What methods were available to the League of Nations to settle disputes between countries?

The League of Nations was formed after World War I in order to promote world peace.  If there was a dispute between nations, the League of Nations had three options.  The first option was to have open dialogue and arbitration from other members of the League.  This was supposed to be open and fair, though nations could be prejudiced against other nations.  The second was economic sanctions against an offending nation.  The idea was that sanctions would hit the people who lived in the offending nation and that they could either force a change in policy or a change in government.  The League could also prohibit other nations from trading with the nation at fault.  Finally—and most controversially—the nation at fault could face a physical attack from the League of Nations.  This meant that the League of Nations could theoretically go to war to promote world peace.  However, the problem with this move was that the League of Nations did not have an armed force at its disposal.  The United States did not want to provide one because conservatives in Congress feared that this would lead to a loss of American sovereignty over foreign affairs and that American lives would be shed in a war that did not include the United States.  Britain and France could not provide one since their people were war-weary after fighting the Central Powers for four years.  Russia was going through a revolution and was left out of the Versailles peace talks, so they would not provide a force either.  This last measure of the League of Nations proved the agreement's weakness.