919年签订和平合同的思想。1945年的《宪章》显得更为大胆，体现了世界和平宪法。本文分析了联合国及其前身的组织国际联盟，以展示每个组织如何成为其之前冲突的主要产物，以及每个组织如何捕捉战后现状。尽管有共同的前瞻性观点，但这两个条约的范围都足够广泛，足以容纳重大的宪法发展，并有可能塑造集体安全体系，以适应不断变化的地缘政治条件。联盟成员未能抓住这一机会，但人们发现，改善集体安全制度的承诺，以及由《宪章》起草者提供的基于基本法律的集体安全制度的承诺，是有问题的。