¹ Some of the concepts developed here have been applied in my essay, “Interdependence and Autonomy: Britain and the Federal Republic in Their Multinational Environment,” in Britain and Germany: Changing Societies and the Future of Foreign Policy, ed. Morgan, Roger and Kaiser, Karl (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), pp. 17–40Google Scholar.

² The ideal type uses “nation” and “state” synonymously as scholarly writing (e.g., Morgcnthau, Hans J., Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace [4th ed. rev.; New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967])Google Scholar and the everyday language of politics frequently do.

³ Wolfers, Arnold, Discord and Collaboration: Essays on International Politics (Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins Press, 1962), p. 19Google Scholar.

⁴ This separation has been increasingly criticized. See particularly Alger, Chadwick F., “Comparison of Intranational and International Politics,” American Political Science Review, 07 1963 (Vol. 57, No. 2), pp. 406–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rosenau, James N., “Pre-Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy,” in Approaches to Comparative and International Politics, ed. Farrell, Barry (Evanston, Ill: Northwestern University Press, 1966), pp. 27–92Google Scholar; Rosenau, James N., ed., Linkage Politics: Essays on the Convergence of National and International Systems (New York: Free Press, 1969)Google Scholar; and two contributions by Young, Oran R. which express views similar to my own, “The Actors in World Politics,” in The Analysis of International Politics, ed. Rosenau, James N., Davis, B. Vincent, and East, Maurice A. (Glencoe, Ill: Free Press, 1971)Google Scholar, and “Interdependencies in World Politics,” International Journal, Autumn 1969 (Vol. 24, No. 4), pp. 726–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵ On the concepts of sovereignty and territoriality see Hinsley, F. H., Sovereignty (London: C. A. Watts & Co., 1966)Google Scholar; and Herz, John H., International Politics in the Nuclear Age (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959)Google Scholar.

⁶ Several scholars are particularly notable for their treatment of the complexity of the international system. See Hoffmann's, Stanley analysis of the bipolar, polycentric, and multipolar layers of world politics (Gulliver's Troubles, Or, the Setting of American Foreign Policy [Atlantic Policy Studies] [New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. (for the Council on Foreign Relations), 1968], pp. 1–67)Google Scholar; Young's, Oran R. analysis of different kinds and degrees of interpenetration of global axes and regional arenas of politics (“Political Discontinuities in the International System,” World Politics, 04 1968 [Vol. 20, No. 3], pp. 369–390, and his article in the International Journal, Vol. 24, No. 4)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Hassner's, Pierre analysis of the multidimensional character of the international system (“The Nation-State in the Nuclear Age,” Survey, 04 1968 [No. 67], pp. 3–27)Google Scholar.

⁷ See Singer, David, “The Level-of-Analysis Problem,” in The International System: Theoretical Essays, ed. Knorr, Klaus and Verba, Sidney (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1961), pp. 77–92Google Scholar; and Wolfers, pp. 3–24.

⁸ Morse, Edward L., “The Politics of Interdependence,” International Organization, Spring 1969 (Vol. 23, No. 2), pp. 311–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹ The growing relevance of structures and processes of interaction which invalidate the model of international politics also casts doubt on the demand to establish international relations as an autonomous discipline, different and separate from the study of domestic politics.

¹⁰ See Deutsch, Karl W., “External Influences on the Internal Behavior of States,” in Farrell, , pp. 5–26Google Scholar; Rosenau in Farrell; and Rosenau, , “Toward the Study of National-International Linkages,” in Rosenau, , pp. 44–63Google Scholar.

¹¹ See particularly Haas, Ernst B., Beyond the Nation-State: Functionalism and International Organization (Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 1964)Google Scholar; Sewell, James P., Functionalism and World Politics (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and a recent attempt to apply functionalist theory to East-West relations in Europe by Zellcntin, Gerda, Intersystemare Beziehungen in Europa: Bedingungen der Friedenssicherung (Leiden: A. W. Sijthoff, 1970)Google Scholar.

¹² For an example from the literature on political pressure groups see Yondorf, Walter, “Monnct and the Action Committee: The Formative Period of the European Communities,” International Organization, Autumn 1965 (Vol. 19, No. 4), pp. 885–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ On this topic the literature is growing particularly fast As examples and for further references see Behrman, Jack N., National Interests and the Multinational Enterprise: Tensions among the North Atlantic Countries (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1970)Google Scholar; Heilbroner, Robert L., “The Multinational Corporation and the Nation-State,” New York, Review of Books, 02 11, 1971 (Vol. 16, No. 2), pp. 20–25Google Scholar; Kindleberger, Charles P., ed., The International Corporation: A Symposium (Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T. Press), 1970Google Scholar; and Vernon, Raymond, Sovereignty at Bay: The Multinational Spread of US. Enterprise Abroad (Harvard Multinational Business Series) (New York: Basic Books, Publishers, 1971)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ See, for example, Fox, William T. R. and Fox, Annette B., NATO and the Range of American Choice (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967)Google Scholar; and Brzezinski, Zbigniew K., The Soviet Bloc: Unity and Conflict (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1960)Google Scholar.

¹⁵ See, for example, Kelley, George A. and Miller, Linda B., Internal War and International Systems (Occasional Paper, No. 21) (Cambridge, Mass: Center for International Affairs, 1968)Google Scholar; and Rosenau, James N., ed., International Aspects of Civil Strife (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶ See, for example, Angell, Robert Cooley, Peace on the March: Transnational Participation (New Perspectives in Political Science, No. 19) (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1969)Google Scholar.

¹⁷ See particularly Lehmbruch, Gerhard, “Konkordanzdemokratien im internationalen System: Ein Paradigma fur die Analyse von internen und externen Bedingungen politischer Systeme,” Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 1969 (Special Issue No. 1), pp. 139–163Google Scholar. Among the earlier works note Hintze, Otto, “Staatenbildung und Verfassungsentwicklung,” in Stoat und Verfassung: Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur allgemeinen Verfassungsgeschichte, ed. Hartung, Fritz (Leipzig: Koehler & Amelang, 1941)Google Scholar. Among more recent country studies see Baade, Hans, Das Verhältnis von Parlament und Regierung im Bereich der auswärtigen Getvalt der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Studien über den Einfluss der auswärtigen Beziehungen auf die innerstaatliche Verfassungsentwicklung (Hamburg: Hansischer Gildenverlag, 1962)Google Scholar; and Beloff, Max, New Dimensions in Foreign Policy: A Study in British Administrative Experience 1947–59 (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1961)Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Rosecrance, Richard N., Action and Reaction in World Politics: International Systems in Perspective (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1963)Google Scholar.

¹⁹ This would also apply to research on the domestic sources of foreign policy if it would direct itself at several units simultaneously and examine their interaction.

²⁰ In the original version of this article I used the concept of the “penetrated system” which I took over from Rosenau. Since such a “penetrated system” does not confine itself to members of a national governmental or international bureaucracy but also involves “the society's members” and the “mobilization of support,” its distinctiveness from integration and transnational politics-the two other ideal types of multinational politics—becomes blurred.

²¹ See Brzesrinski.

²² There is more material on the relationship between governments and international organizations. For a recent study and further references see Gordenker, Leon, “Multilateral Aid and Influence on Government Policies,” in International Organisation: World Politics-Studies in Economic and Social Agencies, ed. Cox, Robert W. (Papers prepared under the auspices of the International Political Science Association) (London: Macmillan & Co., 1969), pp. 128–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²³ See Deutsch, Karl W. et al. , Political Community in the North Atlantic Area: International Organization in the Light of Historical Experience (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1957)Google Scholar.

²⁴ European social scientists have made a more important contribution to the study of East European integration. For an interpretation of the relative neglect of Western European integration see Kaiser, Karl, “L'Europe des Savants: European Integration and the Social Sciences,” Journal of Common Market Studies, 10 1965 (Vol. 4, No. 4), pp. 36–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁵ This range has been increased particularly by the stress which has recently been placed on “social integration” and “informal integration.” On the former see Nye, , International Organization, Vol. 22, No. 4.Google Scholar On the latter see Friedrich, Carl J., ed., Politische Dimensionen der europäischen Gemeinschaftsbildung (Cologne and Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; by the same author, Europe: An Entergent Nation? (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1969)Google Scholar; and Kaiser, Karl, “Gesellschaftliche Integration,” Integration, 1970 (No. 3), pp. 230–234Google Scholar.

On the state of integration theory generally see Hansen, Roger D., “Regional Integration: Reflections on a Decade of Theoretical Efforts,” World Politics, 01 1969 (Vol. 21, No. 2), pp. 242–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kaiser, Karl, “The U.S. and the EEC in the Atlantic System: The Problem of Theory,” Journal of Common Market Studies, 06 1967 (Vol. 5, No. 4), pp. 388–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lindberg, Leon N. and Scheingold, Stuart A., eds., Regional Integration: Theory and Research (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1971)Google Scholar; Nye, Joseph S., “Comparative Regional Integration: Concept and Measurement,” International Organization, Autumn 1968 (Vol. 22, No. 4), pp. 855–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Senghaas-Knobloch, Eva, Frieden dutch Integration und Assoziation (Stuttgart: Klett, 1969)Google Scholar.

²⁶ Hoffmann, Notably Stanley, “Obstinate or Obsolete? The Fate of the Nation-State and the Case of Western Europe,” Daedalus, Summer 1966 (Vol. 95, No. 3), pp. 862–915Google Scholar.

²⁷ Aron, Raymond, Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations, trans. Howard, Richard and Fox, Annette Baker (Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday & Co., 1966), p. 105Google Scholar.

²⁸ Ibid., p. 106. In this connection it is important to mention the concept of “transnational law” which Philip Jessup introduced in a book of the same name (New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 1956) into the discussion on international law. Transnational law comprises “all law which regulates actions or events that transcend national frontiers” (p. 2). According to this definition transnational law comprises not only internationalxs law but also the so-called international private, penal, and administrative law which is in reality national law regulating the application of national legal systems and their collisions with other legal systems. Jessup proceeds from the sociological (and not legal) assumption that “transnational situations” de facto increase in importance because of growing international connections and that transnational law already begins to regulate them and should do so even more in the future.

²⁹ Aron, p. 105. Italics deleted.

³⁰ Hoffmann, Stanley, ed., Contemporary Theory in International Relations (Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hal, 1960), p. 180Google Scholar; see also by the same author, The State of War (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1965)Google Scholar, chapter 4.

³¹ Kaiser, Karl, “The Interaction of Regional Subsystems: Some Preliminary Notes on Recurrent Patterns and the Role of Superpowers, World Politics, 10 1968 (Vol. 21, No. 1), pp. 84–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³² Ibid., p. 102.

³³ Mendershausen, Horst, Transnational Society vs. State Sovereignty (Research Study, P. 3806) (Santa Monica, Calif: RAND Corp., 03 1968), p. 5Google Scholar; see also by the same author, The Diplomat as a National and Transnational Agent: Dilemmas and Opportunities (Research Study, P. 4158) (Santa Monica, Calif: RAND Corp., 08 1969)Google Scholar.

³⁴ Mendershausen, , Transnational Society, p. 8Google Scholar.

³⁵ See Dahl, Robert A., Who Governs Democracy and Power in an American City? (New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 1961)Google Scholar; and Rosenau, in Farrell.

³⁶ See, for example, Mendershausen, Transnational Society.

³⁷ The notion of “transnational politics” has been used before by Roscnau but in a very different sense; see Rosenau, in Rosenau. A political process is defined here as a process pertaining to the allocation of values or the method of such allocation.

³⁸ For further references see footnote 13.

³⁹ On this point see Aubrey, Henry G., The Dollar in World Affairs (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1964)Google Scholar; and by the same author, Behind the Veil of International Money: The Politics of Financial Dominance (Essays in International Finance, No. 71) (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 01 1969)Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ For a similar hypothesis in connection with interregional interaction see Kaiser, , World Politics, Vol. 21, No. 1Google Scholar.

⁴¹ On this point see Cooper, Richard N., The Economics of Interdependence: Economic Policy in the Atlantic Community (Atlantic Policy Studies) (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. [for the Council on Foreign ??lations], 1968)Google Scholar.

⁴² For further data see ibid. The last figures are from Hyrner, Stephen and Rowthorn, Robert, “Multinational Corporations and International Oligopoly: The Non-American Challenge,” in Kindleberger, , pp. 57–91Google Scholar.

⁴³ On this point see Wohlstetter, Albert, “Illusions of Distance,” Foreign Affairs, 01 1968 (Vol. 46, No. 2), pp. 242–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁴ Diebold, William Jr, “New Horizons in Foreign Trade,” Foreign Affairs, 01 1967 (Vol. 45, No. 2), pp. 291–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁵ For the most recent attempt to study a variety of such organizations see International Organization, Summer 1971 (Vol. 25, No. 3)Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ For further references see footnote 13.

⁴⁷ See Ball, George W., “The Promise of the Multinational Corporation,” Fortune, 06 1, 1967 (Vol. 75, No. 6), p. 80Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ On this point see Morse, , International Organization, Vol. 24, No. 2Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ For the same reason there is some justification for Oran Young's proposal (Young, in Rosenau, Davis, and East) to regard world politics as the general concept and international politics as a specific subgroup (that of interstate politics) of world politics. One could, in fact, add “multinational politics” as developed here as a second subgroup of world politics. The notion of world politics has the disadvantage of implying a greater degree of worldwide interaction and interdependence than exists at this time, but the concept is likely to correspond increasingly to reality as time passes.

⁵⁰ See Herz.

⁵¹ On this point see also Brzezinski, Zbigniew, “America in the Technetronic Age: New Questions of Our Time,” Encounter, 01 1968 (Vol. 30, No. 1), pp. 16–26Google Scholar.

⁵² Perroux, François, “Esquisse d'une théoric de l'économie dominante,” Economie appliquée, 04–09 1948 (Vol. 1, Nos. 2–3), pp. 243–300Google Scholar; for an interpretation sec Jeck, Ute, Die Thcorie der Domination von François Perroux (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1968)Google Scholar.

⁵³ Hirschman, Albert O., National Power and the Structure of Foreign Trade (Publications of the Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of California) (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1945)Google Scholar; see also Bernholz, Peter, Aussenpolitih. und Internationale Wirtschajtsbeziehttngen (Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann, 1966)Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ See Jacobsen, Hans-Adolf, Nationalsozialistische Aussenpolitih (Frankfurt: Alfred Metzner, 1968)Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Scott, Andrew M., The Revolution in Statecraft: Informal Penetration (Studies in Political Science, P551) (New York: Random House, 1965)Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ This thesis has been elaborated by several authors. See Cooper, ; Morse, , International Organization, Vol. 24, No. 2Google Scholar; Morse, Edward L., “Transnational Economic Processes,” International Organization, Summer 1971 (Vol. 25, No. 3), pp. 373–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Young, , International Journal, Vol. 24, No. 4Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ Deutsch, Karl W. and Eckstein, Alexander, “National Industrialization and the Declining Share of the International Economic Sector, 1890–1959,” World Politics, 01 1961 (Vol. 13, No. 2), pp. 267–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Deutsch, Karl W., Arms Control and the Atlantic Alliance: Europe Voces Coming Policy Decisions (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1967)Google Scholar; Deutsch, Karl W. et al. , France, Germany and the Western Alliance: A Study of Elite Attitudes on European Integration and World Politics (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1967)Google Scholar; and Waltz, Kenneth N., “The Myth of National Interdependence,” in Kindleberger, , pp. 205–223Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ For references see footnote 56.

⁵⁹ Young, , International Journal, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 745–750Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ This point has been further developed by Kaiser, Karl in “The Political Aspects of Intervention in Present Day International Politics,” Internationale Spectator, 01 8, 1971 (Vol. 25, No. 1), pp. 76–88Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Hoffmann, Stanley, “International Organization and the International System,” International Organization, Summer 1970 (Vol. 24, No. 3), pp. 389–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶² Kaiser, Karl, “Transnational Relations as a Threat to the Democratic Process,” International Organization, Summer 1971 (Vol. 25, No. 3), pp. 706–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar.