NONTHEMATIC / Vol. 23, No. 1 (Spring 1956)
Let me say quite simply that I loved Kurt Riezler. When we saw each other for the first time, our student days just over, he intrigued me. He was then moving in the border regions of the German Foreign Office, an expert observer, prepared to give advice on matters of publicity to those who sought it.
Before I present my considerations on Riezler the scholar I want to mention that Riezler, more than anyone else among my acquaintances, represented to me the virtue of humanity. I believe he was formed by Goethe more than by any other master. His interests and sympathies extended to all fields of worthy human endeavor. He could easily have become an outstanding scholar in a great variety of fields, but he preferred to be a truly educated man rather than a specialist.
The postwar period has brought growing use of professional economists from the industrially advanced countries as advisers on planning development of less developed areas. The consequent accumulation of experience and the renewed interest in development are giving rise to an essentially new branch of economic literature. The classical economists, Karl Marx, and a few twentieth-century economists have been primarily concerned with economic growth; but their interest has been in explaining or sustaining capitalist economic development where it was already under way.
A few years ago a leading Soviet international lawyer, writing in the official Soviet legal journal, referred to contemporary international law as 'the juridical form of coexistence of two worlds.' This formula, although too cryptic to serve as an adequate definition (which, by the way, it was not meant to be in the context), seems to imply a recognition of the thesis, long a controversial one in Soviet doctrine, that international law has a common existence and an equally binding power for socially heterogeneous systems.
British Labour's foreign policy toward Europe has proved an uneasy mixture of the traditionalist and the socialist. It has by no means been doctrinaire. Rather it has tried to adjust changing circumstances to new and not always satisfactory situations. The pressures to align the fate of Britain to that of the continent have always been present, yet the Labour party, the party of change, has appraised each new tentative proposal with a restrained air of realism and dignity. The result has been a typical British caution which has harvested a crop of bitterness, praise, and suspicion.
Review of book by Robert M. MacIver. New York: Columbia University Press. 1955. 329 pp.
Review of book by D. V. Glass. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press. 1955. 412 pp.
Review of book by Elihu Katz and Paul F. Lazarsfeld. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press. 1955. xx & 400 pp..
Review of book by August Losch. Translated from the second revised edition, by William H. Woglom, with the assistance of Wolfgang F. Stolper. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1954. 520 pp.
Review of book by Maurice Mandelbaum. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press. 1955. 338 pp.
Review of book introduced by H. L. A. Hart. New York: Noonday Press. 1955. 396 pp.