494 J.-A. PEMBERTON
intellectual history of the interwar period. From the time that it decided
on becoming a study conference, the ISC called upon leading intellectu-
als to participate in organised research and discussion of pressing prob-
lems of the day with a view to public enlightenment. In this regard,
the conception of its intended role was similar to that envisaged for the
‘Conversations’ and Open Letters,’ except that the approach adopted
towards the subject at hand in the context of these two series was largely
cultural and psychological whereas the ISC’s approach to its subject mat-
ter was based in economics, law and, above all, sociology.^223
As Zimmern had maintained in setting the tone for ISC’s discus-
sions on the teaching of international relations in Madrid in 1936 and in
invoking ‘the Greek Age,’ what needed to be stressed is the ‘altogether-
ness of public affairs,’ an altogetherness that implied among other things
that the boundaries of the discipline of international relations should
not be tightly policed. Interpreted generously, the sociological approach
embraced by certain partisans of the discipline of international relations
in the interwar period suggested that what should be examined is not
simply the multiple relations of states, but also the various relations
amongst peoples. It is for this reason that Paul Boyer in L’Enseignement
universitaire in 1939 stated that although he did not like neologisms,
he would ‘say willingly “interhuman relations” in place of international
relations.’^224 Such an approach insisted on the importance to the study
of international relations of examining social life within states, be it in
relation to a state’s economic situation, its culture and traditions, its pre-
vailing ideology and so on.
This, of course, may conduce to the very vagueness of which
Morgenthau complained, however, at the same time it is an approach
that circumvents a potentially sterile concentration on states and their
power. The irony here is that ISC, with its conceptions of international
relations in terms of a complex relational milieu, was more open to inves-
tigating questions relating to the culture, identity and welfare of peoples
that so many at UNESCO wished to explore than the more statist and
(^224) Sir Alfred Zimmern, ‘Introductory Report to the Discussions in 1935,’ in
Zimmern, ed., The University Teaching of International Relations, 11, and Paul Boyer,
L’Enseignement universitaire, Conférence permanente des hautes études internationaux:
Publications (préparations) imprimeurs jusqu’au 1e juin, 1939, AG 1-IICI-K-II-8.a, UA.
(^223) Kolasa, International Intellectual Cooperation, 108.