tion, through international means, of human rights throughout the world.

To foster cooperation in all these fields is a vast undertaking. It was approached boldly and in a spirit of realism both at Dumbarton Oaks and at San Francisco.

It was evident to the architects of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals that to neglect the economic and social aspects of international relations in the way in which they were frequently neglected during the period between the two wars, was to court disaster. Thus their Proposals provided for the setting up, under the authority of the General Assembly, of an Economic and Social Council designed to become an effective instrument in the promotion of international economic and social cooperation.

Unlike the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council was not to have any coercive powers. The Proposals recognized that in social and economic matters an international organization could aid in the solution of economic and social problems but could not interfere with the functions and powers of sovereign states. It could not command performance by individual member nations; it should not reach into the domestic affairs of Members. Its tools and procedures are those of study, discussion, report, and recommendation. These are the voluntary means of a free and voluntary association of nations. The Economic and Social Council, according to the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, differs from the Security Council in another important respect. Arrangements for international cooperation in security matters are largely centered in the Security Council. By contrast, international economic and social issues cannot be dealt with by any one agency. Effective cooperation in fields so diverse and so fundamental to nations and individuals as the movement of trade, monetary stability, public health, freedom of the press, or aviation, requires the creation of specified agencies, some of which are already functioning while others are being planned.

To coordinate the policies and activities of these specialized agencies and to avoid duplication of effort is to be one of the major tasks of the Organization and, specifically, of the Economic and Social Council as defined at Dumbarton Oaks.

The San Francisco Conference added new provisions to the original text, and earlier provisions were expanded. All these changes, while

upholding the principles laid down at Dumbarton Oaks, were designed to strengthen the position of the Economic and Social Council within the general international organization and to enable it to achieve its vital tasks. Objectives were more clearly defined and functions more clearly stated. And, significantly, it was unanimously decided that the Economic and Social Council should become one of the principal organs in the new Organization, one of the cornerstones of the peace of tomorrow.

The Committee of the Conference dealing with economic and social arrangements and its Drafting Subcommittee held altogether forty meetings. All nations represented in the Conference, both large and small, took an active part in the work of these committees. They were firm in their determination to get at the very roots of international conflict and to prepare the way for active and constructive international cooperation in the creation of a peaceful world. Chapters IX and X of the Charter reflect their achievement. They combine the wisdom of experience with the wisdom of hope. The first of these two chapters contains the general provisions of the Charter regarding international economic and social cooperation, while Chapter X deals with the Economic and Social Council.

PURPOSE AND UNDERTAKINGS

The Dumbarton Oaks language had confined its statement of objectives in the field of international economic and social cooperation to the following:

"With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and wellbeing which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations, the Organization should facilitate solutions of international economic, social and other humanitarian problems and promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms". Chapter I, Paragraph 3 contained an even briefer statement in listing among the purposes of the Organization the achievement of "international cooperation in the solution of international economic, social and other humanitarian problems".

Out of weeks of purposeful and often spirited discussion in committee, by delegations, and by consultants, there emerged at San Francisco a new statement of the economic and social objectives of the Organization, both broader and more incisive than the original

text. It is well to reproduce it in full in this report, for it represents one of the high achievements of the Conference:

"With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and wellbeing which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall pro

mote:

"a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;

"b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and

"c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race,

sex, language, or religion." (Article 55).

In line with this broader statement of objectives, the statement of purposes in Chapter I (Article 1) was also strengthened as described in the commentary on that chapter.

In the course of the deliberations leading up to the adoption of these texts several issues were brought out which deserve special mention..

A number of delegations felt that to speak of solutions of "economic, social and other humanitarian problems" was not sufficiently descriptive of the range of activities contemplated for the Economic and Social Council. In particular, there was strong support for specific enumeration of cultural, health and educational matters.

From the outset, the United States Delegation found itself in agreement with the addition of "cultural" and "health" to the enumeration, but believed that "educational” was adequately comprehended within "cultural". In addition, it felt that whereas the members individually and in cooperation could work toward solutions of international economic and social problems, the same language was not equally applicable to the cultural and educational fields. In those fields it was not the solutions of international problems that was sought, but the advancement of international cooperation as a means of promoting mutual understanding and good will among the peoples of the world. Stated in that way, it would also remove any basis for misapprehension that the Organization was in any way

designed to interfere in the domestic educational systems of any of the member nations. The compromise text as stated above was approved unanimously.

The inclusion of the passage referring to the promotion of "higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress" gave rise to prolonged discussion.

The United States Delegation preferred the expression "high and stable levels of employment" rather than "full employment” because it believed that the latter term, while in wide use, was less precise and less meaningful than "high and stable levels”. It did not, however, insist upon this point when it became apparent that there was strong preference for the term "full' employment" among most of the other delegations.

One of the most striking differences between the original Dumbarton Oaks Proposals and the final text as adopted lies in the greater emphasis on human rights. At the outset of the Conference the Sponsoring Powers proposed that the objective of promotion of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms as set forth in the Dumbarton Oaks text should be expanded into promotion of respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. The Conference further strengthened this language to read "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights. . . .'

In no part of the deliberations of the Conference was greater interest displayed by the group of American consultants, representing forty-two leading American organizations and groups concerned with American foreign relations, than in the opportunity afforded to extend the enjoyment of human rights and basic freedoms to all peoples. They warmly endorsed the additions to the statement of objectives. Beyond this they urged that the Charter itself should provide for adequate machinery to further these objectives. A direct outgrowth of discussions between the United States Delegation and the consultants was the proposal of the United States Delegation, in which it was joined by the other Sponsoring Powers, that the Charter (Article 68) be amended to provide for a commission on human rights of which more will be said later.

The Nations Pledge Themselves

The statement of purposes is followed by Article 56, which reads as follows:

"All Members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in cooperation with the Organization for the achievement of the purposes set forth in Article 55."

No corresponding provision occurs in the Dumbarton Oaks text. Early in the Conference the Delegation of Australia introduced a lengthy amendment which would have pledged all members of the Organization "to take action both national and international for the purpose of securing for all peoples, including their own, improved labor standards, economic advancement, social security and employment for all who seek it", and to report annually upon steps taken in the fulfillment of the pledge.

These are objectives which have the full support of the Government and the people of the United States. The United States Government has repeatedly demonstrated its desire for international cooperation toward the achievement of steadily rising levels of economic activity, free from disruptive fluctuations, throughout the world. Thus, the United States Delegation deemed it perfectly appropriate for the member states to pledge themselves to cooperate with the organization for the achievement of these purposes.

On the other hand, the view was advanced that the further element in the Australian proposal calling for national action separate from the international organization went beyond the proper scope of the charter of an international organization and possibly even infringed on the domestic jurisdiction of member states in committing them to a particular philosophy of the relationship between the government and the individual.

The pledge as finally adopted was worded to eliminate such possible interpretation. It pledges the various countries to cooperate with the organization by joint and separate action in the achievement of the economic and social objectives of the organization without infringing upon their right to order their national affairs according to their own best ability, in their own way, and in accordance with their own political and economic institutions and processes.

To remove all possible doubt on this score the following statement was unanimously approved and included in the record of the Confer