Reinsch explains that ‘changes in the convention necessitate diplomatic action, and require, therefore, greater formality as well as more extensive deliberation The presence o f diplomatic

representatives is always necessary when a convention is to be changed. Changes in the reglement may

be made by technical delegates’, (ibid., p. 30).

A t the outset, the Unions worked very closely with the governments o f the country in w hich their headquarters were situated. In some cases, the offices o f the Union were based at a ministry. Even the Unions that had separate offices - like the Telegraphic Union, the Postal Union, or the Labour Office, predecessor o f the International Labour Organisation (ILO) - operated closely with the host governm ent, under w hose supervision and direction they had been placed. N otw ithstanding these limitations, the nature o f the Unions as independent entities and the need to recognise them as international legal persons was quickly recognised. The Comm ission appointed by the D irector o f the International Agricultural Institute in 1914 to investigate ‘the questions concerning the legal status’55 o f the Institute concluded th at state parties to the 1905 Convention th at had created the Institute had obliged themselves to give domestic legal recognition to the Institute. Such obligation was n o t explicitly provided under th at Convention, but - according to the Commission - it was implied under it. A ccording to this interpretation, the 1905 Convention established ‘54 different legal entities, all identical, except for their different nationality’.56 This conclusion was n o t shared by Fusinato, a m em ber o f the P erm anent C ourt o f Arbitration. In his view, the only possible construction was to recognise that the Institute ‘m ust be considered as a real international legal entity, com posed o f the state parties to the 1905 Convention, and recognised as such in the territory o f those states’.57 H e also added that the law applicable to the Institute should be that deriving from the ‘personal statute o f the Institute (as resulting from the 1905 Convention and from the following reglementsf .58

The recognition that the Public International Unions were international legal persons was an acknowledgement o f the im portance o f their functions. Immunities or privileges, however, were n o t normally bestow ed upon the officials o f the Unions in the pre-1914 period, b ut this changed w ith the League o f N ations whose C ovenant granted immunity to its officials (Art. 7, 4).59 The staff o f Public International Unions, unlike those o f subsequent organisations, were almost exclusively nationals o f the

55 G. Fusinato, A vis sur les questions touchants la personality juridique de V Institut International d’ Apiculture

(1914) at 3. 56 Ibid. at 5. 57 Ibid. at 8. 58 Ibid. at 8.

59 Oppenheim, supra note 42 at 516. Immunity and privileges will become a fundamental legal feature

country in w hich the Union had its headquarters. For example, the Swiss G o vernm ent reserved m ost o f the positions in the Unions it hosted for its own citizens.60 Nevertheless, the principle that ‘the members o f these international Comm issions are n o t called to defend the interests o f their own country, b ut act - w ith all the freedom o f their conscience - for the benefit o f the union o f countries w hich they represent’ had already been asserted in relation to the w ork o f the Unions.61 This paved the way for the creation o f an international professional elite, which increased dramatically in size with the establishment o f the League o f N ations.

T he establishment o f the Unions also prom pted a re-definition o f national sovereignty. States had caved in to the preponderance o f economic considerations and had accepted limitations on the exercise o f their sovereignty in various matters. As observed by Reinsch, the view that ‘everything m ust be avoided which would constitute a derogation o f the complete rights o f sovereignty’ was abandoned.62

1.4. T h e In ter-W ar P eriod : T h e L e a g u e o f N a tio n s

T he League o f Nations was the first international organisation that could claim to be ‘global’. T he League was n o t ‘global’ in the sense that its membership was universal — the US never acceded to the C ovenant — or in the sense that it was truly representative o f every people in the w orld — the interests o f colonial peoples were n o t in any way represented. Both in term s o f its m embership and o f the interests it represented, the League remained an essentially European club. However, the League was the first ‘global’ international institution in term s o f the breadth o f its constitutional com petence that ranged from the peaceful settlem ent o f disputes to the prom otion o f welfare, free communication and disarmament (Art. 23 o f the Covenant). With the establishment o f the League, there was a m om entous acceleration in the process o f international institutionalisation. The debate on ‘international governm ent’ in those years, often prom oted by national associations, w ent very far and proposals that would be deem ed daring even by today’s standards

in Kunz, ‘Privileges and Immunities o f International Organisations’, 41 A JIL (1947) 828. See also W.

Jenks International Immunities (1961).

60 Reinsch (1909), supra note 49 at 33.

61 Schucking, supra note 49 at 15.

62 Reinsch (1909), supra note 49 at 10.

w ere made and given serious consideration.63 In the end the League represented a com prom ise th at fell short o f the suggestions o f the advocates o f a comprehensive form o f international administration, but it still managed to embrace ‘a wide range o f interests, som ew hat greater in extent than a casual reading o f the Covenant would intim ate’.64

Usually blamed for its failure to maintain peace and to take resolute action against m ajor breaches o f peace (by Italy in Ethiopia, by Japan in China, and by G erm any in E uro pe in the 1930s), the League should still be credited w ith undertaking num erous initiatives in o ther areas, and with achieving some successes. I t established auxiliary organs to deal with econom ic and social questions (slavery and the slave trade, intellectual property, refugees, etc.). In the area o f welfare and labour conditions, the ILO , w hich was part o f the League system b ut enjoyed autonomy, achieved im portant results in part owing to the fact that it was n o t beleaguered from the start by limited membership since the US was a m em ber.65

In the humanitarian field, the League m ust be credited with establishing the first programm es for refugees and appointing Fridtjof N ansen as High Comm issioner for Russian Refugees in 1921. A lthough mainly limited to Europe, the League’s involvement with refugees and other displaced persons soon expanded beyond Russian refugees. Unlike the current refugee regime, which is essentially centred on the provision o f emergency relief, the League’s w ork for refugees aimed mainly at securing their legal status and at finding a durable solution through local integration. The only instance in which the League actively pursued the repatriation o f refugees was for Russian refugees, although in the end ‘only a fraction o f the total num ber o f refugees returned to their hom eland’.66 Otherwise, at the time the preferred durable solution was the integration o f refugees in their host countries. The League played a pivotal role through the High Comm issioner in the settlem ent o f Asia M inor Greeks expelled from Turkey as part o f the G reco-Turkish population exchange, o f ethnic

63 Dubin, ‘Transgovemmental Processes in the League o f Nations’, 37 Int. Org. (1983) 469.

64 Hill, supra note 49 at 79.

65 The US joined the ILO, although they never joined the League o f Nations. Although Italy,