Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T07:39:10.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prescribing for the reform of international organization: the logic of arguments for change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Paul Taylor
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this essay I examine the main characteristics of the proposals which have been put forward over the past few years for the reform of international institutions, particularly the United Nations. The latter's social and economic arrangements in particular have been subject to a series of incisive, hard hitting reports—the most recent being Maurice Bertrand's Report of December 19851—which have themselves become almost a matter of routine: nothing changes, even the intelligence and perception of the criticism. This essay is intended to provide a part of the answer to the question of why nothing is ever done. In addition to difficulties arising from the interests of states and organizations which are involved, there are also a range of problems arising from different conceptions of what international organizations are and can do. This essay deals with the latter. The conceptions dealt with are those found in the writings of students of international organization, largely British and American, rather than in the words or deeds of practitioners. The nature of the link between scholarly writing and the practice of international relations is itself complex and contentious and is not explored in this essay. The minimalist assumptions are made, however, that disagreements among scholars make it less likely that practitioners will agree to co-operate, and that scholarly reconciliation is at least a first step towards practical improvement.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , January 1987 , pp. 19 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1987

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. Joint Inspection Unit, Some Reflections on Reform of the United Nations, prepared by Maurice Bertrand, JIU/REP/85/9 (Geneva, 1985).

2. See Banks, Michael, ‘Ways of Viewing the World Society’, in Groom, A. J. R. and Mitchell, C. R. (eds.), International Relations Theory: a bibliography (London, 1978), pp. 195–215Google Scholar; also Banks, Michael, ‘The Evolution of International Relations Theory’, in Banks, Michael (ed.), Conflict in World Society (Brighton, 1984), pp. 3–21.Google Scholar

3. Lijphart, Arend, ‘The Structure of the Theoretical Revolution in International Relations’, International Studies Quarterly, 18 (1974), pp. 42–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. See Wallerstein, Immanuel, Historical Capitalism (London, 1983)Google Scholar; Mitrany, David, The Functional Theory of Politics (London, 1975)Google Scholar; Burton, J. W., Global Conflict: the domestic sources of International Crisis (Brighton, 1984)Google Scholar.

5. See Bull, Hedley, The Anarchical Society (New York, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially chapters 12 and 13, which tend to denigrate procedures and institutions.

6. See Axelrod, Robert, The Evolution of Cooperation (New York, 1984)Google Scholar; Keohane, Robert O., After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton, 1984)Google Scholar.

7. This approach, one which realists would certainly dismiss, is reflected in the reports of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the strengthening of the role of the organisation, for example, A/AC. 182/AL. 38, 17 April 1984. For a more digestible example see Perez de Cuellar, Javier, ‘How to make the UN Work’, The Washington Post, 9 September 1982.Google Scholar

8. Bertrand, op. cit. in note 1, pp. 47–62.

9. Luard, Evan, The United Nations: how it works and what it does (London, 1979), pp. 154–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. General Assembly, Official Records: Thirty-Second Session, Supplement No. 45 (A/32/45) 1977, pp. 121–7.

11. Financial Times, 5 December 1985.

12. Good examples are a number of the volumes produced by the World Order Models Project. See, for instance, Kothari, Rajni, Footsteps into the Future (New York, 1974)Google Scholar.

13. Ibid., e.g. p. 150: ‘It appears that some kind of federal or confederal situation already obtains at the psychological level, because the essence of a federal situation is the existence of the sentiment for local autonomy alongside an urge for overall unity.’

14. Gellner, Ernest, Thought and Change, 2nd edition (London, 1969), pp. 3–14.Google Scholar

15. See Burton's account of this approach in his ‘The Individual as the Unit of Explanation in International Relations’, International Studies Newsletter (1983)Google Scholar, No. 2; Mitrany, David, The Functional Theory of Politics (London, 1975)Google Scholar.

16. Bibo, Istvan, The Paralysis of International Institutions and the Remedies (The Harvester Press, 1976)Google Scholar.

17. For a very useful account of ‘realist’ attitudes towards international organization see Archer, Clive, International Organisations (London, 1983), pp. 74–82.Google Scholar

18. Claude, Inis L. Jr, ‘The Security Council’ in Luard, Evan (ed.), The Evolution of International Organisation (London, 1966), pp. 68–91.Google Scholar

19. This disagreement is at the heart of the failure in the early 1980s to reform ECOSOC. See Renninger, John P., ECOSOC: Options for Reform (UNITAR, 1981)Google Scholar.

20. Ibid., p. 15.

21. For an excellent account of the ‘First World’ realist response to claims for a New International Economic Order and its implications for international arrangements, see Murphy, Craig N., ‘What the Third World want’, International Studies Quarterly, 27 (1983), pp. 55–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22. See Strange, Susan‘Cave! hic dragones’, International Organisation, 36 (1982)Google Scholar, and her ‘What about international relations? ’ in Strange, Susan (ed.), Paths to International Political Economy (Hemel Hempstead, 1984)Google Scholar.

23. See Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S., Power and Interdependence (Boston, 1977), pp. 42–54.Google Scholar

24. Carr, E. H., The Twenty Years Crisis 1919–1939 (London, 1939)Google Scholar.

25. This point in relation to de Gaulle's policies is developed in my ‘The Concept of Community and the European Integration Process’, Journal of Common Market Studies, vii (1968), pp. 83–101.Google Scholar

26. See Alger, Chadwick F., ‘Personal Contact in Intergovernmental Organizations’, in Kelman, Herbert C. (ed.), International Behaviour (New York, 1965)Google Scholar. See especially references at p. 546.

27. See Haas, Ernst B., ‘Types of Collective Security: An Examination of Operational Concepts’, The American Political Science Review, xlix (1955), pp. 40–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28. Keohane, Robert and Nye, Joseph, ‘Transgovernmental Relations and International Organisation’, World Politics (October 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29. See my The Limits of European Integration (London and New York, 1983), pp. 118–60.Google Scholar

30. Ibid., p. 68; and Financial Times, 4 December 1985.

31. See Diebold, William Jr, Trade and Payments in Western Europe (New York, 1952)Google Scholar.

32. See Report on the European Institutions, Committee of Three, presented to the European Council, October 1979.

33. See Davidson, Scott, ‘Legal Aspects of the Common Market in Goods’, in Lodge, Juliet (ed.), Institutions and Policies of the European Community (London, 1983), pp. 110–16.Google Scholar

34. Lodge, Juliet, ‘European Union and the First Elected European Parliament: the Spinelli Initiative’, Journal of Common Market Studies, xxi (1984), pp. 377–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35. Proposals for an International Clearing Union (1943), Cmnd. 6437.

36. See Ogley, Roderick, Whose Common Heritage?: a regime for the sea (London, 1974).Google Scholar

37. See Hinsiey, F. H., Power and the Pursuit of Peace (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 46–61Google Scholar.

38. Rosensteil, Frances, ‘Some Reflections on the Notion of Supranationality’, Journal of Common Market Studies (November 1963), pp. 127–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39. Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan (London, 1973)Google Scholar, especially chapters 17 and 30.

40. See Burton, op. cit. in note 4 above.

41. See Hinsley, Power and the Pursuit of Peace, pp. 62–80.

42. Oppenheim, L., The Future of International Law, translated by Pate, J. P. from Die Zukulft Volker-rechts (1911) (Oxford, 1921), p. 54.Google Scholar

43. Hartley, T. C., The Foundations of European Community Law (Oxford, 1981)Google Scholar, especially chapters 7 and 8.

44. Hill, Martin, The United Nations System: coordinating its economic and social work (Cambridge, 1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45. ‘The Jackson Report’: Jackson, R. G. A., A Study of the Capacity of the United Nations Development System (Geneva, 1969)Google Scholar, UN Doc. DP/5 1969.

46. The Bertrand Report, op. cit. in note 1 above.

47. See note 6 above.