Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-76l5x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-06T03:25:35.169Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ussr and Ilo

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Harold Karan Jacobson
Get access

Extract

In 1954, just twenty years after first becoming a member, the Soviet Union rejoined the International Labor Organization (ILO). This step was a sharp reversal of the USSR's past policy. The Soviet Union had boycotted ILO since 1937, three years before its initial membership was terminated as a consequence of its expulsion from the League of Nations, and during much of this time it conducted a bitter attack against the agency. The Soviet Union's re-entry may also have marked a turning point for the International Labor Organization. One of the oldest specialized agencies, ILO had developed a tradition of technical work for which it had won wide renown. Some feared that the Soviet Union's re-entry was likely to upset this tradition; others felt that the Organization's wider and more nearly universal membership would provide new strength and vitality. Although the full implications of the USSR's resumed membership in ILO cannot yet be seen, sufficient time has elapsed to warrant a critical examination of Soviet policy in this specialized agency and of the reactions of other states. Perhaps clues can be seen to the motivations for the shift in the USSR's attitude, preliminary estimates made of the success of Soviet policies, and tentative judgments offered about the over-all effects on ILO.

Type
Articles
Information
International Organization , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , Summer 1960 , pp. 402 - 428
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1960

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 Article 19, paragraph 7, and Article 35 of the ILO Convention, respectively.

2 See Landy, E. A., “The Effective Application of International Labour Standards,” International Labour Review, 10–11 1953 (Vol. 68, Nos. 4–5). P. 346–363Google Scholar.

3 For three semi-official evaluations see: Valticos, Nicolas, “The Influence of International Labour Conventions on Greek Legislation,” International Labour Review, 06 1955 (Vol. 71, No. 6), p. 593–615Google Scholar; V. K. R. Menon, “The Influence of International Labour Conventions on Indian Labour Legislation,” ibid., June 1956 (Vol. 73, No. 6), p. 551–571; and Alexandre Berenstein, “The Influence of International Labour Conventions on Swiss Legislation,” ibid., June 1958 (Vol. 77, No. 6), p. 495–518.

4 This system is described by Béguin, Bernard, in “ILO and the Tripartite System,” International Conciliation 05 1959 (No. 523), p. 405–448Google Scholar.

5 ILO, on the other hand, during this period viewed the Soviet Union with curiosity and interest. In 1920 it evolved a plan, which never reached fruition, to send a commission of inquiry to the USSR to report on industrial conditions there. Four years later the Conference adopted a resolution asking the Governing Body to seek to enter into relations with the Soviet government by whatever means it considered appropriate, and in 1928 Albert Thomas, the first Director-General, visited Moscow. A special section was developed in the International Labor Office to analyze conditions in the Soviet Union.

6 United Nations Conference on International Organization, Documents, Vol. 10, p. 40, 171Google Scholar. See also Russell, Ruth B., assisted by Muther, Jeannette E., A History of the United Nations Charter: The Role of the United States, 1940–194), Washington, D. C., The Brookings Institution, 1958, p. 798–800Google Scholar.

7 UN General Assembly Official Records (1st session, 2d part). Joint 2d and 3d Committee, p. 41–42, 57–58Google Scholar; and ibid., 6th Committee, p. 135–150.

8 See UN Document E/973.

9 ILO Official Bulletin, 12 31, 1954 (Vol. 37, No. 7). p. 229Google Scholar.

10 In 1960 the allocation of EPTA funds is as follows: UN—$7,160,753; ILO—$3,393,374; FAO—$8,526,339; UNESCO—$4,860,645; ICAO—$1,370,544; WHO— $5,494,936; ITU—$384,082; WMO—$411,646; IAEA—$638,760. Significantly, after 1953 the Soviet Union joined or rejoined three of the four specialized agencies receiving the greatest allocations, ILO, UNESCO, and WHO.

11 See Jacobson, Harold Karan, “Labor, the UN and the Cold War,” International Organization, Winter 1957 (Vol. 11, No. 1), p. 55–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 ECOSOC Official Records (16th session). Supplement No. 13, “Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Forced Labor”; also reproduced as UN Document E/2431.

13 ILO Conference, Record of Proceedings, 1954 (37th session), p. 291. The Chamber of Commerce of the United States entitled its report on the 1954 Conference, “Communists Infiltrate I.L.O.—A Challenge to Free Employers,” Labor Relations Letter, July 1954 (Supplement to Issue No. 12s).

14 ILO Conference, Report 11 (I), 1946 (29th session), “Constitutional Questions,” p. 95.

15 The latter challenge was rejected, and the former, because of the USSR's withdrawal from ILO, was never pressed to a conclusion.

16 See the third and fourth reports of the Credentials Committee, ILO Conference, Record of Proceedings, 1954 (37th session), p. 432–443.

17 ILO Governing Body, Minutes, November 1954 (127th session), p. 125.

18 ILO, “Report of the Committee on Freedom of Employers' and Workers' Organizations,” Official Bulletin, 1956 (Vol. 39, No. 9), p. 475–599Google Scholar. For the individual country monographs, see ILO Document GB 131/7/8, Appendices.

19 Member states generally send delegations with special competence. Traditionally, a high proportion of the worker delegates belongs to seafarers' organizations affiliated with the International Transportworkers' Federation.

20 Ironically, one of the first suggestions for some provision of this nature was made by the employers' group in 1925. It was advanced to meet the situation brought about by the refusal of the workers' group to nominate worker delegates from fascist Italy to the committees. Article 9 (d) was the final solution to that problem. It was adopted in 1932 with the support of the employers, but over the objections of the workers, who claimed it violated the principle of group autonomy. Worker delegates' bitterness about the employers' role in this dispute may have played a minor part in the recent controversy.

21 ILO Conference, Record of Proceedings, 1958 (42d session), p. 125.

22 ILO Conference, Provisional Record, 1959 (43d session), p. 125.

23 ILO Document GB 141/P.V. VI. p. 6–7.

24 The USSR employer delegates have been: N. I. Krestov, Director, “Dinamo” Plant (37th Conference); E. I. Borisov, Director, “Vladimir Ilich,” Electro-Technical Works (38th Conference); G. A. Surguchev, Director, “Red Proletarian” Machine Tools Plant (39th, 40th, 42d and 43d Conferences); and M. D. K. O. Ragimov, Director, Caspian Sea Shipping Company (41st Conference, Maritime).

25 Actually, there have been two representation issues involving Hungary. The first occurred in 1954 and 1955. when Hungary requested waiver of the Constitutional requirement that it be denied the right to vote because it was more than two years in arrears in its dues payments. These requests were denied. Similar requests from the Republic of China were granted at those sessions and have been subsequently. Soviet delegates angrily protested what they termed discriminatory treatment.

26 See the statements of Goroshkin, Ivan V., USSR government delegate, ILO Conference, Record of Proceedings, 1957 (40th session), p. 486–487Google Scholar; ibid., 1958 (42d session), p. 504–505; and Provisional Record, 1959 (43d session), p. 473–474.

27 ILO Conference, Provisional Record, 1959 (43d session), p. 495–496.

28 For an enlightening account of this pattern see: Phelan, E. J., Yes and Albert Thomas, London, The Cresset Press, Ltd., 1936, p. 244–257Google Scholar.

29 For an overview of the issues involved see: Morse, David A., “The International Labor Organization in a Changing World,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 03 1957 (Vol. 310), p. 31–38Google Scholar. See also his report to the Fortysecond Conference: ILO Conference, Report I, 1958 (42d session), “The I.L.O. in a Changing World.”

30 See the USSR government representatives' statements: ILO Conference, Record of Proceedings, 1958 (42d Conference), p. 46–48; and ILO Document GB 143/P.V. II, p. 6–8.

31 For example, Bulgaria, which has ratified 68 conventions. See the Bulgarian government delegate's speech: ILO Conference, Record oj Proceedings, 1958 (42d Conference), p. 200–202Google Scholar.

32 ILO Conference, Record of Proceedings, 1958 (42d session), p. 655Google Scholar; ILO Document GB 140/P.V. V, p. 5, and ILO Conference, Provisional Record, 1959 (43d session), No. 26, p. vii–viiiGoogle Scholar.

33 For a detailed description of ILO's work in this field see: Jenks, C. Wilfred, The International Proteclion of Trade Union Freedom, New York, Frederick A. Praeger, 1957Google Scholar.

34 ILO Conference, Record of Proceedings, 1955 (38th session), p. 539–541Google Scholar.

35 ILO Conference, Record of Proceedings, 1957 (40th session), p. 601Google Scholar.

36 ILO Conference, Record of Proceedings, 1955 (38th session), p. 693–694Google Scholar.

37 ILO Conference, Record of Proceedings, 1957 (40th session), p. 601–602Google Scholar.

38 ILO Official Bulletin, 1956 (Vol. 39, No. 4), p. 211–307Google Scholar; and ibid., 1958 (Vol. 41, No. 3), p. 228–240. Roberto Ago served as Chairman of the Committee when the first report was submitted, and Paul Ramadier, when the second was.

39 See ILO, Trade Union Rights in the U.S.S.R., Geneva, 1959Google Scholar.

40 See: ILO Conference, Report III (Part IV), 1959 (43d session)Google Scholar, “Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations,” p. 46, 49–51; and ILO Conference, Provisional Record, 1959 (43d session), No. 26, p. xxiii-xxiv, xliiiGoogle Scholar.

41 ILO Governing Body, Minutes, 03 1958 (138th session), p. 66Google Scholar.

42 ILO Governing Body, Minutes, 05 and 06 1955 (129th session), p. 48Google Scholar.

43 ILO Documents GB 152/4/1 and GB 137/5/4.

44 Its reply to the Office's questionnaire was an early step in this campaign. See: ILO Conference Report VI (2), 1956 (39th session)Google Scholar, “Forced Labor,” passim.

45 See: ILO Conference, Record of Proceedings, 1956 (39th session)Google Scholar, Appendix IX (3), “Report of the Committee on Forced Labour,” p. 721–725; and ibid., 1957 (40th session), Appendix VII (4), “Report of the Committee on Forced Labour,” p. 708–711.

46 ILO Conference, Record of Proceedings, 1956 (39th session), p. 725Google Scholar.

47 The United States proposed that a new paragraph should be added prohibiting international trade in goods produced by forced labor and that states should have the option of either ratifying the whole convention or the section dealing with internal matters or that dealing with international trade. See: ILO Conference, Record of Proceedings, 1956 (39th session), p. 724Google Scholar. For background on the United States position, see The New York Times, January 28, 1956. Editorially (February 7, 1956) the Times called the American position “absurd and untenable.”

48 ILO Document GB 142/6/1, p. 14–16.

49 ILO Conference, Record of Proceedings, 1955 (38th session), p. 541–542Google Scholar.

50 See: ILO Conference, Record of Proceedings, 1957 (40th session), Appendix X (3)Google Scholar, “Report of the Committee on Discrimination,” p. 741—747; and ibid., 1958 (42d session), Appendix VI (4), “Report of the Committee on Discrimination,” p. 709–715.

51 ILO Conference, Record of Proceedings, 1956 (39th session), p. 592Google Scholar; and ibid., 1958 (42c) session), p. 591.

52 ILO Conference, Record of Proceedings, 1956 (39th session), p. 594Google Scholar; ibid., 1957 (40th session), p. 605; ibid., 1958 (41st session), p. 215; and ibid., 1958 (42d session), p. 595.

53 For a sample of this see the Director-General's report on “Improvement of the Practical Methods of Working of the International Labor Conference,” in ILO Governing Body, Minutes, October and 11 1957 (137th session), p. £120–144Google Scholar.

54 For a general treatment of United States policy concerning the International Labor Organization see: Tipton, John B., Participation of the United States in the International Labor Organization, Urbana, University of Illinois, Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, 1959Google Scholar.

55 The work of a special committee appointed by the Departments of State, Commerce, and Labor and headed by Joseph E. Johnson was instrumental in achieving this change. See the Committee's recommendations: “The United States and the International Labor Organization,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 03 1957 (Vol. 310), p. 182–195Google Scholar.