International > Report by the committee on the work of its ... plenary session > Thirteenth plenary session

— 2 —
The Committee unanimously re-elected Professor Gilbert Murray, Chairman, and
Mme. Curie and M. Destree, Vice-Chairmen ; M. de Reynold was appointed Rapporteur.
The meeting's of the Committee had been preceded : on July 3rd and 4th, by the
session of the delegation of the Sub-Committee of Experts for the Instruction of Youth
in the Aims of the League ; from July 6th to 9th, by that of the Permanent Committee
on Arts and Letters ; and from July 13th to 16th by the meeting of the Executive Committee
and the Directors’ Committee.
This thirteenth plenary session owed its importance to the fact that it followed upon
the reform undertaken during the year 1930-31 and consequently recorded the first results
of that reform which dealt primarily with the organisation itself, secondly with methods,
and, thirdly, with the work.
These questions are dealt with in turn in the three chapters of the present report.
I. ORGANISATION.
The object of the reorganisation was to simplify and, as it is now called, to “ rationalise ”
the internal machinery of intellectual co-operation. We shall enumerate the principal
changes, stating in each case the reason for the change and the results obtained.
(a) Executive Committee.
As stated in its report, the establishment of an Exeeutive Committee was at the
root of all the reforms proposed by the Committee of Enquiry, and for the following
reasons :
In the same way as the Directors’ Committee is derived from the Committee on
Intellectual Co-operation sitting as Governing Body of the Institute, the Executive
Committee is derived from the plenary Committee sitting as such. Like the Governing
Body and the plenary Committee, the Executive Committee and the Directors’ Committee
consist of the same persons. While the Directors’ Committee, as its name indicates, directs
the administrative working of the Institute, the Executive Committee directs the actual
work of that body, and has the decisions of the plenary Committee carried out.
The reason why the Executive Committee was set up was that the experience of previous
years had shown the necessity of establishing closer contact between the plenary Committee
which meets only once a year, and the Institute, its permanent executive organ.
Moreover, the development of intellectual co-operation outside the Institute, which was
becoming more and more rapid, needed to be followed more continuously. The Executive
Committee therefore met a need which had been felt since 1929 and to which the
representatives of the National Committees had drawn attention.
The Executive Committee’s programme may be divided as follows :
First, questions of an exceptional character. Under this head may be classed the
reorganisation of the Institute and the establishment of its budget. As a rule these
problems would be in the province of the Governing Body and of the Directors’ Committee
of the Institute, the Executive Committee specialising on questions of programme. But
it was thought that during the first year the Executive Committee would be wise to
examine both questions relating to the programme and also administrative problems,
which it is often difficult to dissociate from the former. Moreover, one of the aims of the
reform was to adapt the instrument to the work it had to do.
In the second place, the Executive Committee had to follow the development of the
questions which the plenary Committee had placed in July 1930 on the programme of
intellectual co-operation and which the Paris Institute, or in certain cases the Geneva
Secretariat, had to deal with.
In the third place, it had to pronounce on the inclusion in the programme of numerous
problems referred to it by the plenary Committee.
Lastly, it examined a number of suggestions made to it in the course of the year.
The Executive Committee held four sessions in 1930-31. It is at present composed
as follows : its Chairman, Professor Gilbert Murray, is Chairman of the plenary Committee,
just as the Chairman of the Directors’ Committee is Chairman of the Governing Body.
The latter, M. Painleve, is also a member of the Executive Committee. There are five
members belonging to the plenary Committee : Mme. Curie, M. Casares 1, M. Destree,
M. de Reynold and M. Rocco. Three assessors have been chosen from outside the
Committee for their administrative abilities and their experience of intellectual co-operation :
Sir Frank Heath, M. Kruss and M. Roland-Marcel.
The experiment may be said to have proved successful for the two following reasons :
The result of the Executive Committee’s discussions has been to lighten the programme
of the plenary Committee by eliminating questions of detail and submitting to it problems
which have already been studied ; hence the Committee will be in a position to consider
1 As M. Casares’ term of office lias just expired, he lias been replaced by M. Castillejo.