Neil Caplan, Futile Diplomacy, vol. 3: The United Nations, the Great Powers and Middle East Peacemaking, 1948–1954 (London: Frank Cass, 1997). Pp. 416. $55.00 cloth, $25.00 paper. - Neil Caplan, Futile Diplomacy, vol. 4: Operation Alpha and the Failure of Anglo-American Coercive Diplomacy in the Arab–Israeli Conflict, 1954–1956 (London: Frank Cass, 1997). Pp. 435.

The United Nations is a transitional organization. It includes in its structure aspects of several types of world organization. The privileged position of the great powers suggests that it is a world empire governed by these powers.The broad principles stated in the preamble and the first two articles providing for pacific settlements of disputes, forbidding aggressive wars, requiring cooperation in suppressing such war, encouraging international cooperation, and protecting the domestic jurisdiction of all states suggests that the United Nations may rely primarily on moral principles. The fact that there are five great powers, each with a veto vote on the use of sanctions, suggests that the success of the organization depends upon maintaining a balance of power among these states. Finally, the provisions concerning human rights and cooperation for human welfare through the Economic and Social Council, together with the important position given the International Court of Justice, look in the direction of world federation.

Download Full-text

The Middle East between the Great Powers: Anglo-American Conflict and Cooperation, 1952–7

History Reviews of New Books ◽

10.1080/03612759.2001.10525886 ◽

2001 ◽

Vol 29 (3) ◽

pp. 128-128

Author(s):

Awad Eddie Halabi

Keyword(s):

Middle East ◽

Great Powers ◽

Conflict And Cooperation ◽

Anglo American

Download Full-text

Niebuhr on the UN, Globalization, and the Potential for National Transcendence

Niebuhrian International Relations ◽

10.1093/oso/9780197500446.003.0005 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 74-90

Author(s):

Gregory J. Moore

Keyword(s):

United Nations ◽

Security Council ◽

Great Powers ◽

Forward Movement ◽

Liberal Internationalism ◽

World Government ◽

Un Security Council ◽

The World ◽

The United Nations ◽

International Good

In this chapter, we consider Niebuhr’s views of the nature of the world community, the United Nations, globalization, and the potential for national transcendence, or the likelihood of nations laying down their interests for a higher international good. Niebuhr would have viewed globalization positively, as a way to advance functional cooperation between nations. A strong supporter of the United Nations, he viewed the UN Security Council veto as an important tool, allowing cooperation among the powers but blocking forward movement on issues the great powers could not agree on. Despite his liberal internationalism, he did not believe national transcendence was likely given all he said about power, moral dissonance, and groupism, nor would he have found world government attractive given the fallibility of human nature, particularly if one considers dystopian tales such as Orwell’s 1984 or Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.

Download Full-text

Consultation Under Article 50 of the United Nations Charter: The Experience of the Middle East

10.1163/9789004502871_028 ◽

2001 ◽

pp. 325-333

Keyword(s):

Middle East ◽

United Nations ◽

The United Nations ◽

Article 50 ◽

United Nations Charter

Download Full-text

The Security Council in the May 1967 Crisis: A Study in Frustration

Israel Law Review ◽

10.1017/s002122370000217x ◽

1969 ◽

Vol 4 (4) ◽

pp. 534-550 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Ruth Lapidoth

Keyword(s):

Middle East ◽

United Nations ◽

Security Council ◽

International Peace ◽

Primary Responsibility ◽

Peace And Security ◽

The United Nations ◽

Six Day War

Members of the United Nations have conferred upon the Security Council “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security” and have agreed “that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf” (article 24 of the U.N. Charter). The question may be asked whether the Security Council lived up to this responsibility during the May 1967 crisis in the Middle East which preceded the Six Day War. Did the Security Council do everything in its power to avoid the clash, and what were the reasons for its failure to avert the crisis?In order to be able to evaluate the Council's stand, it will be necessary to recall summarily the developments which led up to the hostilities of June 1967, as well as the Security Council's powers under the Charter of the U.N.

Download Full-text