As part of a larger reorganization of the Secretariat, the Department for Advancement of Education (EDV) was created within the Education Sector in 1967, as approved in the 14 C/5 Programme and Budget. The Department was responsible for the study and general advancement of primary, secondary and higher education, with particular attention to the promotion of international co-operation through intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, through international conferences at ministerial level, and through selected studies on the status of education throughout the world. Special emphasis was to be given to the promotion of the right to education which included activities on the implementation of the Convention and Recommendation against Discrimination in Education, the access of girls and women to education, and the development of a programme in special education for handicapped children. Responsibility for educational programmes for refugees (UNRWA) and for training abroad, including administration of fellowship programme, was added the subsequent biennium. EDV oversaw cooperation with the International Bureau for Education (IBE) and the Institute for Lifelong Learning in Hamburg from 1969 to 1970. The IBE was administratively considered part of the Department from 1971 to 1972. Regional Offices in Santiago, Bangkok, and Dakar reported through the Department until 1971. The Department had responsibility for International Education Year and hosted the secretariat for the International Commission for Educational Development. EDV was dissolved when the sector was reorganized for the 1973-1974 biennium. The Department of Planning and Financing of Education inherited responsibility for activities on the right to education, international conferences on the ministerial level and development of educational policies. The Division of Training abroad moved to Department of Higher Education and Training of Educational Personnel.

The Department had the following units over time: Office of the Director (1967-1972), Division of Higher Education (1967-1968), Division of Studies and Information (1967-1968), Division of Equality of Access to Education (1967-1972), Division of Training Abroad (1968-1972), Special Unit – International Education Year (1969-1970), Division of Comparative Education (1969-1970), Division of Regional Programmes (1969-1971), Division of Study of Educational Policies (1971-1972), International Commission for Educational Development (1971-1972).

The Department was led by the following directors over time: L. Fernig (1967-1969), (Interim) S. Tanguiane (1970-1971), J. Knapp (1971-1972).

Established in 1970 to address educational planning issues in Africa South of the Sahara, BREDA, over years, extended its fields of action so much that it now covers not only other education sub-sectors but deals also with other areas of competence of the Organization: Science, Social
Sciences, Culture and Communication.

Prior to 1948, there were separate sections or divisions within UNESCO for the fields of libraries, museums, arts and letters. In 1948, these units were grouped under the newly created Department of Cultural Activities (CUA). The Department was renamed the Department of Culture in 1965 when the units at headquarters were being reorganized into Sectors creating the Social Sciences, Human Sciences and Culture Sector (SHC). Within SHC, the Department of Culture split in 1972 into the Department of Studies, Development and Dissemination of Culture (CLT) and the Department of Cultural Heritage (CLP). CLT’s name was shortened to the Department of Studies and Development in Culture in c. 1974. In 1975, both CLT and CLP were dissolved in advance of a larger reorganization of the sectors in 1976. At this time, the Culture and Communication Sector (CC) was created. The CC Sector was split apart by programme again so that there was an independent Culture Sector (CLT) from 1981 to 1985, until the programmes merged again to reform CC from 1986 to 1989. The Culture Sector (CLT) has since existed as an independent sector from 1990.

Over its history, CLT and its predecessors back to CUA have had the following directors and assistant director-generals: J. Thomas (1950-1954?); [Acting] P, Kirpal (1956?-1957); R. Salat (1957-1960); [Deputy] S. Asabuki (1962?); L. Gomes Machado (1962-1967); A. Seydou (1968?-1972); for CLT, A. Seydou (1972-1973?); for CLP, G. Bolla (1972-1974); for SHC, M. Elmandjra (1966?-1969); for SHC, R.H. Hoggart (1970-1974); M. Makagiansar (1976-1985); H. Lopes (1986?-1993); L. Arizpe (1994-1998); H. Crespo-Toral ([Deputy 1998-1999], 1999); M. Bouchenaki, ([Acting Interim 2000], 2001-2004); F. Rivière (2007-2010); and, F. Bandarin (2010-present).

The Communication and Information Sector (CI) was established in its present form in 1990.

The Office of Planning, Budgeting and Evaluation (PBE) was created in 1988, bringing together the former Bureau of Studies and Programming, Central Evaluation Unit and Bureau of the Budget. This change was made in the lead-up to the third Medium-Term Plan in order to strengthen capacity for studies, analyses, programming and evaluation. PBE was renamed the following year the Bureau of Studies, Programming and Evaluation (BPE). In 1990, the Bureau of the Budget was moved and BPE had then two units: the Division of Studies and Programming and the Central Programme Evaluation Unit. The Division was responsible for preparing the Medium-Term Plan and biennial programmes, as well as the Director-General's reports on the activities of the Organization to the Executive Board and to the General Conference, as well as carrying out studies concerning developments in the Organization's various fields of competence. The Unit was responsible for the system of evaluation of the Organization’s activities, ensuring that the findings of the evaluation fed back into medium-term planning, programming and programme execution. In 1992, BPE inherited the Division of Statistics and became responsible for supporting the Ad hoc Forum of Reflection as established by Resolution 15, at the 26th Session of the General Conference (1991). The activities for the Ad hoc Forum ended after the submission of the Forum’s report at the 27th Session of the General Conference in 1993. In 1997, the Division of Statistics began its transformation into the UNESCO Institute for Statistics, but the Division of Statistics continued to exist in BPE until 30 June 1999.

PBE was led by Assistant Director-General Sylvain Lourié from 1988 to 1990. Albert Sasson was Director of BPE from 1990 to 1993, then promoted to Assistant Director-General heading BPE from 1993-1996. Françoise Rivière led BPE from 1996-2000. She was its Director from 1996-1998, then was promoted to Assistant Director-General in 1999. Late that year, in November 1999, Ms. Rivière was appointed head of the Executive Office of the Office of the Director-General. She continued to supervise the work of BPE in this capacity. In 2000, in the context of larger organizational change, BPE was renamed the Bureau of Strategic Planning (BSP) and its mandate was adjusted slightly. BSP continued BPE’s planning and programming role, with resposibility for monitoring the programme’s implementation. Evaluation activities were entrusted to the new Office of Internal Oversight (IOS). BSP also has responsibility for coordinating the priorities set by the General Conference and Executive Board, such as, at the time of its creation, work with youth, women and least-developed countries.

In 2000, as part of a larger organizational charge, the Bureau of Strategic Planning (BSP) was created. BSP inherited most of its responsibilities from the former Bureau of Studies, Programming and Evaluation (BPE). At this time, the responsibility for internal evaluation of programme implementation was moved to the new Office of Internal Oversight (IOS) which centralized all internal oversight functions. BSP’s role shifted to monitoring programme implementation as aligned with its primary role in the preparation of UNESCO’s programme and reports on the activities of the Organization submitted to the General Conference and Executive Board. BSP was also responsible for ensuring that the priorities set by the Governing Bodies were taken into account at all stages of programme elaboration and implementation. In 2000, the priorities were women, youth and the least developed countries.

Unlike its immediate predecessor BPE which had a relatively fixed internal structure, the structure of BSP was more fluid in response to the priorities identified by Member States. In 2003, beyond the Office of the Director, BSP was composed of the following units: the Division of Programme Planning, Implementation and Reporting (BSP/PMR), the Section for Women and Gender Equality (BSP/WGE), the Section for Youth (BSP/YTH) and the Focal Point for Knowledge Management, Networking and SISTER (BSP/KNS). SISTER, or the System of Information on Strategies, Tasks and the Evaluation of Results, is one of the Organization’s IT-based management tools. It can be consulted by Member States and encompasses the programming, management, monitoring and reporting of the Programme and Budget (C/5) and associated operational Workplans for regular programme activities and extrabudgetary projects (UNESCO. Bureau of Strategic Planning, undated). In 2004, the Culture of Peace Coordination Unit was created in BSP. The Division for Youth was moved to the Sector for Social and Human Sciences in 2006. The former Office for Foresight was moved into BSP in 2008, creating a Section for Foresight. In 2010, the Section for Central Analysis and Planning was moved from the Bureau of the Budget to BSP, but the Division for Gender Equality was moved to the Office of the Director-General.

In 2011, responsibility for coordination of cooperation with extra-budgetary funding sources was transferred to BSP and the Division of Cooperation with Extrabudgetary Funding Sources (CFS) was moved to the Bureau. At this time, BSP was also said to be responsible as focal point for priority projects: the global strategy for support to the least developed countries; the coordination of UNESCO’s contribution to the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio +20); contributions to policy discussions by the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC); the servicing of the General Conference’s Leaders Forum and of various high-level panels and senior expert groups established by the Director-General, as well as the implementation of the UNESCO policy for Category 2 institutes and centres. Beyond the Office of the Assistant Director-General, BSP had the following units as of 2011: the Administrative Unit; the Unit for Intersectoral Platform on a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence; the Team for Knowledge and Programme Management Issues and Support; Team for UN Reform; the Division for Programme and Budget; the Division of Cooperation with Extra-budgetary Funding Sources; and the Section for Foresight.

In 2014, the Section for Foresight and the Unit for the Intersectoral Platform on a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence were dissolved, with responsibility for their activities moved to the new Division of Social Transformations and Intercultural Dialogue in the Social and Human Sciences Sector.

At the beginning of 2016, BSP was reorganized into five sections under the Office of the Director: the Section for Strategic Planning, Monitoring and Reporting; the Section for Budget and Risk Management; the Section for Mobilizing Government Partner Resources; the Section for Mobilizing Resources from Multilateral and Private Partners; and, the Section for Cooperation with UN System.

BSP was led by Hans D’Orville from its creation in 2000 to 2014. Ana Luiza Thompson-Flores led BSP from January to September 2015. Qian Tang, Assistant Director-General for Education, has been the Officer-in-Charge for BSP since that time.

The UNESCO office in Bangkok was established in 1961 as the Asian Regional Office for Primary and Compulsory Education. The Office was later extended to cover all divisions of the education sector and the countries of the Pacific region.
Further growth included the incorporation of activities relating to the culture, communication, and social and human science sectors, which led to the eventual renaming of the office as the Principal Regional Office for Asia and Pacific (PROAP) in 1987.
At the beginning of 2002, the UNESCO office in Bangkok assumed two roles. As the Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education, it is the technical advisory body to all field offices and Member States of the region and the site of regional programmes in most areas covered by the Education Sector.
As the cluster office, the UNESCO office in Bangkok is also the principal coordinator of UNESCO activities, across sectors, in the Mekong region - directly in Thailand, Myanmar and Lao PDR and indirectly in support of UNESCO country offices in Viet Nam and Cambodia.
UNESCO Bangkok also houses regional advisory units in Culture and Social and Human Sciences and staff from the Communication and Information Sector and the Science Sector.
In 2007, Singapore joined UNESCO as the 193rd Member State and become a member of UNESCO Bangkok cluster office.

At the level of the United Nations system, the Associate Experts Scheme was launched by an initial 1958 agreement between the United Nations (UN) and the Government of the Netherlands. In 1961, a resolution in the UN Economic and Social Council on volunteer technical personnel scheme invited specialized agencies to make use of voluntary personnel. After the 60th Session of the Executive Board encouraged the Director-General to pursue the idea, UNESCO’s first activities in line with this resolution began in 1963. In the scheme, requests come initially from potential host countries. Posts were originally intended for development or operational projects on site in the requesting country where an Associate Expert would add extra manpower to a project overseen by a senior technical expert (Alexander, p. 76). Member states wishing to fund the posts would thereby make a contribution to global development efforts in situ, while at the same time giving their young professionals their first technical experience after higher education. All costs were to be borne by the donor country. Candidates would be proposed by the funding state and approved by UNESCO and the host state. The associate experts upon recruitment were considered UNESCO personnel. In later years, associate experts could also be assigned to headquarters to work on regular programme activities. Member states join the Associate Expert Scheme through a formal exchange of letters and the signature of funds-in-trust agreements.

The Asian Regional Institute for School Building Research (ARISBR) was organized through the cooperation of UNESCO and the Government of Indonesia to assist in solving the school building problems in the Region. It was created in Bandung in late 1962 with the expectation to last for ten years. On 1 January 1965, the President of Indonesia announced that Indonesia is withdrawing from the United Nations and most of its agencies, one of which was UNESCO. This meant that ARISBR had to be located in another country and was temporarily moved to Bangkok, on 1 June 1965. It finally moved to Colombo, Sri Lanka and closed its door in 1973.

Category 2 Centres or Institutes, said to be under the auspices of UNESCO, are entities legally external to UNESCO that are associated with the Organization through various arrangements, as approved by the General Conference. Throughout its history UNESCO has established contractual and institutional relations in its field of competence with various such institutes and centres. However, it was in 1980 that the Twenty-first Session of the General Conference first adopted a set of principles and guidelines for the establishment of international and regional centres. The 1980 guidelines set down the nature and duration of UNESCO’s support and the procedure for formulating requests for such support.

In 2001, the Executive Board adopted the first strategy for UNESCO’s institutes and centres with the aim of achieving consistency with UNESCO’s overall decentralization strategy. At this time the terms Category 1 and Category 2 were introduced to make a distinction between those entities legally part of UNESCO and those external to the Organization. In general terms, Category 1 institutions apply UNESCO’s rules and regulations, are directed by a UNESCO staff member, and have programmes that are included in the Organization’s programme and budget. The governing bodies of most of these entities are either elected by the General Conference or appointed by the Director-General and report to the General Conference. Category 2 institutions, in contrast, do not apply UNESCO’s rules and regulations and are not led by UNESCO staff members, but UNESCO can be represented on their governing bodies. UNESCO can also provide technical and financial assistance to these centres or institutes which are established by a member state or by multilateral agreements. The Executive Board adopted a permanent framework for centres and institutes in 2005. This was followed by the introduction of a comprehensive strategy for centres and institutes, as approved by the General Conference in 2009. The 2009 strategy sets forth the actions to be taken by member states and the Secretariat when proposing and engaging with Category 2 Institutes and Centres.

Agreements to establish Category 2 institutions are for a maximum of six years and can be renewed after review and evaluation. The activities of Category 2 institutions are global, regional, sub-regional or inter-regional in scope and must contribute to UNESCO’s strategic programme objectives. These activities can include: exchange of information in a particular discipline; theoretical and experimental research and advanced training; joint publications; and facilitation of the participation of relevant national, sub-regional and regional institutions in UNESCO’s efforts. As set forth in the 2009 Strategy, UNESCO Secretariat sectors create focused strategies for engagement and interaction with Category 2 institutions in order to achieve this joint programme implementation. Category 2 Institutes and Centres are required to submit to UNESCO a biennial report on their activities. Overall, this modality of participation in the programme of the Organization is unique in the United Nations system.

The role of Category 2 Institutes and Centres was examined most recently in a 2011 Review of the Management Framework by the Internal Oversight Service. Among other results, the Category 2 Institutes and Centres were found to be, in principal, an effective model for partnership. However, it was noted that there were often delays after General Conference approval before the institutions were operational and that Secretariat sectors could also be delayed in preparing their sectoral strategies for engagement with the Institutes or Centres. As of June 2014, there are 81 International and Regional Institutes and Centres under the auspices of UNESCO.

Foundation:
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was founded by thirty-seven countries as a result of the United Nations Conference for the establishment of an educational and cultural organization (ECO/CONF). Its Constitution, signed on 16 November 1945, came into force on 4 November 1946 after ratification by twenty countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, France, Greece, India, Lebanon, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States. The first session of the General Conference of UNESCO was held in Paris from 19 November to 10 December 1946 with the participation of representatives from 30 governments entitled to vote.

Member States :
The ashes of the Second World War are reflected in the composition of the founding Member States of UNESCO. Japan and the Federal Republic of Germany became members in 1951, Spain in 1953. Other major historical factors, as the Cold War, the decolonization process and the dissolution of the USSR, also left their trace on UNESCO. The USSR joined UNESCO in 1954 and was replaced by the Russian Federation in 1992. Nineteen African States became Members in 1960. Twelve Republics from the former Soviet Union joined UNESCO in the period 1991 to 1993. As a consequence of its entry into the United Nations, the People's Republic of China has been the only legitimate representative of China at UNESCO since 1971. The German Democratic Republic was a Member from 1972 to 1990, when it joined the Federal Republic of Germany. In 1984, the United States withheld its contributions and withdrew from the organization in protest, followed by the United Kingdom in 1985 and Singapore in 1986. Following a change of government in 1997, the UK rejoined. The United States rejoined in 2003, followed by Singapore on 8 October 2007.

Reforms:
Since 1999 considerable reforms were implemented by UNESCO to restructure and decentralize the Organization’s staff and activities. These included the reduction of the number of divisions, allowing a corresponding halving of the number of directors and negotiated staff departures. In addition, the Internal Oversight Service (IOS) was established in 2001 to improve organizational performance by including the lessons learned from programme evaluations into the overall reform process.

The Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance (EPTA) and Special Fund (SF) were amalgamated effective 1 January 1966 to form the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The governance structure was changed so that UNDP’s new thirty-seven member Governing Council took up the duties of the former Special Fund Governing Council as well as the Technical Assistance Committee (TAC) of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Governing Council members were elected in ECOSOC and reported to ECOSOC. The Consultative Board of the Special Fund and the Technical Assistance Board (TAB) were replaced by a new Inter-Agency Consultative Board (IACB) consisting of the Executive Directors (or their representatives) of the specialized agencies under the Chairmanship of the UNDP Administrator. Governments made requests directly through the Resident Representative, but IACB members advised the Council on these submissions, taking into account technical assistance being undertaken as part of their agency’s regular programme. The Consultative Board members could also be consulted on the selection of agencies for the execution of projects and the appointment of Resident Representatives. The UNDP at this stage was to act as a funder and consolidator of technical assistance for the UN system. However, its process of finance by yearly pledging conferences created a pattern of stop-and-go programming for early years (Browne, 2011, p.18).

Country programming and the United Nations Development Co-operation Cycle were introduced by the “1970 Consensus,” adopted by the Governing Council of UNDP and approved by the UN General Assembly at its Twenty-fifth session, taking effect on 1 January 1971. This change acknowledged that the government of a country has exclusive responsibility for its national development plan, and the country programme would be formulated by each government in co-operation, at the appropriate stage, with representatives of the United Nations system as led by the UNDP Resident Representative on site in the country. The country was responsible for taking into account other forms of bilateral or multilateral inputs. From the Resident Representative, the country programme would be submitted to the Administrator of the UNDP for review before submission to the Governing Council for approval. Within the context of this country programme, the Governing Council had ultimate authority to approve individual projects submitted by governments, but, in turn delegated the UNDP Administrator with this authority. UN specialized agencies were to be given first consideration as executing agents under this new framework. They were also to provide advice when requested to the UNDP Administrator on the implementation of all projects, whether executed by them or not. Executing agencies, be they UN agencies or government or non-governmental institutions or firms, were accountable to the UNDP Administrator for the implementation of the projects. Monitoring of projects was carried out by the Resident Representative and evaluation, upon consent of the Government, was carried out jointly with the Government, UNDP and the executing agency.

Up until the 1970 Consensus, the EPTA and SF continued to be maintained as two separate funds. In 1970, UNESCO implemented US$ 10,143,861 of EPTA projects and US$26,073,904 of SF projects (UNESCO, 1987). The Consensus introduced a new system of Indicative Planning Figures (IPFs) where each country was allotted a percentage of the total resources available as projected over a certain period of time. The Governing Council of UNDP set the IPFs based on the proposal of the Administrator and a Government’s comments thereon. In 1975, in the context of the New International Economic Order movement, the General Assembly resolution on New dimensions in technical cooperation made another modification which allowed for government execution of projects and national experts to work on national projects.

In a report to its Executive Board, UNESCO considered that the principle that UN agencies should be given first consideration as executing agents was “weakened during the 1980s as UNDP moved towards a greater utilization of ‘alternative modalities’: project execution by UNDP/OPS, lending institutions and governments” (UNESCO. Executive Board, 1990). Late in the 1980s, UNDP also began to build up expertise in different specialized fields and the organization began to resemble a microcosm of the rest of the UN system (Browne, 2011, p.44). For the 1990s, UNDP envisaged a diminishing Special Agency role in project execution and an expanding role in providing technical advice to UNDP and member countries. However, the funding arrangements for this support were not immediately clear and UNESCO noted that the provision of pre-project analysis did not guarantee that it would be named an executing agency in this system. UNESCO and UNDP signed an Executing Agency Agreement in 1990 which governed the relationship of the parties in the execution of projects. 1990 was also the year when the first Human Development Report was published, introducing the Human Development Index. With this flagship publication, UNDP can be seen to have embraced the human development approach as opposed to the economic school of development espoused by the World Bank and IMF (Browne, 2011). This was seen as part of a larger evolution from a purely operational organization to a development agency with research and policy activities underpinning its work (Browne, 57). Traces of the human development paradigm can be found in UNESCO’s earlier work on the balance between economic and social development.

The UN General Assembly changed the governance structure of UNDP in 1993 by changing the Governing Council to an Executive Board. The suggested conflict between UNDP’s role as a coordinating body and its emerging operational activities as a development agency was supposed to be alleviated with UNDP/OPS’s transformation into UNOPS in 1995. UNOPS is a separate entity which reports to the Executive Board of UNDP. The Resident Representatives system was also modified in 1997 so that the newly renamed UN Resident Coordinators had an added level of impartially, being charged with leading development activities of the UN system as a whole at the country-level. In 1996, UNDP introduced the TRAC (Target for resource assignments from core) financing mechanism as a more flexible system to replace the IPFs. UNDP and UNESCO signed a Memorandum of Understanding in 2008 providing a framework for cooperation and to facilitate collaboration.

UNESCO and UNDP’s cooperation takes place in the larger context of UN inter-agency coordination mechanisms. UNESCO participated at the level of the ECOSOC’s Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC), as well as its standing bodies the Consultative Committee on Substantive Questions (Operational Activities), CCSQ/OPS, or the Consultative Committee on Administrative Questions (Financial and Budgetary Questions), CCAQ(FB). Created in 1946 as the main inter-secretariat coordinating body composed of the executive heads of the UN system, the ACC was renamed the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination in 2001. Within the governance structure of UNDP, inter-secretariat coordination formerly carried out by the Consultative Board of the Special Fund and the TAB was assumed by a new Inter-Agency Consultative Board consisting of the Executive Directors (or their representatives) of the specialized agencies under the Chairmanship of the UNDP Administrator. With the 1970 Consensus, the Inter-Agency Consultancy Board was no longer responsible for advising the Administrator on all programmes and projects before their submission to the Council. IACB, later the Inter-Agency Consultative Meetings (IACM) became rather an advisory body whose principal role was to develop maximum coherence and co-ordination in the operational activities of the United Nations system as a whole, and to increase the efficiency and capacity of the system. With the UN Reform movements beginning in the 1990s, the UN Development Group (UNDG) was introduced, uniting the 32 UN funds, programmes, agencies, departments, and offices that play a role in development. The Group is responsible for coordinating UN operational activities at the country level. The Administrator of UNDP chairs UNDG and UNESCO has a permanent seat on the UNDG Advisory Group which provides the Administrator with advice on “managing the operational dimensions of the UNDG and the Resident Coordinator system” (UNDG, undated).

Jaime Torres Bodet, a Mexican national, was born in 1903. He served as head of the Libraries Department of the Ministry of Education from 1922 to 1924 before being appointed Professor of French Literature at the University of Mexico City. In 1929, he joined the diplomatic service, in which he occupied various posts in Europe. Under-secretary for Foreign Affairs (1940-1943) then Minister of Education (1943-1946), in which capacity he launched a campaign on an unprecedented scale to combat illiteracy. Appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1946, he had the previous year led the Mexican delegation to the London conference establishing UNESCO. Appointed Director-General in 1948, he resigned four years later. He died in 1974.

Born in 1875 in Budapest, Cécile de Tormay grew up in a Hungarian aristocratic family. Her mastery of German, Italian, French, English and Latin prompted her to study foreign languages. Between 1900 and 1914, she completed numerous journeys abroad. She rose to success as a novelist with her book Emberek a kövek közt (People of the Rocks, 1911), which was translated into English, German, Italian, French and Swedish. Her international reputation as a novelist was cemented when in 1914 the saga A Régi ház (The Old House) appeared, and won the Grand Prize of the Hungarian Academy. It was translated into nine languages. In 1925, she published An Outlaw’s Cry, in which she opposed the Béla Kun regime.

She joined the International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation (ICIC) in May 1935, succeeding Marie Curie after her death, and worked for the Permanent Committee on Arts and Letters. In 1936, for instance, she contributed an opening statement for the interview series organised by the Permanent Committee on Arts and Letters, which was published the following year as “Vers un nouvel humanisme”. In 1937 she was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature, but it was awarded to the French writer Roger Martin du Gard. De Tormay died in April 1937 from a heart attack in Mátraháza, Hungary. Her fellow Hungarian, Count Paul Téléki took her place at the ICIC.

Nicolae Titulescu was born in Craiova, Romania, in 1882. He studied law in Paris and graduated with a thesis on civil law in 1907. Afterwards he returned to Romania where he taught civil law first at Iași then at Bucharest. He was elected to the Romanian parliament in 1912. A member of the Conservative party lead by Take Ionescu, Titulescu was appointed Finance Minister in 1917. In 1918 he participated in the founding of the National Romanian Committee in Paris, which lobbied for the right of the Romanian people to national unity.
After the first world war, Titulescu played an active role at the peace negotiations in 1920. He signed the Treaty of Trianon on behalf of Romania, which returned the province of Transylvania to Romania. He became Minister of Finance for the second time that year, and introduced a reform of the fiscal system. This unpopular measure helped to topple the government in 1921. Between 1922 and 1926 as well as 1928 and 1932, Titulescu served as a Romanian plenipotentiary in London.

In 1930, he was elected President of the eleventh session of the League of Nations (LN) General Assembly and he became a member of the ICIC (which he remained until 1939). He was reelected as President of the twelfth General Assembly the following year. Having been elected Romanian Foreign Minister, he took a pro-French foreign policy line, leading Romania into the “Little Entente” alongside Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. He also signed the 1934 Balkan Pact.

Differences with King Carol II and international tensions forced him to resign as Foreign Minister in 1936. However, he remained a delegate at the LN Assembly and denounced vigorously the Nazi re-militarisation of the Rhineland at the 91st session of the LN Council. He died after long illness in Cannes, France, in 1941.

Born into an aristocratic Hungarian family, Pál Teleki studied law and political science at the University of Budapest and completed his PhD at the Royal Hungarian Academy of Economy in 1903. An expert on geography and ethnography, he became a university professor at Budapest as well as a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. In 1905, he was elected a member of the Hungarian parliament. After having fought in the First World War, he participated at the 1919 Peace Conference in Paris. Teleki was a supporter of the Scout movement and served as Chief of the Hungarian Scout Association during the 1920s. He served as Prime Minister from 1920 until 1921, and again from 1939 until 1941. From May 1938 until February 1939 he also served as Minister of Education. Desperate about his foreign policy options after Hitler’s plan to conquer Yugoslavia, he committed suicide in April 1941.

Beginning in 1934, Teleki was involved in the International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation's (ICIC) project on interviewing prominent intellectuals. From 1937 until 1939, he was a member of the ICIC. In his capacity as Director of the Political Science Institute of the Hungarian Statistical Institute, he also served as President of the Hungarian Coordinating Committee on International Studies which gathered Hungarian experts for the International Studies Conference (ISC), a major conference organised by the International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation. The Hungarian delegation participated at the ISC beginning from 1937.

Born in Kentucky in 1906, John W. Taylor had a doctorate in philosophy and taught in leading universities in Europe and the U.S. As President of the University of Louisville from 1947 to 1949, he helped end racial segregation and pioneered community education programmes. Taylor became Deputy Director-General of UNESCO in 1950 and was appointed acting DG upon the resignation of Jaime Torres Bodet in 1952. He died in 2001.

"UNESCO’s Education Sector will be headed by Qian Tang of China, who is currently its interim Assistant Director-General. A specialist in secondary and technical education, Mr Tang has been an educator and a diplomat as well as a technical and professional education manager at China’s Ministry for Education. He played a central role in the establishment of UNEVOC, UNESCO’s International Centre for Technical and Vocational Education and Training in Bonn, Germany. Mr Tang has also been instrumental in mobilizing donor resources for Education for All and has promoted South/South cooperation in education" (UNESCO, Press Release 2010-043).

Born in 1861 in Calcutta, Rabindranath Tagore came from a wealthy intelligentsia background. After private tutoring at home and incomplete studies in England, he returned to India and began to publish poetry in the 1880s. He introduced new prose and verse forms in Bengali literature, and rose to international fame for his own work as well as his translations of Western and Bengali works. From 1878 until 1901 he managed the family estate in Shelaidaha, before moving to Santiniketan in 1901 where he founded an experimental school, trying to bring together Western and Indian traditions. This ashram eventually became known as Visva-Bharati University. From 1912, he went on numerous lecture tours outside of India. In 1913 he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, the first non-European laureate. Tagore was knighted in 1915, but in 1919 resigned the honour out of protest against British policies in India.

In 1927, the IIIC approached Tagore to enquire whether there was a journal published by Visva-Bharati University that could be added to the IIIC’s list of periodicals, though there is no evidence of a reply. In 1934, Tagore was invited by Gilbert Murray to collaborate in the activities of the IIIC, notably with regard to a publication on the relationship between East and West, to which Tagore responded positively. In 1935, the IIIC published a correspondence between Murray and Tagore. Tagore died in 1941. Tagore's work has been repeatedly published in UNESCO’s Courier magazine. After his death, in 1961, UNESCO celebrated his 100th anniversary with a special issue of the Courier.

Josef Šusta was a Czech historian, author, and politician. He studied in Prague with medieval historian Jaroslav Golla, who is often considered the father of Czech positivist historical school, then at the Austrian Institute of Historical Research in Vienna, and in Italy at the Austrian Historical Institute in Rome and in the Vatican Archives. Šusta was one of the first historians to write on Czech national history and to reconsider its role in the economic and social history of the Bohemia. He was also an expert on Catholic religious history. Between 1920 and 1921 Šusta was Minister of Education in Czechoslovakia.

Šusta was Vice-President of the Czech Committee of intellectual cooperation, and succeeded Hendrik Antoon Lorentz as President of the ICIC in 1928. He maintained this position until 1938. Šusta also served as President of the Czech Committee of intellectual cooperation. He died in 1945 in Prague.

French national.