Abstract
The recent past has witnessed efforts by several eminent scholars to take stock of accomplishments and failures in the scientific study of international organization. A common note struck by these writers has been the regret over the relative retardation of international organization research in terms of theoretical and methodological sophistication. This backwardness can be attributed — not exclusively, but largely-to the continuing strong representation of legalistically oriented scholars in this field of inquiry. Yet, at the same time, the appearance, in rapid succession, of a series of review articles surveying the historical development and present condition of the study of international organization indicates that an increasing number of international organization scholars have recognized the inadequacies of their discipline, and that they are groping for new ways to catch up with the advances made in the social sciences in general.1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
The reviews to which reference is made are Alger (1969–70; 1970), Riggs et al. (1970), Sohn (1968), and Yalem (1966). For a general overview of the field as seen by leading scholars, cf. the entries under International Organization and International Integration in the International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, Vols. 7 and 8 (1968).
For a discussion of the development of the discipline of international politics during the same period and some of the suggested periodizations, cf. Brody (1969); Rogowski (1968); Thompson (1952).
I have drawn here on the analysis of Political Realism and Political Idealism, particularly as they apply to international politics, by John Herz (1951: 17 ff., 65 ff.) and on an unpublished manuscript by Robert C. North entitled ‘Early Geopolitical and Neo-Darwinian Schools of International Politics.’
The elaboration of the ‘realist’ position in the scientific study of international organization is best illustrated by the work of Inis Claude, particularly in the successive editions of his Swords Into Plowshares. Significantly, Raymond Aron’s Peace and War (1966), a landmark of realist analysis of international politics, does not even have an entry for international organization or international integration in its index. The various editions of Hans Morgenthau’s Politics Among Nations, however, take note of these phenomena. — For a treatment of international organization which displays interesting parallels with the ‘realist’ position, cf. the book of the prominent Soviet scholar G. J. Morosow on Internationale Organisationen (1971).
The impact of the international community formation literature can be observed by comparing recent textbooks on international relations with those of the early 1950’s. For instance, the just-published textbook by William Coplin (1971) not only treats international organizations as a separate category of international actors, but introduces them again in his analysis of collective multinational problem-solving.
It may be noted in passing that Louis Sohn’s review does not mention these theoretical and methodological advances. He emphasizes instead the need for comparative analyses of the constitutional practice in international organizations of all kinds.
For the communications-theoretical approach to the study of international community formation, cf. Deutsch et al. (1957); Deutsch (1964a; 1964b; 1966); Puchala (1966); Russett (1963). The field-theoretical perspective has been developed by Quincy Wright (1955; 1965) and Rudolph Rummel (1965). A good survey of these two theoretical approaches as they pertain to the study of international community formation can be found in Cobb and Elder (1970: 7–11).
By evolutionary analysis we mean an analytic approach that looks at sociocultural change in terms of directionality along a linear scale based on certain criteria of advancement (Service, 1971: 6, 12). For an elaboration of the evolutionary-theoretical framework which informs the present study on international organization-building and its integrative effectiveness, cf. Chapter 2.
While the present study adopts the latter focus, Alker and Christensen (1971) show an interest in the former by reanalyzing Ernst Haas’ data on U.N. involvement in international disputes. They emphasize the importance of learning from precedents (i.e., from prior instances of dispute settlement efforts by the U.N.) for subsequent improved adaptation, i.e. more effective peace-keeping. Unfortunately, they do not go so far as to discriminate among U.N. members on the basis of individual country responses reflecting a learning experience from precedents.
The empirical research to be reported in Chapters 4 and 5 is based on data which measure the advance of international organization-building within the global context. A first test of the basic hypothesis informing our investigations of international organization-building against data on institutional regional groupings has already been carried out with generally encouraging results. Cf. Rittberger (1971).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1973 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rittberger, V. (1973). Introduction: Problems of Theory-Building in the Study of International Organization. In: Evolution and International Organization. Studien zur Regierungslehre und Internationalen Politik, vol 5. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9070-1_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9070-1_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8380-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9070-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive