In confronting any question about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in the late sixties one is uncomfortably aware of insistent questioning as to how much it all matters. Is NATO a device to meet horizontal challenges when the new challenges are vertical? Is “the West,” whatever that is, defending the Elbe when the struggle is going on in its own streets? These challenges from within are not the subversion directed from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which NATO subcommittees had always taken into their calculations. Insofar as they are Communist in inspiration at all, they are the consequences of the disruption of the Muscovite International. What makes them serious is that they have their roots in Western society itself. Perhaps the West has been too much preoccupied with interstate relations and the creation of superstates when the essential problems are internal—not isolated national phenomena certainly, but eruptions which ignore boundaries, in some cases intensely nationalistic and at the same time dedicated to removing the barriers between peoples. The new rebels are deeply skeptical of that “way of life” the West has insisted it was defending through NATO and believe nothing could be more irrelevant than a military alliance to defend it.

Twenty years have passed since the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) met for its first stormy session in the spring of 1947. The beginning of the Commission and the first five years of its existence were strongly influenced by the increasing political tensions between what would become two blocs of countries, led by the United States on the one side, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the other. How this East-West conflict, or Cold War, originated and developed I shall not attempt to clarify at this time, except by stating that it provides an example of what in my analytical work I have defined as “circular causation with cumulative effects.” As reaction followed upon action and further reaction upon that reaction, there developed a perverse but effective cooperation between those on each of the two sides who sought to solidify the blocs against each other. Circular causation does not need to be vicious, however. It can be virtuous, when once the general trend is instead turned toward a lessening of tension.

The essays in this volume are designed to throw light on the relations between two of the major novel and unique features of the current epoch of human history, features which distinguish the last quarter century from any other episode in the long record of man's efforts to deal with the problems of his society.

The year 1967 saw two inter-American conferences of major significance for the changing course of the inter-American system. One, the Third Special Inter-American Conference, held in Buenos Aires in February 1967, had as its purpose the revision of the 1948 Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS). The first conference to take such action, it culminated several years of debate over shortcomings in the OAS and ways and means of correcting them. The other principal assemblage of the year was the Meeting of American Chiefs of State at Punta del Este, Uruguay, in April. Although a regional “summit” meeting had been held in 1956, the one at Punta del Este was the first to give serious substantive consideration to major issues.

Change has been the one constant in the brief but eventful history of the United Nations. Whatever its shortcomings, the UN has proved itself responsive to the turbulent forces of a dynamic age. Whether it will be able to marshal these forces, to channel them for productive ends, remains to be seen.

The 22nd session of the United Nations General Assembly was unexpectedly enlivened by a late addition to its agenda when Malta, a newcomer even by UN standards, sought to demilitarize the ocean floor “beyond the limits of present national jurisdiction” and to internationalize its “resources in the interest of mankind.” Ambassador Arvid Pardo, Malta's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, sought immediate steps to draft a treaty that

should envisage the creation of an international agency … to assume jurisdiction, as a trustee for all countries, over the sea-bed and the ocean floor, underlying the seas beyond the limits of present national jurisdiction….

In advancing his proposal, in a surprise move thought to be premature by some governments, Ambassador Pardo accelerated and intensified the consideration of national and international interests in “ocean space.” How is the last earthbound frontier to be explored and exploited? Is it to be assigned to international jurisdiction or taken over by national authorities? A disconcertingly rapid rate of technological advance emphasizes the urgency of a decision. This article will first consider the disposal of the Malta proposal by the 22nd session of the General Assembly and then attempt to consider its significance as a challenge to the development of international organization.

The movement toward a one-world economy that seemed well underway during the middle 1950's has suffered setbacks. Retrogression has been particularly noticeable where previously progress had been most promising—in the relations of the United States with other industrial countries and especially with the European Economic Community (EEC). Difficulties over the United States' payments deficit, the international role of the dollar, and direct investment by the United States, mark the trend. The outcome of the Kennedy Round negotiations, fortunately, was a success, but the very duration and the bitterness of the negotiations were symptomatic of a deteriorating relationship. And complicating these economic problems were the political difficulties arising over the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Vietnam.

The title of this article may promise too much. First, this article will limit itself only to the problems of Socialist states in universal, worldwide organizations, not in all kinds of international organizations, as the title implies. Second, the wording of the title may incorrectly suggest that the unique economic, social, and ideological characteristics of the Socialist system determine the nature of Socialist participation in international organizations. In fact, however, Socialist states act much as other states in their relations with international organizations. Third, the title and content of the article may imply that all Socialist states behave identically in regard to international organizations. It seems necessary, therefore, to emphasize that treating the Socialist states as a group is merely a recognition of the greater community of interests and higher degree of cohesion within the group than between members of the group and states outside it. There remain, however, different viewpoints on some issues among members of the group. Membership in the group may be formal, e.g., participation in a caucusing group, or informal, e.g., sharing in a feeling of responsibility for the welfare of the Socialist world. A formulation of the general attitudes of the Socialist group consists in setting forth policies which result from similar or common economic and social systems, ideology, interdependence, and, last but not least, dangers. In the author's opinion the relevance of establishing and recognizing diese common attitudes despite individual deviations cannot be denied.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights was present in the Dominican Republic continuously from June 1, 1965, to July 7, 1966. During this period the Commission worked diligently and effectively to protect basic human rights which were being threatened and abused daily. The Commission had visited the Dominican Republic twice in the past for short periods of several days. During these visits, which occurred at times of relative tranquillity, it received claims from private citizens concerning human rights violations, reported its observations, and made recommendations to the government. The Commission's role in 1965–1966 was of a different nature. It was called upon by two rival governments to come to a country in the midst of a civil strife in which human rights were being violated on a massive scale. In these circumstances the Commission proved willing to act vigorously to defend these rights. It succeeded in improving prison conditions for political prisoners, played a key role in securing the release of many detainees who had been held without charge, assisted persecuted individuals in finding asylum, tried to locate missing persons, and worked to bring the perpetrators of crimes against human rights to justice. Although by means of interpretation and practice the Commission had to some extent laid the groundwork for the role it was to assume in the Dominican Republic, its performance as an “action body” operating in an American state continuously for more than one year was unprecedented.

The key role of trade in the development process is widely accepted today. Two recent events, both relating to international organizations, underscore this acceptance. One was the convening in 1964 of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and its establishment as a permanent organ of the UN system. Under UNCTAD's aegis a continuing examination is being conducted as to ways of reshaping world trade policies in the interests of the developing countries. The other event was the adoption early the following year of a new set of articles on trade and development in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). In the new articles recognition of the role of exports in economic development was established for the first time in the text of the GATT itself, and a constitutional basis was provided for GATT's many activities designed to promote the exports of developing countries. Elsewhere in this volume are essays evaluating the contributions of UNCTAD and GATT toward the promotion of development in the world's poor countries. In this essay I will rather explore more generally the relation between international trade and economic development and discuss some of the problems that have arisen in the effort to make trade a more effective instrument of development.

The decade since the formation of the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957 has been marked by an impressive growth of theorizing about the causes of international regional integration in Europe and in other parts of the world. However, differences in approach to conceptualization and measurement of the dependent variable—integration—have led to two kinds of problems. First, it is difficult to relate the concepts of different authors to each other, and to a certain extent integration theorists have “talked past each other”. In other instances where theorists have indeed confronted each other, such as in the controversy over the current condition of the EEC (described below), differences in conceptualization have made the dispute unnecessarily difficult to resolve.

On December 16, 1966, the Security Council held its 1340th meeting and adopted its 232nd resolution. It was a historic resolution. For the first time the Security Council voted to impose sanctions under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter aimed at ending the rebellion against the United Kingdom by the Ian Smith regime in Rhodesia. Acting in accordance with Article 39, the Council determined that the situation in Rhodesia constituted “a threat to international peace and security,” and, under Article 41, it decided that all Member States of the United Nations must apply sanctions to bar the importation of a number of basic Rhodesian exports.

The United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) is not a diplomatic conference, or a parliament, or an executive organ, although it smacks of all three. Among international, governmental, deliberative bodies it is sui generis. As such, it engages in discussing quasi diplomatic issues, chiefly economic and social in nature, in recommending policy actions by governments, in trying to plan and coordinate interagency programs in the economic and social domain, and in innovating and supervising programs under UN sponsorship.

International organizations are involved in the development process in several ways: They transfer real resources, offer technical assistance, give advice on development strategy, and collect and collate information. The specialized agencies and other United Nations bodies do not have a tax base of their own; they must rely on the donations of their members for resources. Most of their subscriptions come from the wealthy nations of the world, and most of their grants benefit the poor nations. The UN system acts as a financial intermediary distributing resources between the developed and the underdeveloped worlds. Human, as well as financial, capital is transferred to the less developed nations (LDC's) by the specialized agencies, which provide skilled personnel or training programs for nationals of the LDC's.

The third Arab-Israeli war, June 5–10, 1967, has been variously described as the first major conventional war between a modern state and a not-yet-modern society, as an instance of Western imperial aggression by proxy, or as a tragic ritual of the ineluctable Middle Eastern war game. Some analysts see it is as a prelude to a Vietnam-style people's war of liberation or even a nuclear war, those more optimistic as an end to all war in the Middle East. The third Arab-Israeli war is thus likely to be studied with interest by historians, strategists, military sociologists, political scientists, and even by armaments sellers.

Among the features that distinguish the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GAIT) from other international organizations concerned with the trade of less developed countries are two that are especially significant. GATT is the only interregional organization in which the undertakings by members take the form of contractual commitments. It is also an organization that is concerned with trade not only between developed and less developed countries but within these two groups as well. The question can be raised, however, as to whether an organization so constituted and oriented is suited to the task of facilitating the export earnings of the less developed countries or whether, on the contrary, a more specialized body, devoted exclusively to that task, is likely to achieve better results.

A notable gap in existing analyses of the United Nations is the relative absence of systematic treatments of the links between the Organization itself and the international system in which it operates. These links constitute a complex dual relationship, both sides of which are worthy of serious analyses. The functions and activities of the United Nations are molded by the fundamental dimensions and dynamic processes of the international system. At the same time, however, the United Nations is itself an actor in the system and it is sometimes able to influence its environment significantly. Throughout the history of the United Nations the impact of the systemic environment on the Organization has far surpassed the impact of the Organization on the system. Nevertheless, the influence of the United Nations on world politics should not be underestimated, especially in its more subtle and intangible forms.

The General Assembly held its fifth emergency special session at the request of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with the concurrence of a majority of Member States. The session comprised the 1525th–1558th plenary meetings, held between July 4 and 21, 1967, with a final meeting, the 1559th, held on September 18, 1967. Abdul Rahman Pazhwak (Afghanistan), President of the 21st session of the General Assembly, presided over the emergency session

Listed below is the membership of United Nations bodies for 1968. Unless otherwise noted, membership expires on December 31 of the year indicated in parentheses. Where names of individuals are listed, the members serve in their personal capacities and not as representatives of states; their nationalities are given for information only.

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), held in Geneva from March 23 to June 16, 1964, was a diplomatic event of major importance—and aturning point in the evolution of international organization. It was the largest and most comprehensive intergovernmental conference ever held, involving 2,000 delegates from 119 countries. It was the first major conference in which the lines were drawn sharply on a North-South rather dian on an East-West basis. And, what is of more lasting significance, it gave birth to continuing machinery that has already had a profound impact both on international institutions and national policies.