Yhdistyneet kansakunnat organisaationa

Authors

• Risto Wallin

Abstract

After the Second World War, new conceptual arsenals have been used to define world as a coherent society with common laws and governmental systems. The vocabulary of international relations moved in rather short time from ”static”, vertical and spatial concept of state and society to a dynamic system of international relations and ideas of world as a society. When the documentations of the League of Nations are compared to those of the United Nations, there are differences in argumentative constructions, how international relations were presented in their discourse and how community abstractions were used. To understand why the two world organizations were based on such different conceptual models, it is crucial to understand that League’s model was not aimed to legitimate world as a unified socio-political community. On the contrary, such legitimation was the main interest of Leo Paslovsky and the other key founders of the UN-organization. The argumentative constructions pursued are reason for the shift in presentation. The new world consensus and fixing the social-political reality into the hugest organizational frame are the main reasons for the inauguration of natural-metaphorical conceptions. Paslovsky’s model can only be understood as an integrative constitutional project. UN-organization is most of all a combination of constitutional styles of American freedom and European progress and community. In other words, he developed a conceptual programme in which the key ideas and spirit of American constitution were globalized by using the key concepts of the nationalistic constitutional thought of continental Europe. Immanuel Kant is an important figure in that project because he was the first author to use the concepts community and social organization in globalized forms.