^{page 353 note 1} Jenks, C. Wilfred, The International Protection of Trade Union Freedom, London, Stevens & Sons, 1957, p. 109 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 353 note 2} The International Labor Organization in a Changing World, in: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 310, 03 1957, p. 37.Google Scholar The impact on the ILO of the re-entry of the Soviet Union has been ably analyzed by Jacobson, Harold Karan, The USSR and ILO, in: International Organization, Vol. XIV, No. 3, Summer 1960, pp. 402–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 353 note 3} In this article the initials “ILO” refer exclusively to the International Labor Organization so as to avoid confusion with the International Labor Office, the secretariat of the ILO.

^{page 354 note 1} Cf. Beloff, Max, The Foreign Policy of Soviet Russia, 1929–1941, London, Oxford, 2 volumes, Vol. I, pp. 197–198.Google Scholar

^{page 354 note 2} International Labor Conference, 19th Session, Proceedings, 1935.Google Scholar

^{page 354 note 3} In its report to the Conference, the Credentials Committee included a statement by the worker member of the Committee, speaking on behalf of the Workers' Group, in which he noted that “as a result of the entry of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics into the International Labour Organization, the Organization has taken another step in the direction of universality, which is an important condition for the realisation of its aims. The arrival of representatives of the trade unions of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a proof that the work of the International Labour Office is becoming increasingly well understood. This statement is in accordance with the attitude of the Workers' Group and conforms to the point of view always expressed by the Group that the Workers' Delegation of each country should be constituted in such a way as to represent independent [sic] organisations of the working classes.” (International Labor Conference 20th Session Proceedings 1936, pp. 542–543.)

^{page 355 note 1} The last previous maritime conference, the 13th International Labor Conference, had been held in 1929. The need for holding two maritime International Labor Conferences in October 1936 resulted from a technical problem involving the application of Article 15 of the ILO Constitution. This article required the Director (now called the Director-General) of the International Labor Office to transmit the agenda of a forthcoming conference to the member states at least four months in advance of the beginning of the session. One important item not having been placed on the agenda of the 21st Conference by the Governing Body until June 22, 1936, and thus coming too late for proper consideration at the session scheduled to begin on October 6, it became necessary to resort to the expedient of convening a separate 22nd Session for October 22, exactly four months after June 22, even though the 21st Conference would still be in session. In other words, two ILO Conferences met simultaneously to deal with the same substantive area of social policy. Both sessions adjourned on October 24.

^{page 355 note 2} In some ILO documents the spelling of his name is Kaouline.

^{page 356 note 1} In 1932 the Standing Orders of the International Labor Conference, i.e. the rules governing conference procedures, had been changed “to provide that objections [to credentials] based on facts and allegations which the Conference, by a debate and a decision relating to identical facts and allegations had already discussed and recognized to be irrelevant or devoid of substance, should be irreceivable.” (Jenks, C. Wilfred, op. cit., p. 105).Google Scholar

^{page 356 note 2} International Labor Conference, 21st Session, Proceedings, 1936, p. 192.Google Scholar

^{page 356 note 3} Ibid., p. 70.

^{page 357 note 1} The full text of the letter appears in Minutes of the 77th Meeting of the Governing Body, 11 12–14, 1936, p. 204.Google Scholar

^{page 358 note 1} Article 3, Paragraph 9. Challenges to credentials of delegates are considered in the first place by the Credentials Committee of the Conference, made up of one government, one employer, and one worker delegate. The Committee must decide whether an objection is receivable and, if so, whether it is well founded. Under rules adopted in 1932 and not substantially changed since then “a unanimous conclusion by the Credentials Committee that an objection is irreceivable is final; if the Credentials Committee does not reach a unanimous conclusion concerning the receivability of an objection the matter is referred to the Conference for decision without further discussion. A unanimous report by the Credentials Committee that an objection is not well founded is simply noted by the Conference; if the Credentials Committee or any member thereof submits a report advising that the Conference should refuse to admit any delegate or adviser, this proposal is submitted to the Conference for decision [by a two-thirds vote].” (Jenks, C. Wilfred, op. cit., p. 93).Google Scholar

^{page 358 note 2} In this connection see especially Jenks, , op. cit., pp. 95–105Google Scholar, Béguin, Bernard, ILO and the Tripartite System, International Conciliation, No. 523, 05 1959, pp. 405–426Google Scholar, and Lawyer, John E., Tripartitism in the International Labor Organization, unpublished manuscript prepared for a study group of the U.S. Government, 08 16, 1956.Google Scholar

^{page 358 note 3} Jenks, , op. cit., p. 104.Google Scholar See also Simpson, Smith, The International Labor Organization: Retrospect and Forecast, in: International Conciliation, No. 369, 1941, pp. 326–327.Google Scholar

^{page 359 note 1} International Labor Conference, 16th Session, Proceedings, 1932, p. 57.Google Scholar

^{page 359 note 2} Ibid., p. 59.

^{page 359 note 3} Minutes of the 77th Session of the Governing Body, 11 12–14, 1936, p. 96.Google Scholar

^{page 360 note 1} Minutes of the 78th Session of the Governing Body, 02 4–6, 1937, p. 75.Google Scholar The text of the Note appears on pp. 160–163. No further page citation to the Note will be made here.

^{page 362 note 1} Minutes of the 79th Session of the Governing Body, 05 6 to 8, 1957, p. 25.Google Scholar The published proceedings of Governing Body meetings carry very extensive summaries of the views expressed by speakers, and on occasion the summary is so complete that it borders on a verbatim stenographic record. Though the minutes are invariably written in the indirect form of speech, it is frequently feasible to cite from them in the form of direct quotations.

^{page 362 note 2} Ibid., p. 27.

^{page 362 note 3} Ibid., p. 28.

^{page 362 note 4} At the 3rd Session of the International Labor Conference in 1921 the Netherlands Federation of Trade Unions and the International Federation of Trade Unions filed an objection with the Credentials Committee questioning the procedure employed by the Netherlands Government in nominating the Netherlands Workers' Delegate. By unanimous action the Conference adopted a resolution submitted by the Credentials Committee inviting the Governing Body to request the Council of the League of Nations to obtain from the Permanent Court of International Justice an advisory opinion as to the propriety of the procedure employed by the Netherlands Government. The Court issued an opinion in 1922 which upheld the Government's action. (Permanent Court of International Justice, Series B No 1, pp. 9–27Google Scholar, cited in Jenks, Wilfred, op. cit., p. 96, note 15.)Google Scholar

^{page 363 note 1} Minutes of the 79th Session of the Governing Body, op. cit., p. 28.Google Scholar

^{page 363 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 363 note 3} Ibid., pp. 28 and 38.

^{page 363 note 4} Ibid., p. 29, Pierre Waline, a French employer delegate, who later became and still is a leading member of the Employers' Group in the Governing Body, took the occasion to defend the appointment of employers' association officials. (Ibid., pp. 30–31.) Although it was not at that time an important question, Jouhaux's argument was exhumed by the Soviet Union in the second half of the 1950's in response to employer attacks on the credentials of Russian employer delegates. See, for example, the remarks of Arutiunian, A. A., Soviet government delegate, in the Proceedings of the First European Regional Conference of the ILO, Geneva, 1956, p. 110 (in French).Google Scholar

^{page 364 note 1} Minutes of the 79th Session of the Governing Body, op. cit., p. 38.Google Scholar

^{page 364 note 2} Ibid., p. 30.

^{page 364 note 3} Ibid., pp. 39–40.

^{page 365 note 1} International Labor Conference, 23rd Session, Proceedings, 1937, Third Report of the Credentials Committee, p. 542.Google Scholar

^{page 365 note 2} Ibid., Seventh Report of the Credentials Committe, pp. 550–554. See also p. 362, note 4.

^{page 365 note 3} Ibid., p. 550. Emphasis supplied.

^{page 366 note 1} Ibid., pp. 468–469. A letter by Professor Markus briefly setting forth the position of the USSR appears on p. 554.

^{page 366 note 2} See p. 358, note 1.

^{page 366 note 3} See p. 356, note 1.

^{page 367 note 1} Minutes of the 81st Session of the Governing Body, 10 6–9, 1937, p. 16.Google Scholar The representative of the Soviet Union did not attend any further meetings of the Governing Body until the USSR left the ILO.

^{page 368 note 1} The first country to leave the ILO, and of course the League of Nations, was Nazi Germany (in 1933). Italy announced its withdrawal from the League and the ILO in December 1937, shortly before the crucial meeting of the Standing Orders Committee of the Governing Body. A number of Latin American countries announced their departure from the League system at about this time. Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay, and El Salvador coupled their withdrawal from the League with termination of membership in the ILO. More important countries, however, like Chile, Venezuela, Argentina, and Brazil decided to retain their ILO affiliation. (See ILO, Official Bulletin, Vol. 22(1937), p. 184; Vol. 23 (1938), pp. 103, 107, 125, 127).Google Scholar

^{page 368 note 2} Minutes of the Standing Orders Committee of the Governing Body, 01 31, 1938, p. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 368 note 3} Ibid., p. 6.

^{page 368 note 4} Ibid.

^{page 368 note 5} Ibid., p. 7.

^{page 369 note 1} Ibid., p. 10. In a communication of November 14, 1958, Professor Carter Goodrich of Columbia University, who served as U. S. Labor Commissioner in Geneva at that time and who represented the United States government on the Governing Body, wrote to the author: “Of the two workers you have voting for the motion, Mertens was particularly passionate in his anti-communism because his daughter had married a communist, and Schürch was Swiss and my recollection is that Switzerland and Russia had no diplomatic relations.”

^{page 369 note 2} Ibid., p. 12. Article 389 formed part of that portion of the Treaty of Versailles which established the International Labor Organization (Part XIII). Specifically, it laid down the rules governing representation at the Conference. For an analysis of the formal status and numbering system of the ILO Constitution see The Future Development of the Constitution and Constitutional Practice of the International Labor Organization: Memorandum by the Legal Adviser of the International Labor Office, in: [the ILO's] Official Bulletin, Vol. 27, No. 2 (1945), pp. 114–116.

^{page 369 note 3} Minutes of the 82nd Session of the Governing Body, February 3–5, 1938. Report of the Standing Orders Committee, Appendix I, p. 13, of the confidential minutes of the Fifth (Private) Sitting.

^{page 370 note 1} The matter was discussed at the Fifth (Private) Sitting of the Governing Body which dealt ostensibly with the report of the Finance Committee, an item invariably discussed in executive session. (See Minutes of the 82nd Session of the Governing Body, op. cit., p. 58.Google Scholar) But the full report of the Standing Orders Committee shows that the “question of the nomination of an employers' delegate by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” was discussed at this particular sitting. (Ibid., p. 72 and Appendix V, p. 123, footnote 1).

^{page 370 note 2} Minutes of the 82nd Session of the Governing Body, op. cit., Report of the Standing Orders Committee, Appendix I, p. 8 of the confidential minutes of the Fifth (Private) Sitting.

^{page 370 note 3} Loc. cit.

^{page 370 note 4} International Labor Conference, 24th Session, Proceedings, 1938, p. 468.Google Scholar The report, as drafted by the Office, was adopted by the Governing Body without comment. (See Minutes of the 83rd Session of the Governing Body, April 28–30, 1938, pp. 33 and 94–95.)Google Scholar

^{page 372 note 1} See p. 362, note 4.

^{page 373 note 1} See Phelan, E. J., Yes and Albert Thomas, New York, Columbia University Press, 1949, especially pp. 247–256.Google Scholar Cf. also Gillespie, John S., The Role of the Director in the Development of the International Labor Organization (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation), Columbia University, 1956Google Scholar; Simpson, Smith, op. cit., pp. 321–322Google Scholar; and Goodrich, Carter, The ILO: A Going Concern, in: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 246, 07 1946, pp. 114–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 374 note 1} See p. 366, note 1.