Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

International organization: a state of the art on an art of the state

  • Friedrich Kratochwil (a1) and John Gerard Ruggie (a2)
Abstract

International organization as a field of study is where the action is. The analytical shifts leading up to the current preoccupation with international regimes have been both progressive and cumulative. And the field is pursuing its object of study in innovative ways that are bringing it closer to the theoretical core of more general international relations work. As we point out, however, the study of regimes as practiced today suffers from the fact that its epistemological approaches contradict its basic ontological posture. Accordingly, more interpretive strains, commensurate with the intersubjective basis of international regimes, should be included in the prevailing epistemological approaches. In addition, as a result of its enthusiasm for the concept of regimes, the field has tended to neglect the study of formal international organizations. Interpretive epistemologies can also help to link up the study of regimes with the study of formal international organizations by drawing attention to the roles these organizations play in creating transparency in the behavior and expectations of actors, serving as focal points for the international legitimation struggle, and providing a venue for the conduct of global epistemic politics.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      International organization: a state of the art on an art of the state
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      International organization: a state of the art on an art of the state
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      International organization: a state of the art on an art of the state
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
References
Hide All

1. Thomas Kuhn uses the notion “sets of puzzles” in his discussion of preludes to paradigms; see Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), and The Essential Tension (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977).

2. The criterion of the fruitfulness of a research program, and issues connected with progressive versus degenerative problem shifts, were introduced by Lakatos Imre, ’Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes,” in Lakatos and Musgrave Alan, eds., Criticisms and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970).

3. Mower Edmund C., International Government (Boston: Heath, 1931).

4. The basic terms of the definition are entirely compatible with the most recent theoretical work in the field, Keohane Robert O., After Hegemony (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984). The precise meaning of the terms of course has changed significantly, as we shall see presently.

5. A distinguished contribution to this literature is Goodrich Leland M. and Simons Anne P., The United Nations and the Maintenance of International Peace and Security (Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 1955). See also Knorr Klaus, “The Bretton Woods Institutions in Transition,”International Organization [hereafter cited as 10] 2 (02 1948); Sharp Walter R.. “The Institutional Framework for Technical Assistance,” IO 7 (08 1953); and Rolin Henri, “The International Court of Justice and Domestic Jurisdiction,” IO 8 (02 1954).

6. Padelford Norman J., “The Use of the Veto,” IO 2 (06 1948); Dennett Raymond, ’Politics in the Security Council,” IO 3 (08 1949); Ball M. Margaret, “Bloc Voting in the General Assembly,” IO 5 (02 1951); Hovey Allan Jr, “Obstructionism and the Rules of the General Assembly,” IO 5 (08 1951); and Moldaver Arlette, “Repertoire of the Veto in the Security Council, 1946–1956,” IO 11 (Spring 1957).

7. See, among others, SirJebb Gladwyn , “The Role of the United Nations,” IO 6 (11 1952); Loveday A., “Suggestions for the Reform of UN Economic and Social Machinery,” IO 7 (08 1953); Corter Wytze, “GATT after Six Years: An Appraisal,” IO 8 (02 1954); Finkelstein Lawrence S., “Reviewing the UN Charter,” IO 9 (05 1955); Riggs Robert E., “Overselling the UN Charter-Fact or Myth,” IO 14 (Spring 1960); and Claude Inis L. Jr, “The Management of Power in the Changing United Nations,” IO 15 (Spring 1961).

8. The most comprehensive work in this genre remains Cox Robert W. and Jacobson Harold K., eds., The Anatomy of Influence: Decision Making in International Organization (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973).

9. Claude's Inis L. landmark text, Swords into Plowshares (New York: Random House, 1959), both signaled and contributed to this shift.

10. Bloomfield Lincoln P., ed., International Force-A Symposium, IO 17 (Spring 1973); Boyd James M., “Cyprus: Episode in Peacekeeping,” IO 20 (Winter 1966); Matthews Robert O., “The Suez Canal Dispute: A Case Study in Peaceful Settlement,” IO 21 (Winter 1967); Tandon Yashpal, “Consensus and Authority behind UN Peacekeeping Operations,” IO 21 (Spring 1967); Forsythe David P., “United Nations Intervention in Conflict Situations Revisited: A Framework for Analysis,” IO 23 (Winter 1969); Ruggie John Gerard, “Contingencies, Constraints, and Collective Security: Perspectives on UN Involvement in International Disputes,” IO 28 (Summer 1974); and Haas Ernst B., “Regime Decay: Conflict Management and International Organization, 1945–1981,” IO 37 (Spring 1983).

11. Pendley Robert E. and Scheinman Lawrence, “International Safeguarding as Institutionalized Collective Behavior,” in Ruggie John Gerard and Haas Ernst B., eds., special issue on international responses to technology, IO 29 (Summer 1975); and Nye Joseph S., “Maintaining a Non-Proliferation Regime,” in Quester George H., ed., special issue on nuclear nonproliferation, IO 35 (Winter 1981).

12. Haas Ernst B., “The Attempt to Terminate Colonization: Acceptance of the UN Trusteeship System,” IO 7 (02 1953); Fletcher-Cooke John, “Some Reflections on the International Trusteeship System,” IO 13 (Summer 1959); Jacobson Harold K., “The United Nations and Colonialism: A Tentative Appraisal,” IO 16 (Winter 1962); and Kay David A., “The Politics of Decolonization: The New Nations and the United Nations Political Process,” IO 21 (Autumn 1967).

13. Gardner Richard N. and Millikan Max F., eds., special issue on international agencies and economic development, IO 22 (Winter 1968).

14. Among many other sources, see Gosovic Branislav and Ruggie John Gerard, “On the Creation of a New International Economic Order: Issue Linkage and the Seventh Special Session of the UN General Assembly,” IO 30 (Spring 1976).

15. Kay David A. and Skolnikoff Eugene B., eds., special issue on international institutions and the environmental crisis, IO 26 (Spring 1972); Ruggie and Haas, eds., special issue, IO 29 (Summer 1975); and Wijkman Per Magnus, “Managing the Global Commons,” IO 36 (Summer 1982).

16. The most extreme form of this criticism recently has come from the political right in the United States; cf. Pines Burton Yale, ed., A World without the U.N.: What Would Happen If the United Nations Shut Down (Washington, D.C.: Heritage Foundation, 1984). But the same position has long been an article of faith on the political left as well; cf. Payer Cheryl, “The Perpetuation of Dependence: The IMF and the Third World,” Monthly Review 23 (09 1971), and Payer, “The World Bank and the Small Farmers,” Journal of Peace Research 16, no. 121 (1979); and the special issue of Development Dialogue, no. 2 (1980).

17. Various approaches to the study of integration were summarized and assessed in Lindberg Leon N. and Scheingold Stuart A., eds., special issue on regional integration, IO 24 (Autumn 1970).

18. Haas Ernst B., Beyond the Nation State: Functionalism and International Organization (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1964).

19. In addition to Haas, ibid., see Philippe C. Schmitter, “Three Neo-Functionalist Hypotheses about International Integration,” 10 23 (Winter 1969); Lindberg Leon N. and Scheingold Stuart A., Europe's Would-Be Polity: Patterns of Change in the European Community (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970); Nye Joseph S., Peace in Parts: Integration and Conflict in Regional Organization (Boston: Little, Brown, 1971). Fora critique of the neofunctionalist model, see Hansen Roger D.Regional Integration: Reflection on a Decade of Theoretical Efforts,” World Politics 21 (01 1969).

20. Kerr Henry H. Jr, “Changing Attitudes through International Participation: European Parliamentarians and Integration,” IO 27 (Winter 1973); Wolf Peter, “International Organizations and Attitude Change: A Re-examination of the Functionalist Approach,” IO 27 (Summer 1973); Karns David A., “The Effect of Interparliamentary Meetings on the Foreign Policy Attitudes of the United States Congressmen,” IO 31 (Summer 1977); and Inglehart Ronald, “Public Opinion and Regional Integration,” IO 24 (Autumn 1970).

21. The phrase is Hoffmann's Stanley in “International Organization and the International System,” IO 24 (Summer 1970). A similar position was advanced earlier by Young Oran R., “The United Nations and the International System,” IO 22 (Autumn 1968).

22. Claude Inis L. Jr, “Collective Legitimization as a Political Function of the United Nations,” IO 20 (Summer 1966); cf. Slater Jerome, “The Limits of Legitimization in International Organizations: The Organization of American States and the Dominican Crisis,” IO 23 (Winter 1969).

23. A representative sampling would include Skolnikoff Kay and, eds., special issue, IO 26 (Spring 1972); Russell Robert, “Transgovernmental Interaction in the International Monetary System, 1960–1972,” IO 27 (Autumn 1973); Weiss Thomas and Jordan Robert, “Bureaucratic Politics and the World Food Conference,” World Politics 28 (04 1976); Hopkins Raymond F., “The International Role of ‘Domestic’ Bureaucracy,” IO 30 (Summer 1976); and Ruggie John Gerard, “On the Problem of ‘The Global Problematique’: What Roles for International Organizations?Alternatives 5 (01 1980).

24. The major analytical piece initiating this genre was Keohane Robert O. and Nye Joseph S., “Transgovernmental Relations and International Organizations,” World Politics 27 (10 1974); cf. their earlier edited work on transnational relations and world politics, IO 25 (Summer 1971).

25. Robert Cox's recent work has been at the forefront of exploring this aspect of international organization: Labor and Hegemony,” IO 31 (Summer 1977); The Crisis of World Order and the Problem of International Organization in the 1980's,” International Journal 35 (Spring 1980); and Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method,” Millenium: Journal of International Studies 12 (Summer 1983).

26. The most extensive analytical exploration of the concept may be found in Krasner Stephen D., ed., International Regimes (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1983), most of which was first published as a special issue of IO in Spring 1982. Page references will be to thebook.

27. Keohane Robert O. and Nye Joseph S., “International Interdependence and Integration,” in Greenstein Fred I. and Polsby Nelson W., eds., Handbook of Political Science, vol. 8 (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975). The point is also implicit in Ernst Haas's selfcriticism, Turbulent Fields and the Theory of Regional Integration,” I0 30 (Spring 1976).

28. Ruggie John Gerard, “International Responses to Technology: Concepts and Trends,” I0 29 (Summer 1975).

29. This is the tack taken by Strange Susan, “Still an Extraordinary Power: America's Role in a Global Monetary System,” in Lombra Raymond E. and Witte William E., eds., Political Economy of International and Domestic Monetary Relations (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1982); and Russett Bruce, “The Mysterious Case of Vanishing Hegemony: Or, Is Mark Twain Really Dead?I0 39 (Spring 1985).

30. See Krasner, “Introduction,” International Regimes, and Keohane, After Hegemony, for discussions of this thesis.

31. The fad-fettish is argued by Susan Strange, “Cave! Hie Dragones: A Critique of Regime Analysis,” in Krasner, ed., International Regimes.

32. The public-choice approach to the study of international organization began with the use of public goods theory in the early 1970s, went on to explore the theory of property rights later in the decade, and has come to focus on game theory and microeconomic theories of market failure to explain patterns of international governance. See, respectively, Russett Bruce M. and Sullivan John D., “Collective Goods and International Organizations,” I0 25 (Autumn 1971), and Ruggie John Gerard, “Collective Goods and Future International Collaboration,” American Political Science Review 66 (09 1972); Conybeare John A. C., “International Organization and the Theory of Property Rights,” I0 34 (Summer 1980); and Keohane, After Hegemony. A useful review of the relevant literature may be found in Frey Bruno S., “The Public Choice View of International Political Economy,” I0 38 (Winter 1984).

33. In the context of rational-choice theory generally, the argument was first articulated by Harsanyi John, “Rational Choice Models of Political Behavior vs. Functionalist and Conformist Theories,” World Politics 21 (07 1969). In the international relations literature, it is implicit in Jervis Robert, “Cooperation under the Security DilemmaWorld Politics 30 (01 1978), and explicit in Axelrod Robert, “The Emergence of Cooperation among Egoists,” American Political Science Review 75 (06 1981), as well as in Keohane, After Hegemony.

34. Robert Jervis first made these points in his paper “Security Regimes,” in Krasner, ed., International Regimes. For a more extended discussion see Lipson Charles, “International Cooperation in Economic and Security Affairs,” World Politics 37 (10 1984).

35. Wallerstein Immanuel, “The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 16 (09 1974); and Cox, “Labor and Hegemony,” “The Crisis of World Order,” and “Gramsci, Hegemony, and International Relations.”

36. Ashley Richard K., ’The Poverty of Neorealism,” IO 38 (Spring 1984), and Kratochwil Friedrich, “Errors Have Their Advantage,” IO 38 (Spring 1984).

37. See Susan Strange, in Krasner, ed., International Regimes.

38. This route is taken by Aggarwal Vinod K., Liberal Protectionism: The International Politics of Organized Textile Trade (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985).

39. Oran R. Young, “Regime Dynamics: The Rise and Fall of International Regimes,” in Krasner, ed., International Regimes.

40. On “contestable concepts,” see Connally William, The Terms of Political Discourse, 2d ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983).

41. Most notable among such works is Axelrod's Robert Evolution of Cooperation (New York: Basic, 1984), and Axelrod, “Modeling the Evolution of Norms” (Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans, 29 08–1 09 1985). For an attempt to incorporate progressively more “reflective” logical procedures into sequential Prisoner's Dilemma situations and to expose them to more realistic data sets, see Alker Hayward R., Bennett James, and Mefford Dwain, “Generalized Precedent Logics for Resolving Insecurity Dilemmas,” International Interactions 7, no. 2 (1980), and Alker Hayward and Tanaka Akihiro, “Resolution Possibilities in ‘Historical’ Prisoners' Dilemmas” (Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Philadelphia, 18 03 1981).

42. This case, and the more general problem of interpretation which it reflects, are discussed by John Gerard Ruggie, “International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order,” in Krasner, ed., International Regimes.

43. In the basic regime text, International Regimes, edited by Krasner, intersubjectivity is stressed by Ruggie, “Embedded Liberalism,” and by Donald J. Puchala and Raymond F. Hopkins, “International Regimes: Lessons from Inductive Analysis,” but no systematic epistemological discussion is undertaken in the volume.

44. Abel Theodore F., “The Operation Called Verstehen,” American Journal of Sociology 54 (11 1948).

45. For a good selection of readings that begins with Weber, includes the neopositivist response, the Wittgensteinian school, phenomenology, and ethnomethodology, and ends with hemneneutics and critical theory, see Dallmayr Fred R. and McCarthy Thomas A., Understanding and Social Inquiry (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977).

46. The position is signaled in Ernst B. Haas, “Words Can Hurt You; Or, Who Said What to Whom about Regimes,” in Krasner, ed., International Regimes; and elaborated in Haas, “What Is Progress in the Study of International Organization?” which has been published only in Japanese translation.

47. Cox Robert W., “Social Forces, States, and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory,” and, especially, “Postscript 1985,” both in Keohane Robert O., ed., Neorealism and Its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986).

48. See, respectively, Kratochwil Friedrich, “Rules, Norms, and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations” (Manuscript, Columbia University, 1986); and Ruggie John Gerard, Planetary Politics: Ecology and the Organization of Global Political Space (New York: Columbia University Press, forthcoming).

49. For example, a nondeterministic dialectical formulation of states' conceptions of world order is sketched out by Alker Hayward R., “Dialectical Foundations of Global Disparities,” International Studies Quarterly 25 (03 1981); and of the mutual recognition among states of competencies to act in collectively prescribed ways, by Richard Ashley, “Poverty of Neorealism.”

50. On the importance of the logical form of modus tollens in the hypothetical deductive explanation scheme, see Popper Karl, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (New York: Harper&Row, 1968), chaps. 3 and 4.

51. One of the distinctive characteristics of strategic interaction is that ultimately it rests upon a unilateral calculation of verbal and nonverbal cues: “A's expectation of B will include an estimation of B's expectations of A. This process of replication, it must be noted, is not an interaction between two states, but rather a process in which decision-makers in one state work out the consequences of their beliefs about the world; a world they believe to include decisionmakers in other states, also working out the consequences of their beliefs. The expectations which are so formed are the expectations of one state, but they refer to other states.” Keal Paul, Unspoken Rules and Superpower Dominance (London: Macmillan, 1984), p. 31.

52. See Krasner, “Introduction,” International Regimes.

53. Some of these and related issues are discussed more extensively in Kratochwil, “The Force of Prescriptions,” IO 38 (Autumn 1984).

54. Account should also be taken of that fact that different types of norms—implicit versus explicit, constraining versus enabling, and so on—function differently in social relations. Consult Ullman-Margalit Edna, The Emergence of Norms (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977), and Hart H. L. A., The Concept of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961). Moreover, compliance too is a variegated and complex phenomenon, as discussed by Young Oran R., Compliance and Public Authority (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979).

55. It is well established that the so-called hegemonic stability thesis, for example, leaves a good deal about regimes still to be accounted for. See the original formulation and test by Keohane Robert O., “Theory of Hegemonic Stability and Changes in International Economic Regimes,” in Holsti Ole et al. , eds., Change in the International System (Boulder: Westview, 1980); and, most recently, Snidal Duncan, “The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory,” IO 39 (Autumn 1985). One of the few contemporary realists who take the relationship between power and norms to be at all problematical and worthy of serious examination is Krasner Stephen D., as in his thoughtful study of these issues in Structural Conflict: The Third World against Global Liberalism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985). We can agree with much of what Krasner has to say about the efficacy of norms, principles of legitimacy, and “movements of thought”—indeed, Krasner even invokes hermeneutics. And yet, in the end, we remain perplexed at how he reconciles this position with his fervent commitment to positivist realism.

56. Krasner, “Introduction,” International Regimes, p. 2.

57. These issues were discussed at length at the October 1980 UCLA conference in preparation for the regimes book edited by Krasner.

58. The interplay between these two scripts forms the basis of Ruggie's interpretation of the postwar trade and monetary regimes presented in “Embedded Liberalism.”

59. The proclivity of international relations theorists to resolve ambiguity and contradiction in images of international order, and the schema on the basis of which they do so, are explored by Ruggie John Gerard, “Changing Frameworks of International Collective Behavior: On the Complementarity of Contradictory Tendencies,” in Choucri Nazli and Robinson Thomas, eds., Forecasting in International Relations (San Francisco: Freeman, 1978).

60. Cf. Haas, “Regime Decay.”

61. Summers R. S., “Naive Instrumentalism and the Law,” in Hacker P. S. and Raz J., eds., Law, Morality, and Society (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977).

62. Waltz Kenneth N., Theory of International Politics (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1979), p. 109.

63. This is simply another name for the role of precedent in legal interpretation and development.

64. Giddens Anthony, A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), p. 19: “According to the theory of structuration, all social action consists of social practices, situated in time-space, and organized in a skilled and knowledgeable fashion by human agents. But such knowledgeability is always ‘bounded’ by unacknowledged conditions of action on the one side, and unintended consequences of action on the other.… By the duality of structure I mean that the structured properties of social systems are simultaneously the medium and outcome of social acts.”

65. Representative approaches may be found in Bernstein Richard, Praxis and Action (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971); Toulmin Stephen, Human Understanding (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972); Geertz Clifford, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic, 1973); Connerton Paul, Critical Sociology (New York: Penguin, 1976); Dallmayr and McCarthy, Social Inquiry; Seung T. K., Structuralism and Hermeneutics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982); Polkinghorne Donald, Methodology of the Human Sciences (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983); and Dreyfus Hubert L. and Rabinow Paul, Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983).

66. United Nations, Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization, 1982 (A/37/1).

67. Williamson Oliver, Markets and Hierarchies (New York: Free, 1975), and Ouchi William and Williamson Oliver, “The Markets and Hierarchies Program of Research: Origins, Implications, Prospects,” in Joyce William and Ven Andrew van de, eds., Organization Design (New York: Wiley, 1981). From the legal literature, see Calabresi Guido and Melamed Douglas, “Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral,” Harvard Law Review 85 (04 1972); Heyemann Philip, “The Problem of Coordination: Bargaining with Rules,” Harvard Law Review 86 (03 1973); and Rose-Ackerman Susan, “Inalienability and the Theory of Property Rights,” Columbia Law Review 85 (06 1985).

68. Keohane, After Hegemony. Some policy recommendations that flow from the approach are spelled out by Keohane Robert O. and Nye Joseph S., “Two Cheers for Multilateralism,” Foreign Policy 60 (Fall 1985).

69. The GATT multilateral surveillance mechanisms are, of course, its chief institutional means of establishing intersubjectively acceptable interpretations of what actors are up to. For a treatment of investment which highlights this dimension, see Lipson Charles, Standing Guard: Protecting Foreign Capital in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985); for nonproliferation, see Nye, “Maintaining a Nonproliferation Regime,” and for human rights, Ruggie John Gerard, Human Rights and the Future International Community Daedalus 112 (Fall 1983). The impact of intergovernmental information systems is analyzed by Haas Ernst B. and Ruggie John Gerard, “What Message in the Medium of Information Systems?International Studies Quarterly 26 (06 1982).

70. Puchala and Hopkins, “International Regimes,” in Krasner, ed., International Regimes, discuss the decline of colonialism in terms that include this dimension.

71. The New International Economic Order is a prime example.

72. See Claude, “Collective Legitimization”; Cox, “Labor and Hegemony,” “The Crisis of World Order,” and “Gramsci, Hegemony, and International Relations”; and Krasner, Structural Conflict.

73. Toulmin, Human Understanding, p. 1.

74. Ruggie analyzes this process in “On the Problem of ‘The Global Problematique.’ ”

75. Haas, “Words Can Hurt You,” and Haas, “Why Collaborate? Issue-Linkage and International Regimes,” World Politics 32 (04 1980).

76. Lentricchia Frank, Criticism and Social Change (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), p. 3.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Organization
  • ISSN: 0020-8183
  • EISSN: 1531-5088
  • URL: /core/journals/international-organization
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 6
Total number of PDF views: 1220 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 2436 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 22nd October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.