The ineffectiveness of the system can be proven by the differences of opinion in how peace should be maintained. For example Russia wanted to intervene in Spain and threatened to use force by sending in a Russian army. On the other hand Britain did not agree with this method and so did not sign the Troppau Protocol. This disagreement in opinions meant that the European Powers weren’t always on the same page in relation to the meaning of peace and how to preserve it. As well as this the system can be considered ineffective due to the conflicting interests that each state had. In the beginning the statesmen were concerned with preventing revolutions just as much as they were concerned with restoring peace in Europe. However as time passed it became obvious that ‘national self-interest became more important that the unity of the ‘System’.’ They became more concerned about their own interests rather than the interests of Europe. For example the issue of slavery was brought up regarding the right for the British navy to search vessels that may contain slaves. However ‘the suggestion was not accepted on account of the jealousy of the naval strength of Great Britain. No country was prepared to tolerate British interference with her commerce.’ Thus this proves that at times the Congress System had no internal harmony resulting in the system appearing ineffective. Lastly this can also be proven by the fact the …show more content…
The fact that it was new meant that the statesmen certainly established it with caution and uncertainty. They were conscious and unconfident that if they were not careful and did not negotiate things properly Europe may plunge into revolution and war once again. As a result of this the congress men ensured that important issues would be discussed between them by using discussion, co-operation debate, negotiation and compromise. This method of diplomacy attempted to stand up against revolutions and revolutionary