The year 1967 saw two inter-American conferences of major significance for the changing course of the inter-American system. One, the Third Special Inter-American Conference, held in Buenos Aires in February 1967, had as its purpose the revision of the 1948 Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS). The first conference to take such action, it culminated several years of debate over shortcomings in the OAS and ways and means of correcting them. The other principal assemblage of the year was the Meeting of American Chiefs of State at Punta del Este, Uruguay, in April. Although a regional “summit” meeting had been held in 1956, the one at Punta del Este was the first to give serious substantive consideration to major issues.

The title of this article may promise too much. First, this article will limit itself only to the problems of Socialist states in universal, worldwide organizations, not in all kinds of international organizations, as the title implies. Second, the wording of the title may incorrectly suggest that the unique economic, social, and ideological characteristics of the Socialist system determine the nature of Socialist participation in international organizations. In fact, however, Socialist states act much as other states in their relations with international organizations. Third, the title and content of the article may imply that all Socialist states behave identically in regard to international organizations. It seems necessary, therefore, to emphasize that treating the Socialist states as a group is merely a recognition of the greater community of interests and higher degree of cohesion within the group than between members of the group and states outside it. There remain, however, different viewpoints on some issues among members of the group. Membership in the group may be formal, e.g., participation in a caucusing group, or informal, e.g., sharing in a feeling of responsibility for the welfare of the Socialist world. A formulation of the general attitudes of the Socialist group consists in setting forth policies which result from similar or common economic and social systems, ideology, interdependence, and, last but not least, dangers. In the author's opinion the relevance of establishing and recognizing diese common attitudes despite individual deviations cannot be denied.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights was present in the Dominican Republic continuously from June 1, 1965, to July 7, 1966. During this period the Commission worked diligently and effectively to protect basic human rights which were being threatened and abused daily. The Commission had visited the Dominican Republic twice in the past for short periods of several days. During these visits, which occurred at times of relative tranquillity, it received claims from private citizens concerning human rights violations, reported its observations, and made recommendations to the government. The Commission's role in 1965–1966 was of a different nature. It was called upon by two rival governments to come to a country in the midst of a civil strife in which human rights were being violated on a massive scale. In these circumstances the Commission proved willing to act vigorously to defend these rights. It succeeded in improving prison conditions for political prisoners, played a key role in securing the release of many detainees who had been held without charge, assisted persecuted individuals in finding asylum, tried to locate missing persons, and worked to bring the perpetrators of crimes against human rights to justice. Although by means of interpretation and practice the Commission had to some extent laid the groundwork for the role it was to assume in the Dominican Republic, its performance as an “action body” operating in an American state continuously for more than one year was unprecedented.

The third Arab-Israeli war, June 5–10, 1967, has been variously described as the first major conventional war between a modern state and a not-yet-modern society, as an instance of Western imperial aggression by proxy, or as a tragic ritual of the ineluctable Middle Eastern war game. Some analysts see it is as a prelude to a Vietnam-style people's war of liberation or even a nuclear war, those more optimistic as an end to all war in the Middle East. The third Arab-Israeli war is thus likely to be studied with interest by historians, strategists, military sociologists, political scientists, and even by armaments sellers.

The General Assembly held its fifth emergency special session at the request of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with the concurrence of a majority of Member States. The session comprised the 1525th–1558th plenary meetings, held between July 4 and 21, 1967, with a final meeting, the 1559th, held on September 18, 1967. Abdul Rahman Pazhwak (Afghanistan), President of the 21st session of the General Assembly, presided over the emergency session

In his Introduction to the Annual Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization, 16 June 1966–15 June 1967 Secretary-General U Thant observed that during the period under review the international political situation had deteriorated considerably. The war in Vietnam had progressively intensified, there had been renewed warfare in the Middle East in June 1967, and the situation in Cyprus had not improved. Only limited progress had been made in such areas as disarmament, outer space, economic and social development, decolonization, and human rights. Frustrations in respect of South Africa, South West Africa, and Rhodesia continued, although in the cases of South West Africa and Rhodesia the General Assembly and the Security Council, respectively, had taken certain steps which might help in time to improve the situation

The 49th session of the General Conference of the International Labor Organization (ILO) was held at Geneva on June 2–23, 1965, and was attended by 204 government delegates, 100 employers' delegates, and 99 workers' delegates from 104 states. S. Hashim Raza (Pakistan) was elected President of the Conference