Report on the meetings of the IOCG Executive Committee, Council and General Assembly held during ICCG-11 in The Hague, The Netherlands, 18–23 June 1995

1996 ◽  
Vol 166 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 1121-1124
1997 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-60
Author(s):  
H. R. Butcher

The idea for a Working Group (WG) on “Future Large Scale Facilities in Astronomy” grew from a discussion held on 20 August, 1994, during the IAU General Assembly in The Hague. The IAU Executive Committee approved its formation in August, 1995, and its composition in October, 1995. The WG will remain active at least until the XXIIIrd General Assembly in Kyoto in 1997. Members are: H. Butcher (Chairman), R. Ekers, B. Fort, N. Kardashev, M. Longair, F. Pacini, L. Rodriguez, G. Swarup, Y. Tanaka, H. Tananbaun, and L. Woltjer (ex officio). The WG carries out its work mostly by email and FAX.


1997 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-36

As a result of the deliberations and discussions during the last General Assembly of the IAU in The Hague, it was recommended that Commission 14 become a commission of the Executive Committee. The special interdisciplinary role and nature of Comm. 14 were in this way recognized and encouraged.


1947 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 116-116

On January 12, 1946, a list of candidates nominated for membership on the International Court of Justice was submitted to the General Assembly and the Security Council, in accordance with invitations issued by the Executive Committee of the Preparatory Commission.As a result of elections held on February 6, the following were elected: Alvarez (Chile), Azevedo (Brazil), Badawi (Egypt), Basdevant (France), de Visscher (Belgium), Fabela (Mexico), Guerrero (Salvador), Hackworth (United States), Hsu (China), Klaestad (Norway), Krylov (USSR), McNair (United Kingdom), Read (Canada), Winiarski (Poland), and Zoricic (Yugoslavia).The first meeting of the Court was held on April 3 at the Peace Palace at the Hague, and the inaugural sitting on April 18. On April 6 the Court elected Mr. J. G. Guerrero as President and M. J. Basdevant as Vice-President. Mr. Edvard Hambro was appointed Registrar and M. J. Garnier-Coignet, Deputy Registrar. On May 3 the Court formed the Chamber for Summary Procedure, provided for by Article 29 of the Statute, composed of the following members: Guerrero (President), Basdevant, McNair, Krylov, Hsu, with Fabela and de Visscher as substitute members.


2000 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 444-446
Author(s):  
R.D. Ekers ◽  
I. Appenzeller ◽  
H.R. Butcher ◽  
N.S. Kardashev ◽  
J. Lequeux ◽  
...  

The idea for a Working Group (WG) on “Future Large Scale Facilities in Astronomy” grew from the Joint Discussion on this topic held on 20 August 1994, during the IAU General Assembly in The Hague. The IAU Executive Committee approved its formation in August, 1995, and Harvey Butcher was chair until the XXIIIrd General Assembly in Kyoto in 1997.


2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (S349) ◽  
pp. 289-324
Author(s):  
Thierry Montmerle

AbstractThis paper tells the story behind the succession of reforms that, for the last twenty years, progressively brought the IAU in line with the fast developments of astronomy and the public awareness of the sky worldwide. One major difficulty was how to organize the scientific activities of an exponentially growing population of astronomers, from 200 at its creation in 1919, in the aftermath of WW I, to over 13 500 a century later. The first attempts at “restructuring the IAU”, as the expression went, can be dated back to the 1988–1991 triennium. As shown by the Minutes of the successive meetings of the Executive Committee, the attempted strategy was to encourage and even propose Commission mergers, but this policy met with strong opposition, even though a need for change was felt increasingly necessary. The new approach proposed by L. Woltjer, then incoming IAU President, during the 1994 General Assembly at The Hague, was to retain the existing Commissions (along with their Working Groups) but grouping them, more or less topically, into a dozen Divisions. Putting an end to the Commission merger deadlock, this new structure was adopted very quickly, and confirmed at the following GA in Kyoto (1997). But even after this restructuring, there was little evolution of the Commissions, and in some areas the scientific classification and breakdown of the IAU activities reflected by Divisions became questionable. As a result, a new reform was undertaken in 2009, based on a more global approach, but keeping the Division/Commission/Working Group three-tier structure as the backbone of the reforming efforts. Thanks to a close collaboration between the Executive Committee and the Division Presidents, the Divisions were first redefined and approved at the Beijing GA in 2012, followed by a historic, full-fledged “Commission reset”, itself approved at the Honolulu GA in 2015. This marked the end of a structure created almost a century before, at the foundation of the IAU: the Standing Committees, precursors to the Commissions. But in response to a Call for Proposals issued by the Executive Committee, the “reset” gave birth to a whole new Commission structure, conceived by the community itself.


Author(s):  
William A. Schabas

As the war ends, Kaiser Wilhelm leaves Berlin for German military headquarters in Spa, Belgium, where his generals tell him that the troops will not follow him and that his life may even be threatened. He flees to the Netherlands in his private train, possibly after receiving an ‘all clear’ from Queen Wilhelmina. The Dutch Government persuades a local aristocrat, Count Bentinck, to take him in for a few days to his castle in Amerongen, but the visit ends up lasting nearly eighteen months. Britain’s Ambassador to The Hague sends his wife to spy on the Kaiser’s arrival, but attempts without success to conceal her identity from the Foreign Office.


2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Satoko Fujiwara ◽  
Tim Jensen

Abstract Donald Wiebe claims that the IAHR leadership (already before an Extended Executive Committee (EEC) meeting in Delphi) had decided to water down the academic standards of the IAHR with a proposal to change its name to “International Association for the Study of Religions.” His criticism, we argue, is based on a series of misunderstandings as regards: 1) the difference between the consultative body (EEC) and the decision-making body (EC), 2) the difference between the preliminary points of view of individuals and final proposals by the EC, 3) personal conversations, 4) the link between the proposal to change the name and the wish to tighten up the academic profile of the IAHR. Moreover, if the final decision-making bodies, the International Committee and the General Assembly, adopt the proposal, the new name as little as the old can make the IAHR more or less scientific. Tightening up the academic, scientific profile of the IAHR takes more than a change of name.


2021 ◽  
Vol 214 ◽  
pp. 104195
Author(s):  
Janneke van Oorschot ◽  
Benjamin Sprecher ◽  
Maarten van 't Zelfde ◽  
Peter M. van Bodegom ◽  
Alexander P.E. van Oudenhoven

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document