number, type, and symptoms of diseases in men and animals; of the countermeasures taken; and of important changes in its health laws and practices.

The timetable followed by WHO in enacting the sanitary regulations was as follows:

May 25, 1951: WHO assembly voted them unanimously.

June 6, 1951: Dr. Brock Chisholm, Canadian Director-General of WHO, formally notified the health administrations of member governments. (He was not required to notify heads of state or foreign ministers; the code authorized him to bypass usual channels.)

June 6, 1951 to March 6, 1952: 25 countries submitted reservations; thereupon, the 9-month period having elapsed, no further reservations could ever be offered (except for colonies, in which case the deadline is extended to December 6, 1952). March 6 to October 1, 1952: The reservations were discussed in WHO committees; all but four countries withdrew them, modified them, or convinced WHO they should be accepted as minor.

October 1, 1952: The regulations will come into effect, having the force of domestic law in all member countries except Australia, Argentina, Burma, and Saudi Arabia.

UNUSUAL POWERS

No organ of the United Nations except WHO has the power to legislate for member governments. Article 22 of the WHO constitution entitles this specialized agency to make regulations within its field of operation which shall come into force for all members after due notice has been given of their adoption by the World Health Assembly except for such members as may notify the Director-General, of rejection or reservations within thhe period stated in the

notice.

"Due notice" is not defined. In the case of the Sanitary Regulations, it was 9 months. WHO may decide in each instance how much notice it chooses to give. WHO also may decide whom to notify. In the present case, it decided that any notification or information sent by the Organization to the Health Administration shall be considered as having been sent to the state.

Thus no governments, let alone legislatures, were notified directly that the Sanitary Regulations had been enacted on their behalf.

Observers consider this circumstance especially significant in the case of the United States, which exercises great if not decisive influence in WHO, as in most other U. N. organs.

The United States Congress, like other legislatures, agreed to a partial delegation of sovereignty when it approved the WHO constitution in 1948. Those who recall the debate, however, say they doubt that Congress realized how broadly the grant would be interpreted.

STOP, LOOK, AND QUESTION

(An editorial)

In 1948 when Congress debated joining the World Health Organization efforts were made to insure that the United States would not be inadvertently committed to a program of compulsory insurance for medical care. Reasons for this caution and for a reservation enabling the United States to withdraw from WHO are now becoming more apparent.

For on October 1 WHO regulations incorporating even greater infringements of individual rights than are involved in compulsory insurance will go into effect. An article describing this situation appears on the first page of our second section today. We believe it should cause a sharp questioning of WHO's procedures and results.

The purpose of cooperating to prevent the spread of disease is a wholly laudable one, and we have the greatest respect for all unselfish efforts to that end. But we believe mistaken methods are being used, not only in the treatment of disease but in the disregard of constitutional procedures and civil liberties.

We do not question the right of those who desire vaccination and inoculation to have it. We do not question the right of those who declare such treatment that provides immunization to force it on others for their own protection. Moreover, we strongly question procedures which permit WHO to bypass the government of any country and place very great discretionary power in the hands of an administrative agency.

The rather remarkable constitution of WHO gives it the power to legislate for member countries unless they object. And in setting up the new regulations on international travel WHO did not even trouble to notify the State Department or Congress-which presumably could exercise a veto. One remedy would be for Congress to curb the arbitrary authority now exercised by the Public Health Service, which appears to be acting both as promoter and agent of WHO. Another remedy would be to insure by constitutional amendment that limitations be placed on so-called self-executing international agreements. This newspaper does not wish to be alarmist. As we understand it, WHO is alone among United Nations agencies in its power to legislate for member nations. We believe that the rights of individuals and states under the American Constitution can be protected from infringement by an international organization or through treaties. But the situation now precipitated by WHO indicates that a properly framed constitutional amendment may be required.

THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE WHO INTERNATIONAL SANITARY REGULATIONS The story under the caption "Pattern for Compulsory Medication," and the editorial under the title "Stop, Look, and Listen," which appeared in the Christian Science Monitor of September 26, 1952, reveal a basic misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of the international sanitary regulations to which they refer, and of the procedures under which they were adopted. They also fail, unfortunately, to relate the provisions of these regulations to quarantine practices in which the United States and other states have been engaged for many years.

The reader of this story and editorial is told, in effect, that an international organization, the World Health Organization, in adopting the international sanitary regulations, usurped the power of sovereign states and, purposely bypassing normal channels of communication between the World Health Organization and member governments, conferred wide discretionary power directly upon the health administrations of national governments which could readily be used to infringe upon individual liberty-for example, by requiring vaccinations. The reader is told, among other things, that "the U. N. World Health Organization, acting largely at the instance of the United States, has launched what one official calls a terrific drive' for worldwide smallpox vaccination of travelers"; that "considerable new power also falls into the hands of national health authorities such as the United States Public Health Service"; that “in an extreme case, if Congress were not alert, the present powers assumed by WHO and the national health authorities could be stretched to cover the enactment of compulsory national health programs or the imposition of mass medication in a form which the Congress might disapprove if presented in the normal way-as a bill to be acted upon"; that "no governments, let alone legislatures, were notified directly that the sanitary regulations had been enacted upon their behalf," and that "WHO did not even trouble to notify the State Department or Congress."

The purpose of this memorandum is to explain the nature and purposes of these regulations, and to describe the way in which they were drafted, reviewed, and adopted.

To begin with, it might be pointed out that international sanitary regulations, or quarantine regulations, as they are sometimes called, are not new. They have been in existence for 50 years in the form of treaties. These treaties were concluded to unite states on measures to prevent the international spread of epidemics of cholera, plague, smallpox, typhus, and yellow fever, and at the same time to prevent undue interference with the movement of persons traveling outside the borders of their own countries and of goods, ships, and aircraft in international commerce. Without regulations of this kind, ships and airplanes as well as United States nationals traveling abroad, might be subjected to all sorts of restrictions on their freedom of movement through the arbitrary application by other governments of their own quarantine laws.

These treaties were considered to have certain disadvantages, however, stemming largely from the relatively slow procedure involved in bringing them into effect or in getting them modified. Thus, long delays occurred in bringing into force any new regulations designed to take account of scientific discoveries and technical advances in the control of communicable diseases as well as in transportation facilities. Some 40 countries, many of them important in air traf30572-53-20

fic, never became parties to any sanitary convention for aerial navigation and could therefore deal with planes and passengers as they pleased. This caused considerable difficulties to the American airlines operating abroad. Moreover, considerable confusion concerning the application of quarantine measures has existed because of the continuance in effect for some countries of the outmoded regulations in old treaties, even when newer treaties to bring the regulations more up to date were concluded and became binding on many more countries. Consequently, even a minimum of the uniformity of sanitary controls which was sought could not be obtained.

Hence, those entrusted with the responsibility for the administration of national quarantine measures, those in command of ships and aircraft which were subjected to these measures, as well as governments, were anxious to find a procedure which would facilitate the adoption of up-to-date regulations without long delays. In this connection, attention might be called to the following statement in the Report of the United States Delegation to the International Health Conference in 1946, at which the constitution of the WHO was formulated: "The concept underlying the regulatory power of the Organization [WHO] was developed jointly by the Department of State and the Public Health Service, *** in an effort to create a mechanism in the international field which would permit rapid general application of new scientific techniques in the international control of the spread of disease. This was done in pursuance of a suggestion made in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that some way be found to accomplish this without requiring that committee to consider highly specialized technical matters. It is felt that the mechanism incorporated in the constitution can accomplish this result. In most cases, it will only be necessary to modify existing domestic regulations, within the scope of the executive branch of the Government, to meet the requirements of international health regulations. When more is required the Government can reserve its position pending necessary reference to Congress."

To meet this generally recognized need, therefore, there were included in the WHO constitution two articles (arts. 21 and 22) drafted so as to provide a simpler mechanism to facilitate the adoption of international regulations which are needed in certain limited technical fields. Thus, article 21 of the constitution of the WHO provides that the health assembly shall have authority to adopt regulations concerning, inter alia, sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease. According to article 22, regulations which the assembly may adopt shall enter into force for all members of the Organization except those as may notify the Director General of the rejection or reservations within the period stated in the notice to member governments of the adoption of the regulations.

The authority granted to the WHO in its constitution to adopt regulations was brought to the attention of the Congress when it was considering United States membership in the World Health Organization. In the report, submitted by Senator Vandenberg on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Relations to the United States Senate (No. 421, 80th Cong., 1st sess.), it is stated that "The health assembly may adopt regulations concerning sanitary quarantine requirements which in the past have been embodied in conventions and could be changed only by customary treaty procedures. * * * The adoption of such regulations and standards requires a two-thirds majority vote of the health assembly. This power is similar to that which has been granted to other international organizations in technical fields, such as the International Civil Aviation Organization. Each government will be free to reject such regulations and standards and their assent is not necessary to bring them into effect. The committee recognizes the safeguards to national sovereignty in the provisions of the constitution which confer these powers on the health assembly." It might be pointed out that the safeguards referred to are: (1) The limitation of the WHO's regulatory authority to certain specified subjects, such as sanitary and quarantine requirements, and (2) the right of any member government to reject the regulations which the health assembly may adopt or to make reservations with respect to such regulations.

The report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (No. 979, 80th Cong., 1st sess.) to the House of Representatives, which was presented by Congressman Judd, in describing the benefits to the United States of membership in the WHO refers specifically to those expected to be derived from the Organization's power to adopt regulations:

"Improved control of disease at epidemic centers abroad will give the United States increased protection against incursion of disease.

"The United States and United States ships at sea will receive a more constant flow of reliable epidemiological information of use in quarantine procedures and valuable to commerce.

"The hazard of importation of disease and disease vectors by air carriers will be reduced, or eliminated, through improved controls at foreign origins of flights.

"Unsound and unecessary foreign quarantine impediments to United States commerce and interference with free movement of United States air carriers will be eliminated by the establishment of common international regulations, conforming at all times with technical developments and the progressive removal of health hazards."

In the spirit of, and in fulfillment of the purposes outlined above, the WHO undertook to develop a single set of international quarantine or sanitary regulations to replace the existing international sanitary conventions. The international sanitary regulations were in preparation over a period of 5 years. During that time, not only were the regulations considered at periodic and open meetings of the constituent bodies of the Organization, in which the United States participated officially, but each member government was invited to make known its views concerning the regulations during different stages of their development. For example, the original draft regulations, as prepared by the WHO Expert Committee on Epidemiology and Quarantine, were received by the Department of State and the United States Public Health Service in April 1950. They were studied by an interdepartmental committee called together by the Department of State, on which nine different Government departments and agencies were represented. As a consequence of this study, several changes in the draft regulations were recommended in the communication which the Department of State on September 6, 1950, sent to the WHO as the observations of the United States Government. Revised draft regulations were similarly circulated and studied in advance of a meeting of a special committee which was convened in Geneva in April 1951 to prepare a final draft. Private aviation and shipping companies were at this stage given an opportunity to study and make recommendations concerning the draft regulations. The United States was officially represented at this meeting, and at the Fourth World Health Assembly, which on May 25, 1951, adopted the regulations.

After the adoption of the regulations by the Health Assembly by a unanimous vote of the representatives of the state members of the WHO on May 25, 1951, each government had an opportunity during a period of 9 months to review the regulations for the purpose of determining their acceptability to that government of the United States on June 15, 1951, and were reviewed by all the Government departments and agencies concerned, as well as by private shipping and aviation interests with a view to deciding whether any reservations should be made. The WHO was notified by the Secretary of State on behalf of this Government on March 10, 1952, that the United States would make no reservations. On October 1, 1952, the regulations came into force for 55 countries which had made no reservations and for 5 countries which had made certain reservations. It might be pointed out that these reservations were all aimed at allowing these countries to apply stricter quarantine measures, in one field or another, than are permitted by the regulations.

It can thus be seen that the WHO, in adopting the new regulations, did exactly what it was authorized to do by its constitution and what it was expected to do by the United States Government. On the basis of the above record it should be quite clear that at no stage of the development, consideration, or acceptance of these regulations was there any bypassing of the Government of the United States or of the interested agencies thereof. Also, in view of the numerous reviews which these regulations received from the interested government and commercial groups, any inference that these regulations were sprung on an unsuspecting government by the WHO, with the connivance of the Public Health Service, is completely unwarranted.

It might also be pointed out that during this period the United States delegations to the meetings of the Health Assembly, at which progress in the development of the regulations was discussed, included Members of Congress (in 1948. Congressman Fenton; in 1949 Senator Ellender and Congressman Pfeifer; in 1950, Congressman Judd; and in 1951 (when the regulations were adopted), Senators Lehman and Nixon and Congressman Morgan and Angell).

In adopting the regulations under discussion, the state members of the WHO hoped to give to each country observing the regulations the maximum security against the international transmission of epidemic disease with the minimum

interference with world traffic. With respect to misconceptions in the Monitor story and editorial about the regulations conferring new powers on the United States Public Health Service which might be used to require vaccination or to compel individuals to submit to medical treatment, it should be noted that the Public Health Service does not acquire any power which it did not formerly possess in this respect. The regulations which were adopted stipulate that persons who come from areas where smallpox is prevalent may be held in quarantine unless they can produce a valid vaccination certificate. These provisions are not mandatory but permissive. Undoubtedly, health authorities of this and other countries who are of the opinion that vaccination is the only effective protection against the spread of smallpox, hope that the preferential position thus enjoyed by persons who carry valid vaccination certificates will cause many people to be vaccinated. Nevertheless, the purpose of the provisions in the regulations which relate to the measures which can be taken with respect to persons on an international voyage, is definitely to limit the action which national health officers may take as authorized by their own law, and not to confer additional authority. Such provisions, for example, limit the duration of the period which a traveler who is without a vaccination certificate and refuses to be vaccinated, may be held in quarantine. It is noteworthy that the states which have accepted the new regulations have agreed that vaccination against plague or typhus cannot be required as a condition of admission to a country. Actually, therefore, in many respects the demands on travelers will be reduced as a result of the provisions of the new regulations.

The statements in the article referring to the bypassing of the Department of State and to the direct communication between the WHO and the Public Health Service may have been based upon a misunderstanding of the provision in the regulations which states that "any notification [of the outbreak of a epidemic disease] or information sent by the Organization to the health administration shall be considered as having been sent to the state." This provision, however, relates to the reporting of outbreaks of disease and has nothing whatever to do with the procedure for the adoption of regulations. According to this procedure, the governments are notified through the channels which WHO has been instructed to use. In the case of the United States, all communications from the WHO are sent both to the Department of State and to the Public Health Service.

The regulations use the expression "health administration" in order to use a term which will be uniform for all states. It is for each government to decide what authority or authorities in the government constitute the health administration. Under Executive Order 10399 of September 27, 1952, the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service is designated as the "health administration" of the United States for the purpose of performing the duties prescribed in the international sanitary regulations.

CRITIQUE OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM, "THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE WHO INTERNATIONAL SANITARY REGULATIONS

"The Nature and Purpose of the WHO International Sanitary Regulations" is a State Department memorandum prepared in the fall of 1952 and widely circulated as a criticism of the article and editorial in the Christian Science Monitor of September 26, 1952, which sharply questioned the World Health Organization's procedures and results.

This memorandum opens with three general allegations against the article Pattern for Compulsory Medication and the editorial Stop, Look, and Question. It charges that:

(1) They misunderstand the nature and purpose of the international sanitary regulations.

(2) They misunderstand the procedures under which these regulations were adopted.

(3) They fail to relate the provisions of these regulations to quarantine practice in which the United States and other states have been engaged for many years.

At the outset the issues are apparent. The State Deparmtent's "corrective" memorandum doesn't refute the threat to religious and individual freedom seen by the Monitor but rather defends the legality of the procedural arrangements now in force. Since Pattern for Compulsory Medication was based on the study of the dangers to this country, it is not surprising that the writer did not