² See Diana Crane, “Transnational Networks in Basic Science,” ibid., 245–46; Robert L. Thornton, ”Governments and Airlines,” ibid., 193, 196.

³ Kjell Skjelsbaek, “The Growth of International Non-governmental Organization in the Twentieth Century,” ibid., 77.

⁴ See, for instance, Crane, (fn. 2), 245–46Google Scholar; Vernon, Raymond, Sovereignty at Bay (New York 1971), 95–96.Google Scholar

⁵ Behrman, Jack N., Some Patterns in the Rise of the Multinational Enterprise (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina, Graduate School of Business Administration, Research Paper No. 18, 1969), 61.Google Scholar

⁶ Riencourt, Amaury de, The American Empire (New York 1970), 284.Google Scholar

⁷ Just as states like New Jersey and Delaware provided tax and other advantages to companies which located their headquarters within the state, some European countries offer comparable concessions. American corporations thus set up Tax-Haven Companies in countries where “after negotiations with the government, taxes are either greatly reduced for the company or completely eliminated.” In the words of the Rey Commission report for the European Economic Community:

“The THC is a company that is not, as a rule, intended to fulfil a useful economic or financial function, but simply to allow its parent company to reduce to a minimum its overall tax burden.

“The idea is to establish the company's official headquarters in a place where foreign income is partially or completely tax-free and to increase artificially the charges against production or distribution subsidiaries, so as to enable the THC to increase its revenue from various services, such as licencing, consultant work, and interest on loans, which it provides to the subsidiaries.

“These THC, set up most frequently in the small neutral countries that specialize in them, enable American firms to make conscious use of loopholes or contradictions in the tax legislation of the various European countries.”

Quoted in Le Monde (Weekly Selection), July 1, 1970, p. 5.

⁸ Rolfe, Sidney E., “The International Corporation in Perspective,” in Rolfe, and Damm, Walter E., eds., The Multinational Corporation in the World Economy (New York 1970), 12.Google Scholar

⁹ I. F. Stone's Bi-WeeKly, XVIII (July 13, 1970), 1.

¹⁰ Stambuck, George, American Military Forces Abroad: Their Impact on the Western State System (Columbus, Ohio 1963), 22.Google Scholar

¹¹ Ibid., 29.

¹² For an eloquent and persuasive statement of the neotraditionalist approach, see Campbell, John Franklin, The Foreign Affairs Fudge Factory (New York 1971).Google Scholar

¹³ Behrman, (fn. 5), xiii–xiv.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Vallier, Ivan, “The Roman Catholic Church: A Transnational Actor,” in Keohane and Nye (fn. 1), 147–48.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Louis T. Wells, Jr., “The Multinational Business Enterprise: What Kind of International Organization?” ibid., 104–05, 110–11.

¹⁶ Vernon, (fn. 4), 132–34.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Vallier, (fn. 14), 142Google Scholar; on the differences between American and European businesses, see Behrman, (fn. 5), 13–14.Google Scholar

¹⁸ These distinctions in terms of nationality distribution parallel the broader patterns of ethnocentric, polycentric, and geocentric organization in multinational corporations analyzed by Perlmutter, Howard, “The Tortuous Evolution of the Multinational Corporation,” Columbia Journal of World Business, IV (January-February 1969), 12.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Rolfe, Sidney E., The International Corporation (Paris 1969), 76Google Scholar, cited in Keohane, and Nye, (fn. 1), xviGoogle Scholar; Peter D. Bell, “The Ford Foundation as a Transnational Actor,” ibid., 120.

²⁰ Vernon, (fn. 4), 55.Google Scholar

²¹ Tugendhat, Christopher, The Multinationals (London 1971), 195.Google Scholar See also Thackray, John, “Not So Multinational, After All,” Interplay, 11 (November 1968), 23–25.Google Scholar

²² Tugendhat, (fn. 21), 196.Google Scholar

²³ New York Times, July 1, 1970, p. 2.

²⁴ Vallier, (fn. 14), 137–38.Google Scholar

²⁵ Ibid., 135.

²⁶ Ibid., 135–36.

²⁷ Ibid., 138.

²⁸ Binchy, D. A., “The Vatican and International Diplomacy,” International Affairs, XXII (January 1946), 49Google Scholar, quoted in Vallier, Ivan, “The Roman Catholic Church as Transnational Actor: Preliminary Notes” (unpub., 1970), 24–25.Google Scholar

²⁹ Quoted in Graham, Robert A., Vatican Diplomacy: A Study of Church and State on the International Plane (Princeton 1959), 6–7.Google Scholar In a similar vein, Pope Leo XIII stated that “it is not the Church's province to decide which is best among many diverse forms of government” but instead to work with any political system that is prepared to uphold the “respect due to religion and the observance of morality.” Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae, quoted in Binchy, D. A., Church and State in Fascist Italy (London 1941), 87.Google Scholar

³⁰ Vernon, (fn. 4), 251–52.Google Scholar

³¹ Spencer, William I. (President, First National City Corporation), “The New Globalisis” (Address before American Chamber of Commerce, Frankfurt, Germany, September 6, 1972).Google Scholar

³² Ball, George W., “Cosmocorp: The Importance of Being Stateless,” Atlantic Community Quarterly, VI (Summer 1968), 165.Google Scholar

³³ Barber, Arthur, “Emerging New Power: The World Corporation,” War/Peace Report, VIII (October 1968), 7.Google Scholar

³⁴ Vernon, (fn. 4), 261–62.Google Scholar

³⁵ Ball, George W., “Making World Corporations Into World Citizens,” War/Peace Report, VIII (October 1968), 10.Google Scholar

³⁸ Vallier, (fn. 14), 139.Google Scholar

³⁷ Beer, Samuel H., “Group Representation in Britain and the United States,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, CCCXIX (September 1958), 130–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar