Edwin Ginn, successful publisher of educational books, philanthropist, and founder of the World Peace Foundation, gave much thought to the problem of world peace and believed that he knew the answer. He was convinced that world peace, as he understood it, was highly desirable, was attainable, and was likely to be achieved in the not too distant future. To this achievement he devoted a third of the wealth accumulated during a lifetime of demonstrated business capacity and acumen. So confident was he of the correctness of his analysis of the peace problem that he stipulated in his will the use to be made, after world peace was attained, of the fund which he provided for the support of his World Peace Foundation. His trustees were charged with the duty of recognizing the attainment of peace and then transferring the fund to the support of his other favorite philanthropy, the Charlesbank Homes, which he expected to flourish in a peaceful world.

As the Allied troops overran the German colonies the First World War British publicists began to debate whether these territories should be returned to Germany, placed under some sort of international control, or sliced up and annexed by the conquering powers. There was little support for the proposal to hand diem back to Germany. In part this was because of the widely held belief that the Germans were guilty of “atrocities” in Africa no less appalling than those committed in King Leopold's Congo Free State before it was annexed by Belgium in 1908. The real question was whether the German colonies should be annexed or “internationalized.” On the left of the political spectrum the Independent Labor Party urged international administration as a means of uprooting imperialism as a cause of war. On the right the conservative press advocated annexation pure and simple as a means of preventing war by strengthening the British Empire. The mandates system itself was a compromise between these opposing ideas. It was viewed by those on the left as a limited triumph in the cause of internationalization; and by those on the right as annexation in all but name.

Those organs of the United Nations which do not include all Member States pose a challenging problem: How should such select bodies be constituted? There is no easy solution in view of the diversity of national policies, even between countries of a particular region, ideology, or stage of development. This paper presents a series of case studies illustrating some of the principles invoked and the nature of the accommodations arrived at by the General Assembly in dealing with the problem, especially in setting up its own subsidiary organs. On the basis of this evidence an assessment is made of the significance of recent changes in the structure of these nonplenary organs and the resulting impact on the balance of decision-making power in the Organization.

Events since January 1963 have confronted participant and observer alike with a number of fundamental political questions about the European Community. How can we reconcile repeated newspaper stories about its imminent collapse because of one crisis or another with its persistence and seemingly ever more impressive accomplishments? Can the Community continue to develop in the face of major policy differences among its members? Does the existence of the Community change the ground rules and operating conditions of the relations between its members, or does it only place naïve European idealists at the mercy of more cynical, wily, and “realistic” politicians by introducing merely gentler ways of coercing or cajoling the less powerful members? Does it have any enduring impact on the political process or on political attitudes within the member states, or are such changes as occur insignificant or easily reversible?

The Security Council held two meetings (1140th and 1141st) on August 5 and 7, 1964, to discuss a complaint of the United States government against the government of North Vietnam, which was expressed in a letter dated August 4, 1964, from the permanent representative of the United States addressed to the President of the Security Council. At the outset of the 1140th meeting on August 5, 1964, Mr. Morozov (Soviet Union) explained that he had requested the postponement of the meeting until August 6 to permit his delegation to receive necessary instructions from its government. With regard to this request, Mr. Stevenson (United States) pointed out that the UN Charter explicitly called for immediate reporting to the Council of measures taken by Members in the exercise of their right of self-defense. If the Council wished to adjourn after hearing the statement of the United States delegation, Mr. Stevenson had no objection. Mr. Hajek (Czechoslovakia) also opposed convening the meeting on August 5 on the grounds that Council members did not possess all the facts and views of the parties. To deliberate on the question on the basis of one version would not, he felt, serve the interests of the Council. Moreover, he did not feel that the circumstances constituted an emergency: The United States did not appear to be immediately threatened.

Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East: The nineteenth session of the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (ECAFE) was held in Manila on March 5–18, 1964, under the chairmanship of Mr. Rufino G. Hechanova (Philippines).

In the Introduction to the Annual Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization, 16 June 1963–15 June 1964 Secretary-General U Thant observed that the publication of the Introduction had been delayed because of the postponement of the nineteenth session of the General Assembly until December 1, 1964. Taking advantage of this delay, he had brought the Introduction up to date.

The twelfth session of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Conference was held in Rome from November 16 to December 5, 1963, under the chairmanship of Mr. E. Shiroshi Nasu (Japan). During its session the Conference adopted 57 resolutions covering major trends and policy questions in food and agriculture, activities and programs of the Organization, the budget for 1964–1965, constitutional and legal matters, and administrative and financial matters.

Convening its second extraordinary session, the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) met in London on September 10–15, 1964, under the chairmanship of Dr. Nagendra Singh (India).

The annual report of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Development Association (IDA), covering the fiscal year July 1, 1963, to June 30, 1964, was presented to the Boards of Governors of the Bank and IDA on September 7, 1964.

The Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) held its 50th session in Montreal from September 13 to December 16, 1963.

One hundred and two of the 110 states members of the International Labor Organization (ILO) met in Geneva from June 17 to July 9, 1964, for the 48th session of the ILO General Conference. Among those attending the Conference were 196 government delegates, 95 employers' delegates, 95 workers' delegates, and 63 ministers of labor. Mr. A. Aguilar Mawdsley (Venezuela) was elected President and the following three delegates were elected vice presidents: Mr. K. R. Baghdelleh (Tanganyika and Zanzibar), government vice president; Mr. S. Wajid Ali (Pakistan), employers' vice president; and Mr. H. Collison (United Kingdom), workers' vice president.

The eighteenth session of the Administrative Council of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) was held in Geneva from March 23 to April 26, 1963, under the chairmanship of Mr. Gabriel Tedros (Ethiopia).

The first 1964 meeting of the Ministerial Council of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) took place in Geneva on February 13–14, 1964. Chaired by Dr. Hans Schaffner, Minister of Public Economy in Switzerland, the meeting reviewed all major developments relating to the objectives of EFTA.

On November 6, 1963, the Council of the Organization of American States (OAS) authorized its Secretary-General to conclude an agreement of cooperation between the OAS and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), included in which would be an exchange of experts in the nuclear energy field and of studies, information, and documents of common interest. A similar relationship between the OAS and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) was approved at the Council's December 4 meeting.

The third meeting of the Ministerial Council of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) was held in Paris on November 19–20, 1963, under the chairmanship of Dr. Halyard Lange, the Norwegian Foreign Minister. During the discussion on economic growth the Council took note of the improvement in the prospects for economic growth in member countries since the end of 1962, especially in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. It was expected that the increase in gross national product (GNP) of the OECD area for the period 1960–1964 would correspond to the growth target of 50 percent set in 1961 for the ten-year period beginning with 1960. Because of the persistent gap between the industrialized countries and those that were in the process of development, the Council considered that OECD and its more industrialized members should continue to devote their attention and cooperation to the development problems of the less developed members. The ministers noted in particular that a new Spanish development program would be inaugurated in 1964.