Studien zur Regierungslehre und Internationalen Politik – serie

unlike the historical-descriptive or legalistic approaches still pervading the majority of publications on international organization, has an implicit (empirical-) theoretical orientation. As a concomitant development, Yalem notes an increasing methodological 6 sophistication among some students of international organization. However, except for some favorable comments on the evolving theory of international community formation, Yalem does not evaluate the contribution of the empirical-theory-cum­ methodology literature to the study of international organization. More recently, Riggs and his associates (1970) and Alger (1960-70; 1970) have taken it upon themselves to do just this. The analysis of the impact of bthavioralism on the study of the United Nations system by Robert Riggs and his associates is a rather devastating indictment. Though demonstrating a concern to present balanced and qualified conclusions from their pemsal of the relevant literature, they summarize their assessment in the following statement: Behavioral research has probably been the most disappointing in the area of its central concern, that of theory-building. The grand theories tend to be heuristic in nature, divorced from the essential data base; and the best-supported proposi­ tions have the natrowest theoretical significance. Despite its aims and pretensions, the approach has not yet produced a coherent set of explanatory propositions to bring order or scientific exactness to the study of international organization or any substantial segment of it (Riggs et al. , 1970: 230).

phase two spanned the time from the late 1930's to about 1950 (Sohn's period III and Yalem's periods II and III). The literature produced during these years revealed an ambivalent reaction toward the apparent inability of international organizations, particularly the League of Nations, to control violence or contribute to the solution of conflicts among major powers. The advocates of a world state saw vindicated their position that an even stronger tmiversal supranational authority was required to assure the repression or deterrence of international aggression. However, the 'realist' position, laying claim to greater scientific validity, argued 'the inlportance of political and ideo­ logical conflicts as barriers to international cooperation' (Yalem, 1966: 2). The excellent analysis by Ronald Rogowski (1968) shows how the twin positions of 'idealism' and 'realism' proceed from an identical paradigm of world politics: a nation-state system with little or no integrative superstructure. They differ, however, in their epistemological outlook. The realists display a positivistic standpoint: taking the inter­ national system and its premise, power politics, as unalterable givens, they inquire into the feasibility of international organization under these circumstances. The idea­ lists adopt what one might call a critical approach toward social analysis: they do not deny the positive validity of the realists' fmdings, but they reject the notion that power politics is an mlalterable impediment.