{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018977332630469163, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005271481286241434, 'mean_word_length': 5.243421052631579, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Review: International: The Future of Law in a Multicultural World

All three books illustrate in different ways a fundamental dilemma of normative studies on world order: whether the primary criterion is to be the creation of world government or the promotion of human welfare. The long essay by David Mitrany in Mr Twitchett's book shows some of the contradictions between these priorities. Mitrany restates the doctrine of functionalism which he articulated in the 1940s as being the surest path towards the creation of an international authority. Now a quarter of a century later, he explicitly rejects national economic planning and he criticizes the nation-building efforts of leaders in newly independent countries both tendencies which he sees as strengthening nationalism and obstructing international functionalism. Yet to those concerned primarily with welfare, the nationstate and national planning seem to be the most potent available instruments for human betterment. For Mitrany, nationalism is a priori an evil, and 'the purpose of the UN is to advance a liberal internationalist policy' (p 169). This is esoteric doctrine, remote from some of the most powerful forces of world politics whose legitimacy it denies. In the same volume, Susan Strange points to the failure in practice of functionalist doctrine the international bureaucracies 'have not been able to filch power by stealth' (p 116). Nor has developmentalism, successor to functionalism as a central doctrine attempting to give purpose and strategy to international organization, proved to be entirely credible. The UN Development Decade has been a disappointment. Susan Strange concludes: 'The reason for the current malaise and worldweariness in the UN is precisely because no third contender has appeared to take the ideological lead and to give inspiration for effort.' These three books leave the field open still.