Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:37:05.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Classification of International Organizations, I

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Pitman B. Potter
Pitman B. Potter
Affiliation:
Institut Universitaire de Hautes Études Internationales, Geneva
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Classification is regarded by some as a very elementary and a very barren scientific device or method. For those who attach most importance to applied science, and to the achievement of practical ends, classification seems a dry and futile procedure. For those likewise who insist upon the importance of moral standards and purposes, the brutally empirical inductive process of classification seems inhuman, possibly even anti-social.

That classification is an elementary task of science, in the sense of occurring early in the whole scientific process, no one could deny, albeit only some one who has had immediate and serious experience in classification can appreciate the advanced problems, both of theory and of application, which can be encountered therein. From the point of view of human interest, something would depend upon what is being classified, whether pearls or potatoes, for example, although it would seem to be an implied tenet of pure science that no knowledge of the universe is without value and that we are not able to say beforehand how important a given piece of knowledge will turn out to be.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , April 1935 , pp. 212 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1935

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Jessup, P. C., in American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 4 (October, 1932), p. 910CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Responsibility for the confusion prevailing in the field must be shared with the scientists by the practitioners, who have been even more muddle-headed than the former in their thoughts about these matters.

3 On these matters, see brief discussion in Mower, E. C., International Government (1931), p. 3Google Scholar.

4 League of Nations, Handbook of International Organizations, 1929Google Scholar. A supplement to the Handbook was published in 1931, and there is published every three months a Quarterly Bulletin of Information on the Work of International Organizations. These are to be understood as forming part of the material in the Handbook, although the Quarterly Bulletin gives little data on the official organizations or, particularly, upon their organization (for the distinction between the official and unofficial organizations, see below, near note 45).

5 In League of Nations, Monthly Summary, Vol. XIV, No. 2 (February, 1934), p. 49Google Scholar.

6 In League of Nations, Official Journal, XIV Year, No. 10, Part II (October, 1933), p. 1259Google Scholar.

7 In same, p. 1280.

8 Such as the budget of the League, in same, p. 1188, and the staff list of the Registry of the Permanent Court of International Justice, in Ninth Annual Report of the Permanent Court of International Justice (Publications of the Permanent Court of International Justice, Series E, No. 9), pp. 2–34.

9 They are, of course, intentionally omitted (for reasons given in Handbook, p. 5), but the result on the picture of existing international organizations is none the less striking.

10 Handbook, p. 9. See also discussion below, near note 75.

11 Handbook, p. 9.

12 For further discussion of the relation between the factual and legal elements of the situation, see below, note 54. By the definition given, we are in effect discussing here no less general a phenomenon than international federation, an element of which is present in all international organization. This aspect of the situation will not, however, be stressed. The whole concept might be summed up in the following chart:

13 For an example of a union professing to be formed primarily for the support of a principle, see the so-called Holy Alliance (of 1815): British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. III, p. 211Google Scholar. The way in which this position resulted in overt action is well known.

14 This problem has been very acute recently in connection with the personnel of the League assigned to administrative work. See League of Nations, Official Journal, Special Supplement No. 88, p. 51Google Scholar, etc. On the problem in general, see Hill, N. L., International Administration (1931), p. 201Google Scholar. One type of union of states, the alliance, traditionally possesses no common agency for its operation. For this and other reasons, we shall hear no more of this particular form of international federation here.

15 Thus, a stipulation of identity not lived up to in practice would not produce identity nor an identity of participants in two distinct legal systems. The mere fact that the same states belong to two unions is not decisive if they belong under distinct legal documents which define distinct memberships. Identity of subject-matter would count still less.

16 For example, the Assembly of the League of Nations is used by the League, the Labor Organization, and the union of the Permanent Court of International Justice for acting upon budget, elections, etc.

17 For examples of such legalistic treatment, see Fachiri, A. P., Permanent Court of International Justice (2nd ed., 1932)Google Scholar. This is to be distinguished from treatment of the legalistic aspect of international unions as, frankly, but one aspect thereof, as in Ray, J., Commentaire du Pacte de la Société des Nations (1930)Google Scholar.

18 Such was the situation of the Pan-American Union prior to 1928. See United States Department of State, Report of the Delegates of the United States to the Sixth International Conference of American States (1928), pp. 3–8Google Scholar; such, for that matter, is the situation still, failing ratification of the Convention of 1928.

19 Such seems to be true of the League today. See amount of space given in Schticking, W. and Wehberg, H., Satzung des Völkerbundes (3rd ed., 1931)Google Scholar, to League activities beyond the strict terms of the Covenant.

20 See the “admission” of Germany and other states to the International Labor Organization in 1919. Société des Nations, Conférence Internationale du Travail, Premiere Session Annuelle, 1920, pp. 15, 21, 25Google Scholar.

21 For the most notable case, of course, see Hubbard, U. P., Coöperation of the United States with the League of Nations (1931)Google Scholar.

22 On inactivity of some League member-states, see Kelchner, W. H., Latin American Relations with the League of Nations (1929), p. 138Google Scholar.

23 Thus Germany as a member-state of the League is a very different juristic entity from Germany as a member-state of the Universal Postal Union.

24 See provisions for predominant membership or control in the League (Covenant, Art. IV) and the International Labor Organization (Constitution, Art. 393).

25 See provisions in the International Institute of Agriculture Convention (Art. X) and the provisions or facts concerning support of the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law, the International Educational Cinematographic Institute, and the International Institute of Intellectual Coöperation, in Handbook, pp. 39 and 76Google Scholar, and League budget for 1933 (as cited above, note 8), p. 1258.

26 Hyde, C. C., International Law (1922), §794Google Scholar.

27 Labor Organization Constitution, Art. 387.

28 There being no provision in the Labor Constitution for selection of members. See abcwe, note 20.

29 A. matter on which there has aa yet been given no definite opinion. See Hudson, M. O., “Opinion on Membership in the Labor Organization,” in document cited above (note 20), p. 211Google Scholar.

30 On membership, see League of Nations, Official Journal, Special Supplement January, 1921, pp. 12, 15Google Scholar.

31 Same, p. 14.

32 Same, p. 13.

33 See structural details in document cited above (note 5), pp. 50–56.

34 Document, as cited above (note 5), p. 49.

35 Documents cited above (note 6–8).

36 Guggenheim, P., Der Völkerbund (1932), pp. 60, 211, 272–273Google Scholar.

37 League of Nations, Assembly, Records, Plenary, 1925, pp. 52, 54Google Scholar, and 1926, p. 52.

38 Permanent Court of International Justice, Publications, Series D., No. 1, pp. 6, 7Google Scholar.

39 Brazil; same, Series E., No. 8, pp. 45, 49.

40 Argentina, Guatemala, Honduras, Liberia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru.

41 American Society of International Law, Proceedings, 1931, p. 90Google Scholar.

42 Pan American Union, Bulletin, April, 1930, April, 1931, April, 1932Google Scholar (items by the director-general, Dr. L. S. Rowe).

43 Though not in its activity; thus a French school located in France but drawing students in part from Italy would hardly rank as an international organization.

44 The question of whether a “private” organization operating for pecuniary profit should be included also arises. The fact that the organization earns, or even seeks to earn, a financial profit seems to affect the situation in no way, any more than operation at a loss would do. Various international organizations receive some pecuniary returns, even though these are exceeded by their expenses.

45 Understanding by “state” an organized group of individuals over which no other such group has authority not legally defeasible by the former at its discretion on the ground of self-preservation.

46 It should be added that the unofficial organizations are not envisaged by Art. XXIV of the Covenant, relating to the unification of external organizations with the League; nor was the International Bureaux Section at first expected to deal with such organizations. That the Section turned to these organizations, and that they now fill nineteen-twentieths of the space in the Handbook, is attributable to their quantitative, if not qualitative, importance, and to a decision taken in 1921 in recognition of this fact. League of Nations, Official Journal, II Year, No. 2 (March, 1921), p. 177Google Scholar.

47 There exist, of course, a number of organizations wherein the elements are mixed. Private organizations receive official approval, and even financial support. Governments participate in what thus become semi-official organizations. Public officials form organizations as—so to speak—individuals interested in certain work (police work, legislation). See Handbook, pp. 143, 177–178, 37–38, 16. The classification of certain specific organizations might be very difficult, but it would seem that the facts are not such as to alter the general principles set forth above.

48 See above, note 46.

49 Compare the International Joint Commission maintained by the United States and Canada. United States Department of State, Register, 1932, p. 283Google Scholar.

50 See the International Water Commission, United States and Mexico, in same, p. 285.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.