The charge to examine old problems with new eyes, and so obtain a firmer understanding of the structure of the modernization process, came from Karl Deutsch in 1953. And now, sixteen years later, other social and behavioral scientists urge us to focus upon the process, the very dynamics of modernization, noting that with this more powerful view of change the sequential structures themselves will be clarified. But in examining the modernization process in Africa, we feel almost helpless in trying to reply to such a call—a call that essentially requires us to link Space and Time and Man in such a way that a general system is created to postdict the course of a modernizing society.

In a broadcast from Havana on October 15, 1967, Cuba's líder máximo told his audience, “Who could deny the significance to the revolutionary movement of the blow of Che's death? It is a fierce blow, a very hard one.” One week earlier the near-legendary ideologue of the Cuban Revolution had been captured and shot by Bolivian authorities in a tiny Andean village named Higueras. Troops had also taken into custody the French Marxist Régis Debray, who had gained attention with his interpretation of the Cuban revolution before joining the Guevara-led band of rebels in Bolivia.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the effect of behavioralism upon the study of the United Nations as reflected in journal articles published during the period 1950-1969.

Scope and Method of This Study

In recent years students of politics have become increasingly self-conscious about the spread of behavioral methods and viewpoints within the discipline. A great deal of energy has been expended in explaining what behavioralism is, defending it, attacking it, or trying to reconcile it with more traditional approaches.

The seizure of the Pueblo, the downing of the American EC-121 reconnaissance plane, the attempted assassination of South Korea's President Chung Hee Park by a North Korean commando unit, and the recent revelation of North Korea's plans for unification of the Korean peninsula in the 1970s, raise numerous questions about the nature of the political system that has emerged from the Soviet occupation of Northern Korea in 1945-1948, during Stalin's last decade of rule.

It is important, in the light of the continuing debate concerning the interpretation of agreements, to clarify the underlying assumptions of contextual methodology and to determine its theory of meaning. The issues have recently been probed in some detail in Gidon Gottlieb's critique1 of the philosophic underpinning of the framework for the interpretation of agreements adopted by Myres S. McDougal, Harold D. Lasswell, and James C. Miller. It is the thesis of this paper that in significant respects Gottlieb's alternative solution and the framework of McDougal and Lasswell admit a similar need for analyzing extra-textual data to facilitate nonarbitrary decision-making.

The field of modern civil-military relations is not a totally fresh one, still unexplored. Kurt Lang's 1969 bibliography on military sociology lists over one thousand items—books, articles, and unpublished material—and this catalogue includes only the material available in English. His section on civil-military relations lists some 250 items,1an impressive accumulation in a supposedly new field.

These three volumes form a curious mind-full. Two concentrate on whence we come. The third concentrates on whither we are going. Mr. Ardrey and Professor Lorenz dwell on the implications for our present and our future of the earlier other animal forms that we continue. Mr. Kahn and Mr. Wiener are concerned almost exclusively with the kind of animals we are going to be. Even the first two volumes make less of the constancy of man as an animal than we might expect.