Multiple hierarchies within the ‘civilized’ world: country ranking and regional power in the International Labour Organization (1919–1922)
| Published date | 01 June 2024 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/13540661231168773 |
| Author | Deborah Barros Leal Farias |
| Date | 01 June 2024 |
E
JR
I
https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661231168773
European Journal of
International Relations
2024, Vol. 30(2) 333 –358
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13540661231168773
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejt
Multiple hierarchies within
the ‘civilized’ world: country
ranking and regional power
in the International Labour
Organization (1919–1922)
Deborah Barros Leal Farias
University of New South Wales (UNSW), Australia
Abstract
There is significant and growing interest in better understanding hierarchy in the
international system, especially in relation to intergovernmental organizations (IGOs).
Acknowledging the existence of hierarchy in a system implies that there are different
social positions (higher/lower), but not why or how a specific differentiation came to
be used, nor how it is structured, contested or resolved. This article is interested in
contributing to these questions, particularly in the context of heterarchical settings
(where more than one hierarchy is present), which is also not fully understood. It uses
the first years of the International Labour Organization (ILO) as a springboard to reflect
upon hierarchy within the so-called ‘civilized’ group of countries in the immediate
aftermath of World War I. This IGO was the first to (1) introduce statistical data to rank
countries, with criteria designed to ‘objectively’ gauge industrial power and (2) establish
a geographic allocation of countries in its main decision-making body’s structure. Non-
European countries and non-great powers had critical roles in establishing these novel
ways of dealing with hierarchies and their institutional design in IGOs. One hundred
years later, these discussions still resonate with several ongoing cases of contestation in
IGOs over ‘fair’ hierarchical structures.
Keywords
Hierarchy, classification, international history, ILO, global governance, ranking
Corresponding author:
Deborah Barros Leal Farias, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Morven Brown Building, Room 135,
Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
Email: deborahblf@unsw.edu.au
1168773EJT0010.1177/13540661231168773European Journal of International RelationsBarros Leal Farias
research-article2023
Original Article
334 European Journal of International Relations 30(2)
Introduction
Hierarchies—both formal and informal—are a common feature of the international sys-
tem, particularly in the context of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs). Such vertical
relations of super- and subordination can determine which countries have power and over
what, how much power each country (or group of countries) has, and when they can exert
it. Therefore, it is not surprising to affirm that hierarchies are an object of significant inter-
est and contestation in the field of International Relations (IR), as they express power
relations: superior and inferior, haves and have-nots, leaders and laggards and so on.
Theoretical analyses and empirical studies of hierarchies in IR literature are com-
monly explored focussing upon a single hierarchical lens (e.g. great/small powers, East/
West, developed/developing, civilized/uncivilized). A less explored route looks at situa-
tions when more than one hierarchy – that is, a heterarchy –1 are at play.2 This paper
explores challenges with and contestations over different hierarchies within the so-called
‘civilized’ system during the early 20th century. It is during this period that non-Euro-
pean3 countries – almost all of which were also ‘small’ powers – start to become the
numerical majority in international negotiations. This new setting brought about differ-
ent understandings of and questions over hierarchy. These included discussions regard-
ing equality (especially legal) among members of the ‘[civilized] Family of Nations’;
whether military power was the best – or even only – barometer for power distribution in
non-military-related settings, and if not, what should be put in its place; and questions
over if, how or how much the distribution of power based on geographic regions should
matter. Some of these issues were first raised in the 2nd Hague Conference (1907), yet
all of them would be at the core of the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) early
years (1919–1922). The analysis of this case makes a fundamental contribution to Fehl
and Freistein’s (2020) call for more research on formal hierarchies in international
organizations, particularly before World War Two (pp. 287–288).
I take on a detailed analysis of the ILO in its initial period as a springboard for reflect-
ing on the design of formal hierarchical structures in a nascent IGO, exploring heterar-
chical tensions and challenges. I focus on the agency of the non-European countries and
small(er) powers during negotiations pertaining to the structure of the ILO’s main deci-
sion-making body: the Executive Council. More specifically, I analyse the negotiations
regarding the process of determining the allocation of seats4 in this Council to answer
what kind of discussions over hierarchy took place during the creation of the ILO, how
non-European and small(er) powers engaged in them, and why, in the end, certain hier-
archies prevailed over others. This critical (yet overlooked) case is important because it
introduced two new ideas pertaining to the internal design of hierarchy(ies) in IGOs.
First, the ILO created a decision-making body whose power hierarchy distribution
was detached from military-based power criteria, and, in its place, was based upon sta-
tistical data. That is, industrial might would be gauged according to industry-related
indicators. Countries would then be ranked, and the top eight would be guaranteed a seat
at the table, with no allocated seats for specific countries. In doing so, this case sheds
light on the ‘birth’ of the long-standing and unresolved challenge of finding common
ground for determining ‘appropriate’ criteria when ranking and classifying countries
(and distributing power) in IGOs. As the empirical analysis will demonstrate, the
To continue reading
Request your trial