We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 May 2009
1 On pages iv–v the editor explains that a self-conscious decision was made not to attempt to include quantitative studies, to deal with international economic or political development, to present a worldview of international organization, to prescribe policy for the United States or to be comprehensive in treatment.
2 One of the essays, written by an economist, deals exclusively with international financial and economic considerations. See Kenen, Peter B., “The International Position of the Dollar in a Changing World,” in Finkelstein, , pp. 147–160Google Scholar.
3 The essay on Soviet policy, however, has litde to say direcdy about either the Soviet Union and international organizations or the relationships between Soviet policies and American involvements in international organizations. See Vernon V. Aspaturian, “Soviet Foreign Policy at the Crossroads: Conflict and/or Collaboration?” in ibid., pp. 31–62.
4 The explicit perspective in Louis Henkin's essay on international law is that of the desirability of a “rule of law” in international politics. He then judges international organizations and United States policies in terms of their contributions to or detractions from the achievement of that rule. It could be argued, however, diat the actual perspective is strongly biased toward the United States. See Louis Henkin, “International Organization and the Rule of Law,” in ibid., pp. 98–124.
5 Patricia W. Blair, “The Dimension of Poverty,” in ibid., pp. 125–146.
6 Joseph S. Nye, “United States Policy toward Regional Organization,” in ibid., pp. 161—182.
7 David A. Kay, “United States National Security Policy and International Organization: A Critical View of die Literature,” in ibid., pp. 197–207.
8 The book has also come out in a condensed form under die titleThe Web of Interdependence: The United States and International Organizations (America's Role in World Affairs Series) (Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall, 1970)Google Scholar.
9 Especially in Haas, Ernst B., Beyond the Nation-State: Functionalism and International Organization (Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 1965)Google Scholar; Haas, Ernst, “Dynamic Environment and Static System: The Role of Revolutionary Regimes in the United Nations,” in Kaplan, Morton (ed.), The Revolution in World Politics (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1962)Google Scholar; andHaas, Ernst, Collective Security and the future International System (Monograph Series in World Affairs, Vol. 5, Monograph No. 1) (Denver: The Social Science Foundation and Graduate School of International Studies, University of Denver, 1968)Google Scholar.
10 Hoffmann, Stanley, Gulliver's Troubles, Or the Setting of American Foreign Policy (Atlantic Policy Studies) (New York: McGraw-Hill [for the Council on Foreign Relations], 1968)Google Scholar.
11 Kay, in Finkelstein, p. 207.
12 See, e.g.,Fox, William T. R. and Fox, Annette B., NATO and the Range of American Choice (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967)Google Scholar;Weiler, Lawrence D. and Simons, Anne Patricia, The United States and the United Nations: The Search for International Peace and Security (New York: Manhattan, 1967)Google Scholar;Russell, Ruth B., The United Nations and United States Security Policy (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1968)Google Scholar. Haas's book is not entirely comparable with these or the large number of more limited studies that might be cited because it is an attempt to provide an integrated overview based on Haas's earlier works and on other existing literature rather than an investigation into unexplored issues.
13 See, however,Almond, Gabriel, The American People and Foreign Policy (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1950)Google Scholar;Rosenau, James N., Public Opinion and Foreign Policy (New York: Random House, 1961)Google Scholar; andRosenau, James N. (ed.), Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy (New York: The Free Press [for the Princeton Center of International Studies], 1967)Google Scholar.
14 One very significant study now being carried out which deals in part with some of these issues as related to international organizations is reported inCox, Robert W. and Jacobson, Harold K., “Decision-Making in International Organizations: An Interim Report,” paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York City, 09 2–6, 1969. (Mimeographed.)Google Scholar
15 Occasional comments along these lines are contained in both Finkelstein, pp. 28–30, andHaas, , Tangle of Hopes, p. 38Google Scholar. At some other points, however, Haas recognizes the existence of other types of attitudes. Also seeKey, V. O. Jr, Public Opinion and American Democracy (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961), pp. 153–163, 561–562Google Scholar; andMcClosky, Herbert, “Personality and Attitude Correlates of Foreign Policy Orientation,” in Rosenau, James N. (ed.), pp. 51–109Google Scholar. The questions in McClosky's “isolationism scale” assume a single dimension even though his brief exploration of distinctions between “jingoistic” and “pacific” isolationists adds some depth to his analysis.
16 Hero, Alfred O. Jr, “Liberalism-Conservatism Revisited: Foreign vs. Domestic Federal Policies, 1937–1967,” Public Opinion Quarterly, Fall 1969 (Vol. 33, No. 3), pp. 399–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Some portions of this essay may hint at the possibility of identifying the groups I have suggested above.
17 An especially useful review of some of this literature is provided by Hansen, Roger D., “Regional Integration: Reflections on a Decade of Theoretical Efforts,” World Politics, 01 1969 (Vol. 21, No. 2), pp. 242–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
18 Some important works include all of the items cited in footnote 9 above;Haas, Ernst, “International Integration: The European and the Universal Process,” International Organization, Summer 1961 (Vol. 15, No. 3), pp. 366–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar; andSewell, James P., Functionalism and World Politics (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
19 Hansen, , World Politics, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 249–250, and passimGoogle Scholar.
20 Singer, J. David, “The Global System and Its Sub-Systems: A Developmental View,” in Rosenau, James N. (ed.), Linkage Politics: Essays on the Convergence of National and International Systems (New York: The Free Press [for the Princeton Center of International Studies], 1969), pp. 30—31Google Scholar.
21 Hoffmann, pp. 17–51. Also seeHoffmann, Stanley, “Discord in Community: The North Atlantic Area as a Partial International System,” International Organization, Summer 1963 (Vol. 17, No. 3), pp. 521–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar; andHoffmann, Stanley H., “International Relations: The Long Road to Theory,” World Politics, 04 1959 (Vol. 11, No. 3), pp. 346–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
22 An important effort to develop and test several interesting hypotheses concerning the relationships between varying features of the international system and the character of political processes widiin international organizations is reported byCox, and Jacobson, , “Decision-Making in International Organizations: An Interim Report,” pp. 31–35Google Scholar.
23 One very limited effort along these lines is adopted but used very sparingly byHaas, in Tangle of Hopes, pp. 8, 30Google Scholar. This is Henry Kissinger's distinction between bureaucratic-pragmatic, ideological, and revolutionary-charismatic types of leaders. SeeKissinger, Henry A., “Domestic Structure and Foreign Policy,” Daedalus, Spring 1966 (Vol. 95, No. 2), pp. 503–529Google Scholar. I do not think there is much to be gained from the use of these types. They are of doubtful utility as a means of classifying states, in contrast to various characteristics of different individuals within states. They are even less useful as a means of predicting how decisionmakers will behave in the very different setting of international politics. At the very least, there are many reasons to question whether domestic styles and international styles are likely to be essentially similar, even for a single individual. A much more useful effort to develop a typology of states along with hypotheses concerning the policies each type will follow is reported by Cox and Jacobson, pp. 25–30. Their system for classifying states is quite close to that used by Haas, and they suggest a series of hypotheses about the aims within international organizations likely to be pursued by different types. If their “interim report” is a good indication of what is to come, the final results should represent major advancements in empirical theory directly relevant to the study of international organization.
24 There have been, however, some recent studies bearing on this question. See, e.g.,Rummel, Rudolph J., “The Relationship between National Attributes and Foreign Conflict Behavior,” in Singer, J. David (ed.), Quantitative International Politics: Insights and Evidence (New York: The Free Press, 1968), pp. 187–214Google Scholar;Tanter, Raymond, “Dimensions of Conflict Behavior within and between Nations, 1958–60,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 03 1966 (Vol. 10, No. 1), pp. 41–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; andVincent, Jack E., ”National Attributes as Predictors of Delegate Attitudes at the United Nations,” American Political Science Review, 09 1968 (Vol. 62, No. 3), pp. 916–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
25 The innocuous program of seminars and technical assistance which he suggests for the area of human rights, for instance, seems to underestimate seriously the possibilities for effective action by the United Nations in this area.
26 It should be noted that only a small portion of Haas's discussion is devoted to such generalized guidelines for United States policy. The larger and more valuable portion centers on fairly specific proposals with regard to international organizations.
