Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T03:45:27.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Re-reading Mitrany: a pragmatic assessment of sovereignty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Mark F. Imber
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

David Mltrany's functionalism has provided an inspired, if widely criticized approach to the study of international organization,1 Although originally conceived without regional restrictions in its application, it has been interpreted as a prescription for European integration hence the development of the formerly pervasive but now largely discredited neo-functionalist school.2 The contention that will be advanced here is that Mitrany's work may still usefully guide our analysis of international organization. This is especially so with regard to understanding the stubbornness of sovereignty, and the complexity of decision making in a new generation of multilateral conference diplomacy, as typified by UNCLOS and UNCTAD. These forums are likely to feature more prominently in coming attempts to develop codes and rules of conduct in fields of global conflict and co-operation such as technology transfer, economic development, basic health and other ‘common heritage’ resource management issues. The grounds for promoting Mitrany's approach are that a close reading of his principal works reveals a more subtle, conservative and realistic appreciation of sovereignty than many critics have permitted, and furthermore, within this more cautious appraisal there lie a number of procedural pointers to the constructive, if undemonstrative circumvention of the restriction of sovereignty.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , April 1984 , pp. 103 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Mitrany, D., A Working Peace System: An argument for the Functional Development of International Organisation (London, RIIA, 1943)Google Scholar. First published as a Chatham House paper, this essay was reprinted in 1966 as one of severa l essays in a volume of the same name, A Working Peace System (Chicago, 1966)Google Scholar. A second volume of collected essays, including some previously unpublished, was published as the Functional Theory of Politics (London, 1975)Google Scholar. Other works by David Mitrany which illustrate the development of his approach include those below. Where reprinted in one of the above collections, the works below are indicated thus, ‘and 1966’ or ‘and 1975’. In subsequent references to these many essays each will be indicated where possible by its location in one of the two volumes above (in most cases the only place currently in print). The Progress of International Government (London, 1933 and 1975 pp. 85–104).Google ScholarTerritorial, ideological or functional international organisation (Foreign Office Paper, 1941, unpublished, and 1975 pp. 105–122).Google Scholar‘The Functional Approach to World Organisation’, International Affairs vol. 24, no. 3 (1948) pp. 350–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar‘An Advance in Democratic Representation’ International Associations (Brussels, March 1954, and 1966, pp. 121–126).Google Scholar‘The Prospect for European Integration; Federal or Functional’, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. IV, no. 2 (December 1965) pp. 119–149, and 1966.Google Scholar The Making of the Functional Theory’ 1969 unpublished, and 1975 pp. 3–46. ‘The Functional Approach in Historical Perspective, International Affairs (vol. 47, no. 3, July 1971) pp. 533–543.Google Scholar‘The End of Morality in War’, International Relations (vol. IV, no. 4, November 1973) and 1975 pp. 231–238.Google Scholar See also, The Problem of International Sanctions (Oxford, 1925).Google ScholarInternational Security (National Peace Council, 1944) and 1975, pp. 180–184.Google Scholar

2. See Harrison, R. J., Europe in Question (London, 1974)Google Scholar; Pentland, C., International Theory and European Integration (London, 1973)Google Scholar; also, two key contributions, Haas, E. B., ‘Regional Integration: The Joys and Anguish of Pre-Theorising’, International Organisation, vol. 24, no. 3 (1970) pp. 607–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘Turbulent Fields and the Theory of Regional Integration’, International Organisation, vol. 30, no. 1 (1976), pp. 173–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. For further discussion of this see Waltz, K., Man, The State and War (New York, 1959), chs. 1–3, pp. 1–79.Google Scholar

4. See Angell, N., The Great Illusion (London, 1911).Google Scholar

5. The concept of ‘national interest’ has of course been the subject of intensive criticism, most notably by Rosenau. However, its validity was wholly accepted by Mitrany and so it is his usage which is liable to criticism. The debate concerning the validity or otherwise of the concept may be followed by Rosenau, J., ‘National Interest’, The International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences (New York, 1968), vol. 11, pp. 34–40Google Scholar. Also Frankel, J., National Interest (London, 1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Contemporary International Theory and The Behaviour of States (London, 1973)Google Scholar. Frankel defines ‘national interest’ as ‘the most widely used and generally intelligible shorthand description of all purposive elements in foreign policy’, (p. 77).

6. Taylor, P., International Co-operation today (London, 1971), p. 59Google Scholar; Tooze, R., ‘The Progress of International Functionalism’, British Journal of International Studies, vol. 3, no. 2 (1977), p. 210CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Groom, A. J. and Taylor, P., Functionalism (London, 1975), p. 1Google Scholar. See also Taylor's ‘Introduction’ to Mitrany, op. cit., 1975, pp. ix-xxv. Also, Taylor, P. and Groom, A. J., International Organisation (London, 1978), pp. 11–27.Google Scholar

7. Mitrany, D., A Political Theory for the New Society, from Groom & Taylor, op. cit., 1975, p. 26.Google Scholar

8. See Bull, H., ‘International Theory, the Case for the Classical Approach’ originally published in World Politics, vol. 8(3) pp. 361–377Google Scholar; reprinted with essays in reply to Knorr, K. and Rosenau, J., Contending Approaches to International Politics (Princeton, 1969), pp. 20–38Google Scholar. See also Kaplan's, M. reply to Bull and (more illuminatingly) Vital's rejoinder to both, pp.144–157.Google Scholar

9. Quoted in Leiber, R., Theory and International Politics (London, 1973), p. 8.Google Scholar

10. Mitrany, op. cit., 1948, p. 356.

11. Mitrany, op. cit., 1933 (and 1975, p. 101).

12. Mitrany, op. cit., 1943 (and 1975, p. 128).

13. Mitrany, op. cit., (and 1966, pp. 76–7). See also Sohn, L. B., ‘Expulsion or Forced Withdrawal from an International Organisation’, Harvard Law Review, vol. 77, no. 8 (1964) pp. 1401–1416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. Mitrany, op. cit., 1943 (and 1966, p. 92).

15. The use of the ‘public goods’ concept as a means of analysing the work of functional international organizations is discussed by Russett, B. M. and Sullivan, J. D., ‘Collective Goods and International Organisation’, International Organisation 25(4) (1971) pp. 845–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. Mitrany, D., ‘The Progress of International Government’, op. cit., 1975, p. 32.Google Scholar

17. Mitrany, op. cit., 1971, p. 539.

18. See Imber, M. F., ‘NPT Safeguards—The Limits of Credibility’, Arms Control, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 177–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar for a detailed analysis of one such comprehensive regulatory regime.

19. Mitrany, op. cit., 1943 (and 1966, p. 125).

20. Ibid, p. 27.

21. Ibid, p. 31.

22. Ibid, p. 95.

23. Mitrany, op. cit., 1941 (and 1975, pp. 115–16).

24. See in particular Sewell, J. P., Functionalism and World Politics (Princeton, 1966), pp. 55–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Also Sewell's, ‘Policy Process and International Organisation Tasks’ from Cox, R. (ed.) International Organisation, World Politics (London, 1969), p. 99.Google Scholar And Haas, op. cit., 1964. pp. 21–4.

25. Sewell, op. cit., 1969, p. 99.

26. Cox (ed.), 1969, p. 29.

27. Mitrany, D., International Security, 1944Google Scholar (and 1975, p. 183).

28. Mitrany, op. cit., 1943 (and 1975, p. 132).

29. Supra, note 14.

30. D. Mitrany, 1943 (and 1966, pp. 31, 76).

31. Supra, note 4.

32. Keynes, J. M., The Economic Consequences of the Peace (London, 1919).Google Scholar

33. D. Mitrany, 1973 (and 1975, p. 231).

34. Claude, I., Jnr., Swords into Ploughshares (New York, 1964), p. 355.Google Scholar

35. C. Pentland, 1973, and Haas, 1964.

36. Groom and Taylor, op. cit., 1975, p. 3.

37. Mitrany, , ‘Retrospect and Prospect’ from op. cit., 1975, p. 262.Google Scholar

38. For a remarkable parallel to Mitrany's views, see Finer, H., The T. V.A.: Lessons for International Application (New York, 1972), pp. 26–28Google Scholar, originally published by the International Labour Office, 1944.

39. Claude, op. cit., pp. 348–50.

40. Mitrany, 1975, p. 261.

41. Ibid. p. 266.

42. Claude, op. cit., pp. 351–2.

43. Sewell, op. cit., 1969, ch. 4 and Cox, op. cit., 1969, p. 15.

44. Mitrany, op. cit., 1971, p. 403.

45. Mitrany, 1943 (and 1966, p. 75).

46. Ibid. p. 75.

47. Ibid. p. 76.

48. Mitrany, 1954 (and 1966, p. 126).

49. Cox, R., ‘Labour and Hegemony’, International Organisation (31, 3, 1977) pp. 385–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also, (Anon.), N. M.‘International Labour in Crisis’, Foreign Affairs (vol. 49, 3, 1971), pp 519–532.Google Scholar

50. Provisions for n.g.o. consultation exist in the UN Charter, Article 71.

51. Mitrany, 1943 (and 1966, p. 64).

52. Ibid. p. 65.

53. Ibid. p. 81.

54. Claude, op. cit., p. 111.

55. Mitrany, 1943 (and 1966, pp. 75–6). See also Fawcett, J. E. S., ‘The Havana Charter’ Yearbook of World Affairs, 1951.Google Scholar

56. Haas, 1964, p. Ill, Pentland, 1973, p. 79.

57. Pentland, 1973, p. 79.

58. Sewell, 1966, p. 39.

59. Talmon, J. L., The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy (London, 1952).Google Scholar

60. Haas, 1964, p. 34.

61. Ibid. p. 20.

62. Ibid. pp. 107–9.

63. Mitrany, 1943 (and 1966, pp. 115–16).

64. Rothwell, C. E., ‘International Organization and World Politics’ from L. Goodrich and D. Kay, International Organization: Politics and Process (Wisconsin, 1973), p. 8.Google Scholar

65. Taylor, P., International Cooperation Today (London, 1971), p. 118.Google Scholar