464 J.-A. PEMBERTON
Scelle contended that the ISC’s objective should be to ‘make it possi-
ble for higher organisations—of a more political character than ours...
to lay a finger on and find out what the world public thinks of a spe-
cific problem, at a given moment’. He urged that the ISC should be an
‘essential instrument’ of UNESCO as well as other organs of the United
Nations. Elaborating on his point, Scelle stated that if the ISC were to
gain UNESCO sponsorship it would be because the latter felt that the
ISC could serve some purpose other than that of facilitating ‘purely aca-
demic debates among scholars.’^123
Speaking in a similar vein, Mayoux declared that he considered the
ISC’s past tendency to ‘keep itself on a lofty, scientific and, perhaps,
rather restricted plane’ and to avoid publicising its work to be a mis-
take. Indeed, Mayoux suggested that in the interest of peace, it was
a duty of an organisation such as the ISC to publicise its work, the
obvious implication of this suggestion being that publicising its work
was something that UNESCO would expect of the ISC.^124 In urg-
ing the conference to reach an accord with UNESCO, Mayoux stated
that in the course of his conversations at UNESCO that year, he too
had been assured that UNESCO would never attempt to interfere
with the conference’s liberty in regard to its ‘programme, thought or
research.’^125
Cassin agreed with Mayoux that UNESCO needed the ISC, although
he warned that not all those associated with UNESCO appreciated this
fact. He cautioned that at UNESCO there were far more voices raised
on behalf of the exact sciences, on behalf of education and of the other
social sciences than there were on behalf of the study of international
relations. He noted that at the UNESCO committees there were a great
number of persons who believed that ‘[s]cience by itself can dispense
with everything else and that international relations do not constitute a
science.’ Cassin added that many in attendance at the UNESCO’s First
General Conference held this view and that such a view would only be
strengthened should those who specialised in international relations
bypass UNESCO and ‘withdraw into their shell.’ Echoing Mayoux’s
(^123) International Studies Conference, Verbatim report of the XIIIth Administrative ses-
sion, December 16 and 17, 1946, at the Centre d’études de politique étrangère de Paris,
IICI-K-XIV-12, UA, 33, 47, 51.
(^124) Ibid., 20.
(^125) Ibid., 49.