A century of existence: it may seem short on the time-scale of the evolution of the universe, but very consequential to that of a scientific association. The fact that the IAU may be able to celebrate such a milestone is in itself a meritorious collective achievement, for it was not obvious at the very beginning that this organization was going to last more than a decade. Drawing on the historical sociology of scientific institutions, my paper will discuss the moral economy through which the IAU – and its dated but persistent form of scientific internationalism – has stabilized and maintained its identity since its creation in 1919, under the unifying auspices of a global scientific object to be known as: Under One Sky.

The IAU was founded in 1919 “to facilitate the relations between astronomers of different countries where international co-operation is necessary or useful” and “to promote the study of astronomy in all its departments”. These aims have led the IAU throughout the century of its existence, but the way it has tried to fulfil them has changed. We have tried to trace the changing role of the IAU in the international astronomical community through the twentieth century and into the twenty-first. The IAU has striven – occasionally struggled – to protect international scientific cooperation across the deep political divides that characterized the 20th century, while maintaining an important function in the context of the rapidly evolving science itself and the changing fabric of institutions involved in astronomy. We especially argue how the emphasis of the IAU’s activities has shifted from the first aim – facilitating collaboration by organizing meetings and defining common standards – to the second aim: promoting astronomy by outreach and development programs.

International scientific institutions are preferred settings to explore prominent topics in the transnational approaches to the recent history of science. These include: the dichotomy between universalism and contextualism in the historical evolution of exact sciences; the historical transformation of the ideals of scientific internationalism; the tensions between these historically changing ideals and scientists’ national allegiances; the balance between scientific and diplomatic activities of such institutions; and the issue of how the complex ideological, socio-political roles these institutions play affected the actual evolution of science.

Inspired by these overreaching themes, the paper presents a conceptual framework for pursuing a comparative analysis of IAU and IUPAP. A bird’s-eye view of the parallel historical developments of these two unions shows that, in spite of their common origins in the highly politicized context of the post-WWI reconstruction of international cooperation, IAU and IUPAP followed diverging trajectories in many respects. It is argued that a deeper study of these differences might give important insights to properly understand the relevance of specific disciplines’ scientific needs in the way the ideals and practices of scientific internationalism were actualized through the 20th century.