The literature, both empirical and theoretical, regarding techniques of peaceful settlement in international conflict is notable primarily for its brevity. This is true of mediation as one principal method of conflict resolution. Those studies that are available tend to emphasize the diverse functions an intermediary can perform, resulting in a generally optimistic assessment of the utility of mediation. There has been an accompanying tendency to focus upon the qualities of a successful or ideal mediator. But an analysis of two cases of mediation suggests that: (1) the scope for effective mediation is much narrower than a list of the functions an intermediary can serve might indicate, and (2) the success or failure of mediation is largely determined by the nature of the dispute with the attributes and tactics of the mediator a marginal factor at best. Characteristics of a conflict which affect its susceptibility to mediation include: (1) the distribution of power among the protagonists, (2) the interests at stake, (3) the price of nonsettlement, and (4) personality factors.

Financial contributions are one among several ways that states provide support for the United Nations. Different levels of contributions may serve as one measure of support, but differences in the size and wealth of states make comparisons of absolute amounts contributed misleading. In this study, member contributions from 1946 through 1969 are examined from a number of perspectives, including a state's relative capacity-to-pay. The results indicate that the United States has not been a particularly generous supporter of the UN even though its support levels have been higher than those of the Soviet Union. In general, smaller and poorer states have tended to assume heavier burdens in UN financing than larger and richer states; the trend over time has been toward increasing burdens for those least able to pay. If these tentative results and other studies of contributions are combined with investigations of other forms of support for the UN, we should be able to develop a fuller understanding of the evolution of commitments toward global organization.

The article focuses on two problems in the measurement of integration with transaction data. The first is the analysis procedure by which the transaction data are summarized. Different procedures affect the data in such different ways that they can actually lead to contradictory conclusions about the progress of integration. This article spells out some of the major differences in the models of analysis. The second problem is validity of transaction data as measures of integration. There are numerous different conceptualizations of integration, some centering on the development of central institutions, others on the existence of favorable attitudes among people, and still others on the existence of a highly co-operative relationship among states. It is not clear that transaction data are the most appropriate measure of any of these concepts.