International Organization under the United Nations System. By William L. Tung New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1969. pp. xvi, 415. Index. $7.50.)

1969 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 865-865
Author(s):  
C. G. Fenwick
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Organization ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
United Nations System ◽  
Nations System

The History of International Organization(s)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bob Reinalda
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
United Nations ◽  
American Exceptionalism ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Regime Theory ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
United Nations System ◽  
Object Of Study ◽  
Nations System

The emerging discipline of Political Science recognized international organization as an object of study earlier (i.e., around 1910) than International Law, which through an engagement with League of Nations ideals began to follow the developments of international organizations (IOs) during the 1920s, and History, which kept its focus on states and war rather than on IOs until the early 2000s. The debate between Liberal Institutionalism and (after 1945 dominant) Realism deeply influenced the study of IOs. The engagement of the United States in the United Nations System, however, stimulated further studies of IOs and produced new theoretical orientations that left room for Realist factors. The modernization of International Relations studies through Regime Theory eventually removed the need to ask historical questions, resulting in short-term studies of IOs, but new approaches such as Constructivism and Historical Institutionalism contributed to studies of long-term change of IOs and critical junctures in history. The main International Relations approach traces the rise of the United Nations System (or, more broadly, IOs) as an instrument of American exceptionalism in the world. This view is being criticized by the paradigmatic turn in the discipline of History in the early 2000s, which has included IOs in its research and relates the creation of IOs to imperial powers such as the United Kingdom and France that wanted to safeguard their empires. These historical studies start in 1919 rather than 1945 and also question International Relations’ Western-centrist universalism by including competing universalisms such as anticolonial nationalism.

scholarly journals Joining the UN Family?

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-274
Author(s):  
Megan Bradley
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Pivotal Role ◽  
The Status ◽  
Forced Migrants ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
United Nations System ◽  
Nations System

Abstract The International Organization for Migration (IOM) became a related organization in the United Nations system in 2016, and has rebranded itself as the “UN Migration Agency.” This article examines the drivers and significance of IOM’s new relationship with the UN. It traces the evolution of the IOM-UN relationship, and the processes that led to IOM becoming a related organization. While some contend that IOM is still not really part of the UN system, through an analysis of the status and political positioning of related organizations this article demonstrates that, as a related organization, IOM is indeed now part of the UN system. It argues that IOM’s work with forced migrants in the humanitarian sector played a pivotal role in enabling this shift, and considers its implications.

Implications and Questions for the Future

1965 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 835-846 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inis L. Claude
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
International System ◽  
International Organization ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
The Future ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
United Nations System ◽  
Nations System

Undertaking to write about the future of the United Nations may well be regarded as a risky if not a downright foolhardy enterprise, particularly in 1965, between the tragicomedy of the nineteenth General Assembly and the great uncertainty of the twentieth session. For many people, the question is whether the United Nations has a future, and for some of them this question is purely rhetorical. I think that it has, or that, at any rate, general international organization has a future. Whatever may happen to the United Nations, I find it difficult to conceive that the men who conduct the foreign relations of states will ever again consider that they can dispense with a comprehensive institutional mechanism or that they will, in the foreseeable future, contrive a global mechanism fundamentally different in character from the United Nations. Objectively, the operation of the international system requires an organizational framework virtually coextensive with the system; just as education requires schools and universities and medicine requires hospitals and clinics, so international relations require at least as much organizational apparatus as the United Nations system provides. Moreover, there is evidence that this objective need has penetrated the consciousness of most statesmen. The questions that they have asked about international organization in the last twenty years have not included the question of whether it is sensible to equip the international system with a general institutional structure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document