One of the major themes explored by the late Hedley Bull and others in their studies of the expansion of the European society of states across the globe is the entry of extra-European states into that society. It has given rise to two challenging and inescapable questions: when was each extra-European state drawn and accepted into the expanding European international society, and how? The answers to these questions are central to understanding when and how the contemporary global society which embraces states belonging to every culture and civilization emerged. Research in this area also raises questions about the future of the now universal international society. Can a global society of states devoid of cultural homogeneity survive? If so, how? Will the acceptance of common rules and institutions foster the perception of common interests by states of different cultural systems? Or conversely, will the perception of common interests move member states to work out new rules, institutions, and values to cement the structure of a universal international society? The inquiry into the historical process in which an extra-European state was drawn into the expanding international society cannot provide answers to these questions. Historical illumination is only capable of suggesting the direction in which those answers can be productively sought.

Late in the summer of 1950, after the outbreak of the Korean War, the US administration adopted a policy paper entitled NSC 68. This paper was drafted in February and March and it paved the way for the most comprehensive re-armament programme the United States had ever undertaken in time of peace. US defence expenditure was increased from 6.9% of the US GNP in Fiscal 1951 to 12.7% in Fiscal 1952, rising to 13.8% in Fiscal 1953; NSC 68 thus ushered in the post-World War II peak of US defence spending as percentage of GNP. In his admirable work on US defence strategy, John Lewis Gaddis has called NSC 68 ‘a deeply flawed document’. He concludes his analysis of NSC 68 by saying that the US Administration adopted measures which

‘Anarchy is one of the most vague and ambiguous words in language.’ George Coreewall Lewis, 1832.

In much current theorizing, anarchy has once again been declared to be the fundamental assumption about international politics. Over the last decade, numerous scholars, especially those in the neo-realist tradition, have posited anarchy as the single most important characteristic underlying international relations. This article explores implications of such an assumption. In doing so, it reopens older debates about the nature of international politics. First, I examine various concepts of ‘anarchy’ employed in the international relations literature. Second, I probe the sharp dichotomy between domestic and international politics that is associated with this assumption. As others have, I question the validity and utility of such a dichotomy. Finally, this article suggests that a more fruitful way to understand the international system is one that combines anarchy and interdependence.

Geoffrey Best's article ‘Whatever Happened to Human Rights9 in the January 1990 issue of the Review touches upon many important questions which are well known to human rights scholars. These include such political, legal and philosophical difficulties as defining the concept of self-determination, the prospects for implementing certain economic and social rights and the role of international law in improving human right standards. By examining the work of René Cassin in his role as a member of the Commission for Human Rights during the early years of the United Nations, Best points to these difficulties while attempting to achieve two further objectives. The first is to provide an appreciation of Cassin's personal qualities, and the second, to demonstrate that had Cassin's views been more closely adhered to human rights would in some way be healthier today. Although Best's article is the edited text of a lecture, and is consequently not the tightly argued piece we might expect from a more considered paper prepared especially for publication, several of his claims are either questionable or mistaken.

The fading away of the Cold War has allegedly shifted the attention of the Western members of the United Nations, as demonstrated by General Assembly speeches, towards issues like the environment, drugs and terrorism. The new issues moving towards the top of the international security agenda are more elusive than the traditional Peace- and War-related ones; nobody has control of a ‘button’ regarding these issues. An overall assessment of the situation shows that there is a great variety of actors involved, both governmental and non-governmental. It is also increasingly recognized that the East has similar interests to the West. As a result, the East–West divide is being bridged to a significant extent, while the North–South divide is being defined in new ways.