² A full account of the planning of the building (by Bertrand Monnet, architect), its construction, and its formal opening is contained in the fourth issue of Saisons d'Alsace (Revue Trimestrielle) (Aug., 1950).

³ See, however, the excellent summaries and bibliographies in International Organization and in the News Letter of the American Committee on United Europe, New YorkGoogle Scholar, City.

⁴ This communication to the British War Cabinet was first made public on September 5, 1949, in an address by Harold Macmillan to the Consultative Assembly in Strasbourg. Mr. Churchill had written: “It would be a measureless disaster if Russian barbarism overlaid the culture and independence of the ancient States of Europe. Hard as it is to say now I trust that the European family may act unitedly as one under a Council of Europe. I look forward to a United States of Europe in which the barriers between the nations will be greatly minimized and unrestricted travel will be possible. I hope to see the economy of Europe studied as a whole. I hope to see a Council of perhaps ten unite, including the former Great Powers….”

⁵ In a broadcast to the world, the Prime Minister declared: “One can imagine that under a world institution embodying or representing the United Nations there should come into being a Council of Europe. We must try to make this Council of Europe into a really effective league, with all the strongest forces woven into its texture, with a High Court to adjust disputes, and with armed forces, national or international or both, held ready to enforce these decisions and to prevent renewed aggression and the preparation of future wars. This Council, when created, must eventually embrace the whole of Europe, and all the main branches of the European family must someday be partners in it.”

⁶ Authorized text in Nineteenth Century, Vol. 140, pp. 297–301 (Dec., 1946)Google Scholar.

⁷ The Congress was divided into Political, Economic and Social, and Cultural Sections. The full texts of the Resolutions, along with the principal speeches and photographs of the participants, are to be found in Europe Unites (London, 1949)Google Scholar. For other aspects of the background, see Andrew, and Boyd, Frances, Western Union (London, 1948)Google Scholar.

⁸ The European Movement consists of National Councils, represented roughly in proportion to the population of their countries on an International Council, which also includes a representative of the Holy See, and two representatives each of democratic leaders-in-exile from Bulgaria, Rumania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Jugoslavia, and Spain. The Chairman of the International Council is Léon Jouhaux, leader of the Force Ouvrèire, and the Chairman of the International Executive Committee is Paul-Henri Spaak. Many members of the Council later became delegates to the Consultative Assembly. The full membership list, along with an account of the activities of the European Movement and the texts of its resolutions, is available in European Movement and the Council of Europe (London, 1950)Google Scholar.

⁹ Mansergh, Nicholas, “Britain, the Commonwealth, and Western Union”, International Affairs, Vol. 24, pp. 491–504 (July, 1948)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ (Oxford, 1949.)

¹¹ For details of these and related projects, see de Rusett, Alan, Strengthening the Framework of Peace (London, 1950), pp. 116–217Google Scholar.

¹² Cf. Hawtrey, R. G., Western European Union: Implications for the United Kingdom (London, 1949), pp. 26ff.Google Scholar

¹³ Cf. European Movement and the Council of Europe, pp. 51–110.

¹⁴ The text, published in pamphlet form in Strasbourg, is reprinted, among other places, in the American Journal of International Law, Vol. 43, pp. 162–172 (Oct., 1949)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and in Morgenthau, Hans J. and Thompson, Kenneth W. (eds.), Principles and Problems of International Politics (New York, 1950), pp. 435–445Google Scholar. Those desirous of investigating in detail the work of the Council of Europe should peruse the Council publications (all available through the Columbia University Press), particularly the Agendas and Minutes of Proceedings, Official Reports, Working Papers, and Compilation of Recommendations and Resolutions of the Consultative Assembly, along with both Cocks, T. G. B., Procedure of the Consultative Assembly (Strasbourg, 1951)Google Scholar, which contains the full texts of the Statute and the Rules of the Assembly, and British Command Papers of 1949, Nos. 7687, 7720, 7807, 7780, 7838.

¹⁵ See the list of 216 Representatives and Alternates published on February 1, 1951 (Strasbourg, Council of Europe). Senators and Deputies, men and women, liberals and conservatives, socialists and capitalists, cabinet members and “back-benchers” are all to be found on the floor of the Assembly. The British delegation in 1951 consisted of ten Laborites, seven Conservatives, and one Liberal (Lord Lay ton), all save the latter members of the House of Commons. On June 13, 1951, Churchill criticized Attlee for not sending representatives of ministerial rank. The Prime Minister replied that representatives should speak and vote in a personal capacity, without committing the Government or reflecting its views. See also House of Commons, Debates, 5th Ser., Vol. 472, pp. 1259–1262 (March 16, 1949)Google Scholar. Turkey's representation has recently been increased to ten.

¹⁶ In 1950, the Assembly passed 58 recommendations and 22 resolutions and declarations, filling 122 large pages in the published Compilation.

¹⁷ Procedural rules and practices are fully set forth in T. G. B. Cocks, op. cit., especially pp. 43–81, and in the Chairman's Handbook on the Practice of Committees (Strasbourg, 1950)Google Scholar.

¹⁸ On the morning of May 11, 1951, in the course of an Assembly discussion of the Schuman Plan, Ernst Roth, German Social Democrat, denounced French refusal to permit a plebiscite in the Saar, asserted that Germany could never consent to separate representation for the Saar in the High Authority or the Council of Europe, and condemned the prohibition of a planned press conference in Strasbourg with Saar leaders, designed to reveal “actual political conditions” in the area. President Spaak suspended the session when Herr Roth collapsed in the middle of his address. Three days later he died in a local hospital of a second stroke. Cf. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, May 15, 1951. This personal tragedy impressed many of those who witnessed it, including the present writer, as having more than personal significance. The Assembly endorsed the Schuman Plan, eighty to seven, with nine abstentions (May 11, 1951). Only the German Socialists voted in opposition.

¹⁹ Cf. Bailey, Sydney D., “European Unity and British Policy”, American Perspective, Vol. 4, pp. 411–420 (Fall, 1950)Google Scholar.

²⁰ Foreign Minister Stikker is also Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the OEEC. He was speaking to the Assembly on May 10, 1951, on behalf of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. See his article, “The Functional Approach to European Integration”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 29, pp. 436–444 (April, 1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²¹ For federalist commentaries on these issues, see Killby's, J. Keith “Strasbourg, 1949” (mimeographed; London, Federal Union, Ltd.)Google Scholar and Federal News, the monthly bulletin of Federal Union Ltd., for October, 1949. An amusing and penetrating account of the 1949 Assembly is offered by Strange, Susan, in “Strasbourg in Retrospect”, World Affairs, Vol. 4, pp. 3–21 (Jan., 1950)Google Scholar. On some of the difficulties in the way of federalism, cf. Spitzer, H. H., “Problems of the Organizations of Europe”, American Perspective, Vol. 4, pp. 402–410 (Fall, 1950)Google Scholar.

²² Cf. Alan de Rusett, op. cit., p. 156.

²³ Cf. its pamphlet, From the Powerless Consultative Assembly to a European Pact (Paris, 1949).

²⁴ The Union of Europe: Declarations of European Statesmen (New York, 1950)Google Scholar. Cf. The New York Times, February 21, 1950.

²⁵ Russell Hill commented, in the New York Herald Tribune on August 17, 1950, that the fate of many Assembly resolutions was “death by a combination of attrition, exposure, shock, malnutrition, and if necessary a thin stiletto in the small of the back.”

²⁶ Anthony Crossland, M. P., in “Prospects for the Council of Europe”, Political Quarterly, Vol. 22 (April–June, 1951)Google Scholar, observes that British policy toward the Council has “veered uneasily between maternal affection and a barely repressed instinct toward infanticide.” See also Maurice Edelman, M. P., “The Council of Europe, 1950”, an address at Chatham House, October 31, 1950Google Scholar, in International Affairs, Vol. 27 (Jan., 1951)Google Scholar; MissJosephy, F. L., “Hope Deferred”, Federal News, Oct., 1950Google Scholar; and Comstock, Alzada, “Great Britain: Functionalism Preferred”, Current History, Vol. 20 (Jan., 1951)Google Scholar. The shift in the Netherlands position is revealed in Stikker's addresses of October 18, 1950, and of January 18, 1951, found in the Late News Digest from Holland (New York, Netherlands Information Bureau.)Google Scholar

²⁷ The issue of functionalism vs. federalism is an old one in British public debate. See Joyce, James Avery (ed.), World Organization-Federal or Functional? (London, 1945)Google Scholar; Mitrany, David, A Working Peace System: An Argument for the Functional Development of International Organization (London, 1946)Google Scholar; Robert Boothby, M. P., What Do You Think About Western Union? (London, 1949)Google Scholar; Amery, L. S., The Framework of the Future (London, 1944)Google Scholar; Walter (Lord) Layton, United Europe (London, 1948)Google Scholar. The Labor Party position is set forth in a pamphlet, Feet on the Ground (London 1948)Google Scholar, and in the National Executive's policy statement of 1949, European Unity. For a reply by federalist Laborites, see Let the Argument Proceed (London, 1950)Google Scholar. The nature of the dilemma is well put by Spaak, Paul-Henri in “The Integration of Europe: Dreams and Realities”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 29, pp. 94–100 (Oct., 1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁸ See the Council's Compilation, etc. (Strasbourg, 1950), pp. 7–21Google Scholar, containing recommendation 54, a resolution and draft protocol of twenty-eight clauses for amendment of the Statute and a draft recommendation on the consultative functions of the Assembly. See also The Strasbourg Papers, No. 5 (London), containing the full text of the Statute as it would read if thus amended and the Report of the Committee of Seven (SirFyfe, David Maxwell Chairman, and Mackay, R. W. G., M. P., , Rapporteur; Dec, 1950)Google Scholar charged by the Assembly with the task of putting the above documents in final form for submission to the Committee of Ministers. For a favorable commentary, see MissJosephy, F. L., “Grow As You Go”, Federal News, Feb. 1951Google Scholar; and for an unfavorable one, Anthony Crossland, M. P., loc. cit., supra, n. 26.

²⁹ Apart from official Council publications and the useful quarterly summaries of Council activities in International Organization, helpful reports of day-to-day news are to be found in Le Monde (Paris) and in Les Dernières Nouvelles d'Alsace (Strasbourg). See also Reynaud, Paul, Unite or Perish (New York, 1951), pp. 189–210Google Scholar, and the excellent summary of the spring sessions of 1951 in Europe and Tomorrow (International Bulletin of the European Movement), No. 5 (June, 1951)Google Scholar. In a recent interview (New York Times, July 30, 1951), Edouard Bonnefous, President of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the French National Assembly, commented on the rejection by the Committee on Economic Questions of the Consultative Assembly of the project for a supranational European transport authority (which he had vigorously championed at Strasbourg in May) as follows: “European unity is dead, and the European Assembly at Strasbourg is dead, too, and it is the British who killed them …. I won't go to Strasbourg any more.” This harsh judgment, however, poses a question different from the famous question of “who killed Cock Robin?” In this case, with all respect to M. Bonnefous, the corpse is still very much alive and kicking.

³⁰ “The United States of Europe,” Presidential Address at the International Peace Congress in Paris on August 22, 1849. Trans. from World Peace Foundation, Pamphlet Ser., Vol. 4, No. 6, Pt. II (Oct., 1914).