French and other continental parliaments, In addition, a very important part is played by the Selection Committee, the business executive of the Conference, whose functions may be compared with the Rules Committee of the United States Congress, although the powers of the Selection Committee are wider. The Draft Convention or Recommendation, as finally adopted by the Conference, is thus a genuine international instrument, not only in conception, but through all its long gestation, until its birth into the world of international labour legislation.

We now pass to the second of the two organs of the International Labour Organisation, viz. the Office. In what sense is it international? In Part XIII of the Treaty the functions and character of the International Labour Office are not defined in any detail. From our present standpoint the most notable provisions are that the Director of the Office is instructed in recruiting the staff to select, so far as is possible with due regard to the efficiency of the work of the Office, persons of different nationalities;* and that the functions of the Office include the collection and distribution of information on all subjects relating to the international adjustment of conditions of industrial life and labour, and the preparation of the agenda of the Conference. Finally, the important provision is included that the Government Departments of any of its Members which deal with questions of industry and employment may communicate directly with the Director through the Representative of their Government on the Governing Body of the International Labour Office, or failing any such representative, through such other qualified official as the Government may nominate for this purpose.‡

It might at first sight be considered that the internationalism of the Office is ensured by the provision that the staff must contain members of different nationalities. A moment's reflexion will, however, be sufficient to show that it would be quite possible to have an Office, containing members of several different nationalties, which would be in no real sense international, but would be merely a collocation of national offices in physical juxtaposition. That such a conception † Article 396. Article 397.

* Article 395.

is not fanciful may be shown by reference to the organisation of the Allied Maritime Transport Council in the last year of the war. That was an 'international' body, consisting of representatives of four nationalities, British, French, Italian, and American. The permanent staff of the Council, resident in London, was organised in four National Divisions, each of which was directly responsible to the national representatives on the Council or the Executive. Each Division was a separate Division with its own confidential correspondence and separate communication with its own Government.'* It is clear that such a system of organisation, in spite of the fact that members of different nationalities are employed, is not in any real sense international. Mere physical juxtaposition does not create the international spirit.

In the International Labour Office, on the contrary, the organisation is strictly international. In the first place, members of the staff are in a certain sense nonnational. This does not mean that they are denationalised. They retain, as persons, their own nationality, with all its rights and duties. They have the right, as private individuals, to their national convictions and even to their national prejudices. It has even been officially recognised that it is desirable that they should not lose contact with their own countries. Thus the Commission of Experts which formulated in May 1921 the conditions of service of members of the Office and the League, expressed the opinion that 'it is obviously desirable that members of an international staff should be encouraged not to cut themselves adrift from their own nations.'†

In their official work, however, members of the staff of the Office are essentially non-national. They are engaged by and paid by an international body, on a uniform basis. From their position as members of an international body they acquire certain rights, such as diplomatic immunities, which belong to them not as nationals of any particular country, but uniquely qua international public servants. The positions assigned to them in the Office are assigned not in virtue of nationality but in virtue of their personal experience,

training, and fitness for the particular post. Although
the national understanding and experience possessed
by the members of the various nationalities represented
in the Office staff may be, and is, of value in facili-
tating relations between the Office and their countries,
their primary duty is to consult the interests of the
Office, irrespective of any possible conflict of interests
which may arise between the Office and the particular
State of which they may be nationals. This cardinal
principle is, indeed, clearly stated in Article I of the
Staff Regulations to which all members of the staff are
subject:

'Members of the Staff of the International Labour Office
are responsible in the execution of their duties to the Director
alone. They may not consider themselves as representing
their respective countries, nor seek or receive instructions
from any national authority in regard to the execution of
their duties.'

To say, however, that members of the staff are nonnational in the performance of their duties is to employ a negative conception. But internationalism is not negative. Members of the staff of the Office may and do acquire a positive spirit of internationalism, and that in two ways. In the first place, by constant association with members of other nationalities, in the Office and in hours of leisure, they acquire an understanding of the qualities of other nationalities and a sympathy with their aims and aspirations. Admiration has frequently been expressed for the harmony and mutual comprehension which mark the proceedings of international conferences when delegates of various countries, meeting for two or three weeks, reach international agreements. Much more wonderful is the reciprocal sympathy and understanding which are gradually developed in the members of an international staff, working together day after day amid all the little annoyances incidental to the routine of administration.

But something more than this is involved in the positive international spirit which is developed in the members of the staff. It shows itself in a gradually increasing devotion and love for the institution of which they are members. The International Labour Office,

1

with the high ideals which were given to it in the Peace Treaty, has shown itself capable of inspiring in its servants that loyalty which is the breath of nationalism and that synoptic vision which is the heritage of the citizen of the world.

In this sense, then, each individual member of the International Labour Office may be regarded as having developed, or as being capable of developing, an 'international mind,' or perhaps it would be better to say an international spirit, because 'mind' is too narrow a term to express the completeness of the internationalism which can be developed in a genuinely international organism. Mind,' the cognitive aspect of the 'spirit,' is too narrow a category to embrace all its richness. It includes also the will and the emotions, or, to speak more exactly, conative and feeling aspects. And the international mind is characterised by a specific attitude in each of these aspects. Qua mind it is synoptic, qua will it is synthetic, and qua feeling it is sympathetic. The international spirit, as developed in the International Labour Office, seeks as synoptic to see together the varying conditions and diverse circumstances of industrial life and labour with a view to the formulation of international labour legislation on a basis which, while allowing for national differences, will make possible social progress on uniform lines throughout the world. As sympathetic it seeks to feel together the 'injustice, hardship, and privation' which exist, to sense the aspirations often dim and the ambitions often vague which stir in the hearts of the world of labour. As synthetic the same spirit seeks to encourage the will to overcome the conflicts of interests which stand in the way of the realisation of international social justice.

The last feature of the constitution of the Office of special interest from the standpoint of internationalism is the principle of personal and expert contact involved in its relations with national government departments. Article 397 has already been quoted. It stipulates that the labour departments of the various countries may communicate directly with the Director of the Office. The importance of this provision in the interest of the development of internationalism cannot be overestimated. Without this article, all communications between

the Director of the Office and the Labour Ministry of a particular country would probably have had to pass through the Secretariat of the League and the Foreign Office of the State concerned. The result would probably have been, as Sir Arthur Salter has said in another connexion, that 'the question asked by the specialist— and the answer of the corresponding specialist—would be transmitted and perhaps transmuted by two sets of necessarily non-specialised brains and pens.' Add to possible transmutation delays in transmission and the whole machinery would become so complicated that any genuine international personal contact would become practically impossible. Fortunately, however, the Treaty, profiting by the lessons learned in inter-allied co-operation during the war, provided as we have seen that the International Labour Office should be in direct and personal contact with the specialised Government departments in the various countries. The philosophical significance of this far transcends in its wide implications the immediate practical advantages it conferred.

The type of international administration in which the International Labour Organisation is engaged renders indispensable direct contact with the centres of influence and executive authority in the various States Members. We have already seen that the Organisation possesses no supra-sovereign power. It can influence labour conditions in a particular country only through the governments of these countries. It must, therefore, work through the executive organisations of the various national governments. Draft Conventions have no direct effect on conditions of labour until they are ratified and applied by the governments of individual countries. And the Office may contribute to encourage the adoption of the necessary measures. This influence is exerted by bringing to bear on the centres of national power the moral authority derived from the participation in its work of 56 sovereign states with all the force of their public opinion.

But such influence cannot be readily exerted, if it is communicated, in writing, through circuitous channels and in administrative phraseology. Direct personal contact is essential. In this way, not only can the

* Allied Shipping Control,' p. 251.