1922 Encyclopædia Britannica/International Labour Organization

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION.—An important part of the scheme for a League of Nations embodied in the Peace Treaty of Versailles in 1919 involved the creation of a new International Labour Organization. The Labour part of the Treaty (Part XIII.) rested on the principle laid down in its preamble that there can be no social peace which is not based on social justice. It represented the aspiration which moved all classes to carry over into peace the community of sentiment and of action which had held them together during the dark hours of the World War.

Aiming therefore at the promotion of social peace, the International Labour Organization was founded on two main beliefs—the belief that there must be international coöperation in the industrial sphere, if suicidal competition, leading to much human misery, and perhaps to fresh wars, was to be avoided, and the belief that such coöperation must be based on the collaboration between the State, Capital and Labour. The organization was therefore to consist of all the states forming the League of Nations, who were to meet annually in conference and draw up international agreements for regulating and improving industrial conditions. By raising the standard of living and the lot of the

worker everywhere, the worst evils of commercial rivalry, and the penalty which it had hitherto imposed on progressive social legislation, could be gradually removed. This could only be done by international agreements having the force of treaties. Under the provisions of Article 405 of the Treaty these agreements are cast in the form of &ldquo;draft conventions&rdquo; and &ldquo;recommendations,&rdquo; which each State is bound to lay before its legislative or other authorities within a maximum period of eighteen months. Special provision is made to meet the case of federal constitutions, such as those of Canada, Australia and the United States, where labour legislation is not within the competence of the federal authority, but is a matter for the individual states or provinces. There were some who took part in the Paris negotiations and who wished to go further. They advocated that the Conference should be vested with the powers of a super-parliament, whose decisions should be immediately binding; but finally the more modest proposal of the British delegation, who put forward the scheme, was adopted, and it was left to the sovereign power in each state to accept or reject the proposals adopted by the conference. The constitution as defined by the Treaty provides therefore that the final decision rests with the government or parliament of each country. Once its approval is given to a draft convention, the formal ratification is conveyed to the secretary-general of the League, and the enforcement of its provisions becomes a treaty obligation.

This procedure is, apart from the imposition of a time-limit, not essentially different from the usual procedure followed by diplomatic conferences before the war, but when the composition of the International Labour Conference is considered, several marked departures from precedent will be observed. In the past governments alone took part in international discussions which were to result in creating international obligations. This meant that the delegates were tied down to carrying out their official instructions, and that mutual concession must be carried to the point where virtual unanimity was reached, if any practical consequences were to follow. The constitution of the International Labour Conference broke away from the diplomatic tradition. It provided for four delegates from each country, two only representing the government, the other two being chosen in agreement with the most representative organizations of employers and of workers in each country. The reason for this innovation is not far to seek. In discussing labour problems it is impossible to ignore the great employers' associations and trade unions, which are primarily interested and which are the controlling factors in modern industry. Once unofficial delegates were admitted, it followed as a necessary corollary that each national delegation could not be expected to act as a whole, but that its members must be free to speak and vote as they pleased. Hence it was no longer possible to look for unanimity, and it was accordingly provided that a draft convention or recommendation must be carried by a two-thirds majority, but that once so carried, its consideration (though not its adoption) became obligatory on the governments, whether their representatives had voted for it or not. By this means international public opinion could exert its influence even in countries which might be unwilling to accept the standards of the majority.

One further point requires brief notice. During the original discussions in Paris there was considerable division of opinion on the question whether the governments should have one vote or two. It was argued from the Labour point of view that the double vote would place the workers in a hopeless minority, and reduce them to impotence against the three votes exercised by the governments and the employers. On the other side, it was pointed out that not only was it probable that the official delegates would be as often on the side of the workers as on that of the employers, but that on the equal voting system the latter would with the assistance of a single government be able to block any proposal. Moreover, unless the majority of the governments accepted a draft convention, there was small likelihood of its being ratified, and this in itself justified their larger voting power. The subsequent experience of the Washington and Genoa conferences may be held to have justified these contentions.

Supposing then that a convention has been duly ratified by a number of states, what guarantee is there that it will be enforced? Clearly unequal enforcement would largely destroy its value, and would penalise the countries which had acted up to their obligations. To meet this contingency the Treaty provided that where a state failed to carry out its obligations after having its attention drawn to the matter, the governing body of the International Labour Office might, if it saw fit, appoint a commission of inquiry. If the commission's report was unfavourable and the state in question still refused to remove the cause of complaint, the matter could be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice, who would issue a final judgment and might suggest the adoption of the appropriate economic penalties against the defaulting country. In practice it may be held highly improbable that it would ever be necessary to go to such lengths, but this attempt to provide an effective sanction for international engagements is not without interest.

International Labour Office.—As regards the development of the International Labour Office itself, its early months were largely occupied in recruiting and training the staff necessary to carry out its numerous duties. They were gradually drawn together from different countries, and in spite of the variety of language and tradition had at the end of six months attained a degree of unity and cohesion, which enabled the work of the office to reach a very reasonable standard of efficiency and its publication to commence. To the diplomatic and scientific divisions a number of small technical sections were attached, manned by specialists in the problems they were appointed to handle. These sections dealt with unemployment and emigration, agricultural questions, seamen's questions, industrial health, social insurance, including the rehabilitation of men disabled in industry or in war, and coöperation. A further special section was formed to study the social aspects of the Russian revolution in consequence of a decision of the governing body to send a mixed commission of inquiry to ascertain the industrial conditions under the Soviet régime. Owing to the refusal of the Bolshevik Government to admit them, the commission never carried out their mission, but the Russian section which had been formed to prepare the way for their inquiry succeeded in collecting a great deal of first-hand evidence, which had not been previously got together. The section made a scientific analysis of the data thus obtained, and produced the first attempt to give an objective account of the Bolshevik industrial system under the title of &ldquo;Labour Conditions in Soviet Russia.&rdquo;

Finally a small section was formed to carry out the inquiry into production, which was decided upon by the governing body on the motion of the employers' representatives. The object of this inquiry was to ascertain, if possible, how far the diminution of production was due to the shortening of hours of work, the physical and moral exhaustion produced by the war, or to other causes affecting the output of the individual worker, or how far it was due to deeper economic causes produced by the generally chaotic conditions in which the war had left the machinery for the production and exchange of goods all over the world. To attempt to obtain a clear view of a subject of such complexity was in itself a vast undertaking, but in response to the questionnaire which was sent out in twelve languages to the governments, employers' organizations and the trade unions, a great deal of valuable information about the conditions affecting production in all countries had already been obtained in 1921.

After six months' work in London, the Office was transferred to Switzerland. The Treaty required it to be established at the seat of the League of Nations, and though the secretariat of the League was still in London, the governing body decided for reasons of convenience to transfer the office somewhat earlier to Geneva,

which was designated as the future home of the League. Consequently in July 1920, immediately after the close of the Genoa conference, the International Labour Office settled down in its new quarters. After three months' breathing space, it was called upon to take its part in the work of the first assembly of the League. The constitutional relationship between the Labour Organization and the League was generally defined in the Treaty, though some points were not free from ambiguity. The International Labour Office is &ldquo;part of the organization of the League&rdquo; and is &ldquo;entitled to the assistance of the secretary-general in any matter in which it can be given&rdquo;; but it is not subject to the control of the council of the League, nor is the Labour Organization as a whole in any way dependent upon or subordinated to the assembly, except in the important matter of finance. Unlike the other technical organizations of the League, such as the health or transit organizations, the Labour Organization does not submit its decisions to the council for approval and its agenda are settled not by the council but by its own governing body. Save in the matter of finance, it is an autonomous body attached to the League by ties of common interest rather than by constitutional bonds; in fact, it is a sort of self-governing dominion. The financial link is, however, naturally one of great importance, since money questions are not less vital in international than in national affairs. Hence when the budget of the League was considered by the assembly, the finances of the Labour Organization, which form part of it, also came under review.

Internationalism.—There is one other task which lies upon the International Labour Organization and which goes to the rooi of its existence—the creation of an international spirit. Unless that spirit can be born and fostered, neither the League of Nations nor any institution connected with it can hope to survive. It is not a question of paying lip-service to catch-words, of realizing &ldquo;the brotherhood of man,&rdquo; of reviving in the 20th century the picturesque but shadowy idealism of Rousseau. To create a true international spirit it is necessary to begin practically and prosaically at the bottom instead of presumptuously and poetically at the top. The first and most elementary lesson consists of the inculcation of the fact that there are more links, economic, social and human, which bind nations together than there are divergent interests and antagonistic aims which pull them asunder. It is not an easy lesson to learn. The nationalistic impulse in a people is almost as deep-rooted and instinctive as the egoistic impulse in the individual. But just as men cannot live without working with and for their fellow-men in society, so nations cannot exist without coöperating with other nations. Because, however, the nation, being the larger unit, is more nearly self-sufficient than the individual, national public opinion is slow to realize its dependence on others and is apt to believe its national self-sufficiency far more complete than in the modern world it can possibly be. Internationalism is not the antithesis of nationalism, but its complement. Properly understood, it does not mean the emasculation of the national spirit, which represents the embodiment of the ideals, the traditions and the virtues built up during many generations of common national effort. On the contrary, it means the pooling of the spiritual resources of all nations in order to make their intercourse more fruitful and to bring the society of which they are all members to a higher level of prosperity and civilization. To achieve such a result public opinion needs to possess an international as well as a national consciousness. It must acquire a world point-of-view, a Weltanschauung, as a corrective and an enlargement of its national standpoint. Instead of regarding the foreigner with instinctive mistrust, if not with sub-conscious aversion, it will then realize that in most respects he is remarkably similar, that he is grappling with similar problems, faced by similar needs, the victim of similar economic disabilities, which everyone can meet more successfully by working together to find the right solution than by working alone without each other's experience.

(H. B. B.)