The United Nations and the International Political System

  • R. J. Barry Jones


Today’s United Nations warrants neither the naive idolatry nor the casual dismissiveness with which it is conventionally treated. The UN has achieved much of substance during the past fifty years, suffered serious setbacks and shortcomings, but remained fundamentally a creature of the international system within which it is located. An understanding of the nature of the prevailing international system, and its myriad implications for an organization that purports to order the affairs of humanity, is thus essential to a judicious view of the UN, its record and prospects.


International Relation International System Collective Good Political Order Sovereign State 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    For the original idea of the “social construction of reality”, see Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (Harmondsworth: Allen Lane, Penguin Press, 1966).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anthony Giddens, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, ( Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984 ).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    On which see David Wood (ed.), Derrida: A Critical Reader, ( Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1992 );Google Scholar
  4. and Christopher Norris, Derrida, ( London: Fontana, 1987 ).Google Scholar
  5. 4.
    Robert O. Keohane, “International Institutions: Two Approaches”, International Organization, vol. 32 (1989), pp. 379–96.Google Scholar
  6. 5.
    See, for example, the discussions in Peter Winch, The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy, ( London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1958 );Google Scholar
  7. and M. Hollis and S. Smith, Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990) esp. Chs. 3 and 4.Google Scholar
  8. 6.
    On which, in particular, see M.T. Gibbons (ed.), Interpreting Politics, ( Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987 );Google Scholar
  9. Mark Hoffinan, “Critical Theory and the Inter-Paradigm Debate”, Millennium: Journal of International Relations, vol. 16, no. 2, (1987), pp. 231–49;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. and see also: R.J. Barry Jones, Anti-Statism and Critical Theories in International Relations, Reading Papers in Politics, No. 4, March, 1991, Dept. of Politics, University of Reading, England.Google Scholar
  11. 7.
    See, in particular, Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality, ( Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1967 ).Google Scholar
  12. 9.
    M.S. Archer, Culture and Agency, ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988 ).Google Scholar
  13. 10.
    David Easton, The Political System ( New York: Alfred Knopf, 1953 ).Google Scholar
  14. 11.
    Harold Lasswell, Politics: Who Gets What, When, How, ( NY: McGraw-Hill, 1936 ).Google Scholar
  15. 12.
    Bernard Crick, In Defence of Politics 2nd ed., (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1982 ), p. 21.Google Scholar
  16. 14.
    See W.B. Gallie, “Essentially Contested Concepts” in Max Black (ed.), The Importance of Language, ( Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1972 ) pp. 121–168;Google Scholar
  17. and Richard Little, “Ideology and Change”, in B. Buzan and R.J. Barry Jones (ed.), Change and the Study of International Relations, ( London: Frances Pinter, 1981 ), pp. 30–45.Google Scholar
  18. 15.
    For a review of the “regime” concept and its difficulties see S.D. Krasner, International Regimes (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983).Google Scholar
  19. 16.
    A perspective that informs J.C. Plano and R.E. Riggs’ classic Forging World Order: The Politics of International Organization, ( New York: Macmillan, 1967 ).Google Scholar
  20. 17.
    Evan Luard, A History of the United Nations: Volume 1, The Years of Western Domination, 1945–1955, (London: Macmillan, 1982), and A History of the United Nations: Volume 2, The Age of Decolonization, 1955–1965, ( London: Macmillan, 1989 ).Google Scholar
  21. 19.
    For the classical statement of the theory of Collective Security see: Inis Claude, Swords into Ploughshares 3rd ed., (New York: Random House, 1964); and see also Plano and Riggs, Forging World Order note 16, Ch. 10.Google Scholar
  22. 20.
    See, for example, Otto Pick and J. Critchley, Collective Security (London: Macmillan, 1974); and Claude, ibid.Google Scholar
  23. 21.
    See, for example, F.P. Walters, A History of the League of Nations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1953); and Evan Luard, A History of the League of Nations note 17.Google Scholar
  24. 22.
    For illuminating discussions of the problems of maintaining confidence in the Anglo-French alliance before the outbreak of the Second World War see Arnold Wolfers, Britain and France between Two Wars (New York: Harcourt Brace and Co., 1940), reprinted ( New York: W.W. Norton and Co, 1966 );Google Scholar
  25. and R.J. Barry Jones, Challenge and Response in International Politics: An Analysis of the Development of British Policy Towards Germany During 1935 and early 1936, (Unpublished D.Phil thesis, University of Sussex, England, 1975 ).Google Scholar
  26. 23.
    See Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965 ).Google Scholar
  27. 24.
    On the theoretical significance of which see N. Frohlich, J.A. Oppenheimer, and O.R. Young, Political Leadership and Collective Goods, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971 ).Google Scholar
  28. 25.
    Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War (trans. Rex Warner) ( Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1954 ).Google Scholar
  29. 26.
    On which see Mancur Olson Jr. and Richard Zeckhauser, “An Economic Theory of Alliances”, The Review of Economics and Statistics vol. 48, no. 3 (August, 1966), pp. 266–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 27.
    On which see Alan James, Peacekeeping in International Politics, ( London: Macmillan,’IISS, 1990 ).Google Scholar
  31. 28.
    See in particular Robert O. Keohane, “The Analysis of International Regimes”, in V. Rittberger (with P. Mayer) (ed.), Regime Theory and International Relations, ( Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993 ), pp. 23–45.Google Scholar
  32. 29.
    For the now standard exposition of this approach see Robert Gilpin, The Political Economy of International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), esp. pp.75–80;Google Scholar
  33. and for a judicious review of this argument see Andrew Walter, World Power and World Money: The Role of Hegemony and International Monetary Order, ( Hemel Hempstead: Harvester/Wheatsheaf, 1991 ).Google Scholar
  34. 30.
    See in particular Stephen D. Krasner (ed.), International Regimes, ( Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983 );Google Scholar
  35. Robert O. Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984); and V. Rittberger with P. Mayer, Regime Theory and International Relations note 28.Google Scholar
  36. 34.
    On Hegemonic Stability theory see: Charles P. Kindleberger, The World in Depression, 1929–1939, ( Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973 );Google Scholar
  37. Kindleberger, “Hierarchy versus Inertial Cooperation”, International Organization vol. 40 (Autumn, 1986 ).Google Scholar
  38. But on the limitations of the role of the hegemon, see Timothy J. KcKeown, “Hegemonic Stability Theory and 19th Century Tariff Levels in Europe”, International Organization vol. 37 (Spring, 1983), pp.73–91;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. and on its continuing analytical difficulties see: David A. Lake, “Leadership, Hegemony and the International Economy: Naked Emperor or Tattered Monarch with Potential”, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 37, no. 4 (1993) pp. 459–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 37.
    For a full account of this perspective see S. Gill and D. Law, The Global Political Economy: Perspectives, Problems and Policies (Brighton: Harvester/Wheatsheaf, 1988) esp. Chs. 5, 6 and 7.Google Scholar
  41. 39.
    R.O. Keohane and J.S. Nye Jr., Power and Interdependence: World Politics In Transition (Boston: Little, Brown, 1977).Google Scholar
  42. 40.
    Keohane and Nye themselves later suggest that complex interdependence was intended to be no more than a heuristic model. See R.O. Keohane and J.S. Nye, “Power and Interdependence Revisited”, International Organization, vol. 41, no. 4 (Autumn, 1987 ), pp. 725–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 42.
    See Glenn D. Paige, The Korean Decision, June 24–30, 1950, ( New York: Free Press, 1968 ).Google Scholar
  44. 43.
    For a general account see Ken Mathews, The Gulf Conflict and International Relations, ( London: Routledge, 1993 ).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. J. Barry Jones

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations