The Problems of World Order

  • J. E. Hare
  • Carey B. Joynt


When we face honestly the perils and problems which make up the world scene, it is easy to abandon hope completely. It is possible that events have grown so complex and the pressures so relentless that we will not be able to escape the disaster created by our own ambitions and fears, and above all by the power placed in our hands by modern science wedded to the nation state. To accept this vision of the future is to adopt a counsel of despair. For if we cannot avoid this disaster, then we do not have the obligation to try to avoid it. The alternative is to seek by every possible means the long-term goal of world order — the evolution of a peaceful and just world community in which interstate conflict is minimized if not abolished and in which procedures are established for the peaceful settlement of disputes. This is the goal of reasonable men in most governments as it has been the vision of scholars and dreamers for centuries past. To work for this goal is to accept that progress towards it is not impossible. Moreover now that mankind has the potential ability, in the shape of nuclear weapons, to destroy his own civilization, the avoidance of nuclear war has become for all nations an ethical and political imperative. This is a challenge which they cannot escape and which is harder than any they have ever had to face.


Nuclear Weapon International Affair World Order Rich Nation Ballistic Missile 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations (New York, 1950) pp. 80–108.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Martin Wight, “The Balance of Power and International Order” in Alan James (ed.), The Bases of International Order (London, 1973) p. 104.Google Scholar
  3. 6.
    For example, G. W. Rathjens, The Future of the Arms Race (1969).Google Scholar
  4. 7.
    See C. S. Gray, “The Arms Race Phenomenon”, World Politics, vol. 24 (1971) pp. 39–79;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. A. Wohlstetter, “Is There a Strategic Arms Race?” Foreign Policy, vol. 15 (1974) pp. 3–20;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. and controversy in succeeding issues. For an analysis arguing that arms races can be conceived of in terms of an equilibrium process, see C. B. Joynt, “Arms Races and the Problem of Equilibrium”, The Year Book of World Affairs 1964 (London, 1964).Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    A recent provocative analysis is Robin Ranger, “Arms Control in Theory and Practice”, The Year Book of World Affairs 1977 (London, 1979) pp. 112–37. This chapter follows Ranger’s broad conclusions with the addition of Richard Burt “Implications for Arms Control”, in Adelphi Papers, no. 145, pp. 16 ff.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    Some of the more prominent thinkers were: Bernard Brodie, The Absolute Weapon (1946);Google Scholar
  9. Henry A. Kissinger, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy (1957);Google Scholar
  10. R. E. Osgood, Limited War (1957);Google Scholar
  11. M. H. Halperin, Limited War in the Nuclear Age (1963);Google Scholar
  12. Herman Kahn, On Thermonuclear War (1960);Google Scholar
  13. Klaus Knorr and Thornton Read (eds), Limited Strategic War (1962);Google Scholar
  14. T. C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict (1960);Google Scholar
  15. Albert Wohlstetter, “The Delicate Balance of Terror”, Foreign Affairs, vol. 37 (1959) pp. 209–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. See also D. G. Brennan (ed.), Arms Control, Disarmament and National Security (1961);Google Scholar
  17. and the classic, Hedley Bull, The Control of the Arms Race (1961). One should also consult the annual volumes of the Stockholm Peace Research Institute on the subject.Google Scholar
  18. 11.
    For a cogent argument to this effect, see Milton Leitenberg, “The SALT II Ceilings and Why They are so High”, British Journal of International Studies, vol. 2 (1976) pp. 149–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 16.
    The U.S.S.R. deploys about 620 of these, mostly west of the Urals. See, The Military Balance, 1977–1978, p. 8. The new Soviet backfire bomber adds to the danger. See L. Ruehl, “The Grey-Area Problem”, Beyond Salt II, Adelphi Papers, no. 141 (London, 1978) p. 28.Google Scholar
  20. 19.
    For a thorough discussion, see James T. Johnson, “The Cruise Missile and the Neutron Bomb: Some Moral Reflections”, Worldview (December 1977), pp. 20 ff. A response by Paul Ramsey is in the following issue. We have not considered here the vexing question of whether the threat to use a morally objectionable weapon differs ethically from its actual use. We have argued in Chapter 5 thatit does so.Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    Martin Wight, Power Politics (New York, 1978) p. 191.Google Scholar
  22. 24.
    Louis Henkin, “Force, Intervention and Neutrality in Contemporary International Law”, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law (1963) p. 154.Google Scholar
  23. 25.
    A typical treatment is Charles G. Fenwick, International Law (New York, 1948) p. 243.Google Scholar
  24. 28.
    George Schwarzenberger, “Hegemonial Intervention”, in The Year Book of World Affairs 1959 (London, 1959) p. 262.Google Scholar
  25. 30.
    M. C. Havens et al., Assassination and Terrorism: Their Modern Dimensions (Manchaca, Texas, 1975) p. 22.Google Scholar
  26. 31.
    Ibid., Appendix A. See also W. J. Crotty (ed.), Assassinations and the Political Order (New York, 1971).Google Scholar
  27. 36.
    Basic details on the Chile operation are contained in Senate Report on Assassination Plots, pp. 225–254. Tad Szulc, The Illusion of Peace (New York, 1978) pp. 353–69, 480–6 and 6437 contains a somewhat longer version.Google Scholar
  28. 38.
    A short but careful account is Stephen R. Weissman, “CIA Covert Action in Zaire and Angola: Patterns and Consequences”, Political Science Quarterly, vol. 95 (Summer 1979) pp. 263–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 44.
    William P. Bundy, “Who Lost Patagonia? Foreign Policy in the 1980 Campaign”, Foreign Affairs, vol. 58 (Fall 1979) p. 22.Google Scholar
  30. 45.
    See the discussion of nuclear proliferation in Ch. 5, pp. 121–4, and of arms sales in Ch. 6, pp. 135–6. The following sources have been used for the problems of arms sales: World Military Expeditures and Arms Transfers 1969–1976, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (Washington, D.C., 1978); David W. Moore, “United States Aid and the Arms Trade”, Current History (July-Aug., 1979) PP. 5–8, 34–5;Google Scholar
  31. Leslie H. Gelb, “Arms Sales”, Foreign Policy, no. 25 (Winter 1976–1977) pp. 3–23;Google Scholar
  32. Ian Bellamy, “The Acquisition of Arms by Poor States”, The Year Book of World Affairs, 1976, vol. 30 (London, 1976) pp. 174–89;Google Scholar
  33. Trevor Taylor, “President Nixon’s Arms Supply Policies”, The Year Book of World Affairs, 1972, vol. 26 (London, 1972) pp. 65–80.Google Scholar
  34. 48.
    For an extensive treatment of this aspect of the problem, see Michael Moodie, “Sovereignty, Security, and Arms”, The Washington Papers, no. 67 (London, 1979).Google Scholar
  35. 51.
    A succinct article is Mohammed Ayoob, “The Super-Powers and Regional ‘Stability’: Parallel Responses to the Gulf and the Horn”, The World Today (May 1979) pp. 197–205.Google Scholar
  36. 52.
    The same argument is made in Ernst B. Haas, “Why Collaborate? Issue-Linkage and International Regimes”, World Politics, vol. 32 (Apr. 1980) P. 387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 54.
    Roger Scruton, Viewpoint, Times Literary Supplement, 14 (1980) p. 291.Google Scholar
  38. 56.
    James Rachels, “Vegetarianism” and “The Other Weight Problem”, in William Aiken and Hugh LaFollette (eds), World Hunger and Moral Obligation (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1977) p. 91. We have benefited a great deal from this volume.Google Scholar
  39. 57.
    See Evan Luard, “Putting the world to rights”, Manchester Guardian Weekly, 7 May 1978.Google Scholar
  40. 58.
    Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence and Morality”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1, 3, (1972) 229–243, reprinted in Aiken, op. cit., pp. 22–36.Google Scholar
  41. 60.
    Garrett Hardin, “Lifeboat Ethics, The Case Against Helping the Poor”, Psychology Today viii (September 1974) 38–143, 123–26, reprinted in Aiken, op. cit., pp. 12–21.Google Scholar
  42. See also Hardin, “Carrying Capacity as an Ethical Concept”, in G. R. Lucas, Jr. and T. W. Ogletree (eds), Lifeboat Ethics (New York, 1976) pp. 120–137.Google Scholar
  43. 62.
    Jonathan Glover, Causing Death and Saving Lives (London: Penguin, 1977) pp. 100–102.Google Scholar
  44. 64.
    Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization, in World Health Organization: Basic Documents, 26th ed., Geneva: World Health Organization (1976) p. 1.Google Scholar
  45. 65.
    Ervin Lazlo (ed.), Goals for Mankind. A Report of the Club of Rome on the New Horizons of Global Community (New York, 1977).Google Scholar
  46. See also John G. Sommer, Beyond Charity: U.S. Voluntary Aid for a Changing Third World (New York, 1977).Google Scholar
  47. 67.
    Philippa Foot, “The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect”, The Oxford Review (1967) quoted in Glover, op. cit., p. 93.Google Scholar
  48. 69.
    See M. S. Sorous, “The Commons and Lifeboat as Guides for International Ecological Policy”, International Studies Quarterly, xxi(December 1977) 647–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 72.
    For a short impressive analysis along these lines, see Robert S. McNamara, “Population and International Security”, International Security, vol. 2 (Fall 1977) 25 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Longer works include John W. Sewell (ed.), The U.S. and World Development Agenda 1977 (New York, 1977);Google Scholar
  51. Denis Goviet, The Uncertain Promise. Value Conflicts in Technology Transfer (New York, 1977).Google Scholar
  52. 73.
    Michael S. Teitelbaum, “Population and Development: Is a Consensus Possible e”, Foreign Affairs (July 1974).Google Scholar
  53. 74.
    Robert W. Tucker, “Egalitarianism and International Politics”, Commentary (Sept. 1975).Google Scholar
  54. 76.
    David K. Fieldhouse, Economics and Empire, 1830–1914 (London, 1973).Google Scholar
  55. 77.
    Michael Edelstein, “Realized Rates of Return on U.K. Home and Overseas Portfolio Investment in the Age of High Imperialism”, Explorations in Economic History (July 1976) pp. 283–9Google Scholar
  56. quoted in Richard N. Cooper, “A New International Economic Order for Mutual Gain”, Foreign Policy (Spring 1977) pp. 66–120, esp. p. 88.Google Scholar
  57. 81.
    Ibid., p. 90. For a large-scale study, see Richard N. Cooper, The Economics of Interdependence (New York, 1968).Google Scholar
  58. 84.
    A now famous account of one form of the libertarian position is Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia (New York, 1974). Nozick’s position is related to world hunger by Jan Narveson, “Morality and Starvation”, in Aiken, op. cit., pp. 49–65.Google Scholar
  59. 86.
    John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, 1971) pp. 75 ff.Google Scholar
  60. 87.
    Jan Narveson, “Aesthetics, Charity, Utility, and Distributive Justice”, Monist (1972) p. 530.Google Scholar
  61. 88.
    Robert Endicott Osgood, Ideals and Self-Interest in America’s Foreign Relations, (Chicago,1953). Especially pp. 441–52.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© J. E. Hare and Carey B. Joynt 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. E. Hare
    • 1
  • Carey B. Joynt
    • 1
  1. 1.Lehigh UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations