Last updated 10th July 2024: 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: 01 August 2014
The International Labor Organization (hereafter referred to as“I.L.O.”) took the first steps toward establishing relations with a new organization which would replace the League of Nations in the spring of 1944. The 26th Session of the International Labor Conference, which met in Philadelphia in April–May, 1944—the first regular session held since 1939—adopted a resolution requesting the Governing Body of the International Labor Office “to take appropriate steps to assure close collaboration and full exchange of information between the I.L.O. and any other public organizations which now exist or may be established for the promotion of social and economic well-being.”
Acting on this recommendation, the Governing Body of the I.L.O., at its session of May, 1944, a few days after the close of the Philadelphia Conference, appointed a delegation composed of nine members of the Governing Body, its chairman, and the director of the International Labor Office, and authorized it to negotiate with any international authority in regard to the Organization's relationship to other international bodies. In January, 1945—still prior to the San Francisco Conference—the Governing Body reaffirmed the I.L.O.'s desire to be associated with the contemplated general international organization, “while retaining for the International Labor Organization the authority essential for the discharge of its responsibilities under its constitution and the Declaration of Philadelphia.”
At the invitation of the United States Government, the I.L.O. was represented at San Francisco by a consultative delegation. The position of the I.L.O. within the new framework was discussed at some length at the Conference.
1 Owing to the war, the regular yearly sessions of the I.L.O. could not be held in the years 1940–43 inclusive. The “Conference of the International Labor Organization” held in New York and Washington, D. C., in October–November, 1941, while giving the forty-one member states which were able to attend an opportunity to discuss matters of interest to the I.L.O., was not a regular session.
2 International Labor Office (Montreal), Official Buttetin, Vol. XXVI, No. 1, June 1, 1944, pp. 89–91 Google Scholar.
3 Information Service, International Labor Office, The Relationship of the International Labor Organization and the United Nations, Aug. 14, 1946, p. 3 Google Scholar. The “Declaration of Philadelphia” to which the resolution refers is the “Declaration Concerning the Aims and Purposes of the International Labor Organization” ( Official Bulletin, Vol. XXVI, No. 1, June 1, 1944, pp. 1–3 Google Scholar) adopted by the 1944 (Philadelphia) session of the International Labor Conference.
4 U.N.C.I.O., Proposed Amendments to the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. Doc. 157' II/3/5, pp. 10, 14. Trades Union Congress, The New World Organization for Peace and Security, United Nations Charter [Supplement to “Labour,” Aug., 1945] (London, 1945), p. 23 Google Scholar.
5 Goodrich, L. M. and Hambro, E., Charter of the United Nations; Commentary and Documents (Boston, 1946), p. 197 Google Scholar; see also Britain, Great, Foreign Office, A Commentary on the Charter of the United Nations, Cmd. 6666 (London, 1945), p. 10 Google Scholar.
6 The New World Organization …, ibid.
7 International Labor Conference, 29th Session, 1946. Director's Report, p. 75.
8 Information Service, l.c., p. 3.
9 The head of the United States delegation, Miss Perkins, declared: “I am instructed to make clear to you without the possibility of doubt that the U.S.A. intends to continue wholehearted participation in the work of the Organization,” and added that President Truman had asked her “to reaffirm” without equivocation “that it is the settled policy of the U.S. government to seek for the I.L.O. a proper place within the framework of the co ördinated effort of the United Nations.” (Quoted by Mr. Phelan, director-general of the International Labor Office, in his reply to the debate on the director's report on Nov. 2, 1945; International Labor Office, The I.L.O. and the United Nations (Montreal, 1946), p. 5 Google Scholar.
10 Ibid.
11 Director's Report, l.c., p. 82.
12 Identical Parts XIII, containing the constitution of the I.L.O., were inserted in the treaties of peace with Austria (Treaty of St. Germain-en-Laye) and Hungary (Treaty of Trianon).
13 Concerning the negotiations and agreements leading to the severance of connections between the I.L.O. and the League of Nations, see Director's Report, l.c., pp. 76–82.
14 Director's Report, l.c., p. 85.
15 Butler, Harold B., “The Washington Conference,” in Shotwell, James T. (ed.), The Origins of the International Labor Organization (New York, 1934), Vol. I, pp. 308–9Google Scholar. On “The Admission of the Central Powers to the International Labor Organization,” see Edward J. Phelan, in Shotwell, l.c., pp. 259–282.
16 Harold B. Butler, in Shotwell, l.c., pp. 309–311.
17 Cf. Morellet, , “Le Bureau International du Travail,” in Repertoire de Droit International (Paris, 1929)Google Scholar; Mahaim, , L'Organisation Permanente du Travail (Paris, 1925)Google Scholar. The view that the Conference was not empowered to accept memberhsip of states which were not members of the League was taken, particularly, by Anzilotti, in his minority report in the case of the admissibility of the Free City of Danzig to the I.L.O.—when the Permanent Court of International Justice decided that the Free City of Danzig did not qualify for membership because its external affairs were conducted by Poland, but expressly refrained from giving a decision on the power of the I.L.O. to admit new members which were not members of the League (cf. Cour Permanente de Justice Internationale, Recueil des Avis Consultatifs, No. 18, p. 19).
18 Italy was admitted by the 27th (Paris) session of the Conference on October 19, 1945 (International Labor Conference, 27th Session, Paris, 1945, Record of Proceedings, pp. 25–27).
19 International Labor Office, Official Bulletin, Vol. XXVIII, Dec. 15, 1945, p. 19 Google Scholar.
20 Journal of the Economic and Social Council. No. 12, Apr. 10, 1946, pp. 131–133 Google Scholar; Internat. Lab. Conf., 29th Sess., Montreal, 1946, Report 11(2), Constitutional Questions, Part 2, pp. 1–2.
21 “It is appropriate that this was the first Agreement negotiated under Art. 57 of the Charter. The successful experience of the I.L.O. was the most important single factor in developing the new idea of specialized agencies. That experience proved the value of separate organizations, with a large measure of autonomy, operating as instruments of international coöperation in their specific fields.” (Mr. Lie, in his address to the International Labor Conference on Sept. 25, 1946). (Internal Lab. Conf., Provisional Record, 29th Sess., No. 7, p. 55).
22 A Protocol Concerning the Entry into Force of the Agreement between the U.N. and the I.L.O., containing a short review of the steps which led to the coming into force of the Agreement, and stipulating that the English and French versions of the text of the Agreement should be equally authentic, was signed by Mr. Lie and Mr. Phelanon Dec. 19,1946.
23 The Agreement, dated May 30, 1946, is reprinted in Report II (2), l.c., pp. 4–12, and in Document E/49/Rev. 1 of the Economic and Social Council.
25 Goodrich-Hambro, p. 215.
26 “Interim Arrangements concluded by the Governments represented at the United Nations Conference on International Organization, San Francisco, 26 June 1945,” Dept. of State Bulletin, 1945, XII, p. 1142 Google Scholar; reprinted in Goodrich-Hambro, pp. 379–380.
27 Reprinted in Goodrich-Hambro, pp. 215–216.
29 Of the sixteen governments represented on the Governing Body, eight must be “members of chief industrial importance.” Concerning the selection of these eight states, the I.L.O. constitution, under the League system, provided that “any question as to which are the members of chief industrial importance shall be decided by the League of Nations” (par. 3 of Art. 7). The Instrument of Amendment, 1945, did not deal with this clause; the Instrument of Amendment adopted by the Conference in October, 1946—which is not yet in force—makes the I.L.O. autonomous also in this respect, substituting for the League of Nations, not the United Nations, but the Governing Body of the International Labor Office, and the International Labor Conference; it provides that, as occasion warrants, the decision as to which I.L.O. members fall into the category of “chief industrial importance” shall, after consideration of the question “by an impartial committee,” lie with the Governing Body, and that each member of the I.L.O. may appeal against such decision to the International Labor Conference. (Par. 3 of Art. 7 of I.L.O. constitution, according to Instrument of Amendment, 1946).
30 Even before the Agreement came into force, the I.L.O. submitted to the Economic and Social Council a resolution adopted by the regional American I.L.O. Conference in April, 1946, concerning a study to be undertaken in coöperation with various international agencies, of “the most efficient methods of facilitating the process of harmonious industrialization of the Latin American countries.” See Third Lab. Conf. of the American States which are Members of the I.L.O., Mexico City, April, 1946, Record of Proceedings (Montreal, 1946), pp. 287–288 Google Scholar.
31 If the I.L.O. has to incur “substantial extra expense” as a result of such request, or of other assistance to the U.N. or specialized agencies, “consultation shall take place with a view to determining the most equitable manner in which such expense shall be borne.” In turn, similar arrangements shall be made to cover expenses incurred by the U.N. for services, facilities, or assistance made available to the I.L.O. (Art. XV).
32 Art. 13, par. 2(b), of the constitution of the I.L.O., as amended by the Instrument of Amendment, 1945.
33 For a full discussion of these questions, see Internat. Lab. Conf., 29th Sess., Montreal, 1946, Financial and Budgetary Matters (Montreal, 1946)Google Scholar, passim.
34 Ibid., pp. 3–7.
35 It may be noted that the Agreement delegates to the Secretary-General of the U.N. and the Director-General of the I.L.O. the right to “enter into such supplementary arrangements for the implementation of this Agreement as may be found desirable in the light of the operating experience of the two Organizations” (Art. XVIII).
36 Both Mr. Lie, appearing for the first time at the International Labor Conference on Sept. 25, 1946, and Mr. Phelan, making his first address to the General Assembly of the U.N. on Dec. 14, 1946, stressed the importance of the tripartite structure of the I.L.O. Said Mr. Lie: “The U.N. does not possess the machinery to accomplish all of [the] objectives [set forth in the Charter] by itself. … In the case of the I.L.O., the U.N. looks to an Organization of proved efficiency, in which employers and workers as well as Governments are represented, to carry out one of the most important branches of this work.” (Internat. Lab. Conf., Provisional Record, 29th Sess., No. 7, p. 55). Mr. Phelan declared: “We retain, as indeed it is in the interests of our joint effort that we should, all those fundamental characteristics of our unique tripartite constitution which have been our strength in the past and are the promise of our success in the future. But we shall operate under that constitution, not only to pursue those objectives which are properly within our sphere of action, but also in order to mobilize still greater support for the work of the United Nations of which we are now proud to be the recognized associate.”
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.