United Nations Juridical Yearbook 1980

UNITED NATIONS

JURIDICAL YEARBOOK

1980

UNITED NATIONS-NEW YORK

1983

ST/LEG/SER.C/18

UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION

Sales No. E.83.V.1

02500C

CONTENTSPage

FOREWORD xviiABBREVIATIONS xviii

Part One. Legal status of the United Nations and relatedintergovernmental organizations

CHAPTER I. LEGISLATIVE TEXTS CONCERNING THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE UNITED NATIONS

AND RELATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

1. AustraliaDiplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Act 1980 3

2. BarbadosNote dated 26 May 1981 from the Charge d'Affaires a.i. of Barbados to the UnitedNations 5

3. Federal Republic of GermanyAct of 16 August 1980 concerning the Convention on the Privileges and Immunitiesof the United Nations of 13 February 1946 7

4. SeychellesPrivileges and Immunities (Diplomatic, Consular and International Organizations)Act 1980 8

5. SwedenNote dated 22 April 1981 from the Acting Permanent Representative of Swedento the United Nations 15

CHAPTER II. TREATY PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE UNITED NATIONS

AND RELATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

A. TREATY PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE UNITED NATIONS

1. Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations approved bythe General Assembly of the United Nations on 13 February 1946 17

2. Agreements relating to meetings and installations 18

3. Agreements relating to the United Nations Children's Fund: Revised Model Agree-ment concerning the activities of UNICEF 39

4. Agreements relating to the United Nations Development Programme: StandardBasic Agreement concerning assistance by the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme 39

B. TREATY PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE LEGAL STATUS OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL OR-GANIZATIONS RELATED TO THE UNITED NATIONS

1. Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies. Ap-proved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 21 November 1947 . 40

2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 40

3. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 41

iii

CONTENTS (continued)Page

4. World Meteorological Organization 42

5. International Atomic Energy Agency 42

Part Two. Legal activities of the United Nations and relatedintergovernmental organizations

CHAPTER III. GENERAL REVIEW OF THE LEGAL ACTIVITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS ANDRELATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

A. GENERAL REVIEW OF THE LEGAL ACTIVITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS

1. Disarmament and related matters 47

2. Other political and security questions 59

3. Economic, social and humanitarian questions 60

4. Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea 70

5. International Court of Justice 72

6. International Law Commission 77

7. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law 78

8. Legal questions dealt with by the Sixth Committee and by ad hoc legal bodies . 79

9. United Nations Institute for Training and Research 82

B. GENERAL REVIEW OF THE LEGAL ACTIVITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND RELATEDINTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

1. International Labour Organisation 83

2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 84

3. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 87

4. International Civil Aviation Organization 90

5. World Bank 91

6. International Monetary Fund 96

7. World Meteorological Organization 99

8. Universal Postal Union 101

9. Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization 102

10. International Atomic Energy Agency 103

11. International Fund for Agricultural Development 104

CHAPTER IV. TREATIES CONCERNING INTERNATIONAL LAW CONCLUDED UNDER THE AUS-PICES OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND RELATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

TREATIES CONCERNING INTERNATIONAL LAW CONCLUDED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THEUNITED NATIONS

1. United Nations Conference on Prohibitions or Restrictions of Use of Certain Con-ventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to HaveIndiscriminate Effects 113

2. United Nations Conference on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods . . . 122

iv


C H A P T E R V . DECISIONS O F ADMINISTRATIVE T R I B U N A L S O F T H E U N I T E D N A T I O N S AND RE-

LATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

A. DECISIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS

1. Judgement No. 253 (22 April 1980): Klee v. Secretary-General of the UnitedNationsCompensation expressed in a currency other than the United States dollar — Rate

of exchange — Relevance to same of the method followed in determiningthe measure of damages 144

2. Judgement No. 254 (23 April 1980): Fernandez-Lopez v. Secretary-General ofthe United NationsCompensability of death arising out of an accident while travelling to the normal

place of work in a supervisor's private automobile — Interpretation of article2 (b) (iii) in fine of appendix D — Non-applicability of rules adopted in inter-organizational consultations and creating provisions beyond the existing reg-ulations and rules unless such rules are incorporated in the individual rulesof the organization concerned 145

3. Judgement No. 255 (24 April 1980): Teixeira v. Secretary-General of the UnitedNationsRevision of Tribunal judgements — Limits of the power of revision under the

statute of the Tribunal 1464. Judgement No. 256 (25 April 1980): Willems v. Secretary-General of the United

NationsTransportation of private automobiles to duty stations at United Nations expense —

Conditions for exercising this entitlement — The one-year time limit forretroactive financial claims 146

5. Judgement No. 257 (30 April 1980): Rosbasch v. Secretary-General of the UnitedNationsTermination of a permanent appointment for unsatisfactory services — Secretary-

General's discretionary authority limited only by the requirements of dueprocess and of a thorough investigation and review 147

6. Judgement No. 258 (6 November 1980): El-Tawil v. Secretary-General of theUnited NationsNon-validation of a period of service alleged by the applicant to be the result of

an administrative error — Application for compensation for the damagessuffered in that connexion — The application is rejected in view of theapplicant's negligence 147

7. Judgement No. 259 (6 November 1980): Hoppenbrouwer v. Secretary-General ofthe United NationsApplication for seeking compensation for the loss of personal effects — The notion

of a direct connexion with the performance of official duties — Does sucha connexion exist if the loss is incurred during a necessary stopover whiletravelling between two cities visited by the claimant in the performance ofofficial duties? 148

8. Judgement No. 260 (6 November 1980): Denis v. Secretary-General of the UnitedNationsApplication made to the Tribunal on the basis of an opinion of the Secretary of

the Joint Appeals Board concerning the receivability of the appeal to theBoard — Referral of the case to the Board 149


9. Judgement No. 261 (11 November 1980): Boelen v. Secretary-General of theUnited NationsApplication directed against a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract —

Discretionary power of the respondent in the matter — Confirmation of thecontested decision notwithstanding certain irregularities justifying the pay-ment of compensation 149

10. Judgement No. 262 (11 November 1980): Thorgevsky v. Secretary-General of theUnited NationsApplication for measures to offset the negative effects on pension rights of a

promotion from the General Service category to the Professional category —Rejection of the application in the absence of regulations enabling suchnegative effects to be remedied 150

11. Judgement No. 263 (12 November 1980): Elmoznino v. Secretary-General of theUnited NationsApplication for assistance under a study programme and for compensation for the

loss caused by administrative delay 150

12. Judgement No. 264 (18 November 1980): Piraces v. Secretary-General of theUnited NationsDecision terminating an appointment in the interest of the Organization, despite

the existence of a prior agreement between the applicant and the respondentterminating the appointment by mutual consent — Such a decision taken insuch circumstances constitutes a violation of a contractual obligation —Award to the applicant of compensation by way of reparation for prejudicesuffered as the result of administrative delays 151

13. Judgement No. 265 (19 November 1980): Kennedy v. Secretary-General of theUnited NationsApplication directed against a decision of separation from service for abandonment

of post — Determination of the date of repudiation of the contract ofemployment 152

14. Judgement No. 266 (20 November 1980): Capio v. Secretary-General of the UnitedNationsIntroduction, in implementation of a resolution of the United Nations General

Assembly, of a new promotion system — Application seeking recognitionof an acquired right to the retention of the former system — Respect foracquired rights means that the complex of benefits and advantages to whicha staff member is entitled for services rendered before the entry into forceof a new rule cannot be impaired — Since the necessary administrative meas-ures relating to her suitability to be considered for promotion had been takenprior to the introduction of the new system, the applicant is justified inrequesting that the former system be applied to her 152

15. Judgement No. 267 (21 November 1980): Adler v. Secretary-General of the UnitedNationsDoes an immediately preceding permanent appointment with another organization

of the United Nations system confer certain rights on the holder of a pro-bationary appointment with the Secretariat? (resolved in the negative) —Effect of a satisfactory rating in performance reports on the Secretary-General's discretion in terminating an appointment 154

vi


B. DECISIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR

ORGANISATION

1. Judgement No. 388 (24 April 1981): Barbar v. Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United NationsTermination of a programme appointment for abolition of post — Sincere effort

at re-assignment incumbent on the Organization — Preferential right of for-mer staff members to be considered for vacant posts — Failure to do so —Compensation - 155

2. Judgement No. 389 (24 April 1980): Al-Zand v. Food and Agriculture Organi-zation of the United NationsTermination of probationary appointment — Discretionary decision — Limited

grounds for quashing same 155

3. Judgement No. 390 (24 April 1980): FIores-Arauz v. World Health OrganizationTime limit for filing a complaint — Process by which written notification of an

administrative decision is effected 156

4. Judgement No. 391 (24 April 1980): De los Cobos and Wenger v. InternationalLabour OrganisationCompulsory leave without pay — Right of Administration to impose same in

certain cases 156

5. Judgement No. 392 (24 April 1980): Duran v. Pan American Health Organization(PAHO) (World Health Organization)Abandonment of post — Constitutive elements of same — Internal appeal against

decision to report to duty station constitutes satisfactory explanation for notcomplying with it 157

6. Judgement No. 393 (24 April 1980): Moore v. Pan American Health Organization(PAHO) (World Health Organization)Selection for appointment to higher post — Irregular procedure — Compensation

for staff member improperly rejected 158

7. Judgement No. 394 (24 April 1980): Neuville v. World Health OrganizationComplaint brought by the brother of a staff member — No locus standi beforethe Tribunal 158

8. Judgement No. 395 (24 April 1980): Tarrab v. International Labour OrganisationGrant of a special post allowance to P-5 — Claim that promotion was the proper

action to take — Time limit for challenging decision to grant SPA — Dis-cretionary nature of promotion 158

9. Judgement No. 396 (24 April 1980): Guisset v. Food and Agriculture OrganizationTermination of probationary appointment — Discretionary character of same —

Compensation for injury to staff member's dignity and reputation(Denied) 159

10. Judgement No. 397 (24 April 1980): Arnold v. International TelecommunicationUnionRe-assignment to a post with less responsible duties — Allegation that the decision

was based on disregard of an essential fact fails if the decision is based onother sufficient factual grounds 159

vii

CONTENTS {continued)Page

11. Judgement No. 398 (24 April 1980): Mager v. European Organization for theSafety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL)Internal means of redress — "Complaint" as distinct from "request" — Statu-

tory time limits 160

12. Judgement No. 399 (24 April 1980): Schofield v. World Health OrganizationFailure by the Administration to produce a performance appraisal report — Right

of the staff member to same 16013. Judgement No. 400 (24 April 1980): Verdrager v. World Health Organization

Review of a Tribunal judgement — No provision in the statute or the rules of theTribunal — Exceptional cases where such a review could be conducted . . 160

14. Judgement No. 401 (24 April 1980): Connolly-Battisti v. Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United NationsCompliance with a previous judgement 161

15. Judgement No. 402 (24 April 1980): Grasshoff v. World Health OrganizationCompensation for injury in circumstances of abnormal risk — Unlimited liability

of the Organization — Non-applicability of statutory provisions oncompensation 161

16. Judgement No. 403 (24 April 1980): Connolly-Battisti v. Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United NationsNon-recognized staff association — Critical memorandum addressed to the Chair-

person — Withdrawal of same if unwarranted 162

17. Judgement No. 404 (24 April 1980): De Villegas v. International LabourOrganisationChange of staff member's contractual status from indeterminate to fixed term by

agreement with the Organization — Validity of same 16218. Judgement No. 405 (24 April 1980): Rudin v. International Labour Organisation

Supervisor's right to assign provisionally duties of a lower level in the interest ofthe service — Alleged unfair treatment, in particular delaying the preparationof the performance report 163

19. Judgement No. 406 (24 April 1980): Hoefer v. Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United NationsNon-renewal of fixed term appointment — Lack of recourse except in case of

prejudice or illegality 163

20. Judgement No. 407 (24 April 1980): Lebee v. European Organization for NuclearResearch (CERN) 163

21. Judgement No. 408 (24 April 1980): Garcia and Marquez v. Pan American HealthOrganization (PAHO) (World Health Organization)Internal means of redress — Exhaustion of same a condition for receivability of

complaint before the Tribunal 16322. Judgement No. 409 (24 April 1980): De Gregori v. Food and Agriculture Or-

ganization of the United NationsSalary upon promotion — Subsequent changes in the salary scale have no effect

on calculating of same 164

23. Judgement No. 410 (24 April 1980): Schofield v. World Health OrganizationWritten reprimand, incomplete record of the incident — Rescission of the decision

of reprimand 164

viii


24. Judgement No. 411 (24 April 1980): Schofield v. World Health OrganizationChange of duties allegedly intended as penalty — Rescission of same 164

25. Judgement No. 412 (24 April 1980): Rensink-Leclercq v. European Organizationfor the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL)Request for working half-time — Discretionary decision by the Administration 165

26. Judgement No. 413 (24 April 1980): Over v. European Molecular Biology La-boratory (EMBL)Non-observance of the time-limit for filing complaint — Non-receivability of

same 165

27. Judgement No. 414 (24 April 1980): Johnson v. International Labour OrganisationFixed-term appointment in replacement of permanent appointment terminated for

abolition of post — Validity of the said action — Claim of duress rejected 16628. Judgement No. 415 (24 April 1980): HalHwell v. World Health Organization

Expiry of fixed-term appointment — Staff member's right to be considered foravailable vacancies 166

29. Judgement No. 416 (24 April 1980): Diewald v. European Organization for theSafety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL)Status of staff member on leave for personal reasons — Right to re-instatement 167

30. Judgement No. 417 (24 April 1980): Fournier d'Albe v. United Nations Educa-tional, Scientific and Cultural OrganizationValidation for prior service for pension purposes — Interpretation of exclusion

clause — Personnel action forms as part of the contract 167

31. Judgement No. 418 (11 December 1980): Connolly-Battisti v. Food and Agri-culture Organization of the United Nations 168

32. Judgement No. 419 (11 December 1980): Van Bogedom v. European PatentOrganization (EPO) 168

33. Judgement No. 420 (11 December 1980): Connolly-Battisti v. Food and Agri-culture Organization of the United NationsReprimand — Effect of signature of same by an official said to be an interested

party to the incident — Difference between reprimand and written censure 168

34. Judgement No. 421 (11 December 1980): Haghgou v. International Centre forAdvanced Technical and Vocational Training (International Labour Organisation)Non-renewal of fixed-term appointment for abolition of post — Discretionary

nature of same — Alleged procedural defects 168

35. Judgement No. 422 (11 December 1980): Walters v. World Health OrganizationAllowance for stepchildren — Conditions for entitlement to same — Full depen-

dence on a staff member 169

36. Judgement No. 423 (11 December 1980): Roelofsen v. European Organizationfor the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL)Failure to exhaust internal means of redress — Non-receivability of the

complaint 170

37. Judgement No. 424 (11 December 1980): Gatmaytan v. Pan American HealthOrganization (PAHO) (World Health Organization)Date of entitlement to salary increase upon promotion — Staff member not to

suffer from administrative delays 170

ix


38. Judgement No. 425 (11 December 1980): De Bruin, Derbal and Kellet v. EuropeanPatent Organization (EPO)Regrading to higher level — Right to post corresponding to actual duties . . . . 171

39. Judgement No. 426 (11 December 1980): Settino v. Pan American Health Or-ganization (PAHO) (World Health Organization)Reimbursement of national income tax on sum received in partial commutation

of pension rights — "Earnings" defined — Acquired rights, only funda-mental benefits and not every contractual benefit so considered 171

40. Judgement No. 427 (11 December 1980): Dicancro v. Pan American HealthOrganization (PAHO) (World Health Organization)Charge of misconduct — Special leave with pay imposed on staff member —

Non-validity of same — Non-renewal of fixed-term appointment motivatedby prejudice — compensation 172

41. Judgement No. 428 (11 December 1980): Robinson v. International Telecom-munication UnionClassification of posts — Discretionary decision — Allegation of discrimination

for assigning several levels to the same occupational group rejected 173

42. Judgement No. 429 (11 December 1980): Gubin and Nemo v. European Organ-ization for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL)Amendment of staff rule increasing staff members' contributions to the Pension

Fund with no corresponding increase in the Organization's contribution —Challenge to same — The Tribunal may entertain the challenge to a rule andnot only to its application — Proper and valid amendment to Staff Rules —Acquired rights under the rules defined 173

43. Judgement No. 430 (11 December 1980): Chamayou v. European MolecularBiology Laboratory (EMBL)Time-limit for filing a complaint with Tribunal — Non-receivability for failure to

observe same 174

44. Judgement No. 431 (11 December 1980): Rosescu v. International Atomic EnergyAgency (IAEA)Termination of fixed-term appointment — Interests of a Member State given more

weight than the Agency's — Decision tainted by misuse of authority —Compensation 175

45. Judgement No. 432 (11 December 1980): Drost v. European Organization for theSafety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL)Reimbursement of medical expenses — Excluded types of treatment 175

46. Judgement No. 433 (11 December 1980): Valencia Gomez v. Latin AmericanInstitute for Educational CommunicationAction against an Organization which is not among those who recognize the

jurisdiction of the Tribunal — Non-receivability of same — Allegation ofbeing part of UNESCO rejected 176

47. Judgement No. 434 (11 December 1980): A'Adal v. International Centre forAdvanced Technical and Vocational Training (International Labour Organisation)Time-limit for appeal starts from notification of decision — Exchange of corre-

spondence after the decision does not open a new time limit 176


48. Judgement No. 435 (11 December 1980): Zihler v. European Organization forNuclear Research (CERN)Scope of the rule on the exhaustion of internal remedies — Service-incurred partial

disability — Exceptional cases where the Organization's liability may exceedthe limits set in the internal rules 176

49. Judgement No. 436 (11 December 1980): Sacika v. International LabourOrganisationAgreed termination — Subsequent facts allegedly nullifying same — Receipt of

indemnity after knowledge of said facts bars staff member from invokingthem 177

50. Judgement No. 437 (11 December 1980): Hakin v. European Patent Organization(EPO)Deduction from salary for non-performance of duties — Interest on amounts re-

funded after being so deducted — Condition for entitlement to same . . . . 178

51. Judgement No. 438 (11 December 1980): Luyten v. European Patent Organization(EPO)Performance evaluation report — Discretionary nature of same — Tribunal may

not substitute its own judgement for that of the staff member's supervisors 178

52. Judgement No. 439 (11 December 1980): Verdrager v. World Health OrganizationApplication for review of a Tribunal judgement — "New fact" defined 178

53. Judgement No. 440 (11 December 1980): Molina v. World Health OrganizationTermination of a probationary appointment — Discretionary decision — Ap-

praisal report based on prejudice — Annulment of same 179

54. Judgement No. 441 (11 December 1980): Pherai v. European Patent Organization(EPO)Entitlement to expatriation allowance — Entitlement to travel on home leave —

Transfer from one international organization to another is not a new appoint-ment — Acquired right 179

CHAPTER VI. SELECTED LEGAL OPINIONS OF THE SECRETARIATS OF THE UNITEDNATIONS AND RELATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

A. LEGAL OPINIONS OF THE SECRETARIAT OF THE UNITED NATIONS

1. The right of self-determination as a basic principle of international law and theCharter of the United Nations as its basic source — Development of the principlein other international instruments, particularly as to its different forms of imple-mentation — Independent statehood as the most common form of implementationchosen — The free exercise of the right of self-determination requires that thisalternative be available 182

2. Question whether the United Nations is liable for the payment of rent for premisesoccupied by a United Nations peace-keeping force stationed in a Member Statewith the latter's consent — Responsibility of the host State, under existing agree-ments and current practice, to provide a peace-keeping force with the necessarypremises 183

3. Liability of the United Nations in case of accidents involving British-owned andoperated helicopters put at the disposal of the United Nations Force in Cyprus

XI


(UNFICYP) — Question whether the United Nations or the Government of thecontingent to which the helicopters belong would ultimately have to bear the costof possible compensation — Specific case of passengers flying the helicoptersunder instructions or with the authorization of UNFICYP authorities other thanthe British contingent authorities — Advisability of obtaining insurance for suchrisks as the United Kingdom is not clearly prepared to assume 184

4. Question whether a co-operation agreement between the Economic Commissionfor Latin America and a Member State could be modified to the effect of renderingthe Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations inapplicableto officials of the nationality of that State — Principle of equality of treatment ofstaff members 186

5. Advice on the legal basis for a claim for damage arising out of a criminal assaulton a driver from a UNHCR office in the territory of a Member State by soldiersfrom a neighbouring country 186

6. Procedure for convening emergency special sessions of the General Assemblyunder rules 8(6) and 9(h) of the rules of procedure of the Assembly — Authorityof the General Assembly to determine whether the requirement, under GeneralAssembly resolution 377 A (V), that there appears to be a threat to the peace, abreach of the peace or an act of aggression has been met 187

7. Participation of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the "sessions and workof the United Nations" under General Assembly resolution 3237 (XXIX) —Limits to the PLO entitlement to observer status in subsidiary organs of limited

membership — Discretion of such organs, in the absence of instructions to thecontrary from the establishing authority, to decide questions of participation bynon-members, including participation in closed meetings — Extent of observerparticipation in the light of the practice of Main Committees of the GeneralAssembly 188

8. Use of the term "non-citizen" in international practice 189

9. Request by the European Economic Community that the representative of theCommission of the European Communities be recognized as a spokesman of EECand its members within a particular working group of the Economic and SocialCouncil — Ways open to member States of EEC to ensure co-ordination of po-sitions within the Working Group 192

10. Question of the participation of non-governmental organizations in the work ofthe Economic Commission for Latin America — Relevant provisions of the Com-mission's terms of reference and rules of procedure — Possibilities for co-oper-ation with the Commission open to non-governmental organizations which do nothave consultative status with the Economic and Social Council 193

11. Question whether it is permissible under United Nations regulations and rules forUNDP-funded contracts to be directed, to an appropriate degree, to donorcountries 194

12. Representation, in a UNDP document, of Mayotte as an integral part of theComoros — Binding character, for the Secretariat, of the position taken by theGeneral Assembly in a series of relevant resolutions — Ways of conveying to theGoverning Council objections raised in relation to the representation inquestion 195

XII


13. Filling of occasional vacancies in the International Court of Justice — Relevantprovisions of the Statute of the Court — Practice followed by the Secretary-General in implementing those provisions 196

14. Request for extradition of an individual charged with murder and causing bodilyharm with aggravating intent — Decision granting the request — Filing of anhabeas corpus petition — Scope of the habeas corpus review — Provision of theapplicable extradition treaty concerning the political offence exception — Ques-tion whether the case could be submitted to the contentious or advisory jurisdictionof the competent Court of the required State 197

15. Question whether the salaries or pensions of United Nations officials may beattached for the purpose of enforcing national courts decisions — Immunity fromlegal process enjoyed by the United Nations by virtue of section 2 of the Conventionon the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations — Immunity from seizureof assets of the Organization under section 3 of the above-mentionedConvention 200

16. Insistence by a Member State that United Nations staff members entering or leavingits territory use their national travel documents or a travel document issued bythe Member State concerned — Provision of the Convention on the Privilegesand Immunities of the United Nations under which laissez-passers issued by theUnited Nations shall be recognized by Member States as valid traveldocuments 201

17. Denial by the authorities of a Member State of an entry visa to a national of thatState employed by the United Nations on the basis of a decree-law authorizingsuch a denial on grounds of State security — Relevant provisions of the Charter,the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and theapplicable headquarters agreement — Question whether the decree-law may over-ride the international obligations of the State concerned 201

18. Question whether, under the rules governing the system of international immunity,national service obligations may be imposed on a dependant of an official of theUnited Nations Development Programme 203

19. Import privileges, under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of theUnited Nations, of officials of specialized agencies serving on projects of theUnited Nations Development Programme — United Nations policy in this re-spect — Inadmissibility of differential treatment based on nationality 204

20. Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain ConventionalWeapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to have Indis-criminate Effects — Prohibitions of the Convention designed to protect UnitedNations peace-keeping forces and fact-finding missions — Special functions ofthe Secretary-General under the Convention and Protocol II thereto 205

21. Determination of the effective date of an action relating to a multi-depositaryConvention — Difficulties encountered by depositaries in that respect — Practiceof the Secretariat in registering actions relating to such multi-depositaryconventions 207

22. Question of the territorial scope of the ratification by a State of a multilateralconvention — Possibility for a State having succeeded to another State before theentry into force of a multilateral convention of becoming party to that conventionthrough the procedure of succession if at the date of the succession the predecessorState was a contracting State to the treaty in question 208

xui


B. LEGAL OPINIONS OF THE SECRETARIATS OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONSRELATED TO THE UNITED NATIONS

1. International Labour Organisation 209

2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 210(a) Registration of experts for residence purposes(b) Separation Payments Scheme Fund

Part Three. Judicial decisions on questions relating to theUnited Nations and related intergovernmental organizations

CHAPTER VII. DECISIONS AND ADVISORY OPINIONS OF INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS

International Court of JusticeInterpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between WHO and Egypt. Advisoryopinion of 20 December 1980 215

CHAPTER VIH. DECISIONS OF NATIONAL TRIBUNALS

1. ArgentinaIn re Pedro Daniel Weinberg: Decision of 15 January 1980Case referred to the Supreme Court by the judge of first instance because the

person concerned was an international civil servant — Conclusions of theCourt regarding the legal status of the person concerned in view of hisnationality and the limited character of the privileges and immunities grantedto international civil servants — Referral of the case to the judge of firstinstance 220

2. Switzerland(a) Cantonal Court of the Canton of Vaud (Insurance Court)

X. v. Equalization Fund of the Canton of Vaud: Judgement of 21 November1979

Swiss employee of the United Nations participating in the United NationsPension Fund — Mandatory participation in the national old-age in-surance scheme — Exemption from such participation accorded onlywhen the combined contributions would constitute an excessive burdenfor the person concerned 220

{b) Central Court of the Canton of Vaud (Criminal Court of Cassation)X. v. Ministere public: Decision of 19 May 1979Immunity from criminal jurisdiction accorded to international civil servants

and members of their families — Obligation of the judge pronouncingon the merits to consider the status of an accused person falling withinthat category — Silence of the judgement on this point renders it nulland void 221

3. United States of America(a) New York Supreme Court: Appellate Division Second Judicial Department

Shamsee v. Shamsee: Decision of 19 May 1980Appeal of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund el al. from orders

inter alia denying a motion to vacate prior orders holding the Fund andits Secretary in contempt of court for non-compliance with a seques-tration order relating to the pension entitlement of a retired employee

xiv


of the United Nations — Competence of the courts of the United Statesto decide on questions of immunity from legal process under treatiesand statutes of the United States — Immunity of the United NationsJoint Staff Pension Fund and its Secretary from the sequestration orderunder the applicable federal law 222

(b) United States Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia CircuitMarvin R. Broadbent et al. v. Organization of American States: Decision of8 January 1980Claim brought against an intergovernmental organization of which the United

States is a member by former employees of the organization in ques-tion — Jurisdictional issue — Question whether the jurisdictional im-munity of the organization is restrictive or absolute — The employmentby an international organization of internal administrative personnel isnot a commercial activity — Existence of a grievance procedure withinthe organization concerned — Dismissal of the action 224

Brief for the United Nations as amicus curiae 227

Part Four. Bibliography

LEGAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND RELATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL

ORGANIZATIONS

A. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS IN GENERAL

1. General 246

2. Particular questions 247

B. UNITED NATIONS

1. General 248

2. Particular organs 249Administrative Tribunal 249General Assembly 249International Court of Justice 250Regional economic commissions 251Secretariat 251Security Council 251United Nations Forces 251

3. Particular questions or activities 252Collective security 252Commercial arbitration 252Definition of aggression 253Diplomatic relations 253Disarmament 254Domestic jurisdiction 255Environmental questions 255Friendly relations and co-operation among States 256Human rights 257International criminal law 259International economic law 260International terrorism 262International Trade law 262

xv


International waterways 264Intervention 264Law of the sea 264Law of treaties 270Law of war 271Maintenance of peace 273Membership and representation 273Namibia 273Natural resources - 274Non-governmental organizations 274Non-self-governing territories 274Outer space 274Peaceful settlement of disputes 277Political and security questions 278Progressive development and codification of international law (in general) . . . 278Recognition of States 278Refugees 279Right of asylum 279Self-defence 279Self-determination 279Social defence 280State responsibility 280State sovereignty 281State succession 281Technical co-operation 281Trade and development 282Use of force 283

C. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS RELATED TO THE UNITED NATIONS

Particular organizationsFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 284General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade 284Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization 285International Atomic Energy Agency 285International Civil Aviation Organization 286International Labour Organisation 287International Monetary Fund 288International Telecommunication Union 289United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 289United Nations Industrial Development Organization 289World Bank 290

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes 290World Intellectual Property Organization 290

xvi

FOREWORD

By its resolution 1814 (XVII) of 18 December 1962, the General Assembly requested theSecretary-General to publish a Juridical Yearbook which would include certain documentary ma-terials of a legal character concerning the United Nations and related intergovernmental organi-zations, and by its resolution 3006 (XXVII) of 18 December 1972 the General Assembly madecertain changes in the outline of the Yearbook.

Chapters I and II of the present volume — the eighteenth of the series — contain legislativetexts and treaty provisions relating to the legal status of the United Nations and related intergov-ernmental organizations. With a few exceptions, the legislative texts and treaty provisions whichare included in these two chapters entered into force in 1980. Decisions given by international andnational tribunals relating to the legal status of the various organizations are found in chapters VIIand VIII.

Chapter III contains a general review of the legal activities of the United Nations and relatedintergovernmental organizations; each organization has prepared the section which relates to it.

Chapter IV is devoted to treaties concerning international law concluded under the auspicesof the organizations concerned during the year in question, whether or not they entered into forcein that year. This criterion has been used in order to reduce in some measure the difficulty createdby the sometimes considerable time-lag between the conclusion of treaties and their publication inthe United Nations Treaty Series following upon entry into force.

Finally, the bibliography, which is prepared, under the responsibility of the Office of LegalAffairs, by the Dag Hammarskjold Library, lists works and articles of a legal character publishedin 1980 regardless of the period to which they refer. Some works and articles which were notincluded in the bibliographies of the Juridical Yearbook for previous years have also been listed.

All documents published in the Juridical Yearbook were supplied by the organizations con-cerned, with the exception of the legislative texts and judicial decisions in chapters I and VIIIwhich, unless otherwise indicated, were communicated by Governments at the request of theSecretary-General.

xvn

ABBREVIATIONS

CERN European Organization for Nuclear ResearchECA Economic Commission for AfricaECLA Economic Commission for Latin AmericaEPO European Patent OrganizationESCAP Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the PacificFAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsIAEA International Atomic Energy AgencyICJ International Court of JusticeIDA International Development AssociationIFAD International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentIFC International Finance CorporationILO International Labour OrganisationIMCO Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative OrganizationIPI International Patent InstituteITU International Telecommunication UnionOAS Organization of American StatesPAHO Pan-American Health OrganizationUNCTC United Nations Centre on Transnational CorporationsUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural OrganizationUNFPA United Nations Fund for Population ActivitiesUNICEF United Nations Children's FundUNIDO United Nations Industrial Development OrganizationUNITAR United Nations Institute for Training and ResearchUNTSO United Nations Truce Supervision OrganizationUPU Universal Postal UnionWHO World Health OrganizationWIPO World Intellectual Property OrganizationWMO World Meteorological Organization

xvin

Part One

LEGAL STATUS OF THE UNITED NATIONSAND RELATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL

ORGANIZATIONS

Chapter ILEGISLATIVE TEXTS CONCERNING THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE UNITED

NATIONS AND RELATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

1. Australia

DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES AMENDMENT ACT 19801*

AN ACT TO AMEND THE DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES ACT 19672

Be it enacted by the Queen, and the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Com-monwealth of Australia, as follows:

Short title, &c.

1. (1) This Act may be cited as the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Act1980.

(2) The Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act 1967 is in this Act referred to as thePrincipal Act.

Commencement

2. This Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.3. After section 5 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted:

Application of Act in relation to certain international organizations

"5A. (1) In this section, 'international organization' means —"(a) an organization the members of which are overseas countries in a particular geo-

graphical region;"(6) an organization that is constituted by persons representing overseas countries in

a particular geographical region; or"(c) an organization established, or a group of organizations constituted, by —"(i) organizations the members of which are overseas countries in a particular geo-

graphical region; or"(ii) organizations that are constituted by persons representing overseas countries in a

particular geographical region,

being an organization or a group of organizations that is declared by the regulations to be aninternational organization for the purposes of this section.

"(2) This Act applies in relation to an international organization as if —"(a) each reference in a provision of this Act other than section 12 to an overseas

country, and each reference in the Convention to a sending State, included a reference to theinternational organization;

"(£>) each reference in the Convention to the Government of a sending State includeda reference to the international organization or, if an organ of the international organizationis, for the time being, specified by the regulations in relation to the international organizationfor the purposes of this paragraph, that organ;

*The notes to each chapter are to be found at the end of that particular chapter.

"(c) any mission or other agency of the international organization that exercises func-tions substantially corresponding to functions exercised by a diplomatic mission were a dip-lomatic mission; and

"(<i) in subsection 12 (1) —

"(i) 'a mission of Australia to an international organization (as defined by subsection5A (1)), being a mission that exercises functions substantially corresponding tofunctions exercised by a diplomatic mission' were substituted for 'a mission ofAustralia in an overseas country'; and

"(ii) 'the mission in Australia of that international organization' were substituted for'the mission of that country'."

Formal amendments

4. The Principal Act is amended as set out in the Schedule.

SCHEDULE

Formal amendments

Provision amended Omit Substitute

Subsection 4 (1) (definition of "Aus-tralian citizen") 1948-1973 1948

Subsection 4 (1) (definition of "theConvention") Schedule to this Act

Paragraph 7 (2) (/") to the next succeeding subsection, tothe next succeeding section

Paragraph 7 (2) (g) section 11 of this ActSubsection 7 (3) in subsection (1) of this section

of subsection (1) of this sectionSubsection 7 (4) Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1967

and of the Income Tax Ordinance1959 of the Territory of Papua andNew Guinea

commences on the first day of July,One thousand nine hundred and sixty-seven

Subsection 7 (5) 1903-1966Subsection 8(1) the last preceding sectionSubsection 8 (2) 1901-1966Subsection 8 (3)

Subsection 9(1)Paragraph 9 (1) (c)Subsection 9 (2)Subsection 9 (3)Paragraph 9 (3) (a)Subsection 10 (1)

Scheduleto subsection (3), to sec-

tion 8section 11in subsection (1)of subsection (1)Income Tax Assessment

Act 1936

commenced on 1 July 1967

1903section 71901

two years1901-19661921-1967the last preceding paragraphThe last preceding subsectionSubsection (1) of this sectiontwo yearsthe Sales Tax Act (No. 1) 1930-1964,

the Sales Tax Act (No. 2) 1930-1964or the Sales Tax Act (No. 3)1930-1964

the last preceding section1921-1967

2 years19011921paragraph (b)Subsection (1)Subsection (1)2 yearsthe Sales Tax Act (No. I)

1930, the Sales Tax Act(No. 2) 1930 or theSales Tax Act (No. 3)1930

section 91921

Provision amended Omit Substitute

Subsection 10 (2) The last preceding subsection Subsection (1)subsection (1) of the last preceding subsection 9(1)

section

Subsection 10 (3) Subsection (1) of this section Subsection (1)

Paragraph 10 (3) (a) two years 2 years

2. Barbados

NOTE DATED 26 MAY 1981 FROM THE CHARGE D'AFFAIRES A.I.OF BARBADOS TO THE UNITED NATIONS

The Charg6 d'Affaires a.i. of Barbados to the United Nations . . . has the honour to reportthe following:

In 1980 the Legislature of Barbados passed two statutes granting privileges and immunitiesto the International Finance Corporation.

(a) The Income Tax Act, Cap. 73 amended by the Income Tax (amendment) Act of 1978was further amended by the Income Tax (amendment) Act, 1980 (Act 1980-12). The relevant partnow reads in section 9(1):

"In calculating the assessable income of a person for an income year, the followingamount shall not be included, namely —

"(r) amounts paid in an income year by such international organizations as the Ministerby order prescribes, that relate and are equal to the tax liability of its employees for that year;"

while the same amendment provides that "employee" means a person employed in Barbados.(b) The International Finance Corporation Act, 1980 (Act 1980-11) in section 5 provides

that "sections 2 to 9 of article VI of the Agreement have the force of law in Barbados". Thesesections read as follows:

"Section 2 — Status of Corporation"The Corporation shall possess full juridical personality and, in particular, the capacity:

"(i) to contract;"(ii) to acquire and dispose of immovable and movable property;

"(iii) to institute legal proceedings.

"Section 3 — Position of the Corporation with regard to Judicial Process"Action may be brought against the Corporation only in a court of competent jurisdiction

in the territories of a member in which the Corporation has an office, has appointed an agentfor the purpose of accepting service or notice of process, or has issued guaranteed securities.No actions shall, however, be brought by members or persons acting for or deriving claimsfrom members. The property and assets of the Corporation shall wheresoever located and bywhomsoever held, be immune from all forms of seizure, attachment or execution before thedelivery of final judgement against the Corporation.

"Section 4 — Immunity of Assets from Seizure"Property and assets of the Corporation, wherever located and by whomsoever held,

shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation or any other form ofseizure by executive or legislative action.

"Section 5 — Immunity of Archives"The archives of the Corporation shall be inviolable.

"Section 6 — Freedom of Assets from Restrictions

"To the extent necessary to carry out the operations provided for in this Agreement andsubject to the provisions of article III section 5, and other provisions of this Agreement, allproperty and assets of the Corporation shall be free from restrictions, regulations, controls andmoratoria of any nature.

"Section 7 — Privileges for Communications

"The official communications of the Corporation shall be accorded by each member thesame treatment that it accords to official communications of other members.

"Section 8 — Immunities and Privileges, Alternates, Officers and Employees

"All Governors, Directors, Alternates, Officers and Employees of the Corporation:

"(i) shall be immune from legal process with respect to acts performed by them intheir official capacity;

"(ii) not being local nationals, shall be accorded the same immunities from immigrationrestrictions, alien registration requirements and national service obligations andthe same facilities as regards exchange restrictions as are accorded by membersto the representatives, officials and employees of comparable rank of othermembers;

' '(iii) shall be granted the same treatment in respect of travelling facilities as is accordedby members to representatives, officials and employees of comparable rank ofother members.

"Section 9 — Immunities from Taxation

"(a) The Corporation, its assets, property, income and its operations and transactionsauthorized by this Agreement, shall be immune from all taxation and from all customs duties.The Corporation shall also be immune from liability for the collection or payment of any taxor duty.

"(&) No tax shall be levied on or in respect of salaries and emoluments paid by theCorporation to Directors, Alternates, Officials or Employees of the Corporation who are notlocal citizens, local subjects or other local nationals.

"(c) No taxation of any kind shall be levied on any obligation or other security issuedby the Corporation (including any dividend or interest thereon) by whomsoever held:

"(i) which discriminates against such obligation or security solely because it is issuedby the Corporation; or

"(ii) if the sole jurisdictional basis for such taxation is the place or currency in whichit is issued, made payable or paid, or the location of any office or place of businessmaintained by the Corporation.

"(d) No taxation of any kind shall be levied on any obligation or security guaranteedby the Corporation (including any dividend or interest thereon) by whomsoever held;

"(i) which discriminates against such obligation or security solely because it is guar-anteed by the Corporation; or

"(ii) if the sole jurisdictional basis for such taxation is the location of any office orplace of business maintained by the Corporation."

3. Federal Republic of Germany

ACT OF 16 AUGUST 19833 CONCERNING THE CONVENTION ON THE PRIVI-LEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS OF 13 FEBRUARY19464

The Federal Parliament (Bundestag), with the assent of the Federal Council (Bundesrat),adopted the following Act:

Article I

The accession of the Federal Republic of Germany to the Convention on the Privileges andImmunities of the United Nations, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13February 1946, is hereby approved.

Article 2

The privileges and immunities referred to in section 19 of the Convention shall also be accordedto the representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Germany, hispermanent representative and their spouses and minor children.

Article 3

(1) The Federal Government shall be empowered to accord diplomatic privileges and im-munities by ordinance, with the assent of the Federal Council {Bundesrat), to the United Nations,to representatives of its Members, to officials of the United Nations, to members of the family ofthe aforementioned persons and personal servants forming part of their household and to expertson missions for the United Nations, in so far as such privileges and immunities are not providedfor in the Convention.

(2) Participants in conferences, seminars or similar meetings sponsored by the United Na-tions, the specialized agencies of the United Nations and organizations established by internationalagreements under the auspices of the United Nations, held in the territory to which this Act appliesand expressly consented to by the Federal Government, shall be accorded the privileges andimmunities provided for in article VI of the Convention, in so far as they are not already entitledthereto under the provisions relating to the privileges of the sponsoring organization. The sponsoringorganization shall be competent to waive immunity in accordance with article VI, section 23.

(3) Paragraph 2 shall apply to Germans within the meaning of the Basic Law who are inpossession of a valid passport or identity card issued by a German authority in the territory to whichthis Act applies or by a foreign mission of the Federal Republic of Germany only in respect of theprivileges and immunities specified in article VI, section 22 (b), (c) and (d). Immunity from legalprocess under article VI, section 22 (b), shall not apply in case of an offence against the roadtraffic laws and regulations by a participant if damage is caused by a motor vehicle belonging toor driven by a participant. The preceding two sentences shall also apply to participants who arepermanently resident in the territory to which this Act applies.

Article 4

(1) Article 3 of the Act of 22 June 19545 concerning the accession of the Federal Republicof Germany to the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies ofthe United Nations of 21 November 19476 and the granting of privileges and immunities to otherinternational organizations (BGB1. 1954 II, p. 639), as amended by Act of 28 February 1964(BGB1. II, p. 187,7 shall be amended to read as follows:

"Article 3

"The Federal Government shall be empowered to issue, with the assent of the FederalCouncil (Bundesrat) in so far as this is necessary in the interests of international relations,ordinances concerning:

" 1 . The application of the Convention to:"(a) The specialized agencies of the United Nations;

"(£) Organizations established by international agreements other than specialized agen-cies of the United Nations;

"(c) Organizations of other States;"2 . The granting of diplomatic privileges and immunites to:"(a) The organizations specified in subparagraph 1;"(b) Officials of such organizations and members of their family and personal servants

forming part of the household of such officials;"(c) Representatives of the members of such organizations and members of their family

and personal servants forming part of the household of such representatives;"(d) Experts on missions for such organizations."

(2) The Ordinance of 16 June 1970 concerning the granting of privileges and immunities tothe United Nations (BGB1. 1970 II, p. 669) shall cease to have effect.

Article 5

This Act shall also apply to Land Berlin, provided that Land Berlin declares it to be applicablethereto. Ordinances issued pursuant to this Act shall apply in Land Berlin in accordance with article14 of the Third Transition Act.

Article 6

(1) This Act, with the exception of article 4, paragraph 2, shall enter into force on the dayfollowing the date of its publication. Article 4, paragraph 2, shall enter into force on the date onwhich the Convention enters into force for the Federal Republic of Germany.

(2) The date on which the Convention enters into force for the Federal Republic of Germanyin accordance with section 32 of the Convention shall be notified in the Bundesgesetzblatt.

The above Act is hereby certified and shall be published in the Bundesgesetzblatt.Bonn, 16 August 1980

CARSTENSFederal President

GENSCHERDeputy Federal Chancellor

GENSCHERFederal Minister for Foreign Affairs

4. Seychelles

PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES (DIPLOMATIC, CONSULAR ANDINTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS) ACT 19808

An act to confer certain privileges and immunities on members of foreign Diplomatic Services,foreign Consular Services and on the United Nations and the Specialized Agencies and SpecialMissions by giving the force of law in Seychelles to certain articles of the Vienna Convention onDiplomatic Relations, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Convention on the Priv-ileges and Immunities of the United Nations, the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities ofthe Specialized Agencies and the Convention on Special Missions and for other purposes precedentalthereto and connected therewith

Enacted by the President and the People's Assembly —

PART I — PRELIMINARY

1. This Act may be cited as the Privileges and Immunities (Diplomatic, Consular and In-ternational Organizations) Act 1980.

8

2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires —"Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies" means the

Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies approved by theGeneral Assembly of the United Nations on 21st November, 1947;9

"Convention on Special Missions" means the Convention on Special Missions signedat New York on 16th December, 1969;10

"General Convention" means the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of theUnited Nations adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13th February,1946;11

"Vienna Convention on Consular Relations" means the Vienna Convention on ConsularRelations signed at Vienna on 24th April, 1963;12

"Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations" means the Vienna Convention on Dip-lomatic Relations signed at Vienna on 18th April, 1961.13

PART II — DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES

3. (1) Subject to section 4, the Articles set out in the First Schedule (being Articles of theVienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations) shall have the force of law in Seychelles and shallfor that purpose be construed in accordance with the following provisions of this section.

(2) In the Articles referred to in subsection (1) —"Agents of the receiving State" shall be construed as including any police officer and any

person exercising a power of entry to any premises under any law in force in Seychelles;"Member of the family" shall be construed as meaning, in relation to any person, the spouse

or any dependent relative of that person;"Ministry of Foreign Affairs or such other Ministry as may be agreed" shall be construed as

meaning the Ministry for the time being responsible for Foreign Affairs of the Government ofSeychelles;

"Mission" shall be construed as meaning any Embassy or High Commission;"National of the receiving State" shall be construed as meaning any citizen of Seychelles.(3) For the purpose of Article 32 a waiver by the head of the mission of any State or any

person performing his functions shall be deemed to be a waiver by that State.(4) The exemption granted by Article 33 with respect to any services shall be deemed to

except those services from any class of employment that is insurable employment, or in respectof which contributions are required to be paid, under the Social Security Decree, 1979.

(5) Articles 35, 36 and 40 shall be construed as granting any privilege or immunity whichthey require to be granted.

(6) The references in Articles 37 and 38, to the extent to which any privileges and immunitiesare admitted by the receiving State and to additional privileges and immunities that may be grantedby the receiving State, shall be construed as referring respectively to the extent to which anyprivileges and immunities that the Minister may specify by order and to any privileges and im-munities that may be so specified.

4. (1) If it appears to the Minister that the privileges and immunities accorded to a missionof Seychelles in the territory of any State or to the persons connected with that mission are lessthan those conferred by this Act on the mission of that State or on persons connected with thatmission, the Minister may, by order, withdraw such of the privileges and immunities so conferredfrom the mission of that State or from the persons connected with it as appears to the Minister tobe proper.

(2) When any privileges and immunities are withdrawn from a State by the Minister undersubsection (I), the Minister may reinstate the privileges to that State at any time if it appears tohim to be proper to do so.

5. (1) The Minister may, by order, confer immunities or privileges other than those con-ferred by or under this Part in respect of any sovereign power or any class of persons employedby such power if in the opinion of the Minister such immunities or privileges are necessary toaccord with corresponding immunities and privileges granted by such power in respect of Seychelles.

(2) Where any agreement between Seychelles and another State provides for according toa sovereign power or any class of persons employed by such power some but not all of the privilegesand immunities accorded to them by or under this Part, the Minister may, by order, provide forexcluding, with respect to such power and any class of persons employed by such power, any ofthose privileges and immunities that are not provided by the agreement.

PART II — CONSULAR PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES

6. (1) Subject to section 7, the provisions set out in the Second Schedule (being Articlesor parts of Articles of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations) shall have the force of lawin Seychelles and shall for that purpose be construed in accordance with subsections (2) to (10).

(2) In the provisions mentioned in subsection (1) —"Authorities of the receiving State" shall be construed as including any police officer and any

person exercising a power of entry to any premises under any law in force in Seychelles;"Diplomatic mission" shall be construed as meaning any Embassy or High Commission;"Grave crime" shall be construed as meaning any offence punishable (on a first conviction)

with imprisonment for a term that may extend to five years or with a more severe sentence;"Member of the family" shall be construed as meaning, in relation to any person, the spouse

or any dependent relative of that person;"Ministry of Foreign Affairs" shall be construed as meaning the Ministry for the time being

responsible for Foreign Affairs of the Government of Seychelles;"National of the receiving State" shall be construed as meaning any citizen of Seychelles.(3) The references in Article 17(2) to any privileges and immunities accorded by customary

international law or by international agreements shall be construed as a reference to any privilegesand immunities conferred under Parts IV, V and VI.

(4) The references in Article 44 to matters connected with the exercise of the functions ofmembers of a consular post shall be construed as references to matters connected with the exerciseof consular functions by consular officers or consular employees.

(5) For the purposes of Article 45 and that Article as applied by Article 58 a waiver shallbe deemed to have been expressed by a State if it has been expressed by the head or any personfor the time being performing the functions of the head of the diplomatic mission of that State or,if there is no such mission, of the consular post concerned.

(6) The exemption granted by Article 48 with respect to any services shall be deemed toexcept those services from any class of employment that is insurable, or in respect of whichcontributions are required to be paid, under the Social Security Decree, 1979.

(7) Articles 50, 51, 52, 54, 62 and 67 shall be construed as granting any privileges orimmunity that they require to be granted.

(8) The reference in Article 57 to the privileges and immunities provided in Chapter II shallbe construed as referring to those provided in Section II of that Chapter.

(9) The references in Article 70 to the rules of international law concerning diplomaticrelations shall be construed as a reference to the provisions of Part II.

(10) The reference in Article 71 to additional privileges and immunities that may be grantedby the receiving State or to privileges and immunities so far as these are granted by the receivingState shall be construed as referring to such privileges and immunities as may be specified by theMinister by order.

7. Sections 4 and 5, as they apply to a mission and to persons connected therewith, apply"mutatis mutandis" in relation to a consular post and the persons connected therewith.

10

8. (1) A diplomatic agent or consular officer of any State may, if authorized to do so underthe laws of that State, administer oaths, affidavits and do notarial acts —

(a) required by a person for use in that State or under the laws thereof; or(b) otherwise required by a national of that State but not for use in Seychelles except under

the laws of some other country.(2) The Minister may, by order, exclude or restrict the provisions of subsection (1) in relation

to the diplomatic agents or consular officers of any State if it appears to him that in any territoryof that State diplomatic agents or consular officers of Seychelles are not permitted to performfunctions corresponding in nature and extent to those authorized by that subsection.

(3) In this section "diplomatic agent" has the same meaning as in Article 1 in the FirstSchedule.

9. If consular officers are appointed by the Government of any other country within theCommonwealth or of the Republic of Ireland to serve in Seychelles, the Minister may, by order,make such adaptations of any provision, of the applied Acts entitled the Merchant Shipping Acts,1894 to 1965, in so far as it forms part of the law of Seychelles referring to a consular officer ofa foreign state as appear to him to be necessary or expedient to make the provision applicable toconsular officers appointed as aforesaid and to dispense with any requirement as to the conclusionof a consular convention.

PART IV — PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS, AND OF JUDGES OF,

AND SUITORS TO, THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

10. (1) The Articles set out in the Third Schedule (being Articles of the General Convention)shall have the force of law in Seychelles and shall be construed in accordance with the followingprovisions of this section.

(2) In the Articles referred to in subsection (1) —(a) the reference in Article 1 to the effect that the United Nations shall possess juridical

personality shall be construed as meaning that the United Nations is a body corporate;(b) the term "a national" in relation to Seychelles shall be construed as meaning a citizen

of Seychelles.11. The Minister may, by order, confer to the judges and registrars of the International Court

of Justice established under the Charter of the United Nations and on suitors to that Court and theiragents, counsel and advocates, such immunities, privileges and facilities as may be required togive effect to any resolution of, or convention approved by, the General Assembly of the UnitedNations.

PART V — PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE SPECIALIZED AGENCIES

12. (1) The Articles set out in the Fourth Schedule (being Articles of the Convention onthe Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies) shall have the force of law in Seychellesand shall be construed in accordance with the following provisions of this section.

(2) In the Articles referred to in subsection (1) —(a) the reference in section 3 of Article II to the effect that the Specialized Agencies shall

possess juridical personality shall be construed as meaning that the Specialized Agencies are bodiescorporate;

(b) the term "a national" in relation to Seychelles shall be construed as meaning a citizenof Seychelles.

PART VI — PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF SPECIFIED ORGANIZATIONS AND OF

REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES

13. (I) This section applies to any organization declared by the Minister, by order, to bean organization of which —

(a) Seychelles or the Government of Seychelles, and

11

(b) one or more other sovereign powers, or the government or governments of one or moresuch powers,

are members.(2) Subject to subsection (7), the Minister may, by order, specify an organization to which

this section applies and may make any one or more of the following provisions in respect of theorganization so specified (hereinafter in this section referred to as "the organization"), that is tosay —

(a) confer on the organization the legal capacities of a body corporate;(b) provide that the organization shall, to such extent as may be specified in the order, have

the privileges and immunities set out in Part I of the Fifth Schedule;(c) confer the privileges and immunities set out in Part II of the Fifth Schedule to such extent

as may be specified in the order, on persons of any such class as is mentioned in subsection (3);id) confer the privileges and immunities set out in Part in of the Fifth Schedule, to such

extent as may be specified in the order, on such classes of officers and servants of the organization(not being classes mentioned in subsection (3)) as may be specified.

(3) The classes of persons referred to in subsection (2) (c) are —(a) persons who (whether they represent Governments or not) are representatives to the

organization or representatives on, or members of, any organ or committee of the organization;(6) such number of officers of the organization as may be specified in the order, being the

holders (whether permanent or otherwise) of such high offices in the organization as may be sospecified; and

(c) persons employed by or serving under the organization as experts or as persons engagedon missions for the organizations.

(4) Where an order is made under subsection (2), the provisions of Part IV of the FifthSchedule shall have effect for the purpose of extending to the staffs or representatives mentionedin subsection (3) (a) and to the families of officers of the organization any immunities and privilegesconferred on the representatives or officers mentioned in subsection (3), except in so far as theoperation of the provisions of Part IV is excluded by the order conferring the immunities andprivileges.

(5) Where an order is made under subsection (2), then for the purpose of giving effect toany agreement made in that behalf between Seychelles or the Government of Seychelles and theorganization, the Minister may, by the same or any subsequent order, confer the exemptions setout in subsection (6) in respect of —

(a) members of the staff of the organization recognized by the Government of Seychellesas holding a rank equivalent to that of a diplomatic agent; and

(b) members of the family of any such member of the staff of the organization who formpart of his household.

(6) In the event of the death of the person in respect of whom the exemptions under subsection(5) are conferred, exemptions from —

(a) estate duty leviable on his death under any law for the time being in force in Seychellesin respect of movable property that is in Seychelles immediately before his death and the presenceof which in Seychelles that time is due solely to his presence there in the capacity by reference towhich the exemptions are conferred;

(b) capital gains tax on net chargeable gains in relation to any such movable property accruingto that person in the year of assessment in which he died.

(7) An order made under subsection (2) or (3) shall be so framed as to secure —(a) that the privileges and immunities conferred by the order are not greater in extent than

those which, at the time when the order takes effect, are required to be conferred in accordancewith any agreement to which Seychelles or the Government is then a party (whether made withone or more other sovereign powers or Governments or made with one or more organizations suchas are mentioned in subsection (1)); and

12

(b) that no privilege or immunity is conferred on any person as the representative of Seychellesor of the Government of Seychelles, or as a member of the staff of such a representative.

14. (1) Where a conference is held in Seychelles and is attended by representatives of theGovernments of one or more sovereign powers, and it appears to the Minister that doubts mayarise as to the extent to which the representative of those governments (other than the Governmentof Seychelles) and members of their official staffs are entitled to immunities and privileges, theMinister may, by notice published in the Gazette, direct that every representative of any suchGovernment (other than the Government of Seychelles) shall for the purpose of any enactment orcustom relating to diplomatic immunities and privileges, be treated as if he were a head of mission,and that such of the members of his official staff as the Minister may, from time to time, directshall be treated for the purpose aforesaid as if they were members of the official staff of a headof mission.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Minister may compile a list of the representativesof the governments aforesaid (other than the Government of Seychelles) and members of theirofficial staffs as he thinks proper, and shall cause the list and any amendment of that list to bepublished in the Gazette and the publication shall include a statement of the day from which thelist or amendment, as the case may be, takes or took effect.

(3) In subsection (1) —

"Head of mission" means an Ambassador, High Commissioner or other person, by whatever titlecalled, accredited by a sovereign power and recognized as a head of mission in Seychelles by theGovernment of Seychelles.

PART VII — PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF SPECIAL MISSIONS

15. (1) The Articles set out in the Sixth Schedule (being Articles of the Convention onSpecial Missions) shall have the force of law in Seychelles and shall be construed in accordancewith the following provisions of this section.

(2) In the provisions mentioned in subsection (1) —

"Agents of the receiving State" shall be construed as meaning any police officer and anyperson concerning a power of entry to any premises under any law in force in Seychelles;

"Member of the family" shall be construed as meaning, in relation to any person, the spouseor any dependent relative of that person;

"Ministry of Foreign Affairs" shall be construed as meaning the Ministry, for the time being,responsible for Foreign Affairs of the Government of Seychelles;

"National of the receiving State" shall be construed as meaning any citizen of Seychelles.

(3) For the purposes of Article 41, a waiver by the head of the special mission or any personperforming his functions shall be deemed to be a waiver by the sending State.

PART VIII — GENERAL

16. If in any proceedings a question arises whether or not a person is entitled to a privilegeor immunity under this Act, a certificate issued by or under the authority of the Minister statingany fact relating to that question shall be conclusive evidence of that fact.

17. The Minister may make regulations for carrying into effect the purposes of this Act.

18. The Diplomatic Privileges Act is repealed.

13

FIRST SCHEDULE

(Section 3)

ARTICLES OF THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC RELATIONSHAVING THE FORCE OF LAW IN SEYCHELLES

(Articles 1, 22-24 and 27-40)[Not reproduced]

SECOND SCHEDULE

(Section 6)

ARTICLES OF THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON CONSULAR RELATIONSHAVING THE FORCE OF LAW IN SEYCHELLES

(Articles 1, 5, 15, 17, 31-33, 35, 39, 41, 43-45, 48-55, 57-62, 66, 67, 70 and 71)[Not reproduced]

THIRD SCHEDULE

(Section 10)

ARTICLES OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THEUNITED NATIONS HAVING THE FORCE OF LAW IN SEYCHELLES

(Articles I, II, IV, V and VII)[Not reproduced]

FOURTH SCHEDULE

(Section 11)

ARTICLES OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THESPECIALIZED AGENCIES HAVING THE FORCE OF LAW IN SEYCHELLES

(Articles I-III and V-VIII)[Not reproduced]

FIFTH SCHEDULE

(Section 3)

PART I

PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF AN ORGANIZATION

1. Immunity from suit and legal process.2. The like inviolability of official archives and premises occupied as offices as is accorded in respect

of the official archives and premises of an envoy of a foreign sovereign Power.3. The like exemption or relief from taxes and rates, other than taxes on the importation of goods, as

is accorded to a foreign sovereign Power.4. Exemption from taxes on the importation of goods directly imported by the organization for its official

use in Seychelles or for exportation, or on the importation of any publications of the organization directlyimported by it, such exemption to be subject to compliance with such conditions as the Controller of Customsand Excise may prescribe for the protection of the Revenue.

14

5. Exemption from prohibitions and restrictions on importation or exportation in the case of goods directlyimported or exported by the organization for its official use and in the case of any publications of the organizationdirectly imported or exported by it.

6. The right to avail itself, for telegraphic communications sent by it and containing only matter intendedfor publication by the press or for broadcasting (including communications addressed to or dispatched fromplaces outside Seychelles), of any reduced rates applicable for the corresponding service in the case of presstelegrams.

PART II

PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF REPRESENTATIVES, MEMBERS OF COMMITTEES,HIGH OFFICERS AND PERSONS ON MISSIONS

1. The like immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign Power.2. The like inviolability of residence as is accorded to such an envoy.3. The like exemption of relief from taxes as is accorded to such an envoy.

PART III

PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF OTHER OFFICERS AND SERVANTS

1. Immunity from suit and legal process in respect of things done or omitted to be done in the courseof the performance of official duties.

2, Exemption from income tax in respect of emoluments received as an officer or servant of theorganization.

PART IV

PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF OFFICIAL STAFFS AND OFHIGH OFFICERS' FAMILIES

1. Where any person is entitled to any such privileges and immunities as are mentioned in Part II of thisSchedule as a representative to the organization or as a representative on, or member of, any organ of theorganization or a member of any committee of the organization or of an organ thereof, his official staffaccompanying him as such a representative or member shall also be entitled to those privileges and immunitiesto the same extent as the retinue of an envoy of a foreign sovereign Power.

2. Where any person is entitled to any such privileges and immunities as are mentioned in Part II of thisSchedule as an office of the organization, the members of that person's family forming part of his householdshall also be entitled to those privileges and immunities to the same extent as the wife or husband or childrenof an envoy of a foreign sovereign Power accredited to Seychelles is entitled to the privileges and immunitiesaccorded to the envoy.

SIXTH SCHEDULE

(Section 15)

CONVENTION ON SPECIAL MISSIONS

(Articles 1, 24-26 and 28-44)[Not reproduced]

5. Sweden

NOTE DATED 22 APRIL 1981 FROM THE ACTING PERMANENTREPRESENTATIVE OF SWEDEN TO THE UNITED NATIONS

The Acting Permanent Representative of Sweden to the United Nations . . . has the honourto communicate the following:

When it approved the Constitution of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization(UNIDO) the Swedish Parliament decided in 1980 to amend the Act on Immunities and Privileges

15

in Certain Cases.14 The amendment means that the UNIDO will enjoy privileges and immunitiesaccording to its Constitution as from the date on which that Constitution enters into force forSweden.

Notes1 No. 41 of 1980. Assented to on 23 May 1980.2 For previous amendments see No. 69, 1972; No. 216, 1973; Nos. 37 and 91, 1976; and No. 155, 1979.3 Translation by the Secretariat of the United Nations.4 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1, p. 15.5 United Nations Legislative Series, Legislative texts and treaty provisions concerning the legal status,

privileges and immunities of international organizations, vol. II (ST/LEG/SER. B/ll). p. 25.6 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 33, p. 261.7 Reproduced in the Juridical Yearbook, 1964, p. 4.8 No. 9 of 1980. Assented to on 30 January 1980. Published in the Supplement to Official Gazette, 31

January 1980.9 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 33, p. 261.10 See General Assembly resolution 2530 (XXIV), annex. Also reproduced in the Juridical Yearbook,

1969, p. 125.11 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1, p. 15.12 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 596, p. 261. Also reproduced in the Juridical Yearbook, 1963,

p. 109.13 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 500, p. 95.14 Reproduced in the Juridical Yearbook, 1976, p. 5.

16

Chapter II

TREATY PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE UNITEDNATIONS AND RELATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

A. Treaty provisions concerning the legal status of the United Nations

1. CONVENTION ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITEDNATIONS1 APPROVED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITEDNATIONS ON 13 FEBRUARY 1946

(a) Status of the ConventionThe following States acceded to the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities

of the United Nations in 1980:2

Dale of receipt of instrumentStale of accession

Germany, Federal Republic of3 5 November 1980Seychelles 26 August 1980

This brought up to 118 the number of States parties to this Convention,

(b) Decision of 21 November 1980 taken by the Taxation Board of Review of Australia4

Receipt of pension by former employee of the United Nations — Participation in the UnitedNations Joint Staff Pension Fund — Article V of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunitiesof the United Nations — International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1948 andRegulations — Decision that pension received by taxpayer is not exempt income within the termsof section 23(y) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936

From 1 June 1967 until about 31 July 1972 the taxpayer was employed by the United Nationsas a full-time member of its staff in a country outside Australia. During that period he was anofficial of the United Nations to whom the privileges and immunities prescribed by Article V ofthe Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations ("the Convention"), adoptedby the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13 February 1948, applied. Pursuant to Article21 of the Regulations of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund,5 he was required to becomea participant of the Fund and pursuant to Article 25 of these Regulations, he contributed a portionof his salary to the Fund. Upon ceasing to be employed by the United Nations, and being thenmore than fifty-five years of age, the taxpayer became entitled to be paid an early retirement benefitpursuant to the provisions of Article 30 of those Regulations. During the year of income ended 30June 1977 pension benefits were credited to the taxpayer's bank account in Australia.

By the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1948 (Act No. 72 of 1948)6

approval was given to the accession by Australia to the Convention. The text of the Conventionwas set out in a schedule to the Act, and the Act enabled the Governor-General to make regulationsto give effect to the provisions of the Convention. Australia acceded to the Convention on 2 March1949.

The International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Regulations were made under theInternational Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1948 on 16 March 1959 (S.R. 1959,No.20).7 Regulation 3(1) provided: "The United Nations or a person in relation to whom theConvention applies has, in Australia, the privileges and immunities applicable under the Conventionto the United Nations or that person, as the case may be".

17

Article V of the Convention provides, in paragraph (b) of Section 18, that "Officials of theUnited Nations shall . . . be exempt from taxation on the salaries and emoluments paid to themby the United Nations". Section 230') of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 provides that "theofficial salary and emoluments of an official of a prescribed organisation of which Australia andone or more other countries are members . . . " shall be exempt from income tax.

The taxpayer objected to the assessment by the Commissioner of Taxation that his pensionof $2,600 received from the United Nations was part of his taxable income, and requested theCommissioner to refer the decision to a Board of Review for review. The grounds of the taxpayer'sobjection were that Section 23(y) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 exempted from incometax the official salary and emoluments of an official of a prescribed organization; that the UnitedNations was a prescribed organization in accordance with Income Tax Regulations 4AB(1) and4AB(2); and that his pension of $2,600 received was part of his official salary and emolumentsreceived as an official of the United Nations.

The decision of the No. 1 Board of Review was given on 21 November 1980. After reviewingthe facts of the case and the relevant legislation outlined above, the Board concluded that thetaxpayer's pension was not exempt in terms of section 23(y) of the Income Tax Assessment Act1936. Included in the reasons of the Board for its decision was the following:

"15. As would be expected participation in the Fund does not follow as a matter ofcourse without a medical examination, except in nominated circumstances which, presumably,did not exempt the taxpayer from such examination. Forfeiture of benefits may arise.

"16. Because participation in the Fund is not conferred automatically it is a misnomerto speak of a person such as the taxpayer getting as a 'package' an emolument which includesa salary and pension benefits (at the conclusion of employment or on the happening of nominatedevents).

"17. Although the word 'emolument' in some contexts may comprehend a pensionpayable after employment has ceased, the Convention aforesaid and the legislation and sub-ordinate legislation, so also the regulations and rules of the United Nations Joint Staff PensionFund all tend to the construction that an emolument relates to a monetary benefit payable toone who is presently serving the United Nations (or a member organization of the said Fund)and conversely that a pension relates to a monetary payment to that person (or his widow ordependant) after his contributory service has been brought to an end by death, disability orother qualifying retirement. Furthermore, as the Fund is held by the United Nations on behalfof the participants and of the beneficiaries of the Fund the Fund is not the property of theUnited Nations, but rather it holds as trustee. Accordingly, payments from the Fund to apensioner are not payments from the assets of the United Nations even though such paymentscome from a fund which is held by the United Nations.

"18. Thus it follows that the taxpayer as a former official of the United Nations cannotbring the subject pension within the opening words of sec. 23(y) of the Income Tax AssessmentAct viz. 'the official salary and emoluments of an official' even though the former employerwas comprehended by the words next ensuing in sec. 23(y) viz., 'of a prescribed organizationof which Australia', etc. (Case M90, 80 Australian Tax Cases 648, at page 652)".

The taxpayer's objection was accordingly disallowed.

2. AGREEMENTS RELATING TO MEETINGS AND INSTALLATIONS

(a) Third supplemental agreement between the United Nations and the United Statesof America regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations.8 Signed at New Yorkon 10 December 1980

The United Nations and the United States of America:Considering that the space available within the Headquarters District, as defined in annex 1

of the Agreement regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations signed at Lake Success on 26

18

June 1947, that referred to in the Supplemental Agreement of 9 February 1966 as amended by theExchange of Notes of 8 December 1966, and that referred to in the Second Supplemental Agreementof 28 August 1969 are inadequate and it has become necessary for units of the Secretariat of theUnited Nations to be provided with other premises outside the areas so delineated;

Considering that, for this purpose, the United Nations has acquired leases of certain additionaloffice space;

Considering that it is desirable that, with respect to those premises, the United Nations, officialsof the United Nations and representatives of the Members of the United Nations be accorded thenecessary privileges and immunities as envisaged in Article 105 of the Charter of the United Nationsand in the Headquarters Agreement; and

Desiring to conclude a Third Supplemental Agreement in accordance with Section 1 (a) ofthe Headquarters Agreement, in order to include those premises within the Headquarters District.

Have agreed as follows:

Article IThe Headquarters District within the meaning of Section 1 (a) of the Agreement between the

United States of America and the United Nations regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations,signed at Lake Success on 26 June 1947, shall include, in addition to the area defined in annex1 to that Agreement, the premises described in the annexes of this Supplemental Agreement. Thefirst part of the annexes shows newly added premises whereas the second part indicates the stateof United Nations occupancy in premises already covered by previous Supplemental Agreements.

Article IIThe Secretary-General of the United Nations shall notify the Permanent Representative of the

United States of America to the United Nations immediately should any of the premises referredto in article I and described in the annexes or any part of such premises, cease to be used by theUnited Nations. Such premises, or such part thereof, shall cease to be a part of the HeadquartersDistrict from the date of such notification.

Article IIIThis Third Supplemental Agreement shall enter into force upon its signature.IN WITNESS WHEREOF the respective representatives have signed this Supplemental Agreement.DONE in duplicate, in the English language, at New York this tenth day of December 1980.

(b) Agreement between the United Nations and the Republic of Austria regarding theHeadquarters of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization. Signedat New York on 13 April 1967

Exchange of letters between the United Nations and Austria constituting a Supple-mental Agreement to the above-mentioned Agreement relating to the turnover taxsystem (value added tax system).9 Vienna and New York, 24 April 1980

Vienna, 24 April 1980

Excellency,

I have the honour to refer to the Agreement between the Republic of Austria and the UnitedNations regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization(hereinafter referred to as "the Headquarters Agreement") and in particular to Section 16 (a) ofthe Headquarters Agreement which provides:

"The UNIDO, its assets, income and other property shall be exempt from all forms oftaxation, provided, however, that such tax exemption shall not extend to the owner or lessorof any property rented by the UNIDO".

19

The Headquarters Agreement provides further in its Section 16 (b), inter alia:"In so far as the Government, for important administrative considerations, may be unable

to grant to the UNIDO exemption from indirect taxes which constitute part of the cost of goodspurchased by or services rendered to the UNIDO, including rentals, the Government shallreimburse the UNIDO for such taxes by the payment, from time to time, of lump sums to beagreed upon by the UNIDO and the Government. It is, however, understood that the UNIDOwill not claim reimbursement with respect to minor purchases . . . "I also wish to refer to the Agreement between the Republic of Austria and the United Nations

regarding the Postal Services to be provided in the Vienna International Centre, signed on 28 June1979, and, in particular, to Article 2, paragraph 4, of this Agreement according to which all postagestamps and related items, imported or acquired in Austria, by the United Nations for the purposesof sale by the VIC Post Office "are to be considered as articles coming within the purview ofSection 16 of the UNIDO Headquarters Agreement".

With the present I have the honour to propose that, with respect to the turnover tax system(value added tax system) in Austria, the provisions referred to above shall be implemented asfollows:

1. The Austrian Federal Government (hereinafter referred to as "the Government") shallreimburse the United Nations the turnover tax on goods delivered or services rendered to the UnitedNations, including rentals. The United Nations shall not claim reimbursement of the turnover taxfor goods delivered or services rendered of a net value, excluding the turnover tax, of less thanAS 1,000.

2. Reimbursement of the turnover tax shall be made on the basis of a list of all goodsdelivered and services rendered subject to reimbursement in accordance with this SupplementalAgreement. These lists shall cover periods of six months each and shall be transmitted by theUnited Nations to the Government. Upon request, the United Nations shall permit representativesof the Government to inspect the originals of the invoices for any such goods delivered and servicesrendered.

3. This Supplemental Agreement shall enter into force simultaneously with the Agreementbetween the Republic of Austria and the United Nations regarding the Postal Services to be providedin the Vienna International Centre signed on 28 June 1979, and it shall remain in force for theduration of that Agreement.

If you agree to this proposal, I have the honour to propose that this letter, together with yourletter in reply accepting the proposal, shall constitute an agreement between the Government andthe United Nations implementing, to this extent, the relevant provisions of the HeadquartersAgreement.

(Signed) Willibald P. PAHRFederal Minister for Foreign Affairs

H.E. Dr. Kurt WALDHEIMSecretary-Generalof the United NationsNew York

II

New York, 24 April 1980

Excellency,

I have the honour to refer to your note of 24 April 1980 which reads as follows:

(See letter I)

20

I have the honour to confirm that I agree to the foregoing proposal and that I regard your letterin this reply as constituting an agreement between the Government and the United Nations imple-menting to this extent, the relevant provisions of the Headquarters Agreement.

(Signed) Kurt WALDHEIM

H.E. Dr. Willibald P. PAHRFederal Minister for Foreign Affairs

(c) Agreement between the Government of Lebanon and the United Nations on thetemporary Headquarters of the United Nations Economic Commission for WesternAsia.10 Signed at Beirut on 12 December 1978

The Government of Lebanon and the United Nations,Desiring to conclude an Agreement for the purpose of regulating questions arising as a result

of the Economic Commission for Western Asia (Commission) resolution No. 6 (S-l) of 9 September1974, endorsed by the Economic and Social Council on 18 October 1974 to establish a temporaryheadquarters of the Commission in Beirut for a period of five years;

Whereas the Government of Lebanon agrees to grant the Commission, as long as its temporaryheadquarters is in Lebanon, the necessary facilities to enable the Commission to implement itsscheduled programme of work and projects;

Considering that the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nationsadopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13 February 1946, to which Lebanonis a party, applies by definition to the United Nations Economic Commission for Western Asia;

Desiring to conclude an Agreement supplementing the Convention on the Privileges andImmunities of the United Nations in order to regulate matters not covered therein resultant fromthe establishment of the temporary headquarters of the United Nations Economic Commission forWestern Asia in Beirut;


Article 1DEFINITIONS

In this Agreement,(a) The expression "Commission" means the United Nations Economic Commission for

Western Asia;(b) The expression "Government" means the Government of Lebanon;(c) The expression "Executive Secretary" means the Executive Secretary of the Commission

or his authorized representative;(d) The expression "Headquarters" means the temporary headquarters site with the building

or premises occupied by the Commission in accordance with the provision set forth from time totime in the annexed agreements referred to in article 2, paragraph 2;

(e) The expression "officials of the Commission" means the Executive Secretary and allmembers of the staff of the Commission with the exception of officials or employees recruitedlocally and are assigned to hourly rates;

(/) The expression "Convention" means the Convention on the Privileges and Immunitiesof the United Nations, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 13 February 1946.

Article 2HEADQUARTERS

1. The Headquarters shall be under the authority and control of the Commission.2. The Government offers and the Commission accepts the use and occupation of the Head-

quarters according to the terms and conditions provided for, from time to time, in subsequentagreements to be concluded between the Government and the Commission.

21

3. The Commission may lay down internal regulations to be observed throughout the Head-quarters; such regulations shall determine the rules necessary for performing work therein.

4. Except for the provisions of the previous paragraph the Headquarters shall be subject toLebanese laws and regulations.

5. The Headquarters shall be inviolable. Government officers and officials shall not enterthe Headquarters to perform their official duties except upon the agreement of or at the request ofthe Executive Secretary and under conditions agreed to by him.

6. Judicial actions, including the impounding of private property, cannot be enforced in theHeadquarters.

7. Without prejudice to the provisions of the Convention or of this Agreement, the Com-mission shall prevent the Headquarters from being used as a refuge by persons who are avoidingarrest under any law of Lebanon, or who are required by the Government for extradition to anothercountry or who are endeavouring to avoid service of legal process.

8. The Government shall ensure the protection of the Headquarters and shall maintain securityaround its site.

9. The competent Lebanese governmental authorities shall make every possible effort tosecure, on fair conditions and upon the request of the Executive Secretary the public services neededby the Commission, such as postal, telephone and telegraph services, power, water and fire pro-tection services.

10. With due regard to article 4, paragraph I, the Commission shall avail itself, in respectof the services maintained by the Government or by the agencies subject to governmental super-vision, of the reduced tariffs granted to other governments including their diplomatic missions.

11. In case of force majeure, resulting in a complete or partial interruption of the aforesaidservices, the Commission shall for the performance of its functions be accorded the priority givento national public departments.

Article 3FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO THE HEADQUARTERS

1. The competent Lebanese authorities shall not impede the transit to or from the Headquartersof persons holding official posts therein or of persons invited thereto upon their arrival in ordeparture from Lebanon.

2. The Government undertakes, for this purpose, to allow the entry into and residence inLebanon of the persons listed hereunder during their assignment or during the performance of theirduties for the Commission, without charging visa fees and without delay:

(a) Representatives of the member States to the conferences and meetings convened in theHeadquarters country, including alternate representatives, advisers, experts and secretaries, as wellas their spouses and dependent children;

(b) Commission officials and experts, as well as their spouses and dependent children;(c) Officials of the United Nations or any of its specialized agencies or the International

Atomic Energy Agency who are assigned to work for the Commission and those who have officialduties with the Commission, as well as their spouses and dependent children;

(d) Persons on mission for the Commission but who are not officials of the Commission,as well as their spouses and dependent children;

(e) All persons invited to the Headquarters on official business.3. Without prejudice to the special immunities which they may have enjoyed, persons referred

to in paragraph 2 above may not be forced by the Lebanese authorities to leave Lebanese territoryunless they abuse their recognized residence privileges by exercising an activity irrelevant to theirjobs or duties with the Commission, and subject to the provisions mentioned hereunder:

(a) No action to force the persons referred to in paragraph 2 to leave Lebanese territory maybe taken without the consent of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Lebanese Overseas, who shallconsult with the Executive Secretary prior to giving the consent.

22

(b) Persons enjoying diplomatic immunities and privileges under this Agreement may notbe requested to leave Lebanese territory except in accordance with the practices and proceduresapplicable to diplomats accredited to the Government.

(c) It is understood that persons referred to in paragraph 2 shall not be exempt from thereasonable application of quarantine or other health regulations.

Article 4

COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES

1. For postal, telephone, telegraph and telephoto communications the Government shallaccord to the Commission a treatment equivalent to that accorded to all other Governments, includingtheir diplomatic missions, in regard to priorities, tariffs and charges on mail, cablegrams, telegrams,telephotos, telephone calls and other communications, as well as rates for news reported to thepress and radio.

2. The Government shall secure the inviolability of the official correspondence of the Com-mission and shall not apply any censorship to such correspondence.

3. Such immunity shall extend, without limitation by reason of this enumeration to publi-cations, still and moving pictures, films and sound recordings dispatched to or by the Commission.

4. The Commission shall have the right to use codes and to dispatch or receive officialcorrespondence by courier who shall have the same privileges and immunities as diplomatic couriersor in special pouches to which shall apply the provisions internationally applicable to diplomaticpouches.

Article 5

PROPERTIES, FUNDS AND ASSETS

The Government shall apply mutatis mutandis to the property, funds and assets of the Com-mission wherever they are and by whomsoever held the provisions of the Convention on thePrivileges and Immunities of the United Nations especially with regard to the following:

(a) Immunity from legal process except where the Commission may have expressly waivedimmunity in a certain case; it being understood that this waiver shall not include execution of legalactions.

(b) Immunity from inspection, confiscation, seizure or expropriation in any form of executive,administrative or legislative enforcement action;

(c) Holding of funds and currencies of any kind and opening accounts in any currency itdesires;

(d) Transfer of its funds and currencies with complete freedom inside Lebanon and fromLebanon to any other country and vice versa;

(e) Exemption from all taxes and levies; it being understood, however, that the Commissionshall not request exemption from taxes, which are, in fact, no more than charges for public utilityservices.

if) Exemption from customs charges as well as limitations and restrictions on the import orexport of materials imported or exported by the Commission for its official business, subject to theLebanese laws and regulations relating to security and public health, it being understood that tax-free imports cannot be sold in Lebanese territory except under conditions agreed to by theGovernment.

(g) Exemption from all limitations and restrictions on the import or export of publications,still and moving pictures, films and sound recordings imported, exported or published by theCommission within the framework of its official activities.

23

Article 6DIPLOMATIC FACILITIES, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES

1. Representatives of the States members of the Commission participating in the conferencesand meetings convened by it shall enjoy during their residence in Lebanon for the purpose ofexercising their functions the diplomatic facilities, privileges and immunities granted to diplomatsof comparable rank of foreign diplomatic missions accredited to the Government.

2. Without prejudice to the provisions of article 7, paragraphs 1 and 3, the Executive Secretaryand the Deputy Executive Secretary shall enjoy during their residence in Lebanon the facilities,privileges and immunities granted to heads of diplomatic missions accredited to the Government.

3. Without prejudice to the provisions of article 7, paragraphs 1 and 3, officials of theCommission at the P-4 level and above shall enjoy during their residence in Lebanon the facilities,privileges and immunities granted by the Government to diplomats of comparable rank of thediplomatic missions accredited to the Government. Such facilities, privileges and immunities shallalso be enjoyed by other categories of officials of the Commission as determined by the ExecutiveSecretary in consultation with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and in agreement withthe Government.

4. The facilities, privileges and immunities granted to the representatives of the Statesmembers of the Commission and to the officials mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3 above shall extendto their spouses and dependent members of their families.

5. The immunities accorded by paragraphs I, 2 and 3 of this article are granted in theinterests of the Commission and not for the personal benefit of the individuals themselves. Theimmunities may be waived by the Government of the State concerned in respect of its representativesand their families, by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in respect of the ExecutiveSecretary and his deputy and members of their families, and by the Executive Secretary in respectof all officials of the Commission and their families.

6. The Commission shall communicate to the Government in due time the names of personsreferred to in this article.

Article 7PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF OFFICIALS AND EXPERTS

1. The officials of the Commission shall enjoy in Lebanese territory the following privilegesand immunities:

(a) Immunity from legal process in respect of all acts performed by them in their officialcapacity (including words spoken and written);

(b) Exemption from any direct tax on the salaries and all other remunerations paid to themby the Commission;

(c) With due regard to the provisions of paragraph 2 of this article, exemption from anymilitary service obligations or any other obligatory service in Lebanon;

(d) Exemption, for themselves and for their spouses and dependent members of the families,from immigration restrictions or alien registration procedures;

(e) In regard to foreign exchange, enjoyment of the same facilities as are accorded to membersof diplomatic missions accredited to the Government;

if) Enjoyment, for themselves and for their spouses and dependent members of their families,of the same repatriation facilities granted to members of diplomatic missions accredited to theGovernment in time of international crisis;

(g) If they have been previously residing abroad, the right to import their furniture, personaleffects and all household appliances intended for personal use free of duty when they come to residein Lebanon. This privilege shall be valid for a period of six months from the date of arrival inLebanon;

ill) The personal right of each of them to import, in accordance with the relevant regulationsof the provisional import system, a car free of duty during his or her assignment.

24

2. Lebanese officials of the Commission shall not be exempt from the military serviceobligations or any other obligatory service in Lebanon. However, those who, by virtue of theirfunctions, are put on a nominal list drawn up by the Executive Secretary and approved by thecompetent Lebanese authorities, shall, in event of mobilization, be given special assignmentsin accordance with Lebanese legislation. Also, such authorities shall grant, upon the request of theCommission and in the event of other Lebanese officials of the Commission being called up fornational service, the waivers which might be necessary to avoid the interruption of a basic service.

3. These privileges and immunities are granted in the interests of the Commission and notfor the personal benefit of the officials themselves. The Executive Secretary shall waive the immunitygranted to any official whenever, in his opinion, such immunity would impede the course of justiceand can be waived without prejudice to the interests of the Commission.

4. Experts other than the officials referred to in paragraph 1 above shall enjoy the facilities,privileges and immunities mentioned hereunder while exercising their functions or duties assignedto them by the Commission or in the course of their travel to take up these functions or performthese duties inasmuch as such facilities, privileges and immunities are necessary for the performanceof their duties:

(a) Immunity from personal detention and from seizure of personal effects except in casesofflagrante delicto and, in such cases, the competent Lebanese authorities shall immediately informthe Executive Secretary of the detention or the seizure of effects;

(b) Immunity from legal process in respect of the acts performed by them in their officialcapacity {including words spoken and written). Such immunity shall continue notwithstanding thefact that the persons concerned may have ceased to exercise their functions with the Commissionor their missions for the Commission may have terminated;

(c) Exemption from any direct tax on the salaries and other emoluments paid to them by theCommission;

(d) The same facilities granted in respect of foreign exchange to officials of foreign Gov-ernments on a temporary official mission.

5. These facilities, privileges and immunities are granted to experts in the interests of theCommission and not for their own personal benefit. The Executive Secretary shall waive theimmunity granted to an expert whenever, in his opinion, such immunity would impede the courseof justice and can be waived without prejudice to the interests of the Commission.

6. The Commission shall in due time communicate to the Government the names of personsto whom this article refers.

7. The Commission shall co-operate at all times with the appropriate Lebanese authoritiesto facilitate the proper administration of justice, secure the observance of police regulations andavoid the occurrence of any abuse in connexion with the facilities, privileges and immunitiesmentioned in this Agreement.

Article 8LAISSEZ-PASSER

The Government shall accept the United Nations laissez-passer issued to officials of theCommission and shall recognize them as travel documents.

Article 9SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES

1. The Commission shall develop the ways and means necessary for ensuring a propersettlement of:

(a) Disputes resulting from contracts, or all disputes relating to individual rights to whichthe Commission is a party;

(b) Disputes to which an official of the Commission is a party, provided that he enjoysimmunity by reason of his official post and such immunity has not been waived by the ExecutiveSecretary.

25

2. Any dispute between the Government and the Commission concerning the interpretationor implementation of this Agreement which is not settled by direct negotiations or other mutuallyaccepted methods shall be referred for final decision to a tribunal of three arbitrators, one to benamed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Lebanese Overseas, one to be named by the ExecutiveSecretary and the third to be chosen by the two, or, if they should fail to agree upon a third, thenby the President of the International Court of Justice. The decision of the tribunal shall be final.

Article 10FINAL PROVISIONS

1. Without prejudice to the Commission's performance of its functions in a normal andunrestricted manner, the Government may take every precautionary measure to preserve nationalsecurity, after consultations with the Executive Secretary.

2. The provisions of this Agreement shall be considered supplementary to the provisions ofthe Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. When a provision of thisAgreement and a provision of the Convention deal with the same subject, both provisions shall beconsidered complementary whenever possible; both of them shall be applied and neither shallrestrict the force of the other.

3. Consultations with respect to amendments to this Agreement shall be entered into at therequest of either party and any such amendments shall be made by mutual consent.

4. This agreement shall enter into force as from the day following the date of the depositwith the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the instrument of ratification by the Government.

5. This Agreement shall remain in force for six months after the transfer of the Commission'stemporary Headquarters in Lebanon.

DONE at Beirut, on 12/12/1978 in duplicate in the Arabic and English languages, both textsbeing equally authentic.

(d) Agreement between the United Nations and the Philippines regarding the arrange-ments for the 1980 session of the Special Committee on the Charter of the UnitedNations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization.11 Signed at NewYork on 11 January 1980

Article X

LIABILITY

1. The Government shall be responsible for dealing with any actions, claims or other demandsagainst the United Nations or members of its Secretariat and arising out of:

(a) injury or damage to person or property in the premises referred to in article HI above;(b) injury or damage to person or property caused by, or incurred in using, the transport

services referred to in article VI above;(c) the employment for the session of the personnel provided by the Government to perform

functions in connexion with the session.2. The Government shall indemnify and hold the United Nations and members of its Sec-

retariat harmless in respect of any such actions, claims or other demands. The United Nations shallco-operate with the Government to enable it to discharge its responsibilities under this section.

Article XIPRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES

I. The Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, adopted by theGeneral Assembly on 13 February 1946 to which the Government is a party, shall be applicablein respect of the session of the Special Committee. In particular, the representatives of Statesreferred to in article II 1 (a) and (b) of this Agreement shall enjoy the privileges and immunitiesprovided under article IV of the Convention, the officials of the United Nations performing functions

26

in connexion with the session shall enjoy the privileges and immunities provided under articles Vand VII of the Convention and experts on mission for the United Nations in connexion with thesession shall enjoy the privileges and immunities provided under articles VI and VII of theConvention.

2. Representatives of the specialized or related agencies attending the session pursuant toarticle II 1 (b) of this Agreement shall enjoy the privileges and immunities provided by theConvention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies or the Agreement on thePrivileges and Immunities of the International Atomic Energy Agency, as appropriate.

3. Other representatives referred to in article II 1 (b) of this Agreement shall enjoy immunitytram legal process in respect of words spoken or written and any act performed by them in connexionwith their participation in the session.

4. The personnel provided by the Government under article VIII of this Agreement shallenjoy immunity from legal process in respect of words spoken or written and any act performedby them in their official capacity in connexion with the session.

5. Without prejudice to the preceding paragraphs of this article, all persons performingfunctions in connexion with the session, including those referred to in article VIII, and all thoseinvited to the session shall enjoy the privileges, immunities and facilities necessary for the inde-pendent exercise of their functions in connexion with the session.

6. All persons referred to in article II shall have the right of entry into and exit from thePhilippines, and the Government shall ensure that no impediment is imposed on their transit to andfrom the meeting area. They shall be granted facilities for speedy travel. Visas and entry permits,where required, shall be granted free of charge, as speedily as possible and not later than one weekbefore the date of the opening of the session of the Special Committee when the applications aremade at least one and a half weeks before the opening of the session. If the application for the visais not made at least one and a half weeks before the opening of the session, the visa shall be grantednot later than three days from the receipt of the application. Arrangements shall also be made toensure that visas for the duration of the session are delivered at the airport of arrival to participantswho were unable to obtain them prior to their arrival. Exit or travel permits, where required, shallbe granted free of charge, as speedily as possible, and in any case not later than three days beforethe closing of the session.

7. For the purpose of the application of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunitiesof the United Nations, the meeting premises shall be deemed to constitute premises of the UnitedNations in the sense of Section 3 of the Convention and access thereto shall be subject to theauthority and control of the United Nations. The premises shall be inviolable for the duration ofthe session, including the preparatory stage and the winding-up.

8. All persons referred to in article II shall have the right to take out of the Philippines atthe time of their departure, without any restrictions, any unexpended portions of the funds theybrought into the Philippines in connexion with the session at the United Nations official rate ofexchange prevailing when the funds were brought in.

9. The Government shall allow the temporary importation, tax- and duty-free, of all equip-ment, including technical equipment accompanying representatives of information media, and shallwaive import duties and taxes on supplies necessary for the session. It shall issue without delayany necessary import and export permits for this purpose.

(e) Exchange of letters constituting an agreement between the United Nations andHungary regarding the arrangements for the Training Workshop on Population Pro-jections.12 New York, 23 November 1979 and 22 January 1980

27

New York, 23 November 1979

Sir,As you know, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) has undertaken

the financing of a country project in Hungary, entitled "Training Workshop on Population Pro-jections" (HUN/79/PO2).

The purpose of the present letter is to obtain your Government's concurrence with the followingarrangements for the Workshop:

(a) The Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, adopted by theGeneral Assembly of the United Nations on 13 February 1946, shall be applicable to the Workshop.Accordingly, officials of the United Nations performing official functions in connexion with theWorkshop shall enjoy the privileges and immunities provided by Articles V and VII of the Con-vention. The participants and experts invited by the United Nations to the Workshop shall enjoythe privileges and immunities provided for experts on mission for the United Nations by ArticleVI of the Convention.

(b) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunitiesof the United Nations, the Government undertakes to accord all persons performing official functionsin connexion with the Workshop such privileges, immunities, facilities and courtesies as arenecessary for the independent exercise of their functions.

(c) The United Nations officials performing official functions in connexion with the work-shop, the participants and experts invited to the Workshop by the United Nations and all personsperforming official functions for the Workshop who are not residents of Hungary shall have theright of entry into and exit from Hungary. They shall be granted facilities for speedy travel. Visasand entry permits, where required, shall be granted free of charge, as speedily as possible and,when applications are made at least two and a half weeks before the opening of the Workshop, notlater than two weeks before the date of the opening of the Workshop. If the application for the visais not made at least two and a half weeks before the opening of the Workshop the visa shall begranted not later than three days from the receipt of the application. Exit permits, where required,shall be granted free of charge, as speedily as possible and in any case not later than three daysbefore the closing of the Workshop.

(d) The Government shall deal with any action claims or other demand against the UnitedNations or its personnel arising out of:

(i) injury to person or damage to property in the premises provided for the Workshop(ii) injury to person or damage to property incurred in using transportation provided for the

Workshop(iii) the employment of local personnel for the Workshop

and the Government shall hold harmless the United Nations and its personnel in respect of anysuch action, claim or demand. . . .

Upon receipt of a letter expressing your Government's concurrence with the above, the presentletter and your Government's reply shall constitute an agreement between the United Nations andthe Government of the Hungarian People's Republic concerning the arrangements for the TrainingWorkshop.

(Signed) BI-JILONGUnder-Secretary-General

Department of Technical Co-operationfor Development

His Excellency-Mr. Imre HOLLAI

Ambassador Extraordinary and PlenipotentiaryPermanent Representative of Hungarian People's

Republic to the United Nations10 East 75th StreetNew York, NY 10021

28

II

Permanent Mission of the Hungarian People's Republicto the United Nations

22 January 1980

Dear Mr. Bi-Jilong,

I have the honour to inform you that the Hungarian Government agrees to the arrangementsfor the "Training Workshop on Population Projections" as proposed in your letter of 23 November1979, No. TE 322/1, to be held in Hungary, and ready to organize the workshop under the conditionscontained therein.

Your letter, referred to above and the present letter is considered by the Hungarian party asan agreement between the Government of the Hungarian People's Republic and the United Nationsconcerning the arrangements for the training workshop.

(Signed) Andras HALAZCounsellor

Deputy Permanent Representative

Mr. BI-JILONGUnder-Secretary-GeneralDepartment of Technical Co-operation for DevelopmentUnited Nations Secretariat

(/) Agreement between the United Nations and Malaysia concerning the arrangementsfor the CCOP/ASCOPE Seminar on the methodology of assessment of undiscoveredrecoverable hydrocarbon resources, to be held at Kuala Lumpur from 3 March 1980to 8 March 1980.13 Signed at Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur on 6 February 1980

Article VIIIPRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES

1. The Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, to which theGovernment became a party on the 28th day of October 1957 applicable with respect to theConference. Representatives of Members and Associate Members of the United Nations Economicand Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific and representatives or observers from other Statesinvited to the Conference shall enjoy the privileges and immunities provided in Article IV of thesaid Convention. Officials of the United Nations and experts on mission for the United Nations,performing functions for the United Nations at the Conference, shall enjoy the privileges andimmunities set forth in Articles V and VI respectively, and VII of the said Convention.

2. Representatives of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, of the InternationalAtomic Energy Agency and of other intergovernmental organizations invited to the Conferenceshall enjoy the same privileges and immunities as are accorded to officials of comparable rank ofthe United Nations.

3. Representatives of interested non-governmental organizations invited to the Conferenceand the personnel provided by the Government pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 2 above, shallenjoy immunity from legal process in respect of words spoken or written and any act performedby them in their official capacity in connexion with the Conference.

4. Without prejudice to the provisions of the preceding paragraphs, all participants and allpersons performing functions in connexion with the Conference shall enjoy such privileges andimmunities, facilities and courtesies, as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functionsin connexion with the Conference.

5. All participants referred to in Article 11 and all persons performing functions in connexionwith the Conference who are not residents of Malaysia shall have the right of entry into and exit

29

from Malaysia for the purposes of the Conference. They shall be granted facilities for speedy travel.Visas and entry permits, where required, shall be granted free of charge, as speedily as possibleand not later than two weeks before the date of the opening of the Conference. If the applicationfor the visa is not made at least two and a half weeks before the opening of the Conference, thevisa shall be granted not later than three days from the receipt of the application. Arrangementswill also be made to ensure that visas for the duration of the Conference are delivered at the airportto participants who were unable to obtain them prior to their arrival. Exit permits, where required,shall be granted free of charge and as speedily as possible, in any case not later than three daysbefore the closing of the Conference.

Article IXLIABILITY FOR CLAIMS

The Government shall be responsible for dealing with any actions, claims or other demandsarising out of:

(a) injury to person or damage to or loss of property in the premises referred to in ArticleIII above;

(b) injury to person or damage to or loss of property caused by or incurred in using thetransportation referred to in Article V above;

(c) the employment of the personnel referred to in Article VII above; and the Governmentshall hold the United Nations and its personnel harmless in respect of any such actions, claims orother demands.

Article XIIMPORT DUTIES AND TAX

The Government shall allow the temporary importation and waive import duties and taxes forall equipment and supplies necessary for the Conference. It shall issue without delay to the UnitedNations any necessary import and export permits.

(g) Agreement between the United Nations and Iraq relating to the Headquarters of theUnited Nations Economic Commission for Western Asia of 13 June 1979

Exchange of letters constituting an agreement between the United Nations and Iraqamending the above-mentioned agreement of 13 June 1979 between the UnitedNations and Iraq relating to the Headquarters of the United Nations EconomicCommission for Western Asia.14 Beirut, 19 April 1980 and Baghdad, 21 April 1980

I

Economic Commission for Western AsiaBeirut, 19 April 1980

I have the honour to refer to the Agreement between the United Nations and the Governmentof the Republic of Iraq relating to the Headquarters of the United Nations Economic Commissionfor Western Asia and, in particular, Article 8, paragraph 5, thereof regarding the recruitment oflocal general service staff. In this respect, I wish to propose that the United Nations and theGovernment of the Republic of Iraq should agree upon the following procedure.

In recruiting local general service staff, the United Nations will notify the Government ofvacancies, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in addition to placing vacancy announcementsin the local press or otherwise publicly advertising those vacancies. All candidates, whether theirnames are submitted by the Government or they apply on their own initiative, will be given equalconsideration by the United Nations. The United Nations will advise the Government of its intentionto appoint local staff applying individually in each particular case, thereby affording the Governmentan opportunity to submit, within a period of one month of the notice of intention to appoint, any

30

information it may deem appropriate concerning the particular candidate and which the UnitedNations might wish to take into consideration before making an offer of long-term appointment.The final authority on appointment shall, of course, rest with the Secretary-General of the UnitedNations in accordance with the Charter.

I would be grateful if you could confirm that your Government is in agreement with theforegoing, in which event this note and your reply shall constitute an agreement between the UnitedNations and the Government containing the arrangements foreseen in paragraph 5 of Article 8 ofthe Headquarters Agreement.

(Signed) Mohammad Said AL-ATTARExecutive Secretary

H.E. Dr. Saadun HAMMADIMinister for Foreign AffairsBaghdad, Republic of Iraq

II

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Baghdad21 April 1980

I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note dated 19 April 1980, which readsas follows:

[See letter II

I would like to confirm that my Government is in agreement with the foregoing.

(Signed) Dr. Saadun HAMMADIMinister for Foreign Affairs

H.E. Mohammad Said AL-ATTARExecutive SecretaryEconomic Commission for Western AsiaBeirut

(h) Agreement between the United Nations and Venezuela concerning the arrangementsfor the Sixth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatmentof Offenders, to be held at Caracas from 25 August to 5 September 1980.15 Signedat New York on 7 May 1980

Article VIIILIABILITY FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND FOR DAMAGE TO OR LOSS OF PROPERTY

The Government shall be responsible for dealing with any action, claim or other demandarising out of:

(a) injury to person or damage to or loss of property (whether United Nations property orother) in the premises referred to in article III above, including damage to those premises;

(b) injury to person, or damage to or loss of property caused by, or incurred in using thetransportation referred to in article IV (2) above;

(c) the employment of the locally recruited personnel referred to in article VI above;

and the Government shall indemnify and hold harmless the United Nations and its personnel inrespect of any such action, claim and other demand, except where it is agreed by the parties heretothat such damage, loss or injury is caused by the wilful misconduct or gross negligence of UnitedNations personnel.

31

Article IX

PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES

1. The Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations shall be applicablein respect of the Congress. Accordingly, the Congress, representatives of States and of the UnitedNations Council for Namibia invited to the Congress, officials of the United Nations performingfunctions in connexion with the Congress and experts on mission for the United Nations at theCongress shall enjoy the privileges and immunities provided in the said Convention, respectively,for the United Nations representatives of Members, officials of the United Nations and experts onmis?:on for the United Nations.

2. Representatives of the specialized agencies, the International Atomic Energy Agency andother intergovernmental organizations attending the Congress shall enjoy the same privileges andimmunities as are accorded to officials of comparable rank of the United Nations.

3. Observers invited by the United Nations and referred to in article I (c) shall, in respectof words spoken and written and acts done by them in connexion with the Congress be immunefrom legal process of every kind. They shall be accorded such facilities as are necessary for theindependent exercise of their functions in connexion with the Congress.

4. The personnel provided by the Government under article VI of the present Agreement,with the exception of those assigned to hourly rates, shall enjoy immunity from legal process inrespect of words spoken or written and all acts performed by them in connexion with the Congress.

5. Without prejudice to the preceding paragraphs of this article all participants and all personsperforming functions in connexion with the Congress shall enjoy such privileges and immunities,facilities and courtesies as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions in connexionwith the Congress.

6. The Government shall ensure that no impediment is imposed on transit to and from thesite of the Congress of the following categories of persons:

(a) the persons referred to in article I of the present Agreement and their families;

(b) representatives of the press or of other information media referred to in article II of thepresent Agreement;

(c) members of the United Nations Secretariat and experts on mission for the United Nationsperforming functions in connexion with the Congress and their families;

(d) other persons officially invited to the Congress by the Secretary-General of the UnitedNations.

They shall have the right of entry into and exit from Venezuela, and no impediment shall beimposed on their transit to and from the Congress area. They shall be granted facilities for speedytravel. Visas and entry permits, where required, shall be granted free of charge, as speedily aspossible and not later than two weeks before the date of the opening of the Congress. If theapplication for the visa is not made at least two-and-a-half weeks before the opening of the Congress,the visa shall be granted not later than three days from the receipt of the application. Arrangementsshall also be made to ensure that visas for the duration of the Congress are delivered at the airportof arrival to those who were unable to obtain them prior to their arrival. Exit permits, whererequired, shall be granted free of charge, as speedily as possible, and in any case not later thanthree days before the closing of the Congress.

7. Distinguished guests officially invited to the Congress by the Government shall be givenaccess to the conference area by the United Nations.

8. For the purpose of the application of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunitiesof the United Nations, conference premises shall be deemed to constitute premises of the UnitedNations and access thereto shall be under the control and authority of the United Nations.

32

Article X

IMPORT DUTIES AND TAX

The Government shall allow the temporary importation and shall waive import duties and taxesfor all equipment and supplies necessary for the Congress. It shall issue without delay to the UnitedNations any necessary import and export permits.

(/) Exchange of letters constituting an agreement between the United Nations and Chinaconcerning the Study Tour on Small Scale Coal Mines, to be held in China from29 June to 14 July 1980.16 New York, 14 March and 5 June 1980

United Nations, New York14 March 1980

I have the honour to refer to the preparations for the Study Tour on Small Scale Coal Minesto be held in China from 29 June to 14 July 1980 and organized by the United Nations Departmentof Technical Co-operation for Development in co-operation with the Government of the People'sRepublic of China.

With the present letter I wish to request your Government's confirmation of the followingarrangements:

1. The Study Tour will begin in Beijing on 29 June 1980 and proceed according to theprogramme as indicated in the attached annex A.

2. The United Nations will send to China a group of twenty participants from an equivalentnumber of developing countries and two staff members from the United Nations for the period ofthe Study Tour. The attendance for these participants will be financed through the United NationsRegular Programme of Technical Assistance.

3. The United Nations will invite nominations from the developing countries as listed inannex B which have been identified as having coal production and/or potential coal resources.

4. The United Nations will pay the cost of tickets to and from Beijing, and daily subsistenceallowance to all country participants and United Nations staff.

5. The United Nations will publish a report upon finalization of the Study Tour which willcontain the main aspects of small scale coal mining and utilization in China.

6. The Chinese authorities will provide as the host country any meeting facilities, officespace, office equipment and supplies and transportation between hotels and meeting places or studytour sites, if required, and staff who may accompany the group of participants on their visits.

7. The Chinese authorities will provide and finance interpretation in English for the durationof the Study Tour, including the sessions and field visits.

8. The United Nations after consultations with the Chinese Government will invite otherUnited Nations organizations at their own expense.

9. For this Study Tour, the Government of the People's Republic of China will provide tothe United Nations officials and to the participants the privileges, immunities and facilities normallyprovided in seminar agreements between Host Governments and the United Nations. The Govern-ment will also deal with any claims arising in connexion with the meeting against the UnitedNations as provided in such agreements and will hold the United Nations harmless except whereit is agreed that the claim arises from gross negligence or wilful misconduct by the United Nationsor its officials.

10. On receipt of acceptance by the Government of the above points, the present letter andthe reply from your Excellency will be taken to constitute an agreement between the United Nations

33

and the Government of the People's Republic of China concerning the arrangements for the StudyTour on Small Scale Coal Mines in China.

(Signed) Margaret J. ANSTEEAssistant Secretary-General

Officer-in-ChargeDepartment of Technical Co-operation for Development

His ExcellencyCHEN ChuAmbassador Extraordinary and PlenipotentiaryPermanent Representative of the People's Republic

of China to the United Nations

II

Permanent Mission of the People's Republic of Chinato the United Nations, New York

5 June 1980

I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 14 March 1980 concerning theStudy Tour on Small Scale Coal Mines to be held in China from 29 June to 14 July 1980 organizedby your Department and the departments concerned of the Chinese Government.

I am pleased to inform you that the arrangements referred to in your letter are in principleacceptable to the Chinese side. I would, however, draw your attention to Point 6 of the arrangements.With regard to the provision that "the Chinese Authorities will provide . . . transportation betweenhotels and meeting places or study tour sites", my understanding is that the travel expendituresbetween cities or provinces in China will not be borne by the Chinese side.

Except for the above, I am glad to confirm our agreement with the arrangements as containedin your letter. Hence, both your letter and my present letter will constitute an agreement betweenthe United Nations and the Chinese Government on the said Study Tour.

{Signed) LAI YaliAmbassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary

Deputy Permanent Representative of thePeople's Republic of China

to the United Nations

Mrs. Margaret J. ANSTEEAssistant Secretary-GeneralDepartment of Technical Co-operation for DevelopmentUnited Nations, New York

(/) Agreement between the United Nations and Denmark regarding the arrangementsfor the World Conference of the United Nations Decade for Women: Equality,Development and Peace.17 Signed at New York on 2 July 1980

Article XLIABILITY

1. The Government shall be responsible for dealing with any action, claim or other demandagainst the United Nations or its officials and arising out of:

{a) injury to persons or damage to or loss of property in the premises referred to in ArticleIII above;

(£>) injury to persons or damage to or loss of property caused by, or incurred in using, thetransport services referred to in Article VI above;

34

(c) the employment for the Conference of the personnel provided by the Government underArticle VIII above.

2. The Government shall indemnify and hold harmless the United Nations and its officialsin respect of any such action, claim or other demand, except where it is agreed by the parties heretothat such damage, loss or injury is caused by the gross negligence or wilful misconduct of UnitedNations personnel.


1. The Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, adopted by theGeneral Assembly on 13 February 1946, to which the Government of Denmark is a party, shallbe applicable in respect of the Conference. In particular, the representatives of States and of theUnited Nations Council for Namibia referred to in Article II, para. 1 (a) and (b), shall enjoy theprivileges and immunities provided under Article IV of the Convention, the officials of the UnitedNations performing functions in connexion with the Conference shall enjoy the privileges andimmunities provided under Articles V and VII of the Convention and experts on mission for theUnited Nations in connexion with the Conference including those lecturers and panelists at theEncounter for Journalists who are not officials of the United Nations shall enjoy the privileges andimmunities provided under Articles VI and VII of the Convention.

2. The representatives referred to in Article II, para. 1 (c), (rf), if) and (g) shall enjoyimmunity from legal process in respect of words spoken or written and any act performed by themin connexion with their participation in the Conference.

3. The representatives of the specialized agencies, the International Atomic Energy Agencyand other interested organizations referred to in Article II, paragraph 1 (e), shall enjoy the privilegesand immunities provided by the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the SpecializedAgencies or the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Atomic EnergyAgency, as appropriate.

4. The personnel provided by the Government under Article VIII above shall enjoy immunityfrom legal process in respect of words spoken or written and any act performed by them in theirofficial capacity in connexion with the Conference.

5. Without prejudice to the preceding paragraphs of this Article, all persons performingfunctions in connexion with the Conference, including those referred to in Article VIII. and allthose invited to the Conference shall enjoy the privileges, immunities and facilities necessary forthe independent exercise of their functions in connexion with the Conference.

6. All persons referred to in Article II or in the present Article shall have the right of entryinto and exit from Denmark, and no impediment shall be imposed on their transit to and from theConference area. They shall be granted facilities for speedy travel. Visas and entry permits, whererequired, shall be granted free of charge, as speedily as possible and not later than two weeks beforethe date of the opening of the Conference. If the application for the visa is not made at least two-and-a-half weeks before the opening of the Conference, the visa shall be granted not later thanthree days from the receipt of the application. Arrangements shall also be made to ensure that visasfor the duration of the Conference are delivered at the airport of arrival to participants who wereunable to obtain them prior to their arrival. Exit permits, where required, shall be granted free ofcharge, as speedily as possible, and in any case not later than three days before the closing of theConference.

7. For the purpose of the application of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunitiesof the United Nations, the Conference premises shall be deemed to constitute premises of theUnited Nations in the sense of Section 3 of the Convention and access thereto shall be subject tothe authority and control of the United Nations. The premises shall be inviolable for the durationof the Conference, including the preparatory stage and the winding-up.

8. All persons referred to in Article II or in the present Article shall have the right to takeout of Denmark at the time of their departure, without any restrictions, any unspent portions of the

35

funds they brought into Denmark in connexion with the Conference at the United Nations officialrate of exchange prevailing when the funds were brought in.

9. The Government shall allow the temporary importation tax- and duty-free of all equipment,including technical equipment accompanying representatives of information media, and shall waiveimport duties and taxes on supplies necessary for the Conference. It shall issue without delay anynecessary import and export permits for this purpose.

Exchange of letters constituting an agreement18 supplementing the above-mentionedAgreement. New York, 2 July 1980

United Nations, New York2 July 1980

I have the honour to refer to the Agreement between the United Nations and the Governmentof Denmark regarding the arrrangements for the World Conference of the United Nations Decadefor Women: Equality, Development and Peace, signed 2 July 1980.

In particular, I wish to propose that the deposit and advances referred to in Article IX, paragraph2 and 3 of the Agreement shall exclude the value of air travel tickets provided by the Government.In this connexion it is understood that the Secretariat shall inform the Government of the namesof those United Nations officials assigned to the Conference with respect to whom the Governmentshall provide tickets for air travel from the indicated points of departure to Copenhagen and returnas indicated. The air travel tickets shall provide for travel standards as required by the staff rulesand regulations of the Secretariat. Upon receipt of the necessary information the Government shallpay the full cost of the air travel tickets to the agent designated by the Secretariat.

I would appreciate receiving confirmation that the foregoing is acceptable to Your Excellency'sGovernment and that upon receipt of the Government's acceptance in writing, this exchange ofletters shall constitute a supplementary aggreement to the Agreement regarding the arrangementsfor the World Conference of the United Nations Decade for Women: Equality, Development andPeace.

(Signed) Lucille M. MAIRSecretary-General of the World Conference

of the United Nations Decade for Women

H.E. Mr.. Wilh. ULRICHSENAmbassador Extraordinary and PlenipotentiaryPermanent Representative to the United NationsPermanent Mission of Denmark to the United Nations235 East 42nd Street, 32nd FloorNew York, NY 10017

II

Permanent Mission of Denmark, New York2 July 1980

I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of today which reads as follows:

[See letter I]

I have the honour to inform you that my Government is in agreement with the foregoing andthat this exchange of letters shall constitute a supplementary agreement to the Agreement between

36

the United Nations and the Government of Denmark regarding the arrangements of the WorldConference of the United Nations Decade for Women: Equality, Development and Peace.

{Signed) Wilh. ULRICHSENAmbassador

Permanent Representative of Denmarkto the United Nations

Dr. Lucille MAIRSecretary-General of the World Conference of

the United Nations Decade for Women, 1980New York

(k) Agreement between the United Nations and Mexico regarding arrangements for theSixth Session of the Commission on Transnational Corporations, to be held inMexico City from 23 June to 4 July 1980.19 Signed at Mexico City on 20 June 1980

Article XLIABILITY

The Government shall be responsible for dealing with any actions, claims or other demandsagainst the United Nations arising out of:

(a) injury or damage to person or property in the premises referred to in Article III above;(b) injury or damage to person or property caused by, or incurred in using, the transport servicesreferred to in Article VI above; (c) the employment for the Session of the personnel provided bythe Government to perform functions in connexion with the Session. The Government shall in-demnify and hold the United Nations and its personnel harmless in respect of any such actions,claims or other demands; except if it is agreed by the parties that such injury or damage was causedby gross negligence or wilful misconduct by United Nations personnel.


1. The Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, adopted by theGeneral Assembly on 13 February 1946, shall be applicable with respect to the session in accordancewith the accession to the Convention by the Government on 26 November 1962.

2. The representatives of States, referred to in Article II, 1 (a), and the representatives ofthe United Nations Council for Namibia, referred to in Article II, 1 (b), shall enjoy the privilegesand immunities provided under Article IV of the Convention.

3. The expert advisers referred to in Article II, 1 (e), shall enjoy the privileges and immunitiesprovided under Article VI of the Convention.

4. Officials of the United Nations performing duties in connexion with the Session shallenjoy the privileges and immunities provided under Articles V and VII of the Convention. Rep-resentatives of the specialized agencies and of the International Atomic Energy Agency referredto in Article II, 1 (e), as well as observers from intergovernmental organizations, referred to inArticle II, 1 (/), shall enjoy the same privileges and immunities as are accorded to officials of theUnited Nations of a similar rank.

5. The representatives of organizations, referred to in Article II, 1 (c), and the observersfrom non-governmental organizations, referred to in Article II, 1 (/), shall enjoy immunity fromlegal process in respect of words spoken or written and any act performed by them in connexionwith their participation in the Session.

6. The personnel provided by the Government pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 2, shallenjoy immunity from legal process in respect of words spoken or written and any act performedby them in connexion with their official functions for the Session.

37

7. Without prejudice to the preceding paragraphs of this Article, all persons performingfunctions in connexion with the Session including all those invited to participate in the Session,shall enjoy such privileges and immunities, facilities and courtesies as are necessary for the in-dependent exercise of their functions in connexion with the Session.

8. All persons referred to in Article II or in the present Article shall have the right of entryinto and exit from Mexico, and no impediment shall be imposed on their transit to and from theConference area. They shall be granted facilities for speedy travel. Visas and entry permits, whererequired, shall be granted free of charge, as speedily as possible and not later than two weeksbefore the date of the opening of the Session. If the application for the visa is not made at leasttwo-and-a-half weeks before the opening of the Session, the visa shall be granted not later thanthree days from the receipt of the application.

9. For the purpose of the application of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunitiesof the United Nations, the premises of the Session referred to in Article III above shall be deemedto constitute premises of the United Nations and access thereto shall be under the control andauthority of the United Nations. The premises shall be inviolable for the duration of the Sessionincluding the time required for the preparatory stage and the winding-up.

10. The participants in the Session, representatives of information media and United Nationsofficials servicing the Session shall have the right to take out of Mexico at the time of their departure,without any restrictions, any unspent portions of the funds they brought into Mexico in connexionwith the Session at the United Nations rate of exchange prevailing when the funds were broughtin.

Article XIIIMPORT DUTIES AND TAX

1. The Government shall allow the temporary importation tax- and duty-free of all equipment,including technical equipment accompanying representatives of information media, and shall waiveimport duties and taxes on supplies necessary for the Session.

2. The Government hereby waives import and export permits for the supplies needed for theSession and certified by the United Nations to be required for official use at the Session.

(/) Agreement between the United Nations and Greece on the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations Regional Training Seminar on Remote SensingApplications for Land Resources, to be held at Athens from 7 to 17 October 1980.20

Signed at New York on 22 August 1980

Article VFACILITIES, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES

1. The Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations shall be applicablein respect of the Seminar. Accordingly, officials of the United Nations performing functions inconnexion with the Seminar shall enjoy the privileges and immunities provided under Articles Vand VII of the said Convention.

2. Officials of the specialized agencies attending the Seminar in pursuance of paragraph (d)of Article II of this Agreement shall enjoy the privileges and immunities provided under ArticlesVI and VII of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies.

3. Participants attending the Seminar in pursuance of paragraphs (a) and (c) of Article II ofthis Agreement shall enjoy the privileges and immunities of experts on mission for the UnitedNations under Article VI of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.

4. Without prejudice to the provisions of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunitiesof the United Nations, all participants and all persons performing functions in connexion with the.Seminar shall enjoy such privileges and immunities, facilities and courtesies as are necessary forthe independent exercises of their functions in connexion with the Seminar.

38

5. All participants and all persons performing functions in connexion with the Seminar shallhave the right of unimpeded entry into and exit from Greece. Visas and entry permits, whererequired, shall be granted free of charge. When applications are made four weeks before the openingof the Seminar, visas shall be granted not later than two weeks before the opening of the Seminar.If the application is made less than four weeks before the opening, visas shall be granted as speedilyas possible and not later than three days before the opening.

Article VILIABILITY

The Government shall be responsible for dealing with any actions, claims or other demandsarising out of (a) injury or damage to persons or property in the premises referred to in paragraphs3 (a) and (b) of Article IV above; (b) injury or damage to persons or property occurring during useof the transportation referred to in paragraphs 3 (/) and (k) of Article IV; (c) recruitment for theSeminar of the personnel referred to in paragraphs 2, 3 (d), (h) and 4 of Article IV and theGovernment shall hold the United Nations and its personnel harmless in respect of any such actions,claims and other demands.

3. AGREEMENTS RELATING TO THE UNITED NATIONS CHILDREN'S FUND:REVISED MODEL AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE ACTIVITIES OFUNICEF21

Article VI

CLAIMS AGAINST UNICEF

[See Juridical Yearbook, 1965, pp. 31 and 32.]

Article VII


[See Juridical Yearbook, 1965, p. 32.]

Agreements between UNICEF and the Government of Dominica22 and Seychelles23 con-cerning the activities of UNICEF. Signed respectively at Kingston on 7 May 1980and Victoria on 16 July 1980

These agreements contain articles similar to articles VI and VII of the revised model agreement.

4. AGREEMENTS RELATING TO THE UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENTPRORAMME: STANDARD BASIC AGREEMENT CONCERNING ASSISTANCEBY THE UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME24

Article HIEXECUTION OF PROJECTS

5. [Sec Juridical Yearbook, 1973, p. 24.]

Article IX


[See Juridical Yearbook, 1973, p. 25.]

39

Article XFACILITIES FOR EXECUTION OF UNDP ASSISTANCE

[See Juridical Yearbook, 1973, pp. 25 and 26.]

Article XIIIGENERAL PROVISIONS

4. , [See Juridical Yearbook, 1973, p. 26.]

Agreement between the United Nations Development Programme and the Governmentof Dominica concerning financial assistance to technical cooperation projects.25

Signed at Dominica on 5 November 1980

This agreement contains provisions similar to articles III, IX, X and XIII of the standard basicagreement.

B. Treaty provisions concerning the legal status of intergovernmentalorganizations related to the United Nations

1. CONVENTION ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE SPECIAL-IZED AGENCIES.26 APPROVED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THEUNITED NATIONS ON 21 NOVEMBER 1947

In 1980, no additional State acceded to the Convention or undertook by notification to applythe provisions of the Convention in respect of specific specialized agencies.

As of 31 December 1980, 88 States were parties to the Convention.

2. FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THEUNITED NATIONS

(a) Agreements based on the standard "Memorandum of Responsibilities" in respectof FAO sessions

Agreements concerning specific sessions held outside FAO Headquarters and containing pro-visions on privileges and immunities of FAO and participants similar to the standard text (publishedin Juridical Yearbook, 1972, p. 32) were concluded in 1980 with the Governments of the followingcountries acting as hosts to such sessions: Austria, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cuba, Cyprus, DominicanRepublic, Ecuador, Fiji, France,27 Germany, Federal Republic of,27 Greece, Hungary, Italy,27 Ja-maica, Jordan, Kenya, Malawi, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands,27 Philippines, Qatar, Senegal,Spain,27 Suriname, Syria, United Republic of Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Turkey, United ArabEmirates, United Kingdom,27 United States of America,27 Uruguay, Yugoslavia.

(b) Agreements based on the standard "Memorandum of Responsibilities" in respectof group seminars, workshops, training courses or related study tours

Agreements concerning specific training courses, etc., and containing provisions on privilegesand immunities of FAO and participants similar to the standard text (published in Juridical Yearbook,1972, p. 33) were concluded in 1980 with the Governments of the following countries acting as

40

hosts to such training activities: Austria, Bangladesh, Botswana, Chile, Colombia, Cyprus, Czech-oslovakia, Fiji, Honduras, India,28 Kenya, Malawi, Malaysia, Mexico,28 Morocco, Mozambique,Nigeria, Peru, Senegal, United Republic of Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Venezuela.

(c) Exchange of letters between the Government of Sweden and the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations regarding training courses and seminars to beheld in Sweden

The exchange of letters of 4 February/3 March 1972 regarding training courses and seminarsto be held in 1972 (published in Juridical Yearbook, 1972, p. 33) was extended by Sweden on 28January 1980 to training courses and seminars to be held in 1980.

(d) Agreements for the establishment of an FAO Representative's Office and Exchangesof Letters extending the accreditation of an FAO Representative to another country

(i) in 1980, agreements for the establishment of an FAO Representative's Office, providinginter alia for privileges and immunities, were concluded with the following countries: Ethiopia,Somalia, Costa Rica, Togo.

(ii) Exchanges of letters extending the accreditation of an FAO Representative to anothercountry were concluded with the following countries: Dominica, Grenada, Suriname, St. Lucia,Sao Tome et Principe, Nicaragua, Cyprus.

3. UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC ANDCULTURAL ORGANIZATION

Agreements relating to conferences, seminars and other meetings

(a) Agreement between the Government of Kenya and the United Nations Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organization concerning the Regional Meeting of NationalCommittees for the International Hydrological Programme. Signed at Paris on 30July 1980

III. PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES

The Government of Kenya shall apply, in all matters relating to this meeting, the provisionsof the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies, and Annex IVthereto relating to UNESCO, to which Kenya has been a party since 1 July 1965. In particular, itshall ensure that no restriction is imposed upon the right of entry into, sojourn in and departurefrom the territory of Kenya of any person entitled to attend the meeting, without distinction ofnationality.

{b) Agreements containing provisions similar to that referred to in paragraph (a) abovewere also concluded between UNESCO and the Governments of Algeria, Argentina,Australia, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Colombia, Cuba, theFederal Republic of Germany, India, Italy, Jamaica, Malaysia, the Philippines,Papua New Guinea, Portugal, Sierra Leone, Spain, the United Republic of Tanzania,Thailand, Togo and Upper Volta.

41

4. WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION

Agreement between WMO and the Government of the Republic of Burundi related to theRegional Office for Africa of the World Meteorological Organization. Signed atGeneva on 1 October 1980


Article 2.2Unless otherwise defined in the present Agreement and, in accordance with the provisions of

the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, which apply to the presentAgreement, the World Meteorological Organization shall enjoy in the Republic of Burundi suchlegal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of the functions of its Regional Office. Moreover,the WMO shall enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfilment of thefunctions of its Regional Office. Similarly representatives of Members and officials of the Organ-ization shall enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary for independent exercise oftheir functions in connexion with the Organization in accordance with the provisions contained inSections 14, 20 and 23 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.

5. INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Atomic Energy Agency,29

approved by the Board of Governors of the Agency on 1 July 1959

(a) Deposit of Instruments of AcceptanceNo instrument of acceptance was deposited during 1980.The number of States parties to this Agreement remains at 49.

(b) Incorporation of provisions of the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities ofthe International Atomic Energy Agency, or other provisions affecting the privilegesand immunities of the International Atomic Energy Agency, by reference in otheragreements:

(1) Article 10 of the Agreement of 14 January 1980 between the Republic of Senegal andthe International Atomic Energy Agency for the application of safeguards in connection with theTreaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; entry into force 14 January 1980.

(2) Section 22 of the Agreement of 5 May 1980 between the Republic of Cuba and theInternational Atomic Energy Agency for the application of safeguards in connection with the supplyof a nuclear power plant from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; entry into force 5 May1980.

(3) Article 10 of the Agreement of 8 July 1980 between the Socialist People's Libyan ArabJamahiriya and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the application of safeguards in con-nection with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; entry into force 8 July 1980.

(4) Article 10 of the Agreement of 14 July 1980 between the Republic of Indonesia and theInternational Atomic Energy Agency for the application of safeguards in connection with the Treatyon the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; entry into force 14 July 1980.

(5) Section 24 of the Agreement of 25 September 1980 between the Government of theRepublic of Cuba and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the application of safeguardsin connection with the supply of a nuclear research reactor from the Union of Soviet SocialistRepublics; entry into force 25 September 1980.

42

(6) Article 10 of the Agreement of 18 November 1977 between the United States of Americaand the International Atomic Energy Agency for the application of safeguards in the United Statesof America; entry into force 9 December 1980.

Notes1 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. I, p. 15.2 The Convention is in force with regard to each State which deposited an instrument of accession with

the Secretary-General of the United Nations as from the date of its deposit.3 In a communication accompanying the instrument of accession, the Government of the Federal Republic

of Germany declared that the said Convention shall also apply to Berlin (West) with effect from the date onwhich it enters into force for the Federal Republic of Germany.

* Case M 90, No. 1 Board of Review.5 JSPB/G.4/Rev.lO and Amend. 1.* United Nations Legislative Series, Legislative Texts and Treaty Provisions concerning the Legal Status.

Privileges and Immunities of International Organizations, vol. I (ST/LEG/SER.B/10 — Sales No. 60. V.2).p. 3.

7 Ibid., p. 4.K Came into force on the date of signature.' Came into force on 14 August 1980, with retroactive effect as of 24 August 1979.10 C a m e into force on 13 August 1980.11 C a m e into force on the date of s ignature.12 C a m e into force on 22 January 1980.13 C a m e into force on the date of s ignature.14 C a m e into force on 21 April 1980.15 C a m e into force on the date of signature.16 C a m e into force on 5 June 1980.17 C a m e into force on the date of signature.18 C a m e into force on 2 July 1980.19 C a m e into force on the date of signature.20 C a m e into force on the date of signature.21 UNICEF , Field Manual , vol . II , part IV-2 , appendix A (1 October 1964).22 Came into force on the date of signature.23 C a m e into force on the date of signature.2 4 Document UNDP/ADM/LEG/34 of 6 March 1973. T h e standard basic agreement, prepared by the

Bureau of Administrat ion and Finance in consultation with the Execut ing Agencies of U N D P , represents aconsolidation of the standard Special Fund, Technical Assis tance, Operational Assistance and Office Agreementsof the U N D P , which it is designed to replace.

23 Came into force on the date of signature.26 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 33, p. 261.2 7 T h e Conven t ion is in force with regard to each State which deposi ted an instrument of accession and

in respect of special ized agenc ies indicated therein or in a subsequent notification as from the date of depositof such instrument or receipt of such notification.

2 8 Certain depar tures from, or a m e n d m e n t s to , the s tandard text were introduced at the request of the hostGovernmen t .

29 United Nat ions , Treaty Series, vo l . 3 7 6 , p. 147.

43

Part Two

LEGAL ACTIVITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONSAND RELATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL

ORGANIZATIONS

Chapter III

GENERAL REVIEW OF THE LEGAL ACTIVITIES OF THE UNITEDNATIONS AND RELATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

A. General review of the legal activities of the United Nations

1. DISARMAMENT AND RELATED MATTERS'

(a) Comprehensive approaches to disarmament

(i) General and complete disarmament

While general and complete disarmament under effective international control continued toremain the ultimate disarmament goal of the United Nations, the tendency to focus more and moreheavily on efforts to halt the arms race and achieve specific measures of arms control became morepronounced in 1980 than ever before. There was a continuing effort by Member States to keepalive comprehensive approaches such as the Programme of Action2 agreed upon by the GeneralAssembly at its tenth special session in 1978 and to develop on that basis a comprehensiveprogramme of disarmament. Attempts were also being made to put forth other imaginative ideaswhich could lead to concrete achievements.

Second substantive session of the Disarmament Commission

The major area of emphasis during the session, held from 12 May to 6 June,3 was a new itemon the agenda calling for the preparation of the elements of a draft resolution entitled "Declarationof the 1980s as the Second Disarmament Decade".4

During the general exchange of views5 the question of general and complete disarmament wasreferred to by many representatives. Emphasis on general and complete disarmament as the essentialgoal was reduced, however, while expressions calling for halting and reversing the arms race andadvancing systematically with a programme of concrete disarmament measures were increased.

In its recommendations on the elements of the draft resolution, contained in its report to theGeneral Assembly,6 the Commission reaffirmed that the goals of the Second Disarmament Decadeshould be conceived in the context of the ultimate objective of general and complete disarmamentunder effective international control.7 Consistent with that over-all objective, the goals of theDisarmament Decade should be (a) halting and reversing the arms race, particularly the nucleararms race; (b) the conclusion and implementation of effective agreements on disarmament, par-ticularly nuclear disarmament, which would contribute significantly to the achievement of thatobjective.

In its recommendations to the Assembly on the item on various aspects of the arms race, theCommission noted inter alia, that "together with negotiations on nuclear disarmament measures,the limitation and gradual reduction of armed forces and conventional weapons should be resolutelypursued within the framework of progress towards general and complete disarmament".8

Consideration by the Committee on Disarmament

In the 1980 session of the Committee, which was held in two sittings, from 5 February to 29April, and 12 June to 9 August, for the first time all five nuclear weapon States participated.9 Thework of the Committee was significantly influenced by international events. Although general andcomplete disarmament as the ultimate goal was reaffirmed, many representatives expressed theconcern of their Governments that the continuing arms race had become so ominous that the majorconcern of the international community should be with its cessation and with the commencement

47

of a process of real disarmament rather than with the end-point of that process. The urgency ofmaking a concrete start in the process of disarmament was also expressed in the report of the AdHoc Working Group on the comprehensive programme to the Committee,10 which suggested, interalia, that the programme's immediate objective should be to eliminate the danger of war, particularlynuclear war, and to make progress in disarmament through the consolidation of the momentumgenerated by the first special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament.

Consideration by the General Assembly

In 1980 general and complete disarmament continued to be recognized as the ideal goal bothin plenary meetings and in the First Committee,11 and the agenda item entitled "General andComplete Disarmament" continued to provide a vehicle for the discussion of a variety of new aswell as established initiatives. Under that item, 11 draft resolutions were submitted to and introducedin the First Committee.12 In the course of the deliberations, a number of them were revised andon the recommendation of the Committee, all were adopted by the General Assembly, as resolutions35/156 A to K. Resolution G, on radiological weapons, is dealt with under the respective headingof the present summary. Some of the other resolutions are summarized below.

Although resolution A, on conventional disarmament, by which the Assembly approved inprinciple the carrying out of a comprehensive United Nations study on all aspects of the conventionalarms race and on disarmament relating to conventional weapons and armed forces, was essentiallya procedural one, it nevertheless represented a concrete first step towards the consideration ofspecific measures of conventional disarmament. The resolution, furthermore, affirmed the inter-national community's recognition of the difficulties posed by an unstrained arms race in the con-ventional field and the need to arrest that aspect of the arms race without detracting from the priorityconsideration of nuclear disarmament.13

By resolution C, on non-stationing of nuclear weapons, the Assembly considered that thenon-stationing of nuclear weapons on the territories of States where there were no such weaponsat present would constitute a step towards the larger objective of the subsequent complete withdrawalof nuclear weapons from the territories of other States, and, inter alia, requested the Committeeon Disarmament to proceed without delay to talks with a view to elaborating an internationalagreement on the non-stationing of nuclear weapons on the territories of States where there are nosuch weapons at present.14

By resolution D, on all the aspects of regional disarmament, the Assembly commended thestudy prepared by the Group of Governmental Experts on Regional Disarmament to the attentionof all States and expressed the hope that the study would encourage Governments to take initiativesand to consult within the different regions with a viev/ to agreeing upon appropriate measures ofregional disarmament.15

By resolution F, on nuclear weapons, the Assembly expressed its conviction that the widedissemination of the report of the Group of Experts on a Comprehensive Study on Nuclear V/eaponswould contribute to a better understanding of the threat presented by nuclear weapons as well asof the need for progress in the various negotiations aiming at the prevention of both horizontal andvertical proliferation of nuclear weapons and the achievement of nuclear disarmament.16

By resolution H, on prohibition of the production of fissionable material for weapon purposes,the Assembly considered that the cessation of production of fissionable material for weapon purposesand the progressive conversion and transfer of stock to peaceful uses would be a significant steptowards halting and reversing the nuclear arms race; it also considered that the prohibition of theproduction of fissionable material for nuclear weapons and other explosive devices would be animportant measure in facilitating the prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons and explosivedevices.17

By resolution J, on disarmament and international security, the Assembly considered that thelack of effective international security was a generating factor in the escalating arms race. It alsoconsidered that the objective of halting the arms race, particularly the nuclear arms race andproceeding to effective disarmament measures compatible with national security, could be effec-tively served through applying the collective security system provided for in the Charter, parallelto disarmament efforts. It therefore called upon all States to proceed in a positive spirit towards

48

measures under the Charter for a system of international security and order concurrently with effortsat effective disarmament measures.18

Finally, by resolution K, on strategic arms limitation talks, the Assembly, deploring that theTreaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on theLimitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (SALT II) had not yet been ratified, urged the two signatoryStates not to delay any further the implementation of the procedure provided for in article XIX ofthe Treaty for its entry into force, taking particularly into account that not only their nationalinterests but also the vital interests of all the peoples were at stake in that question.19

(ii) Follow-up of the tenth special session of the Genera! Assembly and preparationsfor the second special session devoted to disarmament

1980 was the second year of operation of the disarmament machinery as revitalized in ac-cordance with the provisions of the Final Document of the tenth special session,20 but at the sametime the first year of its mature operation, with the agenda of the main bodies comprised primarilyof substantive disarmament questions put forward in accordance with the new procedures envisagedin the Document. Smooth progress towards implementation of the recommendations and decisionsof the General Assembly stemming from its tenth special session and, by the way of follow-up,its thirty-third and thirty-fourth sessions, was affected, however, by the tense international situationwhich developed late in 1979 and prevailed throughout the following year.

Despite clear differences in the positions of Member States and sometimes sharp debate, theDisarmament Commission was able to agree by consensus on recommendations to the GeneralAssembly relating to the three major items of its agenda, including the far-reaching item on thepreparation of the elements of a draft resolution entitled "Declaration of the 1980s as the SecondDisarmament Decade".21 In all its recommendations, the Commission recognized disarmament asboth an urgent requirement and a complex process, and kept in view the need for continuous follow-up action to urge and help ensure the implementation of disarmament measures on the basis ofagreements reached not only at the tenth special session but also at subsequent convocations.

The Committee on Disarmament in 1980 agreed by consensus to form ad hoc working groups22

to facilitate negotiations on four items of its agenda—security assurances to non-nuclear-weaponStates, chemical weapons, radiological weapons and the comprehensive programme of disarmament.There was general agreement that the use of such working groups facilitated the negotiating processand there were indications that groups to deal with at least the same issues would be formed in1981.

In the General Assembly, the debate on the question of follow-up was marked on the one handby satisfaction that the administrative and procedural decisions of the tenth special session hadlargely been implemented and on the other by concern that the arms race continued seeminglyunabated and few concrete measures of disarmament had been achieved. Again, a large numberof resolutions under the item concerning the question of follow-up of the special session ondisarmament was adopted.23 Furthermore, the debate took place in an atmosphere of awarenessthat 1980 was already the mid-point between the first and second sessions of the General Assemblydevoted to disarmament, and therefore that it was crucial to the disarmament effort to maintain themomentum generated at the first session and, in the preparations for the second, to strive to ensurethat that session would build upon the first, finally to lead to the curbing of the arms race andcommencement of a process of real disarmament.

(iii) Development of a comprehensive programme of disarmament

While the question of developing a comprehensive programme of disarmament was not oneof the more dominant subjects of the disarmament debate at the thirty-fifth session, it was commentedupon in plenary meetings and dealt with in the First Committee of the General Assembly in anumber of general statements.24

The General Assembly at the tenth special session in 1978 placed the responsibility foraccomplishing the first stage of the long-standing task of developing a comprehensive programme

49

of disarmament with the Disarmament Commission and that of negotiating the details with theCommittee on Disarmament.25

In 1980, the Committee on Disarmament started to negotiate the detailed programme on thebasis of the elements recommended by the Disarmament Commission and transmitted through theAssembly to the Committee. An Ad Hoc Working Group of the Committee was established andhad an initial exchange of views on the introductory part and six substantive chapters proposed forthe programme. The Committee will continue negotiations on the comprehensive programme atits 1981 session.

(iv) World Disarmament Conference

Pursuant to the mandate of the General Assembly, contained in resolution 34/81, the Ad HocCommittee on the World Disarmament Conference held two sessions in 1980. In its report to theAssembly,26 the Committee stated that it was aware that the subject of convening a world dis-armament conference at the earliest appropriate time had been considered by the DisarmamentCommission in 1980. The Committee also related in its report that it had maintained close contactwith the representatives of the nuclear-weapon States in order to remain currently informed of theirrespective attitudes. It was evident from this information that the Soviet Union continued to stressthe need to convene a world disarmament conference while the four other nuclear-weapon Statesmaintained their reservations on the practicability or value of such a conference.

By resolution 35/151, adopted without a vote, the Assembly renewed the mandate of the AdHoc Committee, requesting it, inter alia, to continue its consideration of the question in 1981 andto submit a report to the General Assembly at its thirty-sixth session.

(v) Declaration of the 1980s as the Second Disarmament Decade

In spite of their disappointment at the meagre results of the first Disarmament Decade, MemberStates, both in the Disarmament Commission and the relevant meetings of the General Assembly,generally expressed optimism that the coming decade would see greater progress in the field ofdisarmament. While virtually all of them felt that there must be greater effort towards disarmament,most believed that the new Declaration, in conjunction with the 1978 Final Document, wouldprovide a substantive set of guidelines, which could be used to provide the possibility for achieve-ment of concrete results during the decade.

One area of disagreement was whether or not strict time-tables should be set up for theachievement of certain of the priority measures set out in similar terms in various documents. Alarge number of States felt that commitment to a time-bound programme would indicate sincerepolitical determination to achieve concrete results; other States, however, stressed that experiencehad shown timetables frequently to be making negotiations counter-productive.

In the end, the Declaration as formulated called for the focusing of attention on certainidentifiable elements, similar both in content and priority to those contained in the Programme ofAction of the 1978 Final Document, which should, as a minimum, be accomplished during theSecond Disarmament Decade without specifying dates or a sequence for their achievement.

By resolution 35/46, adopted without a vote, the Assembly adopted the Declaration of the1980s as the Second Disarmament Decade, which is reproduced below.

ANNEX

Declaration of the 1980s as the Second Disarmament Decade

I. GENERAL

1. In proclaiming the decade of the 1970s as the first United Nations Disarmament Decade, the GeneralAssembly, in its resolution 2602 E (XXIV) of 16 December 1969, enumerated its objectives as follows:

(a) AH Governments should intensify without delay their concerted and concentrated efforts for effectivemeasures relating to the cessation of the nuclear-arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament and theelimination of other weapons of mass destruction, and for a treaty on general and complete disarmament understrict and effective international control;

50

(b) Consideration should be given to channelling a substantial part of the resources freed by measuresin the field of disarmament to promote the economic development of developing countries and, in particular,their scientific technological progress.

2. Although these objectives were reiterated by the General Assembly in later sessions, the first Disar-mament Decade ended without their accomplishment. While it is true that some limited agreements werereached, effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nucleardisarmament have continued to elude man's grasp. Furthermore, no progress has been made in channelling forthe purpose of economic and social development any amount of the enormous resources which are wasted onthe unproductive arms race.

3. Through the Final Document of the Tenth Special Session of the General Assembly, contained inresolution S-10/2 of 30 June 1978, which was adopted by consensus, the Assembly, after expressing itsconviction that disarmament and arms limitation, particularly in the nuclear field, were essential for the preventionof the danger of nuclear war, for the strengthening of international peace and security and for the economicand social advancement of all peoples, laid down a Programme of Action enumerating the specific measuresof disarmament which should be implemented over the next few years.

4. In spite of the positive and encouraging outcome of the special session devoted to disarmament, thedecade of the 1980s has started with ominous signs of deterioration in the international situation. Internationalpeace and security are threatened by the use or threat of use of force against the sovereignty, national inde-pendence and territorial integrity of States, by military intervention and occupation, hegemonism, interferencein the internal affairs of States, the denial of the right of self-determination of peoples and nations under colonialand alien domination, and by the further escalation of the arms race and efforts to achieve military superiority.It is clear that, if the emerging trend continues and meaningful efforts are not made to check and reverse thistrend, international tensions will be further exacerbated and the danger of war will be greater than foreseen atthe time of the special session on disarmament. In this connexion, it is pertinent to recall that in the FinalDocument the General Assembly emphasized that, on the one hand, the arms race in all its aspects runs counterto efforts to achieve further relaxation of international tension to establish a viable system of international peaceand security and, on the other hand, that peace and security must be based on strict respect for the principlesof the Charter of the United Nations. It is ironic that, while intensive discussions are under way in variousforums on global economic problems and on the depletion of resources available for coping with presentinternational economic problems, military expenditures by major military Powers are reaching ever higherlevels, involving the greater diversion of resources that could have helped to promote the well-being of allpeoples.

5. The close relationship between disarmament and development was also underscored in the FinalDocument, which stated that the resources released as a result of the implementation of disarmament measuresshould be devoted to the economic and social development of all nations and contribute to the bridging of theeconomic gap between developed and developing countries. It is, therefore, only appropriate that simultaneouslywith the proclamation of the Third United Nations Development Decade and the launching of the global roundof negotiations, the 1980s should be declared as the Second Disarmament Decade.

II. GOALS AND PRINCIPLES

6. The goals of the Second Disarmament Decade should be conceived in the context of the ultimateobjective of the efforts of States in the disarmament process, which is general and complete disarmament undereffective international control, as elaborated in the Final Document.

7. Consistent with this over-all objective, the goals of the Second Disarmament Decade should be thefollowing:

(a) Halting and reversing the arms race, particularly the nuclear arms race;(b) Concluding and implementing effective agreements on disarmament, particularly nuclear disarma-

ment, which will contribute significantly to the achievement of general and complete disarmament undereffective international control;

(c) Developing on an equitable basis the limited results obtained in the field of disarmament in the 1970sin accordance with the provisions of the Final Document;

(d) Strengthening international peace and security in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;(e) Making available a substantial part of the resources released by disarmament measures to promote

the attainment of the objectives of the Third United Nations Development Decade and, in particular, theeconomic and social development of developing countries, so as to accelerate the progress towards the newinternational economic order.

51

8. The disarmament process and the activities during the Second Disarmament Decade should be inaccordance with the fundamental principles enshrined in the Final Document and should be carried out in sucha balanced and equitable manner as to ensure the right of each State to security through the adoption ofappropriate measures, taking into account the importance of nuclear disarmament and conventional disarmament,the special responsibility of the States with the largest military arsenals, the specific requirements of regionalsituations and the necessity for adequate measures of verification. At each stage, the objective should beundiminished security at the lowest possible level of armaments and military forces.

9. Progress in disarmament should be accompanied by the strengthening of the peacemaking and peace-keeping functions of the United Nations in accordance with the Charter.

III. ACTIVITIES

A. General

10. The decade of the 1980s should witness renewed intensification by all Governments and the UnitedNations of their efforts to reach agreement and to implement effective measures that will lead to discernibleprogress towards the goal of general and complete disarmament under effective international control. In thisconnexion, special attention should be focused on certain identifiable elements in the Programme of Action asadopted by the General Assembly at its tenth special session which should, as a minimum, be accomplishedduring the Second Disarmament Decade both through negotiations in the multilateral negotiating forum, theCommittee on Disarmament, and in other appropriate forums. Adequate methods and procedures of verificationshould be considered in the context of international disarmament negotiations.

B. Comprehensive programme of disarmament

11. Having been recognized as an important element in an international disarmament strategy, thecomprehensive programme for disarmament should be elaborated with the utmost urgency. The Committee onDisarmament should expedite its work on the elaboration of the programme with a view to its adoption no laterthan at the second special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, scheduled for 1982.

C. Priorities

12. The accomplishment of those specific measures of disarmament which have been identified in theFinal Document as worthy of priority negotiations by the multilateral negotiating organ would create a veryfavourable international climate for the second special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament.All efforts should be exerted, therefore, by the Committee on Disarmament urgently to negotiate with a viewto reaching agreement, and to submit agreed texts where possible before the second special session devotedto disarmament on:

(a) A comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty;(b) A treaty on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of all chemical weapons

and their destruction;(c) A treaty on the prohibition of the development, production and use of radiological weapons;(d) Effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat

of use of nuclear weapons, taking into account all proposals and suggestions that have been made in this regard.13. The same priority should be given to the following measures which are dealt with outside the

Committee on Disarmament:(a) Ratification of the Treaty on the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (SALT II) and commencement

of negotiations for a SALT III agreement;(b) Ratification of Additional Protocol I of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin

America (Treaty of Tlatelolco);(c) Signature and ratification of the agreement negotiated by the United Nations Conference on Prohi-

bitions or Restrictions of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be ExcessivelyInjurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects;

(d) Achievement of an agreement on mutual reduction of armed forces and armaments and associatedmeasures in central Europe;

(e) Negotiations on effective confidence-building measures and disarmament measures in Europe amongthe States participating in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, taking into account initiativesand proposals to this effect;

(J) Achievement of a more stable situation in Europe at a lower level of military potential on the basisof approximate equality and parity by agreement on appropriate mutual reduction and limitation of armaments

52

and armed forces in accordance with paragraph 82 of the Final Document, which would contribute to thestrengthening of security in Europe and constitute a significant step towards enhancing international peace andsecurity.

14. Other priority measures that should be pursued as rapidly as possible during the Second DisarmamentDecade include:

(a) Significant progress towards the achievement of nuclear disarmament, which will require urgentnegotiation of agreements at appropriate stages and with adequate measures of verification satisfactory to theStates concerned for:

(i) Cessation of the qualitative improvement and development of nuclear-weapon systems;(ii) Cessation of the production of all types of nuclear weapons and their means of delivery, and of the

production of fissionable material for weapons purposes;(iii) A comprehensive, phased programme with agreed time-frames, whenever feasible, for progressive

and balanced reduction of stockpiles of nuclear weapons and their means of delivery, leading totheir ultimate and complete elimination at the earliest possible time;

(b) Prevention of the emergence of new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of suchweapons;

(c) Further strategic arms limitation negotiations between the two parties, leading to agreed significantreductions of, and qualitative limitations on, strategic arms. These should constitute an important step in thedirection of nuclear disarmament and, ultimately, of the establishment of a world free of such weapons;

(d) Further steps to develop an international consensus to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weaponsin accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 65 to 71 of the Final Document;

(e) Strengthening of the existing nuclear-weapon-free zone and the establishment of other nuclear-weapon-free zones in accordance with the relevant paragraphs of the Final Document;

(J) Establishment of zones of peace in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Final Document;(g) Measures to secure the avoidance of the use of nuclear weapons, the prevention of nuclear war and

related objectives, where possible through international agreement, bearing in mind various proposals designedto secure these objectives and in accordance with paragraphs 57 and 58 of the Final Document, and therebyto ensure that the survival of mankind is not endangered;

(h) Further steps to prohibit military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques;(/) Multilateral regional and bilateral measures on the limitation and reduction of conventional weapons

and armed forces, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Final Document;(J) Reduction of military expenditures;(k) Confidence-building measures, taking into account the particular conditions and requirements of

different regions, with a view to strengthening the security of States.

D. Disarmament and development

15. Peace and development are indivisible. During the Second Disarmament Decade, utmost effortsshould be made towards the implementation of the specific measures whereby disarmament will contributeeffectively to economic and social development and thus facilitate the full and early realization of the newinternational economic order. To this end, renewed efforts should be made to reach agreement on the reductionof military expenditures and the reallocation of resources from military purposes to economic and socialdevelopment especially for the benefit of developing countries.

16. Efforts should also be made to strengthen international co-operation for the promotion of the transferand utilization of nuclear technology for economic and social development, especially in the developingcountries, taking into account the provisions of all relevant paragraphs of the Final Document, in particular toensure the success of the United Nations Conference for the Promotion of International Co-operation in thePeaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, to be convened on principle by 1983, as decided upon in General Assemblyresolution 34/63 of 29 November 1979, as well as other promotional activities in this field in the United Nationssystem, including those within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

E. Disarmament and international security

17. An essential condition for progress in the field of disarmament is the preservation and strengtheningof international peace and security and the promotion of confidence among States. Nuclear weapons pose thegreatest danger to mankind and to the survival of civilization. It is essential to halt and reverse the nuclear-armsrace in all its aspects in order to avert the danger of war involving nuclear weapons. The ultimate goal in thiscontext is the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Significant progress in nuclear disarmament would be

53

facilitated both by parallel political and international legal measures to strengthen the security of States and byprogress in the limitation and reduction of armed forces and conventional armaments of the nuclear-weaponStates and other States in the regions concerned.

18. All States Members of the United Nations have, in the Final Document, reaffirmed their full com-mitment to the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and their obligation strictly to observe its principlesas well as other relevant and generally accepted principles of international law relating to the maintenance ofinternational peace and security. Disarmament, relaxation of international tension, respect for the right to self-determination and national independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of States, the peaceful settlementof disputes in accordance with the Charter and the strengthening of international peace and security are directlyrelated to each other. Progress in any of these spheres has a beneficial effect on all of them; in turn, failurein one sphere has negative effects on others. In the decade of the 1980s, all Governments, in particular themost advanced military Powers, should therefore take such steps as will contribute to the widening of trustamong nations of the world as well as in the various regions. This implies a commitment on the part of allStates to avoid actions likely to increase tension or create new areas of threats to international peace and securityand, in their relationship with other countries, strictly to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity ofStates, and the right of peoples under colonial or foreign domination to self-determination and nationalindependence.

F. Public awareness

19. As stated in paragraph 15 of the Final Document, it is essential that not only Governments but alsothe peoples of the world recognize and understand the dangers in the present world armament situation, sothat world public opinion will be mobilized on behalf of peace and disarmament. This will be of great importanceto the strengthening of international peace and security, the just and peaceful resolution of disputes and conflictsand effective disarmament.

20. In the course of the decade of the 1980s, therefore, governmental and non-governmental informationorgans of Member States and those of the United Nations and the specialized agencies, as well as non-governmental organizations, should, as appropriate, undertake further programmes of information relating tothe danger of the armaments race as well as to disarmament efforts and negotiations and their results, particularlyby means of annual activities conducted in connexion with Disarmament Week. These actions should constitutea large-scale programme further to alert world opinion to the danger of war in general and of nuclear war inparticular. In keeping with its central role and primary responsibility in the sphere of disarmament, the UnitedNations, in particular its Centre for Disarmament, should intensify and co-ordinate its programme of publications,audio-visual materials, co-operation with non-governmental organizations and relations with the media. Amongits activities, the United Nations should also, in the course of the Second Disarmament Decade, sponsor seminarsin the different regions of the world at which issues relating to world disarmament, in general, and to theparticular region, especially, will be extensively discussed.

G. Studies

21. As part of the process of facilitating the consideration of issues in the field of disarmament, studieson specific questions should be undertaken on the decision of the General Assembly, when necessary forpreparing the ground for negotiations or reaching agreement. Also, studies pursued under the auspices of theUnited Nations, in particular by the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research established by Assemblyresolution 34/83 M of 11 December 1979 within the framework of the United Nations Institute for Trainingand Research, could bring a useful contribution to the knowledge and exploration of disarmament problems,especially in the long term.

H. Implementation, review and appraisal

22. In the accomplishment of the activities earmarked for the Second Disarmament Decade, all Gov-ernments, particularly the most advanced military Powers, should make an effective contribution. The UnitedNations should continue to play a central role. The Committee on Disarmament should fully discharge itsresponsibility as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating body. The General Assembly should, at itsannual sessions and, in particular, at its second special session devoted to disarmament to be held in 1982,make an effective contribution to the pursuit of the goals of disarmament.

23. It is pertinent also to recall that paragraphs 121 and 122 of the Final Document stated:(a) That bilateral and regional disarmament negotiations may also play an important role and could

facilitate the negotiation of multilateral agreements in the field of disarmament;(b) That at the earliest appropriate time, a world disarmament conference should be convened with

universal participation and with adequate preparation.

54

24. In order to ensure a co-ordinated approach and to consider the implementation of the Declarationof the 1980s as the Second Disarmament Decade, this question should be included in the agenda of the secondspecial session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, envisaged for 1982.

25. In addition, the General Assembly will undertake at its fortieth session, in 1985, a review andappraisal, through the Disarmament Commission, of progress in the implementation of the measures identifiedin the present Declaration.

(b) Nuclear disarmament

(i) Nuclear arms limitation and disarmament

In 1980, divergent approaches continued to mark the consideration of questions related tonuclear arms limitation and nuclear disarmament. Although there was general recognition of thepressing need for progress towards the objectives set out in the Final Document of the first specialsession devoted to disarmament, particularly in paragraph 50, serious differences persisted, es-pecially among the nuclear-weapon States, with respect to a number of fundamental issues, suchas: suitable conditions and framework for negotiations; the stages by which nuclear disarmamentshould proceed; the respective responsibilities of the five nuclear-weapon States at various stagesof the process; the relationship between nuclear and conventional disarmament; and the practicalimplications of the concept of undiminished security at all stages.

Those differences are of long standing and therefore the search for common grounds, underany circumstances, would be lengthy and laborious. Awareness of existing difficulties has increasedin 1980 in the midst of developments in the international situation which have had adverse effectson the discussions on questions relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race and nucleardisarmament in the Disarmament Commission, the Committee on Disarmament and the GeneralAssembly, as well as in other forums, notably SALT. At the same time, the deterioration ofinternational relations has heightened the urgency of coming to grips with the questions relatingto nuclear arms limitation and disarmament.

The General Assembly at its thirty-fifth session adopted four resolutions on measures in thefield of nuclear arms limitation, three of which (resolutions 35/156 C, H and K) have been dealtwith under the heading "General and complete disarmament, consideration by the General Assem-bly".27 By the fourth resolution (35/152 D), the Assembly declared once again that the use ofnuclear weapons would be a violation of the Charter of the United Nations and a crime againsthumanity and that the use or threat of nuclear weapons should therefore be prohibited pendingnuclear disarmament.28

(ii) Second Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on theNon-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

The Second Review Conference was held in Geneva from 11 August to 7 September 1980.The number of participants in the Conference was 75, as compared to 58 in the 1975 Conference.29

The Conference failed to reach consensus agreement on a substantive final declaration. However,in part because the "Group of 77" developing countries refused to downplay what amounted tobasic differences in perception as to certain purposes and objectives of the Treaty, participantsemerged from the Conference with a better understanding of the real issues. Moreover, the valueof the Treaty was not called into question; the disagreement concerned its implementation ratherthan its usefulness.

A positive result was achieved in the area of peaceful uses of nuclear power, where generalagreement on questions of safeguards on and access to nuclear materials and technology provideda good basis for future action in other forums, especially those involving IAEA.

The complexities surrounding the question of achieving nuclear disarmament, however, par-ticularly with regard to Article VI of the Treaty were not significantly diminished by the ReviewConference. Concrete progress in that area was still urgently required to ensure the further strength-ening and continuing effectiveness of the non-proliferation Treaty as the main international instru-ment for guarding the world against the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

55

(iii) Cessation of nuclear-weapon tests

In the view of many States, 1980 was another year of little or no progress towards the cessationof nuclear-weapon tests. Despite the General Assembly's request to the Committee on Disarmamentto initiate negotiations on a treaty as a matter of the highest priority, the Committee was not ableto begin such a task. Persistent efforts to establish a working group failed to find consensus, andthere was no clear agreement on what such a group would have done if it had been established.There was wide criticism of the argument that effective verification remained a major obstacle toreaching agreement. The real reason, it was declared, was a continued lack of political will on thepart of the nuclear-weapon States.

The more comprehensive nature of the report30 of the tripartite negotiations was favourablyreceived, and the statement that the three negotiating parties had made considerable progress waswelcomed, although study of the report raised several points of criticism on the part of non-nuclear-weapon States.

By resolution 35/145 A, the Assembly inter alia called upon the Soviet Union, the UnitedKingdom and the United States to bring to a halt without delay all nuclear test explosions, eitherthrough a trilaterally agreed moratorium or through three unilateral moratoria, as a provisionalmeasure until the new comprehensive test-ban treaty entered into force.31

By resolution 35/145 B, the Assembly reiterated its grave concern that nuclear-weapon testingcontinued unabated against the express wishes of the overwhelming majority of Member States.Reaffirming its conviction that a treaty to achieve the prohibition of all nuclear-test explosions byall States for all time was a matter of the greatest urgency and priority, the Assembly called uponthe three negotiating nuclear-weapon States to exert their best efforts to bring their negotiations toa successful conclusion in the near future and it requested the Committee on Disarmament, interalia, to take the necessary steps to initiate substantive negotiations on a comprehensive test-bantreaty as a matter of the highest priority.32

(iv) Strengthening of the security of non-nuclear-weapon States

While the question of having effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weaponStates against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons continued to receive support in 1980from the majority of States, views differed on the best approach to the problem.33 Some delegationscontinued to emphasize the importance of the unilateral declarations issued by the nuclear powersin the course of the 1978 special session of the General Assembly on disarmament. A majority,however, found those declarations to be inadequate and regarded them as no substitute for com-mitments acceptable to all and embodied in a legally binding instrument. It was repeatedly stressed,that the nuclear-weapon States had a special responsibility for finding a solution to the problem,which was of crucial importance if the spread of nuclear weapons was to be prevented.

Although little progress was made in the Committee on Disarmament, towards evolving acommon approach acceptable to all States, there was no objection in principle in the Committeeto the idea of an international convention on the question.34

The two resolutions adopted by the General Assembly ensured that the Committee wouldcontinue in 1981 to explore ways and means to overcome the difficulties encountered in thenegotiations with a view to reaching agreement on effective international security arrangements fornon-nuclear-weapon States. While the two resolutions were similar in many respects, resolution35/154 provided for the possibility of a Security Council resolution approving individual declarationsof nuclear-weapon States as a first step towards an international convention35 while resolution35/155, although favouring a convention, opened the door for consideration of any other proposalsdesigned to achieve effective international guarantees.36

(v) Nuclear-weapon-free zones

In light of the general belief that the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones is a feasible,practicable and effective means of promoting regional security and preventing further horizontalproliferation of nuclear weapons, the established proposals for the creation of such zones in various

56

parts of the world continued to enjoy wide support in 1980 from the great majority of MemberStates, as was evidenced in various international forums, including the Disarmament Commission,the Committee on Disarmament and the General Assembly.

In 1980, the discussion on the Treaty of Tlatelolco was narrowed down to the question of theratification of its Additional Protocol I by France and the United States. The General Assemblyin its resolution reiterated with special urgency its invitations for ratification of the Protocol bythose States."

On the question of denuclearization of Africa, the States of the African region once againexpressed serious concern about their security in view of the report of the Secretary-General onSouth Africa's nuclear plan and capability which was before the General Assembly.373 In thisconnexion, the Assembly adopted resolution 35/146 A, by which it, inter alia, requested theSecretary-General to give maximum publicity to the report on South Africa's plan and capabilityin the nuclear field.38 The proposal for a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East also continuedto receive widespread support and, for the first time, Israel advanced a separate initiative on thequestion. Although it later withdrew its proposal, Israel supported, also for the first time, theproposal put forward by Egypt on the question, which enabled it to be adopted without a vote.39

With regard to the proposal on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in South Asia,although the Assembly as at previous sessions adopted a resolution endorsing the proposal, differentviews continued to exist, particularly between India and Pakistan, which led to a large number ofabstentions on the relevant resolution.39"

(c) Prohibition or restriction of use of other weapons

(i) Chemical weaponsDuring 1980, the urgency and importance of negotiating and elaborating a multilateral treaty

prohibiting chemical weapons was once again emphasized in various international forums bycountries from all regions of the world. A significant development was the decision of the Committeeon Disarmament, on 17 March, to establish for the duration of its 1980 session the Ad Hoc WorkingGroup on Chemical Weapons, with a mandate to define, through substantive examination, issuesto be dealt with in the negotiations on such a convention. As in the previous year, the Soviet Unionand the United States again presented a joint report to the Committee on Disarmament on theprogress in their bilateral negotiations on chemical weapons.40 A new element was added to thediscussions in 1980 when controversial allegations were made concerning the use of chemicalweapons in certain regions of the world.

The General Assembly, in its resolution 35/144 C, requested the Secretary-General to carryout an impartial investigation, with the assistance of qualified medical and technical experts, toascertain the facts pertaining to those reports.41

By resolution 35/144 B, the Assembly urged the Committee on Disarmament to continuenegotiations on a multilateral convention on the prohibition of chemical weapons as a matter ofhigh priority.42

(ii) Review Conference of the Parties to the Convention of the Prohibition of the Development,Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on TheirDestruction*3

The Review Conference of the parties to the biological weapons Convention was widelyregarded as having been successful. As in the case of other major convocations which operate ona basis of consensus, the expectations of a number of participants in the Conference were not fullymet, but, in this case, relatively few felt it necessary to explain their positions following the adoptionof the Final Document.

The Conference may therefore be regarded as having given the parties to the Convention theopportunity to reaffirm, as stated in the Final Declaration, "their strong determination to excludecompletely the possibility of bacteriological (biological) agents and toxins being used as weapons"and their strong support for the Convention.

57

The General Assembly in resolution 35/144 A44 welcomed the Final Declaration of the ReviewConference, in which the States parties to the Convention, inter alia,

(a) Reaffirmed their strong determination, for the sake of all mankind, to exclude completelythe possibility of bacteriological (biological) agents and toxins being used as weapons, their strongsupport for the Convention and their continued dedication to its principles and objectives and theircommitment to implement effectively its provisions;

(b) Expressed the belief that article I had proved sufficiently comprehensive to have coveredrecent scientific and technological developments relevant to the Convention;

(c) Considered that the flexibility of the provisions concerning consultations and co-operationon any problems which might arise in relation to the objective, or in the application of the provisionsof, the Convention enabled interested States parties to use various international procedures whichwould make it possible to ensure effectively and adequately the implementation of the provisionsof the Convention, taking into account the concern expressed by the participants in the Conferenceto this effect — these procedures include, inter alia, the right of any State party subsequently torequest that a consultative meeting open to all States parties be convened at the expert level —and, having noted the concerns and differing views expressed on the adequacy of article V, believedthat this question should be further considered at an appropriate time;

(d) Reaffirmed the obligation assumed by the States parties to the Convention to continuenegotiations in good faith towards the recognized objectives of an early agreement on complete,effective and adequately verifiable measures for the prohibition of the development, productionand stockpiling of chemical weapons and for their destruction;

(e) Noted that during the first five years of the operation of the Convention the provisionsof articles VI, VII, XI and XIII had not been invoked.

(iii) New weapons of mass destruction

During the consideration of the question of the prohibition of the development and manufactureof new weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons in 1980, in the GeneralAssembly45 and other bodies, especially in the Committee on Disarmament,46 States maintainedthe same general approaches and positions as they had in previous sessions.

The Eastern European and a number of non-aligned States continued to call for conclusionof a general comprehensive agreement on the subject, and at the same time accepted the possibilityof a parallel approach in the form of specific agreements on particular types and systems of weaponsof mass destruction. The Western States continued to oppose a general agreement, in the belief thatsuch an agreement would inevitably be vague and unverifiable, and to support the idea of keepingthe question under review and of dealing with the conclusion of separate conventions on specificnew types of weapons of mass destruction when such weapons were clearly identified.

By resolution 35/149 the General Assembly requested once again the Committee on Disarm-ament to continue negotiations with a view to preparing a draft comprehensive agreement on theprohibition of the development and manufacture of new types of weapons of mass destruction andnew systems of such weapons and to draft possible agreements on particular types of suchweapons.463

(iv) Radiological weapons

After an initial optimism that the Committee on Disarmament might be able to achieve successin elaborating a treaty text on a prohibition of radiological weapons the basis of the agreed jointproposal put forward in 1979 by the Soviet Union and the United States, there was a certain amountof disappointment when difficulties were encountered.47 Several nations expressed major dissat-isfaction with the scope and other aspects of the agreed joint proposal and some introduced newelements with the intention of making a treaty prohibiting radiological weapons serve a broaderpurpose than the two Powers had envisaged. These suggestions revealed fundamental divergenciesof view which might not easily be resolved. However, there was recognition that detailed discussionwithin the Committee on Disarmament had been useful in revealing some differences in concept

58

and it was hoped that further consideration would lead to a satisfactory outcome before the secondspecial session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament.48

In this connexion, a draft resolution on prohibition of radiological weapons was introducedin the First Committee, which was later adopted by the General Assembly, without a vote, asresolution 35/156 G. By this resolution, the Assembly called upon the Committee on Disarmamentinter alia to continue negotiations with a view to elaborating a treaty prohibiting the development,production, stockpiling and use of radiological weapons.

(v) United Nations Conference on Prohibitions or Restrictions of Use of Certain ConventionalWeapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects

The Conference held its first session in 1979 in Geneva, from 10 to 28 September. Duringits second session in 1980, the Conference, at its final plenary meeting, on 10 October, unanimouslyadopted its final report to the General Assembly to which was annexed the Final Act of theConference containing the text of the Convention on Prohibitions of Certain Conventional Weaponsand three Protocols thereto,49 leading, respectively, with: weapons designed to injure by fragmentsthat escape X-ray detections in the human body; mines, booby-traps and other devices; and incen-diary weapons. The Convention itself stipulated that it would be open for signature by all Statesas of 10 April 1981, would enter into force six months after the date of deposit of the twentiethinstrument of ratification and would have as its Depositary the Secretary-General of the UnitedNations.

2. OTHER POLITICAL AND SECURITY QUESTIONS

(a) Implementation of the Declaration on the Strengthening ofInternational Security50

In its resolution 35/158, which it adopted upon the recommendation of the First Committee5'the General Assembly, inter alia, urged all States to abide strictly, in their international relations,by their commitments under the Charter; urged all States, particularly the permanent members ofthe Security Council, to take all necessary steps to prevent further erosion or disruption of theprocess of detente and to refrain from any act which might aggravate the international situation;reaffirmed the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial or racial regimes, foreigndomination and alien occupation to achieve self-determination and independence; considered thatthe achievement of real progress towards the establishment of a new international economic orderand an accelerated economic development of the developing countries had become a central elementof a peaceful and secure world; and further considered that the current deterioration of the inter-national situation required an effective Security Council and, to that end, emphasized the greaturgency of the need to examine all existing mechanisms in order to enhance the authority andenforcement capacity of the Council in accordance with the Charter.

(b) Legal aspects of the peaceful uses of outer space

The Legal Sub-Committee of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space held itsnineteenth session from 10 March to 3 April 1980 in Geneva.52 The Sub-Committee devoted itstime mainly to four items on its agenda, namely: legal implications of remote sensing of the sensingof the earth from space, with the aim of formulating draft principles; elaboration of draft principlesgoverning the use by States of artificial earth satellites for direct television broadcasting; mattersrelating to the definition and/or delimitation of outer space and outer space activities, bearing inmind, inter alia, questions relating to the geostationary orbit; and review of existing internationallaw relevant to outer space activities with a view to determining the appropriateness of supplementingsuch law with provisions relating to the use of nuclear power sources in outer space. The first twoagenda items were considered by the Sub-Committee on a priority basis.

59

The Sub-Committee's Working Group on Remote Sensing continued its work on the preparationof texts of draft principles on remote sensing of the earth from outer space.53 The Working Groupconsidered in particular the draft texts of those principles on which tentative agreement had not asyet been reached. There were nine such principles which were closely reviewed. The WorkingGroup did not complete its work on the text of the principles.54

The Sub-Committee's Working Group on direct television broadcast satellites continued itswork on the preparation of texts of draft principles on the use by States of artificial earth satellitesfor direct television broadcasting. The Working Group closely reviewed the texts of the draftprinciples as contained in the report of the Legal Sub-Committee on the work of its eighteenthsession (A/AC. 105/240, annex II, appendix A), but was unable to reach agreement on furtherformulations and did not complete its work on the texts of the draft principles.

The Sub-Committee considered in plenary the question of the definition and/or delimitationof outer space and outer space activities, and the question of the geostationary orbit. The Sub-Committee had before it in this connexion a proposal by the USSR on the delimitation of air spaceand outer space.5S The Sub-Committee also considered in plenary the question whether existinginternational law relevant to outer space activities should be supplemented with respect to the useof nuclear power sources in outer space. The Sub-Committee had before it in this connexion aworking paper submitted by Canada (A/AC. 105/C.2/L. 126) on the use of nuclear power sourcesin outer space.

The Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, at its twenty-third session held at UnitedNations Headquarters from 27 June to 3 July 1980,56 considered the report of the Legal Sub-Committee on its nineteenth session and made recommendations as to the work to be done by theSub-Committee at its twentieth session in 1981.

At its thirty-fifth session, the General Assembly adopted, on the recommendation of the SpecialPolitical Committee,57 resolution 35/14, in which it, inter alia, endorsed the recommendationof the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space concerning the future work of its LegalSub-Committee.

By its resolution 35/15, also adopted on the recommendation of the Special Political Com-mittee,58 the General Assembly, recalling its resolution 33/16 in which it decided to convene asecond United Nations Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, decidedto accept the offer of the Government of Austria to be host to the Conference at Vienna from 9to 21 August 1982.

3. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND HUMANITARIAN QUESTIONS

(a) Economic questions

(1) Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States

In 1974 the General Assembly had adopted the Declaration and the Programme of Action onthe Establishment of a New International Economic OrderS9 as well as the Charter of EconomicRights and Duties of States.60 By its resolution 35/57 of 5 December 1980 adopted by a recordedvote of 134 to 1 with 12 abstentions, on the recommendation of the Second Committee,61 theGeneral Assembly, inter alia, expressed its concern at the limited and partial progress achievedin the attainment of the aims and objectives established in the resolutions on the new internationaleconomic order and in the implementation of the provisions contained in the Charter of EconomicRights and Duties of States which were directed towards more just and equitable economic relationsand towards the structural changes needed to promote the development of developing countries,and reaffirmed solemnly the determination to establish a new international economic order. TheGeneral Assembly also reaffirmed the role of the Declaration and the Programme of Action on theEstablishment of a New International Economic Order and of the Charter of Economic Rights and

60

Duties of States as principal sources for international economic co-operation for development, urgedMember States, in that context, to take all appropriate measures for the launching and successfulconclusion of the round of global negotiations and the implementation of the International Devel-opment Strategy for the Third United Nations Development Decade, and decided, in the light ofthe results of the negotiations on international economic co-operation for development, to hold atits thirty-sixth session a comprehensive, in-depth review of the implementation of the Charter ofEconomic Rights and Duties of States, as provided for in article 34 thereof.

(2) Restrictive business practices

In 1978 the General Assembly had convened the United Nations Conference on RestrictiveBusiness Practices.62 The Conference held its first session from 19 November to 8 December 1979and its second session from 8 to 22 April 1980.63 It approved a Set of Multilaterally AgreedEquitable Principles and Rules for the Control of Restrictive Business Practices and transmitted itto the General Assembly at its thirty-fifth session, having taken all the necessary decisions for itsadoption as a resolution.64 By its resolution 35/63 of 5 December 1980 adopted without a vote onthe recommendation of the Second Committee,65 the General Assembly, inter alia, adopted the Setof Multilaterally Agreed Equitable Principles and Rules for the Control of Restrictive BusinessPractices; decided to convene, in 1985, under the auspices of the United Nations Conference onTrade and Development, a United Nations conference to review all aspects of the above-mentionedSet of Principles and Rules; took note of the recommendations of the United Nations Conferenceon Restrictive Business Practices regarding international institutional machinery, contained in sec-tion G of the Set of Principles and Rules; requested the Trade and Development Board, at itstwenty-second session, to establish an intergovernmental group of experts on restrictive businesspractices, operating within the framework of a committee of the United Nations Conference onTrade and Development, to perform the functions designated in that section and decided that thenecessary resources should be made available to the United Nations Conference on Trade andDevelopment to carry out the tasks embodied in the Set of Principles and Rules.

(b) Establishment of the University for Peace

In 1979, the General Assembly had approved66 the idea of establishing a University forPeace — a specialized international institution for post-graduate studies, research and disseminationof knowledge specifically aimed at training for peace within the system of the United NationsUniversity — proposed by the President of the Republic of Costa Rica in his address to the GeneralAssembly at its thirty-third session67 and offered by him to the international community throughthe United Nations. The Assembly also had established a Commission on the University for Peaceand had entrusted it with preparing the organization, structure and setting in motion of theUniversity.66

By its resolution 35/55 of 5 December 1980, adopted without a vote, on the recommendationof the Second Committee,68 the General Assembly, inter alia, having considered the Report of theCommission,69 approved the establishment of the University for Peace in conformity with theInternational Agreement for the Establishment of the University for Peace and with the Charter ofthe University for Peace, both of which were set forth in the annex to the above-mentionedresolution; requested the Secretary-General to open for signature the International Agreement forthe Establishment of the University within 10 days of its approval by the General Assembly; decidedto extend the mandate of the Commission on the University for Peace, which shall act as thepreparatory body of the University pending the establishment of the Council of the University, andexpressed its appreciation to the President and to the Government of Costa Rica for the effortsundertaken to organize and finance the University for Peace without burdening the budget of theUnited Nations or the United Nations University.

61

(c) Environmental questions

(1) Eighth session of the Governing Council of the United NationsEnvironment Programme10

During its eighth session, from 16 to 29 April 1980, the Governing Council held a generaldebate in which it discussed the introductory report of the Executive Director71 and the state of theenvironment report.72 Among the topics referred to in the debate were the further development ofinternational environmental law through UNEP, the activities performed by the Working Groupof Experts on Environmental Law, the need for ratification of relevant international instrumentsfor the protection of the marine environment and the possibility of a senior-level meeting onenvironmental law to discuss a long-term work programme in the area of the interrelationshipbetween population, resources, environment and development.73

Sessional Committee I dealt inter alia with the question of environmental law.74 In thisconnexion, the crucial function of environmental law in motivating environmentally responsibleaction and decision-making was pointed out and the importance of work on the register of envi-ronment-related international conventions and protocols was emphasized. Reference was made toGeneral Assembly resolution 34/186 relating to shared natural resources shared by two or moreStates, the role of UNEP in its implementation was noted, and the need for guidance on practicaluse of the draft principles noted by the resolution was stressed. Appreciation was expressed of theefforts of the Federal Republic of Germany in the preparation of the Convention on MigratorySpecies concluded in fulfilment of recommendation 32 of the United Nations Conference on theHuman Environment75 and the hope was expressed that it would become an effective internationalinstrument for the protection and wise management of migratory species and their habitats. Theimportance of the meeting planned in Italy later in 1980 under the Convention on Wetlands wasemphasized, and international co-operation was urged to support that convention in order to conserveand protect wetlands. Reference was also made to the importance of the International Conventionon Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage and the International Convention on the Prevention ofPollution from Ships. The progress of the Group of Experts on Environmental Law on OffshoreMining and Drilling was noted, and it was noted that its work should be concluded as soonas possible.

At its 12th meeting on 29 April 1980, the Governing Council adopted decision 8/15,76 entitled"Environmental law", whereby the Council, inter alia, requested the Executive Director to con-vene, prior to the tenth session of the Governing Council an ad hoc meeting of senior governmentofficials expert in environmental law, to assist in ensuring that the section on environmental lawof the system-wide medium-term environment programme to be submitted for consideration by theGoverning Council at its tenth session: (a) identifies subject areas where increased global andregional co-ordination and co-operation may encourage and further enhance progress in the fieldof environmental law, in particular with regard to the interests of developing countries, and (b) setsout a programme, including global, regional and national efforts, towards this end. The Councilalso requested the Executive Director to consult with Governments and appropriate regional gov-ernmental and non-governmental bodies with a view to reflecting particular recommendations onregional concerns, interests and priorities in the field of environmental law; to prepare the necessarydocumentation, noting, inter alia, material published by leading authors in the field of environmentallaw, and to transmit such documentation, including the in-depth review of environmental lawreferred to in his introductory report, to the Working Group of Experts on Environmental Law forexamination prior to its consideration by the ad hoc meeting of senior government officials.

(2) Action by the General Assembly

By its resolution 35/74 of 5 December 1980, adopted without a vote, on the recommendationof the Second Committee,77 the General Assembly, inter alia, took note of the report of theGoverning Council of the United Nations Environment Programme on the work of its eighthsession78 and the decisions included therein; welcomed the decision of the Governing Council ofthe United Nations Environment Programme to convene, prior to its tenth session, an ad hoc

62

meeting of governmental experts in environmental law and welcomed also the offer by the Gov-ernment of Uruguay to serve as host for the meeting, urging governments and the GoverningCouncil to take all the necessary measures for the preparation of that meeting, including theprovision of adequate consultancy.

(3) Status and implementation of the Convention on the Long-RangeTransboundary Air Pollution

In 1980, five States became parties to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary AirPollution concluded at Geneva on 13 November 1979.

(d) Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees79

The overall situation with regard to the international protection of refugees during most of1980 has been somewhat more encouraging than in previous years. Large numbers of refugeeswere granted asylum in various parts of the world and therefore a general improvement in thesituation of asylum seekers can be recorded, including the region where in past years the HighCommissioner was obliged to draw attention to negative practices adopted by several countries withregard to asylum. Nevertheless, some cases in which individuals or small groups of asylum seekersencountered difficulties in gaining admission to a country of refuge point to the need for constantvigilance on the part of UNHCR to ensure that liberal practices are adopted by States with regardto the granting of asylum. There were no further measures of large-scale refoulement during mostof 1980. There was, however, a recurrence of measures of forcible return of individuals or smallgroups of persons in disregard of the principle of non refoulement. Such measures of refoulementinvolved both individuals and groups of refugees and asylum seekers and took place in differentareas and in a variety of circumstances. Concerning the expulsion of refugees from countries wherethey had been granted asylum, there were relatively few such cases during the year and the majorityof cases coming to the attention of the office of the UNHCR involved measures taken in circum-stances permitted by article 32 of the 1951 Refugee Convention. There was, on the other hand,an unprecedented increase in acts of physical violence against asylum seekers and refugees. Indifferent areas of the world refugees and asylum seekers have been victims of rape, robbery, torture,abduction, physical injury and murder. With particular reference to the South China Sea, sometwo-thirds of the boats, loaded with refugees and asylum seekers which have arrived at shore andan unknown number which have been lost at sea — have been the victims of such attacks. TheExecutive Committee of the High Commissioner's Programme, which met in Geneva in October1980, considered the various problems relative to the protection of asylum seekers at sea andidentified a number of practical measures which Governments were urged to follow with a viewto preventing the recurrence of such criminal attacks.80 The measures proposed included an increasein surveillance of the area where such attacks occur and the establishment of procedures for theexchange of information in order to apprehend those responsible and bring them to justice. To datea number of persons accused of piracy have been prosecuted before the courts of two countriesconcerned while others are in the process of being brought to trial. With reference to cases ofunjustified detention of refugees, although an over-all decrease in their number has been maintained,isolated incidents of unjustified detention have continued to occur. In those countries where it cameto the High Commissioner's notice that refugees were being unjustifiably held in detention, effortswere made to visit them and to secure their release. With reference to the granting of economicand social rights to refugees, there is considerable diversity in the practices currently applied byStates. Where refugees are admitted to a country on a purely temporary basis, they are generallyaccorded very few of these rights. In countries of permanent settlement, the situation varies accordingto the particular region and to the particular subject matter. In this connexion, it should be notedthat in ratifying or acceding to the 1951 Refugee Convention, a large number of States — some25 percent — entered reservations or interpretative statements in respect of article 17, concerningwage-earning employment. The withdrawal of such a reservation is under active consideration inone such State and it is hoped that this matter may also be given appropriate attention by other

63

States which maintain similar reservations. The Executive Committee of the Programme of theHigh Commissioner during its 1980 session took a number of decisions relating to important aspectsof the refugee problem. In addition to the measures it recommended concerning the protection ofasylum seekers at sea, already mentioned above, the Executive Committee, inter alia, recognizedthat refugees should be protected in regard to extradition to a country where they have well-foundedreasons to fear persecution on the grounds enumerated in article 1 (A) (2) of the 1951 UnitedNations Convention relating to the status of refugees; recognized that voluntary repatriation con-stitutes generally, and in particular when a country accedes to independence, the most appropriatesolution for refugee problems and stressed that the essentially voluntary character of repatriationshould always be respected.81

As far as relevant international instruments are concerned, it should be pointed out that theStatute of the Office of the High Commissioner32 has remained throughout the years, the pivotalpoint in the UNHCR efforts to extend international protection to refugees. This derives from thefact that, as an Assembly resolution, the Statute is of universal application and can be invokedirrespective of whether or not the State in which a refugee problem arises is a party to the basicinternational refugee instruments. The effectiveness of the Statute as a basis for internationalprotection was once again demonstrated during 1980, with the emergence or continuation of refugeeproblems in a number of States not parties to those instruments in different areas of the world.With reference to the basic international refugee instruments, it should be pointed out that during1980, five more States became parties to the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees83

and eight more States became parties to the 1967 Protocol relating to the status of refugees.84

Within the regional level, with the accession of another State in September 1980 to the 1969Convention relating to specific aspects of the refugee problem in Africa, there are now 21 Statesparties to that Convention; furthermore, the question of the transfer of responsibility for the issueof convention travel documents was the subject of a special instrument adopted within the contextof the Council of Europe: the European Agreement on Transfer of responsibility for Refugees,which entered into force on 2 December 1980. This Agreement is intended to overcome certainproblems which have arisen in regard to the application of paragraphs 6 and 11 of the Scheduleto the 1951 Refugee Convention.

By its resolution 35/41 of 25 November 1980, adopted without a vote on the recommendationof the Third Committee,8S the General Assembly, inter alia, urged Governments to intensify theirsupport for activities which the High Commissioner is carrying out in accordance with relevantresolutions of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council, especially by (a)facilitating his efforts in the field of international protection by observing the principle of asylumand non-refoulement relating to refugees; and (b) supporting his efforts to promote, in co-operationwith Governments, United Nations bodies and non-governmental organizations, durable solutionsto the problems of refugees and displaced persons, including those in urgent need, wheneveremergencies occur. Furthermore, by its resolution 35/42 of 25 November 1980, also adopted withouta vote, on the recommendation of the Third Committee,86 the General Assembly, inter alia, notingwith profound regret that the international community had not given sufficient attention to the plightof refugees in Africa, requested the Secretary-General, in close co-operation with the Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity and the United Nations High Commissioner forRefugees, to convene at Geneva on 9 and 10 April 1981 at the ministerial level, an InternationalConference on Assistance to Refugees in Africa.

(e) International drug controlIn the course of 1980, 2 more States became party to the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic

Drugs,87 six more States to the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances,88 three more Statesto the 1972 Protocol amending the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs,89 and two moreStates became parties to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, as amended by theProtocol of 25 March 1972 amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 196L90

The Commission on Narcotic Drugs at its sixth special session held in February 1980 tooka number of decisions on the scope of control of the above-mentioned instruments and on various

64

other questions.91 At its thirty-fifth session, the General Assembly, by its resolution 35/195 of 15December 1980, adopted without a vote, on the recommendation of the Third Committee,1'2 interalia, took note of the resolution and decisions adopted by the Economic and Social Council at itsfirst regular session of 1980 on the subject of narcotic drugs, elaborated on the basis of the reportof the Commission on Narcotic Drugs on its sixth special session, and repeated its appeal to allStates which had not yet become parties to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961. the1972 Protocol amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and to the Conventionon Psychotropic Substances, 1971, to take the necessary steps to accede to those conventions andthus ensure their universal application.

(/) Crime prevention and criminal justice

Draft Code of Medical Ethics

In 1979, the General Assembly inter alia had requested the Secretary-General to circulate thedraft Code of Medical Ethics prepared by the World Health Organization.93 At its thirty-fifthsession, by its resolution 35/179 of 15 December 1980 adopted without a vote, on the recommen-dation of the Third Committee,94 the General Assembly inter alia, believing that the elaborationof a draft Code of Medical Ethics constituted an important step in the establishment of internationalstandards in the field of human rights, requested the Secretary-General to renew his request forcomments and suggestions on the draft Code of Medical Ethics to Member States, to the specializedagencies concerned and to interested intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental or-ganizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council and to submit a revisedreport to the Economic and Social Council at the first regular session of 1981 and to the GeneralAssembly at its thirty-sixth session; invited those Member States which have not yet done so tosubmit their comments and suggestions on the draft Code; requested the Economic and SocialCouncil to consider the draft Code at its next session, taking into account the comments andrecommendations submitted, with a view to presenting the draft Code to the General Assembly foradoption at its thirty-sixth session, and invited Member States to take an active part in the futuredeliberation on the draft Code.

(g) Human rights questions

(1) Status and implementation of international instruments

(i) International Covenants on Human Rights95

In 1980, three more States became Parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Socialand Cultural Rights, four more States became Parties to the International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights and three more States became Parties to the Optional Protocol to the InternationalCovenant on Civil and Political Rights.

By its resolution 35/132 of 11 December 1980, adopted without a vote on the recommendationof the Third Committee,96 the General Assembly, inter alia, noted with appreciation the Reportof the Human Rights Committee on its eighth, ninth and tenth sessions97 and expressed satisfactionat the serious and constructive manner in which the Committee was continuing to undertake itsfunctions; again invited States which had not yet done so to become Parties to the InternationalCovenants on Human Rights as well as to consider acceding to the Optional Protocol; also invitedStates Parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to consider making thedeclaration provided for in article 41 of the Covenant which deals with the possibility for any StateParty to the Covenant to declare that it recognizes the competence of the Committee on HumanRights to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that anotherState Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant.

65

(ii) International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination98

In 1980 two more States became parties to the Convention. By its resolution 35/38 of 25November 1980 adopted on the recommendation of the Third Committee," without a vote, theGeneral Assembly, inter alia, expressed its satisfaction for the increase in the number of partiesto the Convention, reaffirmed once again its conviction that ratification of or accession to theConvention on a universal basis and implementation of its provisions were necessary for therealization of the objectives of the decade for action to combat racism and racial discrimination,requested States which have not yet become parties to the Convention to ratify it or to accede toit and appealed to States parties to the Convention to study the possibility of making the declarationprovided for in article 14 of the Convention whereby a State Party may recognize the competenceof the Committee on the elimination of racial discrimination to receive and consider communicationsfrom individuals or groups of individuals within its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violationby that State Party of any of the rights set forth in the Convention. Furthermore, by its resolution35/40 of 25 November 1970 adopted also without a vote, on the recommendation of the ThirdCommittee," the General Assembly, inter alia, took note with appreciation of the report of theCommittee on the elimination of racial discrimination on its twenty-first and twenty-second ses-sions,100 commended the Committee for paying due attention to the protection of the rights ofnational or ethnic minorities and indigenous populations, as well as the rights of migrant workers,called upon all Member States to take effective measures in protecting fully these groups of peoplefrom discrimination based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, noted with appre-ciation the adoption by the Committee of the revised general guidelines100 concerning the form andcontents of reports by States parties under article 9 paragraph 1 of the Convention, invited StatesParties to supply the Committee, in accordance with those guidelines, with information on theimplementation of the provisions of the Convention, owing to reasons beyond their control werebeing prevented from fulfilling their obligations under the Convention in parts of their respectiveterritories.

(iii) International Convention on the suppression and punishment of the crime of apartheid101

In 1980, four more States became parties to the Convention. In its resolution 35/39 of 25November 1980 adopted on the recommendation of the Third Committee102 by a vote of 98 to nonewith 24 abstentions, the General Assembly, inter alia, strongly appealed once again to those Statesthat have not yet become parties to the Convention to ratify or to accede to it without delay, calledupon all States Parties to implement fully article IV of the Convention, concerning the preventionand prosecution of the crime of apartheid, by adopting legislative, judicial and administrativemeasures to prosecute, bring to trial and punish, in accordance with their jurisdiction, personsresponsible for, or accused of the acts defined in article II of the Convention, welcomed the effortsof the Commission on Human Rights to undertake the functions set out in article X of the Conventionand invited the Commission to intensify, in co-operation with the Special Committee againstApartheid, its efforts to compile periodically the list of individuals, organizations, institutions andrepresentatives of States deemed responsible for crimes enumerated in article II of the Conventionas well as those against whom or which legal proceedings have been undertaken.

(iv) Status of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

In 1980, 11 States became parties to the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Formsof Discrimination against Women.l03 By its resolution 35/140 of 11 December 1980 adopted withouta vote, on the recommendation of the Third Committee, the General Assembly, inter alia, expressedits satisfaction and appreciation at the number of States which had either signed or become Partiesto the Convention and invited all States which had not yet done so to become Parties to theConvention by signing and ratifying or acceding to it.

(2) Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

By its resolution 32/62 of 8 December 1977, the General Assembly requested the Commissionon Human Rights to draw up a draft convention on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading

66

treatment or punishment in the light of the principles embodied in the Declaration on the Protectionof All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment,adopted by the Assembly in its resolution 3452 (XXX) of 9 December 1975.1<M By its resolution35/178 of 158 of 15 December 1980, adopted without a vote on the recommendation of the ThirdCommittee,105 the General Assembly, inter alia, recalling that resolution and others, requested theCommission on Human Rights to complete as a matter of urgency, at its thirty-seventh session,the drafting of a convention on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or pun-ishment, with a view to submitting a draft, including provisions for the effective implementationof the future convention, to the General Assembly, at its thirty-sixth session.

Furthermore, by its resolution 32/64 of 8 December 1977, the Assembly had called uponMember States to reinforce their support of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons fromBeing Subjected to Torture, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment by making unilateral declarationsagainst torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.106 A similar appeal was made bythe Assembly in resolutions 33/178 and 34/167. By its resolution 35/178 the Assembly invitedMember States which had not yet done so to deposit such unilateral declarations with the Secretary-General.

(3) Draft body of principles for the protection of all persons underany form of detention or imprisonment

By its resolution 1979/34 of 10 May 1979 the Economic and Social Council requested theSecretary-General to transmit to all Governments, for their comments, the draft Body of Principlesfor the Protection of All Persons under any Form of Detention or Imprisonment107 adopted by theSub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities at its thirty-firstsession, with a view to consideration of the matter by the General Assembly at its thirty-fifthsession.

By its resolution 35/177 of 15 December 1970, adopted without a vote on the recommendationof the Third Committee108 the General Assembly, inter alia, took note of the constructive workundertaken by the open-ended working group which had been established by the Third Committeeto elaborate a final version of the draft Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons underany Form of Detention or Imprisonment,109 which task, however, it had not been able to conclude;decided to refer to its thirty-sixth session the draft Body of Principles for the Protection of AllPersons under any Form of Detention or Imprisonment for consideration by the Sixth Committee;and decided to establish, at its thirty-sixth session, an open-ended working group with the intentionof concluding the consideration of the draft Body of Principles for the Protection of All Personsunder any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, with a view to its adoption by the General Assembly.

(4) Alternative approaches and ways and means within the United Nations system forimproving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms

By its resolution 35/174 adopted on 15 December 1980 by 120 votes to 1 with 26 abstentions,on the recommendation of the Third Committee,110 the General Assembly, inter alia, reiterated itsrequest to the Commission of Human Rights to continue its current work on the overall analysisof the alternative approaches and ways and means for improving the effective employment of humanrights and fundamental freedoms; reaffirmed the paramount importance for the promotion of humanrights and fundamental freedoms that Member States undertake specific obligations through acces-sion to or ratification of international instruments in that field; emphasized the necessity of estab-lishing the new international economic order to ensure the promotion and the full enjoyment ofhuman rights and fundamental freedoms for all and requested the Commission on Human Rightsto undertake the necessary measures to promote the right to development as a human right, whichwas as much a prerogative of nations as of individuals within nations, and to take action for itsrealization. Furthermore, by its resolution 35/174 of 15 December 1980, adopted without a voteon the recommendation of the Third Committee,"0 the General Assembly, inter alia, bearing inmind that the proposal for the establishment of a post of High Commissioner for Human Rights

67

required more careful examination, requested the Commission on Human Rights to consider thatproposal at its thirty-seventh session and to submit to the General Assembly through the Economicand Social Council a report on its work under that question, including the views expressed in theCommission in that respect. Moreover, by its resolution 35/176 of 15 December 1980, also adoptedwithout a vote and on the recommendation of the Third Committee,110 the General Assembly, interalia, recalling the experience acquired by the United Nations in pursuing the goal of the promotionand protection of human rights through the use of fact-finding missions in cases in which mass andflagrant violations of human rights had been recognized, considered that the question of the estab-lishment of bodies entrusted with fact-finding missions and the extent to which they may enhancethe promotion and protection of human rights required serious consideration.

(5) Right to education

In 1979, the General Assembly, recalling the International Covenant on Economic, Social andCultural Rights, adopted by the General Assembly on 16 December 1966,1U which recognizes theright of everyone to education, bearing in mind the importance of the Convention Against Dis-crimination in Education adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) on 14 December 1960 and emphasizing the par-amount importance of the implementation of the right to education for the full development ofhuman personality and for the enjoyment of other fundamental human rights and freedoms, hadinvited all States to consider the adoption of appropriate legislative, administrative and othermeasures, including material guarantees, in order to ensure the full implementation of the right touniversal education through, inter alia, free and compulsory primary education, the universalizationand gradual free-of-charge secondary education, equal access to all educational facilities and theaccess of the young generation to science and culture; and had requested the Director General ofUNESCO to present to the General Assembly at its thirty-fifth session a preliminary report and,at its thirty-sixth session, a final report containing, inter alia, information on the activities ofUNESCO in relation to support for education and training of national personnel of developingcountries and information on the difficulties and obstacles encountered in the full implementationof the right to education, particularly in developing countries, in conformity with their own re-quirements of over-all progress and development, as well as his conclusions on action to be takenin this regard."2

By its resolution 35/191 of 15 December 1980 adopted without a vote, on the recommendationof the Third Committee,113 the General Assembly, inter alia, took note with satisfaction of theinterest shown by the Executive Board of UNESCO for the implementation of General Assemblyresolution 34/170 on the right to education, invited again all States to consider the adoption ofappropriate legislative, administrative and other measures, including material guarantees, in orderto ensure the full implementation of the right to universal education through, inter alia, free andcompulsory primary education, universal and gradually free-of-charge secondary education, equalaccess to all educational facilities and the access of the young generation to science and culture;appealed to States which had not yet done so to accelerate the procedure of ratification of theInternational Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and of the Convention againstDiscrimination in Education and to States parties to those instruments and to other instruments inthis field to put into effect systematically their provisions; invited all States to give all necessaryattention to defining and determining in a more precise manner the means for implementing theprovisions concerning the role of education in the International Development Strategy for the ThirdUnited Nations Development Decade; expressed its thanks to the Director-General of UNESCOfor the report on the right to education prepared pursuant to General Assembly resolution 34/170;'I4

and invited the Director-General of UNESCO, in the light of resolution 34/170, and of the experienceof that organization in this field, to submit to the General Assembly at its thirty-sixth session areport on the most appropriate measures to be taken by Member States, at the national and inter-national levels, for the effective implementation of the right to education in the application of thenew International Development Strategy for the Third United Nations Development Decade.

68

(6) Measures to improve the situation and ensure the human rights and dignityof all migrant workers

In 1979, the General Assembly had decided to create, at its thirty-fifth session, a WorkingGroup, open to all Member States, to elaborate an international convention on the protection ofthe rights of all migrant workers and their families."1 By its resolution 35/198 of 15 December1980, adopted by 131 votes to none with 11 abstentions, on the recommendation of the ThirdCommittee,"6 the General Assembly, inter alia, expressed its conviction of the contribution madeby migrant workers to the economic growth and social and cultural development of the host countriesand of the need for further efforts to ensure the protection of the rights and the improvement ofthe living conditions of all migrant workers and their families, expressed its concern of the factthat the problem of migrant workers was becoming more serious in certain regions, owing to currentpolitical and economic circumstances and for social and cultural reasons, and recognized the needfor the Governments of host countries and of countries of origin to co-operate with a view to findingsolutions conducive to improving the situation and ensuring the rights of all migrant workers andtheir families. The Assembly also welcomed the fact that the Working Group had begun its workwith a view to the elaboration of a draft convention on the protection of the rights of all migrantworkers and their families; took note with satisfaction of the report of the Chairman of the WorkingGroup117 as well as the documents annexed to it; decided that the Working Group should hold anintersessional meeting of two weeks duration in New York in May 1981, immediately after thefirst regular session of the Economic and Social Council, to enable it to continue its work in orderto discharge its mandate to the best of its ability during the thirty-sixth session of the GeneralAssembly; and decided that the Working Group should meet during the thirty-sixth session of theGeneral Assembly in order to continue its work on the elaboration of an international conventionon the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and their families.

(7) Question of the international legal protection of the human rights of individualswho are not citizens of the country in which they live

The Economic and Social Council, by its resolution 1980/29 of 2 May 1980, had decided totransmit to the General Assembly at its thirty-fifth session the text of the draft declaration on thehuman rights of individuals who are not citizens of the country in which they live, prepared by theSpecial Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission"8 on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection ofMinorities, and amended by the response to decision 1979/36 of the Council,"9 and recommendedthat the General Assembly should consider the adoption of a declaration on the subject. By itsresolution 35/199 of 15 December 1980 adopted without a vote on the recommendation of the ThirdCommittee,120 the General Assembly, inter alia, took note that the open-ended working groupwhich had been entrusted with the task of elaborating a final version of the draft declaration on thehuman rights of individuals who are not citizens of the country in which they live had done usefulwork but had not had sufficient time to conclude its task;121 decided to establish, at its thirty-sixthsession, an open-ended working group for the purpose of concluding the elaboration of the draftdeclaration on the human rights of individuals who are not citizens of the country in which theylive; and expressed the hope that a draft declaration on the human rights of individuals who arenot citizens of the country in which they live will be adopted by the General Assembly at its thirty-sixth session.

(8) Question of a convention on the rights of the child

By its resolution 33/166 of 20 December 1978 the General Assembly had taken note of thedecision of the Commission on Human Rights to continue at the Commission's thirty-fifth session,as one of its priorities, its consideration of a draft convention on the rights of the child and hadrequested the Commission to organize its work on the draft convention on the rights of the childat its thirty-fifth session so that the draft of the convention could be ready for adoption, if possible,during 1979, the year proclaimed by the Assembly as the International Year of the Child. By itsresolution 35/131 of 11 December 1980, adopted without a vote on the recommendation of the

69

Third Committee,122 the General Assembly, inter alia, took note with satisfaction of the work sofar accomplished and the spirit of co-operation in elaborating a convention on the rights of thechild, welcomed the Economic and Social Council decision 1980/138 by which the Council au-thorized an open-ended working group of the Commission on Human Rights to meet for a periodof one week prior to the thirty-seventh session of the Commission to complete the work on thedraft convention, and requested the Commission on Human Rights, at its thirty-seventh session,to continue to give high priority to the question of completing the draft convention on the rightsof the child.

4. THIRD UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON THE LAW OF THE SEA

The ninth session of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea was heldfrom 3 March to 4 April 1980 at United Nations Headquarters, New York, and was resumed from28 July to 29 August at the Office of the United Nations at Geneva, Switzerland.123

A total of 152 States and the United Nations Council for Namibia participated in the ninthsession: 152 of them attended the first part and 142 participated in the resumed session. In addition,two territories, 18 specialized agencies or United Nations related bodies, 14 intergovernmentalorganizations, 31 non-governmental organizations having consultative status with the Economicand Social Council, and 4 national liberation movements recognized by the Organization of AfricanUnity or the League of Arab States participated as observers.

(1) Rules of procedure of the Conference

At the 122nd plenary meeting, the President of the Conference drew attention to a document,124

containing his report on the consideration by the General Committee of a letter addressed to himby the President of the United Nations Council for Namibia requesting that arrangements shouldbe made for the Council to represent Namibia at the Conference as a full member in accordancewith General Assembly resolution 34/92 C. At the 51st meeting of the General Committee, he hadproposed that, in order to comply with the request, rule 62 of the Rules of Procedure of theConference, including the subheading attached to it, should be deleted and the subsequent rulesrenumbered accordingly. The Conference adopted the proposal referred to it by the General Com-mittee without a vote.

(2) Organization of work of the Conference at its ninth session

The Conference agreed that negotiations would continue on outstanding hard-core issues ona priority basis. Furthermore, the Collegium would undertake the third revision of the InformalComposite Negotiating Text (ICNT) and the Conference would decide on the status to be accordedto the text.

Most of the work at the ninth session was carried out in the following bodies:1. The Working Group of 21;2. Negotiating Groups VI and VII;3. The main committees; and4. The Plenary Conference acting as a main committee.During the first part of the ninth session, the Working Group of 21 met in closed meetings

to deal with the outstanding issues before the First Committee.On the financial arrangements, substantial support was reported for proposals covering the

finance of the Enterprise and a tax system for private and public miners under contract to theAuthority. It was also reported that agreement had been reached on the role of commercial arbitrationin settling disputes over sea-bed mining contracts.125

70

During the resumed session, new proposals were set out on outstanding issues relating to thefuture exploitation of the deep sea-bed.126

The Second Committee and the two negotiating groups (VI and VII) dealing with SecondCommittee matters met informally during the first part of the ninth session. On the continentalshelf issue, a new definition was worked out by the addition of a compromise text that would limitthe breadth of the shelf to 350 miles when its outer limits extended to an oceanic ridge. Negotiationsalso led to a new annex to the convention setting out the mandate of a commission on the limitsof the continental shelf. Finally, the Second Committee agreed on revised provisions on theprotection of marine mammals and the extension of the right of hot pursuit to chases begun inarchipelagic waters.l27

During the resumed session, the sponsors of the two rival proposals on delimitation of theexclusive economic zone and the continental shelf between States with opposite or adjacent coastsmet together to seek a compromise on the issue.

The Third Committee held one formal meeting during the first part of the session to organizeits work and decided to carry on discussion of outstanding issues relating to maritime scientificresearch in closed informal meetings. As in the previous sessions the Committee made substantialprogress and on some of the outstanding issues, the negotiations resulted in compromise proposalson which consensus was reached.128 During the resumed session, the Committee held informalmeetings to consider the recommendations of the Drafting Committee and held a formal meetingto approve the suggested changes in the text.IM

In its informal meetings, the Conference agreed on the text of a preamble setting out principleson which the convention was to be based. 13° Furthermore, agreement was reached on the outstandingquestion regarding national conciliators and the establishment of a preparatory commission onwhich the President prepared a draft resolution.m During the resumed session, the Informal Plenaryadopted a new general article on protection of archeological and historical objects recovered fromthe sea-bed. It also accepted provisions exempting States from having to share information onmaritime matters if such disclosure would harm their security interests, and provisions barringamendments to the principle that the sea-bed was the common heritage of mankind.

The Plenary met during the first part of the session to hear various statements on the secondrevision of the ICNT and main committee matters. Furthermore, the President announced that asolution had been found to the problem of how the ICNT should refer to the prospective site ofthe Authority.

During the resumed session, the Plenary held a general debate to enable delegations to expresstheir views on the ICNT/Rev.2 as well as on the status of negotiations.

Finally, after reviewing all the reports submitted to the Plenary and taking note of the debateon them, the Collegium decided to include in the second revision of the ICNT all proposalssubmitted by the Chairmen of the three Committees, as well as the text suggested by the Chairmanof Negotiating Group VII and the texts of the Preamble and on settlement of disputes proposed bythe President as a result of negotiations in the Informal Plenary.

(3) Decision of the General Assembly

On 10 December 1980, the General Assembly, by resolution 35/116, approved the conveningof the tenth session of the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in New York for theperiod from 9 March to 17 or 24 April 1981.

71

5. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE132-133

Cases submitted to the Court

(1) United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran(United States of America I Iran)134

By an Order of 24 December 1979 the president of the Court fixed time-limits for the filingof written pleadings.!3S The Government of the United States filed a Memorial within the time-limit so fixed, 15 January 1980. The Government of Iran did not submit any Counter-Memorialby 18 February 1980, the date on which its allotted time-limit expired. By a letter dated 16 February1980 it reiterated its view that the Court should not, and could not, deal with the case.

On 18, 19 and 20 March 1980 the Court held a public hearing at which arguments werepresented on behalf of the United States by Mr. Roberts B. Owen, as Agent, and Mr. Stephen M.Schwebel, as Deputy Agent and Counsel. The Government of Iran was not represented at thehearing.

On 24 May 1980 the Court delivered at a public sitting the Judgment136 which is summarizedbelow:'37

Proceedings before the Court (paras. 1-10)

After recalling the origin of the case and recapitulating the stages in the proceedings, the Courtnotes that at the end of the hearing the United States, in its final submissions, requested it to adjudgeand declare, inter alia, that the Iranian Government had violated its international legal obligationsto the United States and must: ensure the immediate release of the hostages; afford the United Statesdiplomatic and consular personnel the protection and immunities to which they were entitled(including immunity from criminal jurisdiction) and provide them with facilities to leave Iran;submit the persons responsible for the crimes committed to the competent Iranian authorities forprosecution, or extradite them to the United States; and pay the United States reparation, in a sumto be subsequently determined by the Court.

Iran took no part in the proceedings. It neither filed pleadings nor was represented at thehearing, and no submissions were therefore presented on its behalf. Its position was howeverdefined in two letters addressed to the Court by its Minister for Foreign Affairs on 9 December1979 and 16 March 1980 respectively. In these the Minister maintained inter alia that the Courtcould not and should not take cognizance of the case.

The facts (paras. 11-32)

The Court expresses regret that Iran did not appear before it to put forward its arguments. Theabsence of Iran from the proceedings brought into operation Article 53 of the Statute, under whichthe Court is required, before finding in the Applicant's favour, to satisfy itself that the allegationsof fact on which the claim is based are well founded.

In that respect the Court observes that it has had available to it, in the documents presentedby the United States, a massive body of information from various sources, including numerousofficial statements of both Iranian and United States authorities. This information, the Court notes,is wholly concordant as to the main facts and has all been communicated to Iran without evokingany denial. The Court is accordingly satisfied that the allegations of fact on which the United Statesbased its claim were well founded.

Admissibility (paras. 33-44)

Under the settled jurisprudence of the Court, it is bound, in applying Article 53 of its Statute,to investigate, on its own initiative, any preliminary question of admissibility or jurisdiction thatmay arise.

On the subject of admissibility, the Court, after examining the considerations put forward inthe two letters from Iran, finds that they do not disclose any ground for concluding that it could

72

not or should not deal with the case. Neither does it find any incompatibility with the continuanceof judicial proceedings before the Court in the establishment by the Secretary-General of the UnitedNations, with the agreement of both States, of a Commission given a mandate to undertake a fact-finding mission to Iran, hear Iran's grievances and facilitate the solution of the crisis between thetwo countries.

Jurisdiction (paras. 45-55)

Four instruments having been cited by the United States as bases for the Court's jurisdictionto deal with its claims, the Court finds that three, namely the Optional Protocols to the two ViennaConventions of 1961 and 1963 on, respectively, Diplomatic and Consular Relations, and the 1955Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights between the United States and Iran,do in fact provide such foundations.

The Court, however, does not find it necessary in the present Judgment to enter into thequestion whether Article 13 of the fourth instrument so cited, namely the 1973 Convention on thePrevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons including DiplomaticAgents, provides a basis for the exercise of its jurisdiction with respect to the United States' claimsthereunder.

Merits, Attributability to the Iranian State of the acts complained of, and violation by Iran ofcertain obligations (paras. 56-94)

The Court has also, under Article 53 of its Statute, to satisfy itself that the claims of theApplicant are well founded in law. To this end, it considers the acts complained of in order todetermine how far, legally, they may be attributed to the Iranian State (as distinct from the occupiersof the Embassy) and whether they are compatible or incompatible with Iran's obligations undertreaties in force or other applicable rules of international law.

(a) The events of 4 November 1979 (paras. 56-68)

The first phase of the events underlying the Applicant's claims covers the armed attack on theUnited States Embassy carried out on 4 November 1979 by Muslim Student Followers of theImam's Policy (further referred to as "the militants" in the Judgment), the overrunning of itspremises, the seizure of its inmates as hostages, the appropriation of its property and archives, andthe conduct of the Iranian authorities in the face of these occurrences.

The Court points out that the conduct of the militants on that occasion could be directlyattributed to the Iranian State only if it were established that they were in fact acting on its behalf.The information before the Court did not suffice to establish this with due certainty. However, theIranian State — which, as the State to which the mission was accredited, was under obligation totake appropriate steps to protect the United States Embassy — did nothing to prevent the attack,stop it before it reached its completion or oblige the militants to withdraw from the premises andrelease the hostages. This inaction was in contrast with the conduct of the Iranian authorities onseveral similar occasions at the same period, when they had taken appropriate steps. It constituted,the Court finds, a clear and serious violation of Iran's obligations to the United States under Articles22 (2), 24, 25, 26, 27 and 29 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, of Articles5 and 36 of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and of Article II (4) of the 1955Treaty. Further breaches of the 1963 Convention had been involved in failure to protect theConsulates at Tabriz and Shiraz.

The Court is therefore led to conclude that on 4 November 1979 the Iranian authorities werefully aware of their obligations under the conventions in force, and also of the urgent need foraction on their part, that they had the means at their disposal to perform their obligations, but thatthey completely failed to do so.

(b) Events since 4 November 1979 (paras. 69-79)

The second phase of the events underlying the United States' claims comprises the wholeseries of facts which occurred following the occupation of the Embassy by the militants. Though

73

it was the duty of the Iranian Government to take every appropriate step to end the infringementof the inviolability of the Embassy premises and staff, and to offer reparation for the damage, itdid nothing of the kind. Instead, expressions of approval were immediately heard from numerousIranian authorities. Ayatollah Khomeini himself proclaimed the Iranian State's endorsement of boththe seizure of the premises and the detention of the hostages. He described the Embassy as a"centre of espionage", declared that the hostages would (with some exceptions) remain "underarrest" until the United States had returned the former Shah and his property to Iran, and forbadeall negotiation with the United States on the subject. Once organs of the Iranian State had thusgiven approval to the acts complained of and decided to perpetuate them as a means of pressureon the United States, those acts were transformed into acts of the Iranian State: the militants becameagents of that State, which itself became internationally responsible for their acts. During the sixmonths which ensued, the situation underwent no material change: the Court's Order of 15 December1979 was publicly rejected by Iran, while the Ayatollah declared that the detention of the hostageswould continue until the new Iranian parliament had taken a decision as to their fate.

The Iranian authorities' decision to continue the subjection of the Embassy to occupation, andof its staff to detention as hostages, gave rise to repeated and multiple breaches of Iran's treatyobligations, additional to those already committed at the time of the seizure of the Embassy (1961Convention: Arts. 22, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 29; 1963 Convention inter alia, Art. 33; 1955 Treaty,Art. II (4)).

With regard to the Charge d'affaires and the two other members of the United States missionwho have been in the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs since 4 November 1979, the Court findsthat the Iranian authorities have withheld from them the protection and facilities necessary to allowthem to leave the Ministry in safety. Accordingly, it appears to the Court that in their respect therehave been breaches of Articles 26 and 29 of the 1961 Vienna Convention.

Taking note, furthermore, that various Iranian authorities have threatened to have some of thehostages submitted to trial before a court, or to compel them to bear witness, the Court considersthat, if put into effect, that intention would constitute a breach of Article 31 of the same Convention.

(c) Possible existence of special circumstances (paras. 80-89)

The Court considers that it should examine the question whether the conduct of the IranianGovernment might be justified by the existence of special circumstances, for the Iranian Ministerfor Foreign Affairs had alleged in his two letters to the Court that the United States had carriedout criminal activities in Iran. The Court considers that, even if these alleged activities could beconsidered as proven, they would not constitute a defence to the United States' claims, sincediplomatic law provides the possibility of breaking off diplomatic relations, or of declaring personanon grata members of diplomatic or consular missions who may be carrying on illicit activities.The Court concludes that the Government of Iran had recourse to coercion against the United StatesEmbassy and its staff instead of making use of the normal means at its disposal.

(d) International responsibility (paras. 90-92)

The Court finds that Iran, by committing successive and continuing breaches of the obligationslaid upon it by the Vienna Conventions of 1961 and 1963, the 1955 Treaty, and the applicablerules of general international law, has incurred responsibility towards the United States. As aconsequence, there is an obligation on the part of the Iranian State to make reparation for the injurycaused to the United States. Since, however, the breaches are still continuing, the form and amountof such reparation cannot yet be determined.

At the same time the Court considers it essential to reiterate the observations it made in itsOrder of 15 December 1979 on the importance of the principles of international law governingdiplomatic and consular relations. After stressing the particular gravity of the case, arising out ofthe fact that it is not any private individuals or groups that have set at naught the inviolability ofan embassy, but the very government of the State to which the mission is accredited, the Courtdraws the attention of the entire international community to the irreparable harm that may be caused

74

by events of the kind before the Court. Such events cannot fail to undermine a carefully constructededifice of law, the maintenance of which is vital for the security and well-being of the internationalcommunity.

(e) United States operation in Iran on 24-25 April 1980 (paras. 93 and 94)

With regard to the operation undertaken in Iran by United States military units on 24-25 April1980, the Court says that it cannot fail to express its concern. It feels bound to observe that anoperation undertaken in those circumstances, from whatever motive, is of a kind calculated toundermine respect for the judicial process in international relations. Nevertheless, the question ofthe legality of that operation can have no bearing on the evaluation of Iran's conduct on 4 November1979. The findings reached by the Court are therefore not affected by that operation.

For these reasons, the Court gave the following decision:

"The Court," 1 . By thirteen votes to two,

"Decides that the Islamic Republic of Iran, by the conduct which the Court has set outin this Judgment, has violated in several respects, and is still violating, obligations owed byit to the United States of American under international conventions in force between the twocountries, as well as under long-established rules of general international law;

"IN FAVOUR: President Sir Humphrey Waldock: Vice-President Elias; Judges Forster, Gros. Lachs,Nagendra Singh, Ruda, Mosler, Oda, Ago, EI-Erian, Sette-Camara and Baxter.

"AGAINST: Judges Morozov and Tarazi." 2 . By thirteen votes to two,"Decides that the violations of these obligations engage the responsibility of the Islamic

Republic of Iran towards the United States of America under international law;"IN FAVOUR: President Sir Humphrey Waldock; Vice-President Elias; Judges Forster, Gros, Lachs,

Nagendra Singh, Ruda, Mosler, Oda, Ago, El-Erian, Sette-Camara and Baxter."AGAINST: Judges Morozov and Tarazi.

" 3 . Unanimously,"Decides that the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran must immediately take all

steps to redress the situation resulting from the events of 4 November 1979 and what followedfrom these events, and to that end:

"(a) must immediately terminate the unlawful detention of the United States Charged'affaires and other diplomatic and consular staff and other United States nationals now heldhostage in Iran, and must immediately release each and every one and entrust them to theprotecting Power (Article 45 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations);

"(b) must ensure that all the said persons have the necessary means of leaving Iranianterritory, including means of transport;

"(c) must immediately place in the hands of the protecting Power the premises, property,archives and documents of the United States Embassy in Tehran and of its Consulates in Iran;

" 4 . Unanimously,

"Decides that no member of the United States diplomatic or consular staff may be keptin Iran to be subjected to any form of judicial proceedings or to participate in them as a witness;

" 5 . By twelve votes to three,

"Decides that the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran is under an obligation tomake reparation to the Government of the United States of America for the injury caused tothe latter by the events of 4 November 1979 and what followed from these events;

"IN FAVOUR: President Sir Humphrey Waldock: Vice-President Elias; Judges Forster, Gros, NagendraSingh, Ruda, Mosler, Oda, Ago, EI-Erian, Sette-Camara and Baxter.

"AGAINST: Judges Lachs, Morozov and Tarazi.

75

"6. By fourteen votes to one,"Decides that the form and amount of such reparation, failing agreement between the

Parties, shall be settled by the Court, and reserves for this purpose the subsequent procedurein the case.

"IN FAVOUR: President Sir Humphrey Waldock; Vice-President Elias; Judges Forster, Gros, Lachs,Nagendra Singh, Ruda, Mosler, Tarazi, Oda, Ago, EI-Erian, Sette-Camara and Baxter.

"AGAINST: Judge Morozov"

Judge Lachs appended a separate opinion, and Judges Morozov and Tarazi dissenting opinionsto the Judgment.

(2) Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)13*

On 20 February 1979 the Vice-President of the Court, having regard to the agreement reachedbetween the two States in respect of the filing of pleadings, made an Order fixing 30 May 1980as the time-limit for the submission of Memorials by either Party.139

Each Memorial, having been filed within the time-limit, was communicated to the other Partyat a meeting of the agents with the President of the Court.

Having regard to the time-limits indicated by the Parties in the Special Agreement, the Pres-ident, on 3 June 1980, made an Order fixing the following time-limits for the filing of Counter-Memorials: Tunisia, 1 December 1980; Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 2 February 1981.l4°- 14>

(3) Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt1*2

On 20 May 1980 the World Health Assembly had decided to request of the Court an advisoryopinion on the following questions:

" 1 . Are the negotiation and notice provisions of Section 37 of the Agreement of 25March 1951 between the World Health Organization and Egypt143 applicable in the event thateither party to the Agreement wishes to have the Regional Office transferred from the territoryof Egypt?

"2 . If so, what would be the legal responsibilities of both the World Health Organizationand Egypt, with regard to the Regional Office in Alexandria, during the two-year periodbetween notice and termination of the Agreement?"

Pursuant to Article 65, paragraph 2, of the Statute, the Director-General of the World HealthOrganization had transmitted to the Court a set of documents likely to throw light upon thesequestions.

In accordance with Article 66, paragraph 2, of the Statute, the WHO and those of its memberStates entitled to appear before the Court had been informed that the Court was prepared to receivefrom them written or oral statements furnishing information on the questions put to it.

On 6 June 1980 the President of the Court had made an Order fixing 1 September 1980 asthe time-limit for the submission of written statements.144 Written statements were received fromthe Governments of Bolivia, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, the Syrian Arab Republic, the UnitedArab Emirates and the United States of America.

On 21, 22 and 23 October 1980 the Court held public sittings at which oral statements weremade on behalf of Egypt, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and theUnited States of America, and the Director of the Legal Division of the WHO answered questionsput to him by Members of the Court.

On 20 December 1980 the Court delivered at a public sitting the Advisory Opinion a summaryof which is to be found below in chapter VII of this Yearbook.145

76

6. INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION146

THIRTY-SECOND SESSION OF THE COMMISSION147

The Internationa] Law Commission held its thirty-second session at Geneva from 5 May to25 July 1980. It continued to make substantial progress in its work for the development of inter-national law and its codification. With respect to succession of States in respect of matters otherthan treaties, it provisionally adopted an additional set of four draft articles dealing with the transferof part of the territory of State, uniting of States, separation of part or parts of the territory of aState and dissolution of a State.

On the question of State responsibility, the Commission considered the texts of three out-standing articles of chapter V entitled "Circumstances precluding wrongfulness concerning Stateof necessity" (article 33), "Self-defence" (article 34) and "Reservation as to compensation fordamage" (article 35) and adopted the text of these draft articles on first reading. It thus completedits first reading of Part 1 of the draft which was concerned with determining on what grounds andunder what circumstances a State may be held to have committed an internationally wrongful actwhich, as such, was a source of international responsibility. The Commission has begun also workon Part 2 of the draft under preparation concerning the content, forms and degrees of internationalresponsibility.

With respect to the question of treaties concluded between States and international organizationsor between two or more international organizations, the Commission considered and adopted setsof articles of Part V — Invalidity, termination and suspension of the operation of treaties (articles61-72).

Regarding the law of the non-navigational uses of international watercourses, the Commissioncommenced its work at its 1980 session by provisionally adopting six draft articles dealing withthe scope of the future draft (article 1), system States (article 2), system agreements (article 3),parties to the negotiation and conclusion of system agreements (article 4), use of waters whichconstitute a shared natural resource (article 5) and relationship between the present articles andother treaties in force (article X). These draft articles are intended to be included in a set of articlescontaining basic rules applicable to all international watercourse systems, coupled with distinct andmore detailed agreements between States of an international water system which would take intoaccount their needs and the characteristics of that particular system.

On the question of the jurisdictional immunities of States and their property, the Commissionhad before it the second report on the topic submitted by the Special Rapporteur'48 containing thetext of the following six proposed draft articles: "Scope of the present articles" (article 1); "Useof terms" (article 2); "Interpretative provisions" (article 3); "Jurisdictional immunities not withinthe scope of the present articles" (article 4); "Nonretroactivity of the present articles" (article 5);and "The principle of State immunity" (article 6). The first five articles constituted Part I entitled"Introduction" while the sixth article was placed in Part II entitled "General principles." Afterconsideration, the Commission provisionally adopted the texts of articles 1 and 6.

The Commission also undertook certain work on the question of international liability forinjurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law, and continued itswork on the Status of the diplomatic courier and the diplomatic bag not accompanied by diplomaticcourier.

CONSIDERATION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

At its thirty-fifth session, the General Assembly had before it the report of the InternationalLaw Commission on the work of its thirty-second session.149 By its resolution 35/163, adopted onthe recommendation of the Sixth Committee,150 the Assembly, inter alia, recommended that theCommission complete the second reading of the draft articles on succession of States, commencethe second reading of the draft articles on the treaties of international organizations and continue

77

its work on State responsibility, on international liability for injurious consequences arising out ofacts not prohibited by international law, and on the status of the diplomatic courier. The Assemblyfurther recommended that the Commission continue its study of the second part of the topic ofrelations between States and international organizations.

With regard to the law of the non-navigational uses of watercourses and on jurisdictionalimmunities of States and their property, the Assembly recommended that the Commission proceedwith the preparation of draft articles on these questions, taking into account the replies to thequestionnaires addressed to Governments as well as information furnished by them.

7. UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW151

THIRTEENTH SESSION OF THE COMMISSION'52

The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) held its thirteenthsession at United Nations Headquarters from 14 to 25 July 1980.

With respect to international trade contracts, the Commission had, at its 1978 session, decidedto commence a study of international contract practices with special reference to "hardship"clauses, force majeure clauses, liquidated damages and penalty clauses and clauses protectingparties against the effects of fluctuations in the value of currency. At the 1980 session, the Com-mission discussed the report of the Working Group on International Contract Practices whichconsidered the draft rules regulating liquidated damages and penalty clauses. The Commissionaccepted the recommendations of the Working Group to request the Secretariat to undertake furtherstudy on the subject to be submitted to the next session of the Working Group.

On the question of international payments, the Commission considered the report of theWorking Group on International Negotiable Instruments which completed the substance of its workon the draft Convention on International Bills of Exchange and International Promissory Notes.The Commission deferred, however, its consideration of the draft Convention until the WorkingGroup had completed its work on the draft Uniform Rules applicable to International Chequesdrawn up by the Secretariat. The Commission had before it also a report of the Secretary-Generalentitled "Security interests: issues to be considered in the preparation of uniform rules" whichfollowed a report on the feasibility of uniform rules on security interests in goods and their possiblecontent. The Commission reached the view that world-wide unification of the law of securityinterests in goods was in all likelihood unattainable. It decided therefore that the item should nolonger be accorded priority.

In the course of its thirteenth session, the Commission also considered the question of in-ternational commercial arbitration and conciliation. The Commission unanimously adoptedUNCITRAL Conciliatory Rules153 and invited the General Assembly to recommend the use of itin cases where a dispute arises in the context of international commercial relations and the partiesseek an amicable settlement of that dispute by recourse to conciliation. As to the UNCITRALArbitration Rules, the Commission considered the desirability of issuing a list of arbitral institu-tions which could act as appointing authorities, and the preparation of a model law on arbitralprocedure154 and invited States to provide the Secretariat with relevant materials on national leg-islation and case law, and pertinent treatises where available.

Regarding the new international economic order, the Commission noted with appreciation thereport of its Working Group on the matter and welcomed its recommendations concerning a listof topics prepared for possible inclusion in the Commission's programme of work. It agreed toaccord priority to work related to contracts in the field of industrial development.

CONSIDERATION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

At its thirty-fifth session, the General Assembly had before it the report of UNCITRAL onthe work of its thirteenth session.155 With respect to the UNCITRAL Conciliation Rules, the

78

Assembly adopted, on the recommendation of the Sixth Committee156 resolution 35/52 in whichit, inter alia, endorsed the recommendations of the Commission referred to above. On the reportof the Commission, the Assembly adopted also, on the recommendation of the Sixth Committee,157

resolution 35/51 in which it, inter alia, recommended that the Commission should continue itswork on the topics included in its programme of work, continue its work on training and assistancein the field of international trade law, taking into account the special interests of the developingcountries and continue to maintain close collaboration with UNCTAD, ILC and UNIDO andcontinue to maintain liaison with the Commission on Transnational Corporations.

8. LEGAL QUESTIONS DEALT WITH BY THE SIXTH COMMITTEEAND BY AD HOC LEGAL BODIES

(a) Draft Code of Offences Against the Peace and Security of Mankind

At the thirty-third session, the General Assembly, in its resolution 33/97, requested the Sec-retary-General to invite Member States and relevant international intergovernmental organizationsto submit their comments on the draft prepared in 1954 by the International Law Commission onthis topic.158

At the thirty-fifth session, different views were expressed within the Sixth Committee on thedesirability of resuming work on a draft code of offences against the peace and security of mankind.While a number of delegations took a positive stand on the question and offered comments andsuggestions on the content of such a future instrument, others held the view that the problemsinvolved were so controversial that there was little likelihood of reaching consensus solutions. TheAssembly, by its resolution 35/49 adopted on the recommendation of the Sixth Committee,159

requested the Secretary-General to reiterate his invitation to Member States and relevant internationalintergovernmental organizations to submit or update their comments and observations on the draftCode and on the basis of these replies and the statements made during the debate on this item, toprepare an analytical paper in order to facilitate the further consideration of the item.160

(b) Draft articles on most-favoured-nation clauses

By its resolution 35/161 adopted on the recommendation of the Sixth Committee,161 the GeneralAssembly, inter alia, took note of the report of the Secretary-General and requested him to reiteratehis invitation to Member States, organs of the United Nations having competence in the subject-matter and interested intergovernmental organizations to submit or update their comments andobservations on chapter II of the report of the International Law Commission on the work of itsthirtieth session162 and, in particular, on the draft articles on most-favoured nation clauses adoptedby the Commission and those provisions relating to such clauses on which the Commission wasunable to take decisions. It requested States to comment on the recommendation of the Commissionthat those draft articles should be recommended to Member States with a view to the conclusionof a convention on the subject.

(c) Review of the multilateral treaty-making process

By its resolution 35/162 adopted on the recommendation of the Sixth Committee,163 the GeneralAssembly inter alia took note of the report of the Secretary-General164 and of the views of Gov-ernments and of the International Law Commission,165 invited Governments and internationalintergovernmental organizations to submit their observations on the report of the Secretary-General,and requested the Secretary-General to prepare and publish new editions of the United Nationspublications relevant to question, namely, the Handbook of Final Clauses166 and the Summary ofPractice of the Secretary-General on Depositary of Multilateral Agreements.167

79

(d) Enhancing the effectiveness of the principle of non-use of forcein international relations

In accordance with General Assembly resolution 34/13, the Special Committee on Enhancingthe Effectiveness of the Principle of Non-Use of Force in International Relations met at UnitedNations Headquarters from 7 April to 2 May 1980.16S It held a general debate on the questionswithin its mandate. It also established a Working Group which started where it had left off on itsconsideration of the five-States document submitted at the previous session, and reproduced inparagraph 129 of its report on that session.169 The Working Group devoted several of its meetingsto the consideration of a working paper submitted by a group of non-aligned countries.170

At its thirty-fifth session, the General Assembly, by its resolution 35/50 which it adopted onthe recommendation of the Sixth Committee171 noted that the Special Committee had not completedthe mandate entrusted to it and, inter alia, decided that the Special Committee should continue towork with the goal of drafting at the earliest possible date a world treaty on the non-use of forcein international relations as well as the peaceful settlement of disputes or such other recommendationas the Committee deemed appropriate and requested the Special Committee to consider thoroughly,and to take duly into account all the proposals submitted to it with a view to ensuring a successfulcompletion of its mandate.

(e) Questions concerning the Charter of the United Nations and thestrengthening of the role of the Organization

Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 34/147, the Special Committee on the Charter of theUnited Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization met at Manila, Philippines,from 28 January to 22 February 1980.172 It established an open-ended Working Group to discussthe topics referred to in paragraph 3 (a) and 4 of resolution 34/147, namely, the questions of themaintenance of international peace and security and of the peaceful settlement of disputes. For lackof time, the Working Group was unable to consider the topic referred to in paragraph 3 (b) of thatresolution, namely, the question of rationalization of existing procedures of the United Nations.In the latter respect, the Working Group started the elaboration of a draft declaration (referred toas draft Manila Declaration) on the peaceful settlement of disputes.

At the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly, many delegations in the Sixth Committeetook note of the significant progress made by the Special Committee in the fulfilment of its mandate.The Assembly, by its resolution 35/164 adopted on the recommendation of the Sixth Committee,173

inter alia, requested the Special Committee at its next session to accord priority in its work to theproposals regarding the question of the maintenance of international peace and security, with aview to listing and examining all proposals, including those relating to the functioning of theSecurity Council and to consider proposals made by Member States on the question of rationalizationof existing procedures of the United Nations, and, subsequently, any proposals under other topics.It also requested the Special Committee to continue the elaboration of the draft Manila Declarationon the peaceful settlement of international disputes with a view to submitting it for considerationto the General Assembly.

(/) Consolidation and progressive development of the principles and norms of inter-national economic law relating in particular to the legal aspects of the new inter-national economic order

By its resolution 35/166 adopted on the recommendation of the Sixth Committee,174 the GeneralAssembly, inter alia, took note of the report of the Secretary-General,175 requested UNITAR toprepare a list of the existing and evolving principles and norms of international law relating to thenew international economic order concerning the economic relations among States, internationalorganizations and other entities of public international law, and the activities of transnationalcorporations, as contained inter alia in the texts mentioned in points (i) to (vii) of subparagraph(a) of paragraph 1 of resolution 35/106, and to prepare an analytical study on the progressivedevelopment of the principles and norms of international law relating to the new international

80

economic order.176 It requested also UNCITRAL, UNCTAD, UNIDO, the regional commissions,the United Nations Centre for Transnational Corporations and other relevant organizations activein this field, as determined by UNITAR, to submit relevant information and to co-operate fullywith the Institute in the implementation of this resolution.

(g) International convention against the recruitment, use, financingand training of mercenaries

This question was originally included in the agenda of the thirty-fourth session of the GeneralAssembly at the initiative of Nigeria. At its thirty-fifth session, the Assembly, in resolution 35/48adopted on the recommendation of the Sixth Committee177 bearing in mind the need for strictobservance of the principle of sovereign equality, political independence, territorial integrity ofStates and self-determination of peoples, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations anddeveloped in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations andCo-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,178 inter aliarecognized that the activities of mercenaries were contrary to fundamental principles of internationallaw, such as non-interference in the internal affairs of States, territorial integrity and independence,and seriously impede the process of self-determination of peoples struggling against colonialism,racism and apartheid and all forms of foreign domination, decided to establish an Ad Hoc Committeeon the Drafting of an International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Trainingof Mercenaries, composed of 35 Member States, requested the Commmittee to elaborate at theearliest possible date an international convention to prohibit the recruitment, use, financing andtraining of mercenaires and authorized the Committee in the fulfilment of its mandate to take intoaccount suggestions and proposals from any State, bearing in mind the views and commentscommunicated to the Secretary-General and those expressed during the debate on this item at thethirty-fifth session of the General Assembly.

(h) Peaceful settlements of disputes between States

At the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly this question was considered by the SixthCommittee jointly with that of the report of the Special Committee on the Charter of the UnitedNations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization.179 By its resolution 35/160adopted on the recommendation of the Sixth Committee,180 the Assembly, after inter alia expressingits deep concern at the continuation of conflict situations and the emergence of new sources ofdisputes and tension in international life and especially at the growing tendency to resort to forceor the threat of force and at the escalation of the arms race, which gravely endanger the independenceand security of States, as well as international peace and security, called again upon States to adherestrictly in their international relations to the principle that States shall settle their internationaldisputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice arenot endangered. It considered that the question of the peaceful settlement of disputes should representone of the central concerns for States and that, to this end, the efforts for examining and furtherdeveloping the principle of the peaceful settlement of disputes between States and the means ofconsolidating its full observance by all States in their international relations should be continued.The Assembly considered also that the elaboration, as soon as possible, of a declaration of theGeneral Assembly on the peaceful settlement of international disputes was likely to contribute tothe strengthening of the role and the efficiency of the United Nations in preventing conflicts andsettling them peacefully.

(i) Consideration of effective measures to enhance the protection, securityand safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives

This item was included in the agenda of the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly atthe request of the five Nordic countries — Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.11"

The Assembly, by its resolution 35/168 adopted on the recommendation of the Sixth Com-mittee,182 inter alia recognized that acts of violence against diplomatic and consular missions and

81

representatives might seriously affect the maintenance of friendly relations and co-operation amongStates, deplored all violations of the principles and rules of international law governing diplomaticand consular relations, condemned all acts of violence against diplomatic and consular missionsand representatives and urged all States to take all necessary measures with a view to effectivelyensuring, in conformity with their international obligations, the protection, security and safety ofdiplomatic and consular missions and representatives in the territory under their jurisdiction, in-cluding practicable measures to prohibit in their territories illegal activities of persons, groups andorganizations that encourage, instigate, organize or engage in the perpetration of acts against thesecurity and safety of such missions and representatives. It called upon all States which had notyet done so to consider becoming parties to the relevant conventions concerning the inviolabilityof diplomatic and consular missions and representatives.181

9. UNITED NATIONS INSTITUTE FOR TRAINING AND RESEARCH184

In 1980 UNITAR continued to develop its training programmes in New York, Geneva andother locations for officials, primarily from developing countries, concerned with United Nations-related tasks and responsibilities.

It organized a seminar of the drafting of plurilingual instruments, treaties and resolutions,which was held from 24 to 28 March 1980 in Geneva with a view to assisting members of permanentmissions better to understand drafting procedures and techniques for plurilingual instruments ingeneral and United Nations resolutions and decisions in particular.

Briefing and discussion seminars on the law of the sea were held in New York on 25 and 26February 1980 and in Geneva on 23 and 24 July 1980, immediately prior to the ninth and tenthsessions of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. The seminars were designedto inform new delegates about the historical background and the work of the committees, thesettlement of disputes and final clauses.

As in previous years, UNITAR assumed responsibility for the major part of the United NationsProgramme of Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination and Wider Appreciation ofInternational Law, established under General Assembly resolution 2099 (XX) of 20 December1965. A number of fellowships were awarded to legal advisers of Governments and to teachers ofinternational law, mostly from developing countries. The programme included participation in thecourses on international law at The Hague Academy of International Law and in the special coursesand seminars organized by UNITAR during this period. In addition to the programme at The Haguein July and August 1980, the fellows had a choice of attending the international law seminarorganized in Geneva in connexion with the annual session of the International Law Commission,or of doing three months of practical training in the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs or inthe specialized agencies.

In the autumn of 1980 20 fellowship recipients participated in a course on the drafting andinterpretation of bilingual and plurilingual treaties and instruments and one on disarmament doc-umentation, and also took part in a simulation exercise. The course was organized in New Yorkby UNITAR in collaboration with the United Nations Programme of Fellowships on Disarmament.

From 15 to 23 April 1980 UNITAR held a seminar in Moscow, under the auspices of theState Committee for Science and Technology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and in co-operation with the All-Union Academy of Foreign Trade of the USSR, on economic and legalaspects of the establishment of a new international economic order. The seminar was designedprimarily for middle rank foreign service officers from developing countries. The objective of theseminar was to focus attention on selected problems of international relations in the context ofefforts under way to establish a new international economic order.

In accordance with the General Assembly resolution 33/99 of 16 December 1978 a UNITARcolloquium on prohibition of apartheid, racism and racial discrimination and the achievement ofself-determination in international law was held from 20 to 24 October 1980 in Geneva. The meeting

82

produced a report proposing various initiatives some of which have since been implemented inUNITAR and other organs of the United Nations system.185

By its resolution 35/166 of 15 December 1980 the General Assembly requested UNITAR toprepare a list of the existing and evolving principles and norms of international law relating to thenew international economic order. The purpose of the study is to set out principles derived fromvarious international instruments that purport to treat normatively aspects of economic relationsamong States and this is to be classified in terms of subject matter and in terms of the kind ofinstrument in which the principle is incorporated.186

In 1980 UNITAR also began a study on lessons of the law of the sea negotiations. The purposeof the study is to examine the structural and institutional framework of the negotiations with a viewto deriving lessons from both the positive and negative aspects of the experience.

A project on the legal rights of the child, begun in 1980, was undertaken by UNITAR incollaboration with the secretariat of the United Nations International Year of the Child (IYC). Theultimate purposes of this project, which was designed to promote activities relating to the Inter-national Year of the Child, are: (a) to assist Governments in their efforts to provide lastingimprovements in the well-being of the child and (b) to facilitate further study and comparison ofthe world's legal system as they affect children.

UNITAR also formulated a research project on travaux preparatoires of the United Nationsmultilateral conventions which had two objectives: the preparation of a systematic analysis of thepreparatory work of certain United Nations conventions and the physical reproduction in convenientform of all the material relevant to each convention. The initial emphasis was placed on the 1951Convention relating to the Status of Refugees,187 the 1954 Convention relating to the Status ofStateless Persons188 and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees.189

UNITAR also undertook a project on evaluation of the liability of States for damage causedthrough scientific and technological innovations which consists of a thorough and comprehensivestudy of the impact of scientific and technological change on the responsibility of States in inter-national law for injuries arising from their misuse or negligent control of technologically advancedinstruments, materials or fuels.

Among the studies published by UNITAR in 1980, mention should be made of a researchreport entitled The Helsinki Final Act Viewed in the United Nations Perspective,I90 relating tosecurity and co-operation in Europe.

B. General review of the legal activities of the United Nations andrelated intergovernmental organizations

1. INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION191

1. The International Labour Conference (ILC) which held its 66th session in Geneva in June1980, adopted the following instruments: an Amended List of Occupational Diseases appended tothe Employment Injury Benefits Convention, 1964 (No. 121);19- and a Recommendation concerningOlder Workers.193

2. The International Labour Conference (ILC) also adopted certain amendments to its Stand-ing Orders.194

3. The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations metin Geneva from 13 to 26 March 1980, and presented its report.'95

4. The Governing Body Committee on Freedom of Association met in Geneva and adoptedReports Nos. 199,l96 200196 and 201196 (212th Session of the Governing Body, February-March1980); Reports Nos. 202197 and 203197 (213th Session of the Governing Body, May-June 1980);and Reports Nos. 204,198 205198 and 206198 (214th Session of the Governing Body, November1980).

83

2. FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THEUNITED NATIONS

I. OFFICE OF THE LEGAL COUNSEL199

A. Constitutional matters

In addition to current legal advice and services provided to the Director-General and variousdepartments within the Organization, the Office of the Legal Counsel provided legal services tothe Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters (CCLM), the Council and other statutory bodiesof the Organization.(a) Amendments to the statutes of FAO bodies

(i) Amendments to rules of procedure of the Programme Committee. During its thirty-eighth session (12-22 May 1980), the Committee, acting in accordance with ruleXXVU(d)) of the General Rules of the Organization, amended rule VI of its rules ofprocedure to permit full reimbursement of travel costs properly incurred by represen-tatives of members of the Programme Committee.200

(ii) Amendments to rules of procedure of the Finance Committee. During its forty-fifthsession (19-30 March 1980), the Finance Committee, with respect to rule VI of its rulesof procedure, adopted the same amendments as the Programme Committee (see (i)above).201

(iii) Abolition of the technical working party on coconut production, protection and pro-cessing. During its thirty-ninth session (8-18 September 1980), the Programme Com-mittee decided to recommend to the Council that the Technical Working Party onCoconut Production, Protection and Processing, established under article VI of the FAOConstitution, be discontinued and replaced by a Panel of Experts to be established bythe Director-General under article VI.4 of the Constitution.202 During its seventy-eighthsession, the Council agreed that the Technical Working Party on Production, Protectionand Processing should be replaced by a Panel of Experts.203

(iv) Committee on Forest Development in the Tropics — established under article VI.2 ofthe Constitution. The Committee's Statutes have been amended by the Director-Generalto bring them into line with the decisions taken at its seventieth session, in 1976, bythe FAO Council.204 Moreover, at its fifth session (21-23 May 1980) the Committeeadopted rules of procedure submitted by the secretariat.205

(v) Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (WECAF). The Commission, during itsthird session (18-22 November 1980), decided to establish a Committee for Developmentand Management of Fisheries in the Lesser Antilles as a subsidiary body of the Com-mission under paragraph 5 of its statutes.

(b) Applications for membershipDuring its seventy-eighth session, the Council was informed that Equatorial Guinea, Tonga

and Zimbabwe had applied for membership in the Organization. Pending a decision by the Con-ference in 1981 of these applications, the Council, acting in pursuance of rule XXV. 11 of theGeneral Rules of the Organization and paragraphs B.I, B.2andB.5 of the "Statement of Principleson the Granting of Observer Status to Nations", authorized the Director-General to invite theseapplicants to participate in an observer capacity at appropriate Council meetings, as well as atregional and technical meetings of the Organization of interest to them.206

(c) Inter-agency agreements and arrangementsAt its seventy-eighth session (24 November-4 December 1980), the Council approved207 the

Arabic, Chinese, French and Spanish versions of the Agreement with the International Fund forAgricultural Development (IFAD). The Arabic, French and Spanish versions had been establishedin consultation between the Secretariats of both Organizations as requested by the Council at itsseventy-fifth session.208

84

(d) Agreements and arrangements with intergovernmental organizations and bodiesAt its seventy-eighth session, the Council agreed that the 1968 Memorandum of Understanding

between FAO and the African Development Bank be terminated by mutual consent and welcomedthe fact that the Director-General and the President of the African Development Bank and Fundwould soon be in a position to sign a new Memorandum of Understanding.209

(e) Treaty concluded under article XV of the FAO ConstitutionThe Agreement for the establishment on a permanent basis of the Inter-American Forest

Research and Training Institute,2'0 which came into force on 16 November I960, was denouncedby the Government of the Republic of Venezuela on 20 February 1980. Pursuant to article XXI,paragraph l(a) of the Agreement, this denunciation entailed the termination of the said Agreementon 29 August 1980.

(0 Treaties concluded outside the OrganizationAn Agreement for the Establishment of a Centre on Integrated Rural Development for Africa

(CIRDAfrica), adopted at a Government Consultation convened by FAO in 1979, entered into forceon 16 April 1980.

(g) Activities of legal interest relating to commodities and international trade— The informal price arrangements operated under the Intergovernmental Group on Hard

Fibres were reviewed in February 1980. The indicative price range of East Africa UG sisal wasraised but the export quotas remained suspended. Since the prices of abaca in early 1980 were wellabove the ceiling set by the Group, it decided in February 1980 to suspend temporarily the triggermechanism for automatic consultation provided for under the informal price arrangement.

— The Intergovernmental Group on Rice adopted in March 1980 an Informal and VoluntaryFramework for International Consultations on Rice, which includes the revised and strengthenedGuidelines on National and International Action on Rice. It has the objective of achieving a balancedsituation in production, consumption and trade in rice and ensuring orderly trading, taking intoaccount the interests of developing countries.

— The Intergovernmental Group on Oilseeds, Oils and Fats adopted in April 1980 Guidelinesfor International Co-operation in the oilseeds, oils and oilmeal sector, with the main aim ofharmonizing national policies in the light of agreed objectives for world oilseeds, oils and oilmealseconomy.

— FAO provided advice to the Inland Transport Committee of the Economic Commission forEurope (ECE) in the preparation of the draft International Convention on Harmonization of Controlsat Frontiers.

B. Law of the sea and international fisheriesIndo-Pacific Fishery Commission

At its nineteenth session (21-30 May 1980), the Indo-Pacific Fishery Commission (IPFC)endorsed the recommendation made by its Executive Committee and by the Co-ordinating Com-mittee for the South China Sea Fisheries Development and Co-ordinating Programme and decidedto establish, in accordance with the provisions of article 111(2) and (4) of the 1948 Agreement andwith the provisions of rule IX(2) of its rules of procedure, a Committee for the Development andManagement of Fisheries in the South China Sea.

The Commission agreed that the Committee would have in its geographic area of competencethe same functions and responsibilities with respect to fishery development and management asthose assigned to the Commission in the Indo-Pacific area by article IV of the 1948 Agreement asamended.211 It was pointed out that the functions of the Committee would not affect those alreadyentrusted to the Special Committee on Management of Indo-Pacific Tuna set up by the Commissionin 1970.

Western Central Atlantic Fishery CommissionAt its third session (18-22 November 1980), the Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission

(WECAF) decided to establish a Committee for the Development and Management of Fisheries

85

in the Lesser Antilles as a subsidiary body of the Commission. The function of the Committee isto exercise the functions of the present Commission assigned to it under paragraph 2 of its Statuteswith respect to fisheries development and management within the area of the Lesser Antilles. TheCommittee will carry out these functions on behalf of the Commission and report to it. TheCommittee will also act as a steering committee for a technical assistance project to be establishedand attached to it as a technical support unit.212

C. Environment law

In 1980, the FAO assistance to Governments also related to international and national envi-ronment law, including advice on marine environment protection legislation (Trinidad and Tobago).In this latter sphere FAO strengthened its co-operation with the United Nations EnvironmentProgramme (UNEP), especially on the sub-programmes for the West and Central African region,for the Wider Caribbean region and for the Mediterranean Sea. It completed the preparatory legalwork for the preparation of a protocol on Mediterranean protected areas. It hosted the system-widejoint programming meeting on environmental law convened by UNEP and became actively involvedin the preparations for the senior level meeting on environment law called for by the UNEPGoverning Council and to be held in 1981. Progress has been made on research on the legal aspectsof the assessment of the environmental impact of and for agricultural development.

FAO actively participated in the Seminar on Environmental Legislation for Africa organizedby UNEP and ECA (Addis Ababa, September 1980).

II. LEGISLATION BRANCH213

(a) Activities connected with international meetingsThe Legislation Branch participated in and provided contributions to the following international

meetings and missions:— Third International Congress of the European Food Law Association (Madrid, Spain, 23-

24 October 1980): on the penal and/or administrative liability of food producers, importers anddistributors.

— Meeting convened by the German Nutritional Biology Association (Munich, Federal Re-public of Germany, 6-7 July 1980): on the further international development of food control towardsthe attainment of a healthy nutrition.

— Council of Europe, European workshop on legal aspects/teaching module on water re-sources, (Rome, Italy, 1-4 September 1980).214

— FAO/WECAF/Norway Seminar on the Changing Law of the Sea and the fisheries of theWestern Central Atlantic (14-17 November 1980, Havana).

— Indian Ocean training workshop on joint ventures and other commercial arrangements infisheries, Colombo, Sri Lanka (21 January-1 February 1980), sponsored by FAO/IOP/UNCTC/ESCAP.

(b) Legislative assistance and expert advice in the fieldDuring the course of 1980 legislative assistance was given in various countries on the following

matters:

(i) Fisheries legislationCayman Islands, Comoros, Guinea, Kiribati, Liberia, Madagascar, Maldives, Mauri-tania, Oman, S. Lucia, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, UnitedRepublic of Tanzania (Zanzibar), Trinidad and Tobago;

(ii) Land reform legislationEl Salvador, Guyana;

(iii) Soil conservation legislation

Morocco;

86

(iv) Forestry legislation

Mozambique, Sierra Leone;

(v) Water resources legislation — Water policy law and administration

Nigeria, United Arab Emirates;

(vi) Agricultural credit organic lawVenezuela.

Assistance was also given to the Permanent Inter-State Committee for Drought Control in theSahelian Zone (CILSS), on legal and institutional aspects relating to the establishment of regionalgrain stocks in the member countries, and to the Conference of the Ministers of Agriculture of theGulf and the Arabian Peninsula, on harmonization of Fisheries Legislation.

(c) Legal assistance and advice not involving field missions

Assistance and advice were provided on various subjects, such as: veterinary legislation (Laos);seed legislation (Benin, Bolivia, Guinea and Peru); animal production and health (EquatorialGuinea); meat import regulations (Somalia); plant protection legislation (Dominican Republic andGabon); fisheries legislation (Brazil); wildlife legislation (Saudi Arabia).

(d) Legislative research and publications215

Research was conducted, inter alia, on phytosanitary legal restrictions on wood imports; legalaspects of the labelling of irradiated foodstuffs; legislation on food for infants and small children;legal prohibitions on hazardous chemicals; legislation on open-air markets; salt iodization legislation;legislation on coastal State requirements for foreign fishing; wildlife and national park legislationin Africa; water law in Latin America; crop and livestock insurance; the law of international waterresources.

(e) Collection, translation and dissemination of legislative information

FAO publishes, biannually, the Food and Agriculture Legislation. Annotated lists of relevantlaws and regulations appear regularly in Land Reform, Land Settlement and Co-operatives, abiannual FAO publication. Similar lists are also published in the biannual review "Food andNutrition" and Unasylva [An international journal of forestry and forest industries].

3. UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC ANDCULTURAL ORGANIZATION

1. CONSTITUTIONAL AND PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS

(a) Membership of the Organization

Indicated below is information on the signature and acceptance of the Constitution of UNESCOby States which became members of the Organization within the period covered by this review:

Date of deposit ofState Date of Signature instrument of acceptance

Botswana 16 January 1980 24 September 1979Maldives 18 July 1980 15 March 1980Saint Lucia 6 March 1980 6 March 1980Sao Tome and Principe . 22 January 1980 22 January 1980Tonga 29 September 1980 29 September 1980Zimbabwe 22 September 1980 22 September 1980

Under the terms of the relevant provisions of the Constitution216 each of the above-mentionedStates became a member of the Organization on the respective date its acceptance took effect.

87

In the case of Tonga, as it was then not a Member State of the United Nations, Article 11(2)of the UNESCO Constitution applied to it. Thus, before Tonga deposited its instrument of accept-ance, the General Conference had, following an application received from this State and uponrecommendation of the Executive Board, adopted by the required two-thirds majority a resolutionadmitting Tonga to membership of UNESCO217.

(b) Executive BoardAt its twenty-first session, the General Conference, after having considered three alternative

proposals218 on the matter, amended Article V, paragraph 1, of the Constitution in order to havemembership of the Executive Board increased from forty-five to fifty-one members.219

2. INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS

Instruments adopted by the General Conference at its twenty-first session220

— Recommendation concerning the status of the artist— Recommendation for the safeguarding and preservation of moving images— Recommendation concerning the international standardization of statistics on the public

financing of cultural activities.

3. INITIAL SPECIAL REPORTS BY MEMBER STATES

(a) Reports submitted to the twenty-first session of the General ConferenceAt its twenty-first session the General Conference, after considering the initial special reports221

submitted by member States on the action taken by them on the Revised Recommendation concerninginternational competitions in architecture and town planning, the Recommendation for the protectionof movable cultural property, the Revised Recommendation concerning the international standard-ization of educational statistics and the Recommendation concerning the international standardiza-tion of statistics on science and technology, adopted by the General Conference at its twentiethsession, adopted a General Report222 embodying its comments on the aforesaid action taken bymember States and decided that the General Report would be transmitted to member States, to theUnited Nations and to National Commissions, in accordance with article 19 of the rules of procedureconcerning Recommendations to member States and International Conventions covered by the termsof Article IV, paragraph 4, of the Constitution.

(b) Reports to be submitted to the twenty-second session of the General ConferenceThe General Conference, at its twenty-first session, reminded member States of their obligation

to transmit to it, at least two months before the opening of its twenty-second session, initial specialreports on the action taken by them upon the three Recommendations223 adopted at its said twenty-first session, and to include in these reports the information on the matters specified in paragraph4 of resolution 50 adopted at its tenth session.224

4. HUMAN RIGHTS

(a) The contribution of UNESCO to the implementation of the International Covenants on HumanRights and of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and PoliticalRights225

At its 109th session the Executive Board of UNESCO had before it a study of the legal,administrative and practical problems involved in the above-mentioned contribution prepared inpursuance of 107 EX/Decision 4.4.1226 and a report of the Committee on Conventions and Rec-ommendations thereon.227 After studying these documents the Executive Board:

(i) Decided to instruct its Committee on Conventions and Recommendations to examine,on the Director-General's initiative, all the questions arising now and in the future whichinvolve UNESCO, with regard to the implementation of the International Covenantson Human Rights and of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civiland Political Rights, and with particular regard to the preparation of the UNESCOcontribution to the implementation of those instruments in accordance with the latter'srelevant provisions;

(ii) Invited the Director-General to communicate to the United Nations his suggestionsregarding the guidelines that the Secretary-General is to establish for the States Partiesto the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights with referenceto Articles 13 to 15 of that Covenant, while ensuring that these suggestions take accountof the UNESCO normative instruments and of the Organization's experience in collectinginformation on the implementation of the human rights that fall within its sphere ofcompetence;

(iii) Instructed the Committee on Conventions and Recommendations to prepare, pursuantto article 18 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, areport on progress made in the enforcement of the human rights that fall within thecontext of the Organization's activities, including, inter alia, information on the decisionsand recommendations adopted by the General Conference and the Executive Board;

(iv) Requested the Committee on Conventions and Recommendations to ensure that theprocedure laid down in 104 EX/Decision 3.3 continues to be applied as effectively asin the past, while taking into account the importance of full implementation of theCovenants and, hence, of the contribution that UNESCO should make to suchimplementation.228

(b) Examination of cases and questions concerning the exercise of human rights coming withinUnesco's competenceThe Committee on Conventions and Recommendations met in private session at UNESCO

headquarters from 21 to 29 April and 25 August to 1 September 1980 in order to examine com-munications which had been transmitted to it in accordance with decision 104 EX/3.3 of theExecutive Board.

At its April session, the Committee examined 55 communications, of which 45 were examinedwith a view toward their admissibility and 10 were examined on their substance. Of the 45communications examined as to admissibility, five were declared admissible, the examination of20 communications was suspended, and seven communications were struck from the list since theywere considered as having been settled. The Committee presented its report to the Executive Boardat its 109th session.

At its fall session (25 August-1 September), the Committee had before it 35 communicationsof which 31 were examined as to their admissibility and four as to their substance. Of the 31communications which were examined as to their admissibility, one was declared admissible, 12were declared irreceivable, the examination of 17 communications was suspended and five com-munications were struck from the list since they were considered as having been settled. TheCommittee presented its report on its examination of these communications to the Executive Boardat its 110th session.

5. COPYRIGHT

(a) Problems in the field of copyright and so-called neighbouring rights raised by the distributionof television programs by cableIn pursuance of the decisions of the governing bodies of UNESCO and WIPO as also of the

Recommendations of the October 1979 sessions of the Intergovernmental Copyright Committee ofthe Universal Copyright Convention and the Executive Committee of the Berne Union, a "Groupof Independent Experts on the Impact of Cable Television in the Sphere of Copyright" convenedjointly by the Directors General of UNESCO and WIPO met at Geneva from 10-13 March 1980.The Group of Experts adopted a statement comprising certain principles covering (i) copyright; (ii)neighbouring rights: (a) performers; (b) producers of phonograms; and (c) broadcasting organ-izations, and also recommended that the competent secretariats should prepare draft provisionsimplementing those principles which, accompanied by detailed explanations, should be submittedfor the consideration of Intergovernmental Committees of the Berne, Universal and Rome Con-ventions, respectively. (Document: UNESCO/WIPO/IGE/CTV/9.)

89

(b) Legal problems arising from the use of computers for access to or the creation of worksConvened jointly by the Directors General of UNESCO and WIPO, a "Committee of Gov-

ernmental Experts on Copyright Problems Arising from the Use of Computers for Access to or theCreation of Works" met at UNESCO House, Paris, from 15 to 19 December 1980 to analysefurther, on the basis of the report of a 1979 Working Group, the impact of computer storage andretrieval of work protected by copyright and the possible need for express recognitions of copyrightprotection of works created with the help of computers, and to formulate tentative recommendationsapplicable at national and international levels.

As it was not possible for the above Committee to formulate the preliminary detailed rec-ommendations intended for national legislators, this task was entrusted to the secretariats ofUNESCO and WIPO who are to prepare them in consultation with the Chairman, the two Vice-Chairmen and the Rapporteur of the Committee and to send the draft for comments to memberStates and international organizations concerned. On the basis of those comments, the secretariatswill revise the preliminary text and submit it for the consideration of the second Committee ofGovernmental Experts foreseen in 1982 in order to draw up recommendations. (Document:UNESCO/WTPO/CEGO/I/7.)

(c) Protection of folkloreSo far as the copyright aspects of the question are concerned, the secretariats of UNESCO and

the International Bureau of WIPO jointly convened the "Working Group on the Intellectual PropertyAspects of Folklore Protection" which met at Geneva from 7 to 9 January 1980. It studied a draftof Model Provisions intended for national legislation as well as international measures for theprotection of works of folklore. As desired by the Working Group, the secretariats of UNESCOand WIPO prepared a revised draft of the said Model Provisions and Commentary thereon whichwas submitted for consideration by the same Working Group at its second meeting, held in Parisfrom 9 to 13 February 1981. In conclusion, the Working Group adopted the "Model Provisionsfor National Laws on the Protection of Expressions of Folklore" and expressed the opinion thatthe new version of the above-mentioned Commentary to be prepared by the two secretariats on theModel Provisions as adopted should reflect the observations and suggestions made by the expertsin the course of the meeting. (Document: UNESCOAVIPOAVG.II/FOLk/4.)

4. INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION

1. PANEL OF EXPERTS ON THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE AIRCRAFT COMMANDER

A Panel of Experts on the Legal Status of the Aircraft Commander met at Montreal from 9to 22 April 1980, (a) to study the "Legal Status of the Aircraft Commander" on the basis of astudy prepared by the Secretariat and in the light of the comments by States and InternationalOrganizations; (b) to prepare a list of operational and legal problems related to this subject which,in the opinion of the Panel, required a solution; and (c) to suggest any specific solutions for furtherconsideration by the appropriate bodies of ICAO. The Council, on 16 June 1980, noted the reportof the Panel of Experts and decided to submit the report to the Legal and Technical Commissionsof the Assembly which would decide, within their respective expertise, on the further course ofaction to give to the item "Legal Status of the Aircraft Commander".

2. GENERAL WORK PROGRAMME OF THE LEGAL COMMITTEE

During the 23rd session of the Assembly, held at Montreal from 16 September to 7 October1980, the Legal Commission had for consideration the General Work Programme of the LegalCommittee established by the Legal Committee at its 24th Session in May 1979 and approved bythe Council in June 1979. The Commission, after examination of the items listed in Parts A andB of the General Work Programme, agreed that the General Work Programme of the LegalCommittee should include the following items:

90

Part A: {a) Legal Status of the Aircraft Commander(b) Liability of Air Traffic Control Agencies(c) Aerial Collisions(d) Study of the Status of the Instruments of the "Warsaw System".

Part B: Problem of Liability for Damage caused by Noise and Sonic Boom.

The Assembly adopted this Work Programme and, having regard to the anticipated developmentand requirements of International Civil Aviation in the 1980s, requested the Council to dispatchquestionnaires to States on problems affecting items in Part A of the Programme and to propose,not later than June 1981, a revised General Work Programme of the Legal Committee reflectingthe needs of International Civil Aviation in the 1980s.

3. UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION AND ITS FACILITIES

The Committee on Unlawful Interference with International Civil Aviation and its Facilitiesheld four meetings during the year. The Committee re-examined proposals for the amendment ofspecifications in annex 17 (Security - Safeguarding International Civil Aviation against Acts ofUnlawful Interference) in the light of comments made by the Council, and agreed on a revised textwhich it presented to the Council as amendment 4 to annex 17. Since the proposed text introduceda new element in chapter 6 of annex 17, namely the subject of Lease, Charter and Interchange ofAircraft in International Operations, the Council, upon the recommendation of the Committee, on5 December 1980, requested the Secretary-General to obtain the views and comments of theContracting States and interested International Organizations on the proposed amendment to chapter6 of annex 17 before further proceeding with the adoption of amendment 4 to annex 17.

4. AMENDMENT TO THE CHICAGO CONVENTION 1944229

The 23rd session of the Assembly adopted a new article 83 bis on Lease, Charter and Inter-change of Aircraft in International Operations, as an amendment to the Chicago Convention.

5. WORLD BANK

(a) INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT, INTERNATIONALDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION (IDA), INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION (IFC)

1. Change in the representation of China

On 15 May 1980, the Executive Directors of the Bank and IDA and the Board of Directorsof IFC decided that the Government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) would representChina in the Bank, IDA and IFC and exercise the rights and meet the obligations of China in theseorganizations. In doing so, the Directors took into consideration, inter alia, a notification to theorganizations in which the Chinese authorities stated that the Government of the PRC, being thesole legitimate government of China, was the only Government that could represent China in theBank, IDA and IFC and that, when the organizations had taken the necessary measures in keepingwith the spirit of this notification, the Government of the PRC would appoint a Governor to representChina in all their activities and would exercise its rights and meet its obligations under theirrespective Articles of Agreement. Subsequently, China increased its share of the capital stock ofthe Bank from 7,500 shares to 12,000 shares and participated in the election of Executive Directorsheld in the course of the 1980 Annual Meetings of the Boards of Governors.

In July 1980, the Executive Directors of the Bank and IDA decided that supplies and contractorson Taiwan could continue to compete for the provision of goods and services financed by the Bankand IDA under the Bank's and IDA's procurement policy. Loans and credits to Taiwan and loansguaranteed by Taiwan continue to be serviced by the borrowers under their respective agreements.

91

2. Establishment of the World Bank Administrative Tribunal

On 30 April 1980, the Boards of Governors of the Bank, IDA and IFC adopted resolutionsby which they accepted the report of the Executive Directors of these organizations on the estab-lishment of the World Bank Administrative Tribunal and adopted its statute. The Executive Directorsof the Bank appointed the following persons to serve on the Tribunal: Ahmad Kamal ABUL-MAGD(Egypt), Taslim Olawale ELIAS (Nigeria), Robert GORMAN (United States), Eduardo JIMENEZ deARECHAGA (Uruguay), N. KUMARAYYA (India), Elihu LAUTERPACHT (United Kingdom) and ProsperWEIL (France). The report of the Executive Directors, the resolution of the Board of Governorsof the Bank and the statute of the Tribunal are set forth below:

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS OF THE BANK ON THE PROPOSEDADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

1. The Executive Directors have approved the draft Statute attached hereto to create a WorldBank Administrative Tribunal for the members of the staff of the Bank, the Association and theCorporation, and have authorized the submission of such draft Statute to the Board of Governors.The Tribunal would be judicial in nature and would be competent under the Statute to hear andpass judgment upon an application by which a member of the staff alleges non-observance of thecontract of employment or terms of appointment.

2. The intent of creating the Tribunal is to afford a member of the staff judicial recourseagainst an action of the institution which is alleged to violate the legal rights of the staff member.It is intended that this recourse be exclusive in nature.

3. In connection with the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction, it should be noted that thelegislative history of the corresponding provision in the United Nations Administrative Tribunalshows that the intent of such language is that the Tribunal has to respect the authority of the Boardof Governors or the Executive Directors to make such alterations and adjustments in the staff rulesand regulations as circumstances might require.

Thus, when the General Assembly was considering, at its 4th session in 1949, the establishmentof the UN Administrative Tribunal, the United States proposed an addition to Article 2 of the draftStatute whereby "Nothing in this Statute shall be construed in any way as a limitation on theauthority of the General Assembly or of the Secretary-General acting on instruction of the GeneralAssembly to alter at any time the rules and regulations of the Organization including, but notlimited to, the authority to reduce salaries, allowances and other benefits to which staff membersmay have been entitled" (A/C.5/1.4/Rev. 2, reproduced in G.A.O.R., 4th sess., 5th Committee,Annexes, a.i. 44, p. 165). This amendment was eventually withdrawn, on the ground that on thebasis of the debate it appeared that Article 2(1) of the draft Statute was considered "broad enoughto give sufficient scope to the General Assembly, and to the Secretary-General acting on its behalf,to carry out the necessary functions of the United Nations, in spite of the fact that such actionmight require changes and reductions in the existing benefits granted to the staff" (A/C.5/SR. 214,para. 40; see also paras. 25, 37 and 41). This interpretation was reflected in the Fifth Committee'sreport to the plenary as follows:

"(6) That the tribunal would have to respect the authority of the General Assembly tomake such alterations and adjustments in the staff regulations as circumstances might require.It was understood that the tribunal would bear in mind the General Assembly's intent not toallow the creation of any such acquired rights as would frustrate measures which the Assemblyconsidered necessary. It was understood also that the Secretary-General would retain freedomto adjust per diem rates as a result, for example, of currency devaluations or for other validreasons.

"No objection was voiced in the Committee to those interpretations, subject to therepresentative of Belgium expressing the view that the text of the statute would be authoritativeand that it would be for the tribunal to make its own interpretations" (A/1127, para. 9,reproduced in G.A.O.R., 4th sess., Plenary, Annexes, a.i. 44, p. 167 at p. 168)."

92

The Executive Directors have endorsed this interpretation in their approach to the World BankAdministrative Tribunal.

The World Bank Administrative Tribunal will be established and will function within theframework and rules set out in the Articles of Agreement of the Bank. The Tribunal will thereforehave to respect the authority of the Board of Governors and the powers which the Board ofGovernors have delegated to the Executive Directors, in the same sense as indicated above withregard to the competence of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal.

4. The Executive Directors recommend the adoption by the Board of Governors of thefollowing Resolution:

Resolved:That, the Board of Governors:(a) accepts the report of the Executive Directors on the establishment of the World Bank

Administrative Tribunal; and

(b) adopts the Statute of such Administrative Tribunal.

Statute of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development,International Development Association and International Finance Corporation

Article I

There is hereby established a Tribunal of the International Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment (hereinafter referred to individually as the "Bank"), the International DevelopmentAssociation and the International Finance Corporation (together with the Bank hereinafter referredto collectively as the "Bank Group") to be known as the World Bank Administrative Tribunal.

Article II

1. The Tribunal shall hear and pass judgment upon any application by which a member ofthe staff of the Bank Group alleges non-observance of the contract of employment or terms ofappointment of such staff member. The words "contract of employment" and "terms of appoint-ment" include all pertinent regulations and rules in force at the time of alleged non-observanceincluding the provisions of the Staff Retirement Plan.

2. No such application shall be admissible, except under exceptional circumstances as decidedby the Tribunal, unless:

(i) the applicant has exhausted all other remedies available within the Bank Group, exceptif the applicant and the respondent institution have agreed to submit the applicationdirectly to the Tribunal; and

(ii) the application is filed within ninety days after the latest of the following:(a) the occurrence of the event giving rise to the application;(b) receipt of notice, after the applicant has exhausted all other remedies available

within the Bank Group, that the relief asked for or recommended will not be granted;or

(c) receipt of notice that the relief asked for or recommended will be granted, if suchrelief shall not have been granted within thirty days after receipt of such notice.

3. For the purposes of this Statute: the expression of "member of the staff" means anycurrent or former member of the staff of the Bank Group, any person who is entitled to claim upona right of a member of the staff as a personal representative or by reason of the staff member'sdeath, and any person designated or otherwise entitled to receive a payment under any provisionof the Staff Retirement Plan.

93

Article III

In the event of a dispute as to whether the Tribunal has competence, the matter shall be settledby the Tribunal.

Article IV

1. The Tribunal shall be composed of seven members, all of whom shall be nationals ofMember States of the Bank, but no two of whom shall be nationals of the same State. The membersof the Tribunal shall be persons of high moral character and must possess the qualifications requiredfor appointment to high judicial office or be jurisconsults of recognized competence.

2. The members of the Tribunal shall be appointed by the Executive Directors of the Bankfrom a list of candidates to be drawn up by the President of the Bank after appropriate consultation.

3. The members of the Tribunal shall be appointed for a period of three years; they may bereappointed. However, of the seven members initially appointed, the terms of three members shallexpire at the end of two years. The names of those members shall be chosen by lot by the Presidentof the Bank immediately after the first appointments have been completed.

4. A member appointed to replace a member whose term of office has not expired shall holdoffice for the remainder of his predecessor's term.

5. The members of the Tribunal shall hold office until replaced.

Article V

1. A quorum of five members shall suffice to constitute the Tribunal.2. The Tribunal may, however, at any time form a panel of not less than three of its members

for dealing with a particular case or group of cases. Decisions of such a panel shall be deemed tobe taken by the Tribunal.

Article VI

1. The Tribunal shall elect a President and two Vice-Presidents from among its members.2. The President of the Bank shall make the administrative arrangements necessary for the

functioning of the Tribunal, including designating an Executive Secretary who, in the dischargeof duties, shall be responsible only to the Tribunal.

3. The expenses of the Tribunal shall be borne by the Bank Group.

Article VII

1. Subject to the provisions of the present Statute, the Tribunal shall establish its rules.2. The rules shall include provisions concerning:(a) election of the President and Vice-Presidents;(b) constitution of panels envisaged in Article V above;(c) presentation of applications and the procedure to be followed in respect of them;(d) intervention by persons to whom the Tribunal is open under paragraph 3 of Article II,

whose rights may be affected by the judgment;(e) hearing, for purposes of information, of persons to whom the Tribunal is open under

paragraph 3 of Article II; and(/) other matters relating to the functioning of the Tribunal.

Article VIII

1. The Tribunal shall hold sessions at dates to be fixed in accordance with its rules.2. The Tribunal shall hold its sessions at the principal office of the Bank, unless it considers

that the efficient conduct of the proceedings upon an application necessitates holding sessionselsewhere.

94

Article IX

The Tribunal shall decide in each case whether oral proceedings are warranted. Oral pro-ceedings shall be held in public, unless the Tribunal decides that exceptional circumstances requirethat they be held in private.

Article X

1. The Tribunal shall take all its decisions by a majority of the members present.2. In the event of an equality of votes, the President or the member who acts in such place

shall have a casting vote.

Article XI

1. Judgments shall be final and without appeal.2. Each judgment shall state the reasons on which it is based.

Article XII

1. If the Tribunal finds that the application is well-founded, it shall order the rescission ofthe decision contested or the specific performance of the obligation invoked. At the same time theTribunal shall fix the amount of compensation to be paid to the applicant for the injury sustainedshould the President of the respondent institution, within thirty days of the notification of thejudgment, decide, in the interest of such respondent, that the applicant shall be compensated withoutfurther action being taken in the case; provided that such compensation shall not exceed theequivalent of three years' net pay of the applicant. The Tribunal may, however, in exceptionalcases, when it considers it justified, order the payment of a higher compensation. A statement ofthe specific reason for such an order shall be made.

2. Should the Tribunal find that the procedure prescribed in the rules of the respondentinstitution has not been observed, it may, at the request of the President of such respondent andprior to the determination of the merits, order the case remanded for institution or correction ofthe required procedure.

3. In all applicable cases, compensation fixed by the Tribunal shall be paid by the respondentinstitution.

4. The filing of an application shall not have the effect of suspending execution of thedecision contested.

Article XIII

1. A party to a case in which a judgment has been delivered may, in the event of the discoveryof a fact which by its nature might have had a decisive influence on the judgment of the Tribunaland which at the time the judgment was delivered was unknown both to the Tribunal and to thatparty, request the Tribunal, within a period of six months after that party acquired knowledge ofsuch fact, to revise the judgment.

2. The request shall contain the information necessary to show that the conditions laid downin paragraph 1 of this Article have been complied with. It shall be accompanied by the originalor a copy of all supporting documents.

Article XIV

The original copy of each judgment shall be filed in the archives of the Bank. A copy of thejudgment shall be delivered to each of the parties concerned. Copies shall also be made availableon request to interested persons.

Article XV

The Bank may make agreements with any other international organization for the submissionof applications of members of their staff to the Tribunal. Each such agreement shall provide that

95

the organization concerned shall be bound by the judgments of the Tribunal and be responsible forthe payment of any compensation awarded by the Tribunal in respect of a staff member of thatorganization; the agreement shall also include, inter alia, provisions concerning the organization'sparticipation in the administrative arrangements for the functioning of the Tribunal and concerningits sharing of the expenses of the Tribunal.

Article XVI

The present Statute may be amended by the Board of Governors of the Bank.

Article XVII

Notwithstanding Article II, paragraph 2 of the present Statute, the Tribunal shall be competentto hear any application concerning a cause of complaint which arose subsequent to January 1, 1979,provided, however, that the application is filed within 90 days after the entry into force of thepresent Statute.

(b) INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES

1. Signatures and ratifications2*0

During 1980 Israel signed the Convention and Bangladesh, New Zealand and Saudi Arabiadeposited instruments of ratification.231

At its fourteenth annual meeting on 2 October 1980 the Administrative Council considereda communication received from the People's Republic of China, decided that the Republic of Chinabe removed from the list of Contracting States and noted that, pending study by the Governmentof the possibility of becoming a party to the Convention, China is not a Contracting State.

2. Election of Secretary-General

The term of office of Mr. A. Broches expired at the close of the fourteenth annual meetingof the Administrative Council. Mr. Broches had held this post since the inauguration of the Centreon 2 February 1967. Mr. Robert S. McNamara designated him, effective 3 October 1980, as amember of the Centre's Panel of Arbitrators.

On the nomination of Mr. McNamara, the Administrative Council unanimously elected Mr.H. Golsong, Vice President and General Counsel of the World Bank, as Secretary-General of theCentre.

3. Disputes submitted to the Centre

During 1980 two arbitration cases, Societe Ltd. Benvenuti & Bonfant srl v. Government ofthe People's Republic of the Congo and Guadalupe Gas Products Corporation v. The FederalMilitary Government of Nigeria, were terminated by unanimous awards rendered by the ArbitralTribunals. In the Guadalupe case the award embodied the parties' settlement agreement.

6. INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND

MEMBERSHIP, QUOTAS AND PARTICIPATION IN THE SPECIAL DRAWING RIGHTS DEPARTMENT

With the admission of Zimbabwe in 1980, membership in the Fund increased to 141 countries.All members are participants in the Special Drawing Rights Department. The increases proposedunder the Seventh General Review of Quotas came into effect in December 1980 and raised theregular resources of the Fund from SDR 39 billion to SDR 60 billion. The overall increase in Fundquotas included a special quota adjustment requested by the People's Republic of China followinga decision of the Executive Board on 17 April 1980 that the People's Republic of China representedChina in the Fund.

96

SPECIAL DRAWING RIGHTS

A number of decisions were taken by the Executive Board in 1980 to further improve thecharacteristics of the SDR as an international reserve asset.

Since 1974, the SDR valuation basket had comprised 16 currencies. On 17 September 1980,the Executive Board decided that, effective 1 January 1981, the currency baskets that determineboth the value of and the interest rate on the SDR would be unified, the basket to be composedof the currencies of the five members having the largest exports of goods and services during theperiod 1975 — U.S. dollar, Deutsche mark, French franc, Japanese yen and pound sterling — theamount of each currency in the basket reflects its relative importance in international trade payments.The exchange rates for all of the currencies used to calculate the value of the SDR will be obtainedfrom the London Market.

The SDR, which is the unit of account for Fund transactions, has gained acceptance as a unitof account for private contracts and international treaties, and is also used by other internationaland regional organizations. The reduction in the number of currencies in the SDR valuation basketand determination of the value using rates obtained in a single market is expected to enhance theusefulness of the SDR as a unit of account in financial markets and international transactions andto increase the issue of private financial obligations denominated in SDRs.

In addition to its role as a unit of account, the SDR also functions as a currency peg. Whena member pegs its currency to the SDR, the value of its currency is fixed in terms of the SDR andthen is set in terms of other currencies by reference to the SDR value of the other currencies ascalculated and published by the Fund. At end 1980, some 15 member countries were pegging theircurrencies to the SDR.

Under its Articles of Agreement, the Fund has the authority to extend the range of officialholders of SDRs beyond its member countries and the Fund's General Resources Account. In adecision taken in April, 1980, the Fund decided to establish arrangements allowing official entitiesto hold SDRs and to accept and use them in transactions and operations with participants and otherholders, on terms and conditions prescribed by the Fund. This decision complemented the decisionsthat had already been taken to permit additional uses of SDRs by agreement between participants.The extension of the use of SDRs represented further progress in the evolution of the SDR as ameans of payment and a vehicle for investment and helped to make the SDR more comparablewith reserve currencies. "Other holders" have the same degree of freedom as Fund members tobuy and sell SDRs, to use SDRs in swaps, or to use or receive SDRs in donations (grants). Theycannot, however, receive allocations of SDRs nor use SDRs in transactions with designation, thatis, transactions in which the recipient is subject to a requirement of receiving them.

The use of SDRs in operations was expanded to include the use in donations under a decisiontaken by the Fund in March 1980 as a further step in the Fund's policy of enhancing the role ofthe SDR as an international reserve asset.

An allocation of SDR 4,053 million, made as of 1 January 1981, was the final allocation inthe third basic period, which ends on 31 December 1981. The amount allocated to each participantwas equal to 6.8 per cent of the participant's quota in the Fund on 31 December 1980.

CONSULTATIONS

Under Article IV, Section 3, of the Articles of Agreement, the Fund has been charged withthe responsibility of overseeing the international monetary system in order to ensure its effectiveoperation and exercising firm surveillance over the exchange rate policies of members.

An Executive Board Decision taken on 29 April 1977 approved a document entitled Surveil-lance over Exchange Rate Policies232 setting out the principles and procedures for surveillance bythe Fund as provided in Article IV of the Articles of Agreement, and for regular consultations bymembers with the Fund. The document provided for an annual review of the general implementationof the Fund's surveillance over member's exchange rate policies and for regular consultations underArticle IV. It was decided that the Fund would continue to apply existing procedures.

97

SUBSIDY ACCOUNTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY FINANCING FACILITY

The supplementary financing facility was established in 1977 to enable the Fund to providesupplementary financing under stand-by or extended arrangements, in conjunction with the use ofthe Fund's ordinary resources, to members facing serious payments imbalances that are large inrelation to their economies and their Fund quotas. To provide financing for the facility, whichbecame operative on 23 February 1979, the Fund entered into borrowing agreements with lenders(four members and 10 monetary authorities) for a total amount of SDR 7.8 billion.

On 17 December 1980, the Fund established a subsidy account to reduce the cost of using thesupplementary financing facility for its lower income developing members.

BORROWING

The Fund may supplement its ordinary resources from subscriptions to quotas by borrowing.At the end of 1980 the Fund had outstanding borrowing under the General Arrangements to Borrow,and borrowing arrangements to finance the oil facility, and the supplementary financing facility.

The General Arrangements to Borrow (GAB), originally concluded between the Fund and 10industrial member countries in 1962 for four years, has been extended a number of times, mostrecently for another period of five years from 24 October 1980. Switzerland's association with theGAB, under a separate agreement of 11 June 1964 with the Fund, was extended in 1980 until 15July 1985. The use of the GAB is limited to drawings by a participant, and it is activated only toforestall or cope with an impairment of the international monetary system.

Borrowing agreements under the oil facility, established to assist Fund members most seriouslyaffected by oil price increases, were originally entered into by the Fund with 17 lenders, includingSwitzerland, in 1974 and 1975 for a total amount of SDR 6.9 billion. In November 1980, theDeutsche Bundesbank transferred to the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency its claims under the oilfacility, being the first such transfer made in accordance with a 1978 decision on transferabilityof oil facility claims. Previous transfers of loan claims on the Fund had been made only amongGAB participants.

Under the supplementary financing facility the Fund has also entered into borrowing agreementswith 13 member countries and the Swiss National Bank to provide the equivalent of SDR 7.8 billionas supplementary financing. The interest payable by the Fund on its borrowings for the supple-mentary financing facility is at a rate equal to the average yield for each six-month period starting1 July 1978 of United States Government securities with a maturity of five years, rounded upwardto the nearest 1/8 of 1 per cent. For the six months ending on 31 December 1980, the rate was11.625 percent.

ADMINISTERED ACCOUNTS

The Fund administers as a Trustee, in addition to its Staff Retirement Plan, three accountsfor member countries, the oil facility subsidy account, the Trust Fund and the supplementaryfinancing facility subsidy account. These administered accounts are independent of the Fund'sGeneral Department and the Special Drawing Rights Department.

The Trust Fund was established in 1976 to provide additional balance of payments assistanceon concessionary terms to eligible developing member countries that qualified for assistance bycarrying out programs of balance of payments adjustments. The resources of the Trust Fund arederived mainly from the profits realized on the sale of 25 million ounces of the Fund's gold overfour years for the benefit of developing member countries. The gold sales program was completedwith the auction in May 1980, yielding a profit of US$4.6 billion, of which SUS1.3 billion waspaid directly to 104 developing countries on the basis of their share of quotas at 31 August 1975,while the remainder, together with income from investments, income from outstanding loans tomembers, and other transfers, was available for concessionary lending. In December 1980, theExecutive Board decided to terminate the Trust Fund as of 30 April 1981, or the date on whichTrust Fund loan disbursements were completed.

98

As part of the decision terminating the Trust Fund, the Executive Board decided that theequivalent of SDR 750 million from repayments of, and interest on, Trust Fund loans shall betransferred to the supplementary financing facility subsidy account. The account was establishedon 17 December 1980 and will be administered by the Fund as Trustee. The cost of using theFund's resources under the supplementary financing facility is related to market interest rates and,therefore, higher than charges on the use of the Fund's ordinary resources. The subsidy accountis designed to reduce this cost for low-income developing member countries.

7. WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION

1. WEATHER MODIFICATION

The Executive Committee of the World Meteorological Organization, during its thirty-secondsession held in Geneva from 8 to 28 May 1980, considered the text of the "Draft documentconcerning co-operation between States in weather modification" prepared by the meeting ofmeteorological and legal experts designated by governments that was held in Geneva in September1979 under the joint sponsorship of WMO and UNEP. It was informed that the document hadalready been approved by the Governing Council of UNEP under the title "Provisions for co-operation between States in weather modification". The Executive Committee noted this andwelcomed the continuing collaboration with UNEP on consideration of the legal aspects of weathermodification, on the understanding that these "provisions" do not constitute legal regulations. Itwas noted with satisfaction that WMO and UNEP were in full agreement that progress towardscodification of the general principles and guidelines embodied in these provisions into legal reg-ulations should not outstrip progress in scientific understanding of this complex problem and thatthe "provisions" of the document should be regarded only as practices which Members may wishto follow, until the stage is reached where the advancement of the science permits an assessmentof the need for legal regulations. The Executive Committee requested the Secretary-General towrite to members drawing their attention to the document and to the WMO views as set out byEighth Congress.

The Executive Committee also noted that, although the WMO/UNEP meeting in September1979 had not been able to address the question of guidelines for national legislation concerningweather modification, the documents on this aspect prepared for, but not discussed at, the meetingcould be circulated to all Members of WMO and UNEP for their information and comment. It thusendorsed the action of the Secretary-General in advising UNEP of the WMO view that the holdingof another meeting to consider guidelines for national legislation would not seem appropriate atthis time. The Committee felt that it would be desirable first to observe how member States reactto these "provisions for co-operation between States in weather modification" and, in the light oftheir reactions to this document, to consider the possibility of a further meeting at a later date.

2. WORKING ARRANGEMENT

The Executive Committee, during its thirty-second session, took note of the request of theInternational Fund for Agricultural Development for the establishment of a Working Arrangementwith WMO. Having considered the purposes and activities of IFAD, the Committee agreed thatit would be in the mutual interests of both organizations to establish a close working relationship.The Committee therefore authorized the Secretary-General to enter into a formal Working Ar-rangement with the president of IFAD on the basis of a text approved by the session. In thisconnexion the Committee noted that the Executive Board of IFAD had also approved the formalWorking Arrangement with WMO based on the same text.

3. QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE CONVENTION AND THE GENERAL REGULATIONS CONVENTION

The Executive Committee studied the request of Eighth Congress on the question of distributionof seats on the Executive Committee amongst the different Regions.

99

The Committee agreed that within the limits of Article 13 (c) of the Convention, the criterionof regional distribution of seats on the Executive Committee among the different regional associ-ations may be supplemented by other criteria. However, it was considered that these other criteriaare difficult to be defined.

The Committee therefore came to the conclusion that the present system of reaching anagreement within and between the delegations to Congress of Members belonging to differentregional associations should continue and that the negotiations, in order to reach a mutually satisfyingagreement within the limits of Article 13 (c), should be left to the wisdom of Congress.

The Committee requested the Secretary-General to consult the Members of the Organizationon the above-mentioned view of the Committee and to report to the next session of the Committeeon the results of this consultation.

General Regulations

The Executive Committee also studied the request of Eighth Congress for the interpretationof the term "designated" given in Regulation 142 of the General Regulations with a view tosubmitting the results of the study to Ninth Congress.

The Committee considered that the following two alternatives could be considered for theinterpretation of the term "designated" in Regulation 142 of the General Regulations:

(a) Election which would require a simple majority for designating an interim member ofthe Executive Committee. If this interpretation were adopted, Article 16(a) of the Convention mightneed to be amended to cover the case of elections to be conducted by the Executive Committee.In this connexion the exception made in Article 11 (b) of the Convention for elections at Congresswas mentioned;

(b) Decisions which require a two-thirds majority. In this case no amendment to the Con-vention on the General Regulations would be required, but some minor changes would be necessaryin the rules of procedure of the Executive Committee.

In case of difficulty in reaching a decision on one of the above-mentioned alternatives, mentionwas made of the possibility of Congress to elect, in addition to the elected members of the ExecutiveCommittee, a list of stand-by members to fill those seats which might become vacant betweenordinary sessions of Congress. In such a case, it was considered that amendments to the Conventionand General Regulations would be required.

The Committee requested the Secretary-General to study amendments to the Convention andGeneral Regulations which would be deemed necessary for each of the above-mentioned alternatives,and the consequences thereof, and submit his report to the next session of the Executive Committeeso that it may submit its proposals and consequent amendments to Congress.

4. STAFF MATTERS

Amendments to the Staff RulesSome amendments were made to the Staff Rules applicable to Headquarters staff and to those

applicable to Technical Assistance Project Personnel. These amendments are pursuant to the amend-ments made by the United Nations or have been made to take account of past experience and/orestablished practices.

Staff Rules applicable to Headquarters staffThese amendments relate to provisions regarding the entitlements to unaccompanied shipments

and insurance for personal effects and household goods (Staff Rules 171.19 and 171.20); salaryscales for staff in the General Service category (Staff Rule 131.2, Appendix B.I); and adjustmentsof the pensionable remuneration for staff in the Professional category and above as a result of themovement of the weighted average of post adjustments (Staff Rule 131.1, Appendix A.I).

Staff Rules applicable to Technical Assistance Project PersonnelThese amendments relate to provisions regarding the entitlements to unaccompanied shipments

and insurance coverage for personal effects and household goods (Staff Rules 207.23 and 207.24)

100

and adjustments of the pensionable remuneration for project personnel as a result of the movementof the weighted average of post adjustments (Staff Rule 203.1, Appendix I).

5. MEMBERSHIP OF THE ORGANIZATION

The Commonwealth of Dominica, Fiji and Bahrain became Members of the Organizationunder article 3(b) of the Convention233 on 22 March 1980, 17 April 1980 and 21 May 1980respectively, those dates being the thirtieth day after the respective deposits of the instrument ofaccession to the Convention.

The total membership of the Organization at the end of 1980 comprised 147 States and fiveTerritories.

8. UNIVERSAL POSTAL UNION

In 1980, the International Bureau finalized, published and circulated to the Governments ofmember countries, through the diplomatic channel, the decisions of the eighteenth Congress of theUniversal Postal Union, held at Rio de Janeiro at the end of 1979. It also published these decisionsin various forms for postal administrations. In this connexion, special mention should be made ofthe four fascicles of the Annotated Code, a publication containing the Acts of the Congress of Riode Janeiro, annotated by the International Bureau to clarify the scope, evolution or application ofa number of provisions, inter alia, by taking into account the decisions made within UPU bodies.

In addition, UPU continued the studies of the legal and administrative problems which theCongress had entrusted to the Executive Council (EC) or which the Council had undertaken on itsown initiative. The most important problems of interest to other organizations are dealt with, inparticular, in the studies concerning:

ORGANIZATION, FUNCTIONING AND WORKING METHODS OF THE CONGRESS

The purpose of this study is to examine ways of improving the organization and functioningof the Union's highest body and, if possible, to shorten the duration of its sessions. The documentwhich the International Bureau prepared on this subject contains an entire series of short- and long-term measures; some of these measures will need to be submitted to the next Congress at Hamburgin 1984 because, if adopted, they would modify some of the powers and amend several of thebasic Acts of the Union.

ORGANIZATION, FUNCTIONING AND WORKING METHODS OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL (EC) ANDDELIMITATION OF POWERS BETWEEN EC AND THE CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL FOR POSTALSTUDIES (CCPS)

In this case, the main task is to review the powers of the Executive Council so as to redefinethem in accordance with the practices that have developed since this body was established in 1948,perhaps to expand them in order, if possible, to lighten the work-load of the Congress and, lastly,to delimit clearly the powers of EC and CCPS in connexion with the studies entrusted to the twobodies.

ELIMINATION OF THE SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY

For more than a century, the Swiss Confederation had exercised certain administrative functionswithin UPU in connexion with the organization's staff and finances.

Since the establishment of the Executive Council in 1948, these functions have gradually beentaken over from Switzerland. The final step was made in that direction at the eighteenth Congress,when the Union became self-financing. The Executive Council is now studying the legal andpractical consequences of this type of self-management so as to bring the existing regulations intoline with the new situation. In a parallel effort, the Council studied the advantages of changing theexisting practice concerning the admission procedure and the depositing of the Acts; it decided tomaintain the status quo.

101

JURISDICTION OF THE UNION

The Executive Council is also studying the advantages of deleting from the UPU Constitutiona provision whereby post offices established by member countries in territories not included in theUnion may come under the Union's jurisdiction.

QUORUM REQUIRED TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION

Since any amendment of the Constitution requires the approval of two thirds of the membercountries of the Union, UPU is examining the possibility of introducing a provision which wouldrequire the presence of a number of delegations at least equal to this majority before any vote maybe taken on amendments to this Act.

9. INTER-GOVERNMENTAL MARITIME CONSULTATIVE ORGANIZATION

1. MEMBERSHIP OF THE ORGANIZATION

In 1980, the following countries became members of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Con-sultative Organization: United Arab Emirates (4 March), Benin (19 March), Saint Lucia (10April), Guyana (13 May) and Democratic Yemen (2 June). At 31 December 1980, the number ofmembers of IMCO was 118. There is also one Associate Member.

2. CHANGES IN STATUS OF IMCO CONVENTIONS

The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, done at London on 1 November1974, entered into force on 25 May 1980, in accordance with its Article X.

The requirements for the entry into force of the International Convention on Tonnage Meas-urement of Ships, 1969, were fulfilled on 18 July 1980. The Convention will enter into force on18 July 1982, in accordance with its Article 17.

The requirements for the entry into force of the Protocol of 1978 relating to the InternationalConvention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, were fulfilled on 31 October 1980. The Protocolwill enter into force on 1 May 1981, in accordance with its Article V.

3. LEGAL ACTIVITIES

The Legal Committee of IMCO continued its work on the preparation of a draft conventionon liability and compensation in connexion with the carriage of noxious and hazardous substancesby sea. It is expected that the draft prepared by the Committee will be submitted to a diplomaticconference in 1982.

The Committee gave further consideration to a set of draft articles for a protocol to extendthe 1969 Civil Liability Convention for Oil Pollution Damage to oils234 not covered by that Con-vention. There is the possibility that the draft articles finally approved by the Legal Committee willbe submitted to the diplomatic conference in 1982.

In compliance with a request of the Legal Committee, the Secretariats of IMCO and theInternational Oil Pollution Compensation Fund prepared and submitted to the Committee a "Studyon Some Legal Issues which may arise from the Increase of the Limits of Liability and Compensationin the 1969 Civil Liability Convention and the 1971 Fund Convention" (document LEG XLIV/4).The Legal Committee examined the Stud}' and considered the means by which the Committee couldproceed with its work on this question with a view, if possible, to reaching conclusions whichmight be submitted for consideration at a diplomatic conference.

At its eleventh regular session the IMCO Assembly requested the Council to provide for astudy of "the question of barratry, the unlawful seizure of ships and their cargoes and other formsof maritime fraud with a view to making recommendations as to the action which IMCO shouldtake in the matter". Pursuant to the request of the Assembly, the Council decided to establish an

102

Ad Hoc Working Group on the subject. The Ad Hoc Working Group met in Paris on 24 and 25November 1980 at the invitation of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). The WorkingGroup has recommended a resolution on the subject which will be considered by the Council onJune 1981 and eventually by the Assembly on November 1981 (document WGMF/4).

10. INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

INTERNATIONAL SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT

1. The Expert Group on Spent Fuel Management, which continued the examination ofpossibilities for international co-operation in spent fuel management, held meetings in July andDecember 1980. It improved the data base concerning spent fuel arisings and spent fuel storagecapability. Also, it developed information on spent fuel storage and transport technology and oncosts of spent fuel management and guidelines and regulations for spent fuel storage and trans-portation and for the siting of spent fuel storage facilities.

INTERNATIONAL PLUTONIUM STORAGE

2. In 1980 the Expert Group on International Plutonium Storage (IPS) and its technical sub-groups held eight meetings. Progress was made in examining the technical and operational aspectsof establishing an IPS system within the framework of IAEA, including the harmonization of thefield operations required with existing safeguards procedures. Work began on the preparation oflegal instruments for the implementation of Article XII. A.5 of the IAEA Statute.

SUPPLY AGREEMENTS

3. In June 1980 the Board of Governors approved an agreement for assistance by IAEA toMalaysia concerning the transfer from the United States of America of a one-megawatt TRIGAMark II research reactor and 24 760 grams of uranium enriched to approximately 20 per cent,contained in fuel elements, and 7.6 grams of uranium enriched to approximately 93 per cent,contained in neutron detectors, for the operation of the reactor. The agreement235 was concludedbetween IAEA, Malaysia and the United States of America on 22 September 1980 and entered intoforce on that date. The reactor is to be installed at the Tun Ismail Atomic Research Centre at Bangi,Selangor, Malaysia.

4. A fourth supply agreement236 was concluded on 16 January 1980 between IAEA, theUnited States of America and Yugoslavia for the transfer of 1372 grams of uranium enriched toapproximately 70 per cent, contained in fuel elements, for the continued operation of the TRIGAMark II research reactor at the Jozef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana. An amendment to the projectagreement of 4 October 1981237 between IAEA and Yugoslavia was also concluded on 16 January1980 in order to bring that agreement into line with similar agreements recently approved by theBoard of Governors. Both the fourth supply agreement and the amendment to the project agreemententered into force on 14 July 1980.

5. A master agreement between IAEA and New Zealand for IAEA assistance in the supplyof small quantities of nuclear material for research purposes and a supplementary agreement theretowere signed and entered into force on 17 April 1980. Pursuant to these agreements,238 one milligramof plutonium-242 was to be provided by the United States of America to New Zealand for use inenvironmental research at the National Laboratory, Christchurch, New Zealand.

CIVIL LIABILITY FOR NUCLEAR DAMAGE

6. On 26 August 1980 the Government of Peru deposited its instrument of accession to theVienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage of 1963 (5) with the Director-Generalof IAEA. The Convention accordingly entered into force on 26 November 1980 with respect toPeru, pursuant to Article XXIV.3 thereof. As of 31 December 1980, the Convention was in force

103

with respect to the following States: Argentina, Bolivia, Cuba, Egypt, Niger, Peru, Philippines,Trinidad and Tobago, United Republic of Cameroon and Yugoslavia.

TRAINING COURSE

7. In co-operation with the Government of the United States of America, IAEA organizeda training course on Regulation of Nuclear Power Plants at the Centre for Educational Affairs,Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois, United States, from 22 September to 20 November 1980.The course covers, inter alia, nuclear legislation and regulatory practices in the licensing of nuclearinstallations, including the role, responsibility and organization of the regulatory authority, theestablishment and implementation of nuclear safety standards, codes and guides.

11. INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

A. ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT

President Abdelmuhsin M. Al-Sudeary, whose first term expired on 13 December 1980, wasre-elected by the Governing Council of IFAD during its Fourth Annual Session to a second three-year term by acclamation. Section 8(a) of Article 6 of the Agreement Establishing IFAD, interalia, fixes the term of office of the IFAD President at three years and confers eligibility on theincumbent for reappointment to a second term of three years.

B. ESTABLISHMENT OF A GENERAL RESERVE

Recognizing the need to protect the IFAD investments from exchange rates fluctuations, tocover the Fund's potential over-commitment risk as a result of exchange rate fluctuations, andpossible delinquencies in receipt of loan service payments or in the recovery of amounts due to theFund from the investment of its liquid assets, the fourth session of the Governing Council establisheda General Reserve and decided in resolution 16/IV:

(i) That an initial amount of $US 10 million is to be transferred from the Fund's accumulatedsurplus as at 31 December 1980;

(ii) That future annual transfers from the accumulated surplus to the General Reserve shallbe determined by the Executive Board after taking into account the Fund's financialposition;

(iii) That the adequacy of the General Reserve shall be periodically reviewed by the ExecutiveBoard;

(iv) That subject to the above, the ceiling of the General Reserve shall not exceed $US 100million; and

(v) That withdrawals from the General Reserve shall be subject to the prior approval of theExecutive Board.

C. MEMBERSHIP

The Governing Council, at its fourth annual session, admitted the People's Republic of Angola,the Solomon Islands and Zimbabwe as non-original members of IFAD in Category III. This broughtIFAD's membership at the end of 1980 to 135: 20 in Category I (developed countries), 12 inCategory II (OPEC members) and 103 in Category III (other developing countries). Originalmembers of IFAD are the States that are listed in Schedule I to the Agreement Establishing IFADand became parties to that Agreement within one year from the date of its entry into force. Non-original members are the States that are not listed in Schedule I and became parties to this Agreement.Schedule I lists the States which participated in the United Nations Conference on the Establishmentof an Independent Fund for Agricultural Development that had adopted the Agreement EstablishingIFAD on 13 June 1976.

104

D. REPLENISHMENT OF RESOURCES

Section 3 of Article 4 of the Agreement Establishing IFAD provides that: "In order to assurecontinuity in the operations of the Fund, the Governing Council shall periodically, at such intervalsas it deems appropriate, review the adequacy of the resources available to the Fund; the first suchreview shall take place not later than three years after the Fund commences operations." At itsthird annual session, held in January 1980, the Governing Council had reviewed the adequacy ofthe IFAD resources and, after ascertaining the necessity to replenish these resources, had adoptedresolution 14/111. The resolution invited members of IFAD to make additional contributions to theresources of the Organization for the 1981-1983 three-year period. In order to ensure that theseresources were replenished at a level sufficient to provide for an increase in real terms in the levelof operations, consultations were subsequently held among IFAD members to determine the amountof contributions to the first replenishment. Consequently, the Governing Council at its fourth sessionresolved that, taking into account resources of SUS 230 million available for commitment at theend of 1980, new resources should be made available to IFAD to enable it to undertake an operationalprogram of SUS 1,500 million for the period 1981-1983. The Council authorized the ExecutiveBoard to work out and approve all the technical details required for the implementation of theresolution after adequate consultations among interested member countries.

E. LENDING ACTIVITIES

During 1980 IFAD extended financial assistance totalling the equivalent of SUS 381 millionfor 27 projects in 27 developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America (compared to 23projects in 1979 and 10 in 1978). In addition, technical assistance grants of about SUS 15 millionwere approved during the year. As of 31 December 1980, the total amount of the IFAD loanapprovals during its first three years of operations was $US 870 million in 48 member countries.In addition, during the same period SUS 22 million were made available as grants for technicalassistance.239

F. HEADQUARTERS

The Agreement for the Provisional Headquarters of IFAD between the Government of Italyand IFAD was ratified by the Italian Parliament and it entered into force on 9 August 1980 withthe exchange of notes to that effect between the Government and IFAD. As Rome is the provisionalseat of IFAD, in order to select the permanent seat of the Organization, the Governing Council,at its fourth annual session, decided that the ad hoc committee on IFAD's Permanent Seat shouldcontinue to function. This Committee had been established by the Executive Board in 1979 toconsider various matters relating to the permanent seat and report to the Executive Board indicatingits order of preference concerning the candidate countries. This report, together with the views andobservations of the Executive Board is to be presented to the Governing Council at its fifth annualsession due to be held in January 1982 to enable the Council to take a final decision on the subject.The Governing Council further decided that a decision whether voting for the selection of apermanent seat should be through secret ballot or by roll call would be considered in the event thatthe Permanent Seat could not be selected by consensus.240

G. ELECTION OF MEMBERS AND ALTERNATE MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD

The following member States were elected by the Governing Council as members of theExecutive Board for a period of three years:

CATEGORY I

Member Alternate

France (replacing Italy) Austria (replacing France)Germany, Federal Republic of (replacing United Kingdom (replacing Federal Republic of

United Kingdom) Germany)Japan CanadaNetherlands Switzerland (replacing Belgium)Sweden (replacing Norway) Denmark (replacing Sweden)United States of America

105

CATEGORY III

Member AlternateAfrica

Guinea United Republic of TanzaniaTunisia (replacing Sudan) Lesotho (replacing Senegal)

Asia

Bangladesh (replacing India) Republic of Korea (replacing Sri Lanka)

Latin AmericaArgentina PeruMexico Honduras

The member States of Category EE decided to continue with the same country representationin the Executive Board.

Notes1 This summary has been prepared on the basis of The United Nations Disarmament Yearbook, vol . 5:

1980 (United Nations publication, Sales N o . E .81 . IX .4 ) .2 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Tenth Special Session, Supplement No. 4 (A/S-10/4),

sect. III. Also reproduced in the Juridical Yearbook, 1978, p. 4 6 .3 Ibid., Thirty-fifth Session, Supplement No. 42 (A/35/42) , and A/CN.10 /PV.25-40 and A/CN.10 /PV.23 -

40 /Con igendum.4 For the text of the Declarat ion, see infra, p p . 50 -55 .5 See A/CN.10 /PV.26-34 and A/CN.10/PV.23-40/Corr igendum.6 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fifth Session, Supplement No. 42 (A/35/42), paras .

9-13 .7 Ibid., para . 19, sect. B.8 Ibid., para . 20 (section entitled "Recommenda t ions on agenda item 4(a) and (fc)", para. 9) .' The States represented in the Commit tee in 1980 were: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil ,

Bulgaria, Burma, Canada , China , Cuba , Czechoslovakia , Egypt , Ethiopia, France , German Democratic Re-public , Germany, Federal Republ ic of, Hungary , India, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Japan, Kenya , Mex ico , Mongol ia ,Morocco , Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Romania , Sri Lanka , Sweden , U S S R , United Kingdom,United States , Venezuela , Yugoslavia and Zaire.

10 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fifth Session, Supplement No. 27 (A/35/27) ,para. 6 8 .

11 Ibid., Thirty-fifth Session, Plenary Meetings, 4 th to 33rd and 94th meetings; ibid., Thirty-fifth Session,First Committee, 4th to 47th meet ings; and ibid., First Committee, Sessional Fascicle, corr igendum.

12 Ibid., Thirty-fifth Session, First Committee, 14th to 41st meet ings.13 Resolution 35/156 A w a s adopted by a recorded vote of 101 to 14 (USSR, other Eastern European

States and some non-al igned States) , with 27 abstentions (non-aligned States) .14 Resolution 35/156 C was adopted by a recorded vote of 95 to 18 (including France , United Kingdom,

United States and other Western countr ies) , with 27 abstentions.l s Resolution 35/156 D was adopted without a vote .16 Resolution 35/156 F was adopted by a recorded vote of 126 to none , with 19 abstentions (mainly Eastern

European and Western States) .17 Resolution 35/156 H was adopted by a recorded vote of 125 to 11 (including USSR and other Eastern

European countries) , with 8 abstentions (including France and the United Kingdom among the nuclear-weaponStates, and Argentina, Brazil and India) .

18 Resolution 35/156 J was adopted without a vote.19 Resolution 35/156 K was adopted without a vote .20 See supra, footnote 2.21 See supra, footnote 4.22 The ad hoc working groups formed in 1980 dealt with security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States;

banning of radiological weapons ; banning of chemical weapons ; and development of a comprehensive pro-g ramme of disarmament .

23 Resolutions 35/47 and 35/152 A to 35/152 J.24 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fifth Session, Plenary Meetings, 4th to 33rd

meetings; ibid., Thirty-fifth Session, First Committee, 4th to 49th meetings; and ibid., First Committee, SessionalFascicle, corr igendum.

25 Ibid., Tenth Special Session, Supplement No. 4 (A/S-10/4) , sect. ID, para. 118.26 Ibid., Thirty-fifth Session, Supplement No. 28 (A/35/28).27 See supra, p p . 48-49 .

106

2S Resolution 35/152 D was adopted by a recorded vote of 112 to 19, with 14 abstentions. With regardto the nuclear-weapon States, China voted in favour, France, the United Kingdom and the United States votedagainst and the Soviet Union abstained.

29 The participants were the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States as depositaries, and72 non-nuclear-weapon States parties: Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada,Congo, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Finland,Gabon, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Holy See, Honduras,Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, LibyanArab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Netherlands,New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugual, Republic of Korea,Romania, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian ArabRepublic, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uruguay, United Republic of Cameroon, Venezuela, Yugoslavia andZaire.

30 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fifth Session, Supplement No. 27 (A/35/27),appendix II (CD/139), vol. II, document CD/130.

31 Resolution 35/145 A was adopted by a recorded vote of 111 to 2 (United Kingdom and United States),with 31 abstentions.

32 Resolution 35/145 B was adopted by a recorded vote of 129 to none, with 16 abstentions.33 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fifth Session, Plenary Meetings, 4th to 33rd and

94th meetings; ibid.. Thirty-fifth Session, First Committee, 4th to 43rd meetings; and ibid.. First Committee,Sessional Fascicle, corrigendum.

34 Ibid., Thirty-fifth Session, Supplement No. 27 (A/35/27), chap. I l l , paras. 45-49.35 Resolution 35/154 was adopted by a recorded vote of 110 to 2 (Albania and United States), with 3t

abstentions (mainly Western States).36 Resolution 35/155 was adopted by a recorded vote of 121 to none, with 24 abstentions (including most

Western States).37 Resolution 35/143 was adopted by a recorded vote of 138 to none, with 5 abstentions (Central African

Republic, Cuba, France, Guyana and United States).37a A/35/402 and C o r r . l .38 Resolution 35/146 A was adopted by a recorded vote of 132 to none, with 13 abstentions (France.

United Kingdom, United States, other Western States, Israel and Japan).39 Resolution 35/147 was adopted without a vote.39a Resolution 35/148 was adopted by a recorded vote of 96 to 3 (Bhutan, India and Mauritius), with 44

abstentions.40 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fifth Session, Supplement No. 27 (/KTi5l21),

appendix II (CD/139), vol. II, document CD/112.41 Resolution 35/144 C was adopted by a recorded vote of 78 to 17 (including Eastern European States),

with 36 abstentions.42 Resolution 35/144 B was adopted without a vote.43 See General Assembly resolution 2826 (XXVI) , annex. The text of the Convention has also been

reproduced in the Juridical Yearbook, 1971, p. 118.44 Resolution 35/144 A was adopted without a vote.45 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fifth Session, Plenary Meetings, 4th to 33rd and

94th meetings; ibid., Thirty-fifth Session, First Committee, 4th to 38th meetings; and ibid.. First Committee.Sessional Fascicle, corrigendum.

46 Ibid., Thirty-fifth Session, Supplement No. 27 (A/35/27), paras. 57-62.461 Resolution 35/149 was adopted by a recorded vote cf 117 to none, with 26 abstentions (mainly Western

States).47 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fifth Session, Supplement No. 27 (A/35/27), para.

6 1 : report to the Committee by the Ad Hoc Working Group. The original report, as submitted to the Committee,is contained in ibid.. Supplement No. 27 (A/35/27), appendix II (CD/139), vol. II, document CD/133 .

48 Ibid., Thirty-fifth Session, Plenary Meetings, 4th to 33rd and 94th meetings; ibid.. Thirty-fifth Session,First Committee, 5th to 39th meetings; and ibid.. First Committee, Sessional Fascicle, corrigendum.

49 The text of the Convention and of the three Protocols thereto is reproduced in chapter IV below.50 Resolution 2734 (XXV). Also reproduced in the Juridical Yearbook, 1970, p. 62.31 See the report of the First Committee to the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly, on agenda

item 50 (a) (A/35/701).52 For the report of the Legal Sub-Committee, see document A/AC. 105/271.33 See document A/CN.105/240, annex I, appendix A, principles I, VIII, IX, XI, XII , XIII, XIV. XV and

XVII.54 See document A/AC. 105/271, annex II, appendix.55 See document A/AC. 105/C.2/L. 121.56 For the report of the Committee see Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fifth Session,

Supplement No. 20 (A/35/20).5 7 S e e the report of the Special Political Commi t t ee to the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly on

agenda items 55 and 56 (A/38/582).ss Ibid.

107

59 See General Assembly resolutions 3201 (S-VI) and 3202 (S-VI) of 1 May 1974.6 0 See General Assembly resolution 3281 (XXIX) of 12 December 1974.61 See the report of the Second Commit tee to the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly on agenda

item 61 (A/35/592/Add.2) .6 2 See General Assembly resolution 33/153 of 20 December 1978.63 See General Assembly decision 34/447 of 19 December 1979.w See document A/C.2 /36 /6 , annex .6 i See the report of the Second Commit tee to the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly on agenda

item 61 (A/35/592/Add.2 and A d d . 2 / C o r r . l ) .66 See General Assembly resolution 34/111 of 14 December 1979.67 Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-third Session, Plenary Meetings, 1 l th meeting, paras.

106-122.68 See the report of the Second Commit tee to the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly on agenda

item 63 (A/35/616).6 9 See document A/35/468, annex I.70 For detailed information see Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fifth Session, Supplement

No. 25 (A/35/25) .7 1 See document UNEP/GC.8 /2 .7 2 See document UNEP/GC.8 /3 and Cor r . l73 Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fifth Session, Supplement No. 25 (A/35/25), paras.

117, 118, 123 and 136.74 Ibid., paras. 355-359 .75 See Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held at Stockholm from 5 to

16 June 1972 (United Nations publication, Sales N o . E .73 .11 .A .14 ) , p. 12.76 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fifth Session, Supplement No. 25 (A/35/25), annex

I, decision 8/15.77 See the report of the Second Commit tee to the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly on agenda

item 61 (A/35/592/Add.4) .78 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fifth session, Supplement No. 25 (A/35/25).7* For detailed information, see Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fifth Session, Supplement

Nos. 12 and 12 A (A/35/12 and A d d . l ) and ibid.. Thirty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 12 (A/35/12).80 Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fifth Session, Supplement No. 72 A (A /35 /12 /Add . l ) ,

para. 48 (5) (d) (i-iv).81 Ibid., paras . 48 (2) and (3) .8 1 See annex to General Assembly resolution 428 (v) of 14 December 1950.83 See United Nat ions , Treaty Series, vol . 189, p. 137.84 See United Nat ions , Treaty Series, vol . 606 , p. 2 6 7 .s5 See the report of the Third Commit tee to the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly on agenda

item 78 (document A/35/650) .x6Ibid. and C o r r . l .87 United Nat ions , Treaty Series, vol . 520 , p. 151 .8 8 United Nations publication, Sales N o . E . 7 8 . X I . 3 , p . 7 .89 E /CONF.63 /9 .9 0 United Nations publication, Sales N o . E . 7 7 . X I . 3 , p . 13 .91 See Official Records of the Economic and Social Council, 1980, Supplement No. 4 (E/1980/14) ,

chap . XII .9 2 See the report of the Third Commit tee to the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly on agenda

item 12 (document A/35/471) .93 For a short background on this question, see Juridical Yearbook, 1979, chap . I l l , sect. A 3 (<?) (2) .94 See the report of the Third Commit tee to the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly on agenda

item 82 (A/35/743).95 See General Assembly resolution 2200 A (XXI) . Also reproduced in the Juridical Yearbook, 1966,

p . 170 et seq.96 See the report of the Third Commit tee to the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly on agenda

item 76 (A/35/637) .97 Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fifth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/35/40).98 See General Assembly resolution 2106 A (XX) . Also reproduced in the Juridical Yearbook, 1965,

p . 65 .99 See the report of the Third Commit tee to the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly on agenda

item 74 (A/35/590) .100 Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fifth Session, Supplement No. 18 (A/35/18).101 General Assembly resolution 3068 (XXVIII), annex. Also reproduced in the Juridical Yearbook, 1973,

p. 70.102 See the report of the Third Committee to the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly on agenda

item 74 (A/35/590).103 For the text of the Convention, see General Assembly resolution 34/180 of 18 December 1979 and

Juridical Yearbook, 1979, chap. IV, sect. A.I<H Reproduced in the Juridical Yearbook, 1975, p. 48 et seq.

108

105 See the report of the Third Committee to the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly on agendaitem 82 (A/35/743).

106 On the question of the legal force of such declarations, see the legal opinion given by the Office ofLegal Affairs of the United Nations, reproduced on p. 198 of the Juridical Yearbook. 1978.

107 See document A/34/146.l0* See the report of the Third Committee to the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly, document

A/35/743.109 See document A/C.3/35/14 and Corr.l."° See the report of the Third Committee to the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly on agenda

item 77 (A/35/721).111 See General Assembly resolution 2200 (XXI), annex."- See General Assembly resolution 34/171 of 17 December 1979.113 See the report of the Third Committee to the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly on agenda

item 12 (A/35/741).114 See A/35/148.115 See General Assembly resolution 34/172 of 17 December 1979 and Juridical Yearbook, 1979, chap.

Ill, sect. A 3 (f) (4).116 See the report of the Third Committee to the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly on agenda

item 12 (document A/35/741).117 See document A/C.3/35/13.118 See document E/CN.4/1336.119 See document E/CN.4/1354 and Add.1-6.120 See the report of the Third Committee to the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly on agenda

item 12 (document A/35/741).121 See document A/C.3/35/14 and Corr.l.'— See the report of the Third Committee to the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly on asenda

item 73 (A/35/636).123 See Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. vol. XIII (United

Nations publication, Sales No. E.81.V.5).•-4 Ibid., document A/CONF.62/96.135 Ibid., document A/CONF.62/C.1/L.27 and Add.l.i26Ibid., vol. XIV (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.82.V.2), document A/CONF.62/C.1/L.28

and Add.l.™ Ibid., vol. XIII (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.81.V.5), document A/CONF.62/L.51.12*Ibid., document A/CONF.62/L.50.129 Ibid., vol. XIV (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.82.V.2), document A/CONF.62/C.3/L.34

and Add. 1-2.131 Ibid., document A/CONF.62/L.52 and L.55.132 For the composition of the Court, see Official Records of the General Assembly. Thirty-third Session,

Supplement No. 45, sect. X, p. 229.133 As of 31 December 1980, the number of States recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory

in accordance with declarations filed under article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute stood at 46.13J For detailed information, see l.C.J. Reports 1979. I.C.J. Reports 1980. l.CJ. Yearbook 1979-1980,

No. 34, and I.C.J. Yearbook 1980-1981, No. 35. The full text of the judgement was also reproduced indocument S/13989.

134 I.C.J. Reports 1979, p. 2 3 .136 I.C.J. Reports 1980, p. 3.'" The above summary is taken from the I.C.J. Yearbook 1979-1980, No . 34 , p. 119 et seq.138 For detailed information, see I.C.J. Reports 1979, I.C.J. Reports 1980, l.CJ. Yearbook 1978-1979.

No. 3 3 , l.CJ. Yearbook 1979-1980, N o . 34 , and I.C.J. Yearbook 1980-1981, No . 35 .139 l.CJ. Reports 1979, p. 3.140 l.CJ. Reports 1980, p. 7 0 .141 A summary of the judgement delivered by the Court at a public sitting on 14 April 1981 is to be found

in l.CJ. Yearbook 1980-1981. No . 35 , p. 123 et seq.142 For detailed information, see I.C.J. Yearbook 1980-1981. No . 35 .143 United Nat ions , Treaty Series, vol . 2 2 3 , p. 8 7 .144 l.CJ. Reports 1980. p. 67.145 Also see I.C.J. Reports 1980, p. 7 3 .146 For the membership of the Commission, see Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-sixth

Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/36/10), chap. I.147 For detailed information, see Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1980, vol. 1 and

vol. II (Pans One and Two), United Nations publication. Sales No. E.81.V.3 (Part I) and E.81.V.4 (Part II).148 A/CN.4/331 and Add.l149 Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fifth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/35/10) .150 See the report of the Sixth Commi t t ee to the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly on agenda

item 106 (A/35/731) .151 For the membersh ip of the Commiss ion , see Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fifth

session. Supplement No. 17 (A/35/17) .

109

152 For detailed information, see Yearbook of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law,vol. XI, 1980 (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.81.V.8).

153 Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fifth Session, Supplement No. 17 (A/35/17),para. 106.

154 A/CN.9/190.155 Ibid.156 See the report of the Sixth Committee to the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly on agenda

item 107 (A/35/627).157 Ibid.158 Official Records of the General Assembly, Ninth Session, Supplement No. 9, (A/2693), para. 54.159 See the report of the Sixth Committee to the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly on agenda

item 102 (A/35/615).160 The analytical paper was subsequently issued under the symbol A/36/535.161 See the report of the Sixth Committee to the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly on agenda

item 103 (A/35/729).162 Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-third Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/33110).163 See the report of the Sixth Committee to the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly on agenda

item 104 (A/35/730).164 A/35/312 and Corr . I .165 A/35/312/Add.l and 2 and Add.2/Corr. 1.166 ST/LEG/6.167 ST/LEG/7.168 For the report of the Special Committee, see Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fifth

Session, Supplement No. 41 (A/35/41).169 Ibid., Thirty-fourth Session, Supplement No. 41 (A/34/41 and Corr . l ) .170 See the report of the Sixth Committee to the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly on agenda

item 105 (A/35/623).171 Ibid., para. 172.172 See the report of the Sixth Committee to the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly on agenda

item 108 (A/35/732).173 Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fifth Session, Supplement No. 33 (A/35/33).174 See the report of the Sixth Committee to the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly on agenda

item 111 (A/35/735).175 A/35/466.176 p u r ther to this request, a report of the Secretary-General was issued at the thirty-sixth session of the

General Assembly under the symbol A/36/143.177 See the report of the Sixth Committee to the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly on agenda

item 29 (A/35/655).178 Resolution 2625 (XXV), annex.179 See subsection (e) above.180 See the report of the Sixth Committee to the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly on agenda

item 51 (A/35/757).181 A/35/142.182 See the report of the Sixth Committee to the thirty-fifth session of the General Assembly on agenda

item 114 (A/35/142).183 In the course of its thirty-fifth session, the General Assembly also considered the report of the Commit tee

on Relations with the Host Country (Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fifth Session, SupplementNo. 26 (A/35/26)) , in connexion with which it adopted resolution 35/165 and the question of the registrationand publication of treaties and international agreements pursuant to Article 102 of the Charter of the UnitedNations (for the report of the Secretary-General on this question, see document A/35/423) in connexion withwhich it adopted decision 35 /436 . It also considered the item entitled "Resolu t ion adopted by the United NationsConference on the Representation of States in Their Relations with International Organ iza t ions" (see JuridicalYearbook, 1975, p. 114), in connexion with which it adopted resolution 35/167.

184 For detailed information, see Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-fifth Session, SupplementNo. 14 (A/35/14) and ibid.. Thirty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 14 (A/36/14 and corr igendum).

185 For detailed information on the col loquium, see document A/35/677-S/14281 of 2 December 1980.186 The report of the Secretary-General containing "a list of the existing and evolving principles and norms

of international law relating to the new international economic order concerning the economic relations amongStates, international organizations and other entities of public international law, and the activities of transnationalcorpora t ions" was circulated during the thirty-sixth session of the General Assembly under symbol A/36 /143 .

187 United Nat ions , Treaty Series, vol . 189, p. 137.188 Ibid., vol . 360 , p. 117.189 See Juridical Yearbook, 1967, p. 2 8 5 .190 U N I T A R publication, Sales N o . E . 8 0 . X V . R R / 2 4 .191 With regard to the adoption of instruments, information on the preparatory work which, by virtue of

the double-discussion procedure , normally covers a period of two years , is given, in order to facilitate referencework, in the year during which the instrument was adopted.

110

192 Official Bulletin, vol . L X I I I , 1980, Series A, N o . 2, p p . 65 -66 ; Engl ish , French and Spanish . Regard ingpreparatory work see: Repor t Vll(fc) — A m e n d m e n t of the List of Occupat ional Diseases Appended to theEmploymen t Injury Benefits Conven t ion , 1964 ( N o . 121), I L C , 66th Session (1980) , 30 p p . (this report conta ins ,inter alia, details of the action which led to the placing of the quest ion on the agenda of the Conference) ;Engl ish , French , Spanish , German and Russ ian . See also I L C , 66th Sess ion (1980) Record of ProceedingsN o s . 3 5 ; 35A; 4 2 , p . 5 ; Engl ish , French and Spanish .

193 Official Bulletin, vol . LXII I , 1980, Series A, N o . 2, p p . 6 7 - 7 3 ; Engl ish , French and Spanish . Regard ingpreparatory work see: First discussion — Older Workers : W o r k and Ret i rement I L C , 65th Session (1979) ,Report VI(1) (this report conta ins , inter alia, detai ls of the action which led to the placing of the quest ion onthe agenda of the Conference) , and Repor t VI(2) , 96 and 105 pages respect ively; Engl ish , French , Spanish ,German and Russ ian . See a lso , I L C , 65th Session (1979) Record of Proceedings N o s . 3 8 ; 4 1 , p p . 2 -8 ; Engl ish ,French and Spanish . Second Discussion — Older Worke r s : W o r k and Ret i rement , I L C , 66th Session (1980) ,Report IV(1) and Repor t IV(2) , 60 and 59 p p . respect ively; Engl ish , French , Spanish , German and Russ ian .See a lso , I L C , 66th Session (1980) Record of Proceedings N o s . 2 8 ; 2 8 A ; 3 4 , p p . 1-5; Engl ish , French andSpanish.

194 ILC, 66th Session (1980) Record of Proceedings No. 14, pp. 24-26; English, French and Spanish.Official Bulletin. Vol. LXIII, 1980, Series A, No. 2, pp. 84-85; English, French and Spanish.

195 This report has been publ ished as Repor t III (Part 4) to the 66th Session of the Conference and compr isestwo vo lumes : vol . A: " G e n e r a l Repor t and Observat ions concerning Part icular C o u n t r i e s " (Report III (Part4 A ) ) , 242 pages ; Engl ish , French and Spanish . Vo l . B: " G e n e r a l Survey of the Reports relating to Convent ionsN o s . 97 and 143 and Recommenda t ions N o s . 86 and 151 concern ing Migrant W o r k e r s " (Report III (Part 4B) )189 pages ; Engl ish , French and Spanish .

196 Official Bulletin, Vo l . LXII I , 1980, Series B, N o . 1.197 Ibid., Vol . LXII I , 1980, Series B, N o . 2.198 Ibid., Vol . LXIII , 1980, Series B, N o . 3.199 For general information on the organization and functions of the Office of the Legal Counsel , see

Juridical Yearbook, 1972, p. 60 .200 CL 7 8 / 3 , para. 8 1 .201 CL 78/4, para. 65 .202 CL 78/6, paras. 2131-2133.203 CL 78/REP, para. 199.204 CL 70/REP, Res. 5/70.205 FO:FDT/80/REP.206 CL 78/REP, paras. 216-217.207 CL 78/REP, paras. 220-221 .208 CL 75/REP, para. 202.209 CL 78/REP, paras. 208-213.210 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol . 390, p. 228 .211 Indo-Pacific Fishery Commission Proceedings, 19th Session, paras. 30-39.212 FID/R246, paras. 105-109.213 For general information in the organization and functions of the Legislation Branch, see Juridical

Yearbook, 1972, page 62 , note 59 .214 A paper was prepared on " T h e multiplicity of sources of water law and government institutions

responsible at national, European and international levels for water resource management" .215 Cf. publications and documents listed in part four, "B ib l iog raphy" pp . 243-290 below.216 See Articles II and XV of the Constitution.217 See resolution 21 C /07 I , 25 September 1980.218 See document 21 C/100 and report of the Legal Committee thereon (document 21 C/108).219 See resolution 21 C / 1 8 . 1 , 4 October 1980.220 For the text of these instruments, see Records of the General Conference, Vol . I (Resolutions),

annex 1.221 See documents 21 C/22, 21 C /23 , 21 C/24 and 21 C/25 .222 See resolution 21 C / 1 7 . 1 , 22 October 1980.223 For the titles of these Recommendat ions , see the section above entitled "Internat ional r egu la t ions" .224 See resolution 21 C / 1 7 . 2 1 , 22 October 1980.225 General Assembly resolution 2200 A ( X X ) , annex. Also reproduced in the Juridical Yearbook, 1966,

p . 170.226 See document 109 EX/CR/SS /1 .227 See document 109 E S / 5 1 .228 See decision 109 E X / 5 . 4 . 3 .229 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol . 15, p. 2 9 5 .230 The Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States

is reproduced in the Juridical Yearbook, 1966, p. 196.231 The list of Contracting States and Other Signatories of the Convention is reproduced in document

ICSID/3.232 International Monetary Fund. Annual Report of the Executive Directors for the fiscal year ended 30

April 1977, pp . 107-109.

I l l

233 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol . 7 7 , p. 143.234 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 9 6 3 . Also reproduced in the Juridical Yearbook, 1969, p. 166.235 Reproduced in document INFCIRC/287.236 Reproduced in document lNFCIRC/32/Add.4 .237 Reproduced in document INFCIRC/32, part II .238 Reproduced in document INFCIRC/286.239 IFAD's Annual Report , p. 13.240 Governing Council fourth session report, para. 17.

112

Chapter IV

TREATIES CONCERNING INTERNATIONAL LAW CONCLUDED UNDERTHE AUSPICES OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND RELATED INTERGOV-ERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

Treaties concerning international law concluded under the auspicesof the United Nations

1. UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON PROHIBITIONS OR RESTRICTIONSOF USE OF CERTAIN CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS WHICH MAY BE DEEMEDTO BE EXCESSIVELY INJURIOUS OR TO HAVE INDISCRIMINATE EFFECTS

(a) CONVENTION ON PROHIBITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF CERTAIN CONVENTIONALWEAPONS WHICH MAY BE DEEMED TO BE EXCESSIVELY INJURIOUS OR TO HAVE INDISCRIM-INATE EFFECTS.1 DONE AT GENEVA ON 10 OCTOBER 1980

The High Contracting Parties,Recalling that every State has the duty, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations,

to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the sovereignty,territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent withthe purposes of the United Nations.

Further recalling the general principle of the protection of the civilian population against theeffects of hostilities,

Basing themselves on the principle of international law that the right of the parties to an armedconflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited, and on the principle that prohibitsthe employment in armed conflicts of weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfareof a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering,

Also recalling that it is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended,or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment,

Confirming their determination that in cases not covered by this Convention and its annexedProtocols or by other international agreements, the civilian population and the combatants shall atall times remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derivedfrom established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience,

Desiring to contribute to international detente, the ending of the arms race and the buildingof confidence among States, and hence to the realization of the aspiration of all peoples to live inpeace,

Recognizing the importance of pursuing every effort which may contribute to progress towardsgeneral and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control,

Reaffirming the need to continue the codification and progressive development of the rules ofinternational law applicable in armed conflict,

Wishing to prohibit or restrict further the use of certain conventional weapons and believingthat the positive results achieved in this area may facilitate the main talks on disarmament with aview to putting an end to the production, stockpiling and proliferation of such weapons,

Emphasizing the desirability that all States become parties to this Convention and its annexedProtocols, especially the militarily significant States,

113

Bearing in mind that the General Assembly of the United Nations and the United NationsDisarmament Commission may decide to examine the question of a possible broadening of thescope of the prohibitions and restrictions contained in this Convention and its annexed Protocols,

Further bearing in mind that the Committee on Disarmament may decide to consider thequestion of adopting further measures to prohibit or restrict the use of certain conventional weapons,


Article 1SCOPE OF APPLICATION

This Convention and its annexed Protocols shall apply in the situations referred to in Article2 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the Protection of War Victims,2

including any situation described in paragraph 4 of Article I of Additional Protocol I to theseConventions.3

Article 2RELATIONS WITH OTHER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

Nothing in this Convention or its annexed Protocols shall be interpreted as detracting fromother obligations imposed upon the High Contracting Parties by international humanitarian lawapplicable in armed conflict.

Article 3SIGNATURE

This Convention shall be open for signature by all States at United Nations Headquarters inNew York for a period of twelve months from 10 April 1981.

Article 4RATIFICATION, ACCEPTANCE, APPROVAL OR ACCESSION

1. This Convention is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by the Signatories. AnyState which has not signed this Convention may accede to it.

2. The instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall be deposited withthe Depositary.

3. Expressions of consent to be bound by any of the Protocols annexed to this Conventionshall be optional for each State, provided that at the time of the deposit of its instrument ofratification, acceptance or approval of this Convention or of accession thereto, that State shallnotify the Depositary of its consent to be bound by any two or more of these Protocols.

4. At any time after the deposit of its instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval ofthis Convention or of accession thereto, a State may notify the Depositary of its consent to bebound by any annexed Protocol by which it is not already bound.

5. Any Protocol by which a High Contracting Party is bound shall for that Party form anintegral part of this Convention.

Article 5ENTRY INTO FORCE

1. This Convention shall enter into force six months after the date of deposit of the twentiethinstrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.

2. For any State which deposits its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or acces-sion after the date of the deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approvalor accession, this Convention shall enter into force six months after the date on which that Statehas deposited its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.

3. Each of the Protocols annexed to this Convention shall enter into force six months afterthe date by which twenty States have notified their consent to be bound by it in accordance withparagraph 3 or 4 of Article 4 of this Convention.

114

4. For any State which notifies its consent to be bound by a Protocol annexed to thisConvention after the date by which twenty States have notified their consent to be bound by it, theProtocol shall enter into force six months after the date on which that State has notified its consentso to be bound.

Article 6DISSEMINATION

The High Contracting Parties undertake, in time of peace as in time of armed conflict, todisseminate this Convention and those of its annexed Protocols by which they are bound as widelyas possible in their respective countries and, in particular, to include the study thereof in theirprogrammes of military instruction, so that those instruments may become known to their armedforces.

Article 7TREATY RELATIONS UPON ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THIS CONVENTION

1. When one of the parties to a conflict is not bound by an annexed Protocol, the partiesbound by this Convention and that annexed Protocol shall remain bound by them in their mutualrelations.

2. Any High Contracting Party shall be bound by this Convention and any Protocol annexedthereto which is in force for it, in any situation contemplated by Article 1, in relation to any Statewhich is not a party to this Convention or bound by the relevant annexed Protocol, if the latteraccepts and applies this Convention or the relevant Protocol, and so notifies the Depositary.

3. The Depositary shall immediately inform the High Contracting Parties concerned of anynotification received under paragraph 2 of this Article.

4. This Convention, and the annexed Protocols by which a High Contracting Party is bound,shall apply with respect to an armed conflict against that High Contracting Party of the type referredto in Article 1, paragraph 4, of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August1949 for the Protection of War Victims:

(a) where the High Contracting Party is also a party to Additional Protocol I and an authorityreferred to in Article 96, paragraph 3, of that Protocol has undertaken to apply the Geneva Con-ventions and Additional Protocol I in accordance with Article 96, paragraph 3, of the said Protocol,and undertakes to apply this Convention and the relevant annexed Protocols In relation to thatconflict; or

(b) where the High Contracting Party is not a party to Additional Protocol I, and an authorityof the type referred to in subparagraph (a) above accepts and applies the obligations of the GenevaConventions and of this Convention and the relevant annexed Protocols in relation to that conflict.Such an acceptance and application shall have in relation to that conflict the following effects:

(i) the Geneva Conventions and this Convention and its relevant annexed Protocols arebrought into force for the parties to the conflict with immediate effect;

(ii) the said authority assumes the same rights and obligations as those which have beenassumed by a High Contracting Party to the Geneva Conventions, this Convention andits relevant annexed Protocols; and

(iii) the Geneva Conventions, this Convention and its relevant annexed Protocols are equallybinding upon all parties to the conflict.

The High Contracting Party and the authority may also agree to accept and apply the obligationsof Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions on a reciprocal basis.

Article 8REVIEW AND AMENDMENTS

1. (a) At any time after the entry into force of this Convention any High Contracting Partymay propose amendments to this Convention or any annexed Protocol by which it is bound. Any

115

proposal for an amendment shall be communicated to the Depositary, who shall notify it to all theHigh Contracting Parties and shall seek their views on whether a conference should be convenedto consider the proposal. If a majority that shall not be less than eighteen of the High ContractingParties so agree, he shall promptly convene a conference to which all High Contracting Partiesshall be invited. States not parties to this Convention shall be invited to the conference as observers.

(b) Such a conference may agree upon amendments which shall be adopted and shall enterinto force in the same manner as this Convention and the annexed Protocols, provided that amend-ments to this Convention may be adopted only by the High Contracting Parties and that amendmentsto a specific annexed Protocol may be adopted only by the High Contracting Parties which arebound by that Protocol.

2. (a) At any time after the entry into force of this Convention any High Contracting Partymay propose additional protocols relating to other categories of conventional weapons not coveredby the existing annexed Protocols. Any such proposal for an additional protocol shall be com-municated to the Depositary, who shall notify it to all the High Contracting Parties in accordancewith subparagraph 1 (a) of this Article. If a majority that shall not be less than eighteen of theHigh Contracting Parties so agree, the Depositary shall promptly convene a conference to whichall States shall be invited.

(b) Such a conference may agree, with the full participation of all States represented at theconference, upon additional protocols which shall be adopted in the same manner as this Convention,shall be annexed thereto and shall enter into force as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 5of this Convention.

3. (a) If, after a period of ten years following the entry into force of this Convention, noconference has been convened in accordance with subparagraph 1 (a) or 2 (a) of this Article, anyHigh Contracting Party may request the Depositary to convene a conference to which all HighContracting Parties shall be invited to review the scope and operation of this Convention and theProtocols annexed thereto and to consider any proposal for amendments of this Convention or ofthe existing Protocols. States not parties to this Convention shall be invited as observers to theconference. The conference may agree upon amendments which shall be adopted and enter intoforce in accordance with subparagraph 1 \b) above.

(b) At such conference consideration may also be given to any proposal for additionalprotocols relating to other categories of conventional weapons not covered by the existing annexedProtocols. All States represented at the conference may participate fully in such consideration. Anyadditional protocols shall be adopted in the same manner as this Convention, shall be annexedthereto and shall enter into force as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 5 of this Convention.

(c) Such a conference may consider whether provision should be made for the conveningof a further conference at the request of any High Contracting Party if, after a similar period tothat referred to in subparagraph 3 (a) of this Article, no conference has been convened in accordancewith subparagraph 1 (a) or 2 (a) of this Article.

Article 9DENUNCIATION

1. Any High Contracting Party may denounce this Convention or any of its annexed Protocolsby so notifying the Depositary.

2. Any such denunciation shall only take effect one year after receipt by the Depositary ofthe notification of denunciation. If, however, on the expiry of that year the denouncing HighContracting Party is engaged in one of the situations referred to in Article 1, the Party shall continueto be bound by the obligations of this Convention and of the relevant annexed Protocols until theend of the armed conflict or occupation and, in any case, until the termination of operationsconnected with the final release, repatriation or re-establishment of the person protected by therules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in the case of any annexed Protocolcontaining provisions concerning situations in which peace-keeping, observation or similar functionsare performed by United Nations forces or missions in the area concerned, until the terminationof those functions.

116

3. Any denunciation of this Convention shall be considered as also applying to all annexedProtocols by which the denouncing High Contracting Party is bound.

4. Any denunciation shall have effect only in respect of the denouncing High ContractingParty.

5. Any denunciation shall not affect the obligations already incurred, by reason of an armedconflict, under this Convention and its annexed Protocols by such denouncing High ContractingParty in respect of any act committed before this denunciation becomes effective.

Article 10DEPOSITARY

1. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall be the Depositary of this Conventionand of its annexed Protocols.

2. In addition to his usual functions, the Depositary shall inform all States of:(a) signatures affixed to this Convention under Article 3;(b) deposits of instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval of or accession to this

Convention deposited under Article 4;(c) notifications of consent to be bound by annexed Protocols under Article 4;(d) the dates of entry into force of this Convention and of each of its annexed Protocols

under Article 5; and(e) notifications of denunciation received under article 9, and their effective dates.

Article 11AUTHENTIC TEXTS

The original of this Convention with the annexed Protocols, of which the Arabic, Chinese,English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with theDepositary, who shall transmit certified true copies thereof to all States.

(b) PROTOCOL ON NON-DETECTABLE FRAGMENTS (PROTOCOL I).DONE AT GENEVA ON 10 OCTOBER 1980

It is prohibited to use any weapon the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments whichin the human body escape detection by X-rays.

(c) PROTOCOL ON PROHIBITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF MINES, BOOBY-TRAPSAND OTHER DEVICES (PROTOCOL II). DONE AT GENEVA ON 10 OCTOBER 1980

Article 1MATERIAL SCOPE OF APPLICATION

This Protocol relates to the use on land of the mines, booby-traps and other devices definedherein, including mines laid to interdict beaches, waterway crossings or river crossings, but doesnot apply to the use of anti-ship mines at sea or in inland waterways.

Article 2

DEFINITIONS

For the purpose of this Protocol:1. "Mine" means any munition placed under, on or near the ground or other surface area

and designed to be detonated or exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person orvehicle, and "remotely delivered mine" means any mine so defined delivered by artillery, rocket,mortar or similar means or dropped from an aircraft.

117

2. "Booby-trap" means any device or material which is designed, constructed or adaptedto kill or injure and which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs or approaches an apparentlyharmless object or performs an apparently safe act.

3. "Other devices" means manually-emplaced munitions and devices designed to kill, injureor damage and which are actuated by remote control or automatically after a lapse of time.

4. "Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by itsnature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose totalor partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers adefinite military advantage.

5. "Civilian objects" are all objects which are not military objectives as defined inparagraph 4.

6. "Recording" means a physical, administrative and technical operation designed to obtain,for the purpose of registration in the official records, all available information facilitating thelocation of minefields, mines and booby-traps.

Article 3GENERAL RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF MINES, BOOBY-TRAPS AND OTHER DEVICES

1. This Article applies to:(a) mines;(b) booby-traps; and(c) other devices.2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to direct weapons to which this Article applies, either

in offence, defence or by way of reprisals, against the civilian population as such or againstindividual civilians.

3. The indiscriminate use of weapons to which this Article applies is prohibited. Indiscrim-inate use is any placement of such weapons:

(a) which is not on, or directed against, a military objective; or(b) which employs a method or means of delivery which cannot be directed at a specific

military objective; or(c) which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage

to civilian objects or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concreteand direct military advantage anticipated.

4. All feasible precautions shall be taken to protect civilians from the effects of weapons towhich this Article applies. Feasible precautions are those precautions which are practicable orpractically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarianand military considerations.

Article 4RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF MINES OTHER THAN REMOTELY DELIVERED MINES,

BOOBY-TRAPS AND OTHER DEVICES IN POPULATED AREAS

1. This Article applies to:(a) mines other than remotely delivered mines;(b) booby-traps; and(c) other devices.2. It is prohibited to use weapons to which this Article applies in any city, town, village or

other area containing a similar concentration of civilians in which combat between ground forcesis not taking place or does not appear to be imminent, unless either:

(a) they are placed on or in the close vicinity of a military objective belonging to or underthe control of an adverse party; or

118

(b) measures are taken to protect civilians from their effects, for example, the posting ofwarning signs, the posting of sentries, the issue of warnings or the provision of fences.

Article 5RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF REMOTELY DELIVERED MINES

1. The use of remotely delivered mines is prohibited unless such mines are only used withinan area which is itself a military objective or which contains military objectives, and unless:

(a) their location can be accurately recorded in accordance with Article 7(l)(a); or(b) an effective neutralizing mechanism is used on each such mine, that is to say, a self-

actuating mechanism which is designed to render a mine harmless or cause it to destroy itself whenit is anticipated that the mine will no longer serve the military purpose for which it was placed inposition, or a remotely-controlled mechanism which is designed to render harmless or destroy amine when the mine no longer serves the military purpose for which it was placed in position.

2. Effective advance warning shall be given of any delivery or dropping of remotely deliveredmines which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit.

Article 6PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF CERTAIN BOOBY-TRAPS

1. Without prejudice to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict relatingto treachery and perfidy, it is prohibited in all circumstances to use:

(a) any booby-trap in the form of an apparently harmless portable object which is specificallydesigned and constructed to contain explosive material and to detonate when it is disturbed orapproached; or

(b) booby-traps which are in any way attached to or associated with:

(i) internationally recognized protective emblems, signs or signals;(ii) sick, wounded or dead persons;

(iii) burial or cremation sites or graves;(iv) medical facilities, medical equipment, medical supplies or medical transportation;(v) children's toys or other portable objects or products specially designed for the feeding,

health, hygiene, clothing or education of children;(vi) food or drink;

(vii) kitchen utensils or appliances except in military establishments, military locations ormilitary supply depots;

(viii) objects clearly of a religious nature;(ix) historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural

or spiritual heritage of peoples;(x) animals or their carcasses.

2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to use any booby-trap which is designed to causesuperfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

Article 7RECORDING AND PUBLICATION OF THE LOCATION OF MINEFIELDS, MINES

AND BOOBY-TRAPS

1. The parties to a conflict shall record the location of:(a) all pre-planned minefields laid by them; and(b) all areas in which they have made large-scale and pre-planned use of booby-traps.2. The parties shall endeavour to ensure the recording of the location of all other minefields,

mines and booby-traps which they have laid or placed in position.

119

3. All such records shall be retained by the parties who shall:(a) immediately after the cessation of active hostilities:

(i) take all necessary and appropriate measures, including the use of such records, to protectcivilians from the effects of minefields, mines and booby-traps; and either

(ii) in cases where the forces of neither party are in the territory of the adverse party, makeavailable to each other and to the Secretary-General of the United Nations all informationin their possession concerning the location of minefields, mines and booby-traps in theterritory of the adverse party; or

(iii) once complete withdrawal of the forces of the parties from the territory of the adverseparty has taken place, make available to the adverse party and to the Secretary-Generalof the United Nations all information in their possession concerning the location ofminefields, mines and booby-traps in the territory of the adverse party;

(b) when a United Nations force or mission performs functions in any area, make availableto the authority mentioned in Article 8 such information as is required by that Article;

(c) whenever possible, by mutual agreement, provide for the release of information con-cerning the location of minefields, mines and booby-traps, particularly in agreements governingthe cessation of hostilities.

Article 8PROTECTION OF UNITED NATIONS FORCES AND MISSIONS FROM THE EFFECTS OF

MINEFIELDS, MINES AND BOOBY-TRAPS

1. When a United Nations force or mission performs functions of peacekeeping, observationor similar functions in any area, each party to the conflict shall, if requested by the head of theUnited Nations force or mission in that area, as far as it is able:

(a) remove or render harmless all mines or booby-traps in that area;(b) take such measures as may be necessary to protect the force or mission from the effects

of minefields, mines and booby-traps while carrying out its duties; and(c) make available to the head of the United Nations force or mission in that area all

information in the party's possession concerning the location of minefields, mines and booby-trapsin that area.

2. When a United Nations fact-finding mission performs functions in any area, any partyto the conflict concerned shall provide protection to that mission except where, because of the sizeof such mission, it cannot adequately provide such protection. In that case it shall make availableto the head of the mission the information in its possession concerning the location of minefields,mines and booby-traps in that area.

Article 9INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION IN THE REMOVAL OF MINEFIELDS, MINES AND BOOBY-TRAPS

After the cessation of active hostilities, the parties shall endeavour to reach agreement, bothamong themselves and, where appropriate, with other States and with international organizations,on the provision of information and technical and material assistance — including, in appropriatecircumstances, joint operations — necessary to remove or otherwise render ineffective minefields,mines and booby-traps placed in position during the conflict.

TECHNICAL ANNEX TO THE PROTOCOL ON PROHIBITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS ON THEUSE OF MINES, BOOBY-TRAPS AND OTHER DEVICES (PROTOCOL II)

Guidelines on recording

Whenever an obligation for the recording of the location of minefields, mines and booby-traps arises underthe Protocol, the following guidelines shall be taken into account.

120

1. With regard to pre-planned minefields and large-scale and pre-planned use of booby-traps:(a) maps, diagrams or other records should be made in such a way as to indicate the extent of the

minefield or booby-trapped area; and(b) the location of the minefield or booby-trapped area should be specified by relation to the co-ordinates

of a single reference point and by the estimated dimensioins of the area containing mines and booby-traps inrelation to that single reference point.

1. With regard to other minefields, mines and booby-traps laid or placed in position:In so far as possible, the relevant information specified in paragraph 1 above should be recorded so as to

enable the areas containing minefields, mines and booby-traps to be identified.

(d) PROTOCOL ON PROHIBITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF INCENDIARY WEAPONS(PROTOCOL III). DONE AT GENEVA ON 10 OCTOBER 1980

Article 1DEFINITIONS

For the purpose of this Protocol:1. "Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set

fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or a combinationthereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target.

(a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells,rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.

(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:

(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers,smoke or signalling systems;

(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an ad-ditional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells,explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effectis not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against militaryobjectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.

2. "Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent ortemporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps orcolumns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads.

3. "Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by itsnature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose totalor partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers adefinite military advantage.

4. "Civilian objects" are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in para-graph 3.

5. ' 'Feasible precautions" are those precautions which are practicable or practically possibletaking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and militaryconsiderations.

Article 2PROTECTION OF CIVILIANS AND CIVILIAN OBJECTS

1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individualcivilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.

2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within aconcentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.

3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration ofcivilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary

121

weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civiliansand all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the militaryobjective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injuryto civilians and damage to civilian objects.

4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack byincendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflagecombatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.4

2. UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON CONTRACTS FOR THEINTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS

(a) UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON CONTRACTS FOR THE INTERNATIONALSALE OF GOODS.S DONE AT VIENNA ON 11 APRIL 1980

The States parties to this Convention,Bearing in mind the broad objectives in the resolutions adopted by the sixth special session

of the General Assembly of the United Nations on the establishment of a New InternationalEconomic Order,

Considering that the development of international trade on the basis of equality and mutualbenefit is an important element in promoting friendly relations among States,

Being of the opinion that the adoption of uniform rules which govern contracts for the inter-national sale of goods and take into account the different social, economic and legal systems wouldcontribute to the removal of legal barriers in international trade and promote the development ofinternational trade,


PART I. SPHERE OF APPLICATION AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

CHAPTER I. SPHERE OF APPLICATION

Article 1

1. This Convention applies to contracts of sale of goods between parties whose places ofbusiness are in different States:

(a) when the States are Contracting States; or(b) when the rules of private international law lead to the application of the law of a

Contracting State.2. The fact that the parties have their places of business in different States is to be disregarded

whenever this fact does not appear either from the contract or from any dealings between, or frominformation disclosed by, the parties at any time before or at the conclusion of the contract.

3. Neither the nationality of the parties nor the civil or commercial character of the partiesor of the contract is to be taken into consideration in determining the application of this Convention.

Article 2

This Convention does not apply to sales:(a) of goods bought for personal, family or household use, unless the seller, at any time

before or at the conclusion of the contract, neither knew nor ought to have known that the goodswere bought for any such use;

(b) by auction;(c) on execution or otherwise by authority of law;

122

(d) of stocks, shares, investment securities, negotiable instruments or money;(e) of ships, vessels, hovercraft or aircraft;(j) of electricity.

Article 3

1. Contracts for the supply of goods to be manufactured or produced are to be consideredsales unless the party who orders the goods undertakes to supply a substantial part of the materialsnecessary for such manufacture or production.

2. This Convention does not apply to contracts in which the preponderant part of the obli-gations of the party who furnishes the goods consists in the supply of labour or other services.

Article 4

This Convention governs only the formation of the contract of sale and the rights and obligationsof the seller and the buyer arising from such a contract. In particular, except as otherwise expresslyprovided in this Convention, it is not concerned with:

(a) the validity of the contract or of any of its provisions or of any usage;(£>) the effect which the contract may have on the property in the goods sold.

Article 5

This Convention does not apply to the liability of the seller for death or personal injury causedby the goods to any person.

Article 6

The parties may exclude the application of this Convention or, subject to article 12, derogatefrom or vary the effect of any of its provisions.

CHAPTER II. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 7

1. In the interpretation of this Convention, regard is to be had to its international characterand to the need to promote uniformity in its application and the observance of good faith ininternational trade.

2. Questions concerning matters governed by this Convention which are not expressly settledin it are to be settled in conformity with the general principles on which it is based or, in the absenceof such principles, in conformity with the law applicable by virtue of the rules of private internationallaw.

Article 8

1. For the purposes of this Convention statements made by and other conduct of a party areto be interpreted according to his intent where the other party knew or could not have been unawarewhat that intent was.

2. If the preceding paragraph is not applicable, statements made by and other conduct of aparty are to be interpreted according to the understanding that a reasonable person of the same kindas the other party would have had in the same circumstances.

3. In determining the intent of a party or the understanding a reasonable person would havehad, due consideration is to be given to all relevant circumstances of the case including thenegotiations, any practices which the parties have established between themselves, usages and anysubsequent conduct of the parties.

123

Article 9

1. The parties are bound by any usage to which they have agreed and by any practices whichthey have established between themselves.

2. The parties are considered, unless otherwise agreed, to have impliedly made applicableto their contract or its formation a usage of which the parties knew or ought to have known andwhich in international trade is widely known to, and regularly observed by, parties to contracts ofthe type involved in the particular trade concerned.

Article 10

For the purposes of this Convention:(a) if a party has more than one place of business, the place of business is that which has

the closest relationship to the contract and its performance, having regard to the circumstancesknown to or contemplated by the parties at any time before or at the conclusion of the contract;

(b) if a party does not have a place of business, reference is to be made to his habitualresidence.

Article 11

A contract of sale need not be concluded in or evidenced by writing and is not subject to anyother requirement as to form. It may be proved by any means, including witnesses.

Article 12

Any provision of article 11, article 29 or Part II of this Convention that allows a contract ofsale or its modification or termination by agreement or any offer, acceptance or other indicationof intention to be made in any form other than in writing does not apply where any party has hisplace of business in a Contracting State which has made a declaration under article 96 of thisConvention. The parties may not derogate from or vary the effect of this article.

Article 13

For the purposes of this Convention "writing" includes telegram and telex.

PART II. FORMATION OF THE CONTRACT

Article 14

1. A proposal for concluding a contract addressed to one or more specific persons constitutesan offer if it is sufficiently definite and indicates the intention of the offeror to be bound in caseof acceptance. A proposal is sufficiently definite if it indicates the goods and expressly or implicitlyfixes or makes provision for determining the quantity and the price.

2. A proposal other than one addressed to one or more specific persons is to be consideredmerely as an invitation to make offers, unless the contrary is clearly indicated by the person makingthe proposal.

Article 15

1. An offer becomes effective when it reaches the offeree.2. An offer, even if it is irrevocable, may be withdrawn if the withdrawal reaches the offeree

before or at the same time as the offer.

Article 16

1. Until a contract is concluded an offer may be revoked if the revocation reaches the offereebefore he has dispatched an acceptance.

124

2. However, an offer cannot be revoked:(a) if it indicates, whether by stating a fixed time for acceptance or otherwise, that it is

irrevocable; or(b) if it was reasonable for the offeree to rely on the offer as being irrevocable and the offeree

has acted in reliance on the offer.

Article 17

An offer, even if it is irrevocable, is terminated when a rejection reaches the offerer.

Article 18

1. A statement made by or other conduct of the offeree indicating assent to an offer is anacceptance. Silence or inactivity does not in itself amount to acceptance.

2. An acceptance of an offer becomes effective at the moment the indication of assent reachesthe offeror. An acceptance is not effective if the indication of assent does not reach the offerorwithin the time he has fixed or, if no time is fixed, within a reasonable time, due account beingtaken of the circumstances of the transaction, including the rapidity of the means of communicationemployed by the offeror. An oral offer must be accepted immediately unless the circumstancesindicate otherwise.

3. However, if, by virtue of the offer or as a result of practices which the parties haveestablished between themselves or of usage, the offeree may indicate assent by performing an act,such as one relating to the dispatch of the goods or payment of the price, without notice to theofferer, the acceptance is effective at the moment the act is performed, provided that the act isperformed within the period of time laid down in the preceding paragraph.

Article 19

1. A reply to an offer which purports to be an acceptance but contains additions, limitationsor other modifications is a rejection of the offer and constitutes a counter-offer.

2. However, a reply to an offer which purports to be an acceptance but contains additionalor different terms which do not materially alter the terms of the offer constitutes an acceptance,unless the offeror, without undue delay, objects orally to the discrepancy or dispatches a noticeto that effect. If he does not so object, the terms of the contract are the terms of the offer with themodifications contained in the acceptance.

3. Additional or different terms relating, among other things, to the price, payment, qualityand quantity of the goods, place and time of delivery, extent of one party's liability to the otheror the settlement of disputes are considered to alter the terms of the offer materially.

Article 20

1. A period of time for acceptance fixed by the offeror in a telegram or a letter begins torun from the moment the telegram is handed in for dispatch or from the date shown on the letteror, if no such date is shown, from the date shown on the envelope. A period of time for acceptancefixed by the offeror by telephone, telex or other means of instantaneous communication, beginsto run from the moment that the offer reaches the offeree.

2. Official holidays or non-business days occurring during the period for acceptance areincluded in calculating the period. However, if a notice of acceptance cannot be delivered at theaddress of the offeror on the last day of the period because that day falls on an official holiday ora non-business day at the place of business of the offeror, the period is extended until the firstbusiness day which follows.

Article 21

1. A late acceptance is nevertheless effective as an acceptance if without delay the offerororally so informs the offeree or dispatches a notice to that effect.

125

2. If a letter or other writing containing a late acceptance shows that it has been sent in suchcircumstances that if its transmission had been normal it would have reached the offeror in duetime, the late acceptance is effective as an acceptance unless, without delay, the offeror orallyinforms the offeree that he considers his offer as having lapsed or dispatches a notice to that effect.

Article 22

An acceptance may be withdrawn if the withdrawal reaches the offeror before or at the sametime as the acceptance would have become effective.

Article 23

A contract is concluded at the moment when an acceptance of an offer becomes effective inaccordance with the provisions of this Convention.

Article 24

For the purposes of this Part of the Convention, an offer, declaration of acceptance or anyother indication of intention "reaches" the addressee v/hen it is made orally to him or deliveredby any other means to him personally, to his place of business or mailing address or, if he doesnot have a place of business or mailing address, to his habitual residence.

PART III. SALE OF GOODS

CHAPTER I. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 25

A breach of contract committed by one of the parties is fundamental if it results in suchdetriment to the other party as substantially to deprive him of what he is entitled to expect underthe contract, unless the party in breach did not foresee and a reasonable person of the same kindin the same circumstances would not have foreseen such a result.

Article 26

A declaration of avoidance of the contract is effective only if made by notice to the otherparty.

Article 27

Unless otherwise expressly provided in this Part of the Convention, if any notice, request orother communication is given or made by a party in accordance with this Part and by meansappropriate in the circumstances, a delay or error in the transmission of the communication or itsfailure to arrive does not deprive that party of the right to rely on the communication.

Article 28

If, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, one party is entitled to requireperformance of any obligation by the other party, a court is not bound to enter a judgement forspecific performance unless the court would do so under its own law in respect of similar contractsof sale not governed by this Convention.

Article 29

1. A contract may be modified or terminated by the mere agreement of the parties.2. A contract in writing which contains a provision requiring any modification or termination

by agreement to be in writing may not be otherwise modified or terminated by agreement. However,a party may be precluded by his conduct from asserting such a provision to the extent that the otherparty has relied on that conduct.

126

CHAPTER II. OBLIGATIONS OF THE SELLER

Article 30

The seller must deliver the goods, hand over any documents relating to them and transfer theproperty in the goods, as required by the contract and this Convention.

Section I. Delivery of the goods and handing over of documents

Article 31

If the seller is not bound to deliver the goods at any other particular place, his obligation todeliver consists:

(a) if the contract of sale involves carriage of the goods — in handing the goods over to thefirst carrier for transmission to the buyer;

(b) if, in cases not within the preceding subparagraph, the contract relates to specific goods,or unidentified goods to be drawn from a specific stock or to be manufactured or produced, andat the time of the conclusion of the contract the parties knew that the goods were at, or were tobe manufactured or produced at, a particular place — in placing the goods at the buyer's disposalat that place;

(c) in other cases — in placing the goods at the buyer's disposal at the place where the sellerhad his place of business at the time of the conclusion of the contract.

Article 32

1. If the seller, in accordance with the contract or this Convention, hands the goods overto a carrier and if the goods are not clearly identified to the contract by markings on the goods,by shipping documents or otherwise, the seller must give the buyer notice of the consignmentspecifying the goods.

2. If the seller is bound to arrange for carriage of the goods, he must make such contractsas are necessary for carriage to the place fixed by means of transportation appropriate in thecircumstances and according to the usual terms for such transportation.

3. If the seller is not bound to effect insurance in respect of the carriage of the goods, hemust, at the buyer's request, provide him with all available information necessary to enable himto effect such insurance.

Article 33

The seller must deliver the goods:(a) if a date is fixed by or determinable from the contract, on that date;{b) if a period of time is fixed by or determinable from the contract, at any time within that

period unless circumstances indicate that the buyer is to choose a date; or(c) in any other case, within a reasonable time after the conclusion of the contract.

Article 34

If the seller is bound to hand over documents relating to the goods, he must hand them overat the time and place and in the form required by the contract. If the seller has handed overdocuments before that time, he may, up to that time, cure any lack of conformity in the documents,if the exercise of this right does not cause the buyer unreasonable inconvenience or unreasonableexpense. However, the buyer retains any right to claim damages as provided for in this Convention.

Section II. Conformity of the goods and third party claims

Article 35

1. The seller must deliver goods which are of the quantity, quality and description requiredby the contract and which are contained or packaged in the manner required by the contract.

127

2. Except where the parties have agreed otherwise, the goods do not conform with thecontract unless they:

(a) are fit for the purposes for which goods of the same description would ordinarily be used;(b) are fit for any particular purpose expressly or impliedly made known to the seller at the

time of the conclusion of the contract, except where the circumstances show that the buyer did notrely, or that it was unreasonable for him to rely, on the seller's skill and judgement;

(c) possess the qualities of goods which the seller has held out to the buyer as a sample ormodel;

id) are contained or packaged in the manner usual for such goods or, where there is no suchmanner, in a manner adequate to preserve and protect the goods.

3. The seller is not liable under subparagraphs (a) to (d) of the preceding paragraph for anylack of conformity of the goods if at the time of the conclusion of the contract the buyer knew orcould not have been unaware of such lack of conformity.

Article 36

1. The seller is liable in accordance with the contract and this Convention for any lack ofconformity which exists at the time when the risk passes to the buyer, even though the lack ofconformity becomes apparent only after that time.

2. The seller is also liable for any lack of conformity which occurs after the time indicatedin the preceding paragraph and which is due to a breach of any of his obligations, including abreach of any guarantee that for a period of time the goods will remain fit for their ordinary purposeor for some particular purpose or will retain specified qualities or characteristics.

Article 37

If the seller has delivered goods before the date for delivery, he may, up to that date, deliverany missing part or make up any deficiency in the quantity of the goods delivered, or deliver goodsin replacement of any non-conforming goods delivered or remedy any lack of conformity in thegoods delivered, provided that the exercise of this right does not cause the buyer unreasonableinconvenience or unreasonable expense. However, the buyer retains any right to claim damagesas provided for in this Convention.

Article 38

1. The buyer must examine the goods, or cause them to be examined, within as short aperiod as is practicable in the circumstances.

2. If the contract involves carriage of the goods, examination may be deferred until after thegoods have arrived at their destination.

3. If the goods are redirected in transit or redispatched by the buyer without a reasonableopportunity for examination by him and at the time of the conclusion of the contract the sellerknew or ought to have known of the possibility of such redirection or redispatch, examination maybe deferred until after the goods have arrived at the new destination.

Article 39

1. The buyer loses the right to rely on a lack of conformity of the goods if he does not givenotice to the seller specifying the nature of the lack of conformity within a reasonable time afterhe has discovered it or ought to have discovered it.

2. In any event, the buyer loses the right to rely on a lack of conformity of the goods if hedoes not give the seller notice thereof at the latest within a period of two years from the date onwhich the goods were actually handed over to the buyer, unless this time-limit is inconsistent witha contractual period of guarantee.

128

Article 40

The seller is not entitled to rely on the provisions of articles 38 and 39 if the lack of conformityrelates to facts of which he knew or could not have been unaware and which he did not discloseto the buyer.

Article 41

The seller must deliver goods which are free from any right or claim of a third party, unlessthe buyer agreed to take the goods subject to that right or claim. However, if such right or claimis based on industrial property or other intellectual property, the seller's obligation is governed byarticle 42.

Article 42

1. The seller must deliver goods which are free from any right or claim of a third partybased on industrial property or other intellectual property, of which at the time of the conclusionof the contract the seller knew or could not have been unaware, provided that the right or claimis based on industrial property or other intellectual property:

(a) under the law of the State where the goods will be resold or otherwise used, if it wascontemplated by the parties at the time of the conclusion of the contract that the goods would beresold or otherwise used in that State; or

{b) in any other case, under the law of the State where the buyer has his place of business.2. The obligation of the seller under the preceding paragraph does not extend to cases where:(a) at the time of the conclusion of the contract the buyer knew or could not have been

unaware of the right or claim; or(b) the right or claim results from the seller's compliance with technical drawings, designs,

formulae or other such specifications furnished by the buyer.

Article 43

1. The buyer loses the right to rely on the provisions of article 41 or article 42 if he doesnot give notice to the seller specifying the nature of the right or claim of the third party within areasonable time after he has become aware or ought to have become aware of the right or claim.

2. The seller is not entitled to rely on the provisions of the preceding paragraph if he knewof the right or claim of the third party and the nature of it.

Article 44

Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of article 39 and paragraph (1) of article 43,the buyer may reduce the price in accordance with article 50 or claim damages, except for loss ofprofit, if he has a reasonable excuse for his failure to give the required notice.

Section III. Remedies for breach of contract by the seller

Article 45

1. If the seller fails to perform any of his obligations under the contract or this Convention,the buyer may:

(a) exercise the rights provided in articles 46 to 52;(b) claim damages as provided in articles 74 to 77.2. The buyer is not deprived of any right he may have to claim damages by exercising his

right to other remedies.3. No period of grace may be granted to the seller by a court or arbitral tribunal when the

buyer resorts to a remedy for breach of contract.

129

Article 46

1. The buyer may require performance by the seller of his obligations unless the buyer hasresorted to a remedy which is inconsistent with this requirement.

2. If the goods do not conform with the contract, the buyer may require delivery of substitutegoods only if the lack of conformity constitutes a fundamental breach of contract and a request forsubstitute goods is made either in conjunction with notice given under article 39 or within areasonable time thereafter.

3. If the goods do not conform with the contract, the buyer may require the seller to remedythe lack of conformity by repair, unless this is unreasonable having regard to all the circumstances.A request for repair must be made either in conjunction with notice given under article 39 or withina reasonable time thereafter.

Article 47

1. The buyer may fix an additional period of time of reasonable length for performance bythe seller of his obligations.

2. Unless the buyer has received notice from the seller that he will not perform within theperiod so fixed, the buyer may not, during that period, resort to any remedy for breach of contract.However, the buyer is not deprived thereby of any right he may have to claim damages for delayin performance.

Article 48

1. Subject to article 49, the seller may, even after the date for delivery, remedy at his ownexpense any failure to perform his obligations, if he can do so without unreasonable delay andwithout causing the buyer unreasonable inconvenience or uncertainty of reimbursement by the sellerof expenses advanced by the buyer. However, the buyer retains any right to claim damages asprovided for in this Convention.

2. If the seller requests the buyer to make known whether he will accept performance andthe buyer does not comply with the request within a reasonable time, the seller may perform withinthe time indicated in his request. The buyer may not, during that period of time, resort to anyremedy which is inconsistent with performance by the seller.

3. A notice by the seller that he will perform within a specified period of time is assumedto include a request, under the preceding paragraph, that the buyer make known his decision.

4. A request or notice by the seller under paragraph (2) or (3) of this article is not effectiveunless received by the buyer.

Article 49

1. The buyer may declare the contract avoided:(a) if the failure by the seller to perform any of his obligations under the contract or this

Convention amounts to a fundamental breach of contract; or(b) in case of non-delivery, if the seller does not deliver the goods within the additional

period of time fixed by the buyer in accordance with paragraph (1) of article 47 or delcares thathe will not deliver within the period so fixed.

2. However, in cases where the seller has delivered the goods, the buyer loses the right todeclare the contract avoided unless he does so:

(a) in respect of late delivery, within a reasonable time after he has become aware thatdelivery has been made;

(b) in respect of any breach other than late delivery, within a reasonable time:

(i) after he knew or ought to have known of the breach;(ii) after the expiration of any additional period of time fixed by the buyer in accordance

with paragraph (1) of article 47, or after the seller has declared that he will not performhis obligations within such an additional period; or

130

(iii) after the expiration of any additional period of time indicated by the seller in accordancewith paragraph (2) of article 48, or after the buyer has declared that he will not acceptperformance.

Article 50

If the goods do not conform with the contract and whether or not the price has already beenpaid, the buyer may reduce the price in the same proportion as the value that the goods actuallydelivered had at the time of the delivery bears to the value that conforming goods would have hadat that time. However, if the seller remedies any failure to perform his obligations in accordancewith article 37 or article 48 or if the buyer refuses to accept performance by the seller in accordancewith those articles, the buyer may not reduce the price.

Article 51

1. If the seller delivers only a part of the goods or if only a part of the goods delivered isin conformity with the contract, articles 46 to 50 apply in respect of the part which is missing orwhich does not conform.

2. The buyer may declare the contract avoided in its entirety only if the failure to makedelivery completely or in conformity with the contract amounts to a fundamental breach of thecontract.

Article 52

1. If the seller delivers the goods before the date fixed, the buyer may take delivery or refuseto take delivery.

2. If the seller delivers a quantity of goods greater than that provided for in the contract, thebuyer may take delivery or refuse to take delivery of the excess quantity. If the buyer takes deliveryof all or part of the excess quantity, he must pay for it at the contract rate.

CHAPTER III. OBLIGATIONS OF THE BUYER

Article 53

The buyer must pay the price for the goods and take delivery of them as required by thecontract and this Convention.

Section I. Payment of the price

Article 54

The buyer's obligation to pay the price includes taking such steps and complying with suchformalities as may be required under the contract or any laws and regulations to enable paymentto be made.

Article 55

Where a contract has been validly concluded but does not expressly or implicitly fix or makeprovision for determining the price, the parties are considered, in the absence of any indication tothe contrary, to have impliedly made reference to the price generally charged at the time of theconclusion of the contract for such goods sold under comparable circumstances in the tradeconcerned.

Article 56

If the price is fixed according to the weight of the goods, in case of doubt it is to be determinedby the net weight.

131

Article 57

1. If the buyer is not bound to pay the price at any other particular place, he must pay it tothe seller:

(a) at the seller's place of business; or(b) if the payment is to be made against the handing over of the goods or of documents, at

the place where the handing over takes place.2. The seller must bear any increase in the expenses incidental to payment which is caused

by a change in his place of business subsequent to the conclusion of the contract.

Article 58

1. If the buyer is not bound to pay the price at any other specific time, he must pay it whenthe seller places either the goods or documents controlling their disposition at the buyer's disposalin accordance with the contract and this Convention. The seller may make such payment a conditionfor handing over the goods or documents.

2. If the contract involves carriage of the goods, the seller may dispatch the goods on termswhereby the goods, or documents controlling their disposition, will not be handed over to the buyerexcept against payment of the price.

3. The buyer is not bound to pay the price until he has had an opportunity to examine thegoods, unless the procedures for delivery or payment agreed upon by the parties are inconsistentwith his having such an opportunity.

Article 59

The buyer must pay the price on the date fixed by or determinable from the contract and thisConvention without the need for any request or compliance with any formality on the part of theseller.

Section II. Taking delivery

Article 60

The buyer's obligation to take delivery consists:(a) in doing all the acts which could reasonably be expected of him in order to enable the

seller to make delivery; and(b) in taking over the goods.

Section HI. Remedies for breach of contract by the buyer

Article 61

1. If the buyer fails to perform any of his obligations under the contract or this Convention,the seller may:

(a) exercise the rights provided in articles 62 to 65;(b) claim damages as provided in articles 74 to 77.2. The seller is not deprived of any right he may have to claim damages by exercising his

right to other remedies.3. No period of grace may be granted to the buyer by a court or arbitral tribunal when the

seller resorts to a remedy for breach of contract.

Article 62

The seller may require the buyer to pay the price, take delivery or perform his other obligations,unless the seller has resorted to a remedy which is inconsistent with this requirement.

132

Article 63

1. The seller may fix an additional period of time of reasonable length for performance bythe buyer of his obligations.

2. Unless the seller has received notice from the buyer that he will not perform within theperiod so fixed, the seller may not, during that period, resort to any remedy for breach of contract.However, the seller is not deprived thereby of any right he may have to claim damages for delayin performance.

Article 64

1. The seller may declare the contract avoided:(a) if the failure by the buyer to perform any of his obligations under the contract or this

Convention amounts to a fundamental breach of contract; or(b) if the buyer does not, within the additional period of time fixed by the seller in accordance

with paragraph (1) of article 63, perform his obligation to pay the price or take delivery of thegoods, or if he declares that he will not do so within the period so fixed.

2. However, in cases where the buyer has paid the price, the seller loses the right to declarethe contract avoided unless he does so:

(a) in respect of late performance by the buyer, before the seller has become aware thatperformance has been rendered; or

(b) in respect of any breach other than late performance by the buyer, within a reasonabletime:

(i) after the seller knew or ought to have known of the breach; or(ii) after the expiration of any additional period of time fixed by the seller in accordance

with paragraph (1) of article 63, or after the buyer has declared that he will not performhis obligations within such an additional period.

Article 65

1. If under the contract the buyer is to specify the form, measurement or other features ofthe goods and he fails to make such specification either on the date agreed upon or within areasonable time after receipt of a request from the seller, the seller may, without prejudice to anyother rights he may have, make the specification himself in accordance with the requirements ofthe buyer that may be known to him.

2. If the seller makes the specification himself, he must inform the buyer of the detailsthereof and must fix a reasonable time within which the buyer may make a different specification.If, after receipt of such a communication, the buyer fails to do so within the time so fixed, thespecification made by the seller is binding.

CHAPTER IV. PASSING OF RISK

Article 66

Loss of or damage to the goods after the risk has passed to the buyer does not discharge himfrom his obligation to pay the price, unless the loss or damage is due to an act or omission of theseller.

Article 67

1. If the contract of sale involves carriage of the goods and the seller is not bound to handthem over at a particular place, the risk passes to the buyer when the goods are handed over to thefirst carrier for transmission to the buyer in accordance with the contract of sale. If the seller isbound to hand the goods over to a carrier at a particular place, the risk does not pass to the buyeruntil the goods are handed over to the carrier at that place. The fact that the seller is authorizedto retain documents controlling the disposition of the goods does not affect the passage of the risk.

133

2. Nevertheless, the risk does not pass to the buyer until the goods are clearly identified tothe contract, whether by markings on the goods, by shipping documents, by notice given to thebuyer or otherwise.

Article 68

The risk in respect of goods sold in transit passes to the buyer from the time of the conclusionof the contract. However, if the circumstances so indicate, the risk is assumed by the buyer fromthe time the goods were handed over to the carrier who issued the documents embodying thecontract of carriage. Nevertheless, if at the time of the conclusion of the contract of sale the sellerknew or ought to have known that the goods had been lost or damaged and did not disclose thisto the buyer, the loss or damage is at the risk of the seller.

Article 69

1. In cases not within articles 67 and 68, the risk passes to the buyer when he takes overthe goods or, if he does not do so in due time, from the time when the goods are placed at hisdisposal and he commits a breach of contract by failing to take delivery.

2. However, if the buyer is bound to take over the goods at a place other than a place ofbusiness of the seller, the risk passes when delivery is due and the buyer is aware of the fact thatthe goods are placed at his disposal at that place.

3. If the contract relates to goods not then identified, the goods are considered not to beplaced at the disposal of the buyer until they are clearly identified to the contract.

Article 70

If the seller has committed a fundamental breach of contract, articles 67, 68 and 69 do notimpair the remedies available to the buyer on account of the breach.

CHAPTER V. PROVISIONS COMMON TO THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE SELLER AND OF THE BUYER

Section I. Anticipatory breach and instalment contracts

Article 71

1. A party may suspend the performance of his obligations if, after the conclusion of thecontract, it becomes apparent that the other party will not perform a substantial part of his obligationsas a result of:

(a) a serious deficiency in his ability to perform or in his creditworthiness; or(b) his conduct in preparing to perform or in performing the contract.2. If the seller has already dispatched the goods before the grounds described in the preceding

paragraph become evident, he may prevent the handing over of the goods to the buyer even thoughthe buyer holds a document which entitles him to obtain them. The present paragraph relates onlyto the rights in the goods as between the buyer and the seller.

3. A party suspending performance, whether before or after dispatch of the goods, mustimmediately give notice of the suspension to the other party and must continue with performanceif the other party provides adequate assurance of his performance.

Article 72

1. If prior to the date for performance of the contract it is clear that one of the parties willcommit a fundamental breach of contract, the other party may declare the contract avoided.

2. If time allows, the party intending to declare the contract avoided must give reasonablenotice to the other party in order to permit him to provide adequate assurance of his performance.

3. The requirements of the preceding paragraph do not apply if the other party has declaredthat he will not perform his obligations.

134

Article 73

1. In the case of a contract for delivery of goods by instalments, if the failure of one partyto perform any of his obligations in respect of any instalment constitutes a fundamental breach ofcontract with respect to that instalment, the other party may declare the contract avoided withrespect to that instalment.

2. If one party's failure to perform any of his obligations in respect of any instalment givesthe other party good grounds to conclude that a fundamental breach of contract will occur withrespect to future instalments, he may declare the contract avoided for the future, provided that hedoes so within a reasonable time.

3. A buyer who declares the contract avoided in respect of any delivery may, at the sametime, declare it avoided in respect of deliveries already made or of future deliveries if, by reasonof their interdependence, those deliveries could not be used for the purpose contemplated by theparties at the time of the conclusion of the contract.

Section II. Damages

Article 74

Damages for breach of contract by one party consist of a sum equal to the loss, including lossof profit, suffered by the other party as a consequence of the breach. Such damages may not exceedthe loss which the party in breach foresaw or ought to have foreseen at the time of the conclusionof the contract, in the light of the facts and matters of which he then knew or ought to have known,as a possible consequence of the breach of contract.

Article 75

If the contract is avoided and if, in a reasonable manner and within a reasonable time afteravoidance, the buyer has bought goods in replacement or the seller has resold the goods, the partyclaiming damages may recover the difference between the contract price and the price in thesubstitute transaction as well as any further damages recoverable under article 74.

Article 76

1. If the contract is avoided and there is a current price for the goods, the party claimingdamages may, if he has not made a purchase or resale under article 75, recover the differencebetween the price fixed by the contract and the current price at the .time of avoidance as well asany further damages recoverable under article 74. If, however, the party claiming damages hasavoided the contract after taking over the goods, the current price at the time of such taking overshall be applied instead of the current price at the time of avoidance.

2. For the purposes of the preceding paragraph, the current price is the price prevailing atthe place where delivery of the goods should have been made or, if there is no current price at thatplace, the price at such other place as serves as a reasonable substitute, making due allowance fordifferences in the cost of transporting the goods.

Article 77

A party who relies on a breach of contract must take such measures as are reasonable in thecircumstances to mitigate the loss, including loss of profit, resulting from the breach. If he failsto take such measures, the party in breach may claim a reduction in the damages in the amountby which the loss should have been mitigated.

Section III. Interest

Article 78

If a party fails to pay the price or any other sum that is in arrears, the other party is entitledto interest on it, without prejudice to any claim for damages recoverable under article 74.

135

Section IV. Exemptions

Article 79

1. A party is not liable for a failure to perform any of his obligations if he proves that thefailure was due to an impediment beyond his control and that he could not reasonably be expectedto have taken the impediment into account at the time of the conclusion of the contract or to haveavoided or overcome it or its consequences.

2. If the party's failure is due to the failure by a third person whom he has engaged toperform the whole or a part of the contract, that party is exempt from liability only if:

(a) he is exempt under the preceding paragraph; and(b) the person whom he has so engaged would be so exempt if the provisions of that paragraph

were applied to him.3. The exemption provided by this article has effect for the period during which the imped-

iment exists.4. The party who fails to perform must give notice to the other party of the impediment and

its effect on his ability to perform. If the notice is not received by the other party within a reasonabletime after the party who fails to perform knew or ought to have known of the impediment, he isliable for damages resulting from such non-receipt.

5. Nothing in this article prevents either party from exercising any right other than to claimdamages under this Convention.

Article 80

A party may not rely on a failure of the other party to perform, to the extent that such failurewas caused by the first party's act or omission.

Section V. Effects of avoidance

Article 81

1. Avoidance of the contract releases both parties from their obligations under it, subject toany damages which may be due. Avoidance does not affect any provision of the contract for thesettlement of disputes or any other provision of the contract governing the rights and obligationsof the parties consequent upon the avoidance of the contract.

2. A party who has performed the contract either wholly or in part may claim restitutionfrom the other party of whatever the first party has supplied or paid under the contract. If bothparties are bound to make restitution, they must do so concurrently.

Article 82

1. The buyer loses the right to declare the contract avoided or to require the seller to deliversubstitute goods if it is impossible for him to make restitution of the goods substantially in thecondition in which he received them.

2. The preceding paragraph does not apply:(a) if the impossibility of making restitution of the goods or of making restitution of the

goods substantially in the condition in which the buyer received them is not due to his act oromission;

(b) if the goods or part of the goods have perished or deteriorated as a result of the examinationprovided for in article 38; or

(c) if the goods or part of the goods have been sold in the normal course of business or havebeen consumed or transformed by the buyer in the course of normal use before he discovered orought to have discovered the lack of conformity.

136

Article 83

A buyer who has lost the right to declare the contract avoided or to require the seller to deliversubstitute goods in accordance with article 82 retains all other remedies under the contract and thisConvention.

Article 84

1. If the seller is bound to refund the price, he must also pay interest on it, from the dateon which the price was paid.

2. The buyer must account to the seller for all benefits which he has derived from the goodsor part of them:

(a) if he must make restitution of the goods or part of them; or(b) if it is impossible for him to make restitution of all or part of the goods or to make

restitution of all or part of the goods substantially in the condition in which he received them, buthe has nevertheless declared the contract avoided or required the seller to deliver substitute goods.

Section VI. Preservation of the goods

Article 85

If the buyer is in delay in taking delivery of the goods or, where payment of the price anddelivery of the goods are to be made concurrently, if he fails to pay the price, and the seller iseither in possession of the goods or otherwise able to control their disposition, the seller must takesuch steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to preserve them. He is entitled to retain themuntil he has been reimbursed his reasonable expenses by the buyer.

Article 86

1. If the buyer has received the goods and intends to exercise any right under the contractor this Convention to reject them, he must take such steps to preserve them as are reasonable inthe circumstances. He is entitled to retain them until he has been reimbursed his reasonable expensesby the seller.

2. If goods dispatched to the buyer have been placed at his disposal at their destination andhe exercises the right to reject them, he must take possession of them on behalf of the seller,provided that this can be done without payment of the price and without unreasonable inconvenienceor unreasonable expense. This provision does not apply if the seller or a person authorized to takecharge of the goods on his behalf is present at the destination. If the buyer takes possession of thegoods under this paragraph, his rights and obligations are governed by the preceding paragraph.

Article 87

A party who is bound to take steps to preserve the goods may deposit them in a warehouseof a third person at the expense of the other party provided that the expense incurred is notunreasonable.

Article 88

1. A party who is bound to preserve the goods in accordance with article 85 or 86 may sellthem by any appropriate means if there has been an unreasonable delay by the other party in takingpossession of the goods or in taking them back or in paying the price or the cost of preservation,provided that reasonable notice of the intention to sell has been given to the other party.

2. If the goods are subject to rapid deterioration or their preservation would involve unrea-sonable expense, a party who is bound to preserve the goods in accordance with article 85 or 86must take reasonable measures to sell them. To the extent possible he must give notice to the otherparty of his intention to sell.

137

3. A party selling the goods has the right to retain out of the proceeds of sale an amountequal to the reasonable expenses of preserving the goods and of selling them. He must account tothe other party for the balance.

PART IV. FINAL PROVISIONS

Article 89

The Secretary-General of the United Nations is hereby designated as the depositary for thisConvention.

Article 90

This Convention does not prevail over any international agreement which has already beenor may be entered into and which contains provisions concerning the matters governed by thisConvention, provided that the parties have their places of business in States parties to suchagreement.

Article 91

1. This Convention is open for signature at the concluding meeting of the United NationsConference on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods and will remain open for signatureby all States at the Headquarters of the United Nations, New York, until 30 September 1981.

2. This Convention is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by the signatory States.3. This Convention is open for accession by all States which are not signatory States as from

the date it is open for signature.4. Instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval and accession are to be deposited with

the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 92

1. A Contracting State may declare at the time of signature, ratification, acceptance, approvalor accession that it will not be bound by Part II of this Convention or that it will not be bound byPart III of this Convention.

2. A Contracting State which makes a declaration in accordance with the preceding paragraphin respect of Part II or Part IH of this Convention is not to be considered a Contracting State withinparagraph (1) of article 1 of this Convention in respect of matters governed by the Part to whichthe declaration applies.

Article 93

1. If a Contracting State has two or more territorial units in which, according to its consti-tution, different systems of law are applicable in relation to the matters dealt with in this Convention,it may, at the time of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, declare that thisConvention is to extend to all its territorial units or only to one or more of them, and may amendits declaration by submitting another declaration at any time.

2. These declarations are to be notified to the depositary and are to state expressly theterritorial units to which the Convention extends.

3. If, by virtue of a declaration under this article, this Convention extends to one or morebut not all of the territorial units of a Contracting State, and if the place of business of a party islocated in that State, this place of business, for the purposes of this Convention, is considered notto be in a Contracting State, unless it is in a territorial unit to which the Convention extends.

4. If a Contracting State makes no declaration under paragraph (1) of this article, the Con-vention is to extend to all territorial units of that State.

138

Article 94

1. Two or more Contracting States which have the same or closely related legal rules onmatters governed by this Convention may at any time declare that the Convention is not to applyto contracts of sale or to their formation where the parties have their places of business in thoseStates. Such declarations may be made jointly or by reciprocal unilateral declarations.

2. A Contracting State which has the same or closely related legal rules on matters governedby this Convention as one or more non-Contracting States may at any time declare that theConvention is not to apply to contracts of sale or to their formation where the parties have theirplaces of business in those States.

3. If a State which is the object of a declaration under the preceding paragraph subsequentlybecomes a Contracting State, the declaration made will, as from the date on which the Conventionenters into force in respect of the new Contracting State, have the effect of a declaration madeunder paragraph (1), provided that the new Contracting State joins in such declaration or makesa reciprocal unilateral declaration.

Article 95

Any State may declare at the time of the deposit of its instrument of ratification, acceptance,approval or accession that it will not be bound by subparagraph (l)(b) of article 1 of this Convention.

Article 96

A Contracting State whose legislation requires contracts of sale to be concluded in or evidencedby writing may at any time make a declaration in accordance with article 12 that any provision ofarticle 11, article 29, or Part II of this Convention, that allows a contract of sale or its modificationor termination by agreement or any offer, acceptance, or other indication of intention to be madein any form other than in writing, does not apply where any party has his place of business in thatState.

Article 97

1. Declarations made under this Convention at the time of signature are subject to confir-mation upon ratification, acceptance or approval.

2. Declarations and confirmations of declarations are to be in writing and be formally notifiedto the depositary.

3. A declaration takes effect simultaneously with the entry into force of this Convention inrespect of the State concerned. However, a declaration of which the depositary receives formalnotification after such entry into force takes effect on the first day of the month following theexpiration of six months after the date of its receipt by the depositary. Reciprocal unilateraldeclarations under article 94 take effect on the first day of the month following the expiration ofsix months after the receipt of the latest declaration by the depositary.

4. Any State which makes a declaration under this Convention may withdraw it at any timeby a formal notification in writing addressed to the depositary. Such withdrawal is to take effecton the first day of the month following the expiration of six months after the date of the receiptof the notification by the depositary.

5. A withdrawal of a declaration made under article 94 renders inoperative, as from the dateon which the withdrawal takes effect, any reciprocal declaration made by another State under thatarticle.

Article 98

No reservations are permitted except those expressly authorized in this Convention.

Article 99

1. This Convention enters into force, subject to the provisions of paragraph (6) of this article,on the first day of the month following the expiration of twelve months after the date of deposit

139

of the tenth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, including an instrumentwhich contains a declaration made under article 92.

2. When a State ratifies, accepts, approves or accedes to this Convention after the depositof the tenth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, this Convention, with theexception of the Part excluded, enters into force in respect of that State, subject to the provisionsof paragraph (6) of this article, on the first day of the month following the expiration of twelvemonths after the date of the deposit of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval oraccession.

3. A State which ratifies, accepts, approves or accedes to this Convention and is a party toeither or both the Convention relating to a Uniform Law on the Formation of Contracts for theInternational Sale of Goods done at The Hague on 1 July 1964 (1964 Hague Formation Convention)and the Convention relating to a Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods done at TheHague on 1 July 1964 (1964 Hague Sales Convention) shall at the same time denounce, as the casemay be, either or both the 1964 Hague Sales Convention and the 1964 Hague Formation Conventionby notifying the Government of the Netherlands to that effect.

4. A State party to the 1964 Hague Sales Convention which ratifies, accepts, approves oraccedes to the present Convention and declares or has declared under article 92 that it will not bebound by Part II of this Convention shall at the time of ratification, acceptance, approvalor accession denounce the 1964 Hague Sales Convention by notifying the Government of theNetherlands to that effect.

5. A State party to the 1964 Hague Formation Convention which ratifies, accepts, approvesor accedes to the present Convention and declares or has declared under article 92 that it will notbe bound by Part IH of this Convention shall at the time of ratification, acceptance, approval oraccession denounce the 1964 Hague Formation Convention by notifying the Government of theNetherlands to that effect.

6. For the purpose of this article, ratifications, acceptances, approvals and accessions inrespect of this Convention by States parties to the 1964 Hague Formation Convention or to the1964 Hague Sales Convention shall not be effective until such denunciations as may be requiredon the part of those States in respect of the latter two Conventions have themselves become effective.The depositary of this Convention shall consult with the Government of the Netherlands, as thedepositary of the 1964 Conventions, so as to ensure necessary co-ordination in this respect.

Article 1001. This convention applies to the formation of a contract only when the proposal for con-

cluding the contract is made on or after the date when the Convention enters into force in respectof the Contracting States referred to in subparagraph (l)(a) or the Contracting State referred to insubparagraph (1)(£>) of article 1.

2. This Convention applies only to contracts concluded on or after the date when theConvention enters into force in respect of the Contracting States referred to in subparagraph (l)(a)or the Contracting State referred to in subparagraph (l)(b) of article 1.

Article 1011. A Contracting State may denounce this Convention, or Part II or Part III of the Convention,

by a formal notification in writing addressed to the depositary.2. The denunciation takes effect on the first day of the month following the expiration of

twelve months after the notification is received by the depositary. Where a longer period for thedenunciation to take effect is specified in the notification, the denunciation takes effect upon theexpiration of such longer period after the notification is received by the depositary.

DONE at Vienna, this eleventh day of April, one thousand nine hundred and eighty, in a singleoriginal, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equallyauthentic.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned plenipotentiaries, being duly authorized by theirrespective Governments, have signed this Convention.

140

(b) PROTOCOL AMENDING THE CONVENTION ON THE LIMITATION PERIOD IN THEINTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS.6 DONE AT VIENNA ON 11 APRIL 1980

The States parties to this Protocol,Considering that international trade is an important factor in the promotion of friendly relations

amongst States,Believing that the adoption of uniform rules governing the limitation period in the international

sale of goods would facilitate the development of world trade,Considering that amending the Convention on the Limitation Period in the International Sale

of Goods, concluded at New York on 14 June 1974 (the 1974 Limitation Convention), to conformto the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, concluded atVienna on 11 April 1980 (the 1980 Sales Convention), would promote the adoption of the uniformrules governing the limitation period contained in the 1974 Limitation Convention,

Have agreed to amend the 1974 Limitation Convention as follows:

Article I

1. Paragraph 1 of article 3 is replaced by the following provisions:" 1 . This Convention shall apply only'' (a) if, at the time of the conclusion of the contract, the places of business of the parties

to a contract of international sale of goods are in Contracting States; or"(fr) if the rules of private international law make the law of a Contracting State

applicable to the contract of sale.''2. Paragraph 2 of article 3 is deleted.3. Paragraph 3 of article 3 is renumbered as paragraph 2.

Article II

1. Subparagraph (a) of article 4 is deleted and replaced by the following provision:"(a) of goods bought for personal, family or household use, unless the seller, at any

time before or at the conclusion of the contract, neither knew nor ought to have known thatthe goods were bought for any such use;"2. Subparagraph (e) of article 4 is deleted and is replaced by the following provision:

"(e) of ships, vessels, hovercraft or aircraft;".

Article III

A new paragraph 4 is added to article 31 reading as follows:"4. If, by virtue of a declaration under this article, this Convention extends to one or

more but not all of the territorial units of a Contracting State, and if the place of business ofa party to a contract is located in that State, this place of business shall, for the purposes ofthis Convention, be considered not to be in a Contracting State unless it is in a territorial unitto which the Convention extends."

Article IV

The provisions of article 34 are deleted and are replaced by the following provisions:

" 1 . Two or more Contracting States which have the same or closely related legal ruleson matters governed by this Convention may at any time declare that the Convention shall notapply to contracts of international sale of goods where the parties have their places of businessin those States. Such declarations may be made jointly or by reciprocal unilateral declarations.

"2 . A Contracting State which has the same or closely related legal rules on mattersgoverned by this Convention as one or more non-Contracting States may at any time declarethat the Convention shall not apply to contracts of international sale of goods where the partieshave their places of business in those States.

141

" 3 . If a State which is the object of a declaration under paragraph (2) of this articlesubsequently becomes a Contracting State, the declaration made shall, as from the date onwhich this Convention enters into force in respect of the new Contracting State, have the effectof a declaration made under paragraph (1), provided that the new Contracting State joins insuch declaration or makes a reciprocal unilateral declaration."

Article V

The provisions of article 37 are deleted and are replaced by the following provisions:"This Convention shall not prevail over any international agreement which has already

been or may be entered into and which contains provisions concerning the matters governedby this Convention, provided that the seller and buyer have their places of business in Statesparties to such agreement."

Article VI

At the end of paragraph 1 of article 40, the following provision is added:"Reciprocal unilateral declarations under article 34 shall take effect on the first day of

the month following the expiration of six months after the receipt of the latest declaration bythe Secretary-General of the United Nations."

FINAL PROVISIONS

Article VII

The Secretary-General of the United Nations is hereby designated as the depositary for thisProtocol.

Article VIII

1. This Protocol shall be open for accession by all States.2. Accession to this Protocol by any State which is not a Contracting Party to the 1974

Limitation Convention shall have the effect of accession to that Convention as amended by thisProtocol, subject to the provisions of article XI.

3. Instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the UnitedNations.

Article IX

1. This Protocol shall enter into force on the first day of the sixth month following thedeposit of the second instrument of accession, provided that on that date:

(a) the 1974 Limitation Convention7 is itself in force; and(b) the 1980 Sales Convention is also in force.If these Conventions are not both in force on that date, this Protocol shall enter into force on

the first day on which both Conventions are in force.2, For each State acceding to this Protocol after the second instrument of accession has been

deposited, this Protocol shall enter into force on the first day of the sixth month following thedeposit of its instrument of accession, if by that date the Protocol is itself in force. If by that datethe Protocol itself is not yet in force, the Protocol shall enter into force for that State on the datethe Protocol itself enters into force.

Article X

If a State ratifies or accedes to the 1974 Limitation Convention after the entry into force ofthis Protocol, the ratification or accession shall also constitute an accession to this Protocol if theState notifies the depositary accordingly.

142

Article XI

Any State which becomes a Contracting Party to the 1974 Limitation Convention, as amendedby this Protocol, by virtue of articles VIII, IX or X of this Protocol shall, unless it notifies thedepositary to the contrary, be considered to be also a Contracting Party to the Convention, un-amended, in relation to any Contracting Party to the Convention not yet a Contracting Party to thisProtocol.

Article XII

Any State may declare at the time of the deposit of its instrument of accession or its notificationunder article X that it will not be bound by article I of the Protocol. A declaration made under thisarticle shall be in writing and be formally notified to the depositary.

Article XIII

1. A Contracting State may denounce this Protocol by notifying the depositary to that effect.

2. The denunciation shall take effect on the first day of the month following the expirationof twelve months after receipt of the notification by the depositary.

3. Any Contracting State in respect of which this Protocol ceases to have effect by theapplication of paragraphs (1) and (2) of this article shall remain a Contracting Party to the 1974Limitation Convention, unamended, unless it denounces the unamended Convention in accordancewith article 45 of that Convention.

Article XIV

1. The depositary shall transmit certified true copies of this Protocol to all States.

2. When this Protocol enters into force in accordance with article IX, the depositary shallprepare a text of the 1974 Limitation Convention, as amended by this Protocol, and shall transmitcertified true copies to all States parties to that Convention, as amended by this Protocol.

DONE at Vienna, this day of 11 April 1980, in a single original, of which the Arabic, Chinese,English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic.

Notes1 The Convention was adopted by the United Nations Conference on Prohibitions or Restrictions of Use

of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have IndiscriminateEffects, held in Geneva from 10 to 28 September 1979 and from 15 September TO 10 October 1980. TheConference was convened on the basis of United Nations General Assembly resolutions 32/152 of 19 December1977, 33/70 of 14 December 1978 and 34/82 of 11 December 1979. The Convention was adopted by theConference on 10 October 1980 and was opened for signature on 10 April 1981.

2 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 75, p. 1.J Reproduced in the Juridical Yearbook, 1977, p. 95.J The Conference also adopted at its 7th plenary meeting, on 23 September 1979, a resolution on small-

calibre weapon systems by which it, inter alia, appealed to all Governments to exercise the utmost care in thedevelopment of small-calibre weapon systems, so as to avoid an unnecessary escalation of the injurious effectsof such systems. The resolution is to be found in the final report of the Conference to the General Assembly(A/CONF.95/15).

5 The Convention was adopted by the United Nations Conference on Contracts for the International Saleof Goods, held at Vienna from 10 March to 11 April 1980. The Conference was convened by the GeneralAssembly of the United Nations in accordance with its resolution 33/93 of 16 December 1978, adopted on thebasis of chapter II of the report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on the workof its eleventh session (Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-third Session, Supplement No. 17(A/33/17)) which contained a draft Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. The Conventionwas adopted by the Conference on 10 April 1980 and was opened for signature at its concluding meeting on11 April 1980.

6 The Protocol Amending the Convention on the Limitation Period in the International Sale of Goods wasadopted by the Conference on 10 April 1980 and was opened for accession at its concluding meeting on 11April 1980, in accordance with its provisions.

7 See Juridical Yearbook. 1974, p. 92.

143

Chapter V

DECISIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS OF THE UNITEDNATIONS AND RELATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

A. Decisions of the Administrative Tribunal of the United Nations1

1. JUDGEMENT NO. 253 (22 APRIL 1980):2 KLEE V. SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITEDNATIONS

Compensation expressed in a currency other than the United States dollar — Rate of ex-change — Relevance to same of the method followed in determining the measure of damages

In this judgement, the Tribunal interprets its previous Judgement No. 242 delivered on 22May 19793 in which it had decided that the Secretary-General "pay the applicant the amount of15 months' salary at the P-3, step VII level, Including all allowances except home-leave entitlement,which the applicant would have earned had he been maintained in UNEDO's service for 15 monthsfrom 1 April 1976".

Pursuant to the said judgement, the Administration made an advance pending final payment,the said advance representing 80 per cent of the salary plus emoluments due to the applicant. TheAdministration's final calculations showed what it considered to be an over-payment and, ratherthan pay the applicant a balance, it claimed reimbursement of the sum of Austrian schillings 1,726said to result from the application of the rate for conversion prevailing on the date of payment.

The applicant requested the Tribunal to interpret its previous judgement and to rule that thecompensation awarded him should be paid in Austrian currency at the rates of exchange in effectbetween 1 April 1976 and 30 June 1977. Applicant's major argument was that the rate of exchangeshould relate to the period of 15 months during which the Tribunal, for the purpose of determiningthe amount of compensation, ruled that he should be considered as having been in the service ofUNIDO. Applicant added that otherwise the sum paid to him would not in fact correspond to thesalary which he would actually have been paid during that period and which constitutes the basisfor the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

Respondent's major argument was that in accordance with the established policy of the UnitedNations, the rate of exchange is that in effect as of the date of payment. Respondent added thatpayment was not unreasonably delayed by him.

In interpreting its previous judgement, the Tribunal attached much importance to the methodit followed in determining the measure of damages. The Tribunal emphasized that it had fixed thecompensation by reference to the applicant's notionally continued service for 15 months from 1April 1976. This method clearly shows that the Tribunal intended actually to reconstruct theapplicant's career financially for the said period.

The Tribunal distinguished the instant case from the Johnson case (Judgement No. 234)4 citedby Respondent. In that case, the method of determining the measure of damages was different inthat it was fixed by reference to a definitively established amount, "equal to the amount of 2 years'net based salary". There was no notional continuation of service in the Johnson case.

For the above reasons, the Tribunal ruled that the compensation awarded the applicant mustbe calculated by reference to the sums he would have earned in Austrian schillings had he beenmaintained in service over the period from 1 April 1976 to 30 June 1977 and that the conversionof the dollar amounts should be on the basis of the various successive exchange rates during thatperiod.

With regard to the sum of $ 1,000 awarded for costs, the Tribunal decided, following precedentof Judgement No. 234 (Johnson), that conversion should be at the rate prevailing on the date ofJudgement ordering payment, namely 22 May 1979.

144

2. JUDGEMENT NO. 254 (23 APRIL 1980):5 FERNANDEZ-LOPEZ V. SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE

UNITED NATIONS

Compensability of death arising out of an accident while travelling to the normal place ofwork in a supervisor's private automobile — Interpretation of article 2 (b) (Hi) in fine of appendixD — Non-applicability of rules adopted in inter-organizational consultations and creating provi-sions beyond the existing regulations and rules unless such rules are incorporated in the individualrules of the organization concerned

On 23 March 1975, the applicant's husband, a staff member of UNCTAD, suffered deathwhile travelling with his supervisor in the latter's private automobile from the staff member's homein the suburbs of Geneva to the Palais des Nations. The accident occurred on a Sunday and theroute followed by the staff member's supervisor, who was also fatally injured in the accident, wasnot a direct route from the staff member's home to the office. It is not contested that the purposeof this trip on the date of the accident was to attend to some urgent business of the United Nations.The applicant was denied compensation under appendix D on the ground that the accident resultingin her husband's death was not attributable to United Nations service. More particularly, emphasiswas put on the provision contained in subsection (b) (iii) of article 2 of appendix D which excludesfrom compensability injury or death arising out of private motor vehicle transportation sanctionedor authorized by the United Nations on the request and for the convenience of the staff member.

In her application, the applicant argued mainly that the above-mentioned provision of article2 (b) (iii) concerns the case of a staff member travelling in his own vehicle to or from work onan ordinary working day. She submitted that the situation would be substantially different had thestaff member been requested by his supervisor to travel to the place of work in a vehicle suppliedby the supervisor.

The respondent's position was based mainly on his contention that injury or death arising outof accidents taking place during travel to work are considered service incurred only where the travelis along a direct route between the staff member's home and his place of work. This, the respondentexplained, was a new general rule adopted in consultations among the United Nations and thespecialized agencies. The respondent pointed out that the direction of travel, as well as the locationof the accident, did not indicate that the staff members were on a direct route to their offices at thetime of the accident. Furthermore, the respondent observed that the vehicle was not furnished byor at the direction of the United Nations and that the supervisor did not have authority to approvethe use of a private automobile, including his own, for official travel.

The Tribunal ruled out the application of the "general rule" agreed to among organizationsof the United Nations system. In so doing, it pointed out that if such a rule goes beyond a simpleinterpretation of existing regulations and rules, it cannot be considered as governing the relationsbetween the Administration and the staff of an organization unless it is incorporated in the individualterms of appointment or in rules duly established by the international organization concerned.

With regard to article 2 (b) (iii) in fine, the Tribunal ruled that its provision was not intendedto regulate the problems arising out of accidents occurring as a result of travelling to and from thenormal place of work. It related obviously to any other kind of official travel, for instance, whena staff member instead of travelling by train wishes to use his own car. This may be authorizedfor his own convenience and at his own risk. The travelling by car to and from the normal placeof work needs no authorization and falls outside the ambit of article 2 (b) (iii). The Tribunalconsidered the Administration's more extensive interpretation of this provision inadmissible.

The Tribunal found that the death of the applicant's husband was attributable to the performanceof his official duties under article 2(a) of appendix D since he was travelling as instructed by hissuperior. With regard to the question of taking a direct or indirect route to work, the Tribunalobserved that this point was not mentioned in appendix D and that, furthermore, it did not arisein the instant case because the choice of route was not that of the applicant's husband.

For the above reasons, the Tribunal rescinded the decision denying the applicant compensationand ruled that she and her dependent children were entitled to compensation as provided in staffrule 106.4 and in appendix D to the Staff Rules.

145

3. JUDGEMENT NO. 255 (24 APRIL 1980):6 TEIXEIRA V. SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITEDNATIONS

Revision of Tribunal judgements — Limits of the power of revision under the statute of theTribunal

By its Judgement No. 233, delivered on 13 October 1978,7 the Tribunal had ruled on themerits of the applicant's claim that he was in fact a staff member although he was serving as anindependent contractor under a series of successive special service agreements. The Tribunal haddenied the claim but, in view of the length of the period involved and of the circumstances of thecase, it awarded the applicant $3,000 in damages.

In a subsequent application, the applicant requested the Tribunal to revise its aforementionedjudgement under articles 11 and 12 of its statute and to grant in substance his original pleas.

The Tribunal first observed that article 11 of its statute is irrelevant since it refers to a procedurewhich is not conducted before the Tribunal. With regard to article 12, the Tribunal observed thatit can revise a judgement under its provisions only if three specific circumstances mentioned thereinare established. The Tribunal recalled its previous ruling in its Judgement No. 73 (Bulsardf to theeffect that its powers of revision are strictly limited by its statute and that the said powers cannotbe enlarged or abridged in the exercise of its jurisdiction by the Tribunal.

In applying those principles to the instant application for revision, the Tribunal noted that nonewly discovered fact was mentioned by the applicant and that he was merely presenting the samecase in different terms with further argumentation. In elaborating on this statement, the Tribunalpointed out that the applicant's requests in the instant application had been already considered andruled upon in its previous judgement.

For the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal rejected the application.

4. JUDGEMENT NO. 256 (25 APRIL 1980):9 WILLEMS V. SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITEDNATIONS

Transportation of private automobiles to duty stations at United Nations expense — Conditionsfor exercising this entitlement — The one-year time limit for retroactive financial claims

The applicant was transferred to UNTSO in Jerusalem for an undetermined period which, inactual fact, did not exceed 16 months. He transported his private automobile from Antwerp,Belgium, to Ashdod, Israel, and later claimed reimbursement of the transportation expenses. Hisclaim was submitted more than one year after the arrival of the automobile in Ashdod. TheAdministration turned down his claim for that reason, invoking staff rule 103.15, and also becausethe age of the automobile (13 years) and its mileage (104,000 miles) did not meet the requirementof reasonableness within the meaning of administrative instruction ST/AI/176 which regulates thematter.

The Tribunal noted that the Staff Rules and the administrative instruction cited above did notconfer any firm rights to a staff member to transport his personal car at United Nations expenseand that, at the most, they confer an entitlement which can be exercised only on conditions andin circumstances prescribed by the Secretary-General.

The Tribunal noted that one such condition was that the assignment to the duty station beexpected to be for a period of two years or more. Another condition was that the transportationbe reasonable in the circumstances. Factors such as the age of the automobile, the potential losson resale if not transported, and the relative price of automobiles in the locality and at the dutystation were to be taken into account in determining the reasonableness of transportation.

The Tribunal ruled that in the circumstances of the case, transportation of the applicant'sautomobile was not reasonable and that, furthermore, he did not meet the requirement of the two-year expected duration of the initial assignment.

With regard to staff rule 103.15, the Tribunal ruled that it covers all payments due to the staffmember and that the one-year time-limit contained in that article was properly applied to theapplicant's case.

146

For the above reasons, the Tribunal decided that the Secretary-General had used his discretionproperly in dismissing the applicant's claim and rejected his application.

5. JUDGEMENT NO. 257 (30 APRIL 1980):10 ROSBASCH V. SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED

NATIONS

Termination of a permanent appointment for unsatisfactory services — Secretary-General'sdiscretionary authority limited only by the requirements of due process and of a thorough inves-tigation and review

The applicant's permanent appointment was terminated for unsatisfactory services upon therecommendation of the competent joint review body. Before the Tribunal, she contended, inparticular, that the decision of the joint review body had not been properly reached and that theAdministration had failed to carry the burden of proof of the charges of misconduct and poorperformance. She requested rescission of the decision to terminate her appointment and subsequentreinstatement.

The Tribunal examined in detail the proceedings of the joint review body and concluded thatthe said organ had followed the established procedure and conducted a complete and thoroughreview of the case. The Tribunal also quoted approvingly from the report of the Joint AppealsBoard which had reached the same conclusions.

The Tribunal noted in particular that the Administration had scrupulously respected the ap-plicant's right to reply to adverse statements and that the joint review body's report was based onits eight meetings and the hearing of 17 witnesses.

The Tribunal therefore concluded that the termination procedure was proper and that theapplicant's contentions with regard to it were without merit. The Tribunal recalled its often repeatedruling that it cannot substitute its judgement for that of the Secretary-General concerning theevaluation of the performance of the staff member and that this matter lies within the Secretary-General's discretionary authority. Having concluded that the applicant's complaints about proceduralirregularities were unfounded, the Tribunal rejected the application.

6. JUDGEMENT NO. 258 (6 NOVEMBER 1980):" EL-TAWIL V. SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THEUNITED NATIONS

Non-validation of a period of service alleged by the applicant to be the result of an admin-istrative error — Application for compensation for the damages suffered in that connexion — Theapplication is rejected in view of the applicant's negligence

In an application filed on 27 February 1980, the applicant sought to have the Organizationbear the financial consequence of the non-validation of a period of service completed by him 18years earlier, which non-validation he alleged to be the result of an administrative error.

The respondent contended that, since the application had not been filed within the time-limitsprescribed in article 23 of the Pension Fund Regulations or in staff rules 103.15 and 111.3 (a), itwas untimely. The Tribunal noted, however, that none of those provisions related to the filing ofan application with the Tribunal. Article 23 of the Pension Fund Regulations was concerned withthe period within which election could be made for validation of non-contributory service, staffrule 103.15 with retroactivity of payments and staff rule 113.3 (a) with the procedure of the JointAppeals Board. Moreover, the respondent had agreed to the submission of the case directly to theTribunal without making any reservation as to the application being time-barred. For those reasons,the Tribunal found that the application was not time-barred.

On the merits, the Tribunal noted that the applicant was required under the Pension FundRegulations and Administrative Rules to give notice in writing to the Secretary of the Staff PensionCommittee of his application for validation within one year of the commencement of his participationand that he had failed to do so despite the reminder appearing on the form which he had duly

147

signed at the time of his admission to the Pension Fund. The Tribunal concluded that, even if therehad been some negligence on the part of the Administration, the negligence of the applicant in notfollowing the required procedure was the determining factor in depriving him of the validation ofhis non-contributory service, and that the application should therefore be rejected.

7. JUDGEMENT NO. 259 (6 NOVEMBER 1980):12 HOPPENBROUWER V. SECRETARY-GENERAL OF

THE UNITED NATIONS

Application for seeking compensation for the loss of personal effects — The notion of a directconnexion with the performance of official duties — Does such a connexion exist if the loss isincurred during a necessary stopover while travelling between two cities visited by the claimantin the performance of official duties?

The applicant sought compensation for the loss incurred as a result of the theft of variouspersonal effects from his hotel room in Honolulu.

The Tribunal emphasized that, to fall within staff rule 206.6, the loss of personal effects mustbe "directly attributable to the performance of official duties on behalf of the United Nations" andthat, according to the provisions of paragraph 3 (a) of administrative instruction ST/AI/249, theloss should be deemed to be directly attributable to the performance of official duties when it

"occurred as a direct result of travelling by means of transportation furnished by or at theexpense or direction of the United Nations in connexion with the performance of officialduties". (Emphasis added by the Tribunal.)

The Tribunal noted that, since the applicant had had to make a stopover at Honolulu to returnto his post in Apia, he must be considered as having been "travelling" at the time of the burglaryeven though he had not been aboard a means of transport at that time but rather was awaiting thefirst available connecting flight onwards, that his stay at the hotel had exposed his personal effectsto a risk of burglary which he otherwise would not have incurred and that the loss of his personaleffects had therefore been a direct result of travelling.

The Tribunal then considered whether the travelling had been connected with the performanceof official duties. It noted that, while the applicant had not taken the direct route (Netherlands-New York-Honolulu-Apia) and had made a detour to Washington, he had done so after obtainingofficial approval for official consultations in New York and Washington. The Tribunal was satisfiedthat the consultations constituted the performance of official duties. Moreover, it rejected theargument that, once the applicant had left Washington, he had left official duties behind, andconsidered that once the applicant had, in the course of his journey, carried out official duties inNew York and Washington, his travel between those cities and his duty station was in connexionwith the performance of "official duties". The Tribunal concluded that the loss was a direct resultof travelling in connexion with the performance of official duties. Furthermore, it rejected theargument of the respondent that the liability of the Organization was restricted to cases where acommon carrier or innkeeper was liable, an argument for which no basis could be found in therelevant provisions, and further observed in that connexion that:

"The Organization's lack of a right of recovery against a third party, whether a commoncarrier, an innkeeper or anyone else, is not relevant to the liability of the Organization, noris the alleged long-standing policy of the Claims Board, on which the respondent also relies(Judgement No. 254: Fernandez-Lopez).I3 The Tribunal considers the Corrado case (JudgementNo. 209)14 to be irrelevant as it was concerned with a burglary at a private dwelling wherethe claimant resided at the place, where he was normally stationed."

Having regard to paragraph 3 (b) of the applicable administrative instruction, which providedthat:

"No compensation shall be paid for any loss or damage which was occasioned by the negligenceor misconduct of the claimant",

148

the Tribunal was satisfied that, as the applicant intended to make only a short stay at the hotel,there was neither negligence nor misconduct on his part in leaving his property locked in a suitcasein his locked bedroom instead of depositing it in the custody of the hotel.

In the light of the foregoing, the Tribunal ordered the rescission of the contested decision andthe payment to the applicant of such amount as the Claims Board might assess.

8. JUDGEMENT NO. 260 (6 NOVEMBER 1980):!S DENIS V. SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED

NATIONS

Application made to the Tribunal on the basis of an opinion of the Secretary of the JointAppeals Board concerning the receivability of the appeal to the Board — Referral of the case tothe Board

The applicant objected to a decision of 19 March 1979. On 28 January 1980, he had addressedan appeal to the Secretary of the Joint Appeals Board of UNIDO, who had replied that, in viewof the provisions of staff rule 111.3 {a), the case could not be considered by the Joint AppealsBoard.

The Tribunal noted that the letter from the Secretary of the Joint Appeals Board did not informthe applicant of a decision of the Joint Appeals Board but only of the opinion of the Secretaryconcerning the receivability of the appeal and that the Board did not consider the question of apossible waiver of the time-limits provided for in staff rule 111.3 {d). The Tribunal thereforeconsidered that it would be inappropriate to consider the merits of the case at that stage and referredthe case to the Joint Appeals Board for consideration in the light of the relevant staff rule.

9. JUDGEMENT No. 261 (11 NOVEMBER 1980):l6 BOELEN V. SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED

NATIONS

Application directed against a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract — Discretionarypower of the respondent in the matter — Confirmation of the contested decision notwithstandingcertain irregularities justifying the payment of compensation

The applicant's main request to the Tribunal was that it rescind a decision not to renew afixed-term contract. The Tribunal considered the following issues: (1) the nature of the applicant'sappointment and her expectations concerning renewal of that appointment and (2) the circumstancesof her separation from service.

As to the first of those issues the Tribunal found that, on the basis of the available evidence,the Administration had made no commitment about the renewal of the applicant's appointment andconsequently her expectations could not have amounted to more than a hope that her employerwould use his discretionary power to assess her performance and that depending on his findingshe would offer her a renewal of appointment.

As to the second issue the Tribunal concluded, in the light of the documents in the case, thatthe author of the periodic report which formed the basis of the decision regarding renewal of thecontract had not been motivated by prejudice in writing the periodic report in question. It pointedout, however, that the Administration had not arranged for the report to reach the applicant earlyenough to enable her to dispute the contents of the report before the decision not to renew it wastaken, and that there had been no appraisal of the applicant's formal complaints relating to thecontents of the report. In the Tribunal's view, however, these irregularities did not carry suchweight as would be necessary to find that the contested decision was unjust or illegal, and anylosses that the applicant might have suffered on that account had been adequately compensated bythe payment of two months' salary, as recommended by the Joint Appeals Board.

The Tribunal accordingly rejected the application.

149

10. JUDGEMENT NO. 262 (11 NOVEMBER 1980):17 THORGEVSKY V. SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE

UNITED NATIONS

Application for measures to offset the negative effects on pension rights of a promotion fromthe General Service category to the Professional category — Rejection of the application in theabsence of regulations enabling such negative effects to be remedied

The applicant, after serving from 1958 to 1971 in the General Service category, had beenpromoted to the P-l level in February 1971 and then retired in 1978. Since 1975, she had beendisturbed to note that if she had remained in the General Service category she would have receiveda higher pension than she would be entitled to if she left the Organization at the P-l level. Herapplication was therefore made to ensure that her retirement pension was equal to the pension shewould have received if she had taken retirement at the time of her promotion to the P-l level.

The Tribunal noted, first of all, that the "final average remuneration" which served as thebasis for calculating the pension would indeed, in the case of the applicant, have been higher ifshe had not been promoted. It concluded, however, that this case did not involve the applicationof staff rule 103.9 concerning the effects of promotions on salary, which according to the practiceof the Tribunal (Judgement No. 156'8), applies in the case of promotion from the General Servicecategory to the Professional category, nor the application of staff rule 103.16 (c), adopted pursuantto administrative instruction ST/AI/209.

The Tribunal noted that the problem raised by the applicant arose because the pensionableremuneration of staff in the General Service category had substantially increased after her promotionand consequently the person concerned would, from the point of view of pension rights, have donebetter to remain at her earlier level. The applicant invoked the judicial precedent set on the subjectby the ILO Administrative Tribunal in its Judgement No. 257 (Grafstrom),19 and her reasoningwas based in fact on the idea that there was a "common system" of salaries for the staff of theUnited Nations and the specialized agencies. The Tribunal noted, however, that the existence ofdivergencies among the various organizations regarding solutions was still a reality. It then con-sidered whether the solution provided by the ILO Administrative Tribunal in the Grafstrom casewas in conformity with the provisions which the United Nations Administrative Tribunal mustapply. It noted that in both cases the dispute dealt with the salary to be taken as a basis for thepension and that the ILO Administrative Tribunal in the Grafstrom case had allowed the applicant'sappeal on the basis of provision 302.3103 of the FAO Staff Manual, which read as follows:

"When, on his promotion from the General Service to the Professional category, a staffmember's pensionable remuneration would otherwise be reduced, special arrangements maybe made for maintaining the said remuneration at its previous level.",

considering that that text should be given a "wide interpretation" and should be interpreted asdealing with the future as well as the present and as making it possible to maintain the pensionableremuneration "at the level at which it would have otherwise been".

The Tribunal noted that since the decision of the ILO Administrative Tribunal was expresslybased on a text which was not included in the provisions which the United Nations AdministrativeTribunal must apply, the latter Tribunal could not apply for the benefit of the applicant the solutionprovided in Judgement No. 257. It therefore rejected the application, although considering itregrettable that a promotion could in certain cases entail a reduction in pension.

11. JUDGEMENT NO. 263 (12 NOVEMBER 1980):20 ELMOZNINO V. SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE

UNITED NATIONS

Application for assistance under a study programme and for compensation for the loss causedby administrative delay

The applicant had asked for assistance under the External Studies Programme to attend a nine-week course in Russian. After his request had been rejected, he had lodged an appeal with theJoint Appeals Board, which found the decision to reject the application arbitrary and recommendedthat the request should be reconsidered. In the light of the Board's report, the Administration had

150

then decided to submit the applicant's request for financial assistance to the Advisory Panelon External Studies, which had recommended that study leave with full pay should be granted.The applicant, however, had decided not to take such leave on the grounds that it had been grantedtoo late.

In his application he requested the Tribunal to order the Secretary-General not only to granthim special leave with full pay but also to pay tuition for the course in question and in additionto pay him compensation for the loss caused by the delay in his studies in Russian.

In the view of the Tribunal, the language of the relevant administrative instruction indicatedthat its purpose was to invite applications for assistance which the Assistant Secretary-Generalmight authorize if he thought it in the interest of the Organization to do so. The instruction did notconfer a right to be granted assistance and it also did not confer a right to be granted assistanceat a particular time. Moreover, the loss for which the applicant claimed compensation was purelyspeculative and the consequences of the delay in his studies in Russian was so hypothetical thatcompensation ought not to be awarded.

The Tribunal therefore rejected the application while remarking that the delays in consideringthe application for assistance did not meet the requirements of good administration.

12. JUDGEMENT NO. 264 (18 NOVEMBER 1980):21 PIRACES V. SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE

UNITED NATIONS

Decision terminating an appointment in the interest of the Organization, despite the existenceof a prior agreement between the applicant and the respondent terminating the appointment bymutual consent — Such a decision taken in such circumstances constitutes a violation of a con-tractual obligation — Award to the applicant of compensation by way of reparation for prejudicesuffered as the result of administrative delays

The applicant had, following a number of incidents, consented to an agreed termination ofhis appointment under staff regulation 9.1 (a), a solution that had been suggested by the admin-istration of ECLA, approved by the Medical Director and recommended by the Director of theDivision of Personnel Administration at Headquarters. He had also requested the Secretary-General,in exercise of his discretionary power, to grant him the maximum termination indemnity understaff regulation 9.3 (b). However, on receiving the notice of termination the applicant had notedthat his appointment was being terminated "in the interest of the United Nations" under staffregulation 9.1 (c).21 His request for the maximum termination indemnity had, moreover, subse-quently been rejected on the grounds that regulation 9.3 (b) applied only to staff members holdinga permanent appointment, whereas the applicant had held a regular appointment.

The case had been submitted to the Joint Appeals Board, which had found that the decisionto terminate the applicant's regular appointment had been improper and should be rescinded andhad recommended the reinstatement of the applicant or, failing that, the award of compensationin an amount equivalent to 307 weeks' base net salary. Those recommendations had been rejected,but the applicant had been granted an ex gratia payment in an amount equivalent to the 50 per centadditional termination indemnity requested by him.

The applicant subsequently appealed to the Tribunal, which held that in purporting to terminatethe applicant's appointment in the interest of the United Nations, the respondent had failed toappreciate that the contract had already been terminated by agreement and had thereby violated atermination agreement already arrived at which was binding on both parties. In that connexion theTribunal declared:

"An arrangement on the termination of an employment, approved by the parties, iscomparable to an accepted resignation and must equally bind the Respondent. Consequently,the decision of termination under staff regulation 9.1 (c) is ill-founded."

On the other hand, the Tribunal found the recommendation of the Joint Appeals Board toreinstate the applicant highly questionable and pointed out in that connexion that a violation of acontractual obligation concerning termination of services could not be sanctioned by the reinstate-

151

ment of the applicant who had given his approval to the termination: such violation could besanctioned only by the reparation of the loss suffered which, in the case in question, was the directresult of the considerable delay in the payment of the additional indemnification of 50 per cent.The Tribunal held that, while the respondent had finally decided to make the grant of the additionalindemnification, thus accepting the consequences of the termination agreement, the payment withoutany interest of a sum computed on the basis of a salary paid in 1972 was obviously inadequate.Considering, moreover, that the respondent had produced that very long delay, the Tribunal orderedhim to pay the applicant $3,000 in reparation for prejudice suffered.

13. JUDGEMENT NO. 265 (19 NOVEMBER 1980):23 KENNEDY V. SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE

UNITED NATIONS

Application directed against a decision of separation from service for abandonment of post —Determination of the date of repudiation of the contract of employment

The applicant contested a decision separating her from the service for abandonment of poston 3 October 1972. That decision was the culmination of a series of events which had begun withthe rejection of a request for extension of leave, for health reasons, beyond 17 July 1972.

The Tribunal first considered the state of the applicant's health and concluded, on the basisof the documents, that either because of the nature of the applicant's ailment and treatment orbecause of the difficulties of long-distance correspondence and consultation, no proper assessmentof the applicant's state of health and fitness to travel had been made.

The Tribunal then considered the degree of co-operation which had existed between theapplicant and the various doctors and administrative units of the United Nations. In the light of thedocumentation, the Tribunal found that as from mid-December 1972 the applicant had begun tobehave in a manner inconsistent with the discipline and loyalty required by the organization.

Finally, the Tribunal considered whether the decision to treat the applicant as having abandonedher post had been consonant with all the circumstances of the case and whether sufficient justificationhad existed to uphold that such abandonment had to be deemed to have taken place on 2 October1972. It observed that the pattern set for the separation of staff members holding permanentappointments included some basic principles; the Tribunal was of the opinion that those principlesalso applied to abandonment of post. It therefore held that the applicant had been entitled to thefixing of a specific date for separation for abandonment of post. The Tribunal noted that on severaloccasions after 2 October 1972 the Administration had asked the applicant to return to duty orprovide justification for her absence, and that it was not until 2 February 1973 that any commu-nication which might be considered as notice had been sent to her, but it still did not preclude thepossibility of her returning to New York and resuming her post. The decision to treat the applicant'sconduct as a repudiation of her contract of employment had not been taken until 6 March 1973,and the contract should normally have ended on that date and not retroactively.

The Tribunal decided that the determination of the Secretary-General that the applicant hadabandoned her post had been properly made but that her separation had taken effect on 6 March1973 and not retroactively from 3 October 1972. It consequently decided that a sum of $2,000should be paid to the applicant as compensation for that error and that for pension purposes thedate of separation from service should be deemed to be 6 March 1973.

14. JUDGEMENT NO. 266 (20 NOVEMBER 1980):2* CAPIO V. SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITEDNATIONS

Introduction in implementation of a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, ofa new promotion system — Application seeking recognition of an acquired right to the retentionof the former system — Respect for acquired rights means that the complex of benefits and ad-vantages to which a staff member is entitled for services rendered before the entry into force ofa new rule cannot be impaired — Since the necessary administrative measures relating to her

152

suitability to be considered for promotion had been taken prior to the introduction of the newsystem, the applicant is justified in requesting that the former system be applied to her

The applicant, a staff member at the G-5 level, sought recognition of her right to be consideredfor promotion to the P-2 level, notwithstanding the provisions of General Assembly resolution33/143 (limiting the number of promotions of staff members from the General Service category tothe P-1 and P-2 levels to a fixed percentage) and those of the administrative instructions issued bythe Secretary-General in implementation of that resolution. She contended that she had an acquiredright to the retention for her benefit of the former system.

The applicant argued that the system established by the Secretary-General pursuant to resolution33/143 disregarded the system established by the Charter and the Staff Regulations. The Tribunal,referring to its Judgement No. 162,25 stressed that the rules of the Charter were "legally bindingon United Nations organs", that responsibility for their implementation fell upon those who werecompetent to make rules applicable to the staff and that the arrangements made by the Secretary-General to that end must be "consistent with these principles".

The Tribunal recognized that the General Assembly was entitled to demand the introductionof a new system to govern promotions of staff members from the General Service to the Professionalcategory and that the Secretary-General had exercised his discretion in setting up a system ofselection by competitive examination. However, the Tribunal added that the relevant administrativeinstruction (ST/AI/268) had made provision for transitional measures applying to the examinationsheld in 1979 and, as the applicant's promotion should have been considered in 1979, the questionarose whether she had been entitled to benefit from the transitional measures introduced by therespondent.

The applicant argued that she had an acquired right to the retention for her benefit of thepromotion system that had been in force prior to the issue of the relevant administrative instruction.She contended that, since the procedure for her promotion in accordance with the rules of theformer system had been initiated by her chief of service prior to the adoption of resolution 33/143and since her Department had formulated its recommendations prior to the issue of the administrativeinstruction establishing the new system, she was entitled to have the proposal for promotionevaluated according to the rules in force at the time when that proposal had been made. Therespondent contended that the new procedure which he had been entrusted with establishing wasapplicable immediately to staff members whose promotion was to take place between 1 April 1979and 31 March 1980. The Tribunal acknowledged that there had in fact been a change in procedureand that, from that standpoint, the applicant could not claim acquired rights and the retention forher benefit of the competence of the bodies which, under the former system, would have examinedher case.

The Tribunal noted, however, that in the promotion system established in 1957, certain benefitsand advantages had been granted to staff members for services performed: evaluation with a viewto promotion was based on the conditions in which the person concerned performed professionalfunctions; furthermore, a staff member could be included in the promotion register irrespective ofthe classification of the post he occupied. The Tribunal considered that it was legitimate to speakof acquired rights with regard to those prerogatives attached to services performed at the time whenthe procedure was initiated, and apply to them the judicial precedents established by the Tribunal(Judgements No. 8226 and No. 20227) and added that respect for acquired rights meant that thecomplex of benefits and advantages to which a staff member was entitled for services renderedbefore the entry into force of a new rule could not be impaired. As to the case in point, since thenecessary administrative measures relating to the applicant's suitability to be considered for pro-motion in 1979 had been taken prior to the adoption of resolution 33/143 and prior to the issue ofadministrative instruction ST/AI/268, the applicant had acquired the right to have her suitabilityfor a P-2 post evaluated according to the method established in 1957, and not by the competitiveexamination method.

The Tribunal noted that provision had been made for a transitional system taking into accountthe acquired rights of those staff members who fulfilled certain conditions but that the applicanthad not enjoyed the benefit of that system because she failed to meet one of the necessary conditions,

153

namely, to be charged against a Professional post in the staffing table of the Department. TheTribunal concluded that the acquired rights of the applicant had not been taken duly into considerationand that a way should be found to ensure that she enjoyed the benefit of those rights and that shewas given an opportunity to have her right to promotion considered in the light of the criteria usedin the system which had existed prior to the introduction of the competitive examination system.

The Tribunal also noted that, since 1 April 1980, the applicant had been eligible for the specialpost allowance to which any staff member called upon to assume the duties and responsibilitiesof a post at a higher level than his or her own is entitled on the basis of staff rule 103.11 (b). TheTribunal acknowledged that the respondent was entitled to use his discretion in that connexion butit considered that the applicant was entitled to be informed of the change in her status and that,by his silence, the respondent had deprived her of an opportunity existing for her benefit, thuscausing her to sustain an injury for which she was entitled to compensation. The Tribunal evaluatedthe injury sustained as the amount the applicant would have received by virtue of the special postallowance for the period from 1 April 1980 to the date of the judgement.

15. JUDGEMENT NO. 267 (21 NOVEMBER 1980):2* ADLER V. SECRETARY-GENERAL OFTHE UNITED

NATIONS

Does an immediately preceding permanent appointment with another organization of theUnited Nations system confer certain rights on the holder of a probationary appointment with theSecretariat? (resolved in the negative) — Effect of a satisfactory rating in performance reports onthe Secretary-General's discretion in terminating an appointment

After having held a permanent appointment with FAO the applicant accepted a probationaryappointment with UNIDO. Before the expiry of the said appointment a decision was taken to extendit rather than convert it into a permanent appointment. This decision was taken in view of the poorrating obtained by the applicant under the heading of "quality of work accomplished" althoughhe obtained the middle over-all rating of "a staff member who maintains a good standard ofefficiency". No improvement having been observed in the quality of the applicant's work, hisappointment was terminated following the prescribed procedure before the Appointment and Pro-motion Committee. The decision was taken under the provision of staff rule 104.12 (a) on thebasis that the applicant did not possess the necessary requirements of efficiency, competence andintegrity which an international civil servant must have under the relevant provisions of the Charterand of Staff Regulation 4.2.

The applicant appealed the said decision and the Joint Appeals Board recommended that thedecision be maintained but awarded the applicant compensation in an amount equal to six months'salary for certain procedural irregularities which did not affect the validity of the decision. TheSecretary-General accepted the said recommendation.

Before the Tribunal the applicant requested rescission of the decision to terminate his ap-pointment and claimed considerably higher indemnities on various alleged grounds. His majorarguments were: (1) that having acquired the status of an international civil servant holding apermanent appointment with one organization in the system, another organization may not denyhim a permanent appointment on the grounds that he lacked the qualities required of an internationalcivil servant because this would amount to divesting him of an acquired status for no valid reason,and (2) that having been rated in three consecutive periodic reports as "a staff member whomaintains a good standard of efficiency", the decision to terminate his probationary appointmentwas unjustified.

On the first point the Tribunal observed that the applicant's move from the FAO to UNIDOwas not in fact a transfer although described as such in certain administrative documents. Thecrucial fact, the Tribunal ruled, was the applicant's acceptance of a new probationary appointmentwith UNIDO, which meant that he did not carry over his previous status of a permanent appointeeto the new organization. The Tribunal rejected the applicant's contention that he was divested ofan acquired status for no valid reason. It ruled that having accepted a probationary appointmentthe applicant was subject to the provisions of the Staff Rules which give the Administration theoption of either terminating such an appointment or converting it into a permanent appointment.

154

On the second point the Tribunal recalled its previous rulings to the effect that it cannotsubstitute its own judgement for the Secretary-General's regarding the evaluation of the performanceof the staff, provided that the said evaluation was based on a full knowledge of the facts and thatthere was no evidence of prejudice or other extraneous factors in the motivation of the decision.It further ruled that a rating of "a staff member who maintains a good standard of efficiency" (themiddle over-all rating) has no incidence on the discretionary nature of the decision to grant or todeny the applicant a permanent appointment.

B. Decisions of the Administrative Tribunal of theInternational Labour Organisation29-30

1. JUDGEMENT NO. 388 (24 APRIL 1981): BARBAR V. FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATIONOF THE UNITED NATIONS

Termination of a programme appointment for abolition of post — Sincere effort at re-assign-ment incumbent on the Organization — Preferential right of former staff members to be consideredfor vacant posts — Failure to do so — Compensation

The complainant held an appointment without limit of time which may be terminated if nore-assignment is available in the FAO programme. He was informed of the decision to terminatehis appointment as from 30 September 1975 under Manual section 370.1 831 (1). That provisionstates that a programme appointment may be terminated for abolition of post when no appropriatere-assignment is available.

The complainant challenged the decision as having been taken without any serious attemptsto find him a new assignment. The Tribunal ruled that under the relevant section of the Manual,the Organization, before terminating an expert's appointment, must make sure that it cannot findhim a re-assignment. The Tribunal found that the Organization was dilatory in this effort and that,furthermore, one of the substantive divisions refused to help in finding the complainant a suitableassignment.

The complainant also argued that the Organization refused to take account of his applicationfor various vacancies at headquarters. While observing that under the relevant section of the Manual,the complainant may be re-assigned only as an expert and not to headquarters posts, the Tribunalruled that as former staff members, experts whose appointments had been terminated have a certainright to preference in being considered, but not necessarily in being appointed to any vacant post.It ruled that the Organization in refusing to give this preferential consideration to the complainantfailed to take due account of all the relevant factors of his case.

For the above reasons, the Tribunal awarded damages equivalent to one year's salary.

2. JUDGEMENT NO. 389 (24 APRIL 1980): AL-ZAND V. FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATIONOF THE UNITED NATIONS

Termination of probationary appointment — Discretionary decision — Limited grounds forquashing same

On 20 June 1975, the complainant entered the service of FAO under a fixed-term appointmentfor a period of 33 months, including 12 months on probation. Before the end of the probationaryperiod, he was notified of the decision to terminate his appointment with effect from 10 April 1976under staff regulation 301.0913 which states that a probationary appointment may be terminatedif the Director-General considers such action to be in the Organization's interest.

The complainant challenged this decision, contending that his services were satisfactory andthat the reasons invoked for terminating his appointment were subjective and extraneous.

155

The Tribunal recalled the principles established in its case law in similar disputes, namely thata discretionary decision may be quashed only if it was taken without authority or violated a ruleof form or of procedure, or was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if essential facts were leftout of account, or if the decision is tainted with abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusionswere drawn from the facts.

Examining the facts of the case, the Tribunal concluded that criticisms were made by thecomplainant's immediate supervisors who were in a position to form an opinion about his work.The said criticisms centred mainly around the complainant's inability to do practical work and hisinsufficient knowledge of French which prevented meaningful communication with his colleaguesand the national counterparts. In these circumstances, the Tribunal ruled that it was open to theDirector-General to conclude that it would be in the Food and Agriculture Organization's interestto terminate the complainant's appointment without exceeding or abusing his discretionary authority.

The complaint was therefore dismissed.

3. JUDGEMENT NO. 390 (24 APRIL 1980): FLORES-ARAUZ V. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION

Time limit for filing a complaint — Process by which written notification of an administrativedecision is effected

The Tribunal cited paragraph 2 of article VII of its statute which provides that to be receivable,a complaint must have been filed within 90 days after the complainant was notified of the decisionimpugned. In the present case, the decision impugned is dated 5 December 1977, but was notdelivered to the complainant in person until 8 April 1978. Earlier, however, a memo to which acopy of the decision was annexed was delivered by hand at the complainant's residence on 13January 1978, and received there by a person believed to be the complainant's servant. Moreover,on 14 February 1978, the Director wrote to the complainant saying that he had not heard from himregarding the memorandum "that was delivered to your house". The complainant admitted havingreceived this second letter, but did not reply to it denying receipt of the memorandum. He furtherdid not deny that the first memo was accepted at his residence, nor did he offer any explanationas to what could thereafter have happened to it. In these circumstances, the Tribunal found thatthe complainant was notified of the decision on 13 January 1978, more than 90 days prior to thefiling of his complaint.

The complaint was dismissed as irreceivable.

4. JUDGEMENT NO. 391 (24 APRIL 1980): DE LOS COBOS AND WENGER V. INTERNATIONALLABOUR ORGANISATION

Compulsory leave without pay — Right of Administration to impose same in certain casesOn 21 July 1978, the staff of the International Labour Organisation were informed of a

temporary modification in the terms of their contracts of employment, by which four working daysduring the period from 1 August 1978 to 31 January 1979 were to be days of leave and unpaid.This decision was taken to meet the financial constraints of the ILO. It was based on article 4.8of the Staff Regulations which gives the Director-General the right to modify unilaterally the termsof any contract of employment without prejudice to the acquired rights of officials.

The complainants challenged this decision as constituting a reduction of salary which violatestheir acquired rights. The Tribunal defined an acquired right as being one which is enforceablenotwithstanding any amendments to the rules; for example, a right should be considered to beacquired when it is laid down in a provision of the Staff Regulations or Staff Rules, and is of suchdecisive importance that to impair it without the official's consent is to impair terms of appointmentwhich he expects to be maintained. Also, a right will be acquired if it arises under an expressprovision of an official's contract of appointment and both parties intend that it should be inviolate.Not all rights arising under a contract of appointment are acquired rights even if they relate toremuneration. It is of the essence that the contract should make express or implied provision thatthe right will not be impaired. Applying these criteria, the Tribunal observed that the right to

156

payment of the salary is not derived from any provision of the Staff Regulations or Staff Rules,but is contractual and so is immune to amendment only if the parties intend that it should beinviolate. The Tribunal observed that the reduction of salary was both slight and short-lived andthat the decision stemmed from a desire to keep on officials who would have otherwise beendismissed. For the above reasons, the Tribunal ruled that the complainants had failed to prove anybreach of acquired rights.

On the other hand, the Tribunal did not find any violation of the rule requiring considerationfor services rendered since both salary and working time were reduced.

The decision did not apply to several categories of officials such as experts, General Serviceofficials in external offices and those who had taken voluntary part-time employment- The com-plainants argued therefore that the decision violated the principle of equal treatment of the staff.The Tribunal recalled that equality means that those in like case should be treated alike, and thatthose who were not in like case should not be treated alike. The principle is therefore not violatedif officials in different circumstances are treated differently. Experts are paid out of funds obtainedfrom outside the ILO, General Service staff in field offices were exempted on social grounds becausetheir remuneration is lower and other officials cited by the complainants voluntarily helped in easingthe ILO financial burden.

The Tribunal concluded therefore that there has been no violation of the principle of equality.On the above grounds, the complaint was dismissed.

5. JUDGEMENT NO. 392 (24 APRIL 1980): DURAN V. PAN AMERICAN HEALTH ORGANIZATION(PAHO) (WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION)

Abandonment of post — Constitutive elements of same — Internal appeal against decision toreport to duty station constitutes satisfactory explanation for not complying with it

By a decision of 8 June 1977, the complainant's sick leave was terminated and she wasinstructed to report to her duty station. She informed the Administration that she could not complywith the instructions on medical grounds. Thereupon she was informed that if she did not reportfor duty by 22 August, her appointment would be terminated for abandonment of post under staffrule 980 which states "A staff member absent from duty without satisfactory explanation in excessof 15 working days shall be considered to have abandoned his post and his appointment shall beterminated without indemnity". On 23 August, having failed to comply, the complainant wasinformed that her appointment had been terminated with effect from 22 August. The complainanthad appealed in the meantime to the Board of Inquiry and Appeal.

The Tribunal ruled that staff rule 980 must be interpreted in the light of the ordinary principlesof contract law. The circumstances must indicate that the party who fails or refuses to performdoes not ever again intend to do so. This entitles the other party to treat the contract as havingcome to an end and is not obliged to wait indefinitely in case the first party might change his mind.Thus, abandonment of post involves a physical element and a mental element. To the physicalfailure to perform a contractual duty there must be added an intention to abandon future performance.Rule 980 allows the intention to be assumed from the fact of absence without reasonable explanationfor 15 days.

Applying the above to the facts of the present case, the Tribunal ruled a bona fide challengeto the validity of an order is a satisfactory explanation for not complying with it. By challengingit in the manner prescribed by the regulations, the complainant was affirming the contract, notabandoning it. The Tribunal concluded that the nature of the present case does not bring it withineither the letter or the spirit of rule 980.

With regard to the complainant's claim for back pay and reinstatement, the Tribunal referredto its previous judgement No. 375 which had disposed of these issues.

The decision to terminate the complainant's appointment for abandonment of post was quashed.

157

6. JUDGEMENT NO. 393 (24 APRIL 1980): MOORE V. PAN AMERICAN HEALTH ORGANIZATION(PAHO) (WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION)

Selection for appointment to higher post — Irregular procedure — Compensation for staffmember improperly rejected

The complainant was not selected for one of four P-l vacancies put up for competition. Sheappealed to the Board of Inquiry and Appeal alleging that neither her file nor even a summary ofher qualifications was submitted to the Selection Committee. Another Selection Committee wasset up but the complainant was again not selected for any of the vacancies. The complainantappealed to the Headquarters Board of Inquiry and Appeal which found that the two SelectionCommittees had infringed the pertinent rules of the Personnel Manual and that the membership ofone of the committees had been unsuited to its function. The Director-General thereupon decidedthat a review and reclassification of the complainant's post be undertaken and be given effect from1 March 1977 unless in the meantime there was an opportunity to give her priority for promotion.A dispute arose over the procedure followed in reclassifying her post, and the complainant refusedto fill in a questionnaire on the ground that according to her the rules did not require it. She thenfiled a complaint with the Tribunal against the Director-General's decision taken upon the rec-ommendation of the Board of Inquiry and Appeal.

Noting that the Organization had acknowledged that the procedures were irregular, the Tribunalruled that the complainant's plea to have them cancelled no longer had any foundation. She nowhad to co-operate fully with the new procedure for review and qualification of her post.

On the complainant's claim for payment and compensation, the Tribunal observed that bybeing improperly rejected in the selection proceedings in 1977, the complainant had suffered moralprejudice, serious and specific enough to entitle her to damages. In determining the amount ofdamages, the Tribunal observed that the Director-General collected the mistakes made in the regionaloffice and decided that a new review of classification of the complainant's post should be undertakenwith effect from 1 March 1977. The Tribunal considered that this decision went some way towardscompensating the complainant for the material and moral prejudice she suffered.

The complainant was awarded damages in the amount of $2,000.

7. JUDGEMENT NO. 394 (24 APRIL 1980): NEUVILLE V. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION

Complaint brought by the brother of a staff member — No locus standi before the TribunalThe complainant claimed compensation for the accidental death of his brother who was a staff

member of WHO in India. He alleged that his brother had committed suicide because of a mentalillness caused by the WHO treatment of him.

The Tribunal noted that the complainant was not a staff member of WHO, neither was he aperson to whom the staff member's rights evolved on his death, nor a person who derived rightsfrom the contract of employment of the deceased or from the provisions of the Staff Regulations.

The Tribunal ruled that under the relevant provisions of its statute, the complainant had nolocus standi and dismissed the complaint.

8. JUDGEMENT NO. 395 (24 APRIL 1980): TARRAB V. INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION

Grant of a special post allowance to P-5 — Claim that promotion was the proper action totake — Time limit for challenging decision to grant SPA — Discretionary nature of promotion

The complainant was assigned to the ILO office in Aden in October 1974 and again in October1977. On both occasions, he was granted a special post allowance to P-5. Before the Tribunal, healleged that since his assignments were "without limit of time", he should have been promotedto the level of the post rather than granted a Special Post Allowance.

Regarding the complainant's challenge to the decisions granting him SPA, the Tribunal notedthat the said decisions were not impugned before it within the time limit and had become finalwhen the complainant challenged them in April 1978. So long as the said decisions were neither

158

amended by the Administration nor invalidated by special circumstances of time or place, theyremained in force.

In respect of the complainant's claim to promotion, the Tribunal observed that the Director-General of the International Labour Organisation enjoyed, under the relevant provisions of the StaffRegulations, a discretionary authority in matters of promotion and was free, but not obligated, tomake an appointment by direct selection as the complainant claimed that he should have done. TheTribunal ruled that the Director-General's decision not to promote the complainant was not taintedwith any of the flaws which entitle the Tribunal to interfere. The complaint was dismissed.

9. JUDGEMENT NO. 396 (24 APRIL 1980): GUISSET V. FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION

Termination of probationary appointment — Discretionary character of same — Compensa-tion for injury to staff member's dignity and reputation (Denied)

The complainant was appointed as special assistant to the Director-General of FAO at theD-2 level under a five-year appointment of which the first year was a probationary period due toexpire on 17 January 1977. The relationship between him and the Director-General reached sucha low point that the decision to terminate the appointment was taken before the expiry date of thefirst year of probation. The complainant challenged this decision, requesting that it be rescindedand claiming damages for injury to his dignity and reputation.

The Tribunal noted the discretionary nature of the decision to terminate a probationary ap-pointment. It also noted the incompatibility of temperament between the Director-General and thecomplainant, and the strained feelings between them for which it did not hold the Director-Generalalone responsible. In these circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that in terminating the com-plainant's appointment, the Director-General had acted in the interests of the Organization andcommitted no breach of the provision on which he had based his decision.

On the complainant's claim for damages, the Tribunal noted that under any contract ofappointment, the Organization was bound to respect a staff member's dignity and reputation. Ifthe Organization fails in that duty, it may be ordered to pay compensation but only for seriouswrong likely to prove damaging to a staff member's career. The Tribunal ruled that the circumstancesin which the complainant's appointment was terminated did not warrant payment of the damageshe claimed. Feeling no need to consider whether the decision was damaging to the complainant'sdignity or reputation, the Tribunal merely observed that it did not damage his professional position.The complaint was dismissed.

10. JUDGEMENT NO. 397 (24 APRIL 1980): ARNOLD V. INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONUNION

Reassignment to a post with less responsible duties — Allegation that the decision was basedon disregard of an essential fact fails if the decision is based on other sufficient factual grounds

As part of a reorganization of the secretariat of ITU, the complainant was reassigned from herprevious post to a new one which, in her opinion, carried less responsible duties. She challengedthe decision to reassign her, invoking mainly the fact that her previous post had been reclassifiedto P-3 and that the reassignment resulted in depriving her of a promotion. She alleged that thedecision was taken with disregard to an essential fact, namely her performance reports.

The Tribunal observed that the Secretary-General of ITU had given the reasons which, in hisview, justified the assignment of the complainant to new duties. It further noted that it took placewithin the framework of a larger re-organization. On the complainant's argument that an essentialfact was disregarded in taking the decision, the Tribunal ruled that an essential fact can be said tohave been overlooked only if the impugned decision was really taken by oversight. In the case athand, the Secretary-General was well aware of the complainant's qualifications even though hemay not have taken full account of the performance reports.

Noting that the complainant had failed to show that the decision was tainted with any flawwhich entitled it to quash it, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint.

159

11. JUDGEMENT NO. 398 (24 APRIL 1980): MAGER V. EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR THE SAFETYOF AIR NAVIGATION (EUROCONTROL)

Internal means of redress — "Complaint" as distinct from "request" — Statutory time limitsIn 1974, the complainant accepted a five-year appointment with the Organization. On 7

November 1977, she submitted a "request" for converting her temporary appointment into apermanent one. The Organization argued that the complaint was time-barred because it was achallenge to the decision granting the complainant a five-year appointment and should have beensubmitted within the statutory time-limit for challenging that decision.

The Tribunal noted that under the Staff Regulations of the Organization, there was provisionfor . "request" for the taking of a certain decision by the Administration and there was alsoprovision for a "complaint" against an act adversely affecting a staff member. While there wasno time limit for submitting a request, a complaint had to be submitted within three months of thedate of the decision. The Tribunal characterized the complainant's action as a "complaint" andnot a "request." Therefore, the complaint should have been filed within three months from thedate the temporary appointment was notified to the complainant.

Ruling that the internal appeal was not filed in time, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint.

12. JUDGEMENT NO. 399 (24 APRIL 1980): SCHOFIELD V. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION

Failure by the Administration to produce a performance appraisal report — Right of the staffmember to same

The complainant had not been supplied with an appraisal report for the year December 1976to November 1977. He filed this complaint in order to obtain such a report and also claimeddamages for moral and professional prejudice caused by the lack of an appraisal report.

The Organization argued that the position taken by the complainant rendered its obligation toproduce an appraisal report no longer possible of achievement. It further argued that the complainantwas within a few years of retirement, that an appraisal report was unlikely to affect his prospectswithin the Organization and that therefore the issuance of such a report was of doubtful value.

The Tribunal ruled that prima facie the complainant was entitled to have the report for whathe thinks it will be worth. It ruled further that the usefulness of a report was not to be judgedexclusively by the staff member's situation in the Organization. A staff member was entitled tohave such a report for his own satisfaction as well as for use in seeking other employment evenafter retirement. In this respect, a staff member was not confined to the certificate of serviceprovided under a different staff rule.

As to the claim for damages, the Tribunal ruled that there was no evidence of any moral orprofessional prejudice justifying compensation.

For the above reasons, the Tribunal ordered that a performance appraisal report for the periodin question should be provided the complainant and dismissed his other claims.

13. JUDGEMENT NO. 400 (24 APRIL 1980): VERDRAGER I\ WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION

Review of a Tribunal judgement — No provision in the statute or the rules of the Tribunal —Exceptional cases where such a review could be conducted

By its judgement No. 325,31 the Tribunal had ruled on the merits of the complaint by thepresent complainant. He filed a first application for review which the Tribunal dismissed in judge-ment No. 350.32 He filed the present, second request for review contending that since those twojudgements were delivered, the decisive importance of a document had come to his attention.

The Tribunal observed that neither its Statute nor its Rules permitted an application for reviewof a previous judgement. The Tribunal may therefore declare such an application receivable onlyin quite exceptional circumstances, for example when new facts of decisive importance have cometo light since the date of the judgement.

160

Applying the above principle to the present application, the Tribunal noted that the documentinvoked by the complainant was filed in the first complaint by the Organization and that thecomplainant himself appended it to his first application for review. He could not now, in a thirdcomplaint, properly invoke a state of ignorance for which he was himself responsible. The appli-cation for review was dismissed.

14. JUDGEMENT NO. 401 (24 APRIL 1980): CONNOLLY-BATTISTI \>. FOOD AND AGRICULTUREORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Compliance with a previous judgement

In judgement No. 323,3i the Tribunal ordered that the complainant's salary be "recalculatedon the basis that there should have been a 10 per cent interim adjustment instead of a 2 per cent".Unsatisfied with the way in which FAO carried out the said judgement, the complainant filed asecond complaint in order to secure compliance with the previous judgement.

Having looked into the calculations carried out by the Organization and the arguments of thecomplainant, the Tribunal concluded that its previous judgement had been complied with anddismissed the complaint.

15. JUDGEMENT NO. 402 (24 APRIL 1980): GRASSHOFF V. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION

Compensation for injury in circumstances of abnormal risk — Unlimited liability of the Or-ganization — Non-applicability of statutory provisions on compensation

The complainant was sent by WHO on mission to Dacca, then in East Pakistan, at a timewhen the hostilities of the civil war had not yet ceased. On 11 August 1971, a bomb explosioncaused injury to his head and spine and left him with a deteriorating partial disability. He wasgranted compensation under the statutory provisions governing compensation to staff members inthe event of death, injury or illness attributable to the performance of official duties on behalf ofWHO. Unsatisfied with the compensation thus obtained, he filed this complaint invoking theOrganization's unlimited liability for the injury suffered by him.

The Tribunal observed that even in the absence of any explicit provisions, it was the funda-mental principle of every contract of employment that the employer will not require the employeeto work in a place in which he knows or ought to know to be unsafe. This principle is to be appliedwith due regard to the nature of the employment. In some employments there are unavoidable risks.The question in each case is whether the risk is abnormal having regard to the nature of theemployment. An employee was not obliged to run abnormal risks for the benefit of his employer.

Applying the above principles to the current case, the Tribunal considered that the com-plainant's mission to Dacca involved abnormal risks in respect of which he was entitled to beindemnified. The nature of the complainant's employment precluded his having accepted the riskof hostilities in an area of civil war.

The Tribunal rejected the Organization's argument that its relevant statutory provisions limitedthe Organization's liability even when it was at fault. Those provisions should not be interpretedas a clause limiting the Organization's liability in the event of breach of contract. In such cases.the proper compensation corresponds to the loss actually incurred and cannot be settled accordingto a general tariff.

With regard to the interpretation of the term "particular hazards" appearing in the compensationrules of the Organization, the Tribunal ruled that the said term referred to hazards within the contractwhich are inherent in the nature of the employment. It cannot be interpreted as empowering theOrganization to require the staff member to accept risks outside the contract.

For the above reasons, the Tribunal granted the complainant further compensation over andabove what he had been awarded under the internal compensation rules of the Organization.

161

16. JUDGEMENT NO. 403 (24 APRIL 1980): CONNOLLY-BATTISTI V. FOOD AND AGRICULTUREORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Non-recognized staff association — Critical memorandum addressed to the Chairperson —Withdrawal of same if unwarranted

The complainant was the Chairperson of a staff association which was not recognized by theFAO as a representative body for the purpose of negotiation with respect to the terms of appointmentof the staff and general staff welfare.

Although deferring to the right of staff to organize freely, the relevant provision of the StaffRegulations of FAO, as amended in November 1974, authorized the Director-General to maintaincontact and to negotiate with one or more representative staff bodies recognized by him. Theassociation chaired by the complainant was not so recognized.

On 30 December 1975, the complainant received a memorandum which instructed her todevote her entire working time to her duties and to cease using FAO stationery in connexion withthe activities of the staff association of which she was Chairperson. Withdrawal of the said mem-orandum was the purpose of her present complaint.

The complainant's main argument was that the distinction between recognized and unrecog-nized staff associations implied discrimination contrary to the basic rule of nondiscriminationbetween staff members whether as individuals or as groups. The Tribunal did not find it necessaryto rule on this argument. It examined instead the circumstances under which the memorandum inquestion was addressed to the complainant and concluded that it had not been preceded by athorough examination of the facts and that the assertions contained in it were not substantiated.Accordingly it ordered withdrawal of the memorandum in question.

17. JUDGEMENT NO. 404 (24 APRIL 1980): DE VILLEGAS V. INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION

Change of staff member's contractual status from indeterminate to fixed term by agreementwith the Organization — Validity of same

Her post having been abolished in the context of a wider reorganization, the complainant wasinformed of the termination of her appointment of indeterminate duration. She appealed the decisionto the internal appeals body where an agreement was reached on the following points:

(a) That the complainant would be promoted to grade P-4 retroactively from 1 January 1975;(b) That the complainant's appointment of indeterminate duration would end on 20 August

1977;(c) That she would be granted a fixed-term contract for the period from 21 August 1977 to

20 August 1978.The agreement further stated the complainant's entitlements in case the said fixed-term contract

was not renewed. The complainant recognized the above agreement as constituting full and finalsettlement of all matters pending between her and the ILO.

Upon the expiry of the fixed-term contract, the complainant's appointment was not renewedand she filed the present complaint contesting the validity of the agreement and asking to bereinstated to her original post without interruption of service and claiming damages for materialand moral injury incurred.

The Tribunal rejected the complainant's challenge to the validity of the agreement or to itsbinding character. It ruled that the complainant was competent to enter a valid binding agreementon the date on which she signed the contested instrument.

The Tribunal also rejected the complainant's other argument to the effect that there is no textwhich provides for converting an appointment of indeterminate duration into a fixed-term one. TheTribunal noted that although this was true, there was neither any general principle of law or provisionof the Staff Regulations nor any term of the claimant's contract of appointment which precludedsuch a change of status.

For the above reasons, among others, the Tribunal dismissed the claim.

162

18. JUDGEMENT NO. 405 (24 APRIL 1980): RUDIN V. INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION

Supervisor's right to assign provisionally duties of a lower level in the interest of the service —Alleged unfair treatment, in particular delaying the preparation of the performance report

The claimant claims that the chief of her department steadily curtailed her normal dutieswithout notification to her and without having any change made in the official description of herpost. She requested that the said decision be quashed and that she be reinstated in her duties asdescribed in her job description. The Tribunal observed that it was inherent in the supervisor'sauthority to employ his subordinates in the best interest of the department or branch with due regardto their abilities, provided that he does not alter the grade, reduce the salary or show lack ofconsideration. The Director-General was free to assign provisionally to staff members the dutiesof officials holding a lower grade if that was in the Organization's interest.

The complainant had also cited ill treatment by her supervisor, mainly by delaying preparationof her annual report. While agreeing that the delay in preparing the report was unfortunate, theTribunal ruled that the delay did not taint the report with any impropriety, specially since it causedthe complainant no wrong.

For the above reasons, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint.

19. JUDGEMENT NO. 406 (24 APRIL 1980): HOEFER V. FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATIONOF THE UNITED NATIONS

Non-renewal of fixed-term appointment — Lack of recourse except in case of prejudice orillegality

On 25 March 1974 the claimant was granted a one-year fixed-term appointment with FAO.Upon the expiry of this appointment, it was not renewed and the claimant was separated on 24March 1975.

In examining the claimant's challenge to the above decision, the Tribunal cited the provisionof the Staff Rules regarding the expiry of fixed-term appointments without prior notice on thespecific expiration date. It pointed out that an expectancy of renewal or extension is justified onlywhen the circumstances show a continued need for the staff member's services and when the saidservices were satisfactory. The Tribunal examined the staff member's performance during his one-year mission in Chad and concluded that his assignment had not run smoothly. The Tribunal ruledthat in these circumstances it was natural that the appointment should not be renewed. It addedthat a claimant could attack a decision of this kind only if he adduces concrete evidence of prejudiceor illegality. Having found no such evidence in the present case the Tribunal dismissed the complaint.

20. JUDGEMENT NO. 407 (24 APRIL 1980): LEBEE V. EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEARRESEARCH (CERN)

The Tribunal recorded the complainant's withdrawal of suit.

21. JUDGEMENT NO. 408 (24 APRIL 1980): GARCIA AND MARQUEZ V. PAN AMERICAN HEALTHORGANIZATION (PAHO) (WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION)

Internal means of redress — Exhaustion of same a condition for receivability of complaintbefore the Tribunal

The claimant had filed a complaint alleging interference by the administration in the staff'sexercise of the right of free association and the violation of a previous agreement on the subjectbetween the parties. The Tribunal noted that in October 1978 one of the claimants had lodged anappeal with the Board of Inquiry and Appeal and that the Board had not yet given its decision.Thus the internal means of redress had not been exhausted as article VII, paragraph 1 of the statuteof the Tribunal requires.

163

The Tribunal observed that the claimants would have benefited from a derogation from therule only if the Board either by its statements or by its conduct had evinced an intention not to givea decision within a reasonable period. The Tribunal found that in the present case the Board hadnot stated any such intention, on the contrary at the moment when the claimants were lodging theircomplaint with the Tribunal, the Board was on the point of giving a decision.


22. JUDGEMENT NO. 409 (24 APRIL 1980): DE GREGORI V. FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANI-ZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Salary upon promotion — Subsequent changes in the salary scale have no effect on calculationof same

Upon the rectification of his post the claimant was promoted from G-4, step 5, to G-5,step 3. Two months later changes were made in the salary scale narrowing the range of remuneration.The result was that whereas at the time of his promotion the claimant's salary had been 6.4 percent higher than that of his former grade, under the new scale it was only 2.9 per cent higher. Inhis complaint before the Tribunal he claimed a recalculation of his salary upon promotion.

The Tribunal declared itself satisfied that at the time of the claimant's promotion his newsalary was correctly determined according to the applicable rule. The Tribunal pointed out theanomaly represented by the fact that had the claimant been promoted two months later he wouldhave obtained one more step in the new grade. The question which the Tribunal considered waswhether the principle of equal treatment of the staff had been fully observed. It ruled that sincethe change in the salary scale had created new circumstances the principle of equal treatment wasnot involved because all that it required was that all staff members in similar circumstances besimilarly treated.

For the above reasons the Tribunal dismissed the claim.


Written reprimand, incomplete record of the incident — Rescission of the decision of reprimandIn May 1978 an incident took place between the claimant and his supervisor in the course of

which, the claimant contended, he was hit by the supervisor. The supervisor having brought theincident to the attention of the administration, the Director-General addressed to the claimant aletter of reprimand dated 1 June in which the claimant was blamed for having forced his presenceupon a senior officer and having insisted upon a discussion without consent or a prior appointmentto do so. The Director-General cited staff rule 1110.1.2 on disciplinary measures.

Since the claimant had not been afforded a hearing, the Tribunal raised the question of whetherdisciplinary action could be decided on the written record alone. The Tribunal felt that it did notneed to resolve this question since it considered the written record in itself incomplete. In facl, asthe Tribunal noted, it was essential for the Director-General to ascertain what explanation or excusethe claimant had to give. Moreover, the Tribunal did not consider it feasible to split the incidentinto two parts and to ignore the alleged misconduct of the supervisor. In the Tribunal's view adecision to reprimand one party while leaving the case against the other party unconsidered wasopen to question.

For the above reasons the Tribunal quashed the decision to reprimand the claimant.


Change of duties allegedly intended as penalty — Rescission of sameThe claimant alleged that the new duties assigned to him by the Director-General on 3 March

1978 were a concealed form of penalty. In its examination of the case the Tribunal noted thatthough the claimant kept his personal grade P-6, the new assignment was nominally at the P-5

164

level. The use of the word nominally was intended to indicate the Tribunal's belief that there waslittle or no work for the claimant to do. The Tribunal further noted that the claimant remained inthis inappropriate assignment for over a year during which time there was no satisfactory evidencethat the Administration made any effort to improve his position.

Regarding the claimant's claim for damages, the Tribunal noted that a compensation, if granted,would not be for the lack of a worthwhile job since the Organization did not guarantee that. Itwould be for slackness and delay on the part of the administration in looking for such a job forhim.

For the above reasons the Tribunal quashed the decision of 3 March 1978 and awarded theclaimant compensation in the amount of Swiss francs 3,000.

25. JUDGEMENT NO. 412 (24 APRIL 1980): RENSINK-LECLERCQ V. EUROPEAN ORGANIZATIONFOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION (EUROCONTROL)

Request for working half-time — Discretionary decision by the AdministrationThe claimant requested rescission of a decision denying her request for working half-time for

personal reasons. She based her complaint on a provision of the General Conditions of Employmentwhich reads: "Exceptionally the Director-General may upon applications setting out the reasonstherefore authorize a servant to work half-time if he considers that this would be fully in the interestsof the agency." She also invoked annex II which sets out the arrangements for half-time work.

The Tribunal observed that the above provision does not bestow on staff members any rightto work half-time. The Director-General enjoyed wide discretion in granting or denying suchrequests. The Tribunal further noted that the claimant's duties were such that it was difficult forthem to be performed by someone working half the time.

The Tribunal recalled its own case law according to which it will quash a decision of adiscretionary nature only if it was taken without authority or violated a rule of form or of procedureor was based on an error of fact or of law or if essential facts were not taken into account or if thedecision is tainted with abuse of authority or if a clearly misleading conclusion was drawn fromthe facts.

For the above reasons the Tribunal dismissed the complaint.

26. JUDGEMENT NO. 413 (24 APRIL 1980): OVER V. EUROPEAN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY LABO-RATORY (EMBL)

Non-observance of the time-limit for filing complaint — Non-receivability of sameThe complaint before the Tribunal contained three pleas:(a) Rescission of the decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment;(b) Promotion to the next grade; and(c) Payment of study expenses.With regard to the first plea, the Tribunal observed that the decision not to renew the contract

had been notified to the complainant by letter dated 29 November 1978. Since the complaint wasdated 20 May 1979, the complainant had not respected the 90-day time-limit set in the statute ofthe Tribunal and his complaint was irreceivable.

Regarding the claim for promotion the Tribunal noted that the decision not to promote thecomplainant was notified to him on the same date as the decision not to renew his appointment.This plea was therefore equally irreceivable.

On the claim for payment of study expenses the Tribunal observed that the said expenses datedback to 1977. For the same reasons the complaint was irreceivable under the relevant provisionsof the statute of the Tribunal.


165

27. JUDGEMENT NO. 414 (24 APRIL 1980): JOHNSON V. INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION

Fixed-term appointment in replacement of permanent appointment terminated for abolitionof post — Validity of the said action — Claim of duress rejected

The complainant was notified of the termination of his permanent appointment for abolitionof post. While his appeal against the said decision was being considered by the Joint Committeehe reached an agreement with the Organisation whereby his permanent appointment should terminateand a new and renewable contract should come into force the following day for a period of 15months.

The complainant alleged that the agreement was invalid because it was contrary to the provisionsof the Staff Regulations and also because it was concluded under duress and was tainted with anessential error.

On the validity of the agreement the Tribunal ruled that although a change from permanentto fixed-term appointment is not expressly provided for in any text, it is by no means precluded.There was nothing to prevent the official who had left the Organisation from being reappointedand it was therefore equally admissible to replace one kind of appointment with another.

On the allegation of duress the Tribunal noted that in the circumstances of the present casethe complainant was able to make his choice freely and was not subject to any pressure from theOrganisation. The Tribunal also rejected the complainant's allegation that the agreement was taintedwith an essential error regarding the renewal of the fixed-term appointment.


28. JUDGEMENT NO. 415 (24 APRIL 1980): HALLIWELL V. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION

Expiry of fixed-term appointment — Staff member's right to be considered for availablevacancies

The complainant served under successive fixed-term appointments until the last one expiredon 31 December 1977. She appealed against the decision not to extend her appointment. Sheinvoked what she considered to be an incomplete consideration of the facts as well as a violationof the relevant provision of the WHO Manual which requires the Organization to "make everyeffort to employ . . . surplus project staff on other suitable projects . . . ".

The Tribunal noted the discretionary nature of the decision not to renew a fixed-term appoint-ment. Such a decision did not interfere with a contractual right but merely disappointed an expec-tation. In case of abolition of post the Director-General must still consider whether there is anyother work which the official can usefully do and which it is in the interest of the Organization thathe should do. In this connexion the Tribunal cited staff regulation 4.4 which gives preference topersons already in the service over persons from outside.

Applying the above principle to the present case the Tribunal noted that there was a firstvacancy advertised in July 1977 for which the claimant was not considered despite her being wellqualified for it. There was a second post for which the complainant was not considered for whichshe was certainly well qualified. This second post had been created to cover all or much of thework pertaining to the complainant's post which had been abolished. The Tribunal drew theinference that the complainant was not offered the said post which was the continuation of her ownprevious post because a decision had already been taken not to keep her in the service on thegrounds of her nationality.

The Tribunal ruled that where a preference was expressed in the Staff Regulations for personsalready in the service, it was not open to the Administration to ignore that preference for whateverreason. The complainant was entitled to compensation for failure by the Administration to considerher for other posts for which she should have been given preference.

For the above reasons the Tribunal awarded the complainant 8,000 Swiss francs in compen-sation plus 2,000 Swiss francs in reimbursement of costs.

166

29. JUDGEMENT NO. 416 (24 APRIL 1980): DIEWALD V. EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR THESAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION (EUROCONTROL)Status of staff member on leave for personal reasons — Right to reinstatement

The complainant, a translator with EUROCONTROL, invoked a provision of the Staff Reg-ulations which requires that on the expiry of his leave on personal grounds the staff member mustbe reinstated in the first post corresponding to his grade which falls vacant in his category orservice, provided that he satisfies the requirements for that post.

The Tribunal noted that the right to reinstatement was subject to two cumulative conditions:(a) There must be a vacant post; and(b) The staff member must be qualified for it.The Tribunal noted that the translator's post which was vacant when the complainant applied

for reinstatement was of a higher level than his own post. Moreover, one of the qualificationsrequired for the vacant post was that the incumbent's mother tongue be English, whereas thecomplainant's mother tongue was French. The Tribunal noted further that in the new budget atranslator's post of the level encumbered by the complainant was abolished together with 13 othersfor financial reasons.

In the preceding circumstances the Tribunal ruled that the decision not to reinstate the com-plainant was properly taken under the authority which the Director-General enjoyed and was nottainted with any mistake of law or any other flaw.


30. JUDGEMENT NO. 417 (24 APRIL 1980): FOURNIER D'ALBE V. UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION

Validation of prior service for pension purposes — Interpretation of exclusion clause — Per-sonnel action forms as part of the contract

The complainant was claiming validation of his period of service from 23 April 1951 to 31December 1957. Having lost his appeal to the Appeals Board he lodged his complaint with theTribunal.

In the "notices of personnel action" corresponding to the period under dispute the words"not applicable" figured in a space headed "provident fund pension scheme". The Tribunalrejected the complainant's first argument to the effect that the said heading did not refer to thePension Fund. The complainant argued further that the words "not applicable" did not constitutean exclusion clause. The Tribunal considered that the words were ambiguous and must be interpretedaccording to the circumstances. Having looked into the circumstances of the case the Tribunal ruledthat since the claimant did qualify in every other respect the only justification for the statement"not applicable" could be the fact that he was excluded by his contract. The Tribunal added thatthe phrase "not applicable" must, to be given any effect at all, be interpreted in that sense.

On the question of whether a personnel action form was or was not part of the staff member'scontract, the Tribunal considered it unnecessary to resolve it in principle and to say whether in allcircumstances and for all purposes such forms were part of the contract of employment. In thepresent case, the contract was silent on pension rights where it should have said something had theintention been to include the claimant in the pension scheme. In the opinion of the Tribunal thewords "not applicable" in the personnel action form only made explicit what was implied in thecontract. The Tribunal concluded therefore that the complainant was "excluded by his contract ofemployment" from participation in the Fund.

The Tribunal found it impossible to suppose that the complainant was not at the time awareof the question of pension rights and that he was not getting any, and pointed out that the absenceof any deduction from his salary should have alerted him to the fact. Furthermore the complainantshould have realized that the policy of UNESCO at the time was not to grant pension rights totechnical assistants. The Tribunal concluded that the contract should now be interpreted in the lightof those circumstances which prevailed at the time.


167

31. JUDGEMENT NO. 418 (11 DECEMBER 1980): CONNOLLY-BATTISTI V. FOOD AND AGRICULTUREORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS


32. JUDGEMENT NO. 419 (11 DECEMBER 1980): VAN BOGEDOM V. EUROPEAN PATENT ORGAN-IZATION (EPO)


33. JUDGEMENT NO. 420 (11 DECEMBER 1980): CONNOLLY-BATTISTI V. FOOD AND AGRICULTUREORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Reprimand — Effect of signature of same by an official said to be an interested party to theincident — Difference between reprimand and written censure

By a previous judgement No. 274,34 the Tribunal had directed that certain documents beremoved from the complainant's record and remitted to the Director-General for reconsiderationso that he might, if he thought fit, reprimand the complainant for having caused an interruptionof the proceedings of the FAO Council in committee on 15 June 1973. Having reconsidered thecase, the Director-General reprimanded the complainant for the abovementioned incident.

The complainant objected to the reprimand on three counts:(a) It was signed by the Deputy Director-General who was an interested party to the initial

complaint;(b) The Director-General had failed to review the case as intended by the Tribunal; and(c) The letter with its references to the Staff Regulations constituted a written censure and

not a mere reprimand.

With regard to the first point, the Tribunal did not consider that the particular form of signatureinvalidated the reprimand although it expressed the view that it was preferable, in view of the lackof urgency, that the document bear the Director-General's own signature. In rejecting this objectionthe Tribunal noted that the Director-General himself had reviewed the matter and had left instructionsbefore leaving headquarters with the Deputy Director-General to sign and dispatch the documenton his behalf.

On the complainant's second objection, the Tribunal stated that in judgement No. 274 it hadnot intended the Director-General to re-examine the incident. The said judgement left it to theDirector-General to exercise his discretion on the question of whether the complainant's conduct,as recorded in the judgement, was deserving of a reprimand.

As to the third objection, the Tribunal ruled that the terms of the reprimand did not exceedwhat was proper and that it did not amount to a censure as distinct from a reprimand.


34. JUDGEMENT NO. 421 (11 DECEMBER 1980): HAGHGOU V. INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FORADVANCED TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING (INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION)

Non-renewal of fixed-term appointment for abolition of post — Discretionary nature ofsame — Alleged procedural defects

In view of the projected abolition of his post, together with 51 others, the complainant wasnotified that his appointment would not be extended beyond its pre-determined expiry date of 31May 1979.

The Director of the Centre had previously announced in an information note that he was settingup a Working Group to advise him on the staffing consequences of the decisions to abolish posts.The subsequent resignation of the Staff Union members rendered the said Working Group inoper-ative. The complainant maintained that the non-renewal of his appointment having been decidedwithout the benefit of the advice of the Working Group, the decision was invalid.

168

The Tribunal noted the basic discretionary nature of the decision not to extend or renew afixed-term appointment. Under the regulations, such a decision was procedurally unfettered. TheTribunal addressed the question of whether by the information note mentioned above the Directorhad bound himself to a certain procedure. It ruled that the information note could be so construedonly if it was intended to have a contractual effect as between the Organization and the complainant.The Tribunal was of the opinion that the information note did not become part of the contractualrelationship between the Organization and the complainant. Therefore, the Tribunal declared itselfnot empowered to examine an allegation that the information note had not been complied with.

The Tribunal further noted that the complainant did not challenge the decision on the merits.He made no allegations of bias or of having been deprived of presenting his case.


35. JUDGEMENT NO. 422 (11 DECEMBER 1980): WAITERS V. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION

Allowance for stepchildren — Conditions for entitlement to same — Full dependence on astaff member

The complainant had married a Danish staff member having legal custody of a daughter froma previous marriage, and receiving both an alimony from the child's own father and a childallowance from the Organization. After his marriage, the applicant was informed by the Admin-istration that the child would not be considered his dependent and that he would not receive childallowance unless he adopted her.

Complainant then argued that for the purpose of WHO staff rule 310.5.2, which reads "thechildren, if determined dependent, shall be recognized as the dependents of that parent holding thehigher level post", it was sufficient that his stepdaughter was recognized by the Organization tobe de facto fully dependent on him for her support, and that adoption was not required. Therefore,he maintained that as the parent holding the higher level post he was entitled to child allowance.The Regional Director and subsequently the Director-General having rejected his complaints, theapplicant filed an appeal with the Administrative Tribunal.

The Tribunal, taking cognizance of the case, considered whether the stepchild was a "childof both parents", within the meaning of staff rule 310.5.2. It pointed out that staff rule 335enumerates three categories of children, the third one being a category constituted by a discretionarypower given to the Organization to recognize as dependent any child who is "de facto" fullydependent upon a staff member for its support. Staff rule 310.5.2 expressly provides that for itspurpose "child" shall include a child in this category.

The Tribunal considered whether the child was de facto fully dependent on the complainant.It noted that the Director-General has discretionary power to recognize a child as a dependent.Therefore unless the Director-General when withholding recognition erred in law, reached a mis-taken conclusion on the facts or otherwise abused his power, the Tribunal could not interfere. Inthe case under consideration, the Director-General's decision, conveyed in his letter of 16 August1979 — which is the impugned decision — was carefully expressed and fully reasoned. The Di-rector emphasized that the question was whether the child was fully dependent on the complainantor, in other words, whether he was her only source of support. He held that as long as the mother,as a staff member, received a child allowance, this was not the case.

The applicant claimed that the Director-General's decision was erroneous and that he hadapplied the rule in a narrow and restrictive fashion. The Tribunal observed that, apart from thefact that expenditure in itself is not sufficient proof of an established dependency, the question waswhether or not there was full dependency between the complainant and his stepdaughter. This wasclearly not the case, as the mother received an allowance for the child.

With respect to the meaning of the word "full", the Tribunal noted that this could only bedetermined by looking at the text. The language used indicated that all cases in which dependencyis not as complete as it normally is between child and parent should be excluded from the operationof the rule.

169

The Tribunal, holding that the Director-General was oound to this interpretation of the textand that to choose another alternative would be to take the law into his own hands, dismissed thecomplaint.

36. JUDGEMENT NO. 423 (11 DECEMBER 1980): ROELOFSEN V. EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FORTHE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION (EUROCONTROL)

Failure to exhaust internal means of redress — Non-receivability of the complaint

The complainant was challenging the Administration's recalculation of her salary followinga change in her family circumstances. In a letter dated 22 February 1979, addressed to the Directorof Personnel and Administration, she outlined her reasons for challenging the decision and requestedfurther information on the decision from the Director of Personnel and Administration. The word"complaint" did not occur in the said letter.

Having recalled the provision of its statute which makes receivability of a complaint contingentupon exhaustion of internal means of redress, the Tribunal noted that by sending a letter seekingfurther information and explanation on a decision, a staff member was not necessarily initiatingan internal appeal process. The complainant ought to have worded her letter differently and usedterms more closely approaching those of an appeal. The mere expression of disagreement with thedecision was not enough.


37. JUDGEMENT NO. 424 (11 DECEMBER 1980): GATMAYTAN V. PAN AMERICAN HEALTH OR-GANIZATION (PAHO) (WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION)

Date of entitlement to salary increase upon promotion — Staff member not to suffer fromadministrative delays

On 1 December 1975, the complainant was appointed to a post of administrative officer traineeat grade P-l. From 1976, he performed the duties of a P-2 management officer although he continuedto hold the P-l post. He was promoted to grade P-2 with effect from 1 December 1977. Thecomplainant asked that the date of the promotion be 1 October 1976 and that he be paid thedifference in salary accordingly.

The Tribunal noted the relevant provision of the Staff Rules which determines the effectivedate of any change in salary. In cases other than that of a within-grade increase, the date ofentitlement was the first of the month nearest the date of final approval. The Tribunal was of theopinion, however, that if the procedure was unreasonably prolonged for causes attributable to theOrganization, the staff member should not suffer from the delay.

Having examined the circumstances of the complainant's change of status, including a rec-ommendation by the Chief of Personnel to the Director that the grading at P-2 take effect from 1June 1977, the Tribunal noted an internal disagreement regarding the procedure to be followed inreclassification matters, which resulted in delaying the decision concerning the complainant'spromotion. The Tribunal observed that instead of being promoted at the prescribed date of 1 June1977, the complainant thus had to wait six months for his promotion. This delay was entirely dueto the way in which administrative organs work and therefore the Organization should make goodthe wrong done to the complainant.

For the above reasons, the Tribunal quashed the impugned decision and directed that theeffective date of the complainant's promotion to P-2 be 1 June 1977 and that hs be paid thedifference in salary resulting therefrom. Furthermore, the amount of $1,000 was awarded thecomplainant in costs.

170

38. JUDGEMENT NO. 425 (11 DECEMBER 1980): DE BRUIN, DERBAL AND KELLET V. EUROPEANPATENT ORGANIZATION (EPO)

Regrading to higher level — Right to post corresponding to actual dutiesIn 1978, when the International Patent Institute merged with the European Patent Office,

complainants who had been grade C-4 library clerks in IPI were informed that they would beassigned to grade B-2 posts. They appealed this decision, claiming that their previous dutiescorresponded to B-3 posts and consequently asked for regrading.

The complainants contended that they were to perform in EPO the same duties as they hadin IPI, and that under article 11.1 of the EPO Staff Regulations, EPO had to grant them thegrade corresponding to their duties. Therefore they asked the Tribunal to quash previous decisionsdismissing their appeal and refusing regrading.

According to article 3.1 of the EPO Staff Regulations, the President of EPO shall draw upa specific description of the duties of all posts and make recommendations as to the grade warrantedby the post description. Article 11.1 entitles each official to the grade corresponding to the descriptionof the duties he performs.

The Tribunal found that, although EPO had pleaded that the present post descriptions wereonly provisional and would be revised by August 1980, EPO was bound by the rules it had itselfmade. Therefore, the complainants were entitled to grade B-3, since that grade corresponded topost description 3323, reflecting their actual duties. Their claim for a small sum in costs wasallowed.

39. JUDGEMENT NO. 426 (11 DECEMBER 1980): SETTINO V. PAN AMERICAN HEALTH ORGANI-ZATION (PAHO) (WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION)

Reimbursement of national income tax on sum received in partial commutation of pensionrights— "Earnings" defined — Acquired rights, only fundamental benefits and not every con-tractual benefit so considered

In April 1975 the complainant retired from the service of the Organization and received fromthe Pension Fund a lump sum in settlement of one third of his pension rights. Being a United Statescitizen, he paid income tax on that sum and applied to the Organization for reimbursement of thetax. Having been turned down, he filed the present complaint.

The Tribunal noted that the complainant's contract provided for reimbursement of income taxon "PAHO — WHO earnings only". The question was therefore to define the meaning of theword earnings. In the opinion of the Tribunal that term did not, in the absence of an expressprovision to the contrary, include a lump sum paid not by the employer but by the Pension Fund.The Tribunal noted that in March 1953 when the complainant was first employed, there was aprovision in the Manual to the effect that "earnings" included the Organization's contribution tothe Fund and lump sum payment from the Fund in excess of the staff member's contribution. Thisprovision, described by the Tribunal as curious, was omitted from the revision of the Manualpublished in June 1954 and was never repeated. The claimant contended that he had an acquiredright to the inclusion of his lump sum in the earnings with regard to which national taxes werereimbursable.

The Tribunal, in defining "acquired rights", ruled that not every benefit conferred by the staffmember's contract could be considered an acquired right but only those benefits which werefundamental. Observing that reimbursement of the tax on a lump sum in excess of the staff member'scontribution (and not on the whole of the lump sum) was, even while it lasted, of dubious practicalvalue, the Tribunal concluded that the said reimbursement was not a fundamental benefit and didnot therefore constitute an acquired right. The Tribunal added that there was nothing to show thatthe claimant himself considered it to be of any importance at all since he did not protest the removalof the supposed benefit only one year after he had joined the service.

The Tribunal considered the principle of equality of treatment which the claimant invoked,citing cases where two staff members who had opted for a reimbursement of their own contributions

171

were reimbursed taxes paid in respect of those contributions made before 1965. The Tribunal wasof the opinion that there was a categorical distinction between withdrawal of one's own contributionand receipt of a lump sum payment in partial commutation of a pension. The principle of equalitydid not require that the two categories be treated in the same way.

Finally, the Tribunal rejected the claimant's argument based on the practice of the UnitedNations Organization and pointed out what the United Nations Administrative Tribunal itself statedin its Judgment No. 237,35 namely, that its ruling in that case was confined to the tax reimbursementregime of the United Nations and was not intended to have a systemwide implication.


40. JUDGEMENT NO. 427 (11 DECEMBER 1980): DICANCRO V. PAN AMERICAN HEALTH ORGAN-IZATION (PAHO) (WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION)

Charge of misconduct — Special leave with pay imposed on staff member — Non-validity ofsame — Non-renewal of fixed-term appointment motivated by prejudice — Compensation

The claimant, an official of PAHO, ran in the 1978 election against the incumbent Director.The Director was reelected by 18 votes to 14. On 16 October 1978, he wrote to the complainantaccusing him of misconduct. Having considered the complainant's explanations the Director in-formed him on 8 December 1978 that the position he had taken precluded all possibility of a fruitfulworking relationship and that it would not be in the interest of the Organization to continue toemploy him. He therefore put the complainant on special leave with full pay from 15 December1978 to 30 June 1979 and informed him that his appointment would not thereafter be renewed. Theclaimant challenged the said decision.

The Tribunal noted the discretionary character of a decision not to renew a fixed-term ap-pointment and its own limited power of review with regard to such decisions.

The Tribunal recalled that the relevant provision of the Staff Rules required a staff memberwho became a candidate for a public office of a political character to resign from the secretariat.It was of the opinion that the office of Director was not a public office of a political characterwithin the meaning of that provision. The Tribunal further looked into the complainant's conductduring the campaign to ascertain whether any of his acts could be characterized as misconduct. Itruled that in the absence of an express regulation a staff member was bound only by those standardsof propriety to be observed by all candidates generally; otherwise the electoral process would beunfair. With regard to the provision of the rules which characterized as misconduct any conductby a staff member unconnected with his official duties tending to bring the Organization into publicdisrepute the Tribunal was of the opinion that the said provision did not cover criticism of theOrganization's policies in the course of an electoral campaign. The said provision was aimed againstacts by a staff member in his private capacity which were so disgraceful as to bring into publicdiscredit the Organization to which he belonged.

The letter in which the Director charged the complainant of misconduct was described by theTribunal as "highly improper and the Director ought not to have sent it". The Director had, withouthaving heard what the complainant had to say, made up his mind not only that there had beenmisconduct but also that there was nothing to mitigate the extreme penalty of dismissal. He hadthus disqualified himself from giving a valid decision on the issue of misconduct. The Tribunalconcluded that the Director strongly resented the fact that the complainant had stood against himin an election in which the Director had only barely escaped defeat. His decisions regarding thecomplainant were therefore defective as vitiated by prejudice.

With regard to the issue of special leave with full pay the Tribunal ruled that it could begranted if requested but could not be imposed upon a staff member who did not request it. For thisreason, regardless of the fact that it was motivated by prejudice, the decision was invalid. In thisrespect the Tribunal made the distinction between suspension pending investigation of allegedmisconduct and imposition of a special leave with full pay. Because he had dropped the chargeof misconduct the Director could not resort to suspension and was therefore seeking to do illegally,

172

through the imposition of special leave with full pay, what he could no longer do properly afterhaving dropped the charge of misconduct.

On the larger issue of non-renewal the Tribunal looked into the likelihood of co-operationbetween the complainant and the Director after December 1978. It noted that in a letter to theDirector the complainant had written that the election was over and that he believed that he couldhave a fruitful relationship with the Administration. This letter remained unanswered. The Tribunalconsidered that prima facie it was in the interest of the Organization to renew the claimant's contractbecause of his long experience in its service rather than pay him six months' salary for doingnothing and then refusing to renew his contract. In the Tribunal's view there was evidence that thehigh probability was that the claimant would have given useful and loyal service to the Organizationfor the rest of his career. However, the Tribunal concluded that a reinstatement at the point wherematters were would not be in the interest of the Organization. With regard to the compensationclaimed by the claimant for" interruption of his career the Tribunal awarded it in principle anddirected the parties to proceed with some calculations on the basis determined by the Tribunal andto submit any disagreement to the Tribunal for assessment. With regard to compensation for moralprejudice, the Tribunal noted that this was not a simple case of nonrenewal and that the complainantwas the victim of a misconceived charge of misconduct of which the Director pronounced himguilty. The Tribunal noted that the letter dropping the charge contained no withdrawal or apologyand that the illegal use of the rule of special leave made it appear as if the complainant had beensummarily dismissed. The Tribunal awarded the complainant $20,000 in damages for moral prejudice.

41. JUDGEMENT NO. 428 (11 DECEMBER 1980): ROBINSON V. INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNI-CATION UNION

Classification of posts — Discretionary decision — Allegation of discrimination for assigningseveral levels to the same occupational group rejected

In the context of a reorganization of the International Frequency Registration Board, a reviewcommittee was set up to hear disputes over classification. The claimant was notified that he wouldcontinue to be graded P-3. He challenged the said decision alleging mainly that

(a) The right procedure for grading his post was not followed id the Review Committeefailed to exercise its competence and did not give him a hearing; and

(b) That the decision was discriminatory since grade 4 was granted to several other engineerswho were performing exactly the same duties as the complainant.

The Tribunal noted the discretionary character of the decision assigning the complainant toa grade P-3 post and its limited power of review of such decisions.

The Tribunal rejected the allegation of procedural defects because the complainant adducedno evidence of the Committee's terms of reference and because it was another official's applicationthat the Committee declared itself without competence to hear. The Tribunal noted that althoughthe complainant was not invited to address the Committee, his application for review of hisclassification was put to it. There was no breach of his right to a hearing since the right does notmean that he must be heard in person.

On the allegation of discrimination, the Tribunal noted that there were two kinds of engineeringposts, only one of them being held by P-4 officials. The claimant was mistaken in contending thathe ought to hold that grade simply because he was an engineer.


42. JUDGEMENT NO. 429 (11 DECEMBER 1980): GUBIN AND NEMO V. EUROPEAN ORGANIZATIONFOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION (EUROCONTROL)

Amendment of staff rule increasing staff members' contribution to the Pension Fund with nocorresponding increase in the Organization's contribution — Challenge to same — The Tribunal

173

may entertain the challenge to a rule and not only to its application — Proper and valid amendmentto Staff Rides — Acquired rights under the rules defined

In June 1977 the relevant provision of the Staff Regulations was amended to increase the staffmembers' contribution to the Pension Fund from 6.75 per cent to 8 per cent with no correspondingincrease in the Organization's contribution. The complainants, later joined by a considerable numberof colleagues, challenged the said decision and asked that their salaries be restored to the figuresfor June 1977.

The Tribunal noted that the real subject of the dispute was the validity of the amendment toarticle 83(2) of the Staff Regulations. As such the complainant's plea was receivable because theright to impugn a decision subsumes the right to challenge the rule on which the decision wasfounded. In such cases, however, the Tribunal may not exercise as wide a power of review overthe rule as over a decision taken under it.

The Tribunal observed that the only limitation, under the Staff Regulations, to the competentbody's power to amend was that the decision be taken unanimously. In the present case article83(2) was amended by unanimous decision. The amendment was therefore proper and valid.

The complainants raised three objections to the decision of the competent organ. The first twoconcerned discrepancies between the amended provision and other existing provisions of the StaffRegulations which provided for a 1 to 2 ratio between the contribution of the staff and that of theOrganization and required further an actuarial assessment before changing the rate of contribution.In rejecting these two objections, the Tribunal noted that what the competent organ did was toamend the rules and not simply to apply them as they existed. So long as the competent organ wasacting under its power of amendment, it was free to amend the Staff Regulations as it pleased andwas therefore not bound by them.

The complainants' third objection related to the alleged misrepresentation of the facts under-lying the decision of the competent organ. The Tribunal ruled that only the body empowered toamend staff regulations may determine whether the amendments it adopts are desirable. That wasa matter for the governing bodies of the Organization and not for the Tribunal to decide.

The Tribunal then addressed the question of whether the complainants had an acquired rightto the 1 to 2 ratio of contributions contained in the Staff Regulations before the amendment. Itruled that there can be an acquired right only where a particular provision of the rules had inducedthe staff member to join the service and where the amendment of the rule would substantially alterconditions of service. The original provision of the Staff Regulations with regard to contributionsto the Pension Fund conferred no acquired right on the complainants because its effect on theirdecision to accept appointment was not direct enough for any acquired right to arise.

The Tribunal further noted that the amended provision of the Staff Regulations guaranteedpayment of pensions by Member States and that furthermore the Organization decided to includepensions in its budget. This guarantee by Member States and the payment of pensions under thebudget independently of the position of the Pension Fund deprived the question of the Organization'scontribution of all practical importance where the staff were concerned, since payment of thepensions no longer depended on the solvency of the Pension Fund.


43. JUDGEMENT NO. 430 (11 DECEMBER 1980): CHAMAYOU V. EUROPEAN MOLECULAR BIOLOGYLABORATORY (EMBL)

Time-limit for filing a complaint with Tribunal — Non-receivability for failure to observe sameOn 15 September 1978, the complainant joined the staff of EMBL on a fixed-term appointment

tor three years, including six months' probation. On 15 February 1979, he was informed in writingthat his appointment would not be confirmed. This decision was re-confirmed in a letter of 30 April1979. Complainant, maintaining that the decision was tainted with abuse of authority, appealedto the Administrative Tribunal in September 1979. Under the Staff Rules, there is no internal appealagainst termination of a probationary appointment.

174

The Tribunal found that the letter of 15 February was indeed the final decision. Accordingto article VII (2) of the statute of the Tribunal, applicant should have filed his appeal within 90days from that date, or taking into consideration the letter of 30 April, no later than 29 July. Thecomplaint was therefore time-barred and irreceivable.

44. JUDGEMENT NO. 431 (11 DECEMBER 1980): ROSESCU V. INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY

AGENCY (IAEA)

Termination of fixed-term appointment — Interests of a Member State given more weight thanthe Agency's — Decision tainted by misuse of authority — Compensation

Complainant's second two-year fixed-term appointment expired in January 1979. In June 1978,the Agency had asked the authorities of his country of nationality whether they would agree to anextension of five years. The answer was negative. The Agency then decided to extend complainant'scontract for eight months only.

Complainant argued that commitments made to him were not honoured and that the Director-General's decision was in breach of article VII of the statute of the Agency which states that inthe performance of his duties, the Director-General shall not seek or receive instructions from anysource external to the Agency. In his appeal, the complainant asked the Tribunal to quash theDirector-General's decision or to award him compensation.

The Tribunal found that a decision on the extension of an appointment falls within its scopeof review if it is tainted with some such flaw as misuse of authority. There would be such misusewhen, though a decision is formally intra vires, authority is exercised for some improper purpose.

The executive head of an organization should at all times safeguard its interests and wherenecessary give them priority over others and he should not forgo taking a decision in the organi-zation's interests for the sole purpose of satisfying a member State.

In the case before it, the Tribunal observed that the request made to the Romanian authoritiesby the Agency to extend complainant's contract for another five years was clear evidence that thisextension was in the Agency's interests and that the only reason not to carry out the originalintention was to defer to the will of same authorities. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that therewas no evidence that the Romanian authorities consented to the complainant's appointment for onlya limited period of time. Actually they had themselves proposed in 1976 a five-year extension, upto January 1982.

The Tribunal further noted that the Romanian authorities had not explained the withholdingof their consent to the proposed extension. Had they said that they were unable to agree becausethey needed the complainant back, this might have been a sound reason. Even this, however, wouldhave required the complainant's consent, which he did not give since he showed his firm deter-mination not to return to his country.

The Tribunal concluded, therefore, that the Director-General in taking the decision let theinterests of the Romanian authorities prevail over the Agency's for no valid reason and therebycommitted a misuse of authority which tainted his decision.

The Tribunal awarded complainant ex aequo et bono 50,000 United States dollars in com-pensation and 15,000 French francs in costs.

45. JUDGEMENT NO. 432 (11 DECEMBER 1980): DROST V. EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR THESAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION (EUROCONTROL)

Reimbursement of medical expenses — Excluded types of treatmentThe complainant requested the reimbursement of dental expenses for his wife and himself.

His request was turned down because it related to orthodontic treatment. His complaint in respectof himself was declared non-receivable by the Tribunal because it was time-barred. The Tribunalconsidered the substance of his claim in respect of his wife.

175

The evidence submitted by the Organization regarding the nature of the treatment, particularlythe Medical Advisor's report, was considered conclusive by the Tribunal. The Tribunal added thatthe explanations given by the complainant's dentist himself indicated that the complainant and hiswife did not undergo ordinary dental treatment. Since orthodontic treatment is excluded from themedical scheme unless the person is under 16 years of age, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint.

46. JUDGEMENT NO. 433 (11 DECEMBER 1980): VALENCIA GOMEZ V. LATIN AMERICAN INSTITUTEFOR EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATION

Action against an Organization which is not among those who recognize the jurisdiction ofthe Tribunal — Non-receivability of same — Allegation of being part of UNESCO rejected

Having been dismissed from the service of the Mexico City-based Latin American Institutefor Educational Communication, the complainant filed his complaint with the Tribunal against thesaid Institute and against UNESCO.

In so far as the action was directed against the Institute, the Tribunal noted that the saidorganization was founded by the Mexican Government and had not recognized the jurisdiction ofthe Tribunal.

In so far as the complaint was addressed against UNESCO, the Tribunal noted that the Institutecould not be treated as part of UNESCO which had done no more than lend its financial supportand co-operation to the work of the Institute.


47. JUDGEMENT NO. 434 (11 DECEMBER 1980): A'ADAL V. INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR AD-VANCED TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING (INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION)

Time-limit for appeal starts from notification of decision — Exchange of correspondence afterthe decision does not open a new time-limit

Having been notified on 16 March 1979 of the decision not to extend his fixed-term appoint-ment, the complainant filed his complaint on 23 January 1980.

The Tribunal took note of the fact that the complaint was submitted after the expiration of theprescribed time-limit. It did not accept the complainant's argument based on a subsequent exchangeof correspondence. It ruled that the letter of 16 March 1979 was clear and explicit enough toconstitute the decision to be impugned within the meaning of article VII, paragraph 2, of the statuteof the Tribunal.


48. JUDGEMENT NO. 435 (11 DECEMBER 1980): ZIHLER V. EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FORNUCLEAR RESEARCH (CERN)

Scope of the rule on the exhaustion of internal remedies — Service-incurred partial disabil-ity — Exceptional cases where the Organization's liability may exceed the limits set in the internalrules

The complainant received compensation under the internal rules of the Organization for apartial hearing disability estimated at 8 per cent resulting from a work-related accident. Not satisfiedwith the compensation paid him, he filed his complaint with the Tribunal, adducing further argumentsand explanations.

On the question of receivability, the Tribunal noted that the rule which requires exhaustionof internal remedies means:

(1) That the complaint to the Tribunal must rely on the same essential facts and issues asthose relied on in the internal appeal proceedings; and

(2) That the claims must not exceed in scope the claims submitted in those proceedings.

176

Beyond that, there was nothing to prevent a complainant from making submissions which hedid not make in the internal proceedings. Since the Tribunal will apply the rules on its own, thereis no reason to forbid the complainant from drawing to its attention considerations which it maytake into account of its own accord. The complaint was therefore receivable.

The Tribunal noted that the parties were in agreement that the impugned decision was inaccordance with CERN rules. The complainant argued, however, that there was a general principleof law precluding application of those internal rules because the Organization was guilty of neg-ligence. In such cases, the complainant contended, the general liability for negligence shouldsupplement the Staff Rules and Regulations. The Tribunal rejected this argument noting that theOrganization would have incurred liability beyond the provisions of its own rules only if it hadexposed the complainant to a degree of danger incompatible with the normal performance of hisduties and beyond the requirements of his contract of employment.

The above not being the case, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint.

49. JUDGEMENT NO. 436 (11 DECEMBER 1980): SACIKA V. INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION

Agreed termination — Subsequent facts allegedly nullifying same — Receipt of indemnity afterknowledge of said facts bars staff member from invoking them

The complainant was appointed Assistant Director-General of the International Labour Or-ganisation for a period of five years from 15 May 1977. The appointment was not a success. Withina short time it became apparent that there were divergencies between the complainant's conceptionof his role and that of the Director-General. Lengthy negotiations resulted in an agreement in May1979 under which the complainant's appointment was to be terminated on 1 December 1979 andpayment of the termination indemnity be made. The sum agreed upon was actually paid to thecomplainant on 10 September 1979.

As part of the agreement leading to the termination of the complainant's appointment, theDirector-General was to write an explanatory letter to the President of the complainant's countryof nationality, which he did on 1 June 1979. A copy of this letter was sent forthwith to thecomplainant.

On 30 October 1979, the complainant informed the Director-General in writing that the latter'sletter to the President was a very serious breach of faith in that it reflected adversely on thecomplainant's capabilities. The passage which the complainant had in mind stated the Director-General's belief that the complainant could perform many important functions for which his aptitudesand personal qualities would be more suited than they were for working in an internationalorganization.

Maintaining that this development nullified the agreed termination, the complainant requestedthe Tribunal, among other pleas, to award him adequate compensation for the unlawful terminationof his appointment with ILO.

While expressing its belief that it would have been better if the letter to the President had notcontained the disputed passage, the Tribunal noted that the said passage referred to personalityrather than to professional competence. The Tribunal did not conclude that the passage in questionwas written with a view to preclude the complainant's future appointment to an international civilservice post. On the whole, the object of the offending passage was to reinforce the fact that therewas no question about the complainant's personality and integrity.

The Tribunal concluded that the charge of bad faith was unfounded. At the worst, the passageobjected to was an error of judgement falling far short of bad faith, which must be deliberate. Hadthe letter been written with the aim of harming the complainant, a copy would not have beenimmediately sent to him. The Tribunal noted that it did not seem that the letter struck the complainantat the time as an act of bad faith since he failed to protest immediately.

Finally, the Tribunal observed that by 1 June the complainant knew all the facts which he wasinvoking in support of his allegation that he was the victim of bad faith. However, on 10 Septemberhe received the amount due under the agreement, thus confirming rather than challenging it.


177

50. JUDGEMENT NO. 437 (11 DECEMBER 1980): HAKIN V. EUROPEAN PATENT ORGANIZATION(EPO)

Deduction from salary for non-performance of duties — Interest on amounts refunded afterbeing so deducted — Condition for entitlement to same

Complainant took part in a sit-in strike in September 1977, protesting the effects on the staffof the merging of the International Patent Institute and EPO. Complainant participated only duringperiods of free time. However, in December he was informed that a sum would be withheld fromhis salary for "non-performance of duties".

He asked the Tribunal to order EPO to pay him the withheld amount plus interest at 10 percent per year as from 1 January 1978 and a token sum of 1 Dutch guilder in moral damages.

The Tribunal found with respect to the first claim that EPO had repaid the amount claimedafter the complaint had been lodged and that the claim for repayment was therefore withoutsubstance.

As far as payment of interest was concerned, the Tribunal noted that this claim would onlysucceed if the deduction from salary had been unjustified. As this could not be established for afact, the claim was disallowed.

Finally, if the claim for payment of token damages for moral prejudice was to succeed, theaccusation of the Organization ought to have caused the applicant emotional disturbance beyondmaterial damage. As this was clearly not the case the Tribunal could not allow this claim either.

Therefore, the complaint was dismissed.

51. JUDGEMENT NO. 438 (11 DECEMBER 1980): LUYTEN V. EUROPEAN PATENT ORGANIZATION(EPO)

Petformance evaluation report — Discretionary nature of same — Tribunal may not substituteits own judgement for that of the staff member's supervisors

The complainant challenged the performance evaluation report of 1975 in which he receivedthe rating "good". The internal proceedings resulted in the confirmation of that rating. Thecomplainant requested the Tribunal to order that he be given a "very good" rating for 1975.

The Tribunal pointed out the discretionary nature of the assessment of an official's performanceby his supervisors. It noted that the impugned decision contained two points:

(a) The general assessment "good" and(b) A statement to the effect that the Reports Committee, to which the complainant had

requested referral of the matter, was defunct.With regard to the second point, the Tribunal ruled that the Reports Committee was in fact

defunct and that an assessment for 1975 could not be referred to it. On the first point, the Tribunalstated that it may not substitute its own assessment for the decision taken by the President of theEuropean Patent Organization in the exercise of his discretion and grant a "very good" generalassessment.

Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the claim.

52. JUDGEMENT NO. 439 (11 DECEMBER 1980): VERDRAGER V. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION

Application for review of a Tribunal judgement — "New fact" definedThe present complaint was the complainant's third application for the review of a previous

judgement No. 32536 by which the Tribunal had dismissed his original complaint. As a basis forhis third application, the complainant argued that he became aware of a certain annotation on adocument contained in the file and that this new fact warranted review of the judgement.

The Tribunal defined a new fact such as will warrant an application for review as being amaterial fact affecting the decision and one of which the complainant had no knowledge and wasunable to obtain knowledge in the course of the original proceedings.

178

Applying this definition to the case at hand, the Tribunal noted that the document bearing theannotation in question was part of the record in the original proceedings. Although the annotationwas scarcely legible, nothing at the time prevented the complainant from asking the World HealthOrganization to make its meaning clear. He therefore had only himself to blame for not obtaininginformation on the matter in due time. His becoming aware of the annotation much later was nota new fact as defined above.

For the preceding reasons, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint.

53. JUDGEMENT NO. 440 (11 DECEMBER 1980): MOLINA V. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION

Termination of a probationary appointment — Discretionary decision — Appraisal reportbased on prejudice — Annulment of same

The complainant was given a two-year appointment, the first year of which was to be aprobationary period. Before the end of the said period, he was informed that his appointment wouldbe terminated on 24 July 1979. The complainant challenged this decision and objected to anappraisal report dated 18 May 1979 which he considered to be tainted by prejudice.

On the question of termination, the Tribunal noted the discretionary nature of the decision,adding that in the present case and in similar cases, the Tribunal would exercise additional cautionin reviewing a decision to terminate a probationary appointment. Otherwise, probation would notserve its purpose as a trial period. Examining the circumstances which led to the decision, theTribunal concluded that no essential facts were overlooked in reaching it. The Director-Generalhad personally, and after the exercise of great care, concluded that there was sufficient evidenceto show that the complainant had "not satisfactorily adjusted to WHO service". In such circum-stances, it was virtually impossible for the Tribunal to intervene.

On the question of the appraisal report, the Tribunal concluded that the first reporting officer'sprejudice could be inferred from the dossier as a whole and that the purpose of the report appearedto be to reduce the chances of the complainant's obtaining employment with some internationalorganization other than the World Health Organization.

For the above reasons, the Tribunal ordered the annulment of the appraisal report and dismissedthe complainant's other claims.

54. JUDGEMENT NO. 441 (11 DECEMBER 1980): PHERAI V. EUROPEAN PATENT ORGANIZATION(EPO)

Entitlement to expatriation allowance — Entitlement to travel on home leave — Transfer fromone international organization to another is not a new appointment — Acquired right

Complainant, who was a Dutch citizen at the time, joined the staff of the International PatentInstitute in 1970. When Suriname, where he was born, acceded to independence in 1975, he tookSurinamese nationality. In 1978, IPI was integrated in EPO and consequently he became a memberof the EPO staff.

In IPI, complainant had been entitled to repayment of cost of travel on home leave to Surinamebut not to expatriation allowance. EPO denied complainant both expatriation allowance and homeleave travel.

The complainant contended that the date of his appointment to IPI was not the same as thedate of his appointment to EPO. Therefore, article 72 of the EPO Service Regulations, whichapplied to staff members who at the time of their appointment were not citizens of the country inwhich they are serving and had not been resident there for at least three years, no account beingtaken of previous service with other international organizations, entitled him to expatriation allow-ance as from his date of appointment to EPO. Furthermore, article 60 of same Regulations grantedstaff members who are entitled to expatriation allowance repayment of travel expenses on home leave.

He asked the Tribunal to quash the decision denying him expatriation allowance and costs oftravel on home leave, or, subsidiarily, to declare him entitled to repayment of cost of travel forhimself and his family.

179

The Tribunal first examined article 10 of the Agreement of Integration which stipulated thatonly staff members who were entitled to expatriation allowance before the integration wouldcontinue to receive the allowance. As complainant was not entitled to it in the Institute, he couldnot claim it from EPO.

As regards article 72, the Tribunal found Ihat staff members who were transferred to anorganization were not deemed newly appointed by it. Complainant's date of appointment to EPOtherefore was the date of his initial appointment to IPI.

The claim for expatriation allowance, whether it relied on article 10 or article 72, failed.

Finally, the Tribunal considered the claim regarding repayment of the cost of travel on homeleave. It concluded that there was a breach of an acquired right when an allowance which mayhave prompted a staff member to join the organization was done away with. In the present case,the discontinuance of the repayment of travel expenses, which represented a considerable advantagefor the complainant, was a breach of such a right. This claim therefore succeeded.

Complainant was further awarded 300 Dutch guilders towards his costs.

Notes1 Under article 2 of its statute, the Administrative Tribunal of the United Nations is competent to hear and

pass judgement upon applications alleging non-observance of contracts of employment of staff members of theSecretariat of the United Nations or of the terms of appointment of such staff members. Article 14 of the statutestates that the competence of the Tribunal may be extended to any specialized agency upon the terms establishedby a special agreement to be made with each such agency by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Bythe end of 1980, two agreements of general scope, dealing with the non-observance of contracts of employmentand of terms of appointment, had been concluded, pursuant to the above provision, with two specializedagencies: the International Civil Aviation Organization and the Inter-Governmental Maritime ConsultativeOrganization. In addition, agreements limited to applications alleging non-observance of the Regulations of theUnited Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund had been concluded with the International Labour Organisation, theFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the United Nations Educational, Scientific andCultural Organization, the World Health Organization, the International Telecommunication Union, the Inter-national Civil Aviation Organization, the World Meteorological Organization, the International Fund for Ag-ricultural Development and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The Tribunal is open not only to any staff member, even after his employment has ceased, but also to anyperson who succeeded to the staff member's rights on his death or who can show that he is entitled to rightsunder any contracts or terms of appointment.

2 Mme Suzanne Bastid, President; Mr. Francisco A. Forteza and Mr. T. Mutuale, Members.3 For a summary of the judgement, see Juridical Yearbook, 1979, p. 134.4 For a summary of the judgement, see Juridical Yearbook, 1978, p. 138.5 Mme Suzanne Bastid, President; Mr. Endre Ustor, Vice-President; Mr. Samar Sen, Member.6 Mme Suzanne Bastid, President; Mr. Francisco A. Forteza and Mr. T. Mutuale, Members; Mr. Francis

T. P. Plimpton, Vice-President, Alternate Member.7 For a summary of this judgement, see Juridical Yearbook, 1978, p. 137.8 See Judgements of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Numbers 71 to 86 (United Nations

publication, Sales No. 63.X.1) .9 Mr. Francis T. P. Plimpton, Vice-President, presiding; Mr. Endre Ustor, Vice-President; Mr. Samar

Sen, Member; Mr. Francisco A. Forteza, Alternate Member.10 Mr. Francis T. P. Plimpton, Vice-President, presiding; Mr. Endre Ustor, Vice-President; Mr. Samar

Sen, Member.11 Mr. Endre Ustor, Vice-President, presiding; Mr. Samar Sen, Mr. Arnold Kean, Members.12 Mr. Francis T. P. Plimpton, Vice-President, presiding; Mr. Endre Ustor, Vice-President; Mr. Arnold

Kean, Member.13 For a summary of the judgement, see p. 145, above.14 For a summary of the judgement, see Juridical Yearbook, 1976, p. 130.15 Mr. Francis T. P. Plimpton, Vice-President, presiding; Mr. Samar Sen, Mr. Arnold Kean, Members;

Mme Suzanne Bastid, President, Alternate Member.16 Mr. Endre Ustor, Vice-President, presiding; Mr. Francisco Forteza, Mr. Samar Sen, Members.17 Mme Suzanne Bastid, President; Mr. Endre Ustor, Vice-President; Mr. Francisco A. Forteza, Member.18 For a summary of the judgement, see Juridical Yearbook, 1972, p. 125.19 For a summary of the judgement, see Juridical Yearbook, 1975, p. 145.20 Mr. Francis T. P. Plimpton, Vice-President, presiding; Mr. Samar Sen, Mr. Arnold Kean, Members.21 Mme Suzanne Bastid, President; Mr. Francis T. P. Plimpton, Vice-President; Mr. Francisco A. Forteza,

Member.22 Under staff regulation 9.1 (a) agreed terminations apply only to permanent appointments.

180

" M m e Suzanne Bast id, President ; M r . S a m a r Sen and Mr . Arnold K e a n , M e m b e r s .2 4 M m e Suzanne Bast id , President; Mr . Francis T. P . P l impton , Vice-Pres ident ; Mr . Francisco For teza ,

M e m b e r .25 For a summary of the judgement , see Juridical Yearbook, 1972, p. 133.26 Judgements of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Numbers 71 to 86 (United Nations publi-

cation, Sales N o . 63 .X .11 ) .27 For a summary of the judgement , see Juridical Yearbook, 1975, p. 128.2 S Mme Suzanne Bastid, President; Mr. Endre Ustor, Vice-President; Mr. Francisco A. Forteza, Member .29 The Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation is competent to hear complaints

alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment , and of such provisions of theStaff Regulations as are applicable to the case of officials of the International Labour Office and of officialsof the international organizations that have recognized the competence of the Tribunal , namely, as at 31December 1980, the World Health Organization (including the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO)) ,the United Nations Educational , Scientific and Cultural Organization, the International Telecommunicat ionUnion, the World Meteorological Organizat ion, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nat ions ,the European Organization for Nuclear Research, the Interim Commission for the International Trade Organ-ization/General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade , the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World IntellectualProperty Organization, the European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation, the Universal Postal Union,the International Patent Institute, the European Southern Observatory, the Intergovernmental Council of CopperExport ing Countr ies , the European Free Trade Associat ion, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the European M o -lecular Biology Laboratory and the World Tour ism Organization. The Tribunal is also competent to hear disputeswith regard to the execution of certain contracts concluded by the International Labour Organisation and disputesrelating to the application of the Regulations of the former Staff Pension Fund of the International LabourOrganisat ion.

The Tribunal is open to any official of the International Labour Office and of the above-mentionedorganizations, even if his employment has ceased, and to any person on whom the official's rights have devolvedon his death, and to any other person who can show that he is entitled to some right under the terms ofappointment of a deceased official or under provisions of the Staff Regulations on which the official could rely.

3 0 Mr . M. Letourneur, President; Mr . A. Grisel , Vice-President; Lord Devlin, Judge .31 For a summary of the judgement , set Juridical Yearbook, 1977, p. 184.32 For a summary of the judgement , see Juridical Yearbook, 1978, p. 150." For a summary of the judgement , see Juridical Yearbook, 1977, p. 180.34 For a summary of the judgement , see Juridical Yearbook, 1976, p. 150.35 For a summary of the judgement , see Juridical Yearbook, 1979, p. 129.36 For a summary of the judgement , sec Juridical Yearbook, 1977, p. 184.

181

Chapter VISELECTED LEGAL OPINIONS OF THE SECRETARIATS OF THE UNITED

NATIONS AND RELATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

A. Legal opinions of the Secretariat of the United Nations(Issued or prepared by the Office of Legal Affairs)

1. THE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION AS A BASIC PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THECHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS AS ITS BASIC SOURCE — DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRINCIPLEIN OTHER INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS, PARTICULARLY AS TO ITS DIFFERENT FORMS OF IM-PLEMENTATION — INDEPENDENT STATEHOOD AS THE MOST COMMON FORM OF IMPLEMEN-TATION CHOSEN — THE FREE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION REQUIRESTHAT THIS ALTERNATIVE BE AVAILABLE

Memorandum to the Secretary-General

1. The basic authoritative source for the principle of self-determination as it presently governsinternational relations is the Charter of the United Nations. Article 1 of the Charter lists as one ofthe purposes of the Organization the development of friendly relations among nations based onrespect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. The principle is furtherreferred to in Article 55 and Articles 73 and 76 further deal with some aspects of the principle.Apart from these very general provisions, however, the Charter does not elaborate on the elementsthat give concrete application to the principle.

2. It has been the role of the United Nations therefore not only to ensure respect for the rightof self-determination as a basic principle of international law, but also to develop the subsidiaryprinciples that govern lawful implementation of the right of self-determination. In this connexion,attention had to be given, among other aspects, to the question as to what legitimate formsimplementation of self-determination can take.

3. The General Assembly has addressed this task at two different levels: 1° at the generaltheoretical level by adopting authoritative more detailed restatements of the principle and 2° at theconcrete level by dealing with actual individual cases of self-determination.

4. The major formal restatements of the principle of self-determination are contained inresolution 1514 (XV) of 1960 (Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countriesand Peoples), the two International Covenants on Human Rights of 1966 (Article 1) and resolution2625 (XXV) of 1970 (Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relationsand Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations).

5. The Declaration of 1960 and the Covenants on International Human Rights do not elaborateon the form that self-determination can take. However, at the same session when the Declarationon the Granting of Independence was adopted, the General Assembly dealt with certain aspects ofthe principle of self-determination in a more detailed way in a separate resolution, namely resolution1541 (XV) concerning "Principles which should guide Members in determining whether or not anobligation exists to transmit the information called for under Article 73e of the Charter". PrincipleVI of this resolution specifically deals with the form of self-determination by stating that:

"A Non-Self-Governing Territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self-government by:

"(«) Emergence as a sovereign independent State;"(6) Free association with an independent State; or

182

"(c) Integration with an independent State."

Principles VII, VIII and IX elaborate on the conditions under which free association or integrationare acceptable. The Principles of this resolution have been a basic guideline for United Nationsactivities in the field of decolonization.

6. The most elaborate authoritative general statement on the principle of self-determinationis contained in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relationsand this text is also explicit on the question of form of self-determination. According to thisDeclaration

"The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or inte-gration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freelydetermined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination bythat People."

7. At the concrete level of individual implementation, the history of the United Nationsshows an impressive record of cases in which the Organization has been involved in the processof self-determination. This practice reveals that statehood has been resorted to as the most commonand thus normal form of attainment of self-determination. Thus, on a total of 74 cases of self-determination that are on record for the period between the entry into force of the Charter and thebeginning of 1979, 70 cases relate to territories that achieved self-determination by obtainingindependent statehood. Two cases involved the integration with an independent State (West Irian,integrated with Indonesia, and Ifni, integrated with Morocco) and two resulted in free associationwith an independent State (Mariana Islands, which became a free associated State of the UnitedStates, and Niue, which opted for self-government in free association with New Zealand).

8. In conclusion, it can be said that the practice of the United Nations, both at the levelof elaboration of general principles and at the level of concrete implementation of those princi-ples, has established that statehood is a legitimate mode of implementation of the right of self-determination. Statehood has even emerged as the most common and thus normal form of self-determination and the General Assembly cannot be expected to accept any other form unless thepeoples choosing a status different from independent statehood do so notwithstanding that inde-pendent statehood is a clearly available alternative.

29 August 1980

2. QUESTION WHETHER THE UNITED NATIONS IS LIABLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF RENT FOR PREMISESOCCUPIED BY A UNITED NATIONS PEACE-KEEPING FORCE STATIONED IN A MEMBER STATE WITHTHE LATTER'S CONSENT — RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HOST STATE, UNDER EXISTING AGREE-MENTS AND CURRENT PRACTICE, TO PROVIDE A PEACE-KEEPING FORCE WITH THE NECESSARYPREMISES

Memorandum to the Assistant Director for Peace-Keeping Matters andSpecial Assignments, Office of Financial Services

1. I refer to your memorandum of 14 and 23 January 1980 by which you sent us copies ofletters from the Deputy Permanent Representative of [name of a Member State] relating to claimsfrom certain local commercial entities for rent allegedly owed by the United Nations for theoccupation by United Nations peace-keeping forces of buildings owned by these companies in theMember State concerned. You requested our opinion as to whether the United Nations is liable forthe payment of rent for the occupation of these buildings.

2. This matter raises the general issue of a host State's obligations with regard to the provisionof accommodation for a United Nations peace-keeping force which it accepts in its territory. Theprovisions of past status of forces agreements and the practice followed with regard to past andpresent peace-keeping operations have established the principle that it is the host State's respon-sibility to provide a peace-keeping force with the premises necessary for the accommodation and

183

the fulfilment of the functions of a force, and that such accommodation is provided at no cost tothe United Nations.

3. In the present instance, it is relevant to recall that an understanding was reached betweenthe Government concerned and the United Nations according to which, pending the conclusion ofa new status of the force agreement, the provisions and principles of an earlier agreement wouldbe applicable. Under that agreement the Government of the host State undertook to provide, inagreement with the Commander, such areas for headquarters, camps, or other premises as mightbe necessary for the accommodation and the fulfilment of the functions of the force.

4. From the information provided in your memoranda of 14 and 23 January and in theattachments, it would appear that the premises to which the claims relate fall in the category ofpremises envisaged by the provision referred to above. The payment of rent for those premises istherefore an issue between the Government of the host State and the local companies owning thebuildings, and is not the responsibility of the United Nations.

5. This conclusion based on the general principles governing United Nations peace-keepingoperations is of course subject to any divergent specific arrangements which may have been madewith regard to any of the premises at the time of their occupation. The information which wedispose of thus far does not indicate the existence of such special arrangements and our commu-nications with the Government concerned as well as the reports of the Secretary-General to theSecurity Council show that the United Nations assumed that the general principle of host country'sresponsibility was applicable. The question of the liability of the United Nations with regard tospecific claims may have to be reviewed, however, in the light of additional information that maybe brought to our attention.

15 February 1980

3. LIABILITY OF THE UNITED NATIONS IN CASE OF ACCIDENTS INVOLVING BRITISH-OWNED ANDOPERATED HELICOPTERS PUT AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS FORCE IN CYPRUS(UNFICYP) — QUESTION WHETHER THE UNITED NATIONS OR THE GOVERNMENT OF THECONTINGENT TO WHICH THE HELICOPTERS BELONG WOULD ULTIMATELY HAVE TO BEAR THECOST OF POSSIBLE COMPENSATION — SPECIFIC CASE OF PASSENGERS FLYING THE HELICOPTERSUNDER INSTRUCTIONS OR WITH THE AUTHORIZATION OF U N F I C Y P AUTHORITIES OTHER THANTHE BRITISH CONTINGENT AUTHORITIES — ADVISABILITY OF OBTAINING INSURANCE FOR SUCHRISKS AS THE UNITED KINGDOM IS NOT CLEARLY PREPARED TO ASSUME

Memorandum to the Officer-in-Charge, Field Operations Division,Office of General Services

1. You requested our advice as to whether British-owned helicopters used by UNFICYPcould be considered United Nations aircraft as outlined on page D-50 (para. l(a)) of the FieldAdministration Handbook and whether, in case of accidents, the United Nations could be heldliable by authorized visitors to UNFICYP travelling in those helicopters.

2. The helicopters used by UNFICYP belong to and are operated by either "Army aviationflight" or "Flight 84 Squadron, RAF (Whirlwind)". These two units are part of the Britishcontingent of UNFICYP and they are identified as such in the periodic reports on UNFICYP bythe Secretary-General to the Security Council. The crew members of the helicopters are membersof the British contingent of UNFICYP and the helicopter flights take place in the context of theoperations of UNFICYP. Through the chain of command, the operations in which the helicoptersare involved take place under the ultimate authority of the UNFICYP Force Commander and arethe responsibility of the United Nations. The circumstances under which the British-owned heli-copters are put at the disposal of UNFICYP thus lead to the conclusion that these helicopters shouldbe considered as United Nations aircraft.

3. As the carrier, it is the United Nations that could and normally would be held liable bythird parties in case of accidents involving UNFICYP helicopters and causing damage or injuries

184

to these parties; therefore third-party claims should normally be expected to be addressed to theUnited Nations. Whether it is the United Nations or the Government of the contingent to whichthe helicopters belong that ultimately would have to bear the cost of possible compensation,however, is a matter which has to be considered in the light of the arrangements which exist betweenthe United Nations and the Government with regard to the use of the latter's helicopters in UNFICYP.

4. A search of our files as well as inquiries made with your Office and the Office of FinancialServices seem to indicate that there exists no formal agreement between the United Nations andthe United Kingdom specifically and explicitly dealing with the provision of helicopters by thelatter to UNFICYP. There seems always to have been an understanding that the helicopters attachedto the British contingent are provided free of charge to UNFICYP in accordance with the generalprinciple that the cost of the British participation in UNFICYP is borne by the United Kingdom.Relevant in this connexion is the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of theUnited Kingdom and the United Nations concerning assistance to be provided by the Governmentof the United Kingdom in the logistic support of UNFICYP, which was signed and came into effecton 11 December 1979. Under the terms of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the UnitedKingdom "will continue to provide for members of the British Contingent, at no cost to the UnitedNations, all the logistic support that it would normally provide if they were serving in field conditionsunder United Kingdom command" (para. 3). From this provision it can be assumed that the UnitedKingdom is prepared, with regard to the helicopters provided to UNFICYP, to bear the risk of costof compensation to be paid in case of accidents to its own contingent members and probably tothird parties on the ground and passengers in the helicopters who have been authorized by UnitedKingdom authorities to fly in the helicopters provided to UNFICYP. The MOU, however, is silentwith regard to members of other UNFICYP contingents or of the UNFICYP Headquarters staff aswell as visitors to UNFICYP, all of whom may be directed or authorized by UNFICYP authoritiesother than the British contingent authorities to fly in the helicopters of the British contingent. Whilethe MOU lists various instances of logistic support to be provided by the United Kingdom to otherUNFICYP elements, it does not refer, explicitly or implicitly, to the use of British contingenthelicopters by passengers other than members of that contingent. It can be mentioned, however,that in accordance with the MOU the logistic support to other elements of UNFICYP is normally"at United Nations' expense" (para. 4), which may be an indication that it might be incorrect topresume that the United Kingdom would be prepared to assume financial liability for accidentclaims by, e.g., visitors to UNFICYP who have been authorized by the United Nations to fly inthe UNFICYP helicopters. On the other hand, the United Nations could request the United Kingdomto pay any claims arising out of the fault or negligence of the helicopter's British crew or basicdefects of the aircraft furnished by the United Kingdom. But, where the aircraft was being operatedon United Nations duties at the time of accident, the United Kingdom might not be liable unlessit had previously agreed with the United Nations to be so liable.

5. Although there seems to be no doubt that passengers such as authorized visitors toUNFICYP can hold the United Nations initially liable in case of accidents with the helicopters ofthe British contingent of UNFICYP, there appears, from the information available to us, to beuncertainty about whether the United Nations or the Government of the United Kingdom mayultimately have to bear the cost of any payment of compensation. In view of the financial riskinvolved and the possible need to arrange insurance coverage it is highly advisable to consult withthe United Kingdom authorities on this matter. In this connexion, reference should be made to partof regulation 16 of the Regulations for UNFICYP according to which "[w]ithin the limits ofavailable voluntary contributions [the Secretary-General] shall make provisions for the settlementof claims arising with respect to the force that are not settled by the Governments providingcontingents or the Government of Cyprus". It should be ascertained to what extent the UnitedKingdom is prepared to assume responsibility or liability for claims arising out of accidents involvinghelicopters of its contingent, and insurance should be obtained for such risks as the United Kingdomis not clearly prepared to assume.

16 May 1980

185

4. QUESTION WHETHER A CO-OPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ECONOMIC COMMISSION FORLATIN AMERICA AND A MEMBER STATE COULD BE MODIFIED TO THE EFFECT OF RENDERINGTHE CONVENTION ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS INAPPLICABLETO OFFICIALS OF THE NATIONALITY OF THAT STATE — PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY OF TREATMENTOF STAFF MEMBERS

Letter to the Director of a governmental agency

You raised the question of the possible modification of the Co-operation Agreement betweenthe Economic Commission for Latin America and [name of a Member State]. The proposedmodification would exclude from the operation of article 10, which makes applicable the Conventionon the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, all officials of the nationality of that State.

From a formal point of view, this proposal constitutes an ex post facto reservation to theConvention to which the State concerned acceded in 1974. It would have the effect of discriminatingbetween United Nations officials on the ground of nationality, thereby completely undermining theprinciple of equality of treatment of staff members. For these reasons, the United Nations is unableto accept the proposal.

Furthermore, even if the United Nations were to accept this proposal, a staff member who issubject to national tax in addition to his United Nations staff assessment would be entitled to thereimbursement of his national income tax through the United Nations procedures for such reim-bursement. From the point of view of the fiscal authorities, the end result would be the same inthis case whether the staff member is taxed by the Government or by the staff assessment, as anyamounts taxed by the Government would be charged against its credits or contributions madeavailable by it.

We also wish to point out that the tax exemption provisions of the Convention only apply to"officials", that is to staff members serving on a regular staff appointment, and not to experts orconsultants.

20 November 1980

5. ADVICE ON THE LEGAL BASIS FOR A CLAIM FOR DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF A CRIMINAL ASSAULTON A DRIVER FROM A U N H C R OFFICE IN THE TERRITORY OF A MEMBER STATE BY SOLDIERSFROM A NEIGHBOURING COUNTRY

Memorandum to the Regional Representative, New York Liaison Office of the Office ofthe United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

1. Reference is made to your memorandum dated 29 January 1980 with which you transmitteda copy of a cable received from the UNHCR Branch Office in [name of a Member State]. In thisconnexion we understand that you have inquired whether there is a legal basis on which the HighCommissioner for Refugees may present a claim for damages arising out of the assault on a UNHCRdriver by soldiers from a neighbouring country, and the related compelling of the driver to transportthe soldiers in a UNHCR vehicle.

2. From the facts contained in the cable, it appears that the assault and related acts werecriminal in nature and that in principle they do afford a legal basis for a claim for damages suchas medical and hospital expenses, physical and mental pain and suffering, loss of services andadministrative costs of the United Nations. The party to whom the UNHCR would look forsatisfaction would be the Government of the Member State where the incident occurred, which isresponsible for the necessary protection and safety of United Nations personnel performing officialfunctions in its territory. The obligations of the Government in this connexion are derived fromits sovereignty and therefore cannot be presumed to be diminished by the fact that the criminal actswere committed by members of a foreign military force temporarily stationed in its territory at itsrequest.

186

3. The question whether or not to present a claim should, we believe, be settled by the Officeof the High Commissioner for Refugees in line with the practice of the Office in similar casestaking into account the situation in the Member State concerned, the relations between the HighCommissioner and the Government as well as the steps taken by the Government to prevent arecurrence. In the event the High Commissioner should wish to proceed with a claim the Officeof Legal Affairs is of the view that all relevant facts must first be firmly established and documentedto the extent possible. Thereafter the Office of Legal Affairs would be in a position to proceed withthe actual formulation and presentation of the claim.

29 February 1980

6. PROCEDURE FOR CONVENING EMERGENCY SPECIAL SESSIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY UNDERRULES 8(6) AND 9(6) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE ASSEMBLY — AUTHORITY OF THEGENERAL ASSEMBLY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE REQUIREMENT, UNDER GENERAL ASSEMBLYRESOLUTION 377 A (V) , THAT THERE APPEARS TO BE A THREAT TO THE PEACE, A BREACH OFTHE PEACE OR AN ACT OF AGGRESSION HAS BEEN MET


1. Rule 9(b) of the General Assembly's rules of procedure provides that in the event of "arequest by any Member of the United Nations for an emergency special session pursuant to resolution377 A (V) . . . the Secretary-General shall communicate with the other Members by the mostexpeditious means of communication available" in order to ascertain if they concur in the request.Rule S(b) lays down that "emergency special sessions pursuant to General Assembly resolution377 A (V) shall be convened within twenty-four hours of the receipt by the Secretary-General . . . ofthe concurrence of a majority of Members" in a request from a Member State for such a session.The Secretary-General under these provisions of the Rules of Procedure has no authority to exerciseany discretion if: (a) he receives a request from a Member for an emergency special session, and(b) a majority of Members concur in that request.

2. By letter of 1 July 1980, circulated to all Member States on 2 July by the Secretary-General, the representative of Senegal requested the convening of an emergency special session,and by 21 July more than a majority of Member States had concurred in that request, the formalrequirements of the Rules of Procedure thus being met for the convening of the seventh emergencyspecial session of the General Assembly on 22 July 1980.

3. The procedure for convening emergency special sessions derives from General Assemblyresolution 377 A (V) (Uniting for Peace). That resolution provides for such sessions in cases wherethere appears to be a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace or an act of aggression, and wherethe Security Council has failed to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of inter-national peace and security because of the lack of unanimity of its permanent members. The letterof 1 July 1980 from the Permanent Representative of Senegal refers to the negative vote of apermanent member of the Security Council in April 1980 on a draft resolution relating to thesituation in the Middle East and the failure of subsequent negotiations to overcome this veto. Theletter further records the view of the Government of Senegal and of other Governments membersof the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People that "theescalating tension brought about by the events that have occurred [in the Middle East] . . . furtheraggravate the already existing serious threat to international peace and security". The letter thusrecords the views of certain Governments that the requirements of General Assembly resolution377 A (V) have been met both in respect of the use of the veto and of a threat to international peaceand security. The veto is a matter of public record and as regards the requirement of a threat tothe peace the Secretary-General cannot substitute his judgement for that of the Government re-questing an emergency special session.

4. In the ultimate analysis, it is for the General Assembly to interpret authoritatively its ownresolutions and, in this case, to decide whether a request for an emergency special session meets

187

the requirements of resolution 377 A (V). This has in effect been answered in the present case inthe affirmative by the concurrence of a majority of Members in the request for the convening ofthe seventh emergency special session.

21 July 1980

7. PARTICIPATION OF THE PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION IN THE "SESSIONS AND WORKOF THE UNITED NATIONS" UNDER GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 3237 (XXIX) — LIMITSTO THE PLO ENTITLEMENT TO OBSERVER STATUS IN SUBSIDIARY ORGANS OF LIMITED MEM-BERSHIP — DISCRETION OF SUCH ORGANS, IN THE ABSENCE OF INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CONTRARYFROM THE ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY, TO DECIDE QUESTIONS OF PARTICIPATION BY NON-MEM-BERS, INCLUDING PARTICIPATION IN CLOSED MEETINGS — EXTENT OF OBSERVER PARTICIPATIONIN THE LIGHT OF THE PRACTICE OF MAIN COMMITTEES OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Memorandum to the Director, New York Liaison Office of UNRWA

1. With reference to the status of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in the UnitedNations with particular reference to the question of its participation in the Advisory Commissionof the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (ADCOMof UNRWA) it should be noted, in the first place, that the Advisory Commission, as a subsidiaryorgan of the General Assembly, is subject to decisions of the General Assembly and is not affectedby the practice followed by the specialized agencies in regard to PLO. We know that PLO doesparticipate in an observer capacity in meetings of a number of United Nations specialized andrelated agencies, including the Universal Postal Union (UPU), the World Health Organization(WHO) and the International Agency for Atomic Energy (IAEA), but we do not have comprehensiveinformation available about the position in all the agencies. In any event, as already indicated, thepractice of the agencies is not relevant to the work of the Advisory Commission.

2. With regard to PLO participation in subsidiary organs of the General Assembly, it shouldbe noted that by its resolution 3237 (XXLX) of 22 November 1974 entitled "Observer status forthe Palestine Liberation Organization", the General Assembly issued a standing invitation to thePalestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to participate, in the capacity of observer, in the sessionsand the work of the General Assembly and in the work of all international conferences convenedunder its auspices. In the same resolution the Assembly also indicated that it considered PLO tobe entitled to participate in an observer capacity in the sessions and work of all internationalconferences convened under the auspices of other organs of the United Nations.

3. This resolution provides the legal basis for the observer status that the Palestine LiberationOrganization has in the United Nations. Since the adoption of the resolution PLO has participatedon a regular basis in the work of the General Assembly at regular and special sessions, in all majorUnited Nations conferences and in various other meetings convened under United Nations auspices.In order to be in a position to fulfil its observer role effectively PLO has established PermanentObserver Offices at Headquarters and in each of the other major United Nations centres, i.e.Geneva, Nairobi and Vienna. PLO has also been admitted as a full member of the EconomicCommission for Western Asia, a regional Commission of the Economic and Social Council.

4. Resolution 3237 (XXIX) refers to "the sessions and the work of the General Assembly".This phrase would appear prima facie to be all inclusive and to embrace the General Assembly,its Main Committees and its subsidiary organs. However, the possibility of participation by observersin the work of particular subsidiary organs depends upon the terms of reference, structure, functionsand methods of work of the organ in question. It is reasonable to assume that the Assembly didnot intend the participation of PLO as observer in the sessions and the work of the Assembly underresolution 3237 (XXIX) to be more extensive than that accorded to Member States of the UnitedNations in respect of subsidiary organs of limited membership of which they are not members.

188

5. The Advisory Commission of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for PalestineRefugees in the Middle East, as a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly, may therefore invitePLO to participate in its work in the capacity of observer. In this connexion the Advisory Com-mission should have regard to its terms of reference, structure, functions, and method of work —and in particular to its practice regarding the admission of observers. While the Advisory Com-mission does not have formal rules of procedure, at its 164th meeting on 13 October 1952 theCommission adopted a "Memorandum summarizing the present functions and practice of theADCOM" which it agreed adequately reflected "the Commission's practice". Efforts by a com-mittee of the Commission to revise the provisions of this Memorandum did not succeed but, inpractice, as circumstances changed, the provisions were departed from in certain respects. It is tobe noted that the Memorandum does not make any specific provision for participation in the AdvisoryCommission's meetings by permanent observers and that under paragraph D.7 of the Memorandumrelating to the Advisory Commission's practice all its meetings are closed. Nevertheless it is stillwithin the competence of the Advisory Commission to permit PLO to participate in its meetings,even though they are closed, in the capacity of an observer and there is precedent for the admissionin exceptional circumstances of other than members of the body concerned to closed meetings ofUnited Nations bodies. In the light of the practice that has emerged, the Office of Legal Affairsholds the position that in the absence of instructions to the contrary from the establishing authoritya subsidiary organ may itself decide questions of participation in its work by non-members, includingparticipation in closed meetings.

6. With regard to the extent of participation by PLO, if invited to participate as an observerin meetings of the Advisory Commission, this should follow the practice of Main Committees ofthe General Assembly,1 which in the light of recent developments includes the right to make oralstatements, the opportunity to reply to statements made by representatives and to have writtenstatements or documents circulated, and excludes the right to vote, to sponsor substantive proposals,amendments or procedural motions, to raise points of order or to challenge rulings made by theChairman.

5 June 1980

8. USE OF THE TERM "NON-CITIZEN" IN INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE

Paper prepared for a Working Group of the Third Committee

1. During the 2nd meeting — held on 16 October 1980 — of the Working Group for theconsideration of questions of the human rights of individuals who are not citizens of the countryin which they live, and of the draft body of principles for the protection of all persons under anyform of detention or imprisonment, the representative of Argentina raised the question of what wasto be understood by the term "non-citizen" as contained in article 1 of the draft declaration on thehuman rights of individuals who are not citizens of the country in which they live.2 In particular,the representative of Argentina requested the Office of Legal Affairs to prepare a working paperregarding the use of this term in international practice.

2. The request made by the representative of Argentina was supported by a number of otherrepresentatives, some of whom also raised related questions. The representatives of the Philippinesand Nigeria queried what the distinction might be between a "non-citizen" and an "alien"; therepresentative of Chile noted that some legal systems, especially in Latin America, distinguishbetween nationality and citizenship; the representative of the United States referred to the case ofindividuals who might be entitled to citizenship but who do not avail themselves of that right; andthe representative of Jamaica raised the question of individuals who, for historical or other reasons,may be entitled to a residence status in a particular country without becoming a citizen.

3. Before proceeding to an examination of the international practice in this field, as reflectedin international instruments, some general observations regarding "nationality" and "citizenship"

189

and their place in municipal law and international law may be helpful. "Nationality" and "citi-zenship" are largely within the competence of municipal law except where the discretion of theState is restricted by its international obligations.3 Both terms refer to the status of the individualin his relationship with the State. They are sometimes used synonymously but they do not necessarilydescribe the same relationship towards the State.

4. "Nationality" is that quality or character which arises from a person's belonging to anation or State. The International Court of Justice has defined "nationality" as:

"a legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection ofexistence, interest and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties.It may be said to constitute the juridical expression of the fact that the individual upon whomit is conferred, either directly by the law or as the result of an act of the authorities, is in factmore closely connected with the population of the State conferring nationality than with thatof any other State". (The Nottebohm case, I.C.J. Reports 1955, p. 23.)

"Citizen", on the other hand, is the term normally applied to describe an individual who underthe laws of a particular State is a member of the political community, owing allegiance and beingentitled to the enjoyment of full civil and political rights.

5. An "alien" is the term used to describe a foreign-born person or the subject of a foreignState who has not qualified as a citizen of the State in which he or she might be. An alien is,therefore, neither a national nor a citizen.

6. The difficulty of defining terms such as "national", "citizen" and "alien" in internationallaw stems from the fact that they are essentially municipal law concepts, and, therefore, subjectto variations in meaning from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The constitution, statutes, laws andregulations of individual States refer to a variety of categories of individuals whose precise legalrights and duties in a particular State vary. The degree of complexity in municipal law is a functionof many factors: historical, social, legal and political. The United Nations has published twovolumes entitled "Laws concerning Nationality" in the United Nations Legislative Series (ST/LEG/SER.B/4 and 9).

7. The foregoing observations perhaps explain why, in the many international instrumentsdealing with the rights of various categories of individuals, definitions of the terms used to describethese individuals are rarely to be found. There is a tacit assumption that terms such as "national"and "citizen" are terms of art and that their meaning is clear, at least within municipal legalsystems. This does not, however, quite resolve the problem from the point of view of internationallaw, where the scope of a particular international instrument ratione personae should have a uniformmeaning for all States.

8. In response to the request by the representative of Argentina, the Office of Legal Affairshas examined the international instruments which formed the basis of the study by the SpecialRapporteur with a view to determining whether the term "non-citizen" is in international usageand, if so, whether it has been defined. In the course of this examination, a number of relatedterms have also been noted. It has been deemed useful, therefore, to draw up a systematic tabulationof all the terms used to establish the scope ratione personae of the international instruments inquestion.

9. By far the most frequently used terms in the international instruments examined are thosewhich apply to all persons without distinction of any kind. The preamble of the Charter of theUnited Nations refers to "the peoples of the United Nations". Similarly, the Universal Declarationof Human Rights recognizes the equal rights of ' 'all peoples'', ' 'all nations'', ' 'all human beings'',or "everyone". The substantive articles of the International Covenants on Economic, Social andCultural Rights and on Civil and Political Rights4 also apply to "everyone", "all peoples", or"all individuals" except where otherwise specifically provided (see para. 11 below). The UnitedNations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination5 refers to "persons",

190

or "groups of persons". The International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of theCrime of Apartheid6 uses the term "all human beings". For the most part, the instruments citedabove are intended to have general application and, therefore, make no distinction between nationalsand aliens or between citizens and non-citizens.

10. Exceptions are provided for, however, even in instruments of general application. Thus,under article 2, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and CulturalRights, developing countries may determine to what extent the economic rights recognized in theCovenant will be guaranteed to "non-nationals". Article 1, paragraph 2, of the InternationalConvention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination7 provides for the possibilityof a distinction between citizens and non-citizens by stating that: "This Convention shall not applyto distinctions, exclusions, restrictions, or preferences made by a State Party to this Conventionbetween citizens and non-citizens". The Convention does not, however, define the term "non-citizen" .

11. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is of general application,does contain one provision specifically devoted to the rights of a citizen. Article 25 deals with therights of "every citizen" and while not a definitional clause as such, this provision goes some wayto providing the elements of such a definition. According to this article, a citizen shall have theright:

"(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosenrepresentatives;

"(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universaland equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of thewill of the electors;

"(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country".

It may be inferred from this that a "non-citizen" would be a person who is not entitled to theenjoyment of the rights set out in article 25.

12. A number of international instruments refer to ' 'aliens" but without providing a definitionof the term. Examples are to be found in article 13 of the International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights, article 4, paragraph 2, of the Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance8

and articles 9, 18 and 19 of the Convention for the Suppression of Traffic in Persons and of theExploitation of the Prostitution of Others.9

13. In conclusion, it may be noted that a precedent for the use of the term "non-citizen"is to be found in one instrument, namely, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of RacialDiscrimination. The drafters of this Convention did not find it necessary to define the term. However,as pointed out in paragraph 11 above, some understanding of the meaning of the term may bederived from an a contrario interpretation of article 25 of the Covenant on Civil and PoliticalRights. Viewed in this sense, a "non-citizen" may be distinguished not only from a citizen butalso, in those systems which distinguish between nationals and citizens, from an alien. In suchsystems, a "non-citizen" would be an individual who has been divested of the civil and politicalattributes of citizenship by operation of the relevant municipal laws but who nevertheless wouldremain a national and a resident. A "non-citizen" is not, therefore, necessarily synonymous withan alien, but would appear to be a term of somewhat broader scope.

24 October 1980

191

9. REQUEST BY THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THECOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BE RECOGNIZED AS A SPOKESMAN OF EECAND ITS MEMBERS WITHIN A PARTICULAR WORKING GROUP OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIALCOUNCIL — WAYS OPEN TO MEMBER STATES OF EEC TO ENSURE CO-ORDINATION OF POSITIONSWITHIN THE WORKING GROUP

Memorandum to the Executive Director, United Nations Centreon Transnational Corporations

1. You have asked for an opinion on the question of the participation of the EuropeanEconomic Community (EEC) in the Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Working Group of Experts onAccounting and Reporting.

2. The above-mentioned Working Group was established by the Economic and Social Councilby resolution 1979/44, paras, (a) to (c) of which provide that the Group is to be composed of 34experts each appointed by a State elected by the Council, of which nine are to be chosen fromWestern Europe and other States. The States elected in that category by Council decision 1979/94,taken at its 42nd plenary meeting, included five members of EEC.

3. On 30 October 1979 the Council of Ministers of the European Communities adopted adecision confirming that, as the subject matter of the Working Group's consideration was one thathad, under the treaties establishing EEC, been assigned to the latter by its member States, theCommission of the Communities should represent the latter's point of view in the Working Group.Consequently EEC is requesting that the representative of the Commission be recognized as thespokesman for EEC and its members, rather than the five experts appointed by the States electedby the Economic and Social Council.

4. The constitutional relations between EEC and its member States are matters internal tothat entity, and cannot directly affect the rights and obligations of those States vis-a-vis the UnitedNations, of which they are all Members; this follows, inter alia, from Article 103 of the Charter.On the other hand, there can be no objection on the part of the United Nations as to any methodthat the members of EEC use to co-ordinate their positions or to represent those prescribed by agiven organ of EEC; for example, States elected by the Economic and Social Council could appoint,as their representatives, persons nominated to them by EEC.

5. Furthermore, if the member States of EEC had made it known to the Economic and SocialCouncil that their competence in the field of work of the Working Group had been entirely transferredto EEC, the Council might have reflected this in determining the composition of the Group; aproposal that the Council should do so could still be addressed to it at any suitable session. However,in the absence of a decision of the Council to accord EEC a special status in the Working Group,it is not for the latter or for the Secretariat to do so.

6. By resolution 3708 (XXIX) of 11 October 1974, the General Assembly has grantedpermanent observer status to EEC, within the meaning of rule 79 of the rules of procedure of theEconomic and Social Council (E/5715) and of rule 74 of the rules of procedure of its functionalcommissions (E/5975). Consequently, under those rules (read together with rule 27( 1) of the Counciland rule 24 of the functional commissions), EEC may participate, without the right to vote, in thedeliberations of the Working Group on any question within the competence of EEC. As indicatedin para. 4 above, the experts appointed by the five members of EEC elected to the Working Groupcould declare that they would not speak and request the Working Group to hear the EEC repre-sentative in their stead; the Working Group could then grant a somewhat freer right to speak to theEEC observer, since such an extension of rights is not inconsistent with the rules of procedure.Naturally, any votes would have to be cast by the representatives of States elected to the Group.

4 February 1980

192

10. QUESTION OF THE PARTICIPATION OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS IN THE WORK OF

THE ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR LATIN AMERICA — RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE COM-

MISSION'S TERMS OF REFERENCE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE — POSSIBILITIES FOR CO-OPERATION WITH THE COMMISSION OPEN TO NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS WHICH

DO NOT HAVE CONSULTATIVE STATUS WITH THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL

Memorandum to the Assistant Secretary of the Economic Commission for Latin America

2. . . . Our comments regarding the question of non-governmental organizations' participationin the work of the Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) appear hereunder.

4. The legal basis for the establishment of a relationship between the Economic Commissionfor Latin America and non-governmental organizations is provided in paragraph l(b) of the Com-mission's terms of reference. This paragraph reads as follows:

"The Commission shall make arrangements for consultation with non-governmental or-ganizations which have been granted consultative status by the Council, in accordance withthe principles approved by the Council for this purpose."

5. The procedure for implementation of this provision is set out in chapter XII of theCommission's rules of procedure (rules 50 and 51).

6. These provisions make it clear that the non-governmental organizations with which theCommission is to have relations are limited to those organizations which have been granted con-sultative status by the Economic and Social Council in accordance with Council resolution 1296(XLIV). Any decision by the Commission or by its subsidiary bodies that exceeds the authoritygranted to the Commission in its terms of reference would be ultra vires.

7. In these circumstances there are only two possibilities for co-operation with internationaland national non-governmental organizations which do not have consultative status with the Eco-nomic and Social Council in accordance with Council resolution 1296 (XLIV) and other relevantresolutions of the Council. Thus, the Commission may invite a person from a particular non-governmental organization to provide it with information which in the opinion of the Commissionwill be useful in connexion with its work. This possibility is also available to subsidiary bodiesof the Commission unless the Commission has specifically precluded such action. The other pos-sibility is that consultation be made at the secretariat level. Under this arrangement the Commissionsecretariat could exchange information relating to the work of the Commission with the secretariatof the non-governmental organizations concerned, bringing to the attention of the Commission orits subsidiary bodies, when necessary, any particular matters of interest to the organ concerned inconnexion with its work.

8. It is relevant to mention that in recent years the question of relations of non-governmentalorganizations with the Economic and Social Council has become a very sensitive political issueand the Council has adopted a number of resolutions10 and decisions on this subject to ensure thatonly those organizations that satisfy the requirements for consultative status outlined in resolution1296 (XLIV) be granted or permitted to maintain that status. It would therefore be inappropriateto extend invitations to non-governmental organizations which have not yet applied for consultativestatus or satisfied the Council that they can meet its strict requirements for such status.

9. In conclusion, therefore, any decision by the Commission or its subsidiary bodies to invitenon-governmental organizations which do not have consultative status with the Economic andSocial Council to attend meetings of the organ concerned would require prior approval of theCouncil. The resolution [396 (XVIII)] adopted by the Commission at its eighteenth session re-questing the Executive Secretary inter alia, "subject to the prior approval of the Member Statesto invite . . . regional or sub-regional non-governmental organizations which, even if they do notat present have consultative status, have special competence in areas of interest to the Commission'sprogramme" does not, on its own, provide a proper legal basis for participation of such non-

193

governmental organizations in the work of the Commission and its subsidiary bodies since theCommission's terms of reference do not authorize it to take such action. The Commission'sresolution, which at this stage can only be regarded as a recommendation submitted to the Economicand Social Council for approval, will be before the Council at the session it will hold this summerwhen the Council will have before it the report of the Executive Secretaries of the various regionalcommissions. Recommendations and decisions of the Commissions which require action by theCouncil will be included in that report. It is suggested that at that time the Council's attention bedrawn specifically to the question of relations of ECLA with non-governmental organizations witha view to obtaining a clear decision of the Council on the matter. In the meantime the non-governmental organizations interested in the work of the Commission and its subsidiary bodiesshould be encouraged to apply for consultative status with the Council in accordance with therelevant resolutions adopted by the Council to govern its relations with non-governmentalorganizations.

5 May 1980

11. QUESTION WHETHER IT IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER UNITED NATIONS REGULATIONS AND RULESFOR UNDP-FUNDED CONTRACTS TO BE DIRECTED, TO AN APPROPRIATE DEGREE, TO DONORCOUNTRIES

Memorandum to the Deputy Controller, Office of Financial ServicesThe question has been raised whether it is permissible under the Financial Regulations and

Rules of the United Nations, or if not presently permissible whether it should be made so byamendment of the Financial Rules, for UNDP-funded contracts to be directed, to an appropriatedegree, to donor countries which do not now receive contracts to an extent commensurate with thelevel of their UNDP contributions.

We appreciate the reasons underlying the proposal that contracts be so placed and the con-siderable importance of encouraging donor countries to maintain contributions. We see difficulties,however, in the proposal which, as you know, has been raised in one context or another overseveral years.

As you well know, a principle that is fundamental and central to the United Nations contractingsystem (financial regulation 10.5 and the rules thereunder) is that for the money expended theUnited Nations ought to obtain the "best buy". Such exceptions as are permissible are all relatedto effectuating the purpose of the expenditure and not to the source of the funds. There is, in ouropinion, no basis at present in the United Nations financial procedures for purposefully placingcontracts within donor countries when such placement is not otherwise justifiable under the criteriaof the Financial Regulations and Rules. A "short list" limited to suppliers in particular countrieswould have to be justified under these same criteria. The Committee on Contracts must be satisfiedas to the propriety of any particular "short list" no less than the award from among the bids orproposals received. Accordingly the Committee on Contracts could not properly recommend suchplacement and in the event of queries by auditors or others, a persuasive justification could not begiven.

There have been a few occasions in the past, associated with United Nations relief operations,when United Nations purchases have been made in contributing countries. So far as we can recall,however, the circumstances of such cases are distinguishable from the type of case with which youare presently concerned and they cannot be regarded as precedent-creating.

Any revision of the United Nations financial procedures in this regard should be limited toUNDP-funded projects and be co-ordinated with the proposed revision of UNDP Financial Reg-ulations and Rules, and thus receive, if not the General Assembly's concurrence, at least that ofthe Advisory Committee.

16 April 1980

194

12. REPRESENTATION, IN A UNDP DOCUMENT, OF MAYOTTE AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THECOMOROS — BINDING CHARACTER, FOR THE SECRETARIAT, OF THE POSITION TAKEN BY THEGENERAL ASSEMBLY IN A SERIES OF RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS — WAYS OF CONVEYING TOTHE GOVERNING COUNCIL OBJECTIONS RAISED IN RELATION TO THE REPRESENTATION INQUESTION

Memorandum to the Chief, Executive Office of the Administrator of UNDP

You have requested the advice of the Office of Legal Affairs in connexion with an objectionraised to the representation of Mayotte as an integral part of the Comoros in the UNDP CountryProgramme document" relating to that country already in circulation.

It is relevant to recall that at its thirtieth session, the General Assembly, in its resolution 3385(XXX) admitting the Comoros to membership of the United Nations, reaffirmed "the necessity ofrespecting the unity, and territorial integrity of the Comoro Archipelago composed of the islandsof Anouan, Grande Comore, Mayotte and Moheli, as emphasized in resolution 3291 (XXIX) of13 December 1974 and other resolutions of the General Assembly".

It is also significant to mention that at its thirty-first session the General Assembly includedin its agenda an additional item entitled "Question of the Comorian island of Mayotte". Underthis item the Assembly adopted its resolution 31/4 which leaves no doubt as to its position withregard to the status of Mayotte. Attention is drawn in particular to operative paragraphs 2 and 3of that resolution which read as follows:

[The General Assembly]

"2 . Strongly condemns the presence of France in Mayotte, which constitutes a violationof the national unity, territorial integrity and sovereignty of the independent Republic of theComoros;

" 3 . Calls upon the Government of France to withdraw immediately from the Comorianisland of Mayotte, an integral part of the independent Republic of the Comoros, and to respectits sovereignty;".

At its thirty-second session the General Assembly had on its agenda an item entitled "Assistanceto the Comoros". In connexion with this item the General Assembly had before it a report of theUnited Nations Mission to the Comoros (A/32/208/Add.l-2) containing a review of the economicsituation in the Comoros. In paragraph 35 of that report it is stated that:

"The General Assembly has recognized that the new State of the Comoros comprisesthe four islands of Grande Comore, Anouan, Mayotte and Moheli. It has not been possiblefor the Government of the Comoros to bring the island of Mayotte within the jurisdiction andthe economy of the new State because of a continuing dispute with France over Mayotte'sphysical status . . .".

Annex II of the report contains a map of the Comoros which shows Mayotte as an integralpart of the Republic of the Comoros. The General Assembly endorsed this report and its findingsand recommendations by its resolution 32/92 of 13 December 1977.

The sovereignty of the Federal Republic of the Comoros over the island of Mayotte wasreaffirmed by the Assembly at its thirty-second and thirty-fourth sessions in its resolutions 32/4and 34/69, respectively, again under the item "Question of the Comorian island of Mayotte",which has been included each year on the Assembly's agenda since the thirty-first session.

The General Assembly has therefore expressed clear views on the status of Mayotte as illustratedabove. In these circumstances, the Secretariat must necessarily take these views into account andact in conformity with the relevant resolutions of the principal deliberative organ of the Organization.

It could be suggested that the objections raised to the representation of Mayotte as an integralpart of the Comoros be communicated to UNDP in writing and conveyed to the Governing Councilin an official document. In this way when the Governing Council considers the Country Programmedocument relating to the Comoros it will also have before it an official document reflecting theobjections in question.

195

The document prepared by the UNDP secretariat is unobjectionable from a legal standpointand needs no correction or change.

5 May 1980

13. FILLING OF OCCASIONAL VACANCIES IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE—RELEVANTPROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE OF THE COURT — PRACTICE FOLLOWED BY THE SECRETARY-GENERAL IN IMPLEMENTING THOSE PROVISIONS

Internal note

Introduction

1. Article 14 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice provides as follows:

"Vacancies shall be filled by the same method as that laid down for the first election,subject to the following provision: the Secretary-General shall, within one month of theoccurrence of the vacancy, proceed to issue the invitations provided for in Article 5, and thedate of the election shall be fixed by the Security Council."

Article 5, paragraph 1, reads:

" 1 . At least three months before the date of the election, the Secretary-General of theUnited Nations shall address a written request to the members of the Permanent Court ofArbitration belonging to the States which are parties to the present Statute, and to the membersof the national groups appointed under Article 4, paragraph 2, inviting them to undertake,within a given time, by national groups, the nomination of persons in a position to accept theduties of a Member of the Court."

Under the foregoing provisions it is the duty of the Secretary-General to send out invitations callingfor nominations. In this respect, it has always been the understanding of the Secretariat that thethree months' period provided for in Article 5 of the Statute between the despatch of invitationsand the earliest possible date for elections applies not only to regular elections, but also to thefilling of occasional vacancies. This understanding has been based on the legislative history of therelevant Article of the Statute, namely Article 14, as well as on past practice.

Legislative history of Article 14 of the Statute of the Court

2. In the original Statute, which came into force in 1921, Article 14 provided only that"vacancies shall be filled by the same method as that laid down for the original election." In therevised Statute, which came into force in 1936, Article 14 contained provisions requiring theSecretary-General to issue invitations within one month of the occurrence of the vacancy, andrequiring the Council to fix the date of the election. Save for the drafting changes necessitated bysubstitution of United Nations organs for League organs the above text is substantially the presenttext. The minutes of the Committee of Jurists which drafted the revised text in 1929, reveal thatthe amendments to Article 14 were intended to lessen unduly extended delays, by requiring theSecretary-General to send out invitations promptly and by envisaging the possibility that the Council,in the appropriate case, might also convene an extraordinary session of the Assembly for the purposeof the election. However, the minutes also clearly show that the three-month period stipulated forin Article 5 between despatch of invitations and the earliest possible date for the election wasintended to apply. Mr. Fromageot, the sponsor of the amendments to Article 14, is recorded12 assaying that "the Secretary-General might . . . proceed to the notification provided for in Article5, and the date of the election might be fixed to coincide with the sessions of the Council followingthe expiry of the period of three months during which the national groups selected their candidates."Mr. Fromageot, therefore, expressly referred to the three-month period in relation to the filling ofan occasional vacancy.

196

Past practice of the League of Nations and of the United Nations infilling casual vacancies

3. The above interpretation of Article 14 has been confirmed by reference to actual practice.Two special elections were arranged for and carried out by the League after the amended versionof Article 14 came into force in 1936. In both cases, considerably more than three months elapsedbetween the date of the vacancy and the date of election.13 Seven occasional vacancies, prior tothe present one, occasioned by the death of Judge Richard R. Baxter, have occurred14 in theInternational Court of Justice since its establishment, and, again, more than three months have,in each case, elapsed between the despatch of invitations and the holding of the election in theSecurity Council and in the General Assembly. One judge, Sir Benegal Rau, died in November1953 during the eighth regular session of the General Assembly, but the election to fill the vacancywas not held until October of the following year during the next session of the Assembly. JudgeGuerrero, likewise, died in October 1958, during the thirteenth regular session of the GeneralAssembly. On 25 November 1958 the Security Council adopted a resolution, at its 840th meeting,providing that the election to fill this vacancy "shall take place during the fourteenth session ofthe General Assembly or during a special session before the fourteenth session". From the termsof this resolution, it may be inferred that the Council was giving effect to the minimum three-month limit, as it would otherwise have been open for it to decide that the election should be heldduring the then current thirteenth session of the General Assembly. The election to fill this vacancywas in fact held in September 1959. Judge Abdel Hamid Badawi died on 4 August 1965, just beforethe opening of the twentieth regular session of the General Assembly in September 1965. On 10August 1965, the Council adopted a resolution, at its 1236th meeting, providing that "an electionto fill the vacancy shall take place during the twentieth session of the General Assembly." Thenote by the Secretary-General submitted to the Security Council on this occasion (S/6599) providedthat the Council

"may wish to decide that the election to fill the vacancy shall take place during thetwentieth session of the General Assembly. This would be done on the understanding that theactual election would be held on a date subsequent to the expiry of the three-month time-limitspecified in Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Statute."

No disagreement was voiced either in the Council or in the General Assembly regarding thisinterpretation of the application of the minimum three-month time-limit, and the election was infact held on 16 November 1965, more than three months after the despatch of the invitations fornominations (12 August 1965).

4. Obviously the three-months' rule was inserted in Article 5 to give sufficient time for thecompletion of the nomination procedures provided for in the Statute. These procedures may belengthy in certain instances. This consideration applies not only to nominations for regular elections,but also to nominations for casual vacancies. The Security Council should, therefore, in line withall previous precedents, apply the three-months' rule as a minimum statutory requirement.

30 September 1980

14. REQUEST FOR EXTRADITION OF AN INDIVIDUAL CHARGED WITH MURDER AND CAUSING BODILYHARM WITH AGGRAVATING INTENT — DECISION GRANTING THE REQUEST — FILING OF ANHABEAS CORPUS PETITION — SCOPE OF THE HABEAS CORPUS REVIEW — PROVISION OF THEAPPLICABLE EXTRADITION TREATY CONCERNING THE POLITICAL OFFENCE EXCEPTION — QUES-TION WHETHER THE CASE COULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE CONTENTIOUS OR ADVISORY JURIS-DICTION OF THE COMPETENT COURT OF THE REQUIRED STATE

Memorandum to the Secretary, Committee on the Exercise of theInalienable Rights of the Palestinian People

[Editorial note: This memorandum deals with the case of an individual who was arrested onthe territory of a State on charges of murder and causing bodily harm with aggravating intent, and

197

whose extradition was requested by another State in accordance with an extradition conventionbinding the two States in question. The hearing on the extradition request resulted in the issuanceof a warrant for his commitment until surrender to the requesting State. The individual concernedthen filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the competent court of the requested State, askingit to order either that the individual concerned could not be extradited or that the Court itself conductor order conducted a rehearing of the case.]

4. With respect to the possibility of reversing the decision to extradite, it is crucial that inthe practice of the requested State it is well-established that the decision of a magistrate in aproceeding on a request for international extradition is not subject to appeal. It is, however, relevantto note that while the magistrate's decision authorizes the executive to order the extraditee deliveredto a representative of the requesting Government, the executive is not necessarily bound to do so.Rather, there are precedents establishing that the executive has the power to review the opinionof the extradition magistrate, for example on the ground that the case is not within the treaty, orthat the evidence is insufficient to establish the charge under the treaty; it has been held that theexecutive may exercise this power of review even after a court has declined to discharge the accusedin habeas corpus proceedings.

5. Because the decision of the extradition magistrate is not directly appealable or reviewableby the courts, it is considered that the writ of habeas corpus is a proper remedy to secure the releaseof someone illegally detained in extradition proceedings. Habeas corpus proceedings may be definedas the process of testing the authority of the one who is detaining another, and the proceedings aredesigned to bring about an immediate hearing to inquire into the legality of the detention and toresult in an order for the release of the detainee whenever detention is unwarranted. The writ ofhabeas corpus must be filed in the competent court of the requested State . . . whose final — asdistinguished from an interlocutory — decision normally is appealable to the appropriate Court ofAppeals and in principle to the Supreme Court. Pending the outcome of habeas corpus proceedingsthe court may refuse or grant bail for the extraditee; however, the decision is within the Court'sdiscretion and is granted only under special circumstances.

6. The scope of the habeas corpus review is limited to the broad issues of whether themagistrate had jurisdiction, whether the offense charged is within the extradition treaty, and whetherthere was any competent evidence warranting the rinding that there was reasonable ground to believethe accused is guilty. The weight and sufficiency of the evidence before the magistrate is notreviewable in the habeas corpus proceedings. However, questions concerning whether conditionsunder the treaty are met, including the question whether the offense was political, have beenreviewed in recent habeas corpus proceedings.

9. With regard to the political offense exception, the applicable extradition treaty providesthat extradition shall not be granted "when the offense is regarded by the requested Party as oneof a political character or if the person sought proves that the request for his extradition has, infact, been made with a view to trying or punishing him for an offense of a political character".In the post-trial brief submitted by the requested State's Attorney a clear distinction was madebetween the first and second parts of the provision quoted above. With respect to the first part,reading "when the offense is regarded by the requested Party as one of political character", thebrief stressed that this provision was concerned only with the attitude of the requested Governmenttowards the offense . . . , [adding that in the view of the Government the crimes of which theperson concerned was charged were common crimes].

10. As far as the second part of paragraph 4 of Article VI is concerned, the requested State'sAttorney argued in the extradition proceedings that the motives of the requesting governments arenot for the courts to determine but rather for the executive branch . . .

11. The defendant on the other hand challenged the magistrate's finding that the nature ofthe offenses charged and the circumstances of their commission were not within the exception from

198

extradition provided for offenses political in character, a finding arrived at by reference to the threefollowing tests:

(i) the offender's past participation and involvement with a political movement and hispolitical beliefs as tied to a political motive;

(ii) existence of a connexion or link between the crime and a political objective;(iii) relation or proportions between the crime and its method of commission and the political

objective.In the Magistrate's view, the first of these tests was met but the other two were not, because theexception for political offenses or crimes exists only where the acts are directed against the politicalorganization of the State in question and in the present case the political objective was not linkedto the means used and the target chosen; rather, the selection of the location was random, thevictims were civilians, not military personnel, and the offenses represented an isolated act ofviolence.

12. The defendant's arguments in this connexion may be summarized as follows:(a) that he had proved, prima facie, that the request for extradition had been made with a

view to trying him on an offense of a political character and that it was established that when theevidence offered tends to prove that the offense charged is of a political character, the burden ofproof shifts to the prosecution to prove the opposite, something which had not been done in thepresent instance;

(b) that the concept of political offenses was not limited to offenses against the politicalorganization of the State in question, but also encompassed offenses against the civil rights of itscitizens . . .

(c) that the relevant extradition treaty did not exclude violence against civilians from thepolitical offense exception.

(/) that the extradition treaty did not exclude offenses with randomly selected targets . . .

13. The petition also urged that the defendant had not received a fair hearing on the issueof probable cause, as the Magistrate had accepted the authenticated documents submitted by theGovernment of the requesting State as sufficient evidence, and excluded evidence offered by thedefense with a view to explaining and clarifying the means by which the Government had obtainedthat evidence, including the confession of an alleged accomplice. [13 bis. The question has beenraised whether the case could be submitted to the contentious or advisory jurisdiction of theInternational Court of Justice.]

14. Regarding the first alternative, the International Court of Justice is only competent torender a binding judgement or order in a contentious proceeding, to which only States may beparties. The State of which the individual concerned is a citizen might, in principle, bring a suitagainst the requested State for an offense committed against one of its citizens. However, althoughthe requested State has filed a declaration accepting (subject to limitations) the compulsory juris-diction of the International Court of Justice on a reciprocal basis, the State of which the individualconcerned is a national has not filed a similar declaration; nor is there any bilateral treaty betweenthe two States providing for the submission of this type of a dispute to the Court, nor are the twoStates parties to any multilateral convention under which submission would be possible. Of course,the latter State could approach the requested State, either directly or through the Court, to proposesubmission on an ad hoc basis — but the requested State would not be under any legal obligationto respond affirmatively.

15. Even if the two States were to agree to submit the dispute to the Court, in the presentposition of the case the Court would almost surely hold that before it can consider the case thedomestic remedies in the requested State must be exhausted . . .

16. As to the second alternative, the Court may, according to Article 96 of the United NationsCharter and Article 65 of its Statute, give an advisory opinion on legal questions at the request of

199

certain bodies authorized by or in accordance with the Charter to make such a request. Article 96,paragraph 1, of the Charter provides that advisory opinions may be requested by the GeneralAssembly or by the Security Council, and paragraph 2 of the same Article provides that an advisoryopinion may also be requested by other organs of the United Nations and by specialized agenciesthereto authorized by the General Assembly. Although the General Assembly has granted suchauthority, inter alia, to several organs of the United Nations, these do not include the Committeeon the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People; consequently, that body cannotaddress a request for an advisory opinion directly to the Court.

17. Under the established jurisprudence of the Court, the latter is not obliged to respond toevery question addressed to it by an authorized organ, and from time to time it has declined to doso. In particular, the Court and its predecessor — the Permanent Court of International Justice— has indicated reluctance to give an advisory opinion on questions that could form the subjectof a contentious proceeding between two or more States, i.e. if the advisory proceeding is usedto evade the normal requirement that all States concerned must agree to submit a dispute to theCourt. The Court might therefore decline to respond to any questions by United Nations organsabout the treatment of the individual concerned by the requested State, in so far as these questionscould, in principle, be raised by the country of which the individual concerned is a national.

18. Finally, even in an advisory proceeding the Court is likely to insist on the requirementof the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies (see para. 15 above).

28 March 1980

15. QUESTION WHETHER THE SALARIES OR PENSIONS OF UNITED NATIONS OFFICIALS MAY BEATTACHED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENFORCING NATIONAL COURTS DECISIONS — IMMUNITY FROMLEGAL PROCESS ENJOYED BY THE UNITED NATIONS BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 2 OF THE CON-VENTION ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS — IMMUNITY FROMSEIZURE OF ASSETS OF THE ORGANIZATION UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONEDCONVENTION

Letter to a private lawyer

Your letter of 17 November 1980 addressed to this Office requested information in respectof the enforcement of English Court Orders with regard to employees of the United Nations,particularly the attachment of salaries and pensions.

As far as the attachment of salary is concerned, the attempted service of a court order on theUnited Nations would fail for two reasons. First, service of a court order is a legal process fromwhich the United Nations is immune by virtue of Section 2 of the Convention on the Privilegesand Immunities of the United Nations. Secondly, the proceeding would be tantamount to a seizureof the assets of the Organization from which it is exempt under section 3 of the Convention. Itshould be noted that any such court order would be directed to the United Nations and the salaryto be seized is, before it is actually paid to the staff member, a part of the assets of the UnitedNations.

The same situation prevails with regard to pensions of United Nations officials whether in theform of lump-sum payments or annuities. The United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund is an organof the United Nations, and its assets are the property of the Organization. The Fund is immunefrom legal process and its assets are immune from any form of interference whether by executive,administrative, judicial or legislative action. Thus, an order by an English Court may not be enforceddirectly against the Fund. As in the case of salaries, pensions, whether lump sum or annuities,before they are paid to the staff member concerned, form part of the assets of the Organization.

The foregoing is the legal situation from the point of view of the immunities of the Organization.However, these immunities are granted in the interests of the Organization and not for the personal

200

benefit of the individual staff member. They afford no justification for a staff member's failure tomeet his legal obligations and it is the Organization's policy to take measures to prevent such abuse.If court orders are received, they will be returned with an explanation of the Organization'simmunity. The staff member will be requested to settle the matter by whatever legal steps may benecessary as a matter of proper conduct and to avoid embarrassment to the United Nations.

3 December 1980

16. INSISTENCE BY A MEMBER STATE THAT UNITED NATIONS STAFF MEMBERS ENTERING ORLEAVING ITS TERRITORY USE THEIR NATIONAL TRAVEL DOCUMENTS OR A TRAVEL DOCUMENTISSUED BY THE MEMBER STATE CONCERNED — PROVISION OF THE CONVENTION ON THEPRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS UNDER WHICH LAISSEZ-PASSERS ISSUEDBY THE UNITED NATIONS SHALL BE RECOGNIZED BY MEMBER STATES AS VALID TRAVELDOCUMENTS

Memorandum to the Director, UNRWA Liaison Office in New York

1. I wish to refer to your request for the views of the Office of Legal Affairs on the positionapparently advanced by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of a Member State to the effect that locallyrecruited staff members who are citizens of neighbouring States must use either their national traveldocument (passport) or a travel document issued by the Member State concerned when enteringor leaving its territory on official United Nations business. In this connexion the Foreign Ministryreportedly maintained that "the general practice all over the world is that any United Nations staffmember travelling from or to his own country would do so on his national passport".

2. In the considered view of the Office of Legal Affairs the "general practice" to which theMinistry of Foreign Affairs has referred does not exist and could not exist as a general practice onaccount of the applicable provisions of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of theUnited Nations. Attention is drawn in particular to article VII, section 24, of the Convention whichprovides that laissez-passers issued by the United Nations shall be recognized by the authoritiesof Member States as valid travel documents.

The provisions of the Convention do not distinguish between United Nations officials onaccount of whether the official is locally or internationally recruited, nor on the basis of the official'snationality and residence. The clear intention of the Convention is to facilitate the work of theOrganization by enabling its officials to travel on laissez-passers rather than on national passports.This purpose would be frustrated if Member States were to arbitrarily withhold recognition of thelaissez-passer in respect of a certain group of officials who otherwise meet all the conditions of theConvention. It is a fact that, in a number of cases, staff members on home leave have used theirlaissez-passer to enter countries of their nationality.

18 March 1980

201

17. DENIAL BY THE AUTHORITIES OF A MEMBER STATE OF AN ENTRY VISA TO A NATIONAL OFTHAT STATE EMPLOYED BY THE UNITED NATIONS ON THE BASIS OF A DEGREE-LAW AU-THORIZING SUCH A DENIAL ON GROUNDS OF STATE SECURITY — RELEVANT PROVISIONS OFTHE CHARTER, THE CONVENTION ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITEDNATIONS AND THE APPLICABLE HEADQUARTERS AGREEMENT — QUESTION WHETHER THEDECREE LAW MAY OVERRIDE THE INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE STATE CONCERNED

Memorandum to the Director, Division of Personnel Administration,Office of Personnel Services

1. Reference is made to your memorandum of 5 May 1980 regarding the refusal by theauthorities of a Member State of an entry visa to a staff member of the United Nations. This caseraises some difficult questions of law and policy. The purpose of this memorandum is to set outas clearly as possible the legal rights of the United Nations in this case in the light of the knownfacts.

2. According to the information available to this office, the staff member in question isregarded by the present authorities of the Member State concerned as a person who is subject tothe terms of a Decree-Law providing that persons in certain defined categories (persons who: leftthe country by seeking asylum; left the country without following the normal procedures; havebeen expelled or obliged to leave the country; are serving a sentence of banishment; have disobeyedthe order to present themselves to the Government for reasons of State security) may not re-enterthe country without prior permission from the Minister of the Interior. The Minister may refusepermission on grounds of State security. While the Decree-Law requires the Minister to substantiatehis decision it does not specify criteria for deciding what is meant by "State security". The decisionis, therefore, left entirely to the executive branch of the Government. The courts have taken theposition that decisions under the Decree-Law are not subject to judicial review.

4. As a United Nations official the status of the person concerned under international lawis, of course, broader than that of an ordinary citizen. Specifically, under Article 105 of the Charter,sections 18 and 24 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations andsections 12 and 13 of the relevant Headquarters Agreement, the United Nations maintains that whentravelling on official business (which would include home leave travel) officials should be grantedfreedom of movement by all Member States. This principle applies regardless of nationality unlesssuch a distinction is expressly provided for in the instruments themselves.

5. As a matter of law, the question is whether the Decree-Law referred to above may overridethe international obligations of the Member State concerned as set out in paragraph 4 above. Inthis connexion, it must be noted that with regard to transit and residence, section 12, paragraph{b) of the ECLA Headquarters Agreement provides that it "shall not impair the enforcement ofthe law in force".

6. Thus, while a legal argument to support the staff member's request for a visa can certainlybe made as a matter of international immunities, the legal position is not by any means unequivocal.The conclusion reached by this Office when the case was first raised with us in December 1979was summarized as follows:

"In our view any intervention should be based on Charter and Convention which estab-lished general principle of freedom of movement and insistence that any denial must bemotivated in order that Secretary-General may be made aware of all circumstances surroundingindividual case. The latter is necessary since privileges and immunities attach to the Organ-ization rather than the individual. Arguments could also be based on human rights covenantsbut we believe it better to place the question firmly in the field of the law of internationalimmunities."

8 May 1980

202

18. QUESTION WHETHER, UNDER THE RULES GOVERNING THE SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL IM-

MUNITY, NATIONAL SERVICE OBLIGATIONS MAY BE IMPOSED ON A DEPENDANT OF AN OFFICIALOF THE UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

Memorandum to the Chief, Executive Office of the Administrator of UNDP

1. We have been asked, by your memorandum of 14 August 1980, to state our opinion asto the compatibility of the local law of [name of a Member State], imposing national serviceobligations upon the daughter of a UNDP official serving in that country, with the rules governingthe system of international immunity. I regret the delay in this reply, but the point appears to bea novel one, on which some considerable research into general principles of international law wasrequired.

2. As regards members of the staff of the United Nations Development Programme in thecountry concerned, their status is governed by article IX of the relevant Standard Basic AssistanceAgreement. By virtue of article IX, paragraph 1, of the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement,article V of the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations applies.

3. Section 18(c) of article V provides that officials of the United Nations are "immune fromnational service obligations". The rationale behind this provision is clear. Privileges and immunitiesare granted to officials, as stated in section 20 of the Convention, "in the interests of the UnitedNations". It is obviously in those interests that officials are free from interference by nationalauthorities and free to perform their duties. Both these considerations mandate exemption from"national service", which the United Nations has understood to extend beyond military serviceto other forms of extended compulsory service;

4. Under article V of the Convention, certain privileges and immunities granted to officialsare extended to members of their families: e.g. exemption is granted from immigration restrictionsand alien registration. However, with respect to exemption from national service obligations, section18(c) only covers the United Nations official himself.

5. The absence of an explicit provision regarding national service obligations of familymembers of United Nations officials does not mean that this particular question cannot be solvedwithin the framework of the system of international immunity.

6. The Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations is not a conclusivecompilation of all the privileges and immunities accorded to international functionaires. At the timethe Convention was drafted, it was designed to meet the immediate needs of the Organization andits personnel and to spell out the principal privileges and immunities required. The problem hereaddressed — namely whether the State in which the United Nations official performs his officialfunctions (the host State) can call upon him and his family, being non-nationals, for compulsorynational service — was surely not immediately apparent when the Convention was drafted, par-ticularly as there is strong evidence of a rule of general international law which prevents a Statefrom imposing an obligation to do compulsory military or other service upon aliens temporarilyresident within its territory. InJhe light of such a rule, an express mention of the exemption offamily members may not have been considered necessary.

7. If aliens temporarily resident enjoy an exemption, this should be all the more true ofUnited Nations officials and their families who are temporarily present in the territory of the hostState for the performance by the official of functions for the benefit of the host State.

8. Quite apart from the rules of general international law, it should be recalled that Articles104 and 105 of the Charter stipulate the obligations of all members to recognize the legal capacityof the United Nations and to accord to the United Nations all privileges and immunities necessaryfor the accomplishment of its purposes. These provisions stand on their own, independently fromthe Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. Whether any particularimmunity is necessary at a particular stage in the development of the Organization in order toguarantee its freedom and independence from unilateral interference is a question of fact andjudgement. There is no question that free and unhampered exercise of the United Nations official'sfunctions requires that he is exempted from any form of national service obligations in the host

203

State. Free and unhampered exercise of his funtions, furthermore, requires that some privilegesand immunities have to be afforded to family members accompanying the United Nations official,as otherwise United Nations officials would not be willing to serve in a foreign country.

9. When the Member State concerned seeks to apply national service provisions to thedaughter of a United Nations official it put the official in a situation where he might find it impossibleto continue to serve in that country, thus leading to a request for transfer or repatriation, withconsequent disruption of the UNDP assistance programme. This point should be made strongly tothe Government, and it should be pointed out that exemption from national service obligationswould not be a favour to an individual but would rather be for the purpose of assuring theOrganization that its work could be carried out by its official without disruption. It should also bementioned that to subject a family member of a United Nations official to compulsory service inthe country concerned could be grossly unfair, as the person concerned could still be liable forsuch service in the country of which he is a national.

10. I would suggest that you transmit a copy of this memorandum to the Resident Repre-sentative in the country concerned, with the suggestion that he have further discussions with theGovernment in order to secure the exemption of the family member concerned from compulsoryservice. If this proves to be unsuccessful, we are prepared to raise the matter at Headquarters withthe Permanent Mission of the Member State in question.

8 October 1980

19. IMPORT PRIVILEGES, UNDER THE CONVENTION ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THEUNITED NATIONS, OF OFFICIALS OF SPECIALIZED AGENCIES SERVING ON PROJECTS OF THEUNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME — UNITED NATIONS POLICY IN THIS RESPECT— INADMISSIBILITY OF DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT BASED ON NATIONALITY

Memorandum to the Chief, Division for Administrative and Management Services,Bureau for Finance and Administration, United Nations Development Programme

1. Reference is made to your memorandum dated 9 April 1980 by which you requestedadvice on certain questions raised in a letter dated 24 March 1980 from the UNDP ResidentRepresentative in [name of a Member State] with respect to the enjoyment of import privileges byspecialized agency officials assigned to UNDP-financed projects in that country.

2. We understand the issue on which legal advice is sought to be the provisional decisionby the Resident Representative to suspend previous approval of a request, by an ITU technicalassistance expert, to import an autombile duty-free. The ground for the suspension is indicated tobe the governmental authorities' position that the approval was valid only for the expert in questionbut did not extend to nationals of the country concerned serving as technical assistance experts.

3. To the extent the issue is affected by the legal relationship between the United Nationsand the Government, the applicable instrument is the Convention on the Privileges and Immunitiesof the United Nations, to which the Government concerned has acceded, and which is madeapplicable also to officials of the specialized agencies serving on UNDP projects by the Agreementbetween the United Nations Special Fund and that same Government concerning assistance fromthe Special Fund. As you are aware, the detailed application of this provision has varied to a certainextent with local requirements and conditions, although it seems safe to say that automobiles haveinvariably been included among the effects falling under the provision. It appears that this generalobservation also applies to the country concerned which according to the UNDP legal files haspromulgated internal regulations on the custom-free importation of foreign cars or purchase oflocally purchased cars at a discount. It is noted further that neither the Convention nor UnitedNations policy contemplate nor permit discriminatory treatment of officials based solely on dis-tinctions between the nationality of the officials concerned. It therefore follows that the UnitedNations, including UNDP, should claim from the governmental authorities the privileges granted

204

to officials under the Convention irrespective of the nationality of the official in question. To makesuch claims only for officials who are not nationals of the concerned country would — if doneconsistently for a certain period — detract from, and eventually undermine, the United Nationslegal position that nationality discrimination is unacceptable.

4. We appreciate the internal administrative difficulties which insistence on a consistentimplementation of the importation privileges may entail. We are however inclined to feel that thisproblem should be resolved by impressing on the governmental authorities the seriousness of theunequal treatment of staff to which the Government's practice gives rise, and by pointing out thatthe Convention makes no distinction based on nationality.

5. In conclusion, it follows from the foregoing that the Resident Representative should beinstructed no longer to withhold the approval given to the above-mentioned expert for importationof a personal automobile. This step should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the Government'swish to apply different treatment to officials of that country's nationality; rather it would seem thatthe Resident Representative should prepare to raise at an early date with the appropriate governmentalauthorities the general question of equal import privileges to all officials regardless of nationality.

13 June 1980

20. CONVENTION ON PROHIBITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF CERTAIN CONVENTIONALWEAPONS WHICH MAY BE DEEMED TO BE EXCESSIVELY INJURIOUS OR TO HAVE INDISCRIM-INATE EFFECTS — PROHIBITIONS OF THE CONVENTION DESIGNED TO PROTECT UNITED NA-TIONS PEACE-KEEPING FORCES AND FACT-FINDING MISSIONS — SPECIAL FUNCTIONS OF THESECRETARY-GENERAL UNDER THE CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL II THERETO15


1. The Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain ConventionalWeapons Which May be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effectsand its Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and OtherDevices (Protocol II) (A/CONF.95/15, annex I, appendices A and C),IS which have been adoptedby the United Nations Conference on Prohibitions or Restrictions of Use of Certain ConventionalWeapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects,contain several provisions of particular institutional interest to the Organization.

A. United Nations forces and missions

2. Article 7 (3) (b), and in particular article 8, of Protocol II contain provisions designedto protect United Nations peace-keeping forces from minefields laid before their arrival in an areaof operation. In effect, in case of a mission other than merely a fact-finding one, all parties must,as far as they are able, do everything to protect the mission by removing or de-activating all minesand booby-traps in the area, making available information about such devices to the force commanderand taking other necessary measures. In case of a fact-finding mission, removal of mines andbooby-traps is not required, but the force must be either protected from or fully informed aboutthe location of such devices.

3. These provisions are based on a proposal originally tabled, at the Preparatory Conferencefor the Conference on Specific Conventional Weapons, by the delegations of several troop-supplyingcountries, and was included in the Preparatory Conference's report (A/CONF.95/3, annex II,appendix B, article 3 (3) (a) (iv)). At the 1979 session of the Conference, the Secretary-Generalresponded to an invitation to comment on the draft provision, and proposed a restructuring andextension (A/CONF.95/CW/WG.1/1),16 which was largely accepted though with somewhat di-minished obligations for the parties to the hostilities. After consulting the Commanders of all UnitedNations forces, the Secretariat, in a note reproduced as A/CONF.95/CW/4, raised two questionsabout the draft provisions.

205

The first question was whether the recording obligations of the parties to a conflict (on whichthey would later base theii protective measures) should not be detailed in the Protocol. At first theWorking Group on Mines and Booby-Traps merely adopted a statement of understanding (A/CONF.95/CW/WG.1/L.9; A/CONF.95/CW/7, para. 16), to the effect that it was expected that allparties would interpret their obligations with a view to accomplishing the humanitarian purposesto be served by the Protocol — i.e. that they would not through any restrictive interpretation oftheir recording obligations seek to hamper their ability subsequently to protect any United Nationsforces. However, later, as a result of proposals from other delegations, a special Technical Annexon Recording was added to Protocol II.

The second question was whether it should not be specified that, if necessary, United Nationsforces would themselves have the right to remove mines. No agreement could be reached onaccording such a right in general, and therefore the above-mentioned understanding merely recordsthat the Protocol is not meant to deal with this question — i.e. that the recitation of certain protectivemeasures in the Protocol is not to be interpreted as excluding the right of United Nations forcesto remove mines if so agreed with the parties or mandated by the Security Council.

4. In order to prevent a State Party to the Protocol from escaping its obligations vis-a-visthe United Nations with regard to a current conflict by denouncing the Protocol or the generalConvention, it is specifically provided in article 9 (2) of the latter that although a denunciationbecomes effective one year after it is notified to the Secretary-General (as Depositary), obligationsunder any Protocol containing provisions concerning United Nations forces or missions (e.g., theabove-described provisions of Protocol II) are to remain in force, in respect of any conflict that wascurrent at the time the denunciation became effective, until the end of any United Nations operationsrelating to that conflict.

B. Special functions of the Secretary-General under the Convention and Protocol II

5. Aside from normal depositary functions in respect of the Convention and its Protocols(i.e. the three adopted at the Conference and any others that might be adopted later by use of themachinery created by article 8 of the Convention), the Secretary-General has a number of specialfunctions under various provisions of the Convention and the Protocols. As indicated below, someof these too have been subject to various interpretative statements at the Conference.

6. Under article 7 (2) of the Convention, a State that is not a party to the Convention or toa given Protocol and is engaged in a conflict with a State that is a party, may notify the Secretary-General that it will accept and apply such provisions in that conflict. Article 7 (3) of the Conventionrequires the Secretary-General immediately to inform the States concerned of any such notification;however, he is not required by article 10 (2) to communicate such notifications to all States. Itshould also be noted that article 7 (4) provides that under certain circumstances "other authorities"referred to in article 96 (3) of Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions (e.g., anational liberation movement) may "undertake to apply" or "accept and apply" the obligationsof the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I, as well as of the present Conventions andits Protocols; although it was deliberately not specified what form such an undertaking or acceptanceis to take, and whether it would involve the Secretary-General, it may be expected that in certaininstances relevant communications might be addressed to him, leaving him to decide whether,under the given circumstances, he should transmit these officially to the States concerned.

7. Article 8 (I) (a), (2) (a) and (3) (a) of the Convention requires the Secretary-General,if requested by a specified number of Parties, to convene a conference of such Parties, or of allStates, to amend, extend or review the Convention and the Protocols. Just before that provisionwas approved by the Conference, the Executive Secretary made a statement in the plenary on behalfof the Secretary-General, indicating that he could only carry out that function in a given case ifthe necessary finances therefore are either authorized by the General Assembly, or provided by theStates that are to participate in the Conference (see A/CONF.95/SR.11).

8. Under Article 7 (3) (a) (ii) and (iii) of the above-mentioned Protocol II, the parties to aconflict during which mines were laid in the territory of an adverse party must, at the end of activehostilities and of any territorial occupation, exchange information with each other and also inform

206

the Secretary-General about the "location of minefields, mines and booby-traps in the territory ofthe adverse party"; however, no indication is given as to the Secretary-General's responsibilitieswith respect of such information. Consequently, the Executive Secretary of the Conference, at its1979 session, made a statement on behalf of the Secretary-General indicating that the latter con-sidered that he would be free to use such information as he deems fit and that he would naturallyexercise this right at his discretion in the interest of the restoration and maintenance of peacefulconditions, as well as the facilitation of the functioning of any United Nations or other humanitarianmissions or operations (A/CONF.95/8, annex I, appendix B, attachment 3).

21 November 1980

21. DETERMINATION OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF AN ACTION RELATING TO A MULTI-DEPOSITARYCONVENTION — DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED BY DEPOSITARIES IN THAT RESPECT — PRAC-TICE OF THE SECRETARIAT IN REGISTERING ACTIONS RELATING TO SUCH MULTI-DEPOSITARYCONVENTIONS

Note verbale to the Permanent Representative of a Member State

Reference is made to the second paragraph of the Permanent Representative's note concerningthe difficulties experienced by depositaries in the case of multi-depositary agreements, with respectto the determination of the effective dates of ratifications, accessions, etc., that may be effectedin various places at different times. In this regard, the Secretary-General has the followingobservations.

First it should be emphasized that the Secretariat's main concern in this context has been thecorrect application of the General Assembly regulations to give effect to Article 102 of the Charter.Article 5 of the said regulations provides, inter alia, that the certified copy of an internationalagreement submitted for registration should be accompanied by a statement setting forth, in respectof each party, the date on which that agreement has come into force. The Secretariat's understanding,on the basis of the discussion of article 5 in Sub-Committee 1 of the Sixth Committee (second partof the first session of the General Assembly) has been that, although this is not specifically providedfor in the regulations, the same requirements are applicable when registering a certified statementunder article 2 thereof (see Repertory of Practice of the United Nations Organs, vol. V, Article102 of the Charter, annex to para. 17).

It is true that, as pointed out by the Permanent Representative, the General Assembly regulationswere adopted before the multi-depositary procedure was conceived and the Secretariat is of coursewell aware of the intent of that procedure, which is to allow entities not universally recognized toparticipate in important agreements of general interest. One of the difficulties resulting from themulti-depositary procedure is that the various depositaries may not be certain that an instrumenthas been deposited earlier in another place when they register the deposit of instrument effectedin their own capital. It should be noted, however, that the standard registration format used by theSecretariat allows for just such situations (see for instance the February 1976 Statement of Treaties,p. 57: document ST/LEG/SER.A/348) since the effective date of deposit of a given instrumentindicated in the register of treaties is given exclusively in the context of the particular formalitythat is being registered, and no cross-references are provided to the deposit of instruments effectedin other places or on other dates by the same entity: thus the indication of an effective date relatingto the deposit of an instrument in a given capital does not preclude the possibility that the agreementhas already been in force for some time in respect of the entity concerned as the result of a priorformality in another capital. Furthermore, not only would it be impossible, under the existingGeneral Assembly regulations, to omit the indication of the effective date in the case of multi-depositary agreements, but such an omission would cast a serious doubt as to whether the agreementis in force at all for the State concerned and would thereby defeat the very purpose of the multi-depositary procedure.

207

It should be added that the recent computerization of treaty data has led the Secretariat tostreamline its methods and practices in the field of registration. Thus, because the indication of thedate of entry into force is one of the requirements of the General Assembly regulations to giveeffect to Article 102 of the Charter, the computer programming has been devised so as to requirethe inclusion of the effective date of an agreement or subsequent action among the data enteredand will automatically include this in the text destined to the register of treaties. Before comput-erization was introduced it had been the practice of the Secretariat, mainly to economize space,not to indicate in the monthly statement and in the Treaty Series itself the effective date of anaction when under the provisions of the agreement that date coincided with the date of deposit ofthe given instrument: in such cases the reader was to assume, on the basis of the pertinent provisionsof the treaty, that the instrument took effect immediately upon deposit, an assumption that theSecretariat itself made when the certified statement submitted by the registrant did not specify theeffective date as was the situation for earlier multi-depositary conventions such as the 1963 TestBan Treaty. The Convention on the prevention of marine pollution, which is the subject of thePermanent Representative's note, provides, however, for entry into force 30 days after the depositof the instrument of ratification or accession, and because the practice of depositaries may vary inthe computation of the limits, the Secretariat finds it necessary to seek confirmation of anyassumption it might make with regard to effective dates.

The Permanent Representative has suggested that the Secretariat would be in the best positionto determine the effective date of an action relating to a multi-depositary convention. In thisconnexion, it should be pointed out that, because of the time lag between the completion of aformality and the submission of that formality for registration by the depositary, the Secretariatmay not necessarily receive such information in chronological order, and could not thereforeascertain if any previous actions have been effected by a party in another capital. In any event, theSecretariat, which already struggles with a considerable backlog in the field of registration andpublication of international agreements, is reluctant to shoulder such an additional burden with thecomplications that it involves (and which are well illustrated by the case of the Convention on theinternational liability for damage caused by space objects: see the October 1975 Statement ofTreaties (ST/LEG/SER.A/344, p. 536)).

In these circumstances, one solution to the problem which has already been accepted by onedepositary Government, is for the depositary, when registering, to indicate in its certified statementthe effective date as computed on the basis of the formality executed in its own capital, with thefollowing proviso: "Provided that the deposit in . . . was the effective deposit for the purposes ofarticle . . . of the Convention". Such a formulation has the advantage of satisfying the GeneralAssembly regulations, while circumventing the precise problems that the use of multi-depositarieswas designed to avoid. Nevertheless, the preference of the Secretariat would be of course for aprocedure of consultation between the depositaries, which would avoid (at least in the vast majorityof cases) any uncertainty.

5 March 1980

22. QUESTION OF THE TERRITORIAL SCOPE OF THE RATIFICATION BY A STATE OF A MULTILATERALCONVENTION — POSSIBILITY FOR A STATE HAVING SUCCEEDED TO ANOTHER STATE BEFORETHE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF A MULTILATERAL CONVENTION OF BECOMING PARTY TO THATCONVENTION THROUGH THE PROCEDURE OF SUCCESSION IF AT THE DATE OF THE SUCCESSIONTHE PREDECESSOR STATE WAS A CONTRACTING STATE TO THE TREATY IN QUESTION

Letter to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of a Member StateYou ask in your letter of 5 June 1980 whether the Gilbert and Ellice Islands were covered by

the ratification by the United Kingdom, on 25 June 1971, of the Vienna Convention on the Lawof Treaties.17 In other words, as we understand it, you are inquiring whether or not the Governmentof the Republic of Kiribati is eligible to participate in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treatiesthrough the procedure of succession of States.

208

Your question raises two problems: first, the determination of the territorial scope of the UnitedKingdom ratification and, second, the question of a succession by Kiribati to a multilateral treatywhich was not yet in force at the time of the succession of States (the Gilbert Islands, now knownas the State of Kiribati, became independent on 12 July 1979 and the Vienna Convention on theLaw of Treaties entered into force on 27 January 1980).

A. Although certain types of treaties such as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,are hardly susceptible of territorial application in the ordinary sense by reason of their very subjectmatter, the territorial scope of a treaty depends on the intention of the parties. In this respect, theUnited Kingdom's instrument of ratification does not contain any indication, and the well establishedpractice followed by the Secretary-General as depositary of international agreements is the following:a treaty is presumed to apply to the entire territory of each party unless it appears otherwise fromthe treaty (see Summary of the practice of the Secretary-General as depositary of multilateralagreements [ST/LEG/7, para. 103]). This practice was later codified in article 29 of the ViennaConvention on the Law of Treaties (see the International Law Commission commentaries underarticle 25 in its draft articles adopted at its eighteenth session, Yearbook of the International LawCommission, 1966, vol. II, pp. 134, 135 and 140).

B. As to the question of succession, attention is drawn to the general declaration made bythe Government of Kiribati upon independence, according to which questions of succession tomultilateral agreements will be governed "by accepted rules of international law and by the relevantprinciples contained in the Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, concludedat Vienna on 23 August 1978".18

In this respect, the practice followed by the Secretary-General as depositary was codified inarticle 18 (2) of the above-mentioned Convention under which a newly independent State mayestablish its status as a party to a multilateral treaty which enters into force after the date of thesuccession of States, if at the date of the succession of States the predecessor State was a contractingState to the treaty in question.

In view of the above, should the Government of Kiribati decide on its participation in theVienna Convention on the Law of Treaties through the procedure of succession, it may send to theSecretary-General a notification to this effect under the signature of the Minister of Foreign Affairs.Thereupon, Kiribati will be listed as a party to the Convention with retroactive effect as from thedate of entry into force of the Convention. You will, however, realize the rather limited rationalein using this procedure instead of succession, since in the present case there is no question ofcontinuity of application before and after the date of independence.

9 July 1980

B. Legal opinions of the Secretariats of intergovernmental organizationsrelated to the United Nations

1. INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION

The following memorandum, dealing with the interpretation of an international labour Con-vention, was drawn up by the International Labour Office at the request of a Government:

"Memorandum on the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151),drawn up at the request of the Government of Switzerland, 29 January 1980. DocumentGB.213/15/4. 213th session of the Governing Body, May-June 1980."

209

2. FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

(a) REGISTRATION OF EXPERTS FOR RESIDENCE PURPOSES

Memorandum to the Director of the Field Programme Development Division

1. I should like to refer to your memorandum of 23 June 1980 in which you ask for guidancein connexion with the difficulties that FAO staff in [name of a State] are encountering with respectto what appears to be, in effect, residence permits.

2. From a legal point of view, all FAO officials are immune, together with their spouses andrelatives dependent on them, from immigration restrictions and alien registration, as provided insection 19 (c) of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies.Although the State concerned is not a party to the Convention itself, the Convention is incorporatedby reference in a number of agreements which are binding on it and which cover FAO activitiesin that country. Thus, the provisions of the Convention are included in article IX.2 of the basicAgreement between UNDP and the country concerned, signed on 15 September 1976; in paragraph5 of the exchange of letters relating to the FAO Representative's office; and are, in general, includedin standard agreements concluded between FAO and governments relating to projects and pro-grammes financed by FAO from extra-budgetary resources or the Technical Co-operation Pro-gramme. Even FAOPAS officers, their spouses and dependants enjoy the same immunity fromimmigration restrictions and alien registration under article IV.4 (d) of the Agreement concludedbetween FAO and the State in question.

3. The residence cards or permits required by the governmental authorities clearly constitute"alien registration" within the meaning of section 19 (c) of the Convention on the Privileges andImmunities of Specialized Agencies. It follows, therefore, that FAO officials should be grantedimmunity from such residence permit formalities as may normally be applicable to aliens workingin the State concerned.

4. Accordingly, FAO officials and their families should, in particular, decline to pay anyfines that the governmental authorities may seek to impose if they are not in possession of a validresidence permit, on the grounds that such a requirement is not applicable to them.

5. From a practical point of view, it would seem that the FAO Representative and the UNDPResident Representative should pursue their efforts to take the matter up with the Government atan appropriate level, with a view to arriving at a mutually acceptable modus vivendi. In thisconnexion, the Government's attention should be drawn to the fact that the FAO officials are onits territory pursuant to a request from, and after appropriate clearance by, the Government. Inthese circumstances, these officials and their families should not be subjected to bureaucraticharassment.

6. Arrangements might be envisaged whereby on arrival in the country FAO officials andtheir families would automatically be issued by the Government with a special card identifyingthem as international civil servants (or members of their families) and entitling them to reside andtravel in the country for the duration of their mission. A simple procedure could also be devisedfor their automatic renewal where the holder's mission is extended. If the governmental authoritiesare insistent about photographs, and it continues to be difficult to have them made locally, UNDPmight buy some simple equipment — like that used to make identity tags at the FAO Conference— to facilitate and expedite the procedure.

30 June 1980

210

(b) SEPARATION PAYMENTS SCHEME FUND

Memorandum to the Chief of the Headquarters Programmes Section

1. . . .

2. [The question has been raised] whether the Separation Payments Scheme Fund should beregarded as a "Reserve Fund", which could have been established only with Conference approval,or whether it was part and parcel of the salary scale introduced in 1975, which the Council hadauthority to approve. In our opinion, the answer depends on the nature of the Separation PaymentsScheme and of the payments made under that Scheme, and also on the nature of the Fund createdfor that purpose.

3. As regards the nature of payments made under the Separation Payments Scheme, it seemsclear that they represent deferred salary. The Scheme was introduced in 1975 as part of the newsalary "package", replacing the past practice of making an addition to base scales of 8.33 percent, and reflecting the separation payments made under Italian labour legislation by other employersand termed "indennita di anzianita". The General Service Salaries Survey Board noted in thisconnexion in its report of May 1975 (ref. FC 34/16(b)) that "in Italian practice the indennha dianzianita is regarded as deferred salary . . . ".

4. It is also pertinent to observe, as a further illustration of the "deferred salary" nature ofthe separation payments scheme, that when a General Service staff member is promoted to theProfessional category, he is paid the separation payment accrued up to the date of his promotion.Moreover, in calculating the step in the new grade of a General Service staff member promotedto the Professional category, the net remuneration in the previous grade, on the basis of which thecalculation is made, is increased by 8.33 per cent.

5. As regards the question whether the Separation Payments Scheme Fund should be con-sidered a reserve fund falling within the scope of rule XXIV.3(g) of the General Rules of theOrganization and financial regulation 6.8, it should be borne in mind that this Fund is, in effect,a mechanism whereby the Organization invests monies which have been earned by staff membersand which may, at any time, have to be paid to them (e.g., upon separation or promotion to theProfessional category). The obligation to pay benefits under the Scheme is not a contingent oneand it is only the precise time at which the payment has to be made that depends upon givencircumstances. Accordingly, the nature of the Separation Payments Scheme Fund differs, at leastin one essential aspect, from that of a normal reserve fund set up to meet contingencies which mayor may not materialize and to which rule XXIV.3(#) of the General Rules of the Organization andfinancial regulation 6.8 would be applicable.

6. We would therefore concur with the conclusion that, since the Separation PaymentsScheme was approved by the Council as part of an overall pay package, the establishment of theFund falls within the scope of paragraph 3(/) of rule XXIV of the General Rules of the Organization,which gives the Council authority to approve both salary scales and conditions of service of thestaff.

17 November 1980

Notes1 In this connexion see "Guidelines for implementation of General Assembly resolutions granting observer

status on a regular basis to certain regional intergovernmental organizations, the Palestine Liberation Organi-zation and the national liberation movements in Africa", reproduced in the Juridical Yearbook, 1975, pp. 164-167.

2 A/35/363, annex.3 Article I of the Convention on Certain Questions relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws, 1930,

expressed this principle as follows: '"It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals.This law shall be recognized by other States in so far as it is consistent with international conventions,international custom, and the principles of law generally recognized with regard to nationality". (League ofNations, Treaty Series, vol. 179, p. 89).

4 General Assembly resolution 2200 A (XXI). annex. Also reproduced in the Juridical Yearbook, 1966,p. 170.

211

5 General Assembly resolution 1904 (XVIII).6 General Assembly resolution 3068 (XXVIII), annex. Also reproduced in the Juridical Yearbook, 1973,

p. 70.7 General Assembly resolution 2106 (XX), annex. Also reproduced in the Juridical Yearbook, 1965,

p. 63.s United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 268, p. 32.9 Ibid., vol. 96, p. 271.10 See, in particular, Council resolutions 227 (LXII) and 278 (LXIII) adopted by the Council at its sixty-

second and sixty-third sessions, respectively, in 1977.11 DP/GC/COI/R.l.12 Minutes of the Committee of Jurists on the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice,

March llth-19th, 1929, doc. C.166.M,66,1929, V., p. 37.13 Baron Rolin-Jacquemyns died on 11 July 1936 and his successor was elected on 27 May 1937. Judge

Hammarskjold died on 7 July 1937 and his successor was elected on 26 September 1938. (See Hudson: ThePermanent Court oflnternationalJustice, 1943, pp. 256-257, paras. 243 and 244).

14 Judge Azevedo died on 7 May 1951 and his successor was elected on 6 December 1951. Judge Golunskyresigned on 27 July 1953 and his successor was elected on 27 November 1953. Sir Benegal Rau died on 30November 1953, and his successor was elected on 7 October 1954. Judge Hau Ho died on 28 June 1956 andhis successor was elected on 11 January 1957. Judge Cuerrero died on 25 October 1958 and his successor waselected on 29 September 1959. Judge Sir Horsch Lauterpacht died on 8 May 1960 and his successor was electedon 16 November 1960. Judge Abdel Hamid Badawi died on 4 August 1965 and his successor was elected on16 November 1965.

15 Reproduced on pp. 113-122 of the present Yearbook.16 As suggested by the Secretary-General, the provision, which subsequently became article 7 (3) {b) of

Protocol II, read as follows:[All such records shall be retained by the parties, who shall]:

"when United Nations forces or missions are established to perform functions in any area, make availableto the Secretary-General of the United Nations such information as is required by article [8]."As suggested by the Secretary-General, the provisions which subsequently became article 8 of Protocol

II read as follows:" 1. When a United Nations force or mission is established to perform peace-keeping, observation,

fact-finding or similar functions in any area, each party to the conflict shall, as far as it is able, removeor render harmless all mines or booby-traps in the area, shall take such measures as may be necessary toprotect the force or mission from the effects of minefields, mines and booby-traps while carrying out itsduties and, subject to paragraph 2, make available to the Secretary-General of" the United Nations allinformation in the party's possession concerning the location of minefields, mines and booby-traps in thatarea.

"2 . When a small United Nations fact-finding mission is on a temporary visit to an area, a partyto the conflict may decide not to make available the information in its possession concerning the locationof minefields, mines and booby-traps in the area, provided that other measures taken by that party aresufficient to protect the mission while carrying out its duties."17 United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties, Official Records, documents of the Conferenco (A/

CONF.39/1 l/Add.2 — United Nations publication, Sales No. E.70.V.5), p. 287.18 United Nations Conference on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, Official Records, documents

of the Conference (A/CONF.80/16/Add.2 — United Nations publication, Sales No. E.79.V.10), p. 186.

212

Part Three

JUDICIAL DECISIONS ON QUESTIONS RELATINGTO THE UNITED NATIONS AND RELATEDINTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

Chapter VII

DECISIONS AND ADVISORY OPINIONS OFINTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

INTERPRETATION OF THE AGREEMENT OF 25 MARCH 1951 BETWEEN WHO AND EGYPT1

ADVISORY OPINION OF 20 DECEMBER 19802

Determination by the Court of the meaning and implications of questions submitted for advisoryopinion — Need for Court to ascertain and formulate legal questions really in issue.

International organizations and host States — Respective powers of the organization and thehost State with regard to seat of headquarters or regional offices of organization — Mutual ob-ligations of co-operation and good faith resulting from a State's membership of organization aswell as from relations between organization and host State — Legal principles and rules applicableon transfer of office of organization from territory of host State concerning conditions and modalitiesfor effecting transfer — Duty to consult — Consideration of provisions of host agreements and ofVienna Convention on the Law of Treaties — Application of principles and rules of general inter-national law — Mutual obligation to co-operate in good faith to promote the objectives and purposesof the Organization.

On 20 May 1980 the World Health Assembly had decided to request of the Court an advisoryopinion on the following questions:

" 1 . Are the negotiation and notice provisions of Section 37 of the Agreement of 25March 1951 between the World Health Organization and Egypt applicable in the event thateither party to the Agreement wishes to have the Regional Office transferred from the territoryof Egypt?

"2. If so, what would be the legal responsibilities of both the World Health Organizationand Egypt, with regard to the Regional Office in Alexandria, during the two-year periodbetween notice and termination of the Agreement?"

Pursuant to Article 65, paragraph 2, of the Statute, the Director-General of the World HealthOrganization had transmitted to the Court a set of documents likely to throw light upon thesequestions.

In accordance with Article 66, paragraph 2, of the Statute, the WHO and those of its memberStates entitled to appear before the Court had been informed that the Court was prepared to receivefrom them written or oral statements furnishing information on the questions put to it.

On 6 June 1980 the President of the Court had made an Order fixing 1 September 1980 asthe time-limit for the submission of written statements (I.C.J. Reports 1980, p. 67). Writtenstatements were received from the Governments of Bolivia, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, the SyrianArab Republic, the United Arab Emirates and the United States of America.

On 21, 22 and 23 October 1980 the Court held public sittings at which oral statements weremade on behalf of Egypt, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and theUnited States of America, and the Director of the Legal Division of the WHO answered questionsput to him by Members of the Court.

215

On 20 December 1980 the Court delivered at a public sitting the Advisory Opinion {I.C.J.Reports 1980, p. 73) which is summarized below:

Factual and legal background to the submission of the Request {paras. 1-32 of the AdvisoryOpinion)

After detailing the various stages of the proceedings (paras. 1-9), the Court recounted theantecedents of the WHO Regional Office at Alexandria, from the creation in that city of a generalBoard of Health in 1831 for the purpose of preventing epidemics up to the integration of theAlexandria Sanitary Bureau with the WHO in 1949 as a regional organ. The Eastern MediterraneanRegional Office had commenced operations on 1 July 1949, while negotiations were in progressbetween the WHO and Egypt for the conclusion of an agreement on the privileges, immunities andfacilities to be granted to the Organization. This agreement had eventually been signed on 25 March1951 and had entered into force on 8 August 1951 (paras. 10-27).

The Court next examined the events which had led to the submission of the request for anAdvisory Opinion. It recapitulated proceedings within the WHO, from the recommendation by aSub-Committee of the Regional Committee for the Eastern Mediterranean on 11 May 1979 thatthe Office be transferred to another State in the region, up to the recommendation by the same Sub-Committee on 9 May 1980 that the Regional Office be transferred as soon as possible to Amman(Jordan) and the adoption by the World Health Assembly on 20 May 1980 of resolution WHA33.16by which, on account of differing views as to the applicability of Section 37 of the Agreement of25 March 1951 to the transfer of the Regional Office, it had sought the Court's advisory opinionon two questions prior to taking any decision (paras. 28-32).

Competence to deliver an Opinion (para. 33 of the Advisory Opinion)

Before proceeding further, the Court considered whether it ought to decline to reply to therequest for an Advisory Opinion by reason of its allegedly political character. It concluded that todo so would run counter to its settled jurisprudence. If a question submitted in a request were onethat otherwise fell within the normal exercise of its judicial powers, the Court had not to deal withthe motives which might have inspired the request.

Significance and scope of the questions put to the Court (paras. 34 f. of the Advisory Opinion)

The Court next considered the meaning and implications of the hypothetical questions onwhich it had been asked to advise. Section 37 of the Agreement of 25 March 1951, to which thefirst question referred, read:

"The present Agreement may be revised at the request of either party. In this event thetwo parties shall consult each other concerning the modifications to be made in its provisions.If the negotiations do not result in an understanding within one year, the present Agreementmay be denounced by either party giving two years' notice."

The Court pointed out that, if it was to remain faithful to the requirements of its judicialcharacter in the exercise of its advisory jurisdiction, it must ascertain what were the legal questionsreally in issue in questions formulated in a request. That it had had occasion to do in the past, ashad also the Permanent Court of International Justice. The Court also noted that a reply to questionsof the kind posed in the request submitted to it might, if incomplete, be not only ineffectual butactually misleading as to the legal rules applicable to the matter under consideration by the WHO.

Having regard to the differing views expressed in the World Health Assembly on a numberof points, it appeared that the true legal question under consideration in the World Health Assembly,which must also be considered to be the legal question submitted to the Court in the WHO'S requestwas: What are the legal principles and rules applicable to the question under what conditions andin accordance with what modalities a transfer of the Regional Office from Egypt may be effected?

216

The differing views advanced (paras. 37-42)

In answering the question thus formulated, the Court first noted that the right of an internationalorganization to choose the location of its headquarters or regional office was not contested. It thenturned to the differing views expressed in the World Health Assembly and, before the Court, inthe written and oral statements, regarding the relevance of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 andthe applicability of Section 37 to a transfer of the Regional Office from Egypt.

With respect to the relevance of the 1951 Agreement, one of the views advanced had beenthat that agreement was a separate transaction, subsequent to the establishment of the RegionalOffice, and that, although it might contain references to the seat of the Regional Office in Alexandria,it did not provide for the Office's location there. It would follow that it had no bearing on theOrganization's right to remove the Regional Office from Egypt. The Agreement, it had beenclaimed, concerned the immunities and privileges granted to the Office within the larger contextof the immunities and privileges granted by Egypt to the WHO.

According to the opposing view, the establishment of the Regional Office and its integrationwith the WHO had not been completed in 1949; they had been accomplished by a series of actsin a composite process, the final and definitive step in which had been the conclusion of the 1951host agreement. It had been contended, inter alia, that the absence of a specific provision regardingthe establishment of the WHO Office in Alexandria was due to the fact that the Agreement wasdealing with a pre-existing Sanitary Bureau already established there. Moreover, it had been stated,the Agreement was constantly referred to as a host agreement in the records of the WHO and inofficial acts of the Egyptian State (paras. 37-39).

So far as the applicability of Section 37 to the transfer of the Office from Egypt was concerned,the differences of view had resulted essentially from the meaning attributed to the word "revise"in the first sentence. According to one view, a transfer of the seat would not constitute a revisionand would thus not be covered by Section 37, which would not apply to the denunciation of theAgreement which a transfer of the Office from Egypt would involve. Upholders of that viewconcluded therefrom that since there was no provision in the Agreement for denunciation, thegeneral rules of international law which provided for the possibility of denunciation and the needfor a period of notice in respect of such agreements applied in the present case. According to theopposite view, the word "revise" might also signify a general revision of an agreement, includingits termination, and was so used in the 1951 Agreement. According to the proponents of that view,even if that interpretation were rejected, Egypt would still be entitled to receive notice under thegeneral rules of international law.

Whatever view might be taken of the arguments advanced concerning the relevance andapplicability of the 1951 Agreement, the Court found that certain legal principles and rules wereapplicable in the case of such a transfer (paras. 40-42).

Mutual obligations of co-operation and good faith (paras. 43-47)

Whether the mutual understandings reached between Egypt and the WHO from 1949 to 1951were regarded as distinct agreements or as separate parts of a single transaction, a contractual legalregime had been created between Egypt and the Organization which remained the basis of theirlegal relations. Those relations remained those of a host State and an international organization,the very essence of which was a body of mutual obligations of co-operation and good faith. Havingregard to the practical problems which a transfer would cause, the WHO and Egypt must co-operateclosely to avoid any risk of serious disruption to the work of the Regional Office. In particular,a reasonable period of time should be allowed for the process (paras. 43 f.).

In the Court's view, certain pointers to the implications of those mutual obligations to co-operate in good faith in a situation like the one with which it was concerned might be found innumerous host agreements, as well as in Article 56, paragraph 2, of the Vienna Convention on theLaw of Treaties and the corresponding provision in the International Law Commission's draftarticles on treaties between States and international organizations or between international organ-izations (paras. 45-47).

217

Applicable legal principles and rules (paras. 48 f.)

The Court thus found the applicable legal principles and rules, and the consequent obligations,to consist in:

— consultation in good faith as to the question under what conditions and in accordance withwhat modalities a transfer of the Regional Office from Egypt might be effected;

— if a transfer were decided upon, consultation and negotiation regarding the arrangementsneeded to effect the transfer in an orderly manner and with a minimum of prejudice to the workof the organization and the interests of Egypt;

— the giving of reasonable notice by the party desiring the transfer.

Precisely what periods of time might be involved in the observance of the duties to consult andnegotiate, and what period of notice should be given, were matters which necessarily variedaccording to the requirements of the particular case. In principle, therefore, it was for the partiesin each case to determine them. Some indications as to the possible periods involved could be seenin provisions of host agreements, including Section 37 of the Agreement of 25 March 1951, aswell as in Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and in the correspondingarticle of the International Law Commission's draft articles on treaties between States and inter-national organizations or between international organizations. The paramount consideration bothfor the WHO and the host State in every case must be their obligation to co-operate in good faithto promote the objectives and purposes of the WHO.

Second question submitted to the Court (para. 50)

It followed from the foregoing that the Court's reply to the second question was that the legalresponsibilities of the Organization and Egypt during the transitional period between notificationof the proposed transfer and the accomplishment thereof would be to fulfil in good faith the mutualobligations set out above.

For those reasons, the Court delivered the following Advisory Opinion:

"The Court," 1 . By twelve votes to one,"Decides to comply with the request for an advisory opinion;"IN FAVOUR: President Sir Humphrey Waldock; Vice-President Elias; Judges Forsler, Gros, Lachs,

Nagendra Singh, Ruda, Mosler, Oda, Ago, El-Erian and Sette-Camara;"AGAINST: Judge Morozov;

"2. With regard to Question 1,"By twelve votes to one,"Is of the opinion that in the event specified in the request, the legal principles and rules,

and the mutual obligations which they imply, regarding consultation, negotiation and notice,applicable as between the World Health Organization and Egypt are those which have beenset out in paragraph 49 of this Advisory Opinion and in particular that:

"(a) their mutual obligations under those legal principles and rules place a duty bothupon the Organization and upon Egypt to consult together in good faith as to the questionunder what conditions and in accordance with what modalities a transfer of the Regional Officefrom Egypt may be effected;

"(&) in the event of its being finally decided that the Regional Office shall be transferredfrom Egypt, their mutual obligations of co-operation place a duty upon the Organization andEgypt to consult together and to negotiate regarding the various arrangements needed to effectthe transfer from the existing to the new site in an orderly manner and with a minimum ofprejudice to the work of the Organization and the interests of Egypt;

218

"(c) their mutual obligations under those legal principles and rules place a duty uponthe party which wishes to effect the transfer to give a reasonable period of notice to the otherparty for the termination of the existing situation regarding the Regional Office at Alexandria,taking due account of all the practical arrangements needed to effect an orderly and equitabletransfer of the Office to its new site;

"IN FAVOUR: President Sir Humphrey Waldock; Vice-President Elias; Judges Forster, Gros, Lachs,Nagendra Singh, Ruda, Mosler, Oda, Ago, El-Erian and Sette-Camara;

"AGAINST: Judge Morozov;

" 3 . With regard to Question 2,

"By eleven votes to two,

" / J of the opinion that, in the event of a decision that the Regional Office shall be trans-ferred from Egypt, the legal responsibilities of the World Health Organization and Egyptduring the transitional period between the notification of the proposed transfer of the Officeand the accomplishment thereof are to fulfil in good faith the mutual obligations which theCourt has set out in answering Question 1;

"IN FAVOUR: President Sir Humphrey Waldock; Vice-President Elias; Judges Forster, Gros,Nagendra Singh, Ruda, Mosler, Oda, Ago, El-Erian and Sette-Camara;

"AGAINST: Judges Lachs and Morozov."

Judges Gros, Lachs, Ruda, Mosler, Oda, Ago, El-Erian and Sette-Camara appended separateopinions to the Advisory Opinion (I.C.J. Reports 1980, pp. 99, 108, 114, 125, 131, 155, 163 and178).

Judge Morozov appended a dissenting opinion {ibid., p. 190).

Notes1 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 223, p. 87.2 t.CJ. Reports 1980. p. 72. The above summary is reproduced from the I.C.J. Yearbook 1980-1981,

pp. 126-133.

219

Chapter VIIIDECISIONS OF NATIONAL TRIBUNALS

1. Argentina

In re PEDRO DANIEL WEINBERG: DECISION OF 15 JANUARY 1980

Case referred to the Supreme Court by the judge of first instance because the person concernedwas an international civil servant — Conclusions of the Court regarding the legal status ofthe person concerned in view of his nationality and the limited character of the privileges andimmunities granted to international civil servants — Referral of the case to the judge of firstinstance

The case concerned an expert of the Inter-American Centre for Research and Documentationon Vocational Training, a body attached to the ILO, against whom criminal proceedings had beeninstituted. The judge of first instance had declared himself to be incompetent because of the legalstatus of the person concerned and had referred the case to the Supreme Court.

The Court, referring to the information provided by the ILO Office in Buenos Aires and bythe Argentine Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ruled that since the person concerned was an Argentinenational employed in a technical post in an international agency and did not have the status of adiplomatic agent stricto sensu, did not represent the Organization and did not have full immunity,criminal proceedings instituted against him in connexion with an act unrelated to his professionalactivities did not fall within the original competence of the Court. It added that, without prejudiceto the foregoing, the question of the existence and scope, in the case concerned, of immunity fromarrest or any other privilege which the person concerned might claim in accordance with theapplicable legal rules' should be settled by the competent judge, to whom it therefore referredthe case.

2. Switzerland

(a) CANTONAL COURT OF THE CANTON OF VAUD (INSURANCE COURT)

X. v. EQUALIZATION FUND OF THE CANTON OF VAUD: JUDGEMENT OF 21 NOVEMBER 1979

Swiss employee of the United Nations participating in the United Nations Pension Fund — Man-datory participation in the national old-age insurance scheme — Exemption from such par-ticipation accorded only when the combined contributions would constitute an excessive burdenfor the person concerned

The plaintiff, a Swiss national employed by the United Nations in Geneva and domiciled inthe canton of Vaud, had requested the Equalization Fund of the canton of Vaud to exempt himfrom participation in the Swiss old age and survivors' insurance scheme because the combinedcontributions to that Fund and the United Nations Pension Fund would constitute an excessiveburden for him. In support of his request he had produced a certificate stating that he was aparticipant in the United Nations Pension Fund and paid to that institution a contribution equal to7 per cent of his salary. Having been requested by the cantonal Fund to state the amount of thesalary from which the 7 per cent contribution was deducted, he had omitted to provide that

220

information and his request for exemption from payment of his contributions to the old age pensionscheme had therefore been rejected.

Before the Court, the plaintiff invoked the practice followed by the Equalization Fund of thecanton of Geneva, which automatically exempts international civil servants of Swiss nationalityif they present a certificate confirming that they are participants in the pension fund of an internationalorganization. According to the plaintiff, it was unacceptable that a Swiss international civil servantshould be treated differently according to whether he had his domicile in the canton of Vaud orthe canton of Geneva. He likewise invoked the Headquarters agreement concluded between theSwiss Confederation and the United Nations.2 Lastly, he submitted to the Court the certificatewhich the cantonal Fund had requested of him, indicating the amount of his salary and of hiscontribution to the Pension Fund.

The Court reviewed the legislation and regulations governing the matter. It concluded that theplaintiff, a Swiss national, could not be exempted from the mandatory Swiss insurance schemeunless his contributions to that scheme, combined with his contributions to the United NationsPension Fund, constituted an excessive burden. With regard to the Agreement between the SwissConfederation and the United Nations invoked by the plaintiff, the Court concluded that it couldnot be deduced from any of the provisions of that Agreement that Swiss employees of the UnitedNations were entitled to exemption from the obligation to contribute to the Swiss old age insurancescheme.

With regard to the concept of an excessive financial burden, the Court recalled that the FederalInsurance Court had had occasion to specify that that concept did not imply a state of want andthat the burden could be considered excessive if the simultaneous payment of two contributionsinvolved the insured in serious financial difficulties. According to the judicial practice of the FederalInsurance Court, in 1962, combined contributions representing a total of 17 per cent of the salaryof the insured had not constituted an excessively heavy burden provided that the insured was leftwith an annual income of 29,000 francs for himself and his family. In the present case, the Courtconcluded that the condition of an excessively heavy double burden had clearly not been fulfilled,since the two contributions combined had represented 16.4 per cent of the plaintiff's salary in 1969and 15.9 per cent in 1968. In view of the amount of the plaintiff's salary and the fact that he wasa bachelor, the Court considered that the combined contributions did not constitute an excessiveburden in his case.

With regard to the practice of the Fund of the canton of Geneva invoked by the plaintiff, theCourt considered that neither the Fund of the canton of Vaud nor the Court itself was bound bythat practice. The Court observed, however, that the guidelines applied in Geneva deviated fromnormal legal and juridical practice, so that the plaintiff could not invoke that practice in the cantonof Vaud to prove that he had been the victim of unequal treatment.

The Court therefore rejected the appeal and confirmed the contested decision.

(b) CENTRAL COURT OF THE CANTON OF VAUD(CRIMINAL COURT OF CASSATION)

X. v. Ministere public: DECISION OF 19 MAY 1979

Immunity from criminal jurisdiction accorded to international civil servants and members of theirfamilies — Obligation of the judge pronouncing on the merits to consider the status of anaccused person falling within that category — Silence of the judgement on this point rendersit null and void

By a judgement of 27 February 1979, the Juvenile Court had fined the son of an internationalcivil servant 50 francs with suspended execution of sentence for causing a fire through negligence.On appeal, the father of the accused had drawn attention to the fact that his son was the holder of

221

a card issued by the Federal Political Department stating that he had been accorded inviolabilityand immunity from criminal, civil and administrative jurisdiction.

The Criminal Court of Cassation observed that the judgement stated "the father is an inter-national civil servant employed by the United Nations in Geneva". The Court concluded that inthose circumstances, the first judge should have automatically considered the status of the accusedand that, since he had not done so, the judgement v/as tainted by irregularities that rendered it nulland void. There were therefore grounds for automatically quashing the judgement and referring thecase back to the Juvenile Court so that it could determine whether the accused enjoyed immunityfrom criminal jurisdiction and, if appropriate, request that that immunity be waived.

The Criminal Court of Cassation thus automatically quashed the judgement of the JuvenileCourt and referred the case back to that Court for a new investigation and a new judgement asindicated in the preamble.

3. United States of America

(a) NEW YORK SUPREME COURT: APPELLATE DIVISIONSECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

SHAMSEE v. SHAMSEE: DECISION OF 19 MAY 19803

Appeal of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund et al. from orders inter alia denying a motionto vacate prior orders holding the Fund and its Secretary in contempt of court for non-compliance with a sequestration order relating to the pension entitlement of a retired employeeof the United Nations — Competence of the courts of the United States to decide on questionsof immunity from legal process under treaties and statutes of the United States — Immunityof the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund and its Secretary from the sequestration orderunder the applicable federal law

The case concerned the estranged wife of a retired employee of the United Nations, who hadobtained in 1976 a sequestration order against her husband. As a participant in the United NationsJoint Staff Pension Fund, the husband received from the Fund a pension which was his chiefremaining asset in the United States. The Fund's Secretary had declined to comply with thesequestration order, invoking immunity from legal process for the Fund and for himself in hisofficial capacity under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations andunder the International Organizations' Immunities Act, and had as a result been held, together withthe Fund, in contempt of court.

A stay of the Secretary's arrest had subsequently been granted by the Supreme Court at SpecialTerm pending a determination of the question of immunity. In this connexion two affidavits weresubmitted to the court, one from the Legal Counsel of the United Nations (attesting to the fact thatthe Fund is an organ of the United Nations, regulated by the General Assembly, that its assets arethe property of the United Nations, immune from process by virtue of treaty and statute and thatthe Secretary of the Fund is likewise immune for acts performed in his official capacity) and thesecond from an official of the State Department (certifying that the Secretary of the Fund was andhad been employed as such by the United Nations and was thus entitled to immunity for actsperformed in his official capacity). The Special Term having ordered the United States Attorneyto seek a "formal opinion" from the Department of State on the immunity question, the UnitedStates produced a State Department certificate attesting to the status of the Fund's Secretary, aswell as a letter from the State Department's Deputy Legal Adviser expressing the view that theFund and its Secretary are entitled to immunity from the sequestration order. By decision dated31 August 1979, the Court directed the United States Attorney to seek a ruling from the Presidentof the United States on the immunity question pursuant to section 288 of title 22 of the UnitedStates Court.

222

At several stages during the proceedings described above, the United Nations Joint StaffPension Fund and its Secretary had moved that the orders holding them in contempt of court andordering the Secretary's commitment to the County Jail be vacated but their motion had beendenied. They were seeking a reversal of the order denying this motion and of the order resultingfrom the decision of 31 August 1979.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court ruled that the order appealed from be reversedand the prior orders of contempt and commitment vacated. It stated that with the discontinuanceof the Executive Branch practice of making suggestions of immunity, the question of immunityfrom legal process under treaties and statutes of the United States lay within the province of thecourts which were bound by the Constitution to follow "the supreme Law of the Land". Whilethe Executive Branch continued to advise the courts on matters relating to immunity which werewithin its unique knowledge and competence and its opinion on the interpretation of treaties wasentitled to "great weight", claims of immunity must be resolved by the court on the basis of thefacts properly before it (see Menon v. Weil, 66 Misc 2d 114),4 and the Special Term had thus erredin its insistence on proof that the State Department had passed upon the immunity claim at bar andin its order to the United States Attorney to obtain a formal opinion.

On the question of immunity, the Appellate Division stated the following:

"Section 2 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nationsto which the United States became a party on April 29. 1970, confers immunity from "everyform of legal process', except insofar as expressly waived, on *[t]he United Nations, itsproperty and assets wherever located and by whomsoever held'. Section 18 (subd \a}) of thesame Convention grants functional immunity to officials of the United Nations 'in respect ofwords spoken or written and all acts performed by them in their official capacity". In a similartenor, the International Organizations Immunities Act (US Code, tit 22, § 288 et seq.) decreesthat international organizations within the statutory definition (§ 288), of which the UnitedNations is one by virtue of Executive Order 9698 (II Fed Reg 1809 11946]), and their propertyand assets wherever located and by whomsoever held, 'shall enjoy the same immunity fromsuit and every form of judicial process as is enjoyed by foreign governments', except to theextent that such immunity is expressly waived (§ 288a, subd [b]). Officers and employees ofinternational organizations, in the absence of waiver, 'shall be immune from suit and legalprocess relating to acts performed by them in their official capacity and falling within theirfunctions as such officers, or employees' (§ 288, subd [b]) . . .

"The record demonstrates with convincing clarity that the Pension Fund is an organ ofthe United Nations, subject to regulation by the General Assembly, and that its assets, althoughheld separately from other United Nations property, are the property of that internationalorganization. The funds which [the respondent] seeks to sequester, therefore, are imperviousto legal process under both section 2 of the Convention and section 288A of title 22 of theUnited States Code (the International Organizations Immunities Act). Furthermore, the refusal[of the Fund's Secretary] to pay Pension Fund moneys to [the respondent] under the seques-tration order clearly constituted an act undertaken in his official capacity as Secretary of theFund, and he is thus shielded from a contempt finding and its consequences by section 17 ofthe Convention and by section 288d of title 22 of the United States Code.5 Respondent'scontention that the Fund is a commercial entity, distinct from the United Nations proper, doesnot withstand scrutiny. The very facts adduced to support this argument — that the Fund'soffices are located at the United Nations Headquarters, that the United Nations deposits moneysinto the Fund and that the Fund's operation is regulated by the General Assembly — onlyunderscore the intimate connection between the Fund and its parent organization."

The Court further stated that it was unable to find in section 288 of title 22 of the UnitedStates Code any mechanism by which the President might be requested to "rule" on questions ofimmunity which arise in judicial proceedings.

223

(b) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICTOF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

MARVIN R. BROADBENT et al. v. ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES:DECISION OF 8 JANUARY 19806

Claim brought against an intergovernmental organization of which the United States is a memberby former employees of the organization in question — Jurisdictional issue — Questionwhether the jurisdictional immunity of the organization is restrictive or absolute — The em-ployment by an international organization of internal administrative personnel is not a com-mercial activity — Existence of a grievance procedure within the organization concerned —Dismissal of the action

I. BackgroundThe plaintiffs-appellants were former staff members of the General Secretariat of the Organ-

ization of American States. Before their termination, they had been employed at the permanentheadquarters of the Organization in Washington, D.C., for periods ranging from 6 to 24 years.They were all United States citizens or foreign nationals admitted to permanent residency in theUnited States.

The appellants were dismissed from the Secretariat on 31 August 1976, due to a reduction inforce mandated by the OAS General Assembly. At various times between 31 October and 8November 1976, they filed complaints with the Administrative Tribunal of OAS, the internal courtcreated to resolve personnel disputes. On 1 June 1977, the Tribunal held that the discharges hadbeen improper and that the appellants should be reinstated at the grades they held when they wereseparated from service. In accordance with its governing statute, the Tribunal also fixed an indemnityto be paid to each appellant should the Secretary-General choose to exercise the option of refusingto reinstate them. Subsequently, the Secretary-General denied reinstatement, and each appellantreceived the indicated indemnity.7

On 16 November 1977, the appellants brought an action in the district court, alleging breachof contract and seeking damages totalling three million dollars. OAS moved to quash service anddismiss the complaint, asserting that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and thatthe OAS was immune from service of process; but the district court denied the motion in an orderdated 25 January 1978. On 28 February, OAS filed a request for certification under 28 U.S.C. §1292 (b) so as to take an interlocutory appeal of the January order to the United States Court ofAppeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In a final order dated 28 March 1978, the districtcourt vacated its order of 25 January and dismissed the lawsuit. The 28 March order stated inpertinent part:

"On January 25, 1978, this Court held that the express language of 22 U.S.C. § 288a (b)and the statutory purposes underlying the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945s

bring international organizations within the terms of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Actof 1976, and that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1330, this Court had jurisdiction over the partiesand controversy involved in the case. Upon careful review of that decision, the Court findsthat it did not properly weigh the facts that international organizations, and particularly theOrganization of American States, are creatures of treaty and by virtue of treaty stand in adifferent position with respect to the issue of immunity than sovereign nations. The Court ispersuaded that international organizations are immune from every form of legal process exceptin so far as that immunity is expressly waived by treaty or expressly limited by statute. TheCourt is further persuaded that this Court has jurisdiction over lawsuits involving internationalorganizations only in so far as such jurisdiction is expressly provided for by statute.

"The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 makes no mention of internationalorganizations. The jurisdictional grant of 28 U.S.C. § 1330 refers only to foreign States.Nothing in the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 provides for jurisdictionin the district courts over civil actions against international organizations."

On 19 April 1978, the appellants filed their notice of appeal from this ruling.9

224

II. Analysis

A. Jurisdiction

In its final order, the district court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction10 — aposition advanced by OAS on appeals — whereas the appellants — and the district court in its 25January order — relied upon a conjunctive reading of the International Organizations ImmunityAct (IOIA) of 1945, 22 U.S.C. § 288a(fc)" (1979) and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act(FSIA) of 1976, 28 U.S.C. § 1330 (1979)," to establish jurisdiction. The OAS countered that§ 288a(6) conferred immunity and jurisdiction, and that § 1330 established jurisdiction over suitsagainst foreign States, not international organizations.

The United Nations appeared amicus curiae and offered a different approach to the questionof jurisdiction.13

The Court did not find it necessary to discuss the jurisdictional issues because clear andadequate non-judicial grounds existed for the disposal of the case.

B. The immunity of international organizations

The Court noted that the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945. 22 U.S.C.§228a(b) (1979), granted to international organizations designated by the President14 "the sameimmunity from suit and every form of judicial process as is enjoyed by foreign Governments,except to the extent that such organizations may expressly waive their immunity for the purposeof any proceedings or by the terms of any contract".1S As of 1945, the statute granted absoluteimmunity to international organizations, for that was the immunity then enjoyed by foreignGovernments.

The Court further noted that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U.S.C.§ 1602 et seq. (1979), codified what, in the period between 1946 and 1976,l6 had come to be theimmunity enjoyed by sovereign States, i.e., restrictive immunity the central feature of which wasthe distinction between the governmental or sovereign activities of a State (acts jure imperii) —for which foreign States may not be found liable by American courts — and its commercial activities(acts jure gestionis) for which they enjoy no immunity from liability.

The appellants, supported by the general doctrine that, ordinarily, "[a] statute which refers tothe law of a subject generally adopts the law on the subject as of the time the law was invoked. . . [including] all the amendments and modifications of the law subsequent to the time the referencestatute was enacted",17 contended that since the IOIA conferred on international organizations thesame immunity enjoyed by foreign Governments and since the FSIA indicated that foreign Gov-ernments now enjoy only restrictive immunity, international organizations enjoyed only restrictiveimmunity.18 The OAS and several other international organizations as amici curiae countered thatCongress had granted international organizations absolute immunity in the IOIA, and had nevermodified that grant; they relied on three implications of a legislative intent not to apply to inter-national organizations the post-World War II evolutions in the doctrine of sovereign immunity,namely (1) that the FSIA was generally silent about international organizations: (2) that by its ownterms the IOIA provided for the modification, where appropriate, of the immunity enjoyed by oneor more international organizations, and that it was because Congress had intended to grant absoluteimmunity to international organizations that it had felt it necessary to give to the President theauthority to relax that immunity, including removal or restriction of immunity in cases involvingthe commercial activities of international organizations, and (3) that Congress might have concludedthat the policies and considerations that had led to the development of the restrictive immunityconcept for foreign nations did not apply to international organizations like OAS.

The Court did not find it necessary to decide this difficult question of statutory constructioninasmuch as on either theory of immunity — absolute or restrictive — an immunity existed, suf-ficient to shield the organization from lawsuit on the basis of acts involved in the case underconsideration.

225

C. The "commercial activity" concept in the restrictive immunity doctrine

The Court pointed out that even under the restrictive immunity doctrine there was immunityfrom lawsuits based on governmental or sovereign activities — the jure imperil as distinct fromcommercial activities. While noting that the narrower standard of restrictive immunity was notnecessarily the governing principle, it observed that an organization conducting the activities atissue in this case was shielded even under the restrictive immunity formula, and a fortiori on theabsolute immunity theory.

In the view of the Court, the employment by a foreign State or international organization ofinternal administrative personnel — civil servants — was not properly characterized as "doingbusiness", a view which was supported by the legislative history of the FSIA, and the definitionof "commercial activity" in § 1603,19 as well as by the House Report according to which ". . .public or governmental and not commercial in nature would be the employment of diplomatic, civilservice".20

The Court recalled that the United States had accepted without qualification the principles thatinternational organizations must be free to perform their functions and that no member State maytake action to hinder the organization21 and added the following:

"The unique nature of the international civil service is relevant. International officialsshould be as free as possible, within the mandate granted by the member States, to performtheir duties free from the peculiarities of national politics. The OAS charter, for example,imposes constraints on the organization's employment practices.22 Such constraints may notcoincide with the employment policies pursued by its various member states.23 It would seemsingularly inappropriate for the international organization to bind itself to the employment lawof any particular member, and we have no reason to think that either the President or Congressintended this result. An attempt by the courts of one nation to adjudicate the personnel claimsof international civil servants would entangle those courts in the internal administration ofthose organizations. Denial of immunity opens the door to divided decisions of the courts ofdifferent member States passing judgment on the rules, regulations, and decisions of theinternational bodies. Undercutting uniformity in the application of staff rules or regulationswould undermine the ability of the organization to function effectively."24

The Court concluded that the relationship of an international organization with its internaladministrative staff was non-commercial and, absent waiver, activities defining or arising out ofthat relationship could not be the basis of an action against the organization — regardless of whetherinternational organizations enjoy absolute or restrictive immunity.

D. The activities at issue

The Court recalled that the appellants were staff members of the General Secretariat of OASwhose appointments, terms of employment, salaries and allowances, and the termination of em-ployment were governed by detailed "Staff Rules of the General Secretariat" promulgated by OASand that the Staff Rules further established an elaborate grievance procedure within OAS, withultimate appeal to the Administrative Tribunal of OAS. It pointed out that the Tribunal wascompetent to determine the lawfulness of an employee's termination of employment. If an employeehad been wrongfully discharged, the Tribunal could order reinstatement or the payment of anindemnity in the event the Secretary-General exercised his authority to indemnify the employeerather than effect the reinstatement.

Considering that the employment disputes between the appellants and OAS were disputesconcerning the internal administrative staff of the Organization, that the internal administration ofOAS was a non-commercial activity shielded by the doctrine of immunity and that there had beenno waiver, the Court dismissed the appellant's action.

226

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED NATIONS AS AMICUS CURIAE

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ON APPEAL

The United Nations will discuss the following questions:1. Whether intergovernmental organizations are, without their consent, subject to suit in the courts of

the United States.2. Whether, independent of the general immunity from suit of intergovernmental organizations, national

courts have jurisdiction over suits concerning the employment relations of such organizations.3. Whether the federal courts of the United States have jurisdiction over suits against intergovernmental

organizations that do not, aside from the nature of the defendants, raise any federal question.

INTEREST OFAMICUS

The interest of amicus appears from the memorandum of points and authorities that was submitted insupport of the motion for leave to file briefs, amici curiae.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE25

Plaintiffs-Appellants, seven former employees of the Organization of American States (OAS), were dis-missed from the Secretariat of the Organization due to a reduction in force mandated by the OAS GeneralAssembly and they then appealed to the Administrative Tribunal of the Organization (OASAT).

On 1 June 1977 the Tribunal handed down Judgement No. 2926 in Complaint No. 42 (Chretien v. Secretary-General of OAS), in which it held that the complainant's (one of the Plaintiffs) discharge was improper because,in spite of his request, the OAS Secretariat had not properly put in motion the procedure established by OASstaff rule 110.6 applicable to a reduction in personnel, by forming an advisory committee to survey availablevacancies. On the same date the Tribunal handed down Judgement No. 30 in Complaint Nos. 43, 44, 45, 46,47 and 48 (Hebblethwaite. Stone, Castro, Findlay, Martinez and Broadbent v. Secretary-Genera! of OAS). inwhich it held that complainants' (the six other Plaintiffs) discharge was improper because they were entitledto the protection of article 17(Z>) of the General Standards (governing the staff),-7 which would have protectedtheir status on the basis of their seniority, since the General Assembly's suspension of that provision wasineffective in respect of staff employed before that suspension.

The Tribunal therefore resolved that Plantiffs be reinstated at the grades they held when they were separatedfrom service. In accordance with article VII.2 of its statute, the Tribunal was also obliged to determine theamount of indemnification they should be paid if the Secretary-General chose to exercise the option grantedto him by that article to refuse to reinstate them; accordingly, it determined the following amounts: SI2,000and $1,000 as attorney's fees in Judgement No. 29 and respectively SI 1,000, S12,000. S9.000, S9.000. $9,000and $9,000, in addition to $300 each attorney's fees, in Judgement No. 30. The Secretary-General decided toaccept the option of paying indemnities, and Plaintiffs received and accepted the indicated amounts, a total of$73,800, which were in addition to other termination benefits they had received in the normal course.

On 16 November 1977 Plaintiffs filed the present suit against OAS and the General Secretariat of OASin the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. They asserted a breach of their employmentcontracts, and claimed damages amounting respectively to $590,000, $575,000, $760,000. $217,000. $309,000.$278,000 and $300,600 (totalling $2,829,600), plus interest, attorney's fees and costs.

The proceedings in the court are summarized in part II of the Statement of the Case in Appellees' Brief.

SUMMARY ARGUMENT

Intergovernmental organizations,28 that is, international organizations created by treaties among their mem-ber States, have a character completely different from that of States, and their requirements for and the legalbasis of their immunity is consequently entirely different from that of States. These organizations are collectiveenterprises of their members, whose constituent instruments (i.e., their establishing treaties) define precisely theinfluence each member is to have on the operation of the organization and the method of exercising suchinfluence; any attempt by a particular member State to govern the organization directly, through legislative,executive or judicial decrees, would violate the reciprocal agreement of all members as to how the organizationis to be governed.

While the immunity of States in the courts of another derives from their respective sovereignty, anddepends on the possibility of invoking reciprocity and the ability of States to retaliate against violations of their

227

own immunity, that of intergovernmental organizations is purely functional and designed to protect their abilityto function independently of any government. This distinction is well established in international law. Thuschanges in the laws and principles governing the sovereign immunity of States are not relevant to the differentlybased immunity of intergovernmental organizations.

Intergovernmental organizations, which carry out their functions not only in their headquarters State butin the territories of all their members, must, in order to deal equitably with all their members, be able to operateon the basis of uniform, i.e., international, law, rather than on the basis of the diverse laws of particular memberStates. If any State could, through its courts, bend the operations of an organization to the laws of that State,all other States could do likewise with respect to their laws, thus possibly paralyzing or fragmenting theorganization.

The immunity of intergovernmental organizations is consequently specified by treaties, including theconstituent instruments of the organizations. Thus the Charters of both the United Nations and OAS requiretheir respective members to accord them the immunities necessary for the fulfilment of their purposes. BothCharters authorize the General Assemblies of the respective organizations to define the details of these necessaryimmunities, and each has done so in a similar privileges and immunities treaty, both of which specify "immunityfrom every form of legal process" for the organization. The United States is a party to the United Nations andOAS Charters (respectively 59 Stat. 1031, T.S. No. 993, and 2 U.S.T. 2394, T.I.A.S. No. 2361, amended21 U.S.T. 607, T.I.A.S. No. 6847) and to the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UnitedNations (21 U.S.T. 1418, T.I.A.S. No. 6900) and, although not a party to the corresponding Agreement onthe Privileges and Immunities of the OAS (Pan-Am T.S. No. 22), cannot argue that it may therefore disregardthe immunity provided for in the OAS Charter.

The International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA) of 1945 (P.L. 79-291, 59 Stat. 669, 22 U.S.C.§§ 288-2880 is merely a legislative device to facilitate the carrying out of the international obligations of theUnited States towards the intergovernmental organizations designated under the Act and cannot alter theseinternational obligations. In enacting the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976 (P.L. 94-583, 90Stat. 2891, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602-1611), Congress indicated no intention of modifying the immunities of inter-governmental organizations provided for in the IOIA and in the treaties relating to each organization.

Intergovernmental organizations may not use their immunity from involuntary suit in national courts toescape liability or to refuse to settle disputes. They are required to and do make appropriate provisions for theimpartial settlement of disputes with States, with private individuals and with the members of their own staffs.

II

The treaties establishing intergovernmental organizations, such as the United Nations and OAS, explicitlyprohibit any interference by member States with the staffs of the organizations.

The international civil service is governed by mechanisms carefully designed to take proper account ofthe interests of the member States, the organizations themselves and their staffs. These mechanisms includelegislative, administrative and judicial organs, altogether constituting a system in which no individual membermay intervene through its own governmental organs.

In particular, most intergovernmental organizations, including the United Nations and OAS, have admin-istrative tribunals, which have been recognized (inter alia by several opinions of the International Court ofJustice) as having a fully judicial character and being empowered to pronounce judgements binding on therespective organizations and all their organs. While it is not for any national court to examine the adequacyof these tribunals, it should be noted that even though their power to require specific performance (for example,the reinstatement of a Staff member) is, for reasons important to the organizations, limited by the legislationestablishing them, they are empowered to award full monetary compensation.

Because of the special requirements of the international civil service, in particular to establish uniformand equitable conditions for employees from many different backgrounds and serving in various posts throughoutthe world, it is inappropriate to apply either the substantive or the procedural law of any particular memberStates to that service. If national courts were permitted to supersede the decisions of the competent internationalorgans (including the administrative tribunals), any possibility of establishing a uniform and impartial inter-national civil service would be destroyed.

Consequently national courts have consistently held, in the few instances in which an intergovernmentalorganization was not entitled to or had waived its immunity from suit, that such courts nevertheless could notexercise subject matter jurisdiction over disputes relating to the administration of the international civil service.

Ill

With reference to the jurisdiction of the United States federal courts in respect of intergovernmentalorganizations, whether as plaintiffs or as defendants, International Refugee Organization v. Republic S.S.

228

Corp., 189 F.2d 858 (4th Cir. 1951), states the correct rule that these organizations may, regardless of theabsence of any other federal question, invoke federal jurisdiction by virtue of the fact that they are created bya treaty of the United States.

ARGUMENT

I. Intergovernmental organizations are immune from the jurisdiction of national courts, except in so far asthey expressly waive that immunity or their constitutions otherwise provide

Amicus considers that the present appeal can be decided entirely on the basis of the question discussed inpart II of the Argument below, without reference to the general immunity of intergovernmental organizations.However, a holding concerning that immunity constitutes one of the bases of the District Court's Order andthis point is also extensively discussed in the Briefs submitted by the Appellants, the Appellees and the UnitedStates, and therefore the question of general immunity is analyzed in this part of the Argument; the conclusionreached is substantially identical to that in part II.A of the Appellees' Brief, and contrary to that in part II ofAppellants' Brief and part I of the United States Brief.

A. Intergovernmental organizations have a special nature under international law, which is entirelydifferent from that of States and results in different requirements with regard to immunity

Intergovernmental organizations are a relatively new phenomenon in international affairs, dating only fromthe second half of the nineteenth century. They are established by multilateral treaties, which treaties at thesame time are the constitutions or charters of these organizations, setting out their purposes and principles andestablishing the organs through which these entities are to act. These organizations have legal personalitiesseparate and distinct from those of the individual States that are their members. The legal relations betweenmember States and an organization are largely established by the constituent treaty, though those relations maybe further defined by agreements concluded among these States, between the organization and one or moreStates and even by decisions of the organization made under the authority of its constitution.

Intergovernmental organizations may be considered as collective enterprises of their member States. Theirconstituent treaties define precisely the influence each member is to have on the operations of the organizations,and how that influence is to be exercised — generally through collective organs. If individual members couldthen exert additional influence on those organizations, largely through the fortuitous circumstance of wheretheir headquarters, or other offices or officials or assets, happen to be located this could drastically change theconstitutionally agreed sharing of power within the organizations. Thus the immunity granted by States to anintergovernmental organization is really their reciprocal pledge that none will attempt to garner unilaterally anundue share of influence over its affairs.

The federal/state analogy lies close at hand. When the individual states created the United States, theydid not subject it to suit in their own courts, but allowed Congress to decide to what extent the Union mightassert immunity, might permit persons to sue it in its own, federal courts or perhaps might even agree, voluntarily,to suits in a state court.29 Thus Jenks relies on Alexander Hamilton's defence, in The Federalist,30 of theestablishment of a system of federal courts, to indicate:

"the same reasoning applies with equal force to the exercise of national jurisdiction over internationalorganizations. In many cases, moreover, the independence of municipal courts from political influence isnot sufficiently secure to afford adequate guarantees of impartiality and protection to international organ-izations in time of strain. In these circumstances jurisdictional immunity is a necessary bulwark of theindependence of international organizations and an essential safeguard for their opportunities of furthergrowth. The essence of the contrast between the position of States and that of international organizationsis that States have too much and international organizations too little authority, and that in these circum-stances we are far from the stage at which developments in the law relating to the immunities of Stateswhich have become appropriate only because the authority of States is so fully established can wisely beapplied to international organizations."

(C. W. Jenks, International Immunities (Stevens, London, and Oceana, New York, 1961), p. 41.)

The International Court of Justice, after concluding that the United Nations was an "international person",further held that "that is not the same thing as saying that it is a State, which it certainly is not, or that its legalpersonality and rights and duties are the same as those of a State. . . . Whereas a State possesses the totalityof international rights and duties recognized by international law. the rights and duties of an entity such as theOrganization must depend upon its purposes and functions as specified or implied in its constituent documentsand developed in practice.'' (Advisory Opinion on Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the UnitedNations [1949] l.C.J. 174, at 179-80.)

It is possible to contrast the conceptual bases of the immunity of States and of intergovernmentalorganizations:

(a) States have sovereignty, but international organizations do not.

229

(b) States have territory; international organizations do not, but function within the territories of States.(c) States have citizens, but international organizations merely have officials who are generally citizens

of their member States, though freed of certain responsibilities towards such States.(d) States are considerably protected from undue intrusion of other states by their ability to invoke the

principle of reciprocity, or can protect themselves by their ability to retaliate; international organizations, notstanding on a parity with States, cannot depend on reciprocity, nor are they in a position to retaliate againstany violations of their integrity.

(e) More particularly, States can grant to or withhold immunity from each other, and generally do soon the basis of agreements or principles of comity embodied in international law; international organizationsnormally do not exercise jurisdiction over anyone except, and only to a limited extent, their own officials, andthus are not in a position to grant to or withhold immunity from States.

(f) States are protected from interference by international organizations in their affairs by provisions inthe constitutions of these organizations (for example, United Nations Charter, Article 2(7)) and by the fact thatrepresentatives of States constitute the political organs and control the administrative organs of these organi-zations; international organizations are protected from interference by States principally by the immunitiesprovided for by international law.

(g) Consequently the immunities of States are those attributable to sovereigns and thus reflect those thatStates reserve to themselves, whether absolute or relative; those of intergovernmental organizations are functionaland thus reflect their needs, which require complete protection from national jurisdiction.

For all these reasons, the immunities that States grant to international organizations stand in no directrelation to the immunities that States grant to each other. Consequently the considerations that have recently,and in particular since the end of the Second World War (see the first paragraph of part I.D below), led to therestriction of inter-State immunities (or for that matter of intra-State immunities, as States have also madethemselves more amenable to suits in their own courts) have no direct relevance to the immunities that arerequired for the proper functioning of intergovernmental organizations.

The distinction between the immunities enjoyed by States and by intergovernmental organizations isconsequently well established in international law. At the 1945 San Francisco Conference on the Charter ofthe United Nations, Commission IV on Judicial Organization, which formulated Article 105 of the Charter,explained that:

"In order to determine the nature of the privileges and immunities, the Committee has seen fit toavoid the term 'diplomatic' and has preferred to substitute a more appropriate standard, based, for thepurposes of the Organization, on the necessity of realizing its purposes and, in the case of the representativesof its members and the officials of the Organization, on providing for the independent exercise of theirfunctions."

(13 U.N.C.I.O. Docs (Doc. 933, IV/2/42(2)) 703, p. 704).When the United Nations General Assembly charged its International Law Commission (ILC) with con-

sidering the codification of the law of immunities, the latter, in reporting to the Assembly on "Diplomaticintercourse and immunities", stated that:

"Apart from diplomatic relations between States, there are also relations between States and inter-national organizations. There is likewise the question of the privileges and immunities of the organizationsthemselves. However, these matters are, as regards most of the organizations, governed by specialconventions."

(Report of the International Law Commission, Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirteenth Session,Supplement No. 9 (A/3859), para. 52 (1958).)M

Finally, it may be useful to indicate briefly the special need that intergovernmental organizations have forimmunities. Many of these organizations are required to carry out extensive operations not only in the state inwhich their headquarters is located, but generally in all their member States and sometimes even in non-memberStates. In order to be able to deal fairly with all their members and with the citizens of the latter, they mustbe able to carry out transactions on the basis of a uniform law rather than on diverse national legal principles— that is, they must be able to operate as far as possible on the basis of international law, which includes"the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations" (ICJ Statute, Article 38(1) (c)). Even as a matterof practicality, an international organization, operating in 151 States (like the United Nations) or in 26 States(like OAS), cannot be familiar with the laws of all these states, and would be put under an intolerable andcrippling burden if it had potentially to defend suits based on national laws, in the national courts of all of.hem. Also, account must be taken of the fact that in an intergovernmental organization not all member Statesare necessarily in accord with all its activities, even though these may have been mandated by the propermajorities in the competent organs; consequently, disaffected states might, if they could, interfere through their

230

national organs with such activities, unless these, as well as the organization's assets and officials, are immunefrom national jurisdiction.

Adjudication by a national court of a dispute involving an intergovernmental organization is also likely toinvolve the court deeply in the internal administration of the organization. The court might have to considerthe validity of decisions taken by various organs composed of the representatives of States, and requireinformation from the records of the organization, placing the latter before the dilemma of either waiving theundoubted inviolability of its archives (as guaranteed by international treaties, such as by section 4 of both theConvention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges andImmunities of OAS (both cited and quoted in the addendum hereto) and in the United States also by a provisionof the International Organizations Immunities Act, 22 U.S.C. 288a(c)) or of failing to produce evidence requiredto support its position or ordered by the court to be produced for the benefit of the other party. Thus, the veryconduct of such a trial without the consent of the organization would, whatever its outcome, constitute a seriousand impermissible disruption of the internal affairs of the organization.

B. The immunities of intergovernmental organizations are substantially based on treaties or on generalprinciples of international law

The immunities of most intergovernmental organizations are firmly based on treaties — usually on thetreaties that are their constituent instruments and directly bind all member states, which are often supplementedby more detailed privileges and immunities agreements.

In respect of the United Nations, Articles 104 and 105(1) of its Charter provide as follows:

•'Article 104

"The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members such legal capacity as may benecessary for the exercise of its functions and the fulfilment of its purposes.

"Article 105

" I . The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members such privileges andimmunities as are necessary for the fulfilment of its purposes."

With respect to the latter provision. Commission IV on Judicial Organization of the 1945 San FranciscoConference declared that it "sets forth a rule obligatory for all Members as soon as the Charter becomesoperative" (13 U.N.C.I.O. Docs (Doc. 933. IV/2/42(2)) 703. at 704) and stated that "the terms "privileges'and 'immunities' indicate in a general way all that could be considered necessary to the realization of thepurposes of the Organization, to the free functioning of its organs and to the independent exercise of thefunctions and duties of their officials: exemption from tax, immunity from jurisdiction, facilities for commu-nication, inviolability of buildings, properties, and archives, etc. ... [N]o Member State may hinder in any waythe working of the Organization or take any measure the effect of which might be to increase its burdens,financial or other." (id., at 705, emphasis added). It was thus intended and understood by the authors of theCharter that these privileges and immunities, including specifically immunity from jurisdiction, would beavailable to the United Nations in all its Member States, by the mere fact of their ratification of the Charter.

However, to facilitate the implementation of Article 105(1) of the United Nations Charter, Article 105(3)provides:

" 3 . The Genera! Assembly may make recommendations with a view to determining the details ofthe application of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article or may propose conventions to the Members of theUnited Nations for this purpose."

It is clear from (he language of this provision that it was intended that such conventions, which were to providefor "the details of ... application", would merely be declaratory of the privileges and immunities alreadygranted by paragraphs I and 2 of that Article of the Charter. The United Nations General Assembly, in exercisingthe authority granted to it in the quoted paragraph, by adopting at its very first session (and only months afterthe conclusion of the San Francisco Conference) the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of theUnited Nations,32 also made it clear in the Preamble to that instrument (quoted in the addendum hereto) thatit was merely defining the privileges and immunities necessary for the fulfilment of the purposes of theOrganization. Thus it is clear that the provisions of the Convention (to which the United States became a partyin 1970) are not designed to expand on the obligations established by the Charter, but only to particularizethem.

Section 2 of the United Nations Convention provides:

"The United Nations, its property and assets wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoyimmunity from every form of legal process except in so far as in any particular case it has expressly waivedits immunity. It is, however, understood that no waiver of immunity shall extend to any measure ofexecution."

231

There can be no doubt that this provision, which also appears in almost identical language in the 1947 Conventionon the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies33 also adopted by the United Nations GeneralAssembly, as well as in a great number of other similar instruments, specifies one of the principal immunities"necessary" for the fulfilment of the purposes of the United Nations and of other intergovernmental organi-zations. In this connection it should also be noted that no reservation (whereby a State declares that it will limitthe application of a treaty provision) to section 2 of the United Nations Convention or to the correspondingprovisions in other instruments has ever been accepted.

The Charter of the Organization of American States was concluded at the 1948 Ninth InternationalConference of American States and has entered into force for each of its 26 members, including the UnitedStates. Article 139 of the amended Charter provides:

"The Organization of American States shall enjoy in the territory of each Member such legal capacity,privileges, and immunities as are necessary for the exercise of its functions and the accomplishment ofits purposes."

It will be noted that this provision is almost identical to Article 105(1) of the United Nations Charter, themeaning of which, in respect of immunities, is defined by section 2 of the United Nations Convention.Consequently it can be concluded that the United States, for which the OAS Charter constitutes a treatyobligation, is already bound, by that Charter, to grant to OAS all "necessary" immunities, including that "fromevery form of legal process".

Pursuant to Article 141 of the OAS Charter (which corresponds to Article 105(3) of the United NationsCharter — both quoted in the addendum), the OAS Council in 1949 adopted the Agreement on the Privilegesand Immunities of the Organization of American States (the OAS Convention) the Preamble to which recitesthat it provides for privileges and immunities "substantially identical to those granted to the United Nations".Indeed, its article 2 is almost precisely identical to section 2 of the United Nations Convention and reads asfollows:

"Article 2. The Organization and its organs, their property and assets wherever located and bywhomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process except in so far as in anyparticular case the immunity has been expressly waived. It is understood, however, that no such waiverof immunity shall make the said property and assets subject to any measure of execution."

Though the United States has not yet become a party to that OAS Agreement, it is clear that its terms, pursuantto article 141 of the OAS Charter, merely constitute the same sort of detailed definition of article 139 as theUnited Nations Convention is of Article 105(1) of the United Nations Charter.

C. Statutory bases of the immunities of intergovernmental organizations in the United StatesThe International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA) (59 Stat. 669, 28 U.S.C. §§ 288-288f) was enacted

by Congress in 1945 in view of the increased activities of the United States in international organizations. Thefact that the Pan American Union (which became the Secretariat of OAS) already had its headquarters in theUnited States, that the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were to establish their seats there andthat it was likely that the United Nations would also do so, made it expedient for the host country to enactlegislation to assist the United States in implementing its international obligations towards these organizations,and to facilitate the independent functioning of these organizations as well as of others of which the UnitedStates would become a member and that might conduct certain activities within its borders. However, as theIOIA constituted merely unilateral legislation, it could not purport to define these obligations vis-a-vis inter-governmental organizations in any way binding on these organizations. Moreover, as to the several treatyinstruments discussed in part I.B above that post-date the IOIA (United Nations Convention, OAS Charter),the provisions of these treaties would in any event take precedence over any earlier inconsistent legislation.

This, too, has been the executive's interpretation of the IOIA. For example, in designating OAS as anorganization covered by that Act, President Eisenhower specified:

"The designation of the Organization of American States as a public international organization withinthe meaning of the International Organizations Immunities Act is not intended to abridge in any respectprivileges, exemptions, and immunities which the Organization may have acquired or may acquire bytreaty or congressional action."

(Exec. Order No. 10533, 19 Fed. Reg. 3289 (4 June 1954)).Though section 2 of the IOIA apparently equated international organization immunity with that of foreign

states, as that existed in 1945, there is nothing in the history of the Act that would suggest a congressionalintent to limit the immunity granted to international organizations in any way inconsistent with their several

232

charters. Thus, when the United Stales Senate considered its advice on the ratification of the United NationsConvention, its Committee on Foreign Relations stated:

"Articles I, II,w and III [of the Convention] have the effect of giving the United Nations, as anorganization, substantially the same legal capacities and the same privileges and immunities in the UnitedStates as are afforded foreign Governments. These articles do not change the present situation since theInternational Organizations Immunities Act already provides for the same legal capacities, privileges, andimmunities."

(S. Exec. Rep. No. 91-17, 91st Cong. 2nd Sess. (to accompany Ex. J) 2 (17 Mar. 1970)).When the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) (90 Stat. 2891, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602-1611) was adopted

in 1976, Congress did not consider any possible impact on public international organizations. Although the Actcarefully defines "foreign State" (28 U.S.C. § 1603) in terms clearly inapplicable to international organizations,it does not, except collaterally (28 U.S.C. § 161 l(a)), refer to or define the latter, nor are they mentioned inthe House or Senate Reports (H. Rep. No. 94-1487, 94th Cong. 2nd Sess. (to accompany H.R. 11315) (9 Sep.1976) reprinted in [1976] U.S. Code Cong, and Ad. News 6604; S. Rep. No. 94-1310, 94th Cong. 2nd Sess.(to accompany S. 3553) (27 Sep. 1976)). If it had been Congress' intent to provide for jurisdiction overintergovernmental organizations it would certainly have done so clearly. Instead, nothing in the language ofthe Act purports to indicate that the FSIA was designed to amend the IOIA, or to limit the immunity fromjurisdiction that it grants international organizations. To accept the United States contention that there can be"no question that since the passage two years ago of the [Foreign Sovereign] Immunities Act internationalorganizations are now fully subject to suit in American courts for their acts jure gestionis1' (United States Brief,p. 8) would be to assume, without any indication of Congressional intent, that with the passage of the FSIACongress intended to derogate, or at least accepted the possibility of derogation, from the international obligationsof the United States in respect of intergovernmental organizations.35 This, of course, is contrary to the acceptedrule of construction {United States v. Gue Lim. 176 U.S. 459 (1900); Cook v. United States, 288 U.S. 102(1933); Pigeon River Improvement, Slide and Boom Co. v. Cox, 291 U.S. 138 (1934)). Moreover, it is not tobe presumed that Congress intended to extend the exercise of jurisdiction in the international arena, unlessthere "is present the affirmative intention of Congress, clearly expressed" {Ben: v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo,353 U.S. 138, at 147 (1957); McCuiioch v. Sociedad National, 372 U.S. 10 (1963)).

D. The immunity of intergovernmental organizations cannot be used by them as a shield from liabilityFrom the end of the eighteenth century and continuing through the nineteenth century, national courts

developed a doctrine of state immunity that was almost unlimited in scope. However, after the First WorldWar, two theories of immunity came to co-exist, that of absolute immunity and that of restricted immunity,the latter allowing States immunity with regard to their sovereign or public acts (jure imperii) but not theircommercial or private acts (jure gestionis); the United States, which still followed the absolute approach at theend of the Second World War, when the IOIA was adopted, has gradually shifted to the restricted approach,as signified by the recent adoption of the FSIA. However, for the reasons indicated in part I.A above, thischange in approach is not relevant to intergovernmental organizations, which do not possess the "sovereign"character of States. Unlike States, these organizations are "creatures of treaty". Since they have never beenaccorded sovereign immunity, they do not and cannot act jure imperii. The privileges and immunities theypossess have never been as far-reaching as those accorded to States, and have a more rational foundation. Theyhave been granted solely because they are necessary for the independent and effective functioning of theseorganizations. In particular, their "functional" immunity is never a release from a legal obligation but merelyfrom the jurisdiction of national courts.

To prevent the United Nations from using its immunity from judicial process as a shield from liability,section 29(a) of the United Nations Convention requires "the United Nations to make provisions for appropriatemodes of settlement of disputes arising out of contracts or other disputes of a private law character to whichthe United Nations is a party". Identical provisions are contained in section 31 (a) of the Specialized AgenciesConvention and in article 12(a)of the OAS Convention. Should these obligations be violated by the organization,a state concerned could, to protect its citizens, itself initiate a disputes settlement procedure with the organizationif that is provided for by another provision of the applicable Convention (for example, United Nations Con-vention, sect. 30), and naturally every member State could also intervene in the competent political organs ofthe organization; but these are the only methods of redress that can be offered by an individual State, and theimposition of the jurisdiction of its own courts is not permissible.

The United Nations has implemented its obligation to provide an appropriate forum for the settlement ofdisputes as follows:

(a) In all agreements with States, the United Nations offers to include provisions for arbitration, or forsettlement by an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice accepted in advance as binding on the

233

parties (see, for example, section 30 of the United Nations Convention). If a dispute arises outside such anagreement, the United Nations similarly proposes one of these methods of settlement.

(b) In all major contracts with private persons, the United Nations routinely includes or proposes anarbitration clause. If a dispute should arise outside of such a contract, or in tort, the United Nations similarlyoffers to arbitrate if no negotiated settlement can be reached. To the extent that it insures itself against third-party liability, the insurance carrier is instructed not to raise the immunity of the Organization as a bar to suitin the appropriate jurisdiction.

(c) When carrying out activities in countries outside of those where it has an established seat (for example,in conducting a conference or in administering technical assistance), it may require the Government concernedto agree to settle any claims brought against the Organization (see, for example, article VI of the Agreementbetween the United Nations and Sweden Concerning the Arrangements for the United Nations Conference onthe Human Environment).36

(d) Where situations arise, such as in the conduct of peace-keeping operations, that a multitude of claimsare or may be submitted against the Organization, provision is made for the establishment of impartial claimscommissions, generally in co-operation with the Governments concerned (see, for example, section 11 of theAgreement Relating to the Legal Status, Facilities, Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations in theCongo" and section 38 of the Exchange of Letters Constituting an Agreement Concerning the Status of theUnited Nations Peace-Keeping Force in Cyprus).*8

(e) In respect of its staff, the procedures for settling disputes are described in detail in part 3 of the annexhereto.

Thus intergovernmental organizations, which for the reasons indicated above require complete immunityfrom national jurisdiction, may not and do not use that immunity to defeat disputed claims either by individualsor by governments.

II. National courts have no jurisdiction over disputes between intergovernmental organizations and membersof their staffs

A. Prohibitions arising from the constitutions of intergovernmental organizationsArticle 100 of the Charter of the United Nations, an international treaty to which the United States and

all the other 150 members of the United Nations are parties, provides:

" 1 . In the performance of their duties the Secretary-General and the staff shall not seek or receiveinstructions from any government or from any other authority external to the Organization. They shallrefrain from any action which might reflect on their position as international officials responsible only tothe Organization.

"2. Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to respect the exclusively international characterof the responsibilities of the Secretary-General and the staff and not to seek to influence them in thedischarge of their responsibilities."

These provisions are typical of those included in the constitutional instruments of most world-wide andregional intergovernmental organizations39 and are designed to guarantee the independence and impartiality ofthe secretariats of these organizations, which are absolute prerequisites to their effective functioning.

It should be noted that these provisions contain several relevant obligations:(a) Members of the United Nations staff are enjoined from any action that might reflect on their position

as international officials responsible only to the Organization. Certainly an appeal to a national authority,whether addressed to a legislative, administrative or judicial organ in a matter connected with the official dutiesor status of an international official, would be inconsistent with his position. An international official, byvoluntarily accepting that status, with its benefits and obligations, at the same time surrenders his right to havethat status adjudicated by any national organ, whether of his own country, or of the country where he happensto be stationed or where the seat of the Organization happens to be located. He does not, however, give uphis right to secure an impartial adjudication of his status, for procedures for doing so are provided by theOrganization (see part II.B below).

(b) The Secretary-General of the Organization, who is the chief administrative officer pursuant to Article97 of the United Nations Charter and is responsible for the appointment of the staff pursuant to Article 101(1),is enjoined from receiving instructions "from any Government or from any other authority external to theOrganization". In other words, it may be improper for him to conform to certain national judicial mandates,for example, one that might require him to appoint or promote or reimburse a particular staff member.

(c) To enable the Secretary-General and members of the staff to obey these constitutional injunctions,all States that are Members of the Organization agree to respect the exclusively international character of the

234

responsibilities of these officials and not to seek to influence them in their discharge thereof. These obligationsare not limited to particular organs of a State, but include all. In this connection it might be noted that Statesdiffer in their constitutional structures and to exempt a certain category of governmental organs (e.g., courts)from this prohibition would leave some States (i.e., those with a less independent judiciary) much freer toexert influence than others whose internal powers are differently distributed.

B. The international civil service is governed by complex mechanisms carefully designed to take properaccount of the interests of the member States, of the intergovernmental organizations and of themembers of their staffs, and any national interference with such governance is consequently improperand unacceptable

As described below, the international civil service as a whole, and the secretariat of any particularintergovernmental organization, are governed by carefully structured mechanisms designed to take properaccount of the several interests of the individual member States, i.e., in an adequate representation of theirqualified nationals (which requires employment conditions that these can accept), as well as in their share ofthe personnel costs of the organization; of their collective interests as represented by the organization itself, inthe quality, efficiency and impartiality of the staff as a whole; and finally of the individual members of thestaff who may be committing some years of their working life or more frequently their entire careers to thisservice.

Sketched below are the mechanisms regulating the United Nations "common system", which applies notonly to the staff of the United Nations itself but also to those of a number of its specialized and related agencies,that is, of world-wide organizations such as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations(headquarters in Rome), the International Atomic Energy Agency (headquarters in Vienna), the InternationalCivil Aviation Organization (headquarters in Montreal), the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organ-ization (headquarters in London) and the World Health Organization (headquarters in Geneva). The Organizationof American States, which does not participate formally in the common system (as that is especially designedfor world-wide rather than regional organizations), has for some time voluntarily and unilaterally followed theprincipal provisions of the system, in particular those specifying remuneration; nevertheless it too has numerousorgans corresponding generally to those that deal with personnel matters in the United Nations system. Obviously,still smaller intergovernmental organizations have correspondingly simpler systems, in part because they canand do benefit from the experience and elaborate consideration in the large, universal organizations and moreor less closely follow their lead in respect of the governance of the staff.

The mechanisms functioning in respect of the United Nations common system include:

(a) Legislative organs, such as the General Assembly of the United Nations and the correspondinggenerally representative bodies of the other common system organizations, which function through plenary(such as the Administrative and Budgetary Committee of the Assembly) and other organs and are assisted byexpert bodies such as the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC), the Advisory Committee on Ad-ministrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) and the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), as well as by othersconsisting in whole or in part of the representatives of the respective administrations or staffs, such as theUnited Nations Joint Staff Pension Board, the Consultative Committee on Administrative Questions (CCAQ)and the Federation of International Civil Servants Association (FICSA).

It should be noted that these "legislative" organs include political bodies in which some or all states arerepresented on the diplomatic level, and expert bodies the members of which are either designated directly bythe political bodies or by States selected by such bodies. The United States, taking into account its positionas the largest financial contributor to most of the organizations and as host country of the headquarters of theUnited Nations, is represented on all these political and expert organs and is thus assured of an appropriateinfluence in regulating the common system. It would therefore be particularly inappropriate for the UnitedStates, or for any other State, whether or not it is host to one or more organizations, to attempt to enlarge theinfluence that has been allocated to it by intervening directly, whether through legislative measures, adminis-trative regulations or judicial decisions, in the application of the rules of the common system to particular staffmembers or to categories of such staff members.

(b) Administrative organs, such as the United Nations Secretary-General and the executive heads of theother common system organizations, who must consult representatives of the staff in respect of general questionsrelating to staff welfare and administration and who must have most significant administrative decisions involvingindividual staff members (such as appointments, promotions, certain terminations, disciplinary matters anddisability awards) considered first by standing joint bodies consisting of administration and staff representatives.

(c) Quasi-judicial organs, such as the Joint Appeals Board (JAB), or judicial organs, such as theAdministrative Tribunals of the United Nations (UNAT) or of the International Labour Organisation (ILOAT)and, as a final instance, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) itself.

235

The fully judicial character of the Administrative Tribunals of the United Nations and of the ILO has beenestablished by several explicit decisions of the International Court of Justice, which were accepted by the UnitedNations General Assembly or the other competent legislative bodies. In 1971, the OAS General Assembly,basing itself on the established models of UNAT and ILOAT, established the OAS Administrative Tribunat(OASAT), with a statute very similar to those of the two older tribunals. In particular, it provides for: independentjudges, a fully judicial procedure and for judgements that are final and without appeal (OASAT statute, arti-cle VIII.2); though judgements are subject to limited revision by the Tribunal itself (article IX), no furtherappeal to ICJ (the "World Court") is provided for (as for UNAT and ILOAT) since OAS is a regional agency.The statute also provides (originally as paragraph 2 of the Transitory Provisions and now as article VIII.2) thatwhenever theTribunal rules that a complainant be reinstated in his post, the Tribunal must, in its judgement,also fix an indemnity that is to be paid if the Secretary-General decides, in the interest of OAS, that thecomplainant not be reinstated to service;40 this provision, which is actually a less restrictive version of arti-cle 9(1) of the UNAT statute (which covers all types of specific performance), was evidently adopted for thesame reasons by OAS as by the United Nations: in a small administration charged with politically delicatetasks, the Secretary-General must have full confidence in every staff member. There can therefore be no doubtthat OASAT, like UNAT and ILOAT, is a fully judicial institution.

It is thus evident that international civil servants, and in particular those serving on the staff of the UnitedNations or the Organization of American States, enjoy extensive administrative and judicial protection of theiremployment rights. The extent of that protection reflects the deliberate and proper decision of the highestlegislative organs of the organizations concerned, including that under certain circumstances staff members(who had voluntarily accepted the status of international civil servants) must be content to receive judiciallydetermined monetary compensation or indemnities for any wrong done to them rather than restoration to a statusthat the executive head of the organization is unwilling to grant them.

However, the purpose of this presentation is not to invite the Court to scrutinize the adequacy of thissystem, either in general or in regard to any particular organization, or to examine especially the adequacy ofthe recourse procedures or remedies (which vary from organization to organization and which may or may notinvolve resort to judicial41 or quasi-judicial organs). Rather the intention here is to demonstrate that themechanisms established for the governance of the international civil service constitute an internationally es-tablished autonomous governmental system, in which it is improper for any national Government to interveneindividually — though acting collectively, through the competent organs of the organizations concerned, themember Governments can and constantly do regulate the system.

Finally, it should also be noted that the legal system within which these mechanisms operate and whichthey in turn formulate, is international administrative law and not the law of the host State or of any othermember State.

C. The special requirements of the international civil service make it inappropriate for any national courtto exercise jurisdiction over disputes arising in such sen'ice

The international civil service is subject to numerous constraints and requirements that are different bothfrom those of any national civil service as well as from any private enterprise, whether national or international.In the first place, international officials must be independent of any national authorities or the obligation tofurther or to conform to national policies and must, in so far as concerns their official duties, even be free fromthe constraints of national laws. They must be prepared to accept expatriation, not merely for part of theircareers but more frequently for all of it. The employing organization must, in fixing their terms of service,observe strict equity among persons of different national backgrounds (e.g., persons coming from countrieswith very high or very low standards of living), who are serving at or moving between posts throughout theworld, sometimes on a long-term basis but sometimes quickly as determined by emergencies, and who mayultimately choose to retire to their home countries, to the host country of their last post or to some third country.Furthermore, statutory requirements regarding non-discrimination on account of gender (e.g., United NationsCharter, article 8, and OAS Charter, article 143)42 and recruitment of staff on as wide a geographical basis aspossible (e.g., United Nations Charter, article 101(3), and OAS Charter, article 126)43 must be observed.

Consequently, the international civil service cannot bind itself to any national civil service system, or evenaccept such a system as a strict model. This is true even in relation to the civil service system of the host Stateof its headquarters, if for no other reason than that most international organizations (especially the UnitedNations — which also has major establishments in Addis Ababa, Bangkok, Geneva, Nairobi, Santiago andVienna, as well as smaller ones in almost every Member State) also employ persons in many other poststhroughout the world, and that, through the United Nations "common system", an attempt is made to createa considerably unified international civil service by co-ordinating the conditions of service of numerous or-ganizations with headquarters and offices in different countries.

236

It must also be recognized that the member States of any given organization may differ considerably asto their philosophy concerning employment relations in general and those of civil servants in particular, andthat the system that they collectively design for the international service must to an extent be distilled fromthose divergent practices and necessarily cannot reflect too closely the precepts of any one of them. To takeone example, the United States has recently decided that it is generally improper to require any person to retireat a particular age;44 other countries, on the other hand, consider early retirement an important social goal, bothfrom the point of view of the retirees and from that of the younger persons who can thus advance more rapidly;the United Nations has generally opted for the latter approach, and the General Assembly (in which the UnitedStates is represented) has in recent years annually enjoined the Secretary-General to make as few exceptionsas possible from the normal retirement age of 6O.J5 Another example coutd be drawn from the field of'"affirmative action" designed to correct past incongruities in employment patterns: the General Assembly hasfor many years concerned itself with the problem of achieving both more extensive geographic distribution aswell as a more balanced employment by gender — two goals that may, in practice, be difficult to reconcile;it has consequently adopted some intricate formulae as well as some specific procedures for achieving thesegoals/16 which formulae and procedures may very well differ from national standards, such as those evaluatedin Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (438 U.S. 265, 98 S.Ct. 2733 (1978)). Finally, countriesdiffer in their concept of the procedural rights to be granted to civil servants, for example, to bargain collectivelyfor the terms of their employment, the definition and protection of certain "acquired rights" and the possibilitiesof administratively or judicially reviewing employment disputes.

As a result of all these considerations, no national court could sensibly adjudicate either substantive orprocedural disputes arising from the international civil service, which, as pointed out before, are governed byinternational administrative law formulated on the basis of policy considerations that are beyond the purviewof any one country to determine. And should the courts of one country be permitted to intervene, those ofothers could do so on the same basis, thus subjecting the organizations to quite possibly inconsistent decisionsand destroying any possibility of establishing uniform terms of employment for the service as a whole.

D. National courts have uniformly held that they have no jurisdiction over suits brought against anintergovernmental organization by a member of its staff, a conclusion confirmed by qualified legalscholars

For the reasons indicated in parts II.A-C of this Argument, national courts in several countries have, asbriefly described below, held that they have no jurisdiction over suits brought by staff members against theirintergovernmental organization employers: the relative paucity of these cases merely reflects the fact that, forthe reasons indicated in part I of this Argument, these organizations are normally considered entirely immunefrom suits in the courts of their member States — so that the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction generally onlyarises if a suit is brought in a state not a member of or otherwise required to <r immunity to an organization,or if the latter has explicitly or was deemed to have implicitly waived its immunity from suit.

In International Institute of Agriculture v. Profili, Giur. Ital. I 1931, col. 738: 5 Ann. Dig. 413 (Courtof Cassation, Italy, 1930), the highest Italian court declined subject matter jurisdiction in a suit by a staffmember of IIA who was dismissed from his post and claimed payment of compensation for dismissal. TheCourt held that the Institute was an international entity, an autonomous union, free as regards its internal affairsfrom interference by the sovereign power of the States composing the union except when it consented thereto;its power of self-determination or autonomy ruled out all national interference and all authority of such laws,whether substantive or procedural.

In Chemidlin v. International Bureau of Weights and Measures, 12 Ann. Dig. 281 (Tribunal Civil ofVersailles, France, 1945), a French court of first instance dismissed a suit, on the ground of lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction, by a former employee of IBWM for breach of contract and failure to reinstate. It held thatsince international civil servants performed their functions outside of the legal system of the State to whichthey belonged, French law was inapplicable.

In Mazzanti v. Headquarters Allied Forces Southern Europe and Ministry of Defence, 22 I.L.R. 758(Tribunal of Florence, Italy, 1955), an Italian court of first instance held that it had no jurisdiction over a suitbrought by an Italian national against the HAFSE arising out of a dispute as to the terms of his employment,on the ground that the employer was an international juridical person that had entered into the contract in theexercise of its public law capacity and was thus exempt from local jurisdiction.

In Diaz-Diaz v. United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (Supreme Court, Mexico,1953 — see 1953-54 annual report of the United Nations Secretary-General, Official Records of the GeneralAssembly, Ninth Session. Supplement No. 1 (A/2663), pp. 105-106) the highest court of Mexico sustained anappeal from a Circuit Court and held that the Arbitration Tribunal of Mexico City had no jurisdiction over acontroversy (concerning payment of termination indemnities and overtime to a former staff member) betweenan organ of the United Nations and its personnel.

237

In De Brityn v. European Parliamentary Assembly, 34 I.L.R. 466 (Employment Arbitration Tribunal,Luxembourg, 1962), a standing arbitral tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction over a complaint demandingannulment of a notice of dismissal and damages, since plaintiffs employment contract with the EPA existedin public law.

In Giovani Porru v. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (Labor Section of the RomeCourt of First Instance, Italy, 1969) ,47 an Italian court of first instance dismissed a claim by an Italian nationalemployed on a short-term basis by FAO for an amount equivalent to certain Italian social security benefits. TheCourt held that the legal relations between FAO and the plaintiff undoubtedly fell within the category of actsperformed in the exercise of the FAO established functions and it therefore enjoyed immunity from jurisdiction.

In Intergovernmental Committee on European Migration v. Di Banetla Shirone, 98 Foro It. I (338:45)1138, 73/74 Giur. It. I 1919 (Court of Cassation, Italy, 1975), the highest Italian court dismissed a suit by apermanent clerical employee who alleged that ICEM failed to give her the amount of severance pay agreedupon in her employment contract. It held that international agencies have immunity from Italian jurisdictionin controversies involving labor relations with their employees who are part of their permanent staff (eventhough not on a high level), on the ground that such relations relate to the internal organization of these agencieswithin the scope of their institutional purposes.

Using similar reasoning and relying on certain of the court decisions referred to above, legal scholars,including "the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations" to whom the International Court ofJustice itself is to look for the determination of the rules of law applicable to disputes submitted to it (ICJStatute, Article 3S(l)(d)), have uniformly denied the jurisdiction of any national organs and particularly ofdomestic courts over disputes relating to the international civil service.

III. 28 U.S.C. § 133](a) confers subject matter jurisdiction over suits by or against intergovernmentalorganizations of which the United States is a member, regardless of the nature of the cause of action

The United Nations differs with that part of Appellees' Brief which asserts that 28 U.S.C. § 133I(a) doesnot confer jurisdiction on the federal courts over a complaint such as forms the basis of the present suit, becausePlaintiffs' claim states no federal cause of action.

The correct rule is that stated in International Refugee Organization v. Republic S.S. Corp., 189 F.2d858, at 861 (4th Cir. 1951) that "an international organization created by treaties to which the United Statesis a party may invoke the [federal] jurisdiction because it is created by a treaty of the United States".

Any other interpretation would require intergovernmental organizations to defend suits in contract or tort,assuming they either do not have or waive their immunity, solely in State courts, as even 28 U.S.C. § 1441would not enable them to remove the action to federal courts. On the other hand, as plaintiffs in cases basedon the same causes of action, they could enter federal court pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 288a(a)(iit), which,according to the above-cited opinion of the Fourth Circuit, in any event grants international organizations "thecapacity to institute legal proceedings in federal court" (op cit. at 860).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should affirm the decision of the court below dismissing Plaintiffs'action.

Respectfully submitted,

Erik SUYUnder-Secretary-General, The Legal Counsel

Paul C. SZASZPrincipal Officer

United Nations

16 January 1979

ANNEX

The governance of the international civil service, as illustrated by the mechanisms established in respectof the United Nations "common system" of personnel administration48

[Not reproduced]

238

Notes1 The Ministere public observed in this connexion that employees of international agencies such as the

ILO are covered by the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies, which accordsthem privileges and immunities more limited than those accorded to diplomatic agents proper. It recalled thatannex I (ILO) to that Convention provides that experts are granted privileges and immunities in so far asnecessary for the performance of their functions and that they are granted privileges and immunities not fortheir personal benefit but in the interests of the agency, which has the right and the duty to waive immunityin any case where, in its opinion, the immunity would impede the course of justice.

2 United Nations Legislative Series, Legislative Texts and Treaty Provisions concerning the Legal Status,Privileges and Immunities of International Organizations (ST/LEG/SER.B/10) (United Nations publication,Sales No. 60.V.2), p. 196.

3 428 N.Y.S. 2d33 (1980).4 For a summary of this judgement, see Juridical Yearbook, 1971, p. 249.5 The Court noted that there had been no waiver of immunity in this case. After being served with the

sequestration order, the Fund's Secretary had determined that in the absence of a Pension Fund regulationauthorizing the waiver, he lacked the power to consent to subject the Fund to legal process. The United NationsAdministrative Tribunal upheld that determination (see Judgement No. 245 of the Administrative Tribunal ofthe United Nations summarized in the Juridical Yearbook, 1979, pp. 138-139), but recommended that thePension Fund adopt a rule similar to staff rule 103.18 (b) (iii), which provides that the United Nations' privilegesand immunities "furnish no excuse to the staff members who enjoy them for non-performance of their privateobligations or failure to observe laws and police regulations". The Appellate Division stressed that its decisionwas without prejudice to the respondent's rights under the sequestration order in the event that a rule permittingwaiver is adopted by the Pension Fund Board and the Fund in fact waives its immunity from process.

6 Broadbent v. Organization of Am. States, 628 F.2d27 (D.C.Cir.1980).7 The amounts of the indemnities ranged from S9,000 to $12,000 plus attorney's fees.8 United Nations Legislative Series, Legislative Texts and Treaty Provisions concerning the Legal Status,

Privileges and Immunities of International Organizations (ST/LEG/SER.B/10) (United Nations publication,Sales No. 60.V.2).

9 See Broadbent, supra at pp. 28-29.10 Ibid., at 29.11 22U.S.C. § 288a provides:

"International organizations shall enjoy the status, immunities, exemptions, and privileges set forthin this section, as follows:

"(a) International organizations shall, to the extent consistent with the instrument creating them,possess the capacity—

"(i) to contract;"(ii) to acquire and dispose of real and personal property;

"(iii) to institute legal proceedings."(£>) International organizations, their property and their assets, wherever located, and by whom-

soever held, shall enjoy the same immunity from suit and every form of judicial process as is enjoyed byforeign governments, except to the extent that such organizations may expressly waive their immunity forthe purpose of any proceedings or by the terms of any contract.

"(c) Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held,shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. Thearchives of international organizations shall be inviolable.

"(d) In so far as concerns customs duties and internal revenue taxes imposed upon or by reason ofimportation, and the procedures in connection therewith; the registration of foreign agents; and the treatmentof official communications, the privileges, exemptions, and immunities to which international organizationsshall be entitled shall be those accorded under similar circumstances to foreign Governments."12 28 U.S.C. § 1330 provides:

"Actions against foreign States."(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction without regard to amount in controversy of

any nonjury civil action against a foreign State as defined in section 1603(a) of this title as to any claimfor relief in personam with respect to which the foreign State is not entitled to immunity either undersections 1605-1607 of this title or under any applicable international agreement.

"(6) Personal jurisdiction over a foreign State shall exist as to every claim for relief over which thedistrict courts have jurisdiction under subsection (a) where service has been made under section 1608 ofthis title.

"(c) For purposes of subsection (b), an appearance by a foreign State does not confer personaljurisdiction with respect to any claim for relief not arising out of any transaction or occurrence enumeratedin sections 1605-1607 of this title."13 The text of the brief of the United Nations as amicus curiae is reproduced below.14 By Executive Order 10533 (June 3, 1954), 19 Fed. Reg. 3289 (1954), President Eisenhower designated

OAS an international organization entitled to the privileges and immunities conferred by the IOIA.15 The legislative history of the Act makes it clear that the Act was passed to fill a then existing void in

the domestic law with respect to the legal status of international organizations. 1 l.Rep. No. 1203, 79th Cong.,1st Sess.2 (1945).

239

16 See, e.g., the "Tate Letter", 26 Dept. State Bull. 984-85 (1952), quoted in Alfred Dunhill of London,Inc. v. Cuba, 425 U.S. 682, 711 (1975).

17 Sands (ed.)", Sutherland Statutory Construction § 51.08 (4th ed. 1975).'8 28 U.S.C. § 1603 (1979) provides:

"§ 1603. Definitions"For purposes of this chapter

"(a) A 'foreign State' except as used in section 1608 of this title, includes a political subdivisionof a foreign State or an agency or instrumentality of a foreign State as defined in subsection (b).

"(b) An 'agency or instrumentality of a foreign State' means any entity"(1) which is a separate legal person, corporate or otherwise, and"(2) which is an organ of a foreign State or political subdivision thereof, or a majority of whose

shares or other ownership interest is owned by a foreign State or political subdivision thereof, and"(3) which is neither a citizen of a state of Ihe United States as defined in section 1332 (c) and (d)

of this title, nor created under the laws of any third country."(c) The 'United States' includes all territory and waters, continental or insular, subject to the

jurisdiction of the United States."(d) A 'commercial activity' means either a regular course of commercial conduct or a particular

commercial transaction or act. The commercial character of an activity shall be determined by referenceto the nature of the course of conduct or particular transaction or act, rather than by reference to itspurpose.

"(e) A 'commercial activity carried on in the United States by a foreign State' means commercialactivity carried on by such State and having substantial contact with the United States."» 28 U.S.C. § 1603(</) (1979) defines "commercial activity":

"'A 'commercial activity' means either a regular course of commercial conduct or a particular com-mercial transaction or act. The commercial character of an activity shall be determined by reference tothe nature of the course of conduct or particular transaction or act, rather than by reference to its purpose."20 II. Rep. No. 94-1487, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 16 (1976) (emphasis added).21 See, e.g., XIII Documents of the United Nations Conference on International Organizations 704-05

(1945), reprinted in 13 Whitman, Digest of International Law 36 (1968).22 See, e.g., OAS Charter, article 143 (forbidding discrimination on the basis of "race, creed or sex") ,

article 126 (requiring staff recruitment on as wide a geographic basis as possible).23 For example, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1978 (ADEA) 29 U.S.C. § 621 ei seq.,

forbids in most circumstances a requirement that a person retire at a particular age. Yet other countries considerearly retirement an important social goal, the achievement of which facilitates advancement by younger people.Since there is no inconsistent provision in the OAS Charter (and since, even if there were, ADEA was enactedafter the latest amendment to the OAS Charter), ADEA presumably would govern, and unless its provisionswere considered not to cover international employment (see 29 U.S.C. §§ 630 and 633a), OAS and otherinternational organizations who are thought not immune from suit would be required to abide by the terms ofthe Act in their employment here.

Or, for another example, the rigid quotas employed as an integral part of recruiting a "balanced" inter-national civil service (see, e.g., General Assembly resolution 33/143, 18 December 1978) might run afoul ofthe emerging law of "affirmative action" in the United States.

24 Treatise writers on the law of international organizations have recognized the force of the argumentmade in text. See, e.g., M. B. Akehurst, The Law governing employment in international organizations 12(1967), which discusses suits such as the instant case in the following terms:

"At first sight, disputes of this sort could be referred to municipal tribunals. The organization normallypossesses immunity, but immunity can be waived. However, the special nature of the law governingemployment in international organizations, closely linked as it is with delicate questions of administrativepolicy, makes municipal tribunals totally unsuited to deal with it. It would be like an English court tryingto judge a dispute between the French Government and one of its officials. Courts in all countries usuallyrefuse to handle questions of foreign public law and, in the same way, a number of municipal courts haveheld themselves incompetent to judge claims brought by international civil servants against the organizationswhich employ them, not on the grounds of immunity, but on the grounds of the special law applicable.

"There is therefore a vacuum which needs to be filled by the organizations themselves. The creationof an independent body, empowered to make binding decisions in legal disputes between an organizationand its staff, is by no means an altruistic gesture from the organization's point of view: without it, officialsmight suffer from a sense of injustice which would impair the smooth running of the secretariat."25 The factual background recited below is not introduced for the purpose of inviting the Court to examine

either the fundamental merits of the dispute to which this jurisdictional appeal relates, or the internal proceduresof the O A S Administrat ive Tribunal in disposing of them, but solely to complete the Cour t ' s appreciation ofthe earlier phases of the prior proceedings in this dispute, which appear to have been incompletely andconsequently to some extent misleadingly presented in the previous Briefs, in particular that of the Plaintiffs-Appellants .

240

2 6 Judgements N o s . 29 and 30 of the O A S Adminis t ra t ive Tribunal are parts of the record of this case .27 General Standards to Govern the Operations of the General Secretariat of the Organization of American

States (OAS document OEA/Se r .D / I . I . 2 /Rev .2 , 19 July 1977).28 Although the term "international organiza t ions" is used in both the International Organizations Im-

munities Act (22 U . S . C . § 288) and in the other Briefs filed in this appeal to refer solely to intergovernmentalorganizations, in common usage the former term also includes international non-govemmental organizationsand various mixed entities. As the international legal principles to which this Brief refers are applicable onlyto intergovernmental organizations, that term is used generally herein.

19 The proposition that the Federal Government is immune from suit, whether in State or federal courts ,without its consent, is too well established to require extensive citation (see, e .g . , Larson v. Domestic andForeign Commerce Corporation, 337 U . S . 682 (1949) , relied on in Malone v. Bowdorin 369 U . S . 643 (1962)) .Even when the United States has waived that immunity, in respect of itself or its officers, Congress has providedthat an action against it or them may always be removed from a State court to a federal one (see 28 U . S . C .§§ 1441 read with 1345, and 1442); the constitutionality of these removal statutes (Tennessee v. Davis, 100U . S . (10 Otto) 257 (1880)) testifies to the inherent powers that a federal government has to protect itself fromsuit in any but its own courts .

30 Quoting from The Federalist N o . 80 (Modern Library ed . ) , p. 516 .3 1 ILC therefore formulated first the proposed instrument that became the 1961 Vienna Convention on

Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations before turning to the studies thatbecame the 1975 Vienna Convention on the Representation of States in their Relations with InternationalOrganizations of a Universal Character and more recently taking up the still incomplete work on the immunitiesof the organizations themselves and of their officials.

32 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. I, p. 15.i3Ibid., vol. 33, p. 261.34 This article includes section 2, quoted above.35 Even as to the immunity of States, Congress was careful to make the FSIA "[s]ubject to existing

international agreements to which the United States is a party at the time of the enactment of this Act" (28U.S.C. § 1604).

3 6 Uni ted Nat ions , Treaty Series, vol . 824 , p. 2 1 5 .37 Ibid., vol .414, p. 231.™fbid., vol. 492, p. 58.39 The closely corresponding provisions of the OAS Charter (articles 124-125) read as follows:

"Article 124"In the performance of their duties, the Secretary-General and the personnel of the Secretariat shall

not seek or receive instructions from any Government or from any authority outside the Organization, andshall refrain from any action that may be incompatible with their position as international officers responsibleonly to the Organization.

•'Article 125"The Member States pledge themselves to respect the exclusively international character of the

responsibilities of the Secretary-General and the personnel of the General Secretariat, and not to seek toinfluence them in the discharge of their duties."40 It is against the exercise of this power of OASAT and the Secretary-General that Plaintiffs-Appellants

are complaining in the instant case.41 As to judicial remedies, such as afforded by OASAT, it should be noted that the issue, at least at this

stage, is not one of res judicata (in view of the prior Judgement Nos. 29 and 30 of the OAS AdministrativeTribunal in respect of the present dispute), nor of forum non conveniens (in view of the greater appropriatenessof having disputes of this type considered by the competent Administrative Tribunal rather than by a courtconsidering a "law foreign to i t se l f (cf. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, at 509 (1946)), sinceconsideration of either res judicata or forum non conveniens would require that the District Court have juris-diction — which is contrary to the contention of this Brief.

42 Reading as follows:

"Article 143" T h e Organization of American States does not allow any restriction based on race , creed, or sex,

with respect to eligibility to participate in the activities of the Organization and to hold positions t he re in . "4 3 Reading as follows:

"Article 126" I n selecting the personnel of the General Secretariat, first consideration shall be given to efficiency,

competence, and integrity; but at the same t ime, in the recruitment of personnel of all ranks, importanceshall be given to the necessity of obtaining as wide a geographic representation as poss ib l e . "4 4 See Age Discrimination in Employment Act Amendment of 1978 (P .L . 95-256, 29 U . S . C . § 633a) .4 5 See, e .g . , para. II.3 of General Assembly resolution 33/143 of 20 December 1978, referring to United

Nations staff regulation 9 .5 : "Staf f members shall not be retained in active service beyond the age of sixtyyears . The Secretary-General may , in the interest of the Organization, extend this age limit in exceptionalc a s e s " .

241

46 See , e .g . , para. II . 1 of General Assembly resolution 33/143 of 20 December 1978 (establishing a targetof 40 per cent recruitment from unrepresented and under-represented countries) and para. III. I of the sameresolution (setting a target of 25 per cent, to be achieved within four years, for the number of women employedin professional posts in the Secretariat).

47 Summarized in the Juridical Yearbook, 1969, p. 238 .48 The " c o m m o n sys t em" applies directly to the United Nations as well as to the following specialized

or related agencies: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; Inter-Governmental MaritimeConsultative Organization; Interim Commission for International Trade Organization/General Agreement onTariffs and Trade; International Atomic Energy Agency; International Civil Aviation Organization; InternationalLabour Organisation; International Telecommunication Union; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cul-tural Organization; Universal Postal Union; World Intellectual Property Organization; World Health Organi-zation; World Meteorological Organization. It is also largely followed by the International Fund for AgriculturalDevelopment and to some extent by the Organization of American States.

242

Part Four

BIBLIOGRAPHY

LEGAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND RELATEDINTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

MAIN HEADINGSA. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS IN GENERAL

1. General2. Particular questions

B. UNITED NATIONS1. General2. Particular organs3. Particular questions or activities

C. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS RELATED TO THE UNITED NATIONSParticular organizations

245

A. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS IN GENERALORGANISATIONS INTERNATIONALES EN GENERALMEJKHYHAPOflHblE OPrAHH3AUHM B U.EJIOMORGANIZACIONES INTERNACIONALES EN GENERAL

1. GeneralOuvrages generauxO6iuye neMbiBibliograjia general

Adede, A.O. International law from a common law perspective: a second look. Boston University law review(Boston, Mass.) 60:46-76, January 1980.

Barile, G. La structure de I'ordre juridique international : regies generates et regies conventionnelles. In Recueildes cours de 1'Academie de droit international de La Haye, 1978-III. Alphen aan den Rijn, Sijthoff &Noordhoff, 1980, p. 9 a 126.

Baxter, Richard R. International law in "her infinite variety". International and comparative law quarterly(London, England) 29:549-566, October 1980.

Bennett, A. LeRoy. International organizations: principles and issues. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Prentice-Hall, 1980. 530 p.

Bibliography: p. 472-481.Berlia, G. Droit public interne et international: etudes et reflexions. Paris, Librairie gdnerale de droit et de

jurisprudence, 1980. 521 p.Cansacchi, G. Istituzioni di diritto intemazionale pubblico, 6th ed., Torino, Giappichelli, 1979. 330 p.Casanovas, y La Rosa, O. Practicas de derecho internacional publico. 2a. ed. Madrid, Editorial Tecnos, 1978.

603 pags. (Biblioteca universitaria de Editorial Tecnos).Chen, S. S. T. The theory and practice of international organization. Rev. ed. Dubuque, Iowa, Kendall-Hunt

pub. co., 1979. 202 p.Elias, T. O. The doctrine of intertemporal law. American journal of international law (Washington, DC.)

74:285-307, April 1980.Geiger, R. Die zweite Krise der volkerrechtlichen Rechtsquellenlehre. Osterreichische Zeitschriftfur offentliches

Recht und Volkerrecht (Wien) 30:215-234, 1979. no. 3-4.Grahl-Madsen, Atle. International law at the crossroads. In Scandinavian studies in law, v. 24. Stockholm,

Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1980. p. 175-186.Ishimoto, Yasuo. Some consideration on the structural changes in the contemporary law of nations. Hogaku

zasshi (Osaka) 26:351-362, June 1980.In Japanese.

Klafkowski, Alfons. Prawo miedzynarodowe publiczne. Wyd. 5. zmienione. Warszawa: Paristwowe Wy-dawnictwo Naukowe, 1979. 458 p.

Includes bibliographical references.Kolasa, Jan. On the sources of international law — towards a conception of adopted law. In Polish yearbook

of international law, v. 9, 1977-1978. Warsaw, Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of State and Law,1980. p. 105-117.

Kotera, Akira. The legal nature of international organizations — %vith reference to the agreements concludedby international organizations. Kokka gakkai zasshi (Tokyo) 93:1-62, January 1980.

In Japanese.Lavieille, J. M. Les typologies des organisations internationales. Revue de droit international de sciences

diplomatiques et politiques (Geneve) 57:278-290, octobre-decembre 1979.Llanes, O. B. Direito internacional publico: instrumento das relacoes internacionais. Brasilia, Horizonte, 1979.

454 p.Mattos, J. D. F. B. de. Manual de direito internacional publico. Sao Paulo, Saraiva, 1979. 332 p.McDougal, Myres S. International law and the future. Mississippi law journal (University, Miss.) 50:259-334,

June 1979.Mello, C. D. de A. Curso de direito internacional publico. 6 ed, Rio de Janeiro, Freitas Bastos, 1979. 2 v.

(Biblioteca jurfdica Freitas Bastos.)Meng, W. Das Recht der internationalen Organisationen: eine Entwicklungsstufe des Volkerrechts. Baden-

Baden, Nomos, 1979. 232 p. (Volkerrecht und Aussenpolitik, 31.)

246

Miehsler, Herbert. Zur Autoritat von Beschliissen internationaler Institutionen. In Schreuer, C. von. Autoritatund Internationale Ordnung: Aufsatze zum Volkerrecht, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1979. p. 35-61.

Monaco, R. Les principes regissant la structure et le fonctionnement des organisations Internationales. In Recueildes cours de VAcademie de droii international de La Haye, 1977-III. Alphen aan den Rijn, Sijthoff &Noordhoff, 1980, p. 79 a 226.

Napolitano, G. Funzioni operative di azione diretta delle organizzazioni internazionali. Comunita internazionale(Padova) 34:399-430, 1979. no. 2-3.

Nguyen-Quoc-Dinh et al. Droit international public. 2" ed. Paris, Librairie generate de droit et de jurisprudence,1980, 993 p.

Obaid, I. A. The historical evolution of the legal status of international organizations. Ann Arbor, Universitymicrofilms, 1980. 245 p. (Thesis — Indiana university.)

Pathak, R. S. The general theory of the sources of contemporary international law. Indian journal of internationallaw (New Delhi) 19:483-495, October-December 1979.

Reuter, Paul, et Combacau, Jean. Institutions et relations internationales. Paris, Presses universitaires de France,1980, 579 p.

Includes bibliographical references.Sepulveda, Gutierrez, C. Derecho internacional. 9a. ed. Mexico, Porrua, 1978. 609 pags.Slusny, M. Organisations internationales. Bruxelles, Presses universitaires de Bruxelles, 1979, 206 p.Smithers, Peter. Towards greater coherence among inter-governmental organizations through governmental

control. In Andemicael, B. Regionalism and the United Nations. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., Oceana, 1979. p.13-93.

Spencer, John H. The role of international law in the world community. In U.S. Naval War College, Newport.International law studies, v. 61. Newport, R.I., Naval War College Press, 1980. p. 22-34.

Tunkin, G. I. General theory of sources of international law. Indian journal of international law (New Delhi)19:474-482, October-December 1979.

Weston, B. H. and others. International law and world order: a problem-oriented coursebook. St. Paul, West,1980. 1195 p. (American casebook series.)

2. Particular questionsOuvrages concernant des questions particulieresOmdejibHbie eonpocbiCuestiones particulares

Ansbach, Tatjana. Zum Stand der Kodifikation des Vertragsrechts der internationalen Organisationen. DeutscheAussenpolitik (Berlin) 25:70-79, Juli 1980.

Bindschedler, R. Rechtsakte der internationalen Organisation. In Berner Festgabe zum Schweizerischen Jur-isientag, Bern, P. Haupt, 1979. p. 361-378.

Conetti, G. La costituzione delle organizzazioni tecniche nella Societa delle Nazioni. Milano, Giuffre, 1979.261 p.

Gordon, Mark. International organizations: immunity. Harvard international law journal (Cambridge, Mass.)21:552-561, spring 1980.

Honore, Tony. Human community and the principle of majority rule. Sydney law review (Holmes Beach, Fla.)8:599-612, January 1979.

Isozaki, Hiroshi. The new international order and equality; equal participation in international organization.Tokyo Toritsu Daigaku. Hogakkai zasshi (Tokyo) 21:63-136, July 1980.

In Japanese.Klepacki, Z. M. Proces podejmowania decyzji w organizacjach miedzynarodowych. Warszawa, Paristwowe

Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1979. 270 p.Lee, Kenneth R. International organizations — immunity — personnel decisions of an international organi-

zation are not' 'commercial activities" and thus may not form the basis for an action against the organization.Virginia journal of international law (Charlottesville, Va.) 20:913-923, summer 1980.

O'Toole, T. J. Sovereign immunity redivivus: suits against international organizations. Suffolk transnationallaw journal (Boston) 4:1-16, 1980.

rieTpoBCKHH, B. dp. MeJKnyHaponHbie KOHtpepeHu;HH H neperoBopbi: TeHjieHUHH nocjienHeroCoeemcKoe zocydapcmeo u npaeo (MocKBa), JMe 8 : I05-II6, 1980.

[International negotiations and conferences: recent tendencies.]

247

Reutersward, R. Legal nature of international organizations. Nordisk lidsskrift for international ret og jusgentium (K0benhavn) 49:14-30, 1980.

IIlH6aeBa, E. A. MexcnyHaponm>ie opraHraaijHH B CHcreMe MeamyHapoflHo-npaBOBoro peryjiHpoBaHHHMejKnyHaponHbix OTHonieHHii. In CoBeTCKHH ejKeroflHHK Me>KnynaponHoro npaua, 1978. MocKBa,M3JI-BO "Hayica", 1980. CTp. 214-223.

[International organizations in the international legal system of the settlement of international disputes.]Zamora, S. Voting in international economic organizations. American journal of international law (Washington,

D.C.) 74:566-608, July 1980.

B. UNITED NATIONSORGANISATION DES NATIONS UNIES

NACIONES UNIDAS1. General

Ouvrages generauxO6iu,ue meMbiBibliografia general

Andemicael, Berhanykun. The Organization of African Unity and the United Nations. In Andemicael, B.Regionalism and the United Nations. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., Oceana, 1979. p. 225-297.

Conforti, Benedetto. Le Nazioni Unite. 3rd ed.t Padova, CEDAM, 1979, 299 p.Gara, John de. The European Economic Community and the United Nations. In Andemicael, B. Regionalism

and the United Nations. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., Oceana, 1979. p. 543-584.Haas, Michael. Asian intergovernmental organizations and the United Nations. In Andemicael, B. Regionalism

and the United Nations. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., Oceana, 1979. p. 397-445.Hassouna, Hussein A. The League of Arab States and the United Nations. In Andemicael, B. Regionalism and

the United Nations. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., Oceana, 1979. p. 299-336.Kay, David A. The functioning and effectiveness of selected United Nations system programs. St. Paul, Minn.

West Pub. Co., 1980. 208 p. (Studies in transnational legal policy — American Society of InternationalLaw, 18.)

Klein, Eckart. Tatigkeit der Vereinten Nationen in volkerrechtlichen Fragen. Archiv des Volkerrechts (Tubingen)18:393-443, 1980. no. 4.

Levin, Aida L. The Organization of American States and the United Nations. In Andemicael, B. Regionalismand the United Nations. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., Oceana, 1979. p. 147-224.

Lukin, L. I. The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance and the United Nations. In Andemicael, B. Re-gionalism and the United Nations. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., Oceana, 1979. p. 449-487.

Morse, B. Practice, norms and reform of international humanitarian rescue operations. In Recue'd des coursde I'Academie de droit international de La Haye, 1977-IV. Alphen aan den Rijn, Sijthoff & Noordhoff,1980. p. 121-194.

Muller, M. E. Discussions and resolutions on South Africa in the United Nations — 1979. In South Africanyearbook of international law, v. 5, 1979. Pretoria, University of South Africa, 1979. p. 164-199.

Nicol, Davidson. Interregional co-ordination within the United Nations: the role of the commonwealth. InAndemicael, B. Regionalism and the United Nations. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., Oceana, 1979. p. 95-144.

Robertson, A. H. The Council of Europe and the United Nations. In Andemicael, B. Regionalism and theUnited Nations. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., Oceana, 1979. p. 489-542.

Silagi, Michael. Die beiden deutschen Staaten und das volkerrechtliche Wirken der Vereinten Nationen. Deutsch-land Archiv (Koln) 13:726-735, Juli 1980.

Sohn, Louis B. The concept of autonomy in international law and the practice of the United Nations. Israellaw review (Jerusalem) 15:180-190, April 1980.

Tavemier, Paul. L'annee des Nations Unies, problemes juridiques. In Annuairefrangais de droit international,v. 25, 1979, Paris, Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1979, p. 460 a 490.

248

2. Particular organsOuvrages concernant certains organesOmdeAbHbte opzaHbiOrganos particulares

Administrative TribunalTribunal administratifAAMiiHiicTpaTiiBiibiii TpnCyna.1Tribunal Administrativo

Frost, Anne and Coral Howard. Representation and administrative tribunals. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul,1977. 94 p.

Bibliography: p. 92-94.Jurisprudence du Tribunal administratif des Nations Unies. In Annuaire frangais de droit international, v. 25,

1979, Paris, Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1979, p. 402 a 428.Knapp, Blaise. Jurisprudence du Tribunal administratif de 1'Organisation Internationale du Travail. In Annuaire

frangais de droit international, v. 25, 1979, Paris, Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1979,p. 429 a 441.

Tavernier, Paul. La fusion des Tribunaux administratifs des Nations Unies et de l'OIT—- necessite ouutopie ? In Annuaire frangais de droit international, v. 25, 1979, Paris, Centre national de la recherchescientifique, 1979, p. 442 a 459.

General AssemblyAssemblee generate

Asamblea General

Crauciuc, Olimpiu A. G. Din agenda celei de a 34-a sesiuni a Adunarii Generale a O. N. U. Stttdii si cercetarijuridice (Burcuresti) 25:165-171, 1980. no. 2.

[From the agenda of the 34th UN General Assembly.]Gorner, G. and 2 others. Zur Arbeit des Rechtsausschusses auf der 34. Tagung der UN-Vollversammlung.

NeueJustiz (Berlin) 34:197-201. 1980. no. 5.Hecker, M. Volkerrecht und Nord-Siid-Problematik vor der Generalversammlung: Wirtschaftsvolkerrecht und

Menschenrecht auf Entwicklung. Vereinte National (Bonn) 28:41-47, April 1980.Khan, Rahmatullah. The legal status of the resolutions of the UN General Assembly. Indian journal of

international law (New Delhi) 19:552-559, October-December 1979.Mani, V. S. The 1970 Declaration on Friendly Relations: a case study in law creation by the UN General

Assembly. International studies (New Delhi) 18:287-321, July-September 1979.Mourgeon, J. Les sessions peu ordinaires de I'Assemblee generale des Nations Unies. In Annuaire frangais

de droit international, v. 25, 1979, Paris, Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1979, p. 491 a 500.nerpyxHH, A. O paccMOTpeHHH HeKcrropbix Me»myHapo;iHo-npaBOBbix BonpocoB B VI

XXXIII ceccHH PeHepajibHOH AccaM6Jien OOH. In COBCTCKHH eiKerojjHHKnpaBa, 1979. MocKBa, H3H-BO "HayKa", 1980. crp. 291-294.

[Consideration of certain international law questions in the Sixth Committee of the 33rd Session ofthe UN General Assembly.]

Raton, Pierre. Travaux de la Commission juridique de la XXXIVe Assemblee generale des Nations Unies. InAnnuaire frangais de droit international, v. 25, 1979, Paris, Centre national de la recherche scientifique,1979, p. 501 a 538.

Sahovic, Milan. Sesti (Pravni) komitet Generalne skupstine UN i savremeni razvoj medunarodnog prava.Jugoslovenska revija za medunarodno pravo (Beograd) 26:163-171, 1979. no. 1-3.

[La Sixieme Commission de l'Assemblee generale des Nations Unies et le developpement du droitinternational contemporain.J

BajiHH, JI. PaccMOTpeHHe HeKOTopbix BonpocoB MeacflyHaponHoro npaBa B UJecroM KOMHTCTC XXXIIceccHH FeHepajibHofi AccaMSjieH OOH. In COBCTCKHH exeronHHK MexqjyHaponHoro noaBa,1978. MocKsa, H3H-BO "Hayica", 1980. crp. 345-351.

[Discussion of certain international law problems in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assemblyat its 32nd Session.]

249

International Court of JusticeCour Internationale de Justice

Corte Internacional de Justicia

Bacot, G. Reflexions sur les clauses qui rendent obligatoires les avis consultatifs de la C. P. J. I. et de laC. I. J. Revue generate de droit international public (Paris) 84:1027-1067, 1980, n° 4.

Baxter, R. R. Two cheers for international adjudication. American Bar Association journal (Chicago)65:1185-1189, August 1979.

Beirlaen, Andre. De ordonnantie van 11 September 1976 gewezen in de zaak Plateau continental de la merEgee en de bevolgheidsproblematiek in de fase der conservatoire maatregelen van het internationale Hofvan Justitie. Revue beige de droit international (Bruxelles) 14:425-459, 1978/1979, n° 2.

Bernhardt, J. P. A. Provisional measures procedure of the International Court of Justice through U.S. staff inTehran: fiat iustitia, pereat Curia? Virginia journal of international law (Charlottesville, Va.) 20:557-613,spring 1980.

Bretton, Philippe. L'affaire des otages americains devant la Cour internationale de Justice. Journal du droitinternational (Paris) 107 : 787-828, octobre-novembre-d6cembre 1980.

Dillard, Hardy Cross. Law, policy and the World Court — attacking some misconceptions. Willamette lawreview (Salem, Ore.) 17:13-25, winter 1980.

Green, L. C. Tehran embassy incident — legal aspects Archiv des Volkerrechts (Tubingen) 19:1-22, 1980no. 1.

Greenwood, Christopher. The Iranian hostage case. Cambridge law journal (Cambridge) 39:239-243, November1980.

Gross, Leo. Case concerning United States diplomatic and consular staff in Tehran: phase of provisionalmeasures. American journal of international law {Washington, D.C.) 74:395-410, April 1980.

International Court of Justice: United States application against Iran. In South African yearbook of internationallaw, v. 5, 1979. Pretoria, University of South Africa, 1979. p. 153-157.

Jessup, Philip C. Revisions of the international legal order. Denver journal of international law and policy(Denver) 10:1-10, fall 1980.

Lachs, M. La Cour international de Justice, organe judiciaire principal des Nations Unies. In Liber amicorumAdolf F. Schnitzer, offert a l'occasion de son 90° anniversaire le 30 juillet 1979 par la Faculte de droitde l'Universite de Geneve. Geneve, Georg, 1979, 547 p. (Memoires publies par la Faculte de droit deGeneve, 61.)

Makita, Yukito. Basic principles of the framework of the International Court of Justice. Hogaku ronsliu(Kagoshima) 16:83-141, December 1980.

In Japanese.Merrills, J. G. International Court of Justice and the General Act of 1928. Cambridge law journal (New York,

N.Y.) 39:137-171, April 1980.Oellers-Frahm, K. Die Entscheidung des Internationalen Gerichtshofes im griechischtiirkischen Streit um den

Festlandsockel in der Aegaeis. Archiv des Volkerrechts (Tubingen) 18:377-392, 1980. no. 4.Papachristou, Alexander. International adjudication: embassy, seizure — United States v. Iran [1980] I C J 3.

Harvard international law journal (Cambridge, Mass.) 21:748-756, fall 1980.Paul, Joel Richard. International adjudication: embassy seizure. Harvard international law journal (Cambridge,

Mass.) 21:268-274, winter 1980.Prott, L. V. The justification of decisions in the International Court of Justice. In La motivation des decisions

de justice, Bruxelles, Bruylant, 1978. p. 331-343.Rangel, V. M. Decisoes da Corte internacional de justica em casos submetidos por estados americanos. In

Inter-American juridical committee. Quinto curso de derecho internacional, Washington, D.C, 1979.p. 339-370.

Reuter, Paul. Quelques reflexions sur requite* en droit international. Revue beige de droit international(Bruxelles) 15:165-186, 1980, n<> 1.

Rosenne, Shabtai. Documents on the International Court of Justice. 2 ed. Alphen aan den Rijn, Sijthoff &Noordhoff, 1979. 497 p.

Rosenne, Shabtai. Judge John E. Read and the International Court of Justice. In Canadian yearbook of inter-national law, v. 17, 1979. Vancouver, B.C., University of British Columbia, 1980. p. 3-29.

Rotter, Manfred. Art. 36 Abs. 2 des Statuts des Internationalen Gerichtshofes. In Ius humanitatis, Festchriftzum 90. Geburtstag von Alfred Verdross. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1980. p. 631-651.

250

Schiitz, Hans-Joachim. Die Ausnahmeklausel der nattonalen Verteidigung im Verfahren vor dem InternationalenGerichtshof: Eine ,,exceptio universalis"? In Schreuer, C. von. Autoritat und Internationale Ordnung:Aufsatze zum Volkerrecht, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1979. p. 173-204.

Suh, II Ro. National judges in advisory proceedings of the International Court. Indian journal of internationallaw (New Delhi) 19:20-47, January-March 1979.

Weis, Paul. Effective nationality, Nottebohm and after. In Liber amicorum Adolf F. Schnitzer, offert a 1'occasionde son 90* anniversaire le 30 juillet 1979 par la Faculte de droit de l'Universite de Geneve. Geneve, Georg,1979, 547 p. (Me'moires publics par la Faculte de droit de Geneve, 61.)

Wooldridge, Frank. Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in the Western Sahara case. TheAnglo-American law review (Sussex, Eng.) 8:86-122, April-June 1979.

Regional economic commissionsCommissions economiques region alesPerHonajibiibie aKOHOMHiecKne KOMIICCHHComisiones economicas regionalesNewman, Parley W. United Nations regional economic commissions and their relations with regional organ-

izations in developing areas. In Andemicael, B. Regionalism and the United Nations. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.,Oceana, 1979. p. 339-395.

SecretariatSecretariatCeKpCTapiiaTSecretan'a

Graham, Norman A. and Robert S. Jordan, eds. The international civil service: changing role and concepts.New York, Pergamon Press, 1980. 245 p.

MHTpodpaHOB, M. B. 3amHTa npaBOBoro craTyca H OTBercTBeHHocTb nepcoHajia MeJKnyHapojrHbixopraHH3auHii CHcreMbi OOH. In COBCTCKHH esKerojiHHK MeauiyHapoHHoro npaBa, 1978. MocKBa,H3fl-BO "HayKa ", 1980. crp. 224-236.

[Protection of legal status and responsibility of staff of international organizations of the UnitedNations system.]

Ruzid, D. Condition juridique des fonctionnaires internationaux. Journal du droit international (Paris) 105 :868-877, octobre-de"cembre 1978.

Thu, Tu Dang Minh. Problemes pose's par le recrutement des fonctionnaires des Nations Unies. Paris, Universitede droit, d'dconomie et des sciences sociales de Paris, 1979, 386 p.

Thesis (Ph.D) — University de Paris.Bibliography: p. 360-373.

Security CouncilConseil de securityCOBCT Ee3onacHOCTHConsejo de Seguridad

Bassiouni, M. Cherif. An analysis of Egyptian peace policy toward Israel: from Resolution 292 (1967) to the1979 Peace Treaty. Case Western Reserve journal of international law (Cleveland) 12:3-26, winter 1980.

Higashi, Taisuke. The re-examination of the veto in the United Nations Security Council. Kokusaiho gaikozasshi (Tokyo) 79:361-398, October 1980.

In Japanese. Summary in English.Higashi, Taisuke. The use of veto power in the United Nations Security Council. Tesukayama Daigaku ronshu

(Nara) 27:28-57, January 1980.In Japanese.

Schlu'ter, Hilmar Werner. Der Sicherheitsrat der Vereinten Nationen: Handbuch. Bonn, Deutschen Gesellschaftfur die Vereinten Nationen, 1977. 79 p. (Schriftenreihe der Deutschen Gesellschaft Fur die VereintenNationen, 22.)

Bibliography: p. 80.Singh Batra, T. Veto power of the Security Council. Indian journal of international law (New Delhi) 18:76-

83, January-March 1978.United Nations ForcesForces des Nations UniesBoopywemibie CHJIBI OpramnaiiHH OGT,ejiHHeHHbix HauHiiFuerzas de las Naciones UnidasBailey, Sydney D. Nonmilitary areas in UN practice. American journal of international law (Washington

D.C.) 74:499-524, July 1980.

251

Bailey, Sydney D. UN ceasefires: the problem of beleaguered combatants. World today (London) 36:232-238,June 1980. no. 6.

Eber, A. F. und K. Wimmer. Osterreichs blaue Barette: die Geschichte der osterreichischen UN-Einsatze. Graz,Verlag P. Cieslar, 1979. 348 p.

3. Particular questions or activitiesOuvrages concernant des questions ou activites particulieresOrdejibHbie eonpocm wiu eudbi dernneAbHoanuCuestiones y actividades particulares

Collective securitySecurite collective

Seguridad colectivaCzempiet, E. O. Frieden und Sicherheit als aussenund innenpolitische Konzepte aus politologischer Sicht. In

Delbriick, J. von. Volkerrecht und Kriegsverhutung: zur Entwicklung des Volkerrechts als Recht frie-denssichernden Wandels. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1979. p. 77-122. (Veroffentlichungen des Institutsfur intemationales Recht an der Universitat Kiel, v. 82.)

Doxey, Margaret P. Economic sanctions and international enforcement. 2. ed. London, Macmillan Press forthe Royal Institute of International Affairs 1980. 161 p.

Gros Espiel, H. La seguridad colectiva en America Latina y el Tratado de TJatelolco. In Jomadas latino-americanas de derecho internacional, 1st, Caracas, 1978. Primeras jornadas latinoamericanas de derechointernacional. Caracas, Facultad de Derecho, Universidad Cat61ica Andres Bello, 1979. Pags. 221-235.

Jimenez de Arechaga, E. La seguridad colectiva en America Latina. In Jomadas latinoamericanas de derechointernacional, 1st, Caracas, 1978. Primeras jornadas latinoamericanas de derecho internacional. Caracas,Facultad de Derecho, Universidad Cat61ica Andre's Bello, 1979. Pags. 181-203.

Kurosawa, Mitsuru. From positive to negative guarantees of security — security of non-nuclear-weapon Stalesin the nuclear age. Kobe Iiogaku xasshi (Kobe) 30:397-437, September 1980.

In Japanese.Moriwaki, Tsunehuto. Legal aspect of sanction with reference to collective sanction. Kokusai mondai (Tokyo)

242:16-32, May 1980.In Japanese.

Zacher, M. W. International conflicts and collective security, 1946-77: the United Nations, Organization ofAmerican States, Organization of African Unity, and Arab league. New York, Praeger, 1979. 297 p.

Zelaya Coronado, J. C. La coordinacidn entre los sistemas universal y regional de seguridad colectiva y desolution de las controversias. In Jornadas latinoamericanas de derecho internacional, 1st, Caracas, 1978.Primeras jornadas latinoamericanas de derecho internacional. Caracas, Facultad de Derecho, UniversidadCattflica Andres Bello, 1979. Pdgs. 237-242.

Commercial arbitrationArbitrage commercialToproBbiii apfiirrpaxtArbitraje comercialBernini, G. Arbitrato internazionale. Rassegna dell' Arbitrato (Turin) 19:133-154, 1979.Bernini, G. L'arbitrato nelle controversie commerciali che interessano piu di due parti. Rassegna dell' Arbitraw

(Turin) 20:127-139, 1980.Chill6n Medina, Jose" M. Tratado de arbitraje privado interno e internacional. Madrid, Editorial Civitas 1978.

653 pags.Fatouros, A. A. International law and the internationalized contract. American journal of international law

(Washington, D.C.) 74:134-41, January, 1980.Hacking. A new competition: rivals for centres of arbitration Lloyd's maritime and commercial law quarterly

(London) :435^148, November 1979.Higgins, Francis J.; William G. Brown and Patrick J. Roach. Pitfalls in international commercial arbitration.

Business lawyer (Chicago, III.) 35:1035-1051. April 1980.Houtte, H. van. Loi applicable a Parbitrage commercial international. Revue de droit international et de droit

compare (Bruxelles) 57:285-300, 1980, no<- 2 et 3.International Commercial arbitration: arbitration between government controlled bodies and foreign-owned

business firms. In International Law Association. Report of the 58th Conference held at Manila, August27th to September 2nd 1978. London, 1980. p. 369-382.

Kommeier, U. Verfahrensordnungen in der internationalen Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit. Recht der Internationale/!Wirtschafi (Heidelberg) 26:381-386, Juni 1980.

252

Lew, J. D. M. Bona fides in international commercial arbitration. In Hague-Zagreb colloquium on the law ofinternational trade, Opatija, 1978 Carriage of goods by Sea, Alphen aan den Rijn Sijthoff, 1980.p. 244-262.

Luzzatto, R. International commercial arbitration and the municipal law of states. In Recueil des cours deY Academic de droit international de La Haye, 1977-IV. Alphen aan den Rijn, Sijthoff & Noordhoff, 1980,p. 9 a 120.

McClelland, Arden C. Toward a more mature system of international commercial arbitration: the establishmentof uniform rules of procedure and the elimination of the conflict of laws question. North Carolina journalof international law and regulation (Chapel Hill, N.C.) 5:169-189, spring 1980.

Matray, L. Redaction d'une clause d'arbitrage et choix d'arbitres competents en matiere Internationale. Revuede droit international et de droit compare (Bruxelles) 56 : 51-78, 1979, n° 1.

Nicklisch, Fritz. International commercial arbitration and long-term contracts. In Comparative law yearbook,v. 3, 1979. Alphen aan den Rijn, Sijthoff & Noordhoff, 1980. p. 125-150.

Stoedter, Rolf. The international maritime arbitration rules: ICC-CMI. International business lawyer (London)8:302-305, November 1980.

Straatmann, K. Die Qualitatsarbitrage: eine Rechtsschopfung des Uberseehandels. In Recht iiberSee: FestschriftRolf Stodter zum 70. Geburtstag am 22. April 1979, hrsg. von H. P. Ipsen und K. H. Necker. Hamburg,Dekker, 1979. p. 109-129.

Wall, J. C. The Asian-African legal consultative committee and international commercial arbitration. InCanadian yearbook of international law, v. 17, 1979. Vancouver, B. C., University of British Columbia,1980. p. 324-333.

Zall, Jayne C. International commercial arbitration: the nonarbitrable subject matter defence. Denver journalof international law and policy (Denver, Colo.) 9:119-140, winter 1980.

Definition of aggressionDefinition de l'agressionOnpenejieBHe arpeccHHDefinicidn de la agresidnBruha, T. Die Definition der Aggression: Faktizitat und Normativitat des UN-Konsensbildungsprozesses der

Jahre 1968 bis 1974. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1980. 366 p. (Schriften zum Volkerrecht, 66.)Jakob, Raimund. Kritische Bemerkungen zu einer volkerrechtlichen Aggressionsdefinition. Osterreichische

Zeitschrift fiir offentliches Recht und Volkerrecht (Wien) 31:265-270, Dezember 1980. no. 3-4.Rifaat, Ahmed M. International aggression: a study of the legal concept: its development and definition in

international law. Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1979. 355 p.Bibliography: p. 327-346.

Diplomatic relationsRelations diplomatiquesflmmoMaTHHecKHe cHomemuiRelaciones diplom£ticasBopncoB, O. IlpaBHO nojiojKeHHe Ha npeacTaBHTejicTBaTa Ha m>p>KaBHTe npH MeatayHaponHHTe

MexcflynpaBHTejiCTBeHH opraHH3aiiHH OT yHHBepcaneH xapaicrep. Tlpaena Mucb/i (COCDHH N°1:41-51, 1980.

[Statut juridique des representations des Etats aupres des organisations internationales intergouver-nementales de caractere universel.]

Cohen, B. The Diplomatic Relations Act of 1978. Catholic University law review (Washington, D.C.)28:797-831, 1979.

Feltham, R. G. Diplomatic handbook. 3rd ed. London, Longman, 1980. 140 p.Grabowska, Genowefa. Prawa i obowiazki przedstawicieli pafistw w powszechnych organizacjach miedzyna-

rodowych. Sprawy mi dzynarodowe (Warszawa) 32:111-126, Listopad 1979.[Rights and duties of representatives of States to international organizations of a universal character. ]

Habib, P. C. The practice of modern diplomacy. California Western international law journal (San Diego,Calif.) 9:485^93, summer 1979.

Hope, A. F. J. El derecho de inmunidad diplomatica y el Diplomatic Relations Act de 1978. Revista juridicaArgentina: La Ley (Buenos Aires) 1979-B:938-946, 1979.

Lansing, Paul and Castle, Robert. The seizure of the American Embassy in Iran: how should international lawbe applied? In South African yearbook of international law, v. 5, 1979. Pretoria, University of SouthAfrica, 1979. p. 19-39.

253

Maresca, A. La diplomazia plurilaterale, Milano, Guiffr6, 1979. 257 p.Paszkowski, Mieczyslaw. The functions and legal status of organs representing state in its relations with

international organizations. In Polish yearbook of international law, v. 9, 1977-1978. Warsaw, PolishAcademy of Sciences, Institute of State and Law, 1980. p. 119-136.

Przetacznik, Franciszek. Protection of foreign officials under international law. The Anglo-American law review(Sussex, England) 9:177-215, July-September 1980.

Silva, Geraldo Eulalio do Nascimento e. Privileges and immunities of permanent missions to internationalorganizations. In German yearbook of international law, v. 21, 1978. Berlin, Dunckerand Humblot, 1979.p. 9-26.

Vazquez Carrizosa, A. La proteccidn diplomatics en la teoria y la practica contemporaneas. In Jornadaslatinoamericanas de derecho internacional, 1st, Caracas, 1978. Primeras jomadas latinoamericanas dederecho internacional. Caracas, Facultad de Derecho, Universidad Cat61ica Andre's Bello, 1979.Pags. 493-528.

Villani, Ugo. A new conciliation procedure: The Vienna Convention on the Representation of States in theirRelations with International Organizations of a Universal Character. In Italian yearbook of internationallaw, v. 4, 1978-1979. Napoli, Editoriale scientifica, 1980. p. 31^46.

DisarmamentDesarmement

Desarme

Ardalan, Farajollah. The League of Nations and disarmament: national policies and concepts of sovereignty,security and peace 1919-1934. Ann Arbor, Mich., University Microfilms International, 1980. 303 p.Thesis (Ph.D) — University of Akron, 1980.

Bibliography: p. 273-303.Barry, James A. The seabed arms control issue 1967-1971 — a superpower symbiosis? In U.S. Naval War

College, Newport. International law studies, v. 61. Newport, R.I., Naval War College Press, 1980.p. 572-585.

BorjjaHOB, O. B. O dpopMHpoBaHHH npaBa pa3opy>KeHna. In COBCTCKHH e>KeroflHHK MOKHyHapojiHoronpaBa, 1979. MocKBa, H3A-BO "HayKa", 1980. crp. I2I-I32.

[On the formation of disarmament law.]Bothe, M. Zur Dogmatik eines volkerrechtlichen Kriegsverhiitungsrechts: Verfahren und Inhalt des Rechts der

Rustungskontrolle und Abriistung. In Delbriick, J. von. Volkerrecht und Kriegsverhiitung: zur Entwicklungdes Volkerrechts als Recht friedenssichernden Wandels. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1979. p. 213-258.(Veroffentlichungen des Instituts fur internationales Recht an der Universitat Kiel, v. 82.)

Klein, Radoslav. Boj za prosazenf realne'ho programu odzbrojeni; k vysledkum zvlastniho zasedani Valne'hoshromazdem OSN. Mezindrodni vztahy (Praha) 13:20-27, 1978. no. 5.

[Struggle for the implementation of a real disarmament programme (on the conclusions of the specialsession of the United Nations General Assembly).]

MejiKOB, F. M. K)pnflHHecKoe conep^aHHe noHaTHH "3OHa Miipa". In COBCTCKHH eaceroflHHKMeacflyHaponHoro npaBa, 1979. MocKBa, H3A-BO "HayKa", 1980. crp. I07-I2I.

[Legal content of the "zone of peace" notion.]IlpycaKOB, K). M. BesiiajiepHbie 3OHI>I B coBpeMeHHOM MOKHyHaponnoM npase. In COBCTCKHH

e>KeronHHK MeamyHapoflHoro npaBa, 1978. MocKBa, H3H-BO "HayKa", 1980. crp. I62-I8I.[Nuclear-free zones in contemporary international law.]

Shaker, Mohamed Ibrahim. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty: origin and implementation, 1959-1979. Lon-don, Oceana, 1980. 3 v.

Bibliography: v. 3, p. 1457-1504.CMMPHOB, F. A. 3anpemeHHe HOBLIX BHHOB H CHCTCM OPJCKHH MaccoBoro yHHHToxceHHH. CoeemcKoe

zocydapcmeo u npaeo (MocKBa), N° 3 : 82-90,1980.[Prohibition of new types and systems of weapons of mass destruction and international law.]

Sugie, Eiichi. The regulation of armament and disarmament of our time. Chukyo hogaku (Nagoya) 14:1-21,February 1980.

In Japanese.Sukovic, Olga. Institucionalni okviri pregovora o razonizanju. Jugoslovenska revija za medunarodno pravo

(Beograd) 26:172-185, 1979. no. 1-3.[Institutional framework of disarmament negotiations.]

254

Takemoto, Masayuki. Recent trend of prohibitions or restrictions of use of certain conventional weapons.Hogaku ronshu (Osaka) 29:773-801, March 1980.

In Japanese.TapaceHKo, C. A. O 3anpemeHHH XHMHnecKoro opysKiia. In COBCTCKHM OKerojiHHK MeayiyHaponHoro

npaBa, 1979. MocKBa, H3R-BO "Hayxa", 1980. crrp. 132-146.[On banning chemical weapons.]

Woodliffe, J. C. Non-proliferation treaty revisited. Netherlands international law review (Leyden) 27:39-68,1980. no. 1.

Domestic jurisdictionCompetence nationaleHanHoiiajibiiaa lopiicjuiKiisiH rocy/iapcmJurisdiction interna

Jessup, Philip C. Jurisdiction. In U.S. Naval War College, Newport. International law studies, v. 61. Newport,R.I., Naval War College Press, 1980. p. 303-318.

Jones, Goronwy J. The United Nations and the domestic jurisdiction of states: interpretations and applicationsof the non-intervention principle. Cardiff Wales, University of Wales Press, Welsh Centre for InternationalAffairs, 1979. 275 p.

Bibliography: p. 258-266.Environmental questionsQuestions relatives a PenvironnementBonpocbt OKpyacaiomeii cpem>iCuestiones del medio ambiente

Bruhacs, J. Quelques questions d'ordre de droit international de la pollution des voies d'eau internationales.Aaa juridica (Budapest) 22:145-164, 1980.

Cripps, Y. New frontier for international law. International and comparative law quarterly (London) 29:1-20,January 1980.

D'Arge, R. C. and Kneese, A. V. State liability for international environmental degradation: an economicperspective. Natural resources journal (Albuquerque, N. Mex.) 20:427-450, July 1980.

Falk, Richard A. New trends in international law: the challenges of the ecological age. In U.S. Naval WarCollege, Newport. International law studies, v. 61. Newport, R.I., Naval War College Press, 1980.p. 122-129.

Florio, Franco. Water pollution and related principles of international law. In Canadian yearbook of internationallaw, v. 17, 1979. Vancouver, B.C., University of British Columbia, 1980. p. 134-158.

Gubinski, A. Role du droit penal dans la protection de 1'environnement. Revue Internationale de droit penal(Paris) 49:19-43, 1978, n° 1.

Handl, G. State liability for accidental transnational environmental damage by private persons. American journalof international law (Washington, D.C.) 74:525-565, July 1980.

Klucka, Jan. K medzinarodnopravnej uprave znecistovania zivotneho prostredia. Prdvnik (Praha) 119:624—639,1980. no. 7.

[Regulation by the international law of the pollution of environment.]Lang, Winfried. Haftung und Verantwortlichkeit im internationalen Umweltschutz. In Ius humanitatis. Festsch-

rift zum 90. Geburtstag von Alfred Verdross. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1980. p. 517-532.Legal aspects of the conservation of the environment: questions of international law concerning the protection

of the environment. In International Law Association. Report of the 58th Conference held at Manila,August 27th to September 2nd 1978. London, 1980. p. 383^22.

Minamikawa, Hideki. Activities for international co-operation regarding environmental protection. Kokusaimondai (Tokyo) 248:2-16, November 1980.

In Japanese.Schneider, J. World public order of the environment: towards an international ecological law and organization.

Toronto, University of Toronto press, 1979. 319 p.Zalob, David S. Approaches to enforcement of environmental law: an international perspective. Hastings

international and comparative law journal (San Francisco, Calif.) 3:299-319. winter 1980.Zehetner, Franz. Beweislastprobleme im volkerrechtlichen Nachbarrecht des grenziiberschreitenden Umwelts-

chutzes. In Ius humanitatis. Festschrift zum 90. Geburtstag von Alfred Verdross. Berlin, Duncker &Humblot, 1980. p. 701-717.

255

Friendly relations and co-operation among StatesRelations amicales et cooperation entre las EtatsHpysKecTBeiiHbie oTHomemis n coTpyflHHiecTBo Meatfly rocyjjapcTBaMHRelaciones de amistad y cooperacion entre los Estados

Arangio-Ruiz, Gaetano. The United Nations Declaration on Friendly Relations and the system of the sourcesof international law: with an appendix on the concept of international law and the theory of internationalorganisation. Alphen aan den Rijn, Sijthoff & Noordhoff, 1979. 340 p.

Bibliography: p. 303-317.Heydte, Friedrich August Freiherr von der. Grossmachte und Staatenverbindungen in dem sich wandelnden

Volkerrecht unserer Zeit. In Ius humanitatis, Festschrift zum 90. Geburtstag von Alfred Verdross. Berlin,Duncker & Humblot, 1980. p. 445-458.

Neuhold, Hanspeter. Die Pflicht zur Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Staaten: moralisches Postulat odervolkerrechtliche Norm? In Ius humanitatis, Festschrift zum 90. Geburtstag von Alfred Verdross. Berlin,Duncker & Humblot, 1980. p. 575-606.

Pop. Iftene. Voisinage et bon voisinage en droit international. Paris, A. Pedone, 1980, 383 p. (publicationsde la Revue generate de droit international public, Nouvelle se"rie; 34).

Bibliography: p. 359-375.Symonides, Janusz. Les bases juridiques et politiques de la coexistence pacifique a l'epoque de la ddtente. In

Polish yearbook of international law, v. 9, 1977-1978. Warsaw, Polish Academy of Sciences, Instituteof State and Law, 1980. p. 7-20.

Human rightsDroits de I'hommeripaca 'idioBeKaDerechos humanos

Agudelo Ramirez, L. E. Derechos humanos: revolution inconclusa. Bogota, Asociacidn colombiana proderechos humanos, 1979. 152 pags.

Bartsch, H. J. Die Entwicklung des internationalen Menschenrechtsschutzes im Jahre 1979. Neue JuristischeWochenschrifi (Berlin) 33:489^196, 1980.

Bennett, G. Developing law of aboriginal rights. International Commission of Jurists review (Geneva)no. 22:37-46, June 1979.

Blanco, M. Los derechos humanos. Revista de ciencias jurt'dicas (San Jose, Costa Rica) No. 38:27-40, 1979.Boven, T. C. van. The United Nations and human rights. In Human rights and U.S. foreign policy, Boulder,

Colorado, Westview Pr., 1979. p. 17-37.Capotorti, F. Die Rechte der Angehorigen von Minderheiten: kommt es zu einer Erklarung der Vereinten

Nationen? Vereinte Nationen (Bonn) 28:113-118, August 1980.Cassese, Antonio. The approach of the Helsinki Declaration to human rights. Vanderbilt journal of transnational

law (Nashville, Tenn.) 13:275-291, spring-summer 1980.H epHHHeHKO, C. B. EopbSa c HapyineHHHMH npaB lejioseKa H MKKjtyHapoflHbie npou.en.ypbi. CoeemcKoe

zocydapcmeo u npaeo (MocKBa), .N° 1 : 91-99, 1980.[Struggle with the violations of human rights and international procedures.]

Chueca Sancho, Angel G. Los derechos humanos protegidos en la Convenci6n americana de San Jose de 1969.Revista Espaiiola de Derecho International (Madrid) 32:33-79, 1980. No. 1-3.

Cok, Vida. Neka zajednicka svojstva humanitarnog prava i prava coveka. Jugoslovenska revija za medtmarodnopravo (Beograd) 26:41-46, 1979. no. 1-3.

[Droit humanitaire et droits de Thomme — quelques caracteristiques communes.]Commission on Human Rights. International Commission of Jurists review (Geneva) no. 24:29-36, June 1980.Danelius, Hans. Human rights: the efforts of the United Nations and the Council of Europe. In Revue egyptienne

de droit international, v. 35, 1979. Le Caire, Socidte Egyptienne de droit international, 1979. p. 149-162.Davis, D, M. Human rights: a re-examination. The South African law journal (Cape Town) 97:94—102, February

1980.Decaux, Emmanuel. La mise en vigueur du Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques. Revue

generate de droit international public (Paris) 84:487-534, 1980, n° 2.A Declaracao Universal e os pactos internacionais de direitos do homem. Introducao e tradugao de Jorge

Miranda. Lisboa, Livraria Petrony, 1977. 77 p.

256

Delbruck, Jost. Menschenrechte im Schnittpunkt zwischen universalem Schutzanspruch und staatlicherSouveranitat. In German yearbook of international law, v.22, 1979. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1980.p. 384-402.

Diesbach, V. The concept of freedom of information in international guarantees of human rights. Law andstate (Tubingen) 19:91-105, 1979.

Ermacora, Felix. Uber die volkerrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit fur Menschenrechtsverletzungen. //; Iushumanitatis. Festschrift zum 90. Geburtstag von Alfred Verdross. Berlin. Duncker & Humblot, 1980.p. 357-378.

Fensterheim, David G. Toward an international law of human rights based upon the mutual expectations ofstates. Virginia journal of international law (Charlottesville, Va.) 21:185-210. fall 1980.

Ferguson, C. Clyde. International human rights. University of Illinois law forum (Champaign, III.) 1980:681-691, 1980.

Forsyth, Christopher. Human rights and ideology: a first examination. The South African law journal (CapeTown) 97:103-112, February 1980.

Franck, Thomas M. and H. Scott Fairley. Procedural due process in human rights fact-finding by internationalagencies. American journal of international law (Washington, D.C.) 74:308-345, April 1980.

Geek, W. K. International protection of fundamental freedoms and national sovereignty. Law and state(Tubingen) 21:7-20, 1980.

Also in German: Internationaler Schutz von Freiheitsrechten und nationale Souveranitat. Juristen-zeitung (Tubingen) 35:73-77, 1980.

Green, L. C. Human rights and the lav/ of armed conflict. In Israel yearbook on human rights, v. 10, 1980.Faculty of Law, Tel Aviv University, 1980. p. 9-37.

Gros Espiell, H. El derecho al desarrollo como un derecho de la persona humana. Boletin Mexicano de DerechoComparado (Mexico, D. F.) 13:37-52, 1980. No. 37.

Halderman, John W. Advancing human rights thiough the United Nations. Law and contemporary problems(Durham. N.C.) 43:275-288, spring f979.

Heinz, W. S. Menschenrechte und Dritte Welt: zur Frage nach den Ursachen von Menschenrechtsverletzungen.Frankfurt am Mam, Haag & Herchen, 1980. 265 p.

Henkin, L. International human rights as rights. Cardozo law review (New York, N.Y.) 1:425-447. 1979.Hiebel, J. L. Human rights relating to spiritual assistance as embodied in the Geneva conventions of 1949.

International review of the Red Cross (Geneva) 20:3-28, January-February 1980.Huber, W. und Todt, H. E. Menschenrecht: Perspektiven einer menschlichen Welt. 2. Aufl. Stuttgart, Kreuz

Verlag, 1978. 241 p.Human rights. In International Law Association. Report of the 58th Conference held at Manila, August 27th

to September 2nd 1978. London, 1980. p. 79-158.Jakubowski, Jerzy. Pactes des droits de l'homme de l'ONU et le droit international prive. In Polish yearbook

of international law, v. 9, 1977-1978. Warsaw, Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of State and Law,1980. p. 199-207.

Kaladharan Nayar, M. G. Human rights and economic development: the legal foundations. Universal humanrights (Stanfordville, N.Y.) 2:55-81, 1980. no. 3.

Lane, Eric. Mass killing by governments: lawful in the world legal order? New York University journal ofinternational law and politics (New York, N.Y.) 12:239-280, fall 1979.

Lerner, N. The U.N. Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. 2. ed. Alphen aanden Rijn, Sijthoff & Noordhoff, 1980. 259 p.

Lillich, R. B. Duties of States regarding the civil rights of aliens. In Recueil des cours de I'Academie de droitinternational de La Haye, 1978—III. Alphen aan den Rijn, Sijthoff & Noordhoff, 1980. p. 329-442.

Lillich, R. B. Procedural human rights. Actajuridica (Budapest) 1979:124-137, 1979.Lippman, Matthew. Human rights revisited: the protection of human rights under the International Covenant

on Civil and Political Rights. Netherlands international law (Leyden) 26:221-277, 1979. no. 3.Also in California Western international law journal (San Diego, Calif.) 10:456-513, summer 1980,

and In South African yearbook of international law, v. 5, 1979. Pretoria, University of South Africa,1979. p. 82-137.

Lowenstein, Allard. The United Nations and the human rights issue. Law and contemporary problems (Durham.N.C.) 43:268-274, spring 1979.

257

McChesney, A. Promoting the general welfare in a democratic society: balancing human rights and development.Netherlands international law review (Leyden) 27:283-334, 1980. no. 3.

McDougal, Myres S., Harold D. Lasswell, and Lung-chu Chen. Human rights and world public order: thebasic policies of international law of human dignity. New Haven, Conn., Yale University Press, 1980,1016 p.

Includes bibliographical references.Maki, Linda J. General principles of human rights law recognized by all nations: freedom from arbitrary arrest

and detention. California Western international law journal (San Diego, Calif.) 10:272-313, spring 1980.no. 2.

Monroy Cabra, M. G. Los derechos humanos. Bogota, Temis, 1980. 371 pags.Montigny, Yves de. L'ONU et la protection Internationale des minorites depuis 1945. La revue juridiqite

themis (Montreal) 13:389-447, 1978.Noor Muhammad, Haji N. A. Guarantees for accused persons under the UN human rights covenants. Indian

journal of international law (New Delhi) 20:177-215, April-June 1980.Nowak, Manfred. The effectiveness of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stocktaking

after the first eleven sessions of the UN-Human Rights Committee. Human rights law journal (Arlington,Va.) 1:136-170, 1980.

Opsahl, Torkel. The protection of human rights in the Council of Europe and in the United Nations. In Annuaireeuropeen, v. 26, 1978. La Haye, M. Nijhoff, 1980. p. 92-118.

Power, Richard. Some preliminary comments on human rights. In Revue egyptienne de dro'u international,v. 34, 1978. Le Caire, Societe" egyptienne de droit international, 1978. p. 21-37.

Prasad, A. Human rights in armed conflicts. Civil and military law journal (New Delhi) 15:235-242, 1979.Ramcharan, B. C. The emerging jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee. Dalhousie law journal

(Agincourt, Ontario) 6:7-40, 1980.Ramella, P. A. Los derechos humanos. Buenos Aires, Depalma, 1980. 340 pags.Robin, Mark A. Soviet emigration law and international obligations under United Nations instruments. Journal

of international law and economics (Washington, D.C.) 13:403-431, 1979. no. 2.Saario, V. V. International protection of human rights. Tidskrift, utgiven av juridiska foreningen (Helsinki)

114:465^72, 1978.Salgueiro D., A. P. Los derechos humanos en la Organization de las Naciones Unidas y en el derecho

internacional general. In Jornadas latinoamericanas de derecho internacional, 1st, Caracas, 1978. Primerasjornadas latinoamericanas de derecho internacional. Caracas, Facultad de Derecho, Universidad Cat61icaAndr6s Bello, 1979. PSgs. 317-351.

Sawaki, Takao. Human rights covenants and law of aliens. Kokusaiho gaiko zasshi (Tokyo) 79:441-468,December 1980.

In Japanese. Summary in English.Simma, Bruno. Zur bilateralen Durchsetzung vertraglich verankerter Menschenrechte: Aktivlegitimation und

zulassige Mittel nach allgemeinem Volkerrecht. In Schreuer, C. von. Autoritatund intemationale Ordnung:Aufsatze zum Volkerrecht, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1979. p. 129-154.

Suzuki, Eisuke. State's provisional competence to protect human rights in a foreign state. Texas internationallaw journal (Austin, Texas) 15:231-260, spring 1980.

Tabory, Mala. Language rights as human rights. In Israel yearbook on human rights, v. 10, 1980. Faculty ofLaw, Tel Aviv University, 1980. p. 167-223.

Takano, Yuichi. Protection of human rights and the clauses against discrimination in the International Covenanton Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Jochi hogaku ronshu (Tokyo) 24:119-163, December 1980.

In Japanese.Tardu, M. E. Human rights: the international petition system. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., Oceana, 1979. 2v.

(loose-leaf).Tardu, M. E. United Nations response to gross violations of human rights: the 1503 procedure. Santa Clara

law review (Santa Clara, Calif.) 20:559-601, summer, 1980.Trindade, A. A. Concado. Exhaustion of local remedies under the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

and its optional protocol. International and comparative law quarterly (London) 28:734—765, October1979.

Trindade, A. A. Cangado. Exhaustion of local remedies under the United Nations International Convention onthe Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. In German yearbook of international law, v.22,1979. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1980. p. 374-383.

258

UN Commission on Human Rights. International Commission of Jurists review (Geneva) no. 22:18-26, June1979.

YpanoB, M. H. XXXIII cecciiH KOMHCCHH OOH no npaBaM nejioBeica. In COBCTCKHH

Me>KnyHaponHoro npaBa, 1978. MocKBa, H3fl-BO "HayKa", 1980. crp. 354-357.[The 33rd Session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.]

YpajiOB, M. H. XXXIII cecciiH KOMHCCHH OOH no npaBaM H&noBeKa. In COBCTCKHH

MejKnyHaponHoro npaBa, 1979. MocKBa, H3H-BO "HayKa", 1980. crp. 294-297.[The 34th Session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.]

Verdross, Alfred. La dignite de la personne humaine base des droits de l'homme. Osterreichische Zeitschriftfur offentliches Recht und Vdlkerrecht (Wien) 31:271-277, Dezember 1980. no. 3-4.

Verdross, Alfred. Fundamental human rights: the journey of an idea. Human rights (Chicago, 111.) 8:20-23,fall 1979.

Wilberforce, R. O. Human rights. Law Society. Gazette (Toronto) 13:124-140, 1979.

International criminal lawDroit penal internationalMemjiyHapojiHoe yrojioBHoe npaBoDerecho penal internacional

Abdel-Motaal, M. Kamal Bahgat. Extradition of fugitive offenders. In Revue egyptienne de droit international,v. 35, 1979. Le Caire, Soci6te egyptienne de droit international, 1979. p. 67-97.

Bigay, Jacques. Extrader ou punir. Revue de droit penal et de criminologie (Bruxelles) 60:113-146, janvier-fevrier 1980.

Borricand, J. Extradition des terroristes. Revue de science criminelle et de droit penal compare (Paris) 661 a691, juillet-septembre 1980.

Clark, P. D. Criminal jurisdiction over merchant vessels engaged in international trade. Journal of maritimelaw and commerce (Silver Spring, Md.) 11:219-237, January 1980.

Dupuy, Pierre-Marie. Observations sur le "crime international de l'Etat". Revue generate de droit internationalpublic (Paris) 84:449-486, 1980, n° 2.

Ferencz, Benjamin B. An international criminal court: a step toward world peace: a documentary history andanalysis. New York, Oceana, 1980. 2 v.

Bibliography: p. 639-655.Green, L. C. International crimes and the legal process. International and comparative law quarterly (London,

England) 29:567-584, October 1980.International Criminal Law. In International Law Association. Report of the 58th Conference held at Manila,

August 27th to September 2nd 1978. London, 1980. p. 472-501.King, D. P. The political offence exception in international extradition. Comparative and international law

journal of Southern Africa (Pretoria) 13:247-264, November 1980.Komarow, G. Individual responsibility under international law: the Nuremberg principles in domestic legal

systems. International and comparative law quarterly (London) 29:21-37, January 1980.Leu, H. J. El derecho internacional penal: origen, desarrollo y controversia en torno a su conceptualization.

In Jomadas latinoamericanas de derecho internacional, 1st, Caracas, 1978. Primeras jomadas latino-americanas de derecho internacional. Caracas, Facultad de Derecho, Universidad Catolica Andres Bello,1979. Pags. 391-408.

Lombois, Claude. Droit penal international. 2C ed. Paris, Dalloz, 1979, 688 p. (Petits codes Dalloz).Includes bibliographical references.

Meijs, J. G. van der en Orie, A.M.M. International strafrecht. Zwolle, Tjeenk Willink, 1980. 129 p.(Studiepockets strafrecht, 6.)

Pedauye, A. Crimenes de los Estados. Revista Espanola de Derecho Internacional (Madrid) 31:25-38,1978-1979. No. 1-3.

Plawski, S. Notion du droit international penal. Revue de science criminelle et de droit penal compare (Paris) :789 a 809, octobre-decembre 1978.

Ravaschiere, Vincent P. Terrorist extradition and the political offense exception: an administrative solution.Virginia journal of international law (Charlottesville, Va.) 21:163-183, fall 1980.

Rocca, James V. Superior orders as a qualified defense in international law. In Ius humanitatis, Festschrift zum90. Geburtstag von Alfred Verdross. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1980. p. 607-630.

259

Rodriguez, Yves. Tendances contradictoires en matiere d'infraction politique. Revue beige de droit international(Bruxelles) 15:82-125, 1980, n° I.

Rosenne, Shabtai. The International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, 1979. In Israel yearbook onhuman rights, v. 10, 1980. Faculty of Law, Tel Aviv University, 1980. p. 109-156.

Santiago, M. D. Political offences in international law. Quezon City, U.P. law center, 1977. 371 p.Shachor-Landau, C. Extra-territorial penal jurisdiction and extradition. International and comparative law

quarterly (London, England) 29:274-295, April-July 1980.TVHKHH, F. H. HiopH6eprcKHe npHHiuinbi H coBpeMeHHoe MeaqiyHapojiHoe npaBO. In COBCTCKHH

ejKeronHHK MejKnyHaponHoro npaBa, 1979. MocKBa, H3H-BO "HayKa", 1980. crp. 97-107.[Nuremberg principles and modern international law.]

Vogler, T. Immunitat, Exterritorialitat und Asylrecht im internationalen Strafrecht. Zeitschrift fur die GesamteStrafrechtswissenschaft (Berlin) 92:1021-1046, 1980.

International economic lawDroit economique internationalMexqtyHapoRHoe DKOIIOMH'ICCKOC npauoDerecho economico internacionalAgo, Shin'ichi. Regulation of transnational corporations by the United Nations. Kokusai mondai (Tokyo)

240:15-30, March 1980.In Japanese.

Baade, Hans W. The legal effects of codes of conduct for multinational enterprises. In German yearbook ofinternational law, v. 22, 1979. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1980. p. 11-52.

Barents, R. Internationale economische orde in rechtshistorisch perspectief. Nederlands juristenblad (Zwolle)55:309-323, April 1980.

Bedjaoui, M. Towards a new international economic order. Paris, UNESCO, 1979. 287 p. (New challengesto international law.)

Also in Spanish: Hacia un nuevo orden econtfmico internacional. Salamanca, Ediciones Sigueme,1979. 238 pags. (Nuevos horizontes del derecho internacional.)

Benissad, M. E. Le nouvel ordre dconomique international d'apres le tiers monde. Revue algerienne des sciencesjuridiques, economiques et politiques (Alger) 17:211—220, mars 1980.

Bockstiegel, Karl-Heinz und A. Catranis, Verhaltenskodex der Vereinten Nationen fur multinationale Unter-nehmen: Illusion oder absehbare Realitat? Neue Juritische Wochenschrift (Berlin) 33:1823-1827, August1980.

Carreau, Dominique, Patrick Juillard et Thiebaut Flory. Droit international Economique. 2C €d. ref. et augm.Paris: Librairie ge"ne"rale de droit et de jurisprudence, 1980, 631 p.

Includes bibliographical references and index.Carreau, Dominique, Thiebaut Flory et Patrick Juillard. Chronique de droit international Economique. In

Annuaire francais de droit international, v. 25, 1979, Paris, Centre national de la recherche scientifique,1979, p. 579-636.

Corapi, D. Societa multinazionali: problemi giuridici. Diritto e giurisprudenza (Napoli) 36:241-248, aprile-giugno, 1980.

Eze, Osita C. Legal structures for the resolution of international problems in the domain of private foreigninvestments: a Third World perspective now and in the future. Georgia journal of international andcomparative law (Athens, Ga.) 9:535-547, fall 1979.

Fatouros, A. A. International law of the new international economic order: problems and challenges for theUnited States. Willamette law review (Salem, Ore.) 17:93-110, winter 1980.

Fatouros, A. A. Le projet de code international de conduite sur les entreprises transnationales : essai pnSliminairedevaluation. Journal du droit international (Paris) 107:5-47, janvier-feVrier-mars 1980.

Ferguson, C. Clyde Jr. New international economic order. University of Illinois law forum (Champaign, III.)1980:693-705, 1980.

Francioni, F. Imprese multinazionali, protezione diplomatica e responsabilita internazionale. Milano, Giuffre,1979. 212 p.

Garcfa-Amador, F. V. The proposed new international economic order: a new approach to the law governingnationalization and compensation. Lawyer of the Americas (Coral Gables, Fla.) 12:1—58, winter 1980.

Haq, Inamul. Problem of global economic inequity: legal structures and some thoughts on the next 40 years.Georgia journal of international and comparative law (Athens, Ga.) 9:507-518, fall 1979.

260

Hirose, Yoshio. An aspect of international law in North-South economic relations. Meiji Gakuln Daigaku.Hogaku kenkyu (Tokyo) 24:1-66, March 1980.

In Japanese.

Horn, N., ed. Legal problems of codes of conduct for multinational enterprises. Deventer, Kluwer, 1980.509 p. (Studies in transnational economic law, 1.)

Jackson, John H. International economic problems and their management in the 21st century. Georgia journalof international and comparative law (Athens, Ga.) 9:497-506, fall 1979.

Jain, N. P. An approach to the new international economic order. Indian journal of international law (NewDelhi) 19:544-551, October-December 1979.

Kapteyn, P. J. G. Basis of the new international economic order. Netherlands international law review (Leyden)25:217-221, 1978. no. 2.

Laing, Edward A. International economic law and public order in the age of equality. Law and policy ininternational business (Washington, D.C.) 12:727-781, 1980. no. 3.

Layne, Christopher. The multinational enterprise in the international political system: a theoretical consideration.New York University journal of international law and politics (New York) 13:27-61, spring 1980.

Lozoya, Jorge and A. K. Bhattacharya, eds. The financial issues of the new international economic order. NewYork, Pergamon Press, 1980. 229 p.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

McGinnis, James B. Bread and justice: toward a new international economic order. New York, Paulist Press,1979. 358 p.

Includes bibliographical references.

Miyazaki, Shigeki, ed. Legal studies of transnational corporations. Tokyo, Seibundo, 1980. 518 p.In Japanese.

Neville, Mark K. The present status of compensation by foreign states for the taking of alien-owned property.Vanderbilt journal of transnational law (Nashville, Tenn.) 13:51-74, winter 1980.

Quinteros-Yanez, Luis. Die neue internationale Wirtschaftsordnung und das Vokerrecht. Diskurs BremerBeitrdge z« Wissenschafi und Gesellschaft (Bremen) 3:141-173, August 1980.

Rivero B., Oswaldo de. New economic order and international development law. New York, Pergamon Press,1980. 141 p.

Roffe, Pedro. Reflections on current attempts to revise international legal structures: the North-South dialogue:clash of values and concepts, contradictions and compromises. Georgia journal of international andcomparative law (Athens, Ga.) 9:559-572, fall 1979.

Sakurai, Masao. Creeping nationalization of foreign property. Hogaku kenkyu (Tokyo) 53:28-69, January 1980.In Japanese.

Seidl-Hohenveldern, Ignaz. International economic "soft law". In Recueil des cours de I'Academie de droitinternational de La Haye, 1979—11. Alphen aan den Rijn, Sijthoff & Noordhoff, 1980. p. 165-246.

Sen, S. C. Multinational corporations in the developing countries. Calcutta, Eastern Law House, 1978.315 p.

Solomon, L. D. Multinational business: new approaches to financing and structuring ventures. Case WesternReserve journal of international law (Cleveland) 12:363-382, spring 1980.

Sono, K. Sovereignty, this strange thing: its impact on global economic order. Georgia journal of internationaland comparative law (Athens, Ga.) 9:549-557, fall 1979.

Tiedemann, K. Multinational Unternehmen und Strafrecht: Beitrage zum Problem der Kximinalitat imgrenziiberschreitenden Geschaftsverkehr. Koln, Heymann, 1979. 206 p.

TymcHH, P. H., IIIHIIIKHH, B. M. O Me>KnyHapoHHO-npaBOBbix irpHHirHnax HOBOFO MeamyHapojiHoro3KOHOMHHecKoro nopsmKa. CoeemCKoe zocydapcmeo u npaeo (MocKBa), N° 9 : 88-96, 1980.

[International-legal principles of a new economic order.]Verloren van Themaat, P. Rechtsgrondslagen van een nieuwe internationale economische orde: een rechtshis-

torisch, -vergelijkend en -systematisch onderzoek naar de veranderde structuur van het internationaaleconomisch recht. s'Gravenhage, T. M. C. Asser instituut 1979. 379 p. (Studies over internationaleconomisch recht, 2.)

Vogelaar, Th. Multinational corporations and international law. Netherlands international law review (Leyden)27:69-78, 1980. no. 1.

261

International terrorismTerrorisme international

Teppopii3MTerrorismo internacional

Boyle, Francis A. International law in time of crisis: from the Entebbe raid to the hostages convention.Northwestern University law review (Chicago, 111.) 75:769-856, December 1980.

Dimitrijevic, Vojin. Sta je medunarodni terorizam. Jugoslovenska revija za medunarodno pravo (Beograd)26:55-67, 1979. no. 1-3.

[What is international terrorism.]Du Jardin, Jean. De quelques particularites de la Convention europe'enne pour la repression du terrorisme, par

rapport au droit extraditionnel classique. Revue de droit penal et de criminologie (Bruxelles) 60:15-61,janvier-fevrier 1980.

Evans, Alona E. Perspectives on international terrorism. Willamette law review (Salem, Ore.) 17:151—164,winter 1980.

Hannay, William M. International terrorism and the political offense exception to extradition. Columbia journalof transnational law (New York, N.Y.) 18:381-412, 1980. no. 3.

Lovassy, Tamas. Collective western legal efforts concerning the suppression of terrorism. In Comparative lawyearbook, v. 3, 1979. Alphen aan den Rijn, Sijthoff & Noordhoff, 1980. p. 151-162.

Nishii, Masahiro. Conclusion of the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages. Shimadai hogaku(Matsue) 24:23^6, September 1980.

In Japanese.Panzera, Antonio Filippo. Attivita terroristiche e diritto internazionale, Napoli, Jovene, 1978.

196 p. (Publicazioni della Facolta guiridica dell'Universita di Bari, vol. 43.)Platz, Klaus Wilhelm. Internationale Konvention gegen Geiselnahme. Zeitschrift fiir ausldndisches offentliches

Recht und Volkerrecht (Stuttgart) 40:276-311, 1980.Summary in English.

Rosenstock, Robert. International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages: another international communitystep against terrorism. Denver journal of international law and policy (Denver, Colo.) 9:169-195, summer1980.

Shestack, J. J. Case of the disappeared: in foreign countries, "missing persons" are the nightmare victims ofstate terrorism. Human rights (Chicago, 111.) 8:24-27; 51-53, winter 1980.

Touret, Denis. Terrorisme et liberte's en droit international : vers un internationalisme biojuridique. Revue dedroit international de sciences diplomatiques et politiques (Geneve) 58:1-38, janvier-mars 1980, n° 1.

Trent, D. M. New religion: terrorism. How we respond to its scriptures may determine the fate of our civilization.Human rights (Chicago, 111.) 8:11-13; 47-49, winter 1980.

Williams, W. L. International law and the American hostages in Iran. Civil and military law journal (NewDelhi) 16:34-46, 1980.

International trade lawDroit commercial internationalIIpaBo MOKjiyiiapoAHofi ToproBJiuDerecho mercantil internacional

Allan, D. E. International negotiable instruments: the UNCITRAL draft convention revisited. In Meeting oninternational trade law. 6th, Canberra, 1979. Papers and summary of discussions. Canberra, Australianacademy of science, 1979. p. 27-116.

Birch-Reynardson, W. R. A. and others. The maritime carrier's liability under the Hamburg rules. In Rechtiiber See: Festschrift Rolf Stodter zum 70. Geburtstag am 22. April 1979, hrsg. von H. P. Ipsen und K.H. Necker. Hamburg, Dekker, 1979. p. 3-26.

Bloch, P. Projet de convention sur les lettres de change internationales et les billets a ordre internationaux.Journal du droit international (Paris) 106:770-792, octobre-decembre 1979.

Bonnel, M. J. Some critical reflections on the new UNCITRAL Draft Convention on International Sale. Uniformlaw review (Rome) 2:2-12, 1978. no. 2.

Braekhus, S. Choice of law problems in international shipping (recent developments). In Recueil des cours deI'Academie de droit international de La Haye, 1979-IH. Alphen aan den Rijn, Sijthoff & Noordhoff, 1980.p. 251-338.

262

Byles, John Barnard. Byles on bills of exchange: the law of bills of exchange, promissory notes, bank notesand cheques. 24th ed. London, Sweet & Maxwell, 1979. 509 p.

Includes bibliographical references and index.Collisions at sea. In International Law Association. Report of the 58th Conference held at Manila, August 27th

to September 2nd 1978. London, 1980. p. 423-442.Crauciuc, Olimpiu si S. Oruna. Elaborarea unei conventii a Natiunilor Unite asupra transporturilor m&rfurilor

pe mare. Revista romdnd de drept (Bucuresti) 36:8-13, 1980. no. 5.Drobnig, U. Standard form contracts in international commercial transactions. Netherlands international law

review (Leyden) 26:182-190, 1979. no. 2Fadlallah, I. Projet de convention sur la vente de marchandises. Journal du droit international (Paris)

106:755-769, octobre-decembre 1979.Goldie, C. W. H. Carrier and the parties to the contract of carriage. Diritto marittimo (Genova) 81:616-628,

ottobre-dicembre 1979.Herber. Rolf. Arbeiten des Ausschusses der Vereinten Nationen Fur Internationales Handelsrecht (UNCITRAL).

Recht der imernationalen wirtschaft (Heidelberg) 26:81-87, Februar 1980.Herber, Rolf. Gedanken zur intemationalen Vereinheitlichung des Seehandelsrechts. In Recht fiber See: Fest-

schrift Rolf Stodter zum 70. Geburtstag am 22. April 1979. Hamburg, Decker, 1979. p. 55-77.Herber, Rolf. UN-Ubereinkommen iiber internationale Kaufvertrage. Recht der intemationalen wirtschaft

(Heidelberg) 26:601-608, September 1980.HBaHOB, P. F. KoHBemiwa OOH o MOpCKOH nepeBO3Ke rpy3OB 1978 rojta. In COBCTCKHH ejKero«HHK

MOKjiyHapojiHoro npaBa, 1979. MocKBa, H3JI-BO "HayKa", 1980. crrp. 234-250.[United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea, 1978.]

Jackson, D. C. The Hague-Visby rules, forum arbitration and choice of law clauses. Lloyd's maritime andcommercial law quarterly (London) 1980: 159-167, May 1980.

Lansing, Paul. Change in American attitude to the international unification of sales law movement andUNCITRAL. American business law journal (Greensboro, N.C.) 18:269-280, summer 1980.

Maher, John A. and Maher, Joan D. Marine transport, cargo risks, and the Hamburg rules — rationalizationor imagery? Dickinson law review (Carlisle, Pa.) 84:183-220, winter 1980.

MaKOBCKHH, A. JI. ywHpHKauHH MopcKoxo npaBa H noHflTHe MonnyHaponHoro MacrHoro MopcKoronpaBa. In COBCTCKHH e»:eronHHK MeaqiyHapojjHoro npaea, 1979. MocKBa, H3JI-BO "HayKa", 1980.crp. 220-233.

[Unification of maritime law and the notion of private international maritime law.]Migliorino, L. Undicesima e la dodicesima sessione deirUNCITRAL. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato

e processuale (Padova) 15:787-795, ottobre-dicembre 1979.Murray, D. E. The Hamburg Rules: a comparative analysis. Lawyer of the Americas (Coral Gables, Fla.)

12:59-92, winter 1980.Necker, Karl-Hartmann. Zur Statutenkollision im Seefrachtrecht. Von den Haager zu den Hamburger Regeln.

In Recht uber See: Festschrift Rolf Stodter zum 70. Geburtstag am 22. April 1979. Hamburg, Decker,1979. p. 89-100.

O'Hare, C. W. Cargo dispute resolution and Hamburg Rules. The international and comparative law quarterly(London) 29:219-237, April-July 1980.

Pellicand, A. Verso un codice di commercio internazionale uniforme? Rivista trimestrale di diritto e proceduracivile (Milano) 32:301-306, marzo 1978.

Ray, J. D. La Conferencia y las Reglas de Hamburgo de 1978. Revista Juridica Argentina: La Ley (BuenosAires) 1979-A:667-677, 1979.

Rubin, Seymour J. International trade law: recent developments. Houston journal of international law (Houston,Tex.) 1:127-142, spring 1979.

CanwcoB, O.H. KoHBemiHa OOH o MopcKoft nepeBO3Ke rpy3OB 1978 r. H HeicoTopbie npo6jieMtiMeayiyHapoflHoro TpaHcnopTHoro npaBa. In COBCTCKHH ejKerojiHHK MexayHapojjHoro npaBa, 1978.MocKBa, H3H-BO "HayKa", 1980. crp. 298-311.

[The 1978 U.N. Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea and certain problems of internationaltransport law.]

Schmitthoff, Clive Maximilian. Schmitthoffs export trade: the law and practice of international trade. 7th ed.,London, Stevens, 1980. 515 p.

Includes bibliographical references.263

Sevon, L. Transportdokumenten och Hamburgregterna om sjotransport av gods. Tidskrift, utgiven avjuridiskaforeningen (Helsinki) 115: 452-470, 1979.

Urday, P., y Rodriguez Maridtegui, L. Evaluation de las Reglas de Hamburgo. Revista de jurisprudenciaperuana (Lima) 38:999-1013, octubre 1979.

Verma, S. K. International Code of Conduct for Transnational Corporations. Indian journal of internationallaw (New Delhi) 20:20-46, January-March 1980.

Wildhaber, L. Some aspects of the transnational corporation in international law. Netherlands internationallaw review (Leyden) 27:79-88 1980. no. 1.

Internationa] waterwaysVoies d'eau internationalesMoKjiyHapojiHbie BOflHhie nyrciVias navegables internacionales

International water resources law: regulation of the flow of water of international watercourses. In InternationalLaw Association. Report of the 58th Conference held at Manila, August 27th to September 2nd 1978.London, 1980. p. 227-247.

KopSyr, JI. B., EacKHH, IO.5I. MejKjryHapoflHbie peKH — HCTOPHH H conpeMeHHOCTb. In COBCTCKHH

exerojiHHK MeacnyHapoHHoro npasa, 1979. MocKBa, H3R-BO "HayKa", 1980. crp. 200-273.[International rivers: history and the present.]

Milenkovic, Slobodan. Koharentprinzip kao pravni osnov koriscenja medunarodnih slatkih voda. Jugoslovenskarevija za medunarodno pravo (Beograd) 26:92-104, 1979. no. 1-3.

[Le "koharenzprinzip" — fondement juridique de Putilisation des eaux douces internationales.]Rey Caro, E. J. Derecho de los usos de los cursos de agua internacionales para fines distintos de la navegaci<5n

en los trabajos de la Comisi6n de Derecho International. Revista Espaiiola de Derecho Internacional(Madrid) 31:39-64, 1978-1979. No. 1-3.

Salmon, Jean J. A. Pollution des fleuves et des lacs et Ie droit international. In Annuaire de I'Institut de droitinternational, v. 57, 11 et II, 1979. Basel, S. Krager, 1979, p. 193 a 378(t. I) et p. 104 a 157 (t. II).

InterventionIntervention

Intervention

Arangio-Ruiz, Gaetano. Human rights and non-intervention in the Helsinki Final Act. In Recueil des coursde VAcademie de droit international de La Haye, 1977-IV. Alphen aan den Rijn, Sijthoff & Noordhoff,1980. p. 195-332.

Chimni, Bhupinder Singh. Towards a Third World approach to non-intervention: through the labyrinth ofWestern doctrine. Indian journal of international law (New Delhi) 20:243-264, April-June 1980.

Fairley, H. Scott. State actors, humanitarian intervention and international law: reopening Pandora's box.Georgia journal of international and comparative law (Athens, Ga.) 10:29-63, winter 1980.

MccGwire, Michael. Changing naval operations and military intervention. In U.S. Naval War College, Newport.International law studies, v. 61. Newport, R.I., Naval War College Press, 1980. p. 586-608.

Vermaat, J. A. E. Militaire actie op vreemd grondgebied ten behoeve van eigen onderdanen. Nederlandsjuristenblad (Zwolle) 55:908-911, October 1980.

Law of the seaDroit de la merMopcKoe npasoDerecho del marAdede, A. O. Streamlining the system for settlement of disputes under the Law of the Sea Convention. Pace

law review (White Plains, N.Y.) 1:15-58, 1980.Akinsanya, Adeoye. The law of the sea: unilateralism of multilateralism. In Revue egyptienne de droit inter-

national, v. 34, 1978. Le Caire, SociSte egyptienne de droit international, 1978. p. 40-99.Alexander, Lewis M. The Law of the Sea Conference: issues in current negotiations. In U.S. Naval War

College, Newport. International law studies, v. 61. Newport, R.I., Naval War College Press, 1980.p. 188-198.

Alvarez, Jose A. Strategic implications of continental shelves. In U.S. Naval War College, Newport. Inter-national law studies, v. 61. Newport, R.I., Naval War College Press, 1980. p. 404-424.

264

Amin, S. H. Customary rales of delimitation of the continental shelf: the Gulf States practice. Journal ofmaritime law and commerce (Silver Spring, Md.) 11:509-526, July 1980.

Andrew, D. Archipelagos and the law of the sea: island straits States or island-studded sea space? Marine policy(Guildford, Surrey, England) 2:46-64, January 1978.

Apollis, G. Les frontieres maritimes en droit international: mutations et perspectives. Montpellier, Faculte dedroit et des sciences dconomiques, 1979, 156 p. (publications du Centre national pour I'exploitation desoceans, CNEXO. Rapports economtques et juridiques, 7.)

Ashmore, Edward. The possible effects on maritime operations of any future convention of the law of the sea.In U.S. Naval War College, Newport. International law studies, v. 61. Newport, R.I., Naval War CollegePress, 1980. p. 199-207.

Barston, R. P. The Law of the Sea Conference: the search for new regimes. In Barston, R. P. and P. Bimie,ed. The maritime dimension. London, G. Allen & Unwin, 1980. p. 154-168.

Barston, R. P. and Birnie, P. W. The marine environment. In Barston, R. P. and P. Birnie, ed. The maritimedimension. London, G. Allen & Unwin, 1980. p. 108-127.

Bencheikh, M. Analyse du rdgime juridique de l'exploitation des fonds de mer. Revue algerienne des sciencesjuridiques, poliliques et economiques (Alger) 15:239-264, juin 1978.

Bennouna, Mohamed. Les droits d'exploitation des ressources minerales des oceans. Revue generate de droitinternational public (Paris) 84:120-143, 1980, n° 1.

Bemhardt, J. P. A. A schematic analysis of vessel-source pollution: prescriptive and enforcement regimes inthe Law of the Sea Conference. Virginia journal of international law (Charlottesville, Va.) 20:265-311,winter 1980.

Bemhardt, Rudolf. Verfall und Neubildung von Gewohnheitsrecht im Meeresvolkerrecht. In Recht uber See :Festschrift Rolf Stodter zum 70. Geburtstag am 22. April 1979. Hamburg, Decker, 1979. p. 155-166.

Beurier, J. P. Ressources halieutiques et droit international. Brest, Faculte de droit et des sciences economiques,Universite de Bretagne occidentale, 1979, 168 p. (publications du Centre national pour l'exploitation desoceans. Rapports Economiques et juridiques, 8.)

Beurier, J. P. and Cadenat, P. Huitieme session de la troisieme Conference sur le droit de la mer. Droitmaritime francais (Paris) 32:139-150, mars 1980.

Biggs, Gonzalo. Deep seabed mining and unilateral legislation. Ocean development and international law (NewYork) 8:233-257, 1980. no. 3.

Bilder, Richard B. Emerging legal problems of the deep seas. In U.S. Naval War College, Newport. Internationallaw studies, v. 61. Newport, R.I., Naval War College Press, 1980. p. 504-519.

Birnie, Patricia W. Contemporary maritime legal problems. In Barston, R. P. and P. Birnie, ed. The maritimedimension. London, G. Allen & Unwin, 1980. p. 169-189.

Birnie, Patricia W. The Law of the Sea before and after UNCLOS I and UNCLOS II. In Barston, R. P. andP. Birnie, ed. The maritime dimension. London, G. Allen & Unwin. 1980. p. 8-26.

Booth, Ian J. International ship pollution law: recent developments at UNCLOS. Marine policy (Guildford,Surrey, England) 4:215-228, July 1980.

Bosco, G. Terza Conferenza delle Nazioni Unite sul diritto del mare: ottava sessione. Diritto marittimo (Genova)81:629-635, ottobre-dicembre 1979.

Brock, John R. Archipelago concept of limits of territorial seas. In U.S. Naval War College, Newport.International law studies, v. 61. Newport, R.I., Naval War College Press, 1980. p. 328-364.

Caflisch, Lucius. Zones maritimes sous juridiction nationale, leurs limites et leur delimitation. Revue generatede droit international public (Paris) 84:68-119, 1980, n° 1.

Carnegie, A. R. The Law of the Sea Tribunal. International and comparative law quarterly (London)28:669-684, October 1979. no. 4.

Carroz, J. Les problemes de la peche a la Conference sur le droit de la mer et dans la pratique des Etats. Revuegenerate de droit international public (Paris) 84:705-751, 1980, n° 3.

Chauveau, P. Droit maritime et droit de la mer. In Annuaire de droit maritime, v. 5, 1980, Nantes, Universite.Centre de droit maritime et aerien, 1980, p. 11 a 15.

Chee, C. I. National regulation of fisheries in international law. Ann Arbor, University microfilms, 1980.322 p. (Thesis — New York University.)

Collins, Harry M. Mineral exploitation of the seabed: problems, progress, and alternatives. Natural resourceslawyer (Chicago) 12:599-692, 1979. no. 4.

265

Conforti, Benedetto. Notes on the unilateral exploitation of the deep seabed. In Italian yearbook of internationallaw, v. 4, 1978-1979. Napoli, Editoriale scientifica, 1980. p. 3-19.

Conforti, Benedetto e G. Francalanci. Atlante dei confini sottomarini. Milano, Giuffre, 1979. 187 p. (Studie documenti sul diritto internazionale del mare, 5.)

Coquia, J. R. Development and significance of the 200-mile exclusive economic zone. Philippine law journal(Quezon City) 54:440-449, 1979. no. 4.

Daillier, P. L'exploitation du fond des oceans. Revue juridique elpoliiique, independance et cooperation (Paris)34:678-699, 1980, n° 3.

Douay, Claude. Le droit de la mer et la preservation du milieu marin. Revue generate de droit internationalpublic (Paris) 84:178-215, 1980, n° 1.

Dubner, B. H. The law of international sea piracy. The Hague, Nijhoff, 1980. 176 p. (Developments ininternational law, 2.)

Dugosevie", Daska. Rezim tjesnaca koji sluze medunarodnoj plovidbi na trecoj konferencij UN o pravu mora.Jugoslovenska revija za medunarodno pravo (Beograd) 26:68-78, 1979. no. 1—3.

[Le regime des ddtroits qui servent a la navigation intemationale a la troisteme Conference des NationsUnies sur le droit de la men]

Durand-Prinborgne, C. Recherches sur le regime juridique du sol et du sous-sol de la mer territoriale. InAnnuaire de droit maritime, v. 5, 1980. Nantes, Universite. Centre de droit maritime et aeYien, 1980,p. 87 a 115.

Eitel, T. Volkerrecht und Meeresnutzung. Jurustenzeitung (Tubingen) 35:41-48, Januar 1980.Ferreira, P. S. The role of African states in the development of the law of the sea at the Third U.N. Conference.

Ocean development and international law journal (New York) 7:89-129, 1979. no. 1—2.Figueredo Planchart, E. Los fondos marinos y oceanicos fuera de los li'mites de la jurisdiccidn national. In

Jomadas latinoamericanas de derecho intemacional, 1st, Caracas, 1978. Primeras jornadas latinoamericanasde derecho intemacional. Caracas, Facultad de Derecho, Universidad Catolica Andre's Bello, 1979.Pags. 575-590.

Fleisher, Carl August. The Northern waters and the new maritime zones. In German yearbook of internationallaw, v. 22, 1979. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1980. p. 100-118.

Fusillo, Maria Silvana. The legal regime of uninhabited "rocks" lacking an economic life of their own. InItalian yearbook of international law, v. 4, 1978-1979. Napoli, Editoriale scientifica, 1980. p. 47-58.

Galligan, David M. Wrapping up the UNCLOS III package: at long last the final clauses. Virginia journal ofinternational law (Charlottesville, Va.) 20:347-416, winter 1980.

Gamble, John King. Post world war II multilateral treaty-making : the task of the Third United Nations Lawof the Sea Conference in perspective. San Diego law review (San Diego, Calif.) 17:527-556, April 1980.

Ghosh, Shekhar. The legal regime of innocent passage through the territorial sea. Indian journal of internationallaw (New Delhi) 20:216-242, April-June 1980.

Goldie, Louis F. E. International law of the sea: a review of States' offshore claims and competences. In U.S.Naval War College, Newport. International law studies, v. 61. Newport, R.I., Naval War College Press,1980. p. 208-229.

rojiHiijbiH, B. B. BHyrpHKOHTHHeHTajibHbie rocyflapcTBa H Me>Kirynapon.Hoe MopcKoe npaBO. MocKBa,Me^KflyHapojiHbie OTHOUICHHH, 1978. crp. 119.

Hayes, John D. A maritime survey for 1970: seamen, fishermen, prospectors: who will own the oceans? InU.S. Naval War College, Newport. International law studies, v. 61. Newport, R.I., Naval War CollegePress, 1980. p. 267-275.

Hazou, Linda L. Determining the extent of admissibility of reservations: some considerations with regard tothe Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Denver journal of international law andpolicy (Denver) 9:69-83, winter 1980.

Hearn, Wilfred A. Special aspects of jurisdiction at sea. In U.S. Naval War College, Newport. Internationallaw studies, v. 61. Newport, R.I., Naval War College Press, 1980. p. 293-302.

Holmes, Ephraim P. Freedom of the seas. In U.S. Naval War College, Newport. International law studies, v.61. Newport, R.I., Naval War College Press, 1980. p. 239-244.

Hornsey, Geoffrey. International law — all at sea. Northern Ireland legal quarterly (Belfast, Ire.) 29:250-264,autumn-winter 1978.

Irwin, Paul C. Settlement of maritime boundary disputes: an analysis of the law of the sea. Ocean developmentand international law (New York) 8:105-148, 1980. no. 2.

266

, JI. A. MeJKflyHaponHaa 6e3onacHOCTt H Me»myHapoflHbiH npaBonopsmoK B MHPOBOM(HeKoropbie HOBbie acneKTti). In COBCTCKHH exeroflHHK MOKnyHapOflHoro npaBa, 1978.

MocKBa. M3fl-B0 "HayKa", 1980. crp. 182-199.[International security and international law and order in the world ocean (certain new aspects).]

Jacovides, A. J. Three aspects of the law of the sea: islands, delimitation and dispute settlement. Marine policy(Guildford, Surrey, England) 3:278-288, October 1979.

Kawakami, Soichiro. Issues of the right of land-locked States in the living resources in the economic zone.Hogaku shimpo (Tokyo) 87:1-42, August 1980.

In Japanese.Kimball, L. [et al]. Inching forward towards final agreement: UNCLOS III on the last lap of a long road?

Environmental policy and law (Lausanne) 6:69-77', 1980.Kindt, John Warren. The effect of claims by developing countries on LOS international marine pollution

negotiations. Virginia journal of international law (Charlottesville, Va.) 20:313-345, winter 1980.Kindt, John Warren. Prolegomenon to marine pollution and the law of the sea: an overview of the pollution

problem. Environmental law (Portland, Ore.) 11:67-96, fall 1980.Kindt, John Warren. Special claims impacting upon marine pollution issues at the Third U.N. Conference on

the Law of the Sea. California Western international law journal (San Diego, Calif.) 10:397—449, summer1980.

Koers, A. W. Het intemationale recht van de zee: vorming en inhoud van een nieuw rechtsstelsel. Deventer,Kluwer, 1979. 19 p.

Kronmiller, Theodore G. The lawfulness of deep seabed mining. New York, Oceana, 1980, 2 v.Bibliography: Vol. 2, p. 5-38. Includes index.

Lacharriere, Guy de. La reTorme du droit de la mer et le role de la Conffirence des Nations Unies. Revuegenerate de droit international public (Paris) 84:216-252, 1980, n" 1.

Landlocked States. In International Law Association. Report of the 58th Conference held at Manila, August27th to September 2nd 1978. London, 1980. p. 450-460.

Law of the Sea: the evolution of the 200-mile exclusive economic zone. In International Law Association.Report of the 58th Conference held at Manila, August 27th to September 2nd, 1978. London, 1980.p. 248-338.

Le"vy, Jean-Pierre. La Conference sur le droit de la mer : un atelier international experimental. Revue generatede droit international public (Paris) 87:7-67, 1980, n° 1.

Lewis, John D. The deep sea resources. In U.S. Naval War College, Newport. International law studies,v. 61. Newport, R.I., Naval War College Press, 1980. p. 529-550.

Lissitzyn, Oliver J. Electronic reconnaissance from the high seas and international law. In U.S. Naval WarCollege, Newport. International law studies, v. 61. Newport, R.I., Naval War College Press, 1980.p. 563-571.

Lynch, William C. The Nepal proposal fora common heritage fund: panacea or pipedream? California Westerninternational law journal (San Diego, Calif.) 10:25-52, winter 1980.

MacChesney, Branson. Special aspects of jurisdiction at sea. In U.S. Naval War College. Newport. Internationallaw studies, v. 61. Newport, R.I., Naval War College Press, 1980. p. 319-327.

McDevitt, Joseph B. New issues and new interest in the law of the sea. In U.S. Naval War College, Newport.International law studies, v. 61. Newport, R.I., Naval War College Press, 1980. p. 245-250.

McDougal, Myres S. The law of the high seas in times of peace. In U.S. Naval War College, Newport.International law studies, v. 61. Newport, R.I., Naval War College Press, 1980. p. 175-187.

Madura, Morris F. Passage through international straits: the prospects emerging from the Third United NationsConference on the Law of the Sea. Journal of maritime law and commerce (Silver Spring, Md.) 12:65-95,October 1980.

Mani, V. S. National jurisdiction: islands and archipelagos. In Anand, R. P., ed. Law of the sea: Caracas andbeyond. New Delhi, Radiant publishers, 1978. p. 82-110.

Mariani, G. C. Apres les 6e et 7e sessions, la Conference sur le droit de la mer dans une impasse"? In Annuairede droit maritime, v. 4, 1979. Nantes, Universite. Centre de droit maritime et aerien, 1979, p. 223 a 250.

MenHHKapoB, P. Mo HHKOH KOJIH3HOHHH BtnpocH Ha aoroBopa 3a MexcflyHapoaeH MOPCKH npeBO3 noa,. Flpaena MUCTJA (Codpna), 14: 19-31, 1980. no. 1.

[Quelques problemes de collision du contrat de transport maritime international charter.]

267

Mengozzi, P. De la gestion de l'environnement et des ressources maritimes : une contribution pourFetablissement d'un nouvel ordre international. Archivio giuridico ,,Filippo Serqfini" (Modena, Italy)198:115-121, gennaio-maggio 1980.

Mesloub, H. Droit de la mer et nouvel ordre economique international. Revue algerienne des sciences juridiques,politiques et economiques (Alger) 15:293-312, juin 1978.

Mesznik, Roger. Transit fees for ocean straits and their impact on global economic welfare. Ocean developmentand international law (New York, N.Y.) 8:337-354, 1980. no. 4.

Mirvahabi, F. A proposed fisheries code of conduct. Revue de droit international de sciences diplomatiqueset politiques (Geneve) 58:89-104, avril-juin 1980.

Mizukami, Chiyuki. Marine scientific research and international law. Kanazawa haigaku. Hobungakuba ronshu(Kanazawa) 27:1-39, March 1980.

In Japanese.Moore, G. National legislation for the management of fisheries under extended coastal state jurisdiction. Journal

of maritime law and commerce (Silver Spring, Md.) 11:153-182, January 1980.Moore, J. N. Regime of straits and the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. American

journal of international law (Washington, D.C.) 74:77-121, January 1980.Morin, M. D. Jurisdiction beyond 200 miles: a persistent problem. California Western international law journal

(San Diego, Calif.) 10:514-535, summer 1980.Moussu-Odier, F. La circulation maritime et la Conference sur le droit de la mer. In Annuaire de droit maritime,

v. 4, 1979. Nantes, Universite. Centre de droit maritime et aerien, 1979, p. 251 a 258.Munch, Ingo Von. Der diplomatische Schutz fur Schiffe. In Recht fiber See: Festschrift Rolf Stodter zum 70.

Geburtstag am 22. April 1979, hrsg. von H. P. Ipsen and K. H. Necker. Hamburg, Dekker, 1979.p. 231-250.

Nailor, Peter. The contemporary use of maritime power. In Barston, R. P. and P. Birnie, ed. The maritimedimension. London, G. Allen & Unwin, 1980. p. 142-153.

Newlin, A. Chauncey. An alternative legal mechanism for deep sea mining. Virginia journal of internationallaw (Charlottesville, Va.) 20:257-264, winter 1980.

Oda, Shigeru. The new regime for fisheries and the dispute settlement in international law. Kokusaiho gaikozasshi (Tokyo) 79:333-360, October 1980.

In Japanese. Summary in English.Orrego Vicuna, F. El estado actual de las negociaciones en la Tercera Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas

sobre el Derecho del Mar. In Inter-American juridical committee. Quinto curso de derecho intemacional.Washington, D.C, 1979. Pags. 371-380.

Orrego Vicuna, F. et Infante, M. T. Le droit de la mer dans l'Antarctique. Revue generate de droit internationalpublic (Paris) 87:340-350, 1980, n° 1.

Oxman, B. H. Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: the eighth session (1979). Americanjournal of international law (Washington, D.C.) 74:1—47, January 1980.

Perisic, Zvonko. Spoljni morski pojas u bududoj konvenciji o pravu mora. Jugoslovenska revija za medunarodnopravo (Beograd) 26:135-144, 1979, no. 1-3.

[Contiguous zone in the future convention on the law of the sea.]Pharand, Donat. The Northwest Passage in international law. In Canadian yearbook of international law, v.

17, 1979. Vancouver, B.C., University of British Columbia, 1980. p. 99-133.Phillips, J. C. Economic resources zone — progress for the developing coastal states. Journal of maritime law

and commerce (Cincinnati, Ohio) 11:349-365, April 1980.Piontek, E. Current problems of the law of the sea. Review of contemporary law (Brussels) no. 2:9-31, 1979.Pohl, R. G. Latin America's influence and role in the Third Conference on the Law of the Sea. Ocean

development and international law journal (New York) 7:65-87, 1979. no. 1-2.Prescott, Victor. The deep seabed. In Barston, R. P. and P. Bimie, ed. The maritime dimension. London,

G. Allen & Unwin, 1980. p. 54-75.Prewo, Wilfried. Ocean fishing: economic efficiency and the law of the sea. Texas international law journal

(Austin, Texas) 15:261-285, spring 1980.Rama Rao, S. Towards a dispute settlement mechanism for the international seabed area: an enquiry. In Anand,

R. P., ed. Law of the sea: Caracas and beyond. New Delhi, Radiant publishers, 1978. p. 343-372.Reisman, W. M. Regime of straits and national security: an appraisal of international law making. American

journal of international law (Washington, D.C.) 74:48-76, January 1980.

268

Rembe, Nasila S. Africa and the international law of the sea: a study of the contribution of the African Statesto the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Alphen aan den Rijn, Sijthoff & Noordhoff,1980. 251 p. (Sijthoff publications on ocean development, 6.)

Includes bibliographical references.Richardson, Elliot L. Power, mobility and the law of the sea. Foreign affairs (New York) 58:902-919, spring

1980.Rigaldies, F. La quatrieme session de la troisieme Conference sur le droit de la mer. Revue juridique themis

(Montreal) :41-71, 1979/80.Riphagen, W. Navigation dans le nouveau droit de la mer. Revue generate de droit international public (Paris)

84:144-177, 1980, n° 1.Riphagen, W. Nieuwe ontwikkelingen in het Internationale zeerecht. Internationale spectator ('s-Gravenhage)

34:629-632, November 1980.Summary in English.

Robertson, Horace B. A legal regime for the resources of the seabed and subsoil of the deep sea: a brewingproblem for international lawmakers. In U.S. Naval War College, Newport. International law studies, v,61. Newport, R.I., Naval War College Press, 1980. p. 457-503.

Robertson, Horace B. Passage through international straits: a right preserved in the Third United NationsConference on the Law of the Sea. Virginia journal of international law (Charlottesville, Va.) 20:801-857,summer 1980.

Robison, John T. Ocean fisheries: national instrument for international stability. In U.S. Naval War College,Newport. International law studies, v. 61. Newport, R.I., Naval War College Press, 1980. p. 425-448.

Rudolf, Davorin. Treca konferencija UN o pravu mora i podmorja. Jugoslovenska revija :a medunarodno pravo(Beograd) 26:155-162, 1979, no. 1-3.

[Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea area.]Saunders, Burt L. Oceans report: United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: eighth session. Lawver

of the Americas (Coral Gables, Fla.) 12:212-225, winter 1980.Saxena, J. N. Limits of compulsory jurisdiction in respect of the law of the sea disputes. In Anand, R. P., ed.

Law of the sea: Caracas and beyond. New Delhi, Radiant publishers, 1978. p. 328-342.Scholz, Wesley S. Oceanic research: international law and national legislation. Marine policy (Guildford,

Surrey, England) 4:91-127, April 1980.Scovazzi, T. La pesca nell' evoluzione del diritto del mare. Milano, Guiffre, 1979. 232 p.Seeberg-Elverfeldt, N. J. State responsibility for transjurisdictional oil pollution damage resulting from the

exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf. New York Law School journal of international andcomparative law (New York, N.Y.) 2:1-47, 1980.

Serita, Kentaro. Islands and the delimitation of the continental shelf. Kobe hogaku zasshi (Kobe) 30:351-395,September 1980.

In Japanese.Singh, N. Issue of reservations to the proposed Law of the Sea Convention. Indian journal of international law

(New Delhi) 19:76-96, January-March 1979.Smith, George Patrick. Restricting the concept of free seas: modern maritime law re-evaluated. Huntington,

N.Y., R. E. Krieger, 1980. 242 p.Includes bibliographical references.

Smith, Wayne J. International control of deep sea mineral resources. In U.S. Naval War College, Newport.International law studies, v. 61. Newport, R.I., Naval War College Press, 1980. p. 520-528.

Stocker, Hans Jiirgen. Die Freiheit der Meere und die Dritte Seerechtskonferenz der Vereinten Nationen.Anmerkungen aus der Sicht der deutschen Handelsschiffahrt. In Recht uber See : Festschrift Rolf Stodterzum 70. Geburtstag am 22. April 1979. Hamburg, Decker, 1979. p. 315-353.

Takanashi, Masao. Knowledge on the law of the sea, Rev. ed. Tokyo, Seizando shoten, 1980. 240 p.In Japanese.

Treves, Tullio. Military installations, structures, and devices on the seabed. American journal of internationallaw (Washington, D.C.) 74:808-857, October 1980.

Treves, Tullio. Ottava sessione della Conferenza sul diritto del mare. Rivista di diritto internazionale (Milano)62:717-742, 1979. no. 4.

Treves, Tullio. Principe du consentement et recherche scientifique dans le nouveau droit de la mer. Revuegenerate de droit international public (Paris) 84: 253-268, 1980, n° 1.

269

Treves, Tullio, ed. La ricerca scientifica nell' evoluzione del diritto del mare. Milano, Giuffre, 1978. 196 p.Treves, T. Settima sessione della Conferenza del diritto del mare. Rivista di diritto internazionale (Milano)

62:125-154, 1979. no. 1.Vargas, Jorge A. The legal nature of the patrimonial sea — a first step towards the definition of the EEZ. In

German yearbook of international law, v.22, 1979. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1980. p. 142-177.Vignes, Daniel. La valeur juridique de certaines regies, normes ou pratiques, mentionnees au TNCO comme

generalement accepters. In Annuaire frangais de droit international, v. 25, 1979, Paris, Centre nationalde la recherche scientifique, 1979, p. 712 a 718.

Villacres M., J. W. Landlocked states. Comparative juridical review (Coral Gables, Fla.) 17:169-184, 1980.Vitzthum, Wolfgang Graf. Rech't unter See. Volkerrechtliche Probleme der Demilitarisierung und Internation-

alisierung der Tiefsee. In Recht iiber See : Festschrift Rolf Stodter zum 70. Geburtstag am 22. April 1979.Hamburg, Decker, 1979. p. 355-392.

Voelckel, Michel. Apergu de quelques problemes techniques concernant la determination des frontieres man-times. In Annuaire frangais de droit international, v. 25, 1979, Paris, Centre national de la recherchescientifique, 1979, p. 693 a 711.

Walker, Peter B. What is innocent passage? In U.S. Naval War College, Newport. International law studies,v. 61. Newport, RX, Naval War College Press, 1980. p. 365-387.

Wassermann, Ursula. The law of the sea. Journal of world trade law (London) 14:555-558, November-December 1980.

Zedalis, Rex J. "Peaceful purposes" and other relevant provisions of the revised composite negotiating text:a comparative analysis of the existing and the proposed military regime for the high seas. Syracuse journalof international law and commerce (Syracuse, N.Y.) 7:1—35, summer 1979.

Law of treatiesDroit des traitesIIpaBO floroBopoBDerecho de los tratadosBos, M. Theory and practice of treaty interpretation. Netherlands international law review (Leyden) 27:3-38,

1980. no. 1; 27:135-170, 1980. no. 2Decaux, Emmanuel. La re"ciprocite en droit international. Paris, Librairie ge'nerale de droit et de jurisprudence,

1980, 374 p. (Bibliotheque de droit international; 82.)Bibliography: p. 351-365.

EBHHTOB, B. H. OcoSeHHOCTH cocTaBJieHHH pa3HOH3tiHHbix TeKCTOB coBpeMeHHbix Mea<nyHapo^Hi>ixnoroBopoB. In COBCTCKHH e>tcerojiHHK Me>KjryHaponHoro npaBa, 1979. MocKBa, H3H-BO "HayKa",1980. cxp. 161-170.

[Peculiarities of drawing up texts of contemporary international treaties in different languages.]Fischer, Peter. Bemerkungen zur Lehre von Alfred Verdross uber den "quasi-volkerrechtlichen" Vertrag im

Lichte der neuesten Entwicklung. In Ius humanitatis, Festschrift zum 90. Geburtstag von Alfred Verdross.Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1980. p. 379-401.

Gamble, John King. Multilateral treaties: the significance of the name of the instrument. California Westerninternational law journal (San Diego, California) 10:1—24, winter 1980.

Gamble, John King. Reservations to multilateral treaties: a macroscopic view of state practice. American journalof international law (Washington, D.C.) 74:372-394, April 1980.

Geiger, R. Die volkerrechtliche Beschrankung der Vertragsschlussfahigkeit von Staaten. Berlin, Duncker &Humblot, 1979. 272 p. (Schriften zum Volkerrecht, 64.)

Horwitsh, Daniel. Treaties — termination — the unresolved question of unilateral treaty termination. Suffolktransnational law journal (Boston, Mass.) 4:351—360.

Karl, Wolfram. Vertragsauslegung — Vertragsandemng. In Schreuer, C. von. Autoritat und InternationaleOrdnung: Aufsatze zum Volkerrecht, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1979. p. 9-34.

Komori, Teruo. The effect of treaties upon third States and the theory of customary international law. ChibaDaigaku, Hokei kenkyu (Chiba) 9:53-95, March 1980.

In Japanese.Rogoff, Martin A. International legal obligations of signatories to an unratified treaty. Maine law review

(Portland, Me.) 32:263-299, 1980.Sharma, S. P. Treaties as a source of international law. Indian journal of international law (New Delhi)

19:500-510, October-December 1979.

270

Terz, P. Die Rolle des volkerrechtlichen Vertrags in der Gegenwart. Neue Justiz (Berlin) 34:106-108, 1980.no. 3.

TwyHOB, O. M. ripuHUHn no6pocoBecTHoro coSjuoijeHiw MeaqjyHaponHbix o6H3aTenbCTB Hrebus sic stantibus. In COBCTCKHH e>KeroKHHK MOKJuyHapoflHoro npaBa, 1978. MocKBa,"HayKa", 1980. crp. 101-112.

[The principle of fulfilment in good faith of international obligations and the doctrine of rebus sicstantibus.]

Vitanyi, B61a. L'interpretation des traites dans la theorie du droit naturel. Revue generate de droit internationalpublic (Paris) 84:535-586, 1980, n° 2.

Zakharova, N. V. International treaty as a source of international law. Indian journal of international law (NewDelhi) 19:496-514, October-December 1979.

Zemanek, Karl. Die Wiener Konvention iiber die Staatennachfolge in Vertrage. In Ius humanitatis. Festschriftzum 90. Geburtstag von Alfred Verdross. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1980. p. 719-738.

Law of warDroit de la guerreITpaBO BOHHbl

Derecho de la guerra

Best, Geoffrey. Humanity in warfare: the modern history of the international law of armed conflicts. London,Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1980. 400 p.

Best, Geoffrey. Restraints on war by land before 1945. In Howard, M., ed. Restraints on war: studies in thelimitation of armed conflicts, Oxford, Oxford university press, 1979. p. 17-37.

EjiHiueHKO, H. n . , >KjjaHOB, H. B. HaeMHHHecrBO — MexayHapoflHoe npecTyruieHne. In COBCTCKHHe>KerojiHHK MOKjiyHapoflHoro npaBa, 1979. MocKBa, M3A-BO "HayKa", 1980. crp. 146-161.

[Mercenarism: an international crime.]Brungs, B. J. Hostages, prisoner reprisals, and collective penalties: the development of the international law

of war with respect to collective and vicarious punishments. Ann Arbor, University microfilms, 1980.3 v. (Thesis — Georgetown.)

Burger, J. A. and others. Law of war panel: directions in the development of the law of war. Military lawreview (Washington, D.C.) 82:3-39, 1978.

Cassese, Antonio. Mercenaries: lawful combatants or war criminals? Zeitschrift fiir auslandisches offentlichesRecht und Volkerrecht (Stuttgart) 40:1-30, 1980. no. 1.

Clo§cS, I. Dreptul umanitar §i noua ordine intemationala. Bucure§ti, Editura militara, 1978. 238 p.Defensor Santiago, M. Humanitarian law in armed conflicts: Protocols I and II to the 1949 Geneva conventions.

Philippine law journal (Quezon City) 54:188-216, June 1979.Dinstein, Yoram. The laws of war at sea. In Israel yearbook on human rights, v. 10, 1980. Faculty of Law,

Tel Aviv University, 1980. p. 38-69.Dinstein, Yoram. The new Geneva protocols. In The year book of world affairs, v. 33, London, Stevens &

Sons, 1979. p. 265-283.Draper, G. I. A. D. The implementation and enforcement of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and of the two

additional Protocols of 1978. In Recueil des cours de I'Academie de droit international de La Have, 1979-III. Alphen aan den Rijn, Sijthoff & Noordhoff, 1980. p. 1-54.

Draper, G. I. A. D. Wars of national liberation and war criminality. In Howard, M., ed. Restraints on war:studies in the limitation of armed conflicts, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1979. p. 135-160.

Fernindez-Flores, J. L. El actual derecho de la guerra. Revista Espanola de Derecho Militar (Madrid)1978:17-38, 1978. No. 35.

Frison, Marilyn. Surveillance of prisoners' mail and the right of correspondence: international, regional andnational measures relating to the correspondence rights of prisoners. In Comparative law yearbook, v. 2,1978. Alphen aan den Rijn, Sijthoff & Noordhoff, 1979. p. 69-88.

Fujita, Hisakazu. International humanitarian law. Kyoto, Sekai shisosha, 1980. 252 p.In Japanese.

Furet, M. F. et al. La guerre et le droit. Paris, Pedone, 1979, 335 p.Gehring, R. W. Protection of civilian infrastructures. Law and contemporary problems (Durham, N.C.)

42:86-139, spring 1978.

271

Gorbiel, Andrzej. Nowe prawo genewskie. Przeglgd Stosunkow mi dzynarodowych (Opole) no. 4:121-141,1979.

[Le nouveau droit de Geneve.]Graefrath, B. Zum Anwendungsbereich der Erganzungsprotokolle zu den Genfer Abkommen vom 12 August

1949. Staat und Recht (Potsdam) 29:133-146, 1980.Green, L. C. Aerial considerations in the law of armed conflict. In Annals of air and space law, v. 5, 1980.

Toronto, Carswell, 1980. p. 89-117.Green, L. C. War law and the medical profession. In Canadian yearbook of international law, v. 17, 1979.

Vancouver, B.C., University of British Columbia, 1980. p. 159-205.International medical and humanitarian law: draft model agreement for humanitarian relief missions. In

International Law Association. Report of the 58th Conference held at Manila, August 27th to September2nd 1978. London, 1980. p. 461-472.

Krauss, M. Internal conflicts and foreign states: in search of the state of law. Yale studies in world public order(New Haven, Conn.) 5:173-233, spring 1979.

Kubes, V. Recht und Revolution. Osterreichische Zeitschrift fiir qffentliches Recht und Volkerrecht (Wien)30:257-288, 1979. no. 3-4.

Kussbach, Erich. Protocol I and neutral states. International review of the Red Cross (Geneva) 20:231-249,September-October 1980.

Levie, H. S. Diplomatic conference on the reaffirmadon and development of international humanitarian lawapplicable in armed conflicts, Geneva, 1974-1977. Protection of war victims, protocol I to the 1949 Genevaconventions: a record of certain of the proceedings. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., Oceana, 1979. 542 p.

Levie, H. S. Documents on prisoners of war. Washington, D.C., U.S. govt. print, off., 1979. 853 p. (Inter-national law studies, 60.)

Martin, Laurence. Limited nuclear war. In Howard, M., ed. Restraints on war: studies in the limitation ofarmed conflicts, Oxford, Oxford university press, 1979. p. 103-121.

MejiKOB, F. M. HefiTpajiHTeT B BOHHC In COBCTCKHH eaceronHHK MexHynaponHoro npaBa, 1978.MocKBa, H3H-BO "Hayica", 1980, crp. 237-251.

[Neutrality in war.]Meyrowitz, H. Armistice et resistance. Revue beige de droit international (Bruxelles) 14:231-273, 1978-1979,

n° 1.Miyazaki, Shigeki. The application of the new humanitarian law. International review of the Red Cross (Geneva)

20:184-192, July-August 1980.Miyazaki, Shigeki. On the civil defence. Horitsu ronso (Tokyo) 52:1—49, May 1980.

In Japanese.Mushkat, M. Development of international humanitarian law and the law of human rights. In German yearbook

of international law, v.21, 1978. Berlin. Duncker and Humblot, 1979. p. 150-168.Nahlik, S. E. L'extension du statut de combattant a la lumifere du protocole I de Geneve de 1977. In Recueil

des cours de I'Academie de droit international de La Haye, 1979-III. Alphen aan den Rijn, Sijthoff &Noordhoff, 1980, p. 171-250.

O'Connell, D. P. Limited war at sea since 1945. In Howard, M., ed. Restraints on war: studies in the limitationof armed conflicts, Oxford, Oxford university press, 1979. p. 123-134.

Peirce, George A. B. Humanitarian protection for the victims of war: the system of protecting powers and therole of the ICRC. Military law review (Washington, D.C.) 90:89-162, fall 1980.

Ranft, Bryan. Restraints on war at sea before 1945. In Howard, M., ed. Restraints on war: studies in thelimitation of armed conflicts, Oxford. Oxford university press, 1979. p. 39-56.

Ribeiro, F. R. International humanitarian law: advancing progressively backwards. The South African lawjournal (Cape Town) 97:42-64, February 1980.

Ridder, H. P. International law and belligerent occupation. Ann Arbor, University microfilms, 1980. 163 p.Scheuner, Ulrich. Entwicklungen im Seekriegsrecht seit dem zweiten Weltkrieg. In Recht iiber See : Festschrift

Rolf Stodter zum 70. Geburtstag am 22. April 1979. Hamburg, Decker, 1979. p. 287-313.Schindler, D. The different types of armed conflicts according to the Geneva Conventions and Protocols. In

Recueil des cours de I'Academie de droit international de la Haye, 1979-11. Alphen aan den Rijn, Sijthoff& Noordhoff, 1980. p. 117-164.

Socini-Leyendecker, R. S. Le azioni di soccorso nel diritto intemazionale umanitario. Milano, Giuffre, 1979.167 p.

272

Socini-Leyendecker, R. S. La Conferenza diplomatica di Ginevra sulla riaffermazione e lo sviluppo del dirittointernazionale umanitario nei conflitti armati ed i suoi precedent!. In Studi in memoria di Giuliana d'Amelio,Milano, Giuffre, 1978. p. 383-396.

Verosta, Stephan. Krieg und Angriffskrieg im Denken Kants. Osterreichische Zeitsclmft fur offentliches Recluund Volkerrecht (Wien) 31:247-264, Dezember 1980. no. 3-4.

Voit, W. Humanitare Aspekte der Regeln uber Perfidie und Kriegslist. Neue Zeitschrift fiir Wehrrecht (Berlin)22:19-25, 1980.

Watt, Donald Cameron. Restraints on war in the air before 1945. In Howard, M., ed. Restraints on war: studiesin the limitation of armed conflicts, Oxford, Oxford university press, 1979. p. 57-77.

Weber, H. Zukunft des Kriegsrechts im bewaffneten Konflikt. Verfassung und Recht in Ubersee (Hamburg)12:393-407, 1979. no. 4.

Maintenance of peaceMaintien de la paixnonnepjKamie MiipaMantenimiento de la paz

Ballaloud, J. Operation des Nations Unies au Sud-Liban (mars-octobre 1978). Revue juridique et politique.independence et cooperation (Paris) 33:237-257, juillet-septembre 1979.

El-Adawy, Adel. The future prospects of peace-keeping operations and the growing role of the super powers.In Revue egyptienne dedroit international, v. 34, 1978, Le Caire, Societe egyptienne de droit international,1978, p. 163-176.

Mustapha, Mohamed Youssef. Historique et evaluation des operations de maintien de la paix de l'ONU auMoyen-Orient. Revue algerienne des sciences juridiques, economiques et politiques (Alger) 13:919-953,dgcembre 1976.

Rikhye, Indar Jit. The Sinai blunder: withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force leading to the Six-day War of June 1967. London, F. Cass, 1980. 240 p.

Siekmann, R. C. R. A survey of the judicial decisions in pursuance of the Dutch participation in the UN peace-keeping force in Lebanon. Netherlands international law review (Leyden) 27:194—212, 1980. no. 2.

Siekmann, R. C. R. UNIFIL: op zoek naar een rechtsgrondslag voor de onvrij- willige uitzending van dienst-plichtige militairen. Nederlands juristenblad (Zwolle) 55:1-9, Januar 1980.

Sommereyns, Raymond. United Nations peace-keeping forces in the Middle East. Brooklyn journal of inter-national law (Brooklyn, N.Y.) 6:1-53, spring 1980.

Urquhart, Brian E. United Nations peace-keeping in the Middle East. World today (London) 36:88-93, March1980.

Zeidan, Abdel Latif. The emergence of the Gulf of Aqaba problem. In Revue egyptienne de droit international,v. 35, 1979. Le Caire, Societe egyptienne de droit international, 1979, p. 1-65.

Membership and representationAdmission et representation a l'ONUH/ieHCTBO H npeflcraBHTejibCTBoMiembros y representation

Kim, J. S. Divided countries and their approaches to membership in the United Nations. Cambridge, Mass.,1980. 64 p. (Thesis LL.M. — Harvard law school.)

NamibiaNamibie

Namibia

Botha, N. J. Walvis Bay: miscellany. The Comparative and international law journal of Southern Africa(Pretoria) 12:255-271, November 1979.

Fans, J. A. The administration of Walvis Bay. In South African yearbook of international law, v. 5, 1979.Pretoria, University of South Africa, 1979. p. 63-81.

Namibia, South Africa, and the Walvis Bay dispute. The Yale law journal (New Haven, Conn.) 89:903-922,April 1980.

Pindid, Dimitrije. Dekolonizacija juga Afrike: slucajevi Namibije i Zimbabvea. Jugoslovenska revija za me-dunarodno pravo (Beograd) 26:145-154, 1979. no. 1-3.

[La decolonisation du sud de l'Afrique : les cas de la Namibie et du Zimbabwe.]

273

Redekop, Clarence G. The limits of diplomacy: the case of Namibia. International journal (Toronto) 35:70-89,winter 1979/80.

Natural resourcesRessources naturellesITpupoAiibie pecypcbiRecursos naturales

Adede, A. 0. A profile of trends in the state contracts for natural resources development between Africancountries and foreign companies. New York University journal of international law and politics (NewYork) 12:479-568, winter 1980.

Alhe'ritiere, D. Water and environment. Water international (Urbana, III.) 1980:4-8, December 1980.Aramburu Menchaga, A. A. La soberanfa permanente de Ios Estados sobre sus recursos naturales y la proteccidn

internacional del medio ambiente. In Jornadas latinoamericanas de derecho internacional, 1st, Caracas,1978. Primeras jomadas latinoamericanas de derecho internacional. Caracas, Facultad de Derecho, Uni-versidad Catolica Andres Bello, 1979.

Bilder, Richard B. International law and natural resources policies. Natural resources journal (Albuquerque,N. Mex.) 20:451-486, July 1980.

Brownlie, I. Legal status of natural resources in international law (some aspects). In Recueil des cours deI'Academie de droit international de La Haye, 1979—III. Alphen aan den Rijn, Sijthoff & Noordhoff,1980. p. 245-318.

Cano, Guillermo J. Recursos naturales y energfa: derecho, politica y administraci6n. Buenos Aires: FondoEditorial de Derecho y Economia, 1979. 327 pags. (Coleccidn de estudios jurfdicos-politicos sobre elambiente humano y Ios recursos naturales, 2.)

Includes bibliographical references.Christol, Carl Q. International space law and the use of natural resources: solar energy. Revue beige de droit

international (Bruxelles) 15:28-52, 1980, n° 1.Loewinger, A. Multilateral funding for mineral exploration in the Third World. Journal of world trade law

(London) 14:469^87, November-December 1980.Young, Oran R. Natural resources policy: a modest plea for political analysis. Ocean development and inter-

national law (New York) 8:183-199, 1980. no. 3.

Non-governmental organizationsOrganisations non gouvernementalesHenpaBMTejibCTBCHHbic opraHH3au,HHOrganizations no gubernamentales

Benvenuti, Paolo. The nature and features of international non-governmental organizations. In Italian yearbookof international law, v. 4, 1978-1979. Napoli, Editoriale scientifica, 1980. p. 84-102

Chiang, Pei-heng. Non-governmental organizations at the United Nations: their identity, role and function. AnnArbor, Mich., University Microfilms International, 1980. 525 p.

Bibliography: p. 505-525.

Non-self-governing territoriesTerritoires non autonomesIlecaMoynpauJiHioiniiecH TeppiiTopiiiiTerritorios no autonomos

Clark, Roger S. Self-determination and free association: should the United Nations terminate the Pacific Islandstrust? Harvard international law journal (Cambridge, Mass.) 21:1-86, winter 1980.

Outer spaceEspace extra-atmospheriqueKocMiiiecKOC npocrpaHCTBOEspacio ultraterrestre

Ambrosetti, Eleonora. The relevance of remote sensing to Third-World economic development: some legal andpolitical aspects. New York University journal of international law and politics (New York) 12:569-595,winter 1980.

Basu, Ranu. The use of direct broadcast satellites: recent debates at the United Nations. Indian journal ofinternational law (New Delhi) 20:265-283, April-June 1980.

274

Bhatt, S. Contribution of aerospace law to the evolution of man and global society. In Annals of air and spacelaw, v. 5, 1980. Toronto, Carswell, 1980. p. 309-321.

Bhatt, S. A review of the regime of outer space after two decades of space exploration: problems and prospectsfor international society. Indian journal of international taw (New Delhi) 20:83-95, January-March 1980.

EopnyHOB, B. fl., MapKOB, B. H. KOCMOC — 3eMJifl— npaBO. MocKBa, MexqiyHapoHHbie OTHOIUCHHH,1978. crp. 131.

Bueckling, A. Aufweichung des Rechtsbegriffs im Weltraumrecht, aufgerissen in rechtschistorischen Zusam-menhangen. Zeitschrift fur Luftund Weltraumrecht (Koln) 28:363-371, Dezember 1979.

Cheng, Bin. The legal regime of airspace and outer space: the boundary problem. Functionalism versusspatialism: the major premises. In Annals of air and space law, v. 5, 1980. Toronto, Carswell, 1980.p. 323-361.

Cheng, Bin. The Moon Treaty. In Current legal problems, v. 33, 1980. London, Stevens, 1980. p. 213-237.Christol, Carl Q. Common heritage of mankind provision in the 1979 Agreement Governing the Activities of

States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. The international lawyer (Chicago, 111.) 14:429-483,summer 1980.

Christol, Carl Q. The geostationary orbital position as a natural resource of the space environment. Netherlandsinternational law review (Leyden) 26:5-23, 1979. no. 1.

Christol, Carl Q. International liability for damage caused by space objects. American journal of internationallaw (Washington, D.C.) 74:346-371, April 1980.

Christol, Carl Q. Remote sensing and international law. In Annals of air and space law, v. 5, 1980. Toronto,Carswell, 1980. p. 375-426.

Colloquium on the law of outer space, 22nd, Munich, West Germany. Proceedings, September 16-22, 1979.New York, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1980. 323 p.

Courteix, Simone. L'accord rdgissant les activity des Etats sur la Lune et les autres corps celestes. In Annuairefranqais de droit international, v. 25, 1979, Paris, Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1979,p. 203 a 222.

De La Pradelle, P. G. Notions de territoire et d'espace dans l'amenagement des rapports intemationauxcontemporains. In Recueil des cours de I'Academie de droit international de La Haye, 1977-IV. Alphenaan den Rijn, Sijthoff & Noordhoff, 1980. p. 415 a 484.

Dula, Art. Free enterprise and the proposed Moon Treaty. Houston journal of international law (Houston, Tex.)2:3-33, autumn 1979. no. 1.

Finch, Edward R. Outer space liability: past, present and future. International lawyer (Chicago) 14:123-127,winter 1980.

Fuqua, Don. Space industrialization: some legal and policy considerations for private enterprise. Journal ofspace law (University, Miss.) 8:1-7, spring 1980.

Gaggero, Eduardo D. et Roberto Puceiro Ripoll. Accord rdgissant les activity des Etats sur la Lune et les autrescorps celestes. In Annals of air and space law, v. 5, 1980. Toronto, Carswell, 1980. p. 449—480.

Galloway, Eilene. Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. InAnnals of air and space law, v. 5, 1980. Toronto, Carswell, 1980. p. 481-508.

G6rbiel, Andrzej. Les aspects juridiques intemationaux de l'utilisation de l'orbite geostationnaire. In Uniwer-sytetu Lddzkiego. Prace mi dzyuczelnianego. Instytutu nauk politycznych. 1979:1—32, L6dz 1979.

G6rbiel, Andrzej. Etendue du terme "le corps celeste" dans le droit international public. Revue francaise dedroit aerien (Paris) 34:241-249, juillet-septembre 1980.

G6rbiel, Andrzej. Legal definition of outer space. Lodz, Pracownia Poligraficzna Universytetu Lodzkiego,1980. 76 p.

Includes bibliographical references.Gdrbiel, Andrzej. Miedzynarodowy status cial niebieskich. Przeglgd Stosunkow miedzynarodowych (Opole)

no. 6:35-54, 1979.[Le statut international des corps celestes.]

Gdrbiel, Andrzej. Obiekty kosmiczne w prawie mieedzynarodowym. Przeglgd Stosunkow miedzynarodowych(Opole) no. 6:93-106, 1980.

[Les objets spatiaux dans le droit international.]Gorove, Stephen. 1980 session of the U.N. Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space: highlights of

positions on outstanding legal issues. Journal of space law (University, Miss.) 8:174-187, fall 1980.Gorove, Stephen. The World Administrative Radio Conference 1979: some legal and political implications.

Zeitschrift fur Luftund Weltraumrecht (Koln) 29:214-220, September 1980.

275

Han, Thomas A. A review of WARC-79 and its implications for the development of satellite communicationsservices. Lawyer of the Americas (Coral Gables, Fla.) 12:442-460, spring 1980.

Jakhu, Ram and Trecroce, Riccardo. International satellite monitoring for disarmament and development. InAnnals of air and space law, v. 5, 1980. Toronto, Carswell, 1980. p. 509-527.

Jasani, Bhupendra and Maria A. Lunderius. Peaceful uses of outer space: legal fiction and military reality.Bulletin of peace (Oslo) 11:57-70, March 1980.

KaMeHenKaa, E. II. CoTpynHHiecTBO B ocBOeHHH KocMoca H MOKjiyHapojiHbie opraHH3aiiHH. CoeemcKoezocydapcmeo u npaeo (MocKBa), J*Js 7:116-121, 1980.

[Co-operation in the space exploration and international organizations.]Kopal, Vladimir. Question of defining outer space. Journal of space law (University, Miss.) 8:154-173, fall

1980.

Kries, Wulf von. Neuere Entwicklungen bei internationalen Weltraumorganisationen. Zeitschrifi fur Lufi-undWeltraumrecht (Koln) 29:221-227, September 1980.

Kries, Wulf von. Zum Recht intemationalerKomrnunikationssatelliten-Organisationen. Zeitschrift fur Lufi-undWeltraumrecht (Koln) 28:393-404, Dezember 1979.

Lay, Fernando. Space law: a new proposal. Journal of space law (University, Miss.) 8:41-57, spring 1980.Lazarev, Marklen I. Future space cities: international legal aspects. In Annals of air and space law, v. 5, 1980.

Toronto, Carswell, 1980. p. 529-536.

Leger, Brigitte. La Lune : patrimoine commun de 1'humanite. In Canadian yearbook of international law,v. 17, 1979. Vancouver, B.C., University of British Columbia, 1980, p. 280 a 291.

Marcoff, Marco G. La liberte de l'espace — regie de droit international a condition resolutoire. Zeitschrifi furLufi- und Weltraumrecht (Koln) 28:405-414, Dezember 1979.

Martin, Rebecca. Legal ramifications of the uncontrolled return of space objects to earth. Journal of air lawand commerce (Dallas, Tex.) 45:457-481, winter 1980.

Masouye\ Claude. Un nouveau traite international en matiere de communications spatiales. Journal du droitinternational (Paris) 107:605-635, juillet-septembre 1980.

Mossinghoff, Gerald J. and Fuqua, Laura D. United Nations principles on remote sensing: report on devel-opments, 1970-1980. Journal of space law (University, Miss.) 8:103-153, fall 1980.

Nesgos, Peter D. The proposed International Sea-Bed Authority as a model for the future outer space internationalregime. In Annals of air and space law, v. 5, 1980. Toronto, Carswell, 1980. p. 549-573.

Reijnan, Gijsbertha C. M. Outer space law and private enterprise in outer space: an international perspective.Houston journal of international law (Houston, Tex.) 2:65-76, autumn 1979. no. 1.

Rice, David M. Regulation of direct broadcast satellites: international constraints and domestic options. NewYork Law School law review (New York) 25:813-862, 1980.

Robinson, Glen O. Regulating international airwaves: the 1979 WARC. Virginia journal of international law(Charlottesville, Va.) 21:1-54, fall 1980.

St. James, Dana J. The legality of antisatellites. Boston College international and comparative law review(Boston, Mass.) 3:467-494, summer 1980.

Skorheim, J. M. and White, H. M., Jr. The law of outer space. Western State University law review (Fullerton,Calif.) 6:101-141, 1979.

Sloup, George Paul. Outer space delimitation proposals: enlightened jurisprudence or celestial shakedown?some implications for private enterprise. Houston journal of international law (Houston, Tex.) 2:87-112,autumn 1979- no. 1.

Smith, D. D. Space stations: international law and policy. Boulder, Colo., Westview press, 1979. 264 p.Space Law: the problem of the demarcation of air space and outer space. In International Law Association.

Report of the 58th Conference held at Manila, August 27th to September 2nd, 1978. London, 1980.p. 159-185.

Szilagyi, I. A miiholdas foldkutato teve'kenysegek nemzetkozi jogi szabalyozasar<51 de lege ferenda. Jogtu-domdnyi kozlony (Budapest) 33:145-150, marcius, 1978.

Summaries in Russian, German, French and English.[The international legal regulation, de lege ferenda, of earth resource satellites.]

Tennen, Leslie I. Outer space: a preserve for all humankind. Houston journal of international law (Houston,Tex.) 2:145-158, autumn 1979. no. 1.

276

TepexoB, A. JX. PaccMOTpeHHe B OOH BonpocoB MOKnyHapoflHoro KOCMnnecKoro npaBa B 1977 r. InCoBeTCKHH OKerojjHHK Me>KjiyHapoflHoro npaBa, 1978. MocKBa, H3JI-BO "Haysa", 1980. crp.351-353.

[Discussion in the U.N. of international space taw problems in 1977.]BacHJieBCKaa, 3. F. flpaBOBOH craTyc npHpoHHbix pecypcoB JlyHti H njiaHex: npoSjiewbi H cyacneHHH.

MocKBa, HayKa, 1978. crp. 141.Vicas, Alex G. Efficiency, equity and the optimum utilization of outer space as a common resource. In Annals

of air and space law, v. 5, 1980. Toronto, Carswell, 1980. p. 589-609.Wassenbergh, Henry A. Speculation on the law governing space resources. In Annals of air and space law,

v. 5, 1980. Toronto, Carswell, 1980. p. 611-626.Williams, S. M. Las actividades de los Estados en el espacio ultraterrestre a la luz del derecho internacional

positive Revista del Colegio de Abogados de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires (Buenos Aires) 39:63-82, 1979.Works, John H. Moon Treaty. Denver journal of international law (Denver, Colo.) 9:281-285, summer 1980.Zhukov, G. P. Tendances contemporaines du developpement du droit spatial international. In Recueil des cours

de VAcademic de droit international de La Haye, 1978—III. Alphen aan den Rijn, Sijthoff & Noordhoff,1980, p. 229 a 328.

Peaceful settlement of disputesReglement pacifique des differendsMnpHoe pa3pemenHe cnopoBArreglo paeffico de controversiasBoyle, A. E. Law of treaties and the Anglo-French continental shelf arbitration. International and comparative

law quarterly (London) 29:498-508, April-July 1980.Brouillet, Alain. La mediation du Saint-Siege dans le differend entre 1'Argentine et le Chili sur la zone australe.

In Annuairefrangais de droit international, v. 25, 1979, Paris, Centre national de la recherche sctentifique,1979, p. 47 a 73.

Cafiisch, Lucius. L'avenirde l'arbitrage interetatique. In Annuaire frangais de droit international, v. 25, 1979,Paris, Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1979, p. 9 a 45.

Cafiisch, Lucius. Vers une renaissance de l'arbitrage entre Etats ? In Liber amicorum Adolf F. Schnitzer, offerta 1'occasion de son 90c anniversaire le 30 juillet 1979 par la Faculte de droit de l'Universite de Geneve.Geneve, Georg, 1979, 547 p. (Me'moires publies par la Faculte de droit de Geneve, 61.)

Echeverria D., C. G. La controversia entre Chile y Argentina sobre la region del Beagle. Revista de derechoy ciencias sociales (Lima) 45:177-218, 1978.

El-Enanie, Ibrahim M. L'Arbitrage international. In Revue egyptienne de droit international, v. 35, 1979, LeCaire, Socie'te' egyptienne de droit international, 1979, p. 99 a 148.

EBreHbeBa, E., YceHKO, E. T. HHCTHTyT KOHcyjibTauHii B COBPCMCHHOM MOKflyHapoflHOM npaBe.CoeemcKoe zocydapemeo u npaeo (MocKBa), ,N° 10:104-112, 1980.

[The institution of consultations in the modern international law.]Fischer, Peter. Das Recht der Internationalen Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit ,,Revisited". Osterreichische Zeiischrift

fur offentliches Recht und Volkerrecht (Wien) 31:279-285, Dezember 1980. no. 3-4.Gruss, H. J. Enteignung und Aufhebung von Erdolkonzessionen: der Schiedsspruch im libyschen Erdolstreit.

Zeitschrift fur auslandisches offentliches Recht und Volkerrecht (Stuttgart) 39:782-806, 1979. no. 4.Himmelreich, D. M. Beagle Channel affair: a failure in judicial persuasion. Vanderbilt journal of transnational

law (Nashville, Tenn.) 12:971-998, fall 1979.Johnson, D. H. N. International arbitration back in favour? In The yearbook of world affairs, v. 34, 1980.

London, Stevens, 1980. p. 305-328.McClendon, J. Stewart. Alternate methods of dispute settlement. Houston law review (Houston. Tex.)

17:979-990, July 1980.Mazilu, Dumitru. Improvement of the system of peaceful settlement of international disputes — requirement

for the democratization of international relationships. Revue roumaine d'etudes internationales (Bucarest)1:341-351, 1980. No. 4.

Melo, A. L. Andlisis jundico de las consecuencias de la declaration de nulidad en el caso del Canal de Beagle.Revista de derecho international y ciencias diplomdticas (Rosario, Argentina) 25/26:57-69, 1977/1978.No. 46/47.

Mendoza Bahamonde, J. Cuestion del Canal Beagle, el su'puesto principio oceanico y la mediae ion vaticana.Revista de derecho y ciencias sociales (Lima) 45:127-176, enero-diciembre 1978.

277

Merrills, J. G. The United Kingdom-France continental shelf arbitration. California Western International lawjournal (San Diego, Calif.) 10:314-364, spring 1980.

Schwarzenberger, Georg. Present day relevance of the Hague peace system: 1899-1979. In The year book ofworld affairs, v. 34, 1980. London, Stevens, 1980. p. 329-350.

Varma, A. Petroleum concessions in international arbitration: Texaco Overseas Petroleum Company v. LibyanArab Republic. Columbia journal of transnational law (New York) 18:259-288, 1979. no. 2.

Villani, Ugo. La conciliazione nelle controversie internazionali. Napoli, Jovene, 1979. 378 p.Political and security questionsQuestions poiitiques et de securiteITojiHTHHecKHe Bonpocbi H Bonpocbi 6e3onacnocTHCuestiones politicas y de seguridadCraen, Frank L. M. van de. The territorial title of the State of Israel to "Palestine" : an appraisal in international

law. Revue beige de droit international (Bruxelles) 14:500-538, 1978-1979, n° 2.Gruhin, Mark I. Jerusalem: legal and political dimensions in a search for peace. Case Western Reserve journal

of international law (Cleveland) 12:169-213, winter 1980.Kreczko, Alan J. Unilateral termination of U.N. sanctions against Southern Rhodesia by the United Kingdom.

Virginia journal of international law (Charlottesville, Va.) 21:97-128, fall 1980.Le Morzellec, J. La question de Jerusalem devant 1'Organisation des Nations Unies. Bruxelles, Bruylant, 1979,

565 p. (Organisation internationale et relations internationales, 11.)Tulman, J. The international legal status of Jerusalem. ASILS international law journal (Washington, D.C.)

3:39-62, 1979.Yamaguchi, Hidekazu. The United Nations enforcement measures against Southern Rhodesia and their effects.

Kokusai mondai (Tokyo) 242:47-83, May 1980.In Japanese.

Progressive development and codification of international law (in general)Developpemcnt progressif et codification du droit international (en general)FIporpeccHBHoe pa3BHTne H KojjHtpHKaijiiH MoxjiyiiapoflHoro npaBa (o6m.He Bonpocbi)Desarrollo progresivo y codificacion del derecho internacional (en general)

Daudet, Yves. La Commission du droit international des Nations Unies. In Annuaire francais de droit inter-national, v. 25, 1979, Paris, Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1979, p. 555 a 566.

<E>HJiHMOHOBa, M. B. OcoSeHHOCTH yHHBepcajibHoro noroBopa, KOflHcpHiyipyiomero HopMbi Me>KflyHa-poAHoro npaBa. In CoBeTCKHii exeronHHK MexnyHapojiHoro npaBa, 1978. MocKBa, H3H-BO"Hayica", 1980. crp. II3-I24.

[Specific features of universal treaties codifying the rules of international law.]Herndl, Kurt. Zur Problematik der Gerichtsbarkeit iiber fremde Staaten. In Ius humanitatis, Festschrift zum 90.

Geburtstag von Alfred Verdross. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1980. p. 421-443.Hubbard, Damian. The International Law Commission and the new international economic order. In German

yearbook of international law, v. 22, 1979. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1980. p. 80-99.Mikulka, Vaclav and Busniak, Ivan. Zasedanf komise pro mezinarodnf pravo. Prdvnik (Praha) 119:272-280,

1980. no. 3.[The 31st Session of the International Law Commission.]

Schiitz, Hans-Joachim. Die Tatigkeit der International Law Commission im Jahre 1978. In German yearbookof international law, v. 22, 1979. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1980. p. 414-433.

Szasz, Paul C. Improving the international legislative process. Georgia journal of international and comparativelaw (Athens, Ga.) 9:519-533, fall 1979.

Vizthum, Wolfgang Graf. Friedlicher Wandel durch volkerrech tliche Rechtsetzung: zur Problematik des Ver-fahrens und der inhaltlichen Konsensbildung internationaler Kodifikationskonferenzen. In Delbriick, J.von. Volkerrecht und Kriegsverhutung: zur Entwicklung des Volkerrechts als Recht friedenssicherndenWandels. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1979. p. 123-211.

(VeroffentHchungen des Institutsfur internationales Recht an der Universitat Kiel, v. 82.)Recognition of StatesReconnaissance d'Etatsnpioiraime rocyaapcTBReconocimiento de EstadosDore, Isaak I. Recognition of Rhodesia and traditional international law: some conceptual problems. Vanderbilt

journal of transnational law (Nashville, Tenn.) 13:25—41, winter 1980. no. 1.

278

El-Ganzori, Abdel Azim. Consular relations and unrecognised regimes. In Revue egyptienne de droit inter-national, v. 34, 1978. Le Caire, Socidtd Egyptienne de droit international, 1978. p. 101-121.

Guest, Stephen. Three judicial doctrines of total recognition of revolutionary governments. Acta juridica (SouthAfrica) 1980. p. 1-48.

Klein, Eckart. Nichtanerkennungspolitik der Vereinten Nationen gegeniiber den in die Unabhangigkeit entlas-senen siidafrikanischen homelands. Zeitschrift fiir auslandisches qffentliches Recht und Volkerreckt (Stutt-gart) 39:469-495, 1979. no. 3.

Summary in English.

RefugeesReTugifa

Refugiados

Foighel, Isi. The legal status of the boat-people. Nordisk tidsskrift for international ret (K0benhavn) 48:217-243,1979. no. 3 ^ .

Hartling, P. The definition of refugee. Nordisk tidsskrift for international ret (K0benhavn) 48:111-142, 1979.no. 3-4.

Johnson, D. H. N. Refugees, departees and illegal migrants. Sydney law review (Sydney) 9:11-57, 1980.Kammann, K. Vietnamesische "Boat-People" — volkerrechtliche Aspekte. Verfassung und Recht in Ubersee

(Hamburg) 13:133-149, 1980.Weis, Paul. Nationality and statelessness in international law. 2nd ed. Alphen aan den Rijn, Sijthoff &

Noordhoff, 1979. 337 p.Bibliography: p. 313-321.

Weis, Paul. Refugees in orbit. In Israel yearbook on human rights, v. 10, 1980. Faculty of Law, Tel AvivUniversity, 1980. p. 157-166.

Right of asylumDroit d'asileFIpaBO y6e>KiiuiaDerecho de asilo

Grahl-Madsen, Atle. Territorial asyium. Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1980. 231 p. (Studiesin international law, Uppsala University, Swedish Institute of International Law, 1.)

Bibliography: p. 222-224,Schleifer, Nancy. Territorial asylum in the Americas : practical considerations for relocation. Lawyer of the

Americas (Coral Gables, Fla.) 12:359-380, spring 1980.

Self-defenceLegitime defenseCaMoofiopoHaLegftima defensa

Badr, Gamal Moursi. The exculpatory effect of self-defense in state responsibility. Georgia journal of inter-national and comparative law (Athens, Ga.) 10:1-28, winter 1980.

Self-determinationLibre determinationCaMOonpeflejieuneLibre determinacidn

Aponte Pdrez, Francisco. La descolonizacion vfa libre asociaci6n. Revista del Colegio de Abogados de PuertoRico (San Juan, Puerto Rico) 40:449-473, Agosto 1979.

Carpenter, Gretchen. The independence of Venda. In South African yearbook of international law, v. 5, 1979.Pretoria, University of South Africa, 1979. p. 40-62.

Collins, J. A. Self-determination in international law: the Palestinians. Case Western Resen'e journal ofinternational law (Cleveland) 12:137-167, winter 1980.

Grahl-Madsen, Atle. Decolonization: the modem version of a 'just war'. In German yearbook of internationallaw, v. 22, 1979. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1980. p. 255-273.

Ie, Masaharu. The United Nations and the application of the right of self-determination of peoples. Kobe,Kobeshi gaikokugo daigaku kenkyujo, 1980. 379 p.

In Japanese.

279

Kassim, Anis F. The Palestine Liberation Organization's claim to status: a juridical analysis under internationallaw. Denver journal of international law and policy (Denver, Colo.) 9:1-32, winter 1980.

Kroger, H. Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Volker und die biirgerliche Volkerrechtsdoktrin. Neue justiz (Berlin)34:290-294, 1980. no. 7.

Kussbach, Erich. Die Rechtsstellung nationaier Befreiungsbewegungen im humanitaren Volkerrecht. In Jushumanitatis, Festschrift zum 90. Geburtstag von Alfred Verdross. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1980. p.499-516.

Reinhard, H. Rechtsgleichheit und Selbstbestimmung der Volker in wirtschaftlicher Hinsicht: die Praxis derVereinten Nationen. Berlin, Springer, 1980. 373 p. (Beitrage zum auslandischen offentlichen Recht undVolkerrecht, 74.)

Rudolf, W. New states and international law. Law and state (Tubingen) 21:47-73, 1980.Silagi, Michael. Territoriale Integritat abhangiger Gebiete und Entkolinialisierung. Osterreichische Zeitschrift

fur Offentliches Recht und Volkerrecht (Wien) 30:235-256, 1979. no. 3-4.Uibopuu, Henn-Juri. Gedanken zu einem volkerrechtlichen Staatsbegriff. In Schreuer, C. von. Autoritat und

internationale Ordnung: Aufsatze zum Volkerrecht, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1979. p. 87-110.Valentine, Debra A. The logic of secession. Yale law journal (New Haven, Conn.) 89:802-824, March 1980.

Social defenceDefense sociale

Defensa socialBadr-El-Din, A. Crime trends and the role of the United Nations. International review of criminal policy (New

York) 35:71-75, 1979.Premont, Daniel. United Nations procedures for the protection of all persons subjected to any form of detention

or imprisonment. Santa Clara law review (Santa Clara, Calif.) 20:603-632, summer 1980.Williams, David W. Consular access to detained persons. International and comparative law quarterly (London)

29:238-249, April-July 1980.

State responsibilityResponsabilite des EtatsOTBeTCTBeHHOCTb TOCyflapCTBResponsabilidad de los Estados

Aldana, M. S. The international responsibility of States for injuries to aliens in recent international law. AnnArbor, University microfilms, 1980. 493 p. (Thesis — University of Minnesota.)

Ando, Nisuke. Responsibility of a State for acts of individuals outside of its territory; recent practice of Statesin the fields of nuclear liability, space law and marine pollution. Kobe hogaku zasshi (Kobe) 30:313-349,September 1980.

In Japanese.Dupuy, Pierre-Marie. Action publique et crime international de l'Etat: a propos de 1'article 19 du projet de

la Commission du droit international sur la responsabilite des Etats. In Annuaire frangais de droit inter-national, v. 25, 1979, Paris, Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1979, p. 539 a 554.

Graefrath, B. Volkerrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit der Staaten — ein wichtiges Instrument zur Durchsetzungdes Volkerrechts. Neue Justiz (Berlin) 3.4:252-255, 1980. no. 6.

Kwiatkowska-Czechowska, Barbara. Mfedzynarodowa odpowiedzialnos*c paristw za szkody pochodzenia tech-nologicznego i przemystowego. Sprawy miedzynarodowe (Warszawa) 32:107—118, Pazdziernik 1979.

[International responsibilities of States for technological and industrial damages.]Marek, Krystyna. Criminalizing state responsibility. Revue beige de droit international (Bruxelles) 14:46U-485,

1978/1979. no. 2.Molea, M. C. Raspunderea statelor in dreptul internajional contemporan. Craiova, Scrisul romanesc, 1978.

207 p.Takai, Susumu. A study on international responsibility of a State. Shin boei ronshu (Tokyo) 7:76-101, March

1980.In Japanese.

Usuki, Tomohito. Abuse of rights in international law. Hogakkai ronshu (Sapporo) 31:39-106; 601-687,August-November 1980.

In Japanese. Summary in English.

280

Verosta, Stephan. Zur Anwendung der Regel "Volenti non fit injuria" im Voikerrecht. In Ius humanitatis.Festschrift zum 90. Geburtstag von Alfred Verdross. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1980. p. 689-699.

Vrsansky, P. Pojem zodpovednost v medzinarodnom prave. Pravny obzor (Bratislava) 63:905-914, 1980.no. 10.

[Notion of responsibility in international law.]

State sovereigntySouverainete' des EtatsrocynapcTBeHHbiii cyBepeHHTeTSoberanfa de los Estados

Avramov, Smilja. Suverenitet u savremenoj doktrini i praksi. Jugoslovenska revija za medunarodno pravo(Beograd) 26:29^0, 1979. no. 1-3.

[Sovereignty in contemporary doctrine and practice.]BapaTauiBHJiH, JX- H. npHHmin cyBepeHHOro paBeHCTBa rocynapcTB B MeatayHapo/iHOM npaBe. MocKBa,

HayKa, 1978. crrp. 116.Bouchez, L. J. The nature and scope of state immunity from jurisdiction and execution. In Netherlands yearbook

of international law, v. 10, 1979. Alphen aan den Rijn, Sijthoff & Noordhoff, 1980. p. 3-33.Graefrath, B. Zur neuen Qualitat des Souveranitatsprinzips. Neue justiz (Berlin) 34:395-398, 1980. no. 9.Kahale, III, George and Vega, Matias A. Immunity and jurisdiction: toward a uniform body of law in actions

against foreign states. Columbia journal of transnational law (New York) 18:211-258, 1979. no. 2.Meister, R. Interdependenztheorien contra Souveranitatsprinzip. Staat und Recht (Potsdam) 29:56-63, 1980.

no. 1.Monserrat Filho, J. National sovereignty: decline or progression. Review of contemporary law (Brussels) no.

1:29-56, 1979.State immunity. In International Law Association. Report of the 58th Conference held at Manila, August 27th

to September 2nd 1978. London, 1980. p. 443-449.Verdross, Alfred, Bruno Simma, und Rudolf Geiger. TerritorialeSouveranitatundGebietshoheit. Osterreichische

Zeitschrift fur offentliches Recht und Voikerrecht (Wien) 31:223-245, Dezember 1980. no. 3-4.

State successionSuccession d'EtatsIlpaBonpeeMCTBO rocyflapcrBSucesidn de los Estados

Nakagawa, Tooru. The Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties. Seijigaku ronshu(Tokyo) 11:1-29, March 1980.

In Japanese.Obradovic", Konstantin. Pitanje sukcesije drzava u svetlosti rada Komisije UN za medunarodno pravo. Jugo-

slovenska revija za medunarodno pravo (Beograd) 26:112-124, 1979. no. 1-3.[Le probleme de la succession d'Etats a la lueur des travaux de la Commission du droit international

de l'ONU.]

Technical co-operationCooperation techniqueTexHHiecKoe coTpyAHtnecrBOCooperacidn tecnica

Ernst, D. International transfer of technology, technological dependence and development strategies: issues fordebate at UNCSTD. Law and state (Tubingen) 20:70-86, 1979.

JIa3apeB, M. H. MexflyHapojiHoe npaBO H HayHHO—TexHHHecKaa peBOJiromra. In COBCTCKHHe>KeronHHK MejKnyHaponHoro npaBa, 1978. MocKBa, H3fl—BO "HayKa", 1980. crp. 41-71.

[International law and scientific and technological revolution.]Lyon-Allen, Mary Martha. The United Nations Conference on Science and Technology for Development: the

international negotiation of technological relations. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms International,1979. 275 p.

Thesis (Ph.D.) George Washington University, Washington, D.C., 1979.Bibliography: p. 267-275.

Menck, K. W. The promotion of science and technology as part of international development cooperation. Lawand state (Tubingen) 20:44-69, 1979.

281

Nanyenya-Takirambudde, Peter. Technology transfer and international law. New York, Praeger, 1980. 177 p.(Praeger special studies.)

Includes bibliographical references.Radway, Robert J. Comparative evolution of technology transfer policies in Latin America: the practical

realities. Denver journal of international law and policy (Denver, Colo.) 9:197-215, summer 1980.Rittberger, V. The new international order and United Nations conference politics: science and technology as

an issue area. Law and stale (Tubingen) 20:9-43, 1979.Schlieder, W. C. Wettbewebsregeln fur den Technologietransfer. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz and Urheberrecht

(Weinheim) 82:451-456, Mai 1980.Trade and developmentCommerce et developpementToproBJia H pa3BiiTiieComercio y desarrollo

Albadawy, Ali Adel Abdul-Khalek. Restructuring of world shipping capacity under the conditions of the UnitedNations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on a Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences. Ann Arbor, Mich.,University Microfilms International, 1980. 134 p.

Bibliography: p. 90-93.Balz, M. Das UNCTAD-Ubereinkommen uber den internationalen multimodalen Giiterverkehr. Zeitschrift fiir

Luft-und Weltraumrecht (Koln) 29:303-322, Dezember 1980.Benson, R. B. The Geneva diplomatic conference for the revision of the Paris convention: remarks from the

private sector. Intellectual property law review (New York) 12:29-35, 1980.Chalmin, Ph. International commodity trading companies. Journal of world trade law (London) 14:535-541,

November-December 1980.Chavanne, A. et Burst, J. J. Droit de la propri6t6 industrielle. 2C ed. Paris, Dalloz, 1980,658 p. (Precis Dalloz).Davidow, Joel. The UNCTAD restrictive business practices code. International lawyer (Chicago) 13:587-605,

fall 1979.Diamond, S. A. The Geneva diplomatic conference on the revision of the Paris convention. Intellectual property

law review (New York) 12:3-11, 1980.FitzGerald, G. F. The United Nations Convention on the International Multimodal Transport of Goods. In

Annals of air and space law, v. 5, 1980. Toronto, Carswell, 1980. p. 51-88.Gansser, G. R. Violations of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. International review

of industrial property & copyright law (Weinheim) 11:1-26, February 1980.Gill, David G. The UNCTAD restrictive business practices code: a code for competition? International lawyer

(Chicago) 13:607-617, fall 1979.Grewlich, K. W. Mogliche Losungen schiffahrtspolitischer Gegensatze im Nord-Sud- und Ost-West-Verhaltnis

durch den UNCTAD-KODEX fur Linienkonferenzen. Recht der Internationalen Wirtscliaft (Heidelberg)26:398-405, Juni 1980.

Hanisch, R. Kakaopolitik: das Ringen der Entwicklungslander mit den Industrielandern um die Regulierungeines Rohstoffmarktes. Vetfassung und Recht in Ubersee (Hamburg) 11:27-57, 1978.

Hayman, Christopher. International shipping. In Barston, R. P. and P. Birnie, ed. The maritime dimension.London, G. Allen & Unwin, 1980. p. 128-141.

Jayagovind, A. The international patent system and the developing countries. Indian journal of internationallaw (New Delhi) 20:47-62, January-March 1980.

Kirk, M. K. Diplomatic conference on revision of the Paris convention: substantive discussions. Intellectualproperty law review (New York) 12:13-27, 1980.

Kirk, M. K. Revision of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property: major issues of interestto developing countries. In Brookhart, W. R. and others. Current international legal aspects of licensingand intellectual property, 1980. Chicago, American Bar Association, 1980. p. 1-19.

Kullmann, Ulrich. Fair labour standards in international commodity agreements. Journal of world trade law(London) 14:527-535, November-December 1980.

Langhammer, Rolf J. Multilateral trade liberalization among developing countries. Journal of world trade law(London) 14:508-515, November-December 1980.

Mangini, V. Trasferimento di tecnologia ai paesi in via di sviluppo: materiali per una valutazione realistica.Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (Padova) 15:43-71, gennaiomarzo 1979.

282

Merloz, Georges. La Conference de Manille : une pause — CNUCED V : 7 mai-3 juin 1979. In Annuairefranqais de droit international, v. 25, 1979.

Neff, Stephen C. The UN Code of Conduct for Liner Conference. Journal of world trade law (London)14:398-423, September-October, 1980.

Odier, Franchise. Le Code de conduite des conferences maritimes. In Annuaire franqais de droit international,v. 25, 1979, Paris, Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1979, p. 686 a 692.

Paragamian, J. B. Common Fund: development, mechanics and forecasts. Law and policv in internationalbusiness (Washington, D.C.) 11:1193-1211, 1979. no. 3.

Roffe, Pedro. UNCTAD: Code of Conduct for the Transfer of Technology: progress and issues under negotiation.Journal of world trade law (London) 14:160-172, March-April 1980.

Rothstein, R. L. Global bargaining: UNCTAD and the quest for a new international economic order. Princeton,N.J., Princeton University Press, 1979. 286 p.

Slot, P. J. National regulation of maritime transport and international public law. Netherlands internationallaw review (Leyden) 26:329-346, 1979. no. 3.

Theberge, Leonard J. Law and economic development. Denver journal of international taw and policy (Denver,Colo.) 9:231-238, summer 1980.

UNCTAD: model law on restrictive business practices. Journal of world trade law (London) 14:444-449,September-October 1980.

UNCTAD: Restrictive Business Practices Conference. Journal of world trade law (London) 14:172-179, March-April 1980.

Vrany, Jan. K p<itemu zasedani Konference o obchodu a rozvoj v Manile. Mezindrondnivztahy (Praha) 14:24-33,1979. no. 5.

[On the fifth session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in Manila.]Wassermann, Ursula. Breakdown of the International Cocoa Agreement. Journal of world trade law (London)

14:360-361, July-August 1980.Wassermann, Ursula. UNCTAD: agreement on the Common Fund. Journal of world trade law (London)

14:541-545, November-December 1980.Use of forceEmploi de la forceripnMeneiine ciuibiUso de la fuerzaFeinberg, Nathan. The legality of the use of force to recover occupied territory. Israel law review (Jerusalem)

15:160-179, April 1980.Fukatsu, Eiichi. Economic coercion and international law. Kokusaiho gaiko zasshi (Tokyo) 78:567-603,

February 1980.In Japanese. Summary in English.

Jacewicz, Andrzej. The concept of force in the United Nations Charter. In Polish yearbook of internationallaw, v. 9, 1977-1978. Warsaw, Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of State and Law, 1980. p. 137-159.

Kassar, Nagat T. The legal limits to the use of international force through the United Nations practice. In Revueegyptienne de droit international, v. 35, 1979. Le Caire, Societe egyptienne de droit international, 1979.p. 163-236.

McDougal, Myres S. Authority to use force on the high seas. In U.S. Naval War College. Newport. Internationallaw studies, v. 61. Newport, R.I., Naval War College Press, 1980. p. 551-562.

Mochowska, Katarzyna. Zasada niestosowania si Xy w stosunkach miedzynarodowych. Sprawy miedzynaro-dowe (Warszawa) 33:105-118, Wrzesieri 1980.

[The principle of the non-use of force in international relations.]

283

C. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS RELATED TO THE UNITED NATIONSORGANISATIONS INTERGOUVERNEMENTALES RELIEES A L'ORGANISATION DESNATIONS UNIESMEJKnPABHTEJIbCTBEHHblE OPrAHH3AUMH,CB5I3AHHbIE C OPrAHH3AIJHEMOET>EHHHEHHbIX HALJ.HHORGANIZACIONESINTERGUBERNAMENTALES RELACIONADAS CON LAS NACIONES UNIDAS

Particular organizationsOutrages concernant certaines organisationsOmdeAbHbie opzaHuzaufiuOrganizaciones particulares

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsOrganisation des Nations Unies pour l'alimentation et ['agricultureITpoflOBonbCTBeHHaM H cejibCKOxO3aHCTBeuuaa opraumauHH OGbeflmieiiHbix HauiitiOrganization de las Nadones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentation

Alheritiere, D. Environmental impact assessment and forestry law. Unasylva (Rome) 31:27-34, 1980. no. 125.Also in French and Spanish.

Beurier, J. P. La legislation des pecheries et l'organisation structurelle du secteur des peches en Algerie. Rome,Organisation des Nations Unies pour Paiimentation et Pagriculture, 1980, 78 p. (DP/ALG/77/001.)

Bombin, L. M. Consultant report on dairy legislation in Pakistan. Islamabad, Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations, 1980. 46 p. (FAO/UNDP Project PAK/74/018.)

Bombin, L. M. and Zijp, M. J. Consultant report on seed legislation in Sudan. Rome, Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations, 1980. 71 p. (DP/SUD/71/550.)

Christy, L. C. Fisheries legislation in Somalia. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,1980. 53 p. (FL/IOR/80/1.)

Christy, L. C. and R. Rackowe. Management of fishing vessels: Somalia. Rome, Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations, 1980. 22 p. (IOP/TECH/79/34.)

Du Saussay, C. La legislation sur la faune, la chasse et les aires protegees dans certains pays europeens. Rome,Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'alimentation et 1'agriculture, 1980, 54 p. (Etude legislative n° 20.)

Evans, E. Liberia: fisheries law, second interim report. Dakar, FAO/UNDP Project for the Development ofFisheries in the Eastern Central Atlantic, 1980. 9 p. (CECAF/TECH/80/24.)

Evans, E. Sierra Leone: an act to provide for the management and development of fisheries. Dakar, FAO/UNDP Project for the Development of Fisheries in the Eastern Central Atlantic, 1980. 54 p. (CECAF/TECH/80/20.)

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Report to the Government of Oman on legal andinstitutional aspects of fisheries management in Oman: a new fisheries law. Based on the work of J.C.Mundt. Rome, 1980, 84 p. (FAO/UTFN/OMA/002/OMA.)

James, R. H. Case study of a fisheries joint venture, 1971-1979: paper presented at the Indian Ocean trainingworkshops on joint ventures and other commercial arrangements in fisheries, Colombo, Sri Lanka,21 January-1 February 1980. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1980.176 p.

Meseguer, J. C. and El Ahmadi, M. Framework agreements for the establishment of joint venture cooperationbetween states in marine fisheries: a case study of the agreement on cooperation in marine fisheries betweenSpain and Morocco of 17 February 1977. Paper presented at the Indian Ocean Training Workshop on jointventures and other commercial arrangements in fisheries, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 21 January-I February1980.

Moore, G. Fisheries legislation in Sri Lanka. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,1980. 81 p. (IOP/TECH/80/36.)

Vails, M. F. La legislation del agua en los pafses de la America del Sur. Roma, Organizaci6n de las NacionesUnidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentation, 1980. 167 pags. (Estudio legislativo No. 19.)

General Agreement on Tariffs and TradeAccord general sur les tarifs douaniers et le commerceFeHepanbHoe corjiamemie HO Tapn(pa.M II ToproBJieAcuerdo General sobre Aranceles Aduaneros y Comercio

Balassa, Bela. The Tokyo Round and the developing countries. Journal of world trade law (London) 14:93-118,March-April 1980.

284

Grennes, Thomas. Economic interdependence and the variability of tariffs. Journal of world trade law (London)14:242-245, May-June 1980.

Heller, J. International trade: GATT Tokyo Round. Hansard international law journal (Cambridge, Mass.)20:695-703, fall 1979.

Hudec, Robert E. GATT dispute settlement after the Tokyo Round: an unfinished business. Cornell internationallaw journal (Ithaca, N.Y.) 13:145-203, summer 1980.

Hufbauer, G. C, J. Shelton Erb and H. P. Starr. The GATT codes and the unconditional most-favored-nationprinciple. Law and policy in international business (Washington, D.C.) 12:59-93, 1980. no. 1.

Imhoof, R. S. Le GATT et les zones de libre-echange. Geneve, Georg, 1979, 251 p. (Etudes suisses de droitinternational, 18.)

Jackson, John H. The birth of the GATT-MTN system : a constitutional appraisal. Law and policy in internationalbusiness (Washington, D.C.) 12:21-58, 1980. no. 1.

Kelkar, Vijay Laxman. GATT, export subsidies and developing countries. Journal of world trade law (London)14:369-373, July-August 1980.

Lesguillons, Henry. L'Accord sur les marches publics. Droit et pratique du commerce international (Paris)6:545-573, decembre 1980.

Lowenfeld, Andreas F. Fair or unfair trade: does it matter? Cornell international law journal (Ithaca, N.Y.)13:205-219, summer 1980.

Meier, Gerald M. The Tokyo Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations and the developing countries. Cornellinternational law journal (Ithaca, N.Y.) 13:239-256, summer 1980.

Middleton, R. W. The GATT Standards Code. Journal of world trade law (London) 14:201-219, May-June1980.

Roessler, Frieder. GATT declaration on trade measures taken for balance-of-payments purposes: a commentary.Case Western Reserve journal of international law (Cleveland, Ohio) 12:383-403, spring 1980.

Yusuf, Abdulqawi A. Differential and more favourable treatment: the GATT enabling clause. Journal of worldtrade law (London) 14:488-507, November-December 1980.

Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative OrganizationOrganisation intergouvernementale consultative de la navigation maritimeMewnpaBHTejibCTBeHHaii Mopcnan KOiicyjii/raTHBHaH opramnauiiflOrganizacidn Consuttiva Maritima Intergubernamental

Blaschczok, C. Internationale Haftungsregelung fur Schaden beim Transport gefahrlicher Stoffe auf See. Rechtder Internationalen Wirtschaft (Heidelberg) 26:552-556, August 1980.

De Yturriaga, J. A. Regional conventions on the protection of marine environment. In Recueil des cours deVAcadtmie de droit international de La Haye, 1979-IH. Alphen aan den Rijn, Sijthoff & Noordhoff, 1980,p. 319 a 449.

Dobbert, J. P. Protocol to control pollution in the Mediterranean. Environmental policy and law (Lausanne)6:110-114, September 1980.

Hong, S. Y. Some insights into criminal liability for marine pollution. Korean journal of comparative law(Seoul) 8:70-109, 1980.

Kriscunas, Robert. Vessel-source oil pollution: legal, administrative and technical aspects of a global environ-ment problem. In Comparative law yearbook, v. 2, 1978. Alphen aan den Rijn, Sijthoff & Noordhoff,1979. p. 237-284.

Lester, James P. Domestic structure and international technological collaboration: ocean pollution regulation.Ocean development and international law (New York) 8:299-335, 1980. no. 4.

M'Gonigle, R. M. and M. W. Zacher. Pollution, politics, and international law: tankers at sea. Berkeley,Calif., University of California Press, 1979. 394 p. (Science, technology, and the changing worldorder, 2.)

Mizukami, Chiyuki. Recent activities relating to international regulations of marine pollution. Kokusai mondai(Tokyo) 248:34-39, November 1980.

Roat, Rachel. Promulgation and enforcement of minimum standards for foreign flag ships. Brooklyn journalof international law (Brooklyn, N.Y.) 6:54-87, spring 1980.

International Atomic Energy AgencyAgence internationale de l'energie atomiqueMexcnyitapoAHoe areHTCTBo no aroMHoii aiieprmiOrganismo Internacional de Energia Atomica

Breining, W. Reform of liability in nuclear law. Nuclear law bulletin (Paris) no. 25:76-79, June 1980.

285

GangI, Walter T. Ihejus cogens dimensions of nuclear technology. Cornell international law journal (Ithaca,N.Y.) 13:63-87, winter 1980.

Goldschmidt, R. The negotiation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). International Atomic Energy Agencybulletin (Vienna) 22:73-80, August 1980.

Gros Espiell, H. The non-proliferation of nuclear weapons in Latin America. International Atomic EnergyAgency bulletin (Vienna) 22:81-86, August 1980.

Hebert, Jean. French case law and the use of nuclear energy. Nuclear law bulletin (Paris) 25:57-69, June 1980.Kausch, H. G. Die Internationale friedliche Nutzung derKernenergie im System des Nichtverbreitungsvertrages.

In Delbriick, J. von. Volkerrecht und Kriegsverhiitung: zur Entwicklung des Volkerrechts als Rechtfriedenssichernden Wandels. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1979. p, 259-274. (Veroffentlichungen desInstituts fur international Recht an der Universitat Kiel, v. 82.)

Ladomery, L. G. and F. Nocera. Technical and legal aspects relating to the labelling of irradiated foodstuffs.Nuclear law bulletin (Paris) no. 26:45-52, December 1980.

Legendre, C. Un projet de convention sur la responsabilite" et l'indemnisation dans le contexte du transport parmer de substances nocives et dangereuses. In Annuaire de droit maritime, v. 5, 1980. Nantes, Universite.Centre de droit maritime et adrien, 1980, p. 153 a 162.

Legislagao nuclear; direito nuclear. Nuclear legislation; nuclear law. Rio de Janeiro, Associagao Brasileira deDireito Nuclear, 1980. 139 p. (vol. 1.)

Pfaffelhuber, J. K. and B. Kuckuck. Standard rules for liability and cover for nuclear installations. Nuclearlaw bulletin (Paris) no. 25:70-75, June 1980.

Rausch, Heribert. Schweizerisches Atomenergierecht: Swiss atomic energy law. Zurich, Schulthess, 1980.250 p.

Sandstroem, S. G. After the referendum. Nuclear law bulletin (Paris) no. 26:53-57, December 1980.Siazon, D. L. The Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. International Atomic Energy

Agency bulletin (Vienna) 22:57-62, August 1980.Sim, D. F. and K. J. S. Ritchie. Summary of the law relating to atomic energy and radioactive substances as

at March 1980. Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency, 1980. 21 p.Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Internationalization to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

London, Taylor and Francis, 1980. 223 p.Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The NPT, the main political barrier to nuclear weapon

proliferation. London, Taylor and Francis Ltd., 1980. 66 p.MoHptim, A. M. npaBOBbie npo6jieMbi <pH3HHecK0fi 3amnTbi $mepHbix MaxepHajiou. CoeemcKoe

zocydapcmeo u npaeo (MocKBa), Xs 8 : 83-87, 1980.[Legal problems of physical protection of nuclear materials.]

International Civil Aviation OrganizationOrganisation de l'aviation civile InternationaleMexcRyHapoAHaJi opraHH3an;iui rpayK^aiicKofi aBHanHHOrganization de Aviation Civil Internacional

Bockstiegel, Karl-Heinz. Ebenen und Regelungsstand Iuftrechtlicher Haftungssysteme. Zeitschrift ffir Luft- undWeltraumrechl (Koln) 28:341-351, Dezember 1979.

Bogaert, E. Van. The relativity of the notion of the law of the air. Studia diplomatica (Bruxelles) 32:621-638,1979.

Camarda, G. Profili di illegittimita constituzionale dell'Art. 943 Cod. nav., dell'Art. 22 della Convenzione diVarsavia e delPArt. 11 del Protocollo dell'Aja. Diritto aereo (Roma) 18:1-16, 1979. no. 1.

Fingerman, Mark E. Skyjacking and the Bonn Declaration of 1978: sanctions applicable to recalcitrant nations.California Western international law journal (San Diego, Calif.) 10:123-152, winter 1980.

Folchi, M. O., y Cosentino, E. T. Derecho aeronautico y transporte aereo. Buenos Aires, Editorial Astrea deA. y R. Depalma, 1977. 403 pags.

Fujita, Katsutoshi. On the ICAO's work in the legal field and its result for last two years. Hogaku zasshi(Osaka) 26:461-509, June 1980.

In Japanese.Guldimann, Werner. Air law an autonomous system. In Annals of air and space law, v. 5, 1980. Toronto,

Carswell, 1980. p. 119-132.Heller, Paul P. From unification to fragmentation in international civil aviation. In German yearbook of

international law, v. 22, 1979. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1980. p. 292-312.

286

Hughes, William J. Aerial intrusions by civil airliners and the use of force. Journal of air law and commerce(Dallas, Tex.) 45:595-620, spring 1980.

Kizzia, Brad. Liability of air carriers for injuries to passengers resulting from domestic hijackings and relatedincidents. Journal of air law and commerce (Dallas, Tex.) 46:147-200, fall 1980.

McGilchrist, N. R. Is Warsaw convention liability contractual in nature? Lloyd's maritime and commercial lawquarterly (London) M81-185, May 1979.

Mankiewicz, R. H. Comparative law and the International Civil Aviation Organization. In International lawin comparative perspective, ed. by William E. Butler. Alphen aan den Rijn, Sijthoff & Noordhoff, 1980.p. 269-276.

Mateesco-Matte, Mircea. Should the Warsaw system be denounced or "integrated"? In Annals of air and spacelaw, v. 5, 1980. Toronto, Carswell, 1980. p. 201-221.

Salacuse, Jeswald W. The little prince and the businessman: conflicts and tensions in public international airlaw. Journal of air law and commerce (Dallas) 45:807-844, summer 1980.

Schoner, D. Die internationale Rechtsprechung zum Warschauer Abkommen in den Jahren 1977 bis 1980.Zeitscltrift fur Luft- und Weltraumrecht (Koln) 29:327-389, Dezember 1980.

Sheinfeld, D. I. From Warsaw to Tenerife: a chronological analysis of the liability limitations imposed pursuantto the Warsaw convention. Journal of air law and commerce (Dallas) 45:653-683, spring 1980.

CMbicnoBa, H. H, K Bonpocy o npaBOBOM conepaoHHH noHHTHs "BO3HyuiHoe CVHHO". In COBCTCKHH

OKeroflHHK MOKflyHapojiHoro npaBa, 1978. MoCKBa, M3H-BO "HayKa", 1980. crp. 200-213.[On the question of the legal meaning of the notion "aircraft".]

Speiser, Stuart M. and Charles F. Krause. Aviation tort law. Rochester, N.Y., Lawyers Co-operative Pub.Co., 1978. Vols. 1-3.

Includes bibliographical references.Videla Escalada, Federico N. Aeronautical law. Alphen aan den Rijn, Sijthoff en Noordhoff, 1979. 869 p.

Bibliography: p. 847-861.International Labour OrganisationOrganisation internationale du TravailMexAyHapoAHan opraHH3au,Hn ipyftaOrganization International del TrabajoJoblin, J. The role of NGOs in the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Transnational associations (Brus-

sels) no. 2:78-83, 1980.Landy, Ernest A. Implementation procedures of the International Labor Organization. Santa Clara law review

(Santa Clara, Calif.) 20:633-663, summer 1980.Meron, T. Violations of ILO conventions by the USSR and Czechoslovakia. American journal of international

law (Washington, D. C.) 74:206-211, January 1980.Naszkowski, M. M.O.P. na tie przemian wsp61czesnego swiata, Warszawa, Polski Instytut Spraw Miedzy-

narodowych, 1980. 96 p.Pasdzior, B. Wyznaczanie paristw o najwiekszym znaczeniu w przemysle do rady adminstracyjnej M.O.P.

Przegld stosunkdw miedzynarodowych (Opole) no. 5:61-75, 1978.Raetsen, M. J. E. H. en Van Der Ven, J. J. M. Internationale Arbeidsorganisatie van 1919 tot 1979: opmerkingen

over toen en nu. Alphen aan den Rijn, Samson, 1979. 64 p. (Geschriften van de Vereniging voorArbeitsrecht, i.)

Valticos, Nicolas. Comparative law and international labor law. In International law in comparative perspective,ed. by William E. Butler. Alphen aan den Rijn, Sijthoff & Noordhoff, 1980. p. 277-293.

Valticos, Nicolas. Le droit international du travail face aux problemes de la societe internationale de 1980.Revue beige de droit international (Bruxelles) 15:5-19, 1980, n° 1.

Valticos, Nicolas. Future prospects for international labour standards. International labour review (Geneva)118:679-697. November-December 1979.

Valticos, Nicolas. Mise en parallele des actions et des me'canismes de controle au niveau du Conseil de l'Europeet de ('Organisation internationale du Travail. Bruxelles, Universitd libre. Institut d'&udes europe"ennes.Charte sociale europ£enne : dix ans d'application. Bruxelles, 1978, p. 237 a 265.

Valticos, Nicolas. Le role des normes internationales du travail dans la communaute mondiale d'aujourd'hui,La comunita internazionale (Padova) 34:600-614, 1979-

Also in Revue roumaine d'etudes internationales (Bucarest) 14:77-90, 1980, n°* 1 et 2.

287

International Monetary FundFonds monctairc internationalMe%oyHapoAHbiff BajiioTHufi <ponaFondo Monetario Internacional

Aronson, Jonathan David. Financial institutions in the international monetary system. Case Western Resenejournal ofinternational law (Cleveland) 12:341-361, spring 1980.

Artus, J. R. and Crockett, A. D. National sovereignty and international cooperation overexchange arrangements.Case Western Reserve journal of international law (Cleveland, Ohio) 12:327-339, Spring 1980.

Atlantic Council of the United States. Working Group on International Monetary Affairs. The internationalmonetary system in transition. Washington, D.C., 1980. 45 p.

Bigman, David and Teizo Taya, ed. Functioning of floating exchange rates: theory, evidence and policyimplications. Cambridge, Mass., Ballinger, 1980. 419 p.

Briceno Berrii, J. E. Effetti della politica creditizia del Fondo monetario internazionale sui paesi in via disviluppo, Diritto communitario e degliscambi internazionali (Milano) 18:635-647, ottobre-dicembre 1979.

Caffe, F. Su alcune trasformazioni recenti del Fondo monetario internazionale. Conumita internazionale(Padova) 33:525-531, 1978. no. 4.

Dormael, A. V. Bretton Woods: birth of a monetary system. London, Macmillan, 1979. 322 p.Finger, J. M. and D. A. Derosa. Compensatory finance facility and export instability. Journal of world trade

law (London) 14:14-22, January-February 1980.Flint, D. Some legal implications of fluctuating exchange rates. Australian law journal (Sydney) 54:211-225,

April 1980.Gianviti, Frangois. Le blocage des avoirs officiels iraniens par les Etats-Unis : executive order du 14 novembre

1979. Revue critique de droit international prive (Paris) 69:279-303, avril-juin 1980.Gianviti, Frangois. Le controle des changes etranger devant le juge national. Revue critique de droit international

prive (Paris) 69:479-502, juillet-septembre 1980, 69:659-703,octobre-decembre 1980.Gold, Joseph. El cambiante papel del oro en el derecho monetario internaciona!. Juridica (Mexico, D.F.)

12:237-280, 1980.Gold, Joseph. Les clauses de monnaies convertibles dans le cadre des dispositions monetaires Internationales

actuelles. Revue critique de droit international prive (Paris) 69:1—40,.janvier-mars 1980.Gold, Joseph. The Fund agreement in the courts — XV. International Monetary Fund staff papers (Washington,

D.C.) 27:601-624, September 1980.Gold, Joseph. The legal character of the Fund's stand-by arrangements and why it matters. Washington, D.C,

International Monetary Fund, 1980, 53 p. (Pamphlet series, no. 35.)Gold, Joseph. The rule of law in the International Monetary Fund. Washington, D.C, International Monetary

Fund, 1980. 96 p. (Pamphlet series, no. 32.)Gold, Joseph. SDRs, currencies and gold: fourth survey of new legal developments. Washington, D.C,

International Monetary Fund, 1980. 136 p. (Pamphlet series, no. 33.)Gold, Joseph. Substitution in the international monetary system. Case Western Reserve journal of international

law (Cleveland) 12:265-326, spring 1980.Gold, Joseph. Symmetry as a legal objective of the international monetary system. New York University journal

of international law and politics (New York) 12:423-477, winter 1980.Goreux, Louis M. Compensatory financing facility. Washington, D.C, International Monetary Fund, 1980.

84 p. (Pamphlet series, no. 34.)Hahn, H. J. Value clauses and international monetary law. In German yearbook of international law, v. 22,

1979. Berlin, Duncker and Humblot, 1979, p. 53-79.International financial law: lending, capital transfers and institutions. London: Euromoney Publications, 1980.

319 p.Includes bibliographical references.

International Monetary Fund. Annual report of the Executive Board for the financial year ended April 30, 1980.Washington, D.C, 1980. 209 p.

Also in French, German and Spanish.International Monetary Fund. Summary proceedings of the thirty-fifth annual meeting of the Board of Governors,

September 30-Gttober 3, 1980. Washington, D.C, 1980. 367 p.

288

International monetary law: value clauses and the changing international monetary scheme. In InternationalLaw Association Report of the 58th Conference held at Manila, August 27th to September 2nd, 1978.London, 1980. p. 339-368.

Rendell, Robert S., ed. International financial law: lending, capital transfers and institutions. London, Euro-money Publications, 1980. 304 p..

Rey, J. J. Le compte de substitution de Rio a Hambourg ? Revue de la banque (Bruxelles) 44:221-242, 1980.South-North Conference on the International Monetary System and the New International Order, Arusha, 30

June-3 July 1980. Development dialogue (Uppsala) 1980:1-157.Southard, Jr., Frank A. Evolution of the International Monetary Fund. North Carolina journal of international

law and commercial regulation (Chapel Hill. N.C.) 5:425-468, summer 1980.Tobolewski, A. The special drawing right in liability conventions: an acceptable solution? Lloyd's maritime

and commercial law quarterly (London) : 169-180, May 1979.Triffin, R. L'avenir du systeme monetaire international. Revue de la banque (Bruxelles) 44:93-122, 1980.Triffin, R. The future of the international monetary system. Banco Nazionale del Lavoro quarterly review

(Roma) no. 132:29-55, March 1980.

International Telecommunication UnionUnion internationale des telecommunicationsMejKflyuapOJtflblH COH>3 3JieKTpOCBfl3HUnidn Internaciona! de Telecomunicaciones

Novotny, Eric J. Transborder data flows and international law: A framework for policy-oriented inquiry.Stanford journal of international law (Stanford, Calif.) 16:141-180, summer 1980.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural OrganizationOrganisation des Nations Unies pour Peducation, la science et la cultureOpraHH3an,Hii O6i>e,nHHemibix HaipiH no eonpocaM o6pa3OB3Hnji, HayKH HOrganization de las Naciones Unidas para la Education, la Ciencia y la CulturaAkashi, Yasushi. Le renforcement du rale des Nations Unies et le nouvel ordre international de I'information.

Revue roumaine d'etudes Internationales (Bucarest) 14:353-355, 1980, n° 4.Alston, Philip. UNESCO's procedure for dealing with human rights violations. Santa Clara law review (Santa

Clara, Calif.) 20:665-696, summer 1980.Hoc, Stanislaw. Miedzynarodowa wspopraca paristw w walce z zaborem dzie sztuki. Sprawy miedzynarodowe

(Warszawa) 32:95-106, Grudzieri 1979.[International co-operation of States against the seizure of works of art.]

Liicke, J. Ein internationales Recht auf Kommunikation: zu den Bemuhungen der UNESCO um ein individuelles,staatliches, kollektives und institutionelles Recht auf Kommunikation. Tubingen, Mohr, 1979. 34 p. (Rechtund Staat in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 494/495.)

Ringer, B. and L. I. Flacks. Applicability of the Universal Copyright Convention to certain works in the publicdomain in their country of origin. Bulletin of the copyright society of the U.S.A. (New York)27:157-204, February 1980.

LUeBHOBa, C. O. MeaaiyHapoSHo-npaBOBoe peryjiHposaHne MaccoBoii iiHcpopMaunn. CoeemcKoezocydapcmeo u npaeo (MocKBa), Ns I : 99-103, 1980.

Also in English: Regulation of mass information by international law. Soviet Law and government(White Plains, N.Y.) 19:51-60, 1980.

Vychodil, Frantisek. Za novy mezinarodnf tnformacnf rad. Mezindrodni vztahv (Praha) 14:48-59, 1979.no. 3.

[For the new international information order.]

United Nations Industrial Development OrganizationOrganisation des Nations Unies pour le de*veloppement industrielOpranH3an,HH OS-be^mieuHbix HanHii no npoMbiujjieHHOMj pa3BHTHK>Organizaci6n de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo IndustrialBretton, Philippe. La transformation de l'ONUDI en institution specialisee des Nations Unies. In Annuaire

francais de droit international, v. 25, 1979, Paris, Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1979,p. 567 a 578.

289

World BankBanque mondialeBceMiipHbifi 6amcBanco Mundial

Marmorstein, V. E. World bank power to consider human rights factors in loan decisions. Journal of inter-national law and economics (Washington, D.C.) 13:113-136, 1978. no. 1.

International Centre for Settlement of Investment DisputesCentre international pour le reglement des differends relatifs aux investissements international^MexdyHapodHbtu u,enmp no ypezynupoeanum uHeecmuu,uoHHbtx cnopoeCentro Internacional de arreglo de diferencias relativas a inversiones

Broches, Aron. The "additional facility" of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes(ICSID). In Yearbook: commercial arbitration, v. 4, 1979. Deventer, Kluwer, 1979. p. 373-379.

O'Keefe, Patrick J. The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). In The year bookof world affairs, v. 34, 1980. London, Stevens, 1980. p. 286-304.

Toriello, Pierluigi. The additional facility of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes.In Italian yearbook of international law, v. 4, 1978-1979. Napoli, Editoriale scientifica, 1980. p. 59-83.

World Intellectual Property OrganizationOrganisation mondiale de la propriety intellectuelleBce.MHpHafl OpramoaiuiH no oxpaHC nnTejiJieKTya.ibHOii coScTBeiiHocTiiOrganization Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual

Beme Union and international copyright and neighbouring rights in 1979. Copyright (Geneva) 16:113-120,March 1980.

Gaudrat, P. La protection de 1'auteur lors d'une retransmission spatiale de son oeuvre. Revue Internationale dudroit d'auteur (Paris) n° 104:3-55, 1980.

Hoepffner, G. Reform der Struktur und Arbeitsweise der Internationalen Vereinigung fur gewerblichenRechtsschutz (IVfgR). Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (Weinheim) 82:412-416, Mai 1980.

Manso, E. J. V. Legal status of the publicity phonogram under the copyright law. Copyright (Geneva)15:204-212, July-August 1979.

Stojanovic, M. N. La raison d'etre du droit d'auteur. Revue Internationale du droit d'auteur (Paris)n° 102:125-139, 1979.

Symposium of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights for Developing Countries. Stockholm, 1979. Symposium oncopyright and neighbouring rights for developing countries, organized by WIPO in co-operation with theGovernment of Sweden and the Swedish International Development Authority. Stockholm, Departementensoffsetcentral, 1979, 1 v. (various pagings.)

Ulmer, E. Problems arising from the use of electronic computers and related facilities for storage and retrievalof copyright works. Copyright (Geneva) 15:200-204, July-August 1979.

Wasserman, Ursula, WIPO: the exclusion of South Africa? Journal of world trade law (London) 14:78-80,January-February 1980.

290

United Nations Juridical Yearbook 1980

Documents

Transcript of United Nations Juridical Yearbook 1980