At
the invitation of the American Historical Association,
the Bureau held its annual meeting in Princeton, at
the Shelby Cullom Davis Center Seminar Room in Dickinson
Hall, 25 and 26 August 2001.
Members in attendance : Jürgen Kocka, President
; Eva Österberg, Vice President ; Jean-Claude Robert,
Secretary General ; Pierre Ducrey, Treasurer ; Catherine
Coquery-Vidrovitch, Michael Heyd, William C. Jordan,
Koichi Kabayama, José Luis Peset, Assessor Members;
Ivan T. Berend, Counsellor.
Excused : Gregory Bongard Levin, Assessor Member
and Romila Thapar, Vice President.
Invited: Even Lange, President of the Norwegian
Organisation Committee of the 19th Congress (Oslo, 2000)
and Martyn Lyons, President of the Australian Organising
Committee of the 20th Congress (Sydney, 2005).
Agenda:
1. Opening and President’s Remarks on ICHS
Perspectives
2. Report of the Secretary General
3. Report of the Treasurer
4. Report on the 19th Congress (Olso)
5. Report on the organisation of the 20th Congress (Sydney)
6. Preparation of the 20th Congress (Sydney)
7. Action Plan for ICHS
8. Other matters
9. Special academic session
First session of the Bureau : Saturday 25 August 2001.
Second session of the Bureau : Sunday 26 August 2001.
1. Opening and President’s Remarks on ICHS Perspectives
President Kocka wished the Bureau members welcome and,
speaking on behalf of the whole Bureau, warmly thanked
the American Historical Association and Professor William
C. Jordan, who made possible the Princeton meeting.
The President then addressed the question of the evolution
of ICHS since its beginnings. He stressed the three
great moments of its history: ever since its foundation,
in 1926, ICHS endeavoured to overcome the World War
I animosities and to resume scientific exchanges between
European scholars. It is of interest to note that from
the very beginning, North America was instrumental in
the creation of ICHS. After World War II, ICHS saw a
change of role and became a meeting place for Eastern
and Western Scholars. And since the end of the Cold
War, more precisely since the fall of the Berlin wall
in 1989, ICHS must play a new role, spreading out of
Europe and reaching out world wide. It must become a
truly international organisation, drawing historians
from the whole world, and extending its action beyond
Europe and North America. This expansion will necessitate
a change in our mode of action. For instance, more regional
meetings between International Congresses are needed.
This requires a better division of labour among the
members of the Bureau as well as an effort at networking
historians across the globe. As well, ICHS must reach
out to younger historians and bring them into our organisation.
A discussion follows. Yvan Berend expresses his agreement
with the idea of expanding ICHS outside Europe, and
the necessity to bring in younger scholars. Eva Österberg
stresses the importance for ICHS to continue to deal
with theoretical reflections linked to the craft of
history. History is an eclectic discipline and ICHS
must emphasize more interdisciplinary endeavours. Michael
Heyd expresses his agreement with the President’s
remarks and wishes to insist on the importance of regional
meetings. José Luis Peset argues for an effort
to build institutional contacts and to increase financial
assistance for these purposes.
2. Report of the Secretary General (September 2000-August
2001)
The Secretary General reports that the secretariat in
Montréal is now operational; next month a PhD
student working part time will begin to help with regular
updates of ICHS files. A greater proportion of the files
are now on computer and the Secretary General is using
E-mail extensively.
2.1 ICHS affairs
The Bureau is glad to welcome two members who could
not attend the Oslo meeting, William Jordan and José
Luis Peset. On the other hand, our colleague Theo Barker’s
health will not allow him to attend our meetings in
the future.
The Bureau restreint (Jürgen Kocka, Jean-Claude
Robert and Pierre Ducrey), met in Berlin on 23 March
2001. The minutes of this meeting, in French and in
English, were distributed to all Bureau members.
The Bulletin d’Information du CISH no 27 –
2001 will be ready for publication by the end of November
2001. The issue will contain minutes of all meetings
in Oslo, minutes of Bureau meetings in 2001, and the
final report of the outgoing Secretary General, François
Bédarida.
The next general Assembly of ICHS will be in Amsterdam,
at the invitation of the Royal Dutch Historical Society,
on 2 and 3 September 2002. As usual, the Bureau will
meet first before the General Assembly, on 31 August,
and again in the afternoon of September 3. Here is the
timetable:
Friday, 30 August: arrival of the members of the Bureau
Saturday, 31 August: Bureau meeting
Arrival of the delegates to the General Assembly
Sunday, 1st September: Symposium organised by our Dutch
colleagues
Monday, 2 September: General Assembly
Tuesday, 3 September: Continuation of the General Assembly
in the morning.
Bureau meeting in the afternoon
The 2003 Bureau meeting is slated for Sydney. The discussion
focusses on the possibility of cancelling this Bureau
meeting because it would be expensive in terms of time
and money to move all Bureau members on such a long
distance for such a short duration. The rationale for
the Bureau meeting in the host city of the future congress
is to permit Bureau members to make sure that the venue
is suitable for the congress and that all commitments
by the local organising committee are being met. On
the other hand, since the General Asssembly in Amsterdam
(2002) will have decided on the main components of the
scientific programme, there should be little changes
in 2003. The meeting of 2004 is, for that matter, much
more crucial because by then some changes will have
to be approved. The site visit in 2003 could very well
be carried by the Bureau restreint.
Bureau members agree to avoid costly travels but, nevertheless,
they feel a Bureau meeting in 2003 would be advisable
and might very well be needed. The suggestion is then
made to explore the possibility of combining the Bureau
meeting with a regional meeting organised by the joint
ICHS-UNESCO Committee.
National Committees
Two associations contacted the Secretary General to
obtain information relative to the organisation of a
National Committee: South Africa and the Philippines.
International Affiliated Organisations
The International Commission of Historical Demography
decided to transform itself into an Affiliated International
Organisation, thus conforming to the decision of the
General Assembly at Prague (1992). The Bureau wishes
to express its satisfaction to see this important Commission
in a better position to continue its work.
Internal Commissions
Following a session on the History of Tourism during
the Oslo Congress, a group of historians organised an
International Commission on the History of Travel and
Tourism. The General Secretary has reviewed their statutes
and the composition of the first Bureau. The statutes
are in accordance with our principles and the composition
of the Bureau is international in scope.
He moves the acceptation of this new Internal Commission.
The Bureau accepts and recommends the acceptance to
the General Assembly.
International Council for Philosophy and Human Sciences
(ICPHS)
The ICPHS held its meeting in Buenos Aires in October
2000 and the Secretary General was representing ICHS.
A new Bureau was elected and the present Secretary General,
Maurice Aymard, was reelected. Changes in the relationship
between ICPHS and UNESCO forced the council to modifiy
its procedures, especially because of the new funding
rules, but in the main, ICPHS will continue to fund
the journal Diogène and its own organisations.
ICPHS suffered a 20% budget cut in the process. ICHS
does receive a small grant to help bring colleagues
from the South for its quinquennal Congress. ICPHS follows
roughly the same objectives than we do, especially throught
its desire to reach out to countries outside Europe
and North America. The journal Diogène has sent
a call to all its organisations for suggestions for
thematic issues. It may be recalled that in 1994, François
Bédarida put together an issue devoted to the
theme: the social responsibility of the Historian. The
Secretary General will receive any suggestions from
our member organisations.
The joint ICHS-UNESCO Committee
In 1997, a joint ICHS-UNESCO committee was created to
organise regional meetings with historians of Africa,
Est-Central Europe and Latin America [See Bulletin d’Information
du CISH No 24 (1998): p. 26 and 56 and Bulletin d’Information
du CISH No 25-26 (1999-2000): p. 40]. The Committee
organised two meetings, funded entirely by UNESCO, as
part of the «Peace Culture» Programme. One
took place in Lublin en 1998 and the other in Bamako,
in 1999. In Olso, two workshops were held on the theme
of the creation of frontiers. The financial problems
of UNESCO prevented continuation of this joint Committee,
but in May 2001, Professor Jerzy Kloczowski, president
of the joint Committee, informed ICHS that UNESCO was
still interested in this programme and that some funds
would be set aside in the next biannual budget. On the
other hand the Bureau of ICHS, during its Oslo meeting,
had expressed its willingness to continue its collaboration
with UNESCO. On behalf of the Bureau, Catherine Coquery-Vidrovitch
attended two preliminary informal meetings in May and
June in Paris and, in July, the Secretary General had
a long and fruitful meeting with Professor J. Kloczowski
in Montréal. ICHS wishes to organise regional
meetings again in Africa, Latin America and Caribbean,
and possibly also in Central Eastern Europe. The next
formal meeting of the joint ICHS-UNESCO Committee is
to be held at the end of October in Paris when the UNESCO
budget will be known. Catherine Coquery-Vidrovitch,
José Luis Peset and Jean-Claude Robert will represent
ICHS, president Jürgen Kocka being unable to attend.
An important congress of the Association of African
Historians will take place in Bamako, Mali, (9-14 September)
and ICHS will be represented by Catherine Coquery-Vidrovitch
and the Secretary General.
ICHS publications
The Bulletin d’information No 27 (2001) will be
published in Montréal in November 2001. The continuation
of this publication on a regular basis is called into
question by some members, especially in the view of
the existence of our Web site (www.cish.org). The Bulletin
is published annually since 1985 ; before that date,
it was published roughly every five years. The scope
of the Bulletin expanded over the years, from a hundred
pages to more than two hundred. Its cost represents
a heavy burden on the finances of ICHS, in terms of
preparation, printing and mailing. In Olso, the Bureau
decided to reduce the number of copies distributed to
National Committees and International Affliated Organisations
from 10 to 5. This reduction should bring significant
savings in printing and mailing costs.
The discussion underlines two aspects : the necessity
for ICHS to have an efficient means of communication
and to have a tangible «signature», to bolster
its visibility and to facilitate the circulation of
information. But ICHS will always have specific problems.
With no individual members, ICHS depends on the National
Committees and International Affiliated Organisations
for the proper dissemination of information contained
in the Bulletin. On the other hand, the publication
of a shorter newsletter, on a quarterly basis, would
be a too heavy burden for the human and financial resources
of ICHS. Moreover, such a Newsletter would contain a
lot of information available elsewhere, especially on
H-Net, and would become quickly obsolete. Any project
involving a larger diffusion from the Secretariat is
unrealistic given the level of our resources. Finally,
the decision is taken to continue with the Bulletin
in its present form, even if most of the information
appears on our Web site. However, the Secretary General
wishes to limit the number of pages and avoid turning
the Bulletin into a learned journal. It must remain
a means of communication and contact between the member
organisations.
Finally, the Bureau of ICHS decided to give a last try
to the project of publishing a shortened English version
of Karl Dietrich Erdman’s book ( Die Oekumene der
Historiker), published in 1987, which documents ICHS
history from the beginnings to 1985 [See the book review
by Prof. I. Veit-Brause in History and Theory, XXIX,
3 (1990) : 358-375]. Jürgen Kocka has already established
contacts with various publishers and will follow-up
on this project.
ICHS interventions
The Secretary General expressed ICHS concerns to the
Indian National Committee over the interruption of the
publication of some volumes of the series Towards Freedom.
The problem here is freedom of expression of scholars
in the face of what appears to be a gesture of censorship.
We are still expecting an answer from our Indian colleagues.
3. Report of the Treasurer
The Treasurer submits two documents (Comptes 2000 and
Bilan) and presents them. The Bilan shows that our financial
situation is sound despite customary delays in the payment
of annual dues. A few National Committees and International
Affiliated Organisations are very slow to pay and accumulated
arrears for a few years. The Treasurer asks Bureau members
to help him in contacting certain National Committees.
ICHS capital and reserve was adversely affected by the
economic downturn, but overall, our investments are
sufficiently diversified to avoid great losses.
The Treasurer brings to the attention of Bureau members
the fact that the finances of ICHS are an instrument
at the disposal of ICHS to attain its objectives and
the goal is not to accumulate funds. Bureau members
raise the question of a fee increase to match the raise
in the cost-of-living index and to bring in more resources
to ICHS, particularly in view of its own projects, but
no decision is taken on the subject. Michael Heyd raises
the matter of the level of fees for National Committees
being set up, proposing that ICHS establishes a fee
structure taking into account the different capacity
of payment of certain countries or regions. The discussion
brings up the fact that it is rarely uniquely a lack
of resources that is the problem but rather the difficulty
of building a sound, efficient, and durable organisational
structure. In this context, in the past the Bureau did
what it could to help National Committees being set
up and is ready to continue to do so. But there is a
real danger of creating a second, lesser order of members
if we tamper with the fee structure. The matter of the
structure of ICHS is then brought up : our two pillars
are the National Committees and the International Affiliated
Organisations. Another structure could be possible,
involving universities or other forms of associations
who could join the ICHS. It is agreed that the next
Bureau meeting will explore this matter further. It
is recalled that any modification of the base of ICHS
involves a change of the statutes.
4. Report on the 19th Congress (Olso).
The Organising Committee of the Oslo Congress prepared
a report on the Congress and distributed it to Bureau
members. This is the second time that such a report
is prepared, the initiative having been taken by the
Organising Committee of the Montréal Congress
to supply future organising committees with an institutional
memory of ICHS congresses. Even Lange presents the salient
features of the written report, underlining the problem
areas. The Congress went very well, but the Committee
has to deal with an accumulated deficit of around 8%,
that it must cover one way or another. Even Lange presents
his report in five points, in the form of recommendations
to the Bureau for the organisation of future congresses.
a) Registration fees
The Norwegian Committee suggests that registration
fees should be substantially increased for the next
congress. Fees were too low in Oslo and should amount
to a greater proportion of the Congress budget. The
percentage was 20% in Olso, against 37% in Montréal.
The president of the Norwegian Committee presents the
overall financial picture of the Congress and underlines
the fact that his budgetary estimates were based on
greater number of paying participants than in Montréal
( 2 225 in 1995). The Committee expected 3 000 paid
registrations. The fact that the whole budget was based
on such a high figure is responsible for the deficit.
b) Brand building
The Olso Congress organisers worked to build a brand
image of ICHS as the unique generalist organisation
devoted to all aspect of history and that ICHS should
continue to develop this brand image.
c) Call for paper procedures
If the selection process for themes is satisfactory,
it is not the same with the call for papers. Potential
contributors do not know the selection procedure used
and the process therefore seems mysterious. The Committee
suggests leaving more room to the Organisers to complete
the selection.
d) The abstracts
The publication of a book of abstracts prior to
the Congress requires review. It is costly and time-consuming.
The Committee suggests to drop this publication and
to use the Internet instead.
e) The date of the Congress
Fixing the date of the Congress is crucial because
of its implication on attendance. Because of the various
academic calendars across the world, some colleagues
will be able to attend and some not. For instance in
Oslo, there were more United States historians than
in Montréal, but fewer Europeans. Beginning of
term in the US being in early September, it is easier
for colleagues to attend a meeting in early August.
On the other hand, Europeans whose term starts later
in September or early October, and ends later, are generally
on vacation in August and less inclined to attend a
Congress at that time.
Discussion of Even Lange’s report is lively and
allows Bureau members to touch upon most questions regarding
the Congress. Eva Österberg states that it is unrealistic
to postulate that the overall attendance to the International
Congress will increase each time indefinitely. The potential
public of the Congress is not elastic and this should
be taken into account when preparing estimates. Jean-Claude
Robert agrees and reminds members that a proper estimate
of attendance is a very critical instrument for the
Organising Committee because it allows the calculation
of a proper budget estimate and timing for expenses.
For instance, in Montréal, the break even point
was fixed at 1 700 paid registrations and this figure
enabled the organisers to monitor closely the expenditures
and to prepare various scenarios in case of a significant
variation in attendance. Costly budget items like receptions
could be adjusted at a 24 or 48 hour notice to take
into account real registration figures and adjust spending
to revenue. Even Lange brings up an important point
for the next Congress : the Professional Congress Organiser
(PCO) they worked with was late in supplying the Organising
Committee with accurate data on registrations and expenses,
which impeded the Organising Committee’s decision-making
process. Jean-Claude Robert reminds the Bureau that
both the Madrid Congress (1990) and the Montréal
Congress (1995) made surpluses ; the fact that the Oslo
Congress had a deficit seems like an exception.
Registration fees are then discussed. The Committee’s
proposal to increase them significantly raises a lot
of objections and is not retained by the Bureau. The
majority of members thinks that the increase must be
gradual and must always take into account the level
of fees at the last Congress. From Montréal to
Oslo, there was a 15% increase.
There is a consensus on the idea of brand building for
ICHS. Bureau members agree that the quinquennial Congress
must continue to offer a programme that takes into account
the evolution of the discipline as a whole and selects
themes that are of interest to the widest possible audience
of historians regardless of their own areas of specialisation.
The call for paper procedure brings a lot of discussion
among members. Many find the current procedure too constraining.
Possible contributors are numerous and Bureau members
received many complaints from colleagues who felt excluded
from the selection. The possibility of leaving some
empty slots in various sessions is brought up. But this
in turn creates two problems : the first one is the
obligation to publish a preliminary programme as soon
as possible so that contributors will be able to apply
for travel grants in their respective countries since
funding agencies require such a proof. The second is
linked to our procedures : when a report must be produced
for the session, the rapporteur must have the time to
read the final papers of his sessions a few months in
advance, and to write his report. There is some latitude
but not a great deal.
The question of the difference between the Specialised
themes and the Tables rondes is then raised. A certain
confusion was evident in Olso and some Tables rondes
were seen as a kind of junior Specialised themes. At
the outset, when Tables rondes were created, the idea
was to provide a place where work in progress could
be discussed with less formality than in the regular
thematic sessions. Over the time, this aspect tended
to fade away. Michael Heyd brings up the fact that presidents
of Tables rondes spoke for too long, thus cutting into
the time left for presentations by other participants
and in fine to questions from the audience.
The matter of the publication of abstracts is brought
up next. There is a consensus to stop publishing the
résumés and to make them available on
the Internet instead. Only reports should be published
together with the titles of the contributions in each
session. This will reduce the size of the work and produce
a book easier to handle and to peruse.
On behalf of all members of the Bureau, Jürgen
Kocka thanks Even Lange, President of the Organising
Committee of the 19th International Congress of Historical
Sciences, for the good work of the Committee and for
his report which will be of much use in the future.
5. Report on the organisation of the 20th Congress
(Sydney)
Martyn Lyons, President of the Organising Committee
of the 20th International Congress of Historical Sciences
reports on the current thinking of the Committee and
its preliminary work for 2005. He begins by stressing
the continuity with the Olso Congress and he agrees
with most of the suggestions made by the Norwegian Committee.
He reminds Bureau members of the dates of the next Congress:
4 –11 July 2005. Following questions about the
dates, he states that they are in accordance with the
academic year calendars for the Asia-Pacific region
and he doubts that they could be moved later in July.
The Committee will soon be choosing its PCO (Professional
Congress Organiser) and is currently working on a preliminary
budget. The Committee prepared a lower registration
estimate in order to take into account the higher cost
of air travel to Australia and its impact on attendance.
This lower estimate will enable the Committee to adjust
spending to revenue and to avoid any deficit. A base
registration fee of 250$ US is proposed.
6. Preparation of the 20th Congress (Sydney)
Following presentation and discussion of these two reports,
the Bureau then examines the structure of the next Congress.
6.1 Type of sessions.
The Bureau examines the three types of sessions
of its congresses.
6.1.1 Major Themes.
All agree that the number must remain at 3. However,
some changes are proposed for 2005. It is suggested
that at least one Major Theme could be organised around
a keynote speech given by a colleague well known for
its contribution to the theme. One or two rapporteurs
could then respond to the presentation and lead discussion
with the audience. The session would be a full day meeting.
Major Themes could also be more interdisciplinary in
their content.
6.1.2 Specialised Themes
Many comments were made on Specialised Themes. First,
the rapporteur seems to take too much room in the session.
As William Jordan and others Bureau members noted, colleagues
come to a session to listen to presentations of the
papers listed in the programme. As the gist of the report
is not known, it is not what draws the audience. It
is therefore important to give enough time to each of
the paper givers. It is proposed that, in the future,
Specialised Theme sessions follow this procedure: the
organiser or the rapporteur presents the theme in 5
to 10 minutes; each of the contributors has up to 15
minutes to outline the salient features of his paper,
and finally the rapporteur has 15 minutes to present
his report, outlining the contribution of each paper
to the theme, offer some remarks and suggest possible
avenues for discussion. The rapporteur’s role is
combined with the role of a discussant. It is essential
to allow around 40 minutes for discussion with the audience.
6.1.3 Round tables
Round Tables should return to their original format,
namely a session to explore an historical problem that
is relatively new and raises a lot of questions or controversy.
The notion of work in progress is crucial here. Round
Tables should not become a kind of junior Specialised
Theme. The opinion of the members of the Bureau will
be important to decide which theme is more suitable
for a Round Table or a Specialised Theme. If needed,
the number of Specialised Themes could be increased.
6.1.4 Balancing the sessions
In Oslo, there were 3 Major Themes, 20 Specialised
Themes and 25 Round Tables, compared to 3-16-34 in Montréal.
The Bureau proposes for Sydney : 3 Major Themes, 25
Specialised Themes and 20 Round Tables.
6.1.5 Opening and Closing sessions
The Bureau has to decide on the format of the opening
session. Many formats were tried in the past. In Montréal
there were four video presentations followed by a live
panel discussion and in Olso, there were three live
presentations in the room. There also remains the possibility
of an opening lecture. The Bureau will continue its
reflections on the matter. As for the closing session,
the responsibility falls to the Australian Organising
Committee and they must have some time to think it over.
6.2 Call for papers and selection of contributors
The Bureau agrees to leave more flexibility for
the selection of contributors. However, a number of
factors will have to be taken into consideration: the
balance between countries and regions, between gender,
and the necessary delay to prepare a report. It is proposed
to leave more latitude to Organisers. Meeting deadlines
will still be an inescapable constraint. For instance,
to have a report available in print in July 2005, the
Australian Organising Committee needs to receive papers
by March 2005 at the latest and in order for the rapporteurs
to be able to prepare and write their reports, they
must receive the final papers in October 2004 at the
latest. This does not leave a lot of time: by the end
of December 2003, all contributors should be chosen.
6.3 Proceedings
The Bureau decides to publish only the full text
of the reports and the list of contributors with the
title of each paper. Abstracts will be made available
through the Congress Web site.
6.4 Travel grants for colleagues from the South or the
East
Since the proceedings will be less costly, it is
decided that from now on, the 45 000 Swiss Francs subsidy
that was given to the Congress Organising Committee
will be earmarked for travel grants to contributors
from the South or the East.
6.5 Themes for the Sydney Congress
National Committees, International Affiliated Organisations
and Internal Commissions have until September 30 to
send to the Secretary General their proposals for themes
for Sydney. Bureau members explore various possibilities
for Major themes. The President reminds the Bureau that
in Oslo, we had chosen the millennium and questions
relating to periodisation of history. He suggests that
for major themes, ICHS should look for themes not generally
chosen in more specialised historical congresses, in
order to bring down barriers between various historical
fields and historians. A theme that seems important
to him is history from a non-European perspective, a
vision of the history of the world from various cultures.
Koichi Kabayama agrees and suggests strongly to focus
on an Oceania and Pacific perspective. Ivan Berend proposes
the complex theme of globalisation, especially in its
economic and cultural dimensions. He also suggests an
interdisciplinary approach. Eva Österberg also
wishes for a non-European perspective and suggests looking
at trans-national phenomena such as the human beings
and human nature or the informal organisation of society
(friendship, conviviality). She also wishes for a more
theoretical or conceptual content to the themes. Catherine
Coquery-Vidrovitch suggests four themes: the history
of the world from a non-European point of view, the
relationships between cultures and globalisation, comparative
history, the fall of empires through history. William
Jordan suggests themes related to human rights: ideas
and practice of human rights, the moral dimension of
human beings as a specific value, cultures and their
impact on human rights, the trumping of national sovereignty
by charters of rights. Pierre Ducrey underlines the
fact that our themes must be compatible with all periods
of history, and more specifically, Ancient history.
Martyn Lyons suggests a better wording of «non–European»
which can be seen as condescending. He proposes the
theme of cultural clashes and cultural interpenetration,
and the theme of settler societies. Eva Österberg
feels strongly that one major theme should be theoretical,
the identity of history as a discipline between literature
and the social sciences.
The Bureau then nominates Eva Österberg, Jürgen
Kocka and the Secretary General to form a committee
to examine the various propositions received and prepare
for the Bureau a global proposal that will be brought
to the General Assembly, which has to make the final
decision.
7. Action Plan for ICHS
The President has prepared a mission statement for
ICHS that was discussed by the Bureau restreint. Picking
up on this theme, the Bureau discusses various objectives
to be attained between now and the Sydney Congress.
The Secretary General stresses the importance to induce
National Committees and International Affiliated Organisations
to participate fully in those objectives and the need
to find out what they could do to help meet the objectives.
In the same vein Bureau members are asked in which area
they would be ready to contribute.
8. Other matters
The Bureau will have to think to the 2005 elections,
because the General Assembly of 2002 has to set up a
Nominating Committee of seven members, three from to
the Bureau and four from the delegates. This Nominating
Committee is responsible for the nomination of candidates
to the Bureau and for President, Vice-president, Secretary
General and Treasurer.
9. Special academic session
Special academic session of the Bureau
Princeton, 26 August 2001
Presentations of historical research.
As usual, the Bureau asked to the organiser of the meeting
in Princeton to set up a special session in which the
Bureau could get acquainted with recent work by younger
American scholars. Three papers were presented. William
Jordan introduced the sessions and the participants.
Andrew Isenberg, Princeton University, «The Alchemy
of Hydraulic Mining: Ecology and Culture in Gold Rush
California, 1850-1885»
Khaled Fahmy, New York University, «Mehmed Ali
Pasha / Muhammad ‘Ali Basha between Ottomanists
and Egyptian Nationalists: An Historiographical Critique»
Samantha Kelly, Rutgers University, «Robert of
Naples and Fourtheenth-Century Kingship»
The presentations were followed by a question period.
President Jürgen Kocka concluded the session by
thanking the participants for their interesting and
stimulating papers.
