This article examines the political rationality and governance practices that emerged in the course of the international politics of decolonization. It focuses primarily on the UN trusteeship system, within which the former League of Nations mandates were continued by the trusteeship powers. In this process, the trustees' policies were placed under international scrutiny. The article ties in with International Political Sociology's increased interest in historical perspectives. In particular, it asks how the political rationality of the trusteeship system differs from colonial governmentality. Two arguments are put forward: first, international governing, as can be seen from the trusteeship system, is characterized by a postcolonial governmentality that continues central elements of colonial governmentality, but transfers them to the international level. Second, following Latour, it is argued that trusteeship governance is constituted by forms of knowledge production and the bureaucratic circulation of information that continue to shape the governance of international organizations today. To this end, the article takes up in particular the reporting system of the trusteeship system as well as its central instruments of knowledge production: the visiting missions, the petition system, and the collection of data through questionnaires.

中文翻译：

---

报告安全：联合国托管系统中的后殖民政府

本文考察了国际非殖民化政治进程中出现的政治理性和治理实践。它主要关注联合国托管系统，在该系统中，前国际联盟的任务由托管权力继续。在此过程中，受托人的政策受到国际审查。这篇文章与国际政治社会学对历史观点的兴趣增加有关。特别是，它询问托管制度的政治合理性与殖民统治性有何不同。提出了两个论点：第一，从托管制度可以看出，国际治理的特点是延续了殖民治理的核心要素的后殖民治理，但将它们转移到国际层面。其次，继拉图尔之后，有人认为托管治理是由知识生产形式和官僚信息流通构成的，它们继续塑造着当今国际组织的治理。为此，本文特别探讨了托管制度的报告制度及其知识生产的核心工具：访问团、信访制度和通过问卷收集数据。