Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:15:37.286Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regionalism, Functionalism, and Universal International Organization*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2011

Ernst B. Haas
Ernst B. Haas
Affiliation:
University of California (Berkeley)
Get access

Extract

Nothing compels the reexamination of basic constitutional postulates so much as the possibility of their peaceful revision. Hence the much-advertised United Nations Review Conference underscores the need for contrasting the theoretical structure of the Charter with the reality of the practices which have evolved within its framework. Such an effort, while it might give support to those who strive for severe alterations of the structure, may also lead to the conclusion that even though the operational practices of international organization fail to meet the specifications of the Charter, peace might be more secure in the Cold War era if it is permitted to depend on operational vagaries rather than on legal precision. What, then, is the basic theory of the Charter and what the actual practice?

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , January 1956 , pp. 238 - 263
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1956

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 As cited in Padelford, Norman J., “Regional Organizations and the United Nations,” International Organization, VIII, NO. 2 (May 1954), p. 216.Google Scholar

2 For elaboration of these concepts, see my “Types of Collective Security: An Examination of Operational Concepts,” American Political Science Review, XLIX, NO. I (March 1955).

3 Bell, Coral, “The United Nations and the West,” International Affairs, XXIX, No. 4 (October 1953).Google Scholar This point is worked out in the form of an equilibrium theory of international organization, labeled “multiple equilibrium” because ofits extension into a non-power dimension, by Liska, Jiri, in “The Multiple Equilibrium and the American National Interest in International Organization,” Harvard Studies in International Affairs, IV, No. I (February 1954).Google Scholar

4 Critics of the advent of regionalism and related factors in the United Nations are legion. Neutralists, despite their espousal of “third forces,” number significantly among them, but so do firm supporters of Western policy. See, e.g., Dexter, Byron, “Locarno Again,” Foreign Affairs, XXXII, No. 1 (October 1953)Google Scholar; Paul H. Douglas, “United to Enforce Peace,” ibid., xxx, No. I (October 1951); Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, Regional Arrangements for Security and the United Nations, New York, 1953.

5 This definition of balancing differs from Edward H. Buehrig's kindred suggestion. His conception seems to me to be synonymous with what is generally called “power politics.” See his “The United States, the United Nations and Bi-polar Politics,” International Organization, iv, No. 4 (November 1950). For a treatment of the balance of power as a tool of political analysis, see my “The Balance of Power: Concept, Prescription or Propaganda?” World Politics, v, No. 4 (July 1953).

6 See “Indian Proposals for a Korean Truce,” Indian Press Digest, II, No. 3 (March 1954), for a study of diplomatic exchanges between New Delhi and Peiping, as revealed from Indian government and press sources.

7 Canada, Department of External Affairs, Canada and the United Nations, 1950 Ottawa, 1951, p. ix.Google Scholar

8 Gaitskell, Hugh, “The Search for Anglo-American Policy,” Foreign Affairs, XXXII, No. 4 (July 1954), p. 566.Google Scholar

9 Guy Mollet, “France and the Defense of Europe,” ibid., XXXII, NO. 3 (April 1954), pp. 365, 372–73.

10 Padilla, Ezequiel, “The Meaning of Pan-Americanism,” Foreign Affairs, XXXII, NO. 2 (January 1954), p. 274.Google Scholar

11 Sayegh, Fayez A., “The Arab Reaction to American Policy,” Social Science, XXVII, No. 4 (October 1952), pp. 190–93.Google Scholar

12 Bell, , op. cit., pp. 466–67.Google Scholar

13 Hatta, Mohammed, “Indonesia's Foreign Policy,” Foreign Affairs, XXXI, No. 3 (April 1953), pp. 444–45.Google Scholar Contrast this position with the even more relativistic conception of neutralism offered by “P,” “Middle Ground Between America and Russia: An Indian View,” ibid., XXXII, No. 2 (January 1954). See also Scalapino, Robert A., “'Neutralism' in Asia,” American Political Science Review, XLVIII, NO. 1 (March 1954).Google Scholar

14 Article 8 of the Final Communiqué of the Conference of South-East Asian Prime Ministers; Indian Council of World Affairs, Foreign Affairs Reports, in, No. 7 (July 1954).Google Scholar

15 As cited in Elder, Robert E. and Murden, Forrest D., “Economic Cooperation: Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development (SUNFED),” Woodrow Wilson Foundation, New York, September 1954, pp. 7–8.Google Scholar

16 See United Nations, Department of Economic Affairs, Report on a Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development, New York, 1953Google Scholar; United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, 7th Session, Second Committee, Summary Record of Meetings, and the same document for the 8th Session. Also Economic Development of Underdeveloped Countries, U.N. Doc A/2430 and A/2447; and Elder and Murden, op. cit., for details on the laborious negotiations of the Working Party and the mediating role played by these four mavericks: Holland, Haiti, Greece, and Pakistan.

17 Bingham, Jonathan B., “Partisan Politics and Point Four,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, x, No. 3 (March 1954), p. 85.Google Scholar

18 These generalizations are based on: United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, 7th Session, Fourth Committee, Summary Record of Meetings, and the same document for the 8th Session. Also see Hayden, Sherman S. and Rivlin, Benjamin, “Non-Self-Governing Territories: Status of Puerto Rico,” Woodrow Wilson Foundation, New York, September 1954.Google Scholar

19 Proposals and votes are analyzed in Hayden, and Rivlin, , op. cit., pp. 16–19.Google Scholar

20 Cohen, Benjamin V., “Collective Security Under Law,” Department of State Bulletin, XXVI, No. 656 (January 21, 1952), p. 100.Google Scholar

21 For an official statement of this point, see Vernon McKay, “The United States, the United Nations and Africa,” ibid., XXVIII, NO. 712 (February 16, 1953).

22 Dulles, John Foster, “Policy for Security and Peace,” Foreign Affairs, XXXII, NO. 3 (April 1954), pp. 358–59.Google Scholar

23 Sir Gladwyn Jebb, “The Free World and the United Nations,” ibid., XXXI, No. 3 (April 1953), pp. 386–87. The same point is well made in Fox, W. T. R., “The United Nations in the Era of Total Diplomacy,” International Organization, V, No. 2 (May 1951), p. 266.Google Scholar

24 Reinterpretations of United Nations concepts based on similar materials, although not necessarily reaching identical conclusions, are to be found in Liska, op. cit.; Bell, Coral, “Korea and the Balance of Power,” Political Quarterly, xxv, No. 1 (January-March 1954)Google Scholar; and Dawson, Kenneth, “The United Nations in a Disunited World,” World Politics, VI, No. 2 (January 1954).Google Scholar