Settling a new order of precedence would have been a delicate, if not downright impossible, task for the negotiators at Vienna. The new rule of Article 4 replaced the old rules of precedence between States with the principle of ceremonial equality. This the great powers did at exactly the same time as they had claimed for themselves the leadership of the European society of States. Although the representatives of over powers assembled at Vienna, the Congress was never a conference between all these.
Its business was led by a committee of first the eight, and then the five great powers who were very vocal about claiming that they held responsibility and thus authority for settling the peace and creating a new political and legal order of Europe. Whilst their diplomatic regulation abolished the rules of precedence between all powers, its main purpose was to abolish those between themselves. The new principle of ceremonial equality overarched the more substantial distinction between great and other powers which became a hallmark of the order of Europe in the 19th century, and which would remain one until today through its institutional embedment in the structures of the League of Nations and the United Nations.
Ivor Roberts ed. Home About. Those unions had regular annual general assembly meetings, rather than ad hoc conferences, and permanent secretariats, with secretaries, and later secretaries-general, mindful of path dependency. The unions responded to the expansion of modern capitalism and technology, which had little regard for national borders, but rather pushed for uniformity in national legislative and administrative structures. The unions, thus, were engaged in establishing a common regime of regulations.
Their development was promoted by institutional experimentation, including copying successful arrangements, and engaging entrepreneurs, who helped to design and build public rail, health, relief and other systems. The unions also helped to create continental markets in Europe and the Americas, with the Permanent Court of Arbitration facilitating economic and other ties between States. The Court contributed to establishing trustful relations between Governments, since disputes could be settled in peaceful ways.
Craig Murphy has demonstrated that by the conferences called by IOs began to outnumber those arranged at the invitation of Heads of State or Government. Nonetheless, States remained important actors in IOs.
The number of States rose from 23 in to 44 in , and the number of IOs from 1 in the Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine to 37 in A fundamental debate took place during the drafting of the Covenant of the League of Nations in Versailles in , with one of the proposals favouring a secretariat consisting of national officials who would be loyal to and paid by the major member States.
They needed to be capable persons of broad vision and flexible mind, supported and paid by the organization. Although the organizational structure of the League and the International Labour Organization ILO , as well as the candidates for executive offices were subject for political discussions between the founding States, there was little reflection upon the requirements for the office and the expansion of the bureaucratic apparatus.
Generally speaking, only a few paragraphs of IO constitutions deal with the secretariat and its chief executives, which implies that organizational developments largely depend upon the individual leadership skills of those in office.
Although several member States objected to these developments, Thomas handled them in ways that States could hardly refuse in the longer term.
The biographical history of chief executives profiled in the IO BIO Project 7 demonstrates that while secretaries-general may have been successful executives, they also need to simultaneously manage their bureaucracies while mediating between States and other international actors.
IOs also survived the Second World War. The main goal was to restore the territorial order that had existed before the Napoleonic conquests. At the same time, however, potential new conflicts between the powers were to be defused and existing ones resolved by diplomatic means.
The negotiations were described by all participants as extremely protracted. He allied himself to a Committee of Eight lesser powers including Spain, Sweden, and Portugal to control the negotiations. Once Talleyrand was able to use this committee to make himself a part of the inner negotiations, he then left it, once again abandoning his allies. Talleyrand protested against the procedure we have adopted and soundly [be]rated us for two hours.
It was a scene I shall never forget. Virtually every state in Europe had a delegation in Vienna — more than states and princely houses were represented at the Congress. In addition, there were representatives of cities, corporations, religious organizations for instance, abbeys , and special interest groups e.
The Congress was noted for its lavish entertainment: according to a famous joke it did not move, but danced. Participants of the Congress of Vienna 1. Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington 2. Joaquim Lobo Silveira, 7th Count of Oriola 3. Klemens Wenzel, Prince von Metternich 7. Count Karl Robert Nesselrode 9. Pedro de Sousa Holstein, 1st Count of Palmela Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh
0コメント