Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-02T10:04:34.924Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Administrative Regulation: The Case of Rubber

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Kurt Wilk
Kurt Wilk
Affiliation:
Brooklyn College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The war in the Pacific has focused attention on rubber as one of the key materials of peace and war economy. It has not only caused domestic adjustments in the United States as previously in other consuming countries, both allied and enemy, but has terminated an epoch in international rubber control. At the same time, it has accentuated the permanent international concern about basic materials—their location, accessibility, production, distribution, and utilization. Thus the international rubber régime, as it operated up to the disruption of trade-lanes and the invasion and devastation of producing areas, is of interest not only because of its effects in the period just ended but also as an approach to problems of international economic policy and administrative technique which are likely to continue into post-war world organization, no matter how different its political and strategical foundations may be.

Type
International Affairs
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , April 1942 , pp. 323 - 337
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1942

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Agreement to Regulate Production and Exports of Rubber, May 7, 1934, League of Nations, Treaty Series 171: 204–222 Google Scholar, Great Britain, Foreign Office, Treaty Series No. 12 (1934)Google ScholarPubMed, Cmd. 4583.

2 Protocols, June 27, 1935, May 22, 1936, and Feb. 5, 1937, League of Nations, Treaty Series 171: 222–228 Google Scholar, Great Britain, Foreign Office, Treaty Series No. 12 (1936)Google ScholarPubMed, Cmd. 5236, and No. 11 (1937), Cmd. 5384.

3 Revised text, published in Declaration of H. M. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Oct. 6, 1938, Great Britain, Foreign Office, Treaty Series No. 74 (1938)Google ScholarPubMed, Cmd. 5901.

4 For the economic background of the present rubber régime, see Arcoleo, F., “International Organization of the Rubber Market,” International Review of Agriculture (IRA). 27: E 339–341, 1936 Google Scholar; George, H., Kautschuk (Leipzig, 1938), 25–28, 98–102, 121–126, 146–161Google Scholar; Phillipson, A., The Rubber Position and Government Control (London, 1924)Google Scholar; Rowe, J. W. F., Studies in the Artificial Control of Raw Material Supplies: No. 2, Rubber (London, 1931. Royal Economic Society, Memorandum No. 29)Google Scholar; Whittlesey, C. R., Governmental Control of Crude Rubber (Princeton, 1931), Chaps. 1–2Google Scholar; Wolf, H. and Wolf, R., Rubber; A Story of Glory and Greed (New York, 1936)Google Scholar, Bk. III, Chap. 2.

5 The conflicting viewpoints are reflected in an extensive literature. See, on the one hand, Dawn, C. F., The Future of Rubber: Whither and How (London, 1934), 13–15 Google Scholar; Hoover, H., “Fundamental Aspects of the Situation,” in U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Trade Information Bulletin No. 385, 1–18, 1926 Google Scholar; Martin, R. F., International Raw Commodity Price Control (New York, 1937), 14–15 Google Scholar; Seybold, G. H., “Rubber Restriction Wabbles,” The Rubber Age, New York (RA. NY.) 38: 269–270, 1935–1936 Google Scholar; Thompsett, F. J., “Should International Rubber Regulation Be Renewed?,” The Rubber Age, London (RA. L.), 18: 183–184, 1937–1938 Google Scholar; Wolf, op. cit. See, on the other hand, “Rubber Restriction Plan Enters Second Month” (report on views of F. R. Henderson), RA. NY. 35: 177, 1934; Tatistcheff, A. B., “Rubber Restriction Holds” RA. NY. 38: 268, 1935–1936 Google Scholar; “Sir Herbert Wright Talks on Restriction,” RA. NY. 39: 110, 1936.

6 Art. 1, revised in 1938.

7 Art. 4(a); table of quotas amended by Protocols of June 27, 1935, May 22, 1936, and Feb. 5, 1937 (supra note 2); revised in 1938 for the second five-year period.

8 Art. 4(b) (c); revised, as Art. 4(c) (d), in 1938.

9 Committee Appointed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to Investigate and Report upon the Present Rubber Situation in British Colonies and Protectorates, Supplementary Report, Oct. 2, 1922, Cmd. 1756, Recommendations, esp. Nos. 2–4.

10 Art. 5(1) (2), amended in 1938.

11 Arts. 4(b), 6; revised as Arts. 4(b) (c) (d), 6, in 1938.

12 Not in Burma, India, parts of Malaya (Singapore, Penang), Sarawak, Indo-China (until 1938), and Thailand.

13 Arts. 11, 12, revised in 1938.

14 Arts. 9 and 10 (certificates of origin), 13 (no exportation of portions of rubber plants), 14 (prevention of smuggling), 16 (contributions to expenses of the International Committee), 19 (coöperation on research); Arts. 9, 13, 16, 19 were revised in 1938. See also Art. 21, added in 1938 (right of signatories to suspend their participation).

15 Art. 4(b); revised, as Art. 4(c), in 1938.

16 Art. 7; Art. 12(b) (c) as revised in 1938.

17 Arts. 15(e) (g) and 18 (appointments, elections, etc.), 15(o) (budget and statement of account), 15(p) (rulings on procedure).

18 Arts. 15(j); 17; 19(i) as revised in 1938; 3(c)–(g), revised, as Art. 3(c)–(i), in 1938.

19 The special régime for Indo-China may not be affected at all.

20 Art. 15(b), revised in 1938; 15(k) (1). The number of substitute members is also fixed on a permanent scale.

21 Art. 15(n). Special provisions for votes of the delegation from Indo-China: Art. 15(n) (2), revised in 1938.

22 Including originally one and now two American representatives.

23 Art. 18, revised in 1938.

24 George, op. cit., 162–163, contrasting these negotiations with unsuccessful preceding attempts of producers at regulation without governmental action.

25 Committee Appointed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies (supra, note 9), Report, May 19, 1922, Cmd. 1678, Nos. 11, 16–18, and Supplementary Report, Oct. 2, 1922, Cmd. 1756. Nos. 1–6.

26 Arcoleo, op. cit., IRA. 27: E 344–350, 1936; George, op. cit., 139–142; Phillipson, op. cit., 33–36; Rowe, op. cit., 43; Wolf, op. cit., 229–232.

27 Rubber Growers' Association (RGA.), “Communiqué,” Apr. 29, 1934, Rubber Growers' Association Bulletin (RGAB.), 16: 177–178, 1934.Google ScholarPubMed Cp. de Leeuw, H., “Dutch Plantation Interests Elated Over Restriction Announcement,” RA. NY., 35: 71, 1934 Google Scholar; Wolf, op. cit., 233; “The International Rubber Regulation Committee and Its Work,” RA. L. 18: 386, 1937–38.

28 Sir John Campbell (also chairman of the International Tin Committee); see International Rubber Regulation Committee (IRRC), “Communiqué,” May 9, 1934, RGAB. 16: 239–240, 1934.Google ScholarPubMed

29 IRRC, “Communiqués,” May 9, June 26, and Oct. 30, 1934, RGAB. 16: 239–240, 315, 661, 1934.Google Scholar Cf. Thompsett, op. cit., RA. L. 18: 183–184, 1937–38.

30 IRRC, “Communiqués,” June 26, 1934 (organization of work, preparation of statistics), Jan. 30, 1935 (publication of the Statistical Bulletin, London, monthly, since 1935), RGAB. 16: 315, 1934, 17: 3, 1935.

31 Communicated under Art. 17(b) of the Agreement.

32 Loc. cit., RA. L., 18: 387, 1937–38.

33 Preamble, revised in 1938.

34 IRRC, “Communiqués,” May 9, 1934, Jan. 26, 1937, July 5, 1940, RGAB. 16: 239–240, 1934 Google Scholar, 19: 3, 1937, 22: 163, 1940. Cf. infra, notes 38, 47.

35 Letter of the secretary of the IRRC, quoted by Arcoleo, , “The International Rubber Agreement, 1938,” IRA. 30: E 391, 1939.Google Scholar

36 IRRC. “Communiqués,” Feb. 26, Mar. 26, Sept. 24, 1935; Oct. 27, Dec. 15, 1936; Jan. 26, Mar. 16, 1937; May 16, July 25, Sept. 9, Oct. 3, 1939; July 5 and Sept. 9, 1940; RGAB. 17: 63, 102, 377, 1935, 18: 432, 526, 1936, 19: 3, 85, 1937, 21: 324, 412, 505, 1939, 22: 163, 208, 1940.

37 See “An American Storm Brewing,” RA. L. 18: 73–74, 1937–38.

38 Cf. the provisions for maintenance of a definite price range in the agreements between the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, Rubber Reserve Company, and IRRC. (infra, note 47).

39 IRRC. “Communiques,” May 9, Nov. 2, 1934; Mar. 26, Sept. 24, Dec. 3, 1935; and Apr. 28, 1936; RGAB. 16: 239–240, 661, 1934, 17: 102, 377, 544, 1935, 18: 149, 1936.

40 Arcoleo, op. cit., IRA. 27: E 355, 1936; George, op. cit., 178–180; “Another Look at Restriction,” RA. NY. 41: 318, 1937.

41 IRRC, “Communiqués,” Dec. 15, 1936; Jan. 26 and Mar. 16, 1937; RGAB. 18: 526, 1936, 19: 3, 85, 1937.

42 Arcoleo, op. cit., IRA. 30: E 390–391, 395–398, 1939.

43 IRRC. “Communiqués,” Nov. 30, 1937; Jan. 25, May 31, Sept. 12, Nov. 15, 1938; Feb. 14 and July 25, 1939; RGAB. 19: 535, 1937, 20: 52, 238, 393, 465, 1938, 21: 69, 412, 1939.

44 Agreement for the Exchange of Cotton and Rubber, June 23, 1939, U. S. Department of State, Treaty Series No. 947, 1939, Arts. 1 and 2. Cf. “Survey Notes (Rubber and the Barter Scheme),” RA. L., 20: 171, 1939.

45 Arts. 4 and 5.

46 IRRC., “Communiqués,” July 25, Sept. 9, Oct. 3, Nov. 15, 1939; Feb. 20, 1940; RGAB. 21: 412, 505, 541, 1939, 22: 19, 1940.

47 Memorandum of Agreement (First Agreement), June 29, 1940, Second Agreement, Aug. 15, 1940, and Third Agreement, Mar. 7, 1941, RGAB. 22: 139–140, 199–201, 1940, 23: 79–80, 1941.

48 IRRC., “Communiqués,” May 21, July 5, Sept. 9, Nov. 28, 1940; Feb. 25, May 20, and Aug. 19, 1941; RGAB. 22: 118, 163, 208, 284, 1940, 23: 26, 60, 90, 1941. See also the Communiqué of the IRRC. of Dec. 2, 1941, as quoted in RA. NY. 50: 214, 1941. That the quota of 120 per cent could be completely filled was doubted even before the Japanese invasion, RA. NY. 50: 38, 214, 1941.

49 Loc. cit., RA. L. 18: 386–387, 1937–38; George, op. cit., 175–176.

50 IRRC, Statistical Bulletin, Dec., 1937, 4 noteGoogle ScholarPubMed; cp. George, op. cit., 174.

51 “One Year of Restriction,” RA. NY. 37: 182, 1935.

52 Supra, note 2.

53 “Rubber Quotas Unchanged,” RA. NY. 40: 47, 1936–37; George, op. cit., 174.

54 IRRC, “Communiqué,” Dec. 3, 1935, RGAB. 17: 544, 1935.Google Scholar

55 Supra, note 2.

56 IRRC., “Communiqué,” Feb. 20, 1940, RGAB. 22: 19, 1940.Google ScholarPubMed See also the Communiqué of Dec. 2, 1941, as quoted in RA. NY. 50: 214, 1941.

57 IRRC., “Communiqués,” Feb. 22, Mar. 14 and 29, 1938, and “Announcement of the Chairman,” Aug. 9, 1938, RGAB. 20: 117, 118, 297, 1938; Declaration of H. M. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Oct. 6, 1938 (supra, note 3). For the provisional revised text, see RGAB., Supp., Feb., 1938; cf. RGAB. 20: 152, 1938.

58 Loc. cit., RA. L. 18: 386–387, 1937–38; George, op. cit., 175–176.

59 Lewis, H. and Holt, E. G., Rubber Regulation and the Malayan Plantation Industry (Washington, 1935. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Trade Promotion Series No. 159), 1–2 Google Scholar; George, op. cit., 168–169. For details of control administration in the member territories, see their reports, published each year in RGAB.

60 A rubber controller was appointed for all Malaya, with district officers as his direct subordinates; the governments united under the British Malayan government either coöperated with him through their departments or entrusted all control directly to him.

61 Instead of transferring coupons with the rubber to dealers, many small holders preferred to sell them to other planters who could thus increase their production by paying competitors for not planting. This threatened to dislocate labor and revenues.

62 George, op. cit., 168; loc. cit., RA. NY. 37: 182–183, 1935; Wright, R. H., “Basic Rubber Quotas and the Future,” RA. L. 19: 4–5, 1938–1939.Google Scholar

63 Also native holdings in Java and Madura.

64 In order to reduce the export excess of the second quota year, it bought up planting rights from the estates.

65 George, op. cit., 169–172; loc. cit., RA. NY. 37: 182, 1935; Tatistcheff, op. cit., RA. NY. 38: 268, 1935–36.

66 George, op. cit., 175–176; “Should Restriction Be Renewed?,” RA. NY. 41: 373, 1937. For recent plans for development of new rubber sources outside the Far East, see R A. NY. 50: 285–287, 1942.

67 See especially H. Hoover, op. cit.

68 Cf. Colegrove, K., International Control of Aviation (Boston, 1930).Google Scholar

69 Cf. my “The International Sugar Régime,” in this Review, Vol. 33, pp. 860–878 (1939).