Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Background of Conference Action. Forty-one countries were represented at the twenty-sixth session of the International Labor Conference, held in Philadelphia April 20–May 12, to consider the future rôle of the International Labor Organization and the economic and social policies to be recommended to the governments of member states. This was the first regular session of the Conference to be held since 1938, the New York-Washington session in 1941 having been a special one. As in 1941, there were no delegations from Bulgaria, Finland, Hungary, Rumania, Spain, and the U.S.S.R. Costa Rica, Ethiopia, Haiti, Iraq, Liberia, Switzerland, and Turkey, which were not represented at the 1941 sesseion, were represented by government delegates and advisers, as well as Sweden, which sent a full delegation. The occupied countries of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, and Yugoslavia were represented by complete delegations; also Luxemburg by two government delegates and an adviser.
As compared with the 1941 sesssion, the twenty-sixth was held at a time more propitious to the cause of the United Nations, was better attended both as to countries represented and the number of delegates and advisers present, and was more deeply occupied with specific proposals concerning the future status of the I.L.O. and post-war economic and social problems. The reasons for this were to be found in the events of the two and a half years separating the two sessions.
1 On leave for government service.
2 Among the countries represented by delegations was Costa Rica, which was readmitted to the International Labor Organization by action of the Conference. See Provisional Record of the Conference No. 2 (communication to the Conference on the subject) and No. 4, p. 14 (report of the Selection Committee), p. 15 (admission of Costa Rica). In addition, Iceland, Nicaragua, and Paraguay sent observers. The Danish minister attended in a personal capacity.
3 For a brief account of the 1941 session, see Simpson, Smith, “The International Labor Conference, 1941,” in this Review, Vol. 36, pp. 102–104 (Feb., 1942).Google Scholar
4 Thailand, represented by an observer at the 1941 session, was unrepresented at the twenty-sixth session. Unsettled conditions led to the contesting of the credentials of workers' delegates from the Argentine Republic, Greece, India, and Yugoslavia. In addition, objection was taken by the United South Slav Committee to the delegates appointed by the Yugoslav Government. Provisional Record, No. 10, Appendix.
5 The Allied invasion of the northern coasts of France nearly a month after the disbanding of the Conference gave added relevance to the recommendations of the Conference as to post-war policies.
6 Provisional Record, No. 8, p. 75:1 (Hambro).
7 The constitution of the I.L.O. formed Part XIII of the Treaty of Versailles of June 28, 1919 (Arts. 387–427), Part XIII of the Treaty of St. Germain of September 10, 1919 (Arts. 332–372), Part XII of the Treaty of Neuilly of November 27, 1919 (Arts. 249–289), and Part XIII of the Treaty of Trianon of June 4, 1920 (Arts. 315–355). These treaties were made with the various states which were at war with the Allied Powers, 1914–18; different states were parties to them; the articles were numbered differently in them; and 28 states became members of the I.L.O. which were never parties to them. For these reasons, it became convenient to refer to these treaty provisions establishing the I.L.O. as “the constitution” of the I.L.O. and to adopt a uniform numbering of the articles running from 1 to 41. See Minutes of the Sixty-ninth session of the Governing Body, Appendix XVII, p. 165; and Phelan, E. J., “The United States and the International Labor Organization,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 50, at pp. 107–112 (Mar., 1935).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Provisional Record, op. cit., No. 16, pp. ii–iv (text); No. 22, p. 185 (adopted). This language, “examine and consider,” superseded the word “scrutinize” proposed by the Office, which evoked considerable discussion in the Conference. See Future Policy, Programme, and Status of the International Labour Organisation, Report I, International Labour Conference, Twenty-sixth Session (Montreal, International Labour Office, 1944), pp. 7–10, and Provisional Record, Nos. 5–10.
9 Art. 2 of resolution concerning the constitution and constitutional practice of the International Labor Organization and its relationship with other international bodies. Idem., No. 21, pp. ii–iii (text of resolution); No. 35, p. 254 (resolution adopted).
10 The proposal of the British Government had been made at the ninety-first session of the Governing Body. For a discussion of the proposal by the International Labor Office, see Report I, op. cit., pp. 71–77. For an earlier discussion of the idea, see The I.L.O. and Reconstruction; Report by the Acting Director of the International Labour Office to the Conference of the International Labour Organisation, New York, 1941 (Montreal, International Labour Office, 1941), pp. 105–108.
11 Provisional Record, No. 21, p. iv (text of the report); No. 35, p. 255 (report adopted).
12 Idem., No. 21, pp. iii–iv (text of resolution); No. 35, pp. 254–255 (resolution adopted).
13 Idem., No. 21, p. iii (text of resolution); No. 35, p. 254 (resolution adopted).
14 Report I, op. cit., p. 113.
15 This resolution therefore dealt with many of the constitutional and operating practices of the I.L.O., current before the war and practices and policies developed during the war. Its provisions concerned not only the internal structure and procedures of the I.L.O. but also its scope and functions and its relations to other international organizations. It did not deal with such matters as the interpretation and revision of international labor conventions and the possible review of the Organization's budget by the Conference. An interesting feature of the proposed resolution, also, was the relatively high degree of attention which it gave to the powers and responsibilities of the Governing Body and Director as compared to the attention which it gave to the Conference.
Among constitutional problems which the Office draft raised was the question whether some of the practices and policies of the Organization developed during the war and included in the proposed resolution were in accordance with the I.L.O. constitution. Those susceptible to the construction of being inconsistent with the constitution presented the additional question of whether departures from the constitution should not form the substance of constitutional amendments. The preamble of the proposed resolution stated it to be “desirable to assign certain powers and duties to the International Labor Office in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 5 of Article 10 of the constitution of the Organization,” and the resolution therefore raised the further constitutional question of the extent of the new powers and duties which might be conferred upon the Office by a simple resolution adopted in pursuance of this constitutional provision. The practical objection to proposing constitutional amendments at present is, of course, the time required for their ratification. Article 36 of the constitution requires ratification of amendments by “the States whose representatives compose the Council of the League of Nations and by three-fourths of the members.” Not only are most of the countries members of the I.L.O. now preoccupied with the war, but the communications problem is also a deterrent to the seeking of constitutional amendments. It is possible, too, that proposals of amendments might retard certain of the I.L.O.'s preparations for the postwar period.
16 Provisional Record, No. 7, p. 57 (van den Tempel). See, however, the remarks of Messrs. van Zeeland (Belgian Government), idem, pp. 61 ff.; Stancyk (Polish Government), 66 ff. esp. at p. 67; Soubbotitch (Yugoslav Government), 76 ff., esp. at 77.
17 Idem, No. 7, p. 57 (van den Tempel); No. 8, p. 75 (Hambro). The Indian Government had not received the report before the departure of its delegates. See Minutes of the Committee on Items I and II, CI-II/PV4, p. 3.
18 Idem, No. 7, p. 57 (van den Tempel).
19 Idem, No. 10, p. 109 (Martin).
20 Idem, No. 8, pp. 74 ff. (Hambro); No. 10, pp. 110–111 (Martin).
21 Remarks of Mr. Claxton (Canadian Government delegate) in the Committee on Items I and II. CI-II/PV4, p. 1.
22 For a statement of the problem, see Report I, op. cit., p. 131. The action of the Conference was in the form of an article in the Resolution Concerning the Constitutional Practice, etc.
23 In this way constitutional issues were avoided. The communications concerned are described as follows in the resolution:
“(a) the communication to Members of certified copies of Recommendations and Conventions in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 19 of the Constitution of the Organisation; (b) the communication by Members of the information concerning the action taken in regard to Recommendations required by paragraph 6 of Article 19 of the Constitution; (c) the communication by Members of the formal ratifications of International Labour Conventions in accordance with paragraph 7 of Article 19 of the Constitution and the relevant provisions of the individual Conventions; (d) the communication to Members of all notifications required by the terms of International Labour Conventions.”
24 In accordance with this request, the Governing Body at its ninety-third session, immediately following the Conference, appointed nine of its members (three from each group) to undertake such negotiations and constituted this number, with nine additional members, as the committee to give consideration to the constitutional questions of the Organization.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.