Search results

The purpose of this essay is twofold. First, it proposes to undertake, in introductory form, one of the many tasks a historical sociology of international relations could perform: the comparative study of one of those relations which appear in almost any international system, i.e., international law. Secondly, this essay will try to present the rudimentary outlines of a theory of international law which might be called sociological or functional.International law is one of the aspects of international politics which reflect most sharply the essential differences between domestic and world affairs. Many traditional distinctions tend to disappear, owing to an "international civil war" which projects what are primarily domestic institutions (such as parliaments and pressure groups) into world politics, and injects world-wide ideological clashes into domestic affairs. International law, like its Siamese twin and enemy, war, remains a crystallization of all that keeps world politics sui generis. If theory is to be primarily concerned with the distinctive features of systems rather than wim the search for regularities, international law becomes a most useful approach to international politics.

Specialists in the field of international organization have noted with some alarm a decline of interest among students and foundations in the study of the United Nations system. There has been a shift toward the study of regionalism and the theory of integration. The former shift reflects one reality of postwar world politics—the division of a huge and heterogeneous international system into subsystems in which patterns of cooperation and ways of controlling conflicts are either more intense or less elusive than in the global system. The interest in integration reflects both the persistence and the transformation of the kind of idealism that originally pervaded, guided, and at times distorted the study of international organization. We have come to understand that integration, in the sense of a process that devalues sovereignty, gradually brings about the demise of the nation-state, and leads to the emergence of new foci of loyalty and authority, is only one, and by no means the most important, of the many functions performed by global international organizations. This has led only in part to a more sober and searching assessment of these functions. It has resulted primarily in a displacement of interest toward those geographically more restricted institutions (like the European Communities) whose main task seems to be to promote integration.

From earliest times, hostile propaganda has been in wide use among men & between nations; it has also been deeply resented & even violently resisted. But only recently has the world developed a system of principles & norms designed to curb & even to outlaw its use. Similar to the evolution of internat'l rules intended to proscribe aggressive war, the culmination of the movement to curb internat'l COMM considered dangerous to peace has come only in the 20th cent. Attention has focused not only on propaganda leading to acts of subversion & to outright aggression & war, but also on propaganda that is defamatory of a sovereign state & of its leaders & representatives. So extensive is this body of norms that today, as the hostile propaganda between nations continues unabated, esp in times of stress, the real need is not so much for more rules to be drafted or new treaties to be signed & ratified. What we require is the establishment of authoritative & acceptable means for the interpretation of the existing norms & their effective enforcement. HA.

From earliest times, hostile propaganda has been in wide use among men and between nations; it has also been deeply resented and even violently resisted. But only re cently has the world developed a system of principles and norms designed to curb and even to outlaw its use. Similar to the evo lution of international rules intended to proscribe aggressive war, the culmination of the movement to curb international commu nication considered dangerous to peace has come only in the twentieth century. Attention has focused not only on propa ganda leading to acts of subversion and to outright aggression and war, but also on propaganda that is defamatory of a sov ereign state and of its leaders and representatives. So exten sive is this body of norms that today, as the hostile propaganda between nations continues unabated, especially in times of stress, the real need is not so much for more rules to be drafted or new treaties to be signed and ratified. What we require is the establishment of authoritative and acceptable means for the interpretation of the existing norms and their effective enforce ment.