In an earlier article published in this journal Ernst Haas and this author suggested a set of strategic “background conditions,” “conditions at the time of initiation,” and “process conditions” intended (hypothetically) to assess the political consequences of an initial agreement to lower or remove mutual barriers to the movement of productive factors.

The argument whether the United States in the conduct of foreign policy should lean toward multilateral or unilateral action tends to revolve in the stratosphere. Proponents of each course cite the conspicuous failures of the other and submit wishful designs varying from triumphant world government to uninhibited national sovereignty. Unfortunately, the range of real choices confronting the policymaker is very much narrower. Constraints on decisionmaking in a democracy, even in a dictatorship, are very strict and nowhere more so than on issues having to do with sharing among nations decisions affecting major national interests.

Stanley Hoffmann, Joseph Nye, and Karl Kaiser have all stressed the significance of the external environment in determining the attractiveness of a regional plan; Ernst Haas has acknowledged that he neglected this in his earlier model of the integrative process. I shall argue here 1) that a particular element in the external environment has been the key incentive for Sweden’s position in current negotiations for a Nordic customs union and connected economic package and 2) that an evaluation of this same external factor will be crucial for Norway’s and Denmark’s decision.

This review essay will focus on four central questions which the author believes to be closely related to the problem of progress in the study of international organizations. These questions, narrowed to fit the scope of this essay, are the following: 1) What has been the role of international organizations in the national security strategy of the United States; 2) what has been the impact of the United States in the international organizations of which it is a member; 3) what has been the impact of participation in international organizations on the range of United States choices and methods in the foreign policy area; 4) what impact have changes in the shape of the international political system had upon United States participation in international organizations and upon those organizations' impact on the United States. This analysis will concentrate only on studies relevant to these themes.

In his recent research note Philippe Schmitter calls attention to what he feels are drawbacks in some operational measures of regional integration that Ernst B. Haas and I had proposed earlier and proposes some alternatives. I would like to comment briefly on two of his measures.

Resuming its 22nd session at United Nations Headquarters on April 24, 1968, the General Assembly held its 1643rd–1672nd plenary meetings drought June 12, 1968. The session was formally closed at the 1673rd plenary meeting, held on September 23, 1968. The Assembly agreed without objection to a procedure outlined by its President, Cornelia Manes cu (Rumania), under which the First (Political and Security) Committee would discuss the report submitted by the Conference of the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament (ENDC) concerning its negotiations on a nonproliferation treaty while the plenary considered the question of South West Africa. Also on the agenda was the situation in the Middle East.

The Security Council held its 1456th and 1457th meetings on November 1 and 4, 1968, at the request of the United Arab Republic and Israel to discuss the situation in the Middle East. Representatives of Israel and the United Arab Republic were invited to take part in the discussions without the right to vote.

In his Introduction to the Annual Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization, September 1968 Secretary-General U Thant observed that during the period under review the deterioration of the international political situation had continued. There had been no progress toward peace in Vietnam; in the Middle East the year had been one of continuing tension and frustration; developments in Czechoslovakia had created a feeling of insecurity. In the field of economic and social development the second session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) had not lived up to the great expectations of the participants, especially the developing countries. The chronic problems in the field of decolonization and apartheid had only deepened. Some limited progress had, however, been made in the fields of disarmament, outer space, and human rights.

The report of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to the tenth General Conference of the Agency covered the period from July 1, 1965, to June 30, 1966. During that time the Agency’s membership increased from 92 to 96; the new members were Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, and Panama.

The period under review was marked by further growth in IAEA’s safeguards activities. In June 1966 the Agency provisionally approved special procedures for safeguarding reprocessing plants. During the year the number of safeguards agreements approved by the Board increased from 24 to 29. One new agreement covered a major nuclear power station in the United Kingdom.