Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:47:51.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Privileges and Immunities of International Organizations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

Josef L. Kunz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The problem of the privileges and immunities of international organizations has become very prominent in recent times and has raised not a few difficult questions. While many aspects of this problem cannot yet be regarded as definitively settled, there is, on the other hand, a trend toward the development of a new uniform and general international law concerning this topic. It seems, therefore, timely to investigate briefly this problem in its different ramifications historical and theoretical.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , October 1947 , pp. 828 - 862
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1947

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Article 13 and 14 of this Convention created a special organ, the Comisión Directiva, for the Atlantic Confederate Navy. The Commission was to consist of three members, each appointed by its own government (Colombia, Central America, Mexico). To give this Commission full independence and liberty, each member of the Commission was to enjoy all the immunities and exemptions of a diplomatic agent, wherever he reside (Article 15).

2 Malloy’s Treaties, Vol. I, p. 110.

3 Article 2 : Les délégués des Puissances jouiront des mêmes droits que le personnel des Légations en Grèce.

4 German-French Treaty of August 15, 1804, Martens, R. G., Vol. VIII, p. 201, Article 231 : Jouiront de tous les privilèges de la neutralité; Congress of Vienna, 1815, Articles on the Navigation of the Rhine, Martens, R. G., Vol. II, p. 431). Convention and Sèglement concerning the navigation of the Rhine, Mainz, March 31, 1831, Martens, R. G., Vol. IX, p. 252, Article 108. But the revised Mannheim Rhine Navigation Act of October 11, 1868, Martens, N. R. G., Vol. XX, p. 355, contains no clause on diplomatic immunities.

5 Treaty of the Congress of Paris of March 30, 1856, Article 16, Martens, N. R. G., Vol. XV, 1856, pp. 776-777. Acte publia relatif à la navigation des embouchures du Danube, Galatz, November 2, 1865, Article 21, Martens, N. R. G., Vol. XVIII, p. 144: “benefits of neutrality.” London Treaty of March 13, 1877, Article 7, Martens, N. R. G., Vol. XVIII, p. 303. Berlin Congress Act of July 13, 1878, Articles 52-57, Martens, N. R. G., 2e ser., Vol. III, p. 449, dans une complète indépendance de l’autorité territoriale (Article 53).

6 Congo Navigation Act 1885, Article 18. To the Commission and the agents appointed by it was granted the privilège de l’inviolabilité dans l’exercise de ses fonctions and the same garantie was extended to the offices and archives of the Commission.

7 Hague Convention of July 29, 1899, Article 24. Hague Convention of October 18, 1907, Article 46 : “The members of the Tribunal in the exercise of their duties, and out of their own country enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities.”

8 Article 5 of the Draft Convention, annexed to the voeu, adopted on October 18, 1907.

9 Hague Convention of October 18, 1907, Article 13.

10 Convention of December 20, 1907, establishing the Central American Court of Justice, U. S. For. Rel., 1907, pp. 692-741, this Journal, Vol. II (1908), Supplement, pp. 219-265. M. O. Hudson in his study on this Court (in this Journal, Vol. 26 (1932), pp. 759-786, at p. 765) surveys the attitudes taken by the Central American governments and concludes : “At no time were the privileges and immunities of the judges made very definite.”

11 Bey, Francis, L’Union Centro-Américaine, in Bévue Générale de Droit International Public. , Vol. XVIII (1911), pp. 69–89 Google Scholar.

12 Hackworth, G. H., Digest of International Law. , Vol. IV (1942), pp. 419–423 Google Scholar.

13 See the Commentaries upon the Covenant of the League of Nations by Ray (1930, pp. 289-299), Schücking and Wehberg (3rd ed., Vol. I (1931), pp. 588-604), Göppert (1938, pp. 147-150). Ranshofen-Wertheimer, F., The International Secretariat. , Washington, 1945, pp. 268–273 Google Scholar. Basdevant, Suzanne, Les fonctionnaires internationaux. , Paris, 1931, p. 292 Google Scholar ff. See also Grunebaum-Ballin, in Revue de Droit International et de Législation Comparée. , 3e ser., Vol. II (1921), pp. 67–82 Google Scholar. Rougier, A. in Revue Générale de Droit International Public. , Vol. XXVIII (1921), at pp. 275–279 Google Scholar. Ramón de Orúe, Extensión de los privilegios diplomáticos en el Pacto de la Liga de las Naciones, in Revista de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales, 1922, p. 167). Borsi, U., Il rapporto d’impiego nella Società delle Nazioni, in Rivista di Diritto Internazionale. , Vol. XV (1923), at pp. 437–440 Google Scholar. Van Vollenhoven, C., “Diplomatic Prerogatives of Non-Diplomats. ,” in this Journal, Vol. XIX (1925), pp. 469–474 Google Scholar. Secretan, R., Les privilèges et immunités diplomatiques des agents de la Société des Nations, in Revue de Droit International Privé. , Vol. XX (1925), pp. 1–25 Google Scholar. Morton, Charles, Les privilèges et immunités diplomatiques. , Lausanne, 1927 Google Scholar. Francis Rey, Les immunités des fonctionnaires internationaux, in Revue de Droit International Privé, 1928, pp. 253-278, 432-463. Secretan, J., Les immunités diplomatiques des représentants des Etats membres et des agents de la Société dei Nations. , Lausanne, 1928 Google Scholar. Hirsch, K. G., Die rechtliche Stellung der internationalen Beamten under besonderer Berücksichtigung der Funktionäre des Völkerbundsekretariats in Genf. , Bonn, 1928 Google Scholar. Frei, P., De la situation juridique des représentants des Etats membres de la S.d.N. et de ses agents. , Paris, 1929 Google Scholar. SirHurst, Cecil, “Diplomatic Immunities—Modern Development,” in British Year Book of International Law. , 1929, p. 1 Google Scholar). Posega, Kurt, Die Vorrechte und Befreiungen der internationalen Funktionäre. , Göttingen, 1929 Google Scholar. Schmidt, F., Die völkerrechtliche Stellung der Mitglieder des ständigen Sekretariats des Völkerbundes. , Cologne, 1930 Google Scholar. Hill, N., “Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities in International Organizations,” Georgetown Law Journal. , Vol. XX (1931), pp. 44–56 Google Scholar. Preuss, L., “Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities of Agents Invested with Functions of an International Interest. ,” in this Journal, Vol. XXV (1931), pp. 694–710 Google Scholar. Balz, H. B., Die besonderen Staatenvertreter und ihre völkerrechtliche Stellung. , Giessen, 1931 Google Scholar. Benet, H. P., “Recent Developments Affecting Diplomatic Privileges,” in Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law. , 1931, pp. 84 Google Scholar ff. Kauf-mann, S., Die Immunität der Nicht-Diplomaten. , Frankfurt, 1932 Google Scholar. Secretan, J., “The Independence Granted to Agents of the International Community in Their Relations with National Public Authorities,” in British Year Book of International Law. , 1935, pp. 56–78 Google Scholar. Hammarskjold, A., Les immunités des personnes investies de fonctions d’intérêt international, in Revue de Droit International et de Législation Comparée. , 3e ser., Vol. XVI (1935), pp. 6–31 Google Scholar. The same, Rapport, in Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International, Session de Paris, 1934. The same, Les immunités des personnes investies de fonctions internationales, in Hague Academy of International Law, Recueil des Cours, 1936, Vol. II, pp. 110-209. A monograph by Martin Hill, “Diplomatic Privileges anđ Immunities of League of Nations Officials,” has recently been published.

14 Rapport Adatci-de Visscher, Annuaire de L’Institut de Droit International, session de Vienne, 1924, Vol. XXXi (1924), pp. 1-19; Rapport David Jayne Hill (the same, session de Lausanne, 1927, Vol. XXXIII, pp. 420-430 ; observations by Francis Rey, pp. 442-447. Rapport A. Hammarskjold, the same, session de Paris, 1934, Annuaire, 1934, pp. 358-413. Commission of Experts for the progressive codification of international law, 1926, in this Journal, Vol. XX (1926), Supplement, pp. 148-175. Blociszewski, J., L’Institut de Droit International, session de Vienne, in Revue Générale de Droit International Public. , Vol. XXXII (1925), pp. 261–267 Google Scholar.

15 Paris Peace Treaties, Statut définitif du Danube, Paris, 1921.

16 Versailles Treaty, Art. 347. Statut définitif du Danube, Paris, July 23, 1921, League of Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. XXVI (1924), p. 173, Art. 37: “The property of the International Commission and the persons of Commissioners are entitled to privileges and immunities which are accorded in peace and war to accredited diplomatic agents. “

17 Convention, Dresden, February 22, 1922, 26 L. of N. Tr. Ser. (1924), 219. Art. 8: “The delegates to the International Commission, the Secretary General and his assistant, will enjoy the usual diplomatic privileges.”

18 Convention, October 27, 1923. Art. 19 grants diplomatic privileges for the President, the delegates and their assistants, the members and personnel of the Secretariat and of the delegations dans l’exercice de leurs fonctions.

19 Versailles Treaty, Art. 432. Treaty of June 24, 1919 (L. of N. Tr. Ser. (1919), No. 7), Art. 3.

20 Treaties of Versailles, Art. 240: St. Germain, Art. 186: Trianon, Art. 270: Neuilly, Art. 130 (obligations for the ex-enemies). French Decree of April 30, 1920).

21 Polish-Danzig Convention, Paris, November 9, 1920, Art. 14. The Danzig Commissioners of the Board enjoyed diplomatic privileges and immunities in the territory of Poland, and the Polish members in the territory of Danzig, the President of the Board in both States. The President, even if appointed by the Council of the League of Nations, was not an official of the League, as the Council expressly stated (O. J. 1921, pp. 158 ff.).

22 Hackworth, work quoted above, note 12, Vol. IV, p. 420.

23 German Law of August 10, 1920. French Decrees of May 29, December 13, and 15, 1925.

24 P. C. I. J. Publs., Series D, No. 1 (3rd ed.), Leyden, March, 1936, pp. 69-79.

25 Hague Convention, January 20, 1930, M. O. Hudson, International Legislation, Vol. V (1936), pp. 309-313.

26 Art. VII, par. 4: “Representatives of the Members of the League and officials of the League, when engaged on the business of the League, shall enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities.” Slightly different the equally authentic French text: Les représentants des Membres de la Société et ses agents jouissent dans l’exercice de lewrs fonctions des privilèges et immunités diplomatiques.

27 L. of N. Doc. C. 555. 1926-V; L. of N. O. J. 1926, p. 1422. Hudson, M. O., International Legislation. , Vol. I (1931), pp. 224–228 Google Scholar.

28 P. C. Jessup, in this Journal, Vol. 38 (1944), pp. 658-662. Leland M. Goodrich and Edvard Hambro, Charter of the UN. Commentary and Documents, Boston, 1946, pp. 281-285.

29 Arts. 104-105.

30 PC/20. 23 December 1945, London, pp. 60-80. See also Henry Reiff in Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XV, No. 372 (August 18, 1946), pp. 305-306, 311-312.

31 The same, Appendix B, pp. 72-74.

32 The same, Appendix C, pp. 75-80.

33 Faris Al Khoury (Syria), Chairman; Aghnides (Greece) Kapporteur. Journal of the General Assembly, Nos. 11 and 23-, Supplement 5. See also Henry Reiff in Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XV, No. 373 (August 25, 1946), pp. 345, 349-351.

34 B. Jiménez (Panama), Chairman; Read (Canada) Rapporteur. Journal, Nos. 14, 18, 26, Supplement 6. Meetings of the Sub-Committee [Vandenberg (U. S.), Chairman]. See Documents A.C/6.14, A.C/6.20, A.C/6.21, A.C/6.23, A.C/6.28 and the Report, Reporter: W. E. Beckett (U. K.) of the 6th Committee to the General Assembly: A/43, February 9, 1946, 41 pages.

35 Annex to A/43—Comd. 6753, London, 1946 (Miscellaneous, No. 6, 1946). Journal of the General Assembly, No. 34 (London, 7 March 1946), pp. 687-693.

36 Art. 19.

36a Publs, of the I. C. J., Series D, No. 1, p. 84.

36b M. O. Hudson in this Journal, Vol. 41 (1947), pp. 16-17.

37 1st Session of the Council of the UNRRA, Selected Documents, Atlantic City, N. J., Nov. 10-Dec. 1, 1943. Department of State, Publ. 2040, Conf. Ser. 53, p. 215.

38 International Labor Conference, 26th Session, Philadelphia, 1944. Report of Proceedings, Montreal, 1944, p. 647.

39 U. N. Conference, Hot Springs, Va., May 18-June 3, 1943, Final Act and Section Reports. Department of State, Publ. 1948, Conf. Ser. 52, p. 67. Constitution of FAO in this Journal, Vol. 40 (1946), Supplement, pp. 76-85.

40 U. N. Monetary and Financial Conference, Bretton Woods, N. H., July 1-22, 1944, Final Act and Related Documents. Department of State, Publ. 2187, Conf. Ser. 55, p. 122; Articles of Agreement, U. S. Treasury, p. 88.

41 This Journal, Vol. 40 (1946), Supplement, pp. 31-45.

42 International Civil Aviation Conference, Chicago, 111., Nov. 1-Dec. 7, 1944. Final Act and Related Documents, Department of State, Publ. 2282, Conf. Ser. 64 (p. 284). Interim Agreement, in this Journal, Vol. 40 (1946), pp. 63-76.

43 London Conference, Nov. 1-16, 1945, Final Act, Department of State : The Defense of Peace. Documents relating to UNESCO, Part 1, 1946 (Constitution on pp. 13-22) : Art. XII: “The privileges of Art. 104 and 105 of the Charter of the UN concerning the legal status of that organization, its privileges and immunities shall apply in the same way to this organization.”

44 Proposal for the Constitution of the WHO, Journal of the UN Economic and Social Council, 1st year, No. 13, May 22, 1946. Article XVI of Constitution: Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XV, No. 370 (August 4, 1946), pp. 211-219, Art. 66-68.

45 Department of State, September, 1946, pp. 44-45.

46 Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, Mexico City, Final Act, PAU, 1945, Resolution IX (pp. 44-48).

47 PAU, 1946, pp. 33 (mimeographed) Art. 19, 45.

48 Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XIII, No. 336 (December 2, 1945), p. 901.

49 For the ILO (1943).

50 Status of the ILO Order, August 14, 1941.

51 The Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act 1944 (8 Geo. 6, Ch. 44). Text also in this Journal, Vol. 39 (1945), Supplement, pp. 163-167. See Egon Schwelb in Modern Law Review, Vol. VIII (1945), pp. 50-63, 163-167. Diplomatic Privileges (UNRRA) Order in Council, January 24, 1945 (S. R. O. 1945, No. 79). Order in Council, January 24,1945 (the same, No. 84), applied to UN Information Organization, Intergovernmental Committee for Refugees, and European Advisory Commission.

52 International Organizations Immunities Act, Public Law 299, 79th Congress, December 29, 1945. Text also in this Journal, Vol. 40 (1946), Supplement, pp. 85-91. See Lawrence Preuss in this Journal, Vol. 40 (1946), pp. 332-345. By Executive Order 9698 of February 19, 1946 (Federal Register, Vol. 11, 1809; Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XIV (March 3, 1946), pp. 348-349) were designated the UN, the UNRRA, ILO, FAO and the Pan American Union. Further extension by the later Executive Orders 9751 of July 11, 1946 (the same, Vol. II, No. 131, p. 7713) and 9823 of January 24, 1947 (the same, Vol. 12, No. 19, p. 551).

53 Of the immense literature on this subject we quote here only a few writings : Hackworth, work quoted, Vol. IV, pp. 513-632; François Pietri, Étuãe critique sur la fiction d’exterritorialité, 1895; Beling, E., Die strafrechtliche Bebeutung der Exterritorialität. , Breslau, 1898 Google Scholar, Frisch, Der völkerrechtliche Begriff der Exterritorialität, 1917; Strisower, L., L’exterritorialité et ses principales applications, in Recueil des Cours. , Vol. I (1923), pp. 233–286 Google Scholar; Heyking, , L’exterritorialité. , 1926 Google Scholar; SirHurst, Cecil, Les immunités diplomatiques, in Recueil des Cours. , Vol. II (1926), pp. 119–240 Google Scholar; van Essen, J. L. F., Ontwickkkeling en Codificatie van de diplomatike voorechten. , 1928 Google Scholar; Deák, F., Classification, immunités et privilèges des agents diplomatiques, in Revue de Droit International et de Législation Comparée. , 3e ser., Vol. IX (1928), pp. 173–206, 522-567Google Scholar. Genet, Paul, Traité de Diplomatic et de Droit Diplomatique. , Paris, 1931, Vol. I, pp. 417–598 Google Scholar; SirSatow, Ernest, A Guide to Diplomatic Practice. , London, 1932 (3rd ed.), pp. 161–180 Google Scholar; Preuss, L., Capacity for legation and the theoretical basis of diplomatic immunities, in Revue de Droit International. (Sottile), Vol. X (1932), pp. 1–18 Google Scholar; Jaime+Eyzaguirre, , Privilegios diplomáticos. Sintesis teórica y de legislación comparada. , Santiago, 1932 Google Scholar; van Praag, , Juridiction et droit international public. , 1935 Google Scholar; Ogdon, Montell, Bases of Diplomatic immunity. , Washington, 1936 Google Scholar; Savelberg, M. M., Le problème du droit international américain. , The Hague, 1946. Treaties: Vienna, 1815Google Scholar; Havana Convention, 1928. Institut de Droit International, Bèglement sur les immunités diplomatiques. , Cambridge, 1895 (14 Annuaire (1895/96), pp. 240 ff.)Google Scholar. Pessôa, Epitacio, Projecto de Codigo de Direito Internacional Publico, Bio de Janeiro. , 1927 (in this Journal, Vol. 22 (1928), Special Supplement, pp. 249–524)Google Scholar. Dienn, Giulio, Rapport au Sous-Commité pour les privilèges et immunités diplomatiques, League of Nations document. 196, M. 70, 1927. IV, pp. 78–85 Google Scholar; also in this Journal, Vol. XX (1926), Supplement, pp. 148-165; Harvard Research in International Law, Draft Convention on Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities, in this Journal, Vol. 26 (1932), Supplement, pp. 15-18.

54 De jure belli ac pacis, Book II, ch. 184, No. 5.

55 Ils sont la parole du prince qui les envoie, Montesquieu, Esprit des Lois, Bk. XXVI, ch. 21.

56 Tous les privilèges qui assurent l’exercice de leurs fonctions, Vattel, Le Droit des Gens, Bk. IV, chs. 7, 92.

57 Völkerrecht, Berlin, 1937, pp. 207-214.

58 Dickinson v. Del Solar (1930), 1. K. B. 376: “Diplomatic agents are not in virtue of their privileges, as such, immune from legal liability for any wrongful acts. The accurate statement is that they are not liable to be sued in English Courts unless they submit to the jurisdiction. Diplomatic privilege does not import immunity from legal liability but only exemption from local jurisdiction.” In the Iranian Minister’s case 1935 (Hackworth, work quoted, Vol. IV, pp. 515-516) Secretary Hull wrote: “This Government has at all times impressed upon its own diplomatic officers in foreign countries that the enjoyment of diplomatic immunities imposes upon them the obligation and responsibility of according scrupulous regard to the laws and regulations, both national and local, of the countries to which they are accredited.”

59 Similar formulas are to be found in Art. 74 of the ITO Constitution and Art. 67 of the Constitution of the WHO. The same formula is used in Art. 19 and 45 of the Project of Organic Pact of the Inter-American System: Pan American Union, Washington, 1946. On the other hand the formula of “diplomatic privileges and immunities” is to be found in FAO, Art. XV, par. 2, Art. VII, par. 4, ECITO, Art. 8, Art. 19 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and in Art. IV, sec. 11, pars, f and g, Art. V, see. 18, pars, e and f, and sec. 19 of the UN General Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN.

60 See also UN General Convention, Art. IV, sec. 14, Art. V, sees. 20, 21, Art. VI, sec. 23. The functional basis and the principle is stressed that these privileges are given to the officials of the UN in the interest of the Organization, and in no way for the benefit of the individual concerned.

61 Post War Worlds, New York, 1942, p. 173.

62 Jenks, C. Wilfred, The Headquarters of International Institutions, A Study of their Location and Status. , London, 1945 Google Scholar.

63 Annuaire, Vol. XXXIII. Session de Lausanne, 1927, Vol. 1, pp. 420-438.

64 A. Hammarskjöld proposed extension even to fonctionnaires internationaux à statut national, such as the judges at the Mixed Courts of Egypt or the administrative officials of the International Zone at Tangiera, and even to members of private organizations, acting in the international interest, such as the members of the International Fed Cross Committee.

65 Institute of Intellectual Coöperation, Paris ; Institute for the Unification of Private Law, Institute for Educational Films, both at Rome; International University of Hygiene, Paris, 1930; International Institute for the Study of Leprosy, Rio de Janeiro, 1931.

66 Martin, William, Meprésentation permanente des Etats membres auprès de la Société des Nations à Genève, in Revue de Droit International. (Sottile), April-June, 1925, pp. 150–152 Google Scholar.

67 Answer of Switzerland to Questionnaire 3 B of the Committee of Experts for the Codification of International Law, in League Doc. C. 196, M. 70, 1927. I. p. 249.

68 The same formula in ECITO, Art. 8, par. 18, equally sec. 3 of the British Act of 1944. The Constitutions of some Specialized Agencies do not mention the legal status of representatives of the members.

69 Similarly Res. 32 of the UNRRA Council, Art. 74, par. 2, of the suggested Charter of the ITO, Art. 67 of the Constitution of the WHO.

70 Equally Art. 74, par. 3, of ITO, Art. 68, of WHO.

71 See Swiss Confederation v. Justh. Switzerland, Federal Assizes. First Distriet 1927 (40 Beme Penale Suisse (1927), p. 179) (English translation in Hudson, M. O., Cases and Other Materials on International Law. , St. Paul, 1936 (2nd ed.), pp. 795–797 Google Scholar). See now also the letter of the Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitri Z. Manuilsky to the Secretary of State Byrnes at the occasion of the criminal attack upon two members of the Ukrainian delegation to the General Assembly of the UN: New York Times, November 24, 1946, p. 58.

72 UN General Convention, Art. IV, sec. 15. Thus also British Act of 1944, American Act of 1945, sec. 7a.

73 “while exercising their functions” (UN General Convention, Art. IV, sec. 11).

74 UN General Convention, Art. IV, sec. 16.

75 Thus the Argentinian delegate Dr. José Arce waived hie immunity and paid a $15 fine for contravention of the New York laws (New York Times, November 14, 1946, p. 11). Equally Dr. Max Steemberger, financial adviser to the Netherlands Government (the same, November 23, 1946).

76 Jenks, C. W., “Some Legal Aspects of the Financing of International Institutions,” in Transactions of the Qrotius Society. , London, Vol. 28 (1943), pp. 87–132 Google Scholar.

77 Work quoted above, note 62.

78 Jenks, work quoted above, note 62, p. 46.

79 This phrase stands in FAO, Art. XV, par. 2.

80 See Holtzendorff’s construction of the European Danube Commission as a “fluvial state.”

81 Knubben, B., Die Subjekte des Völkerrechts. , Stuttgart, 1928 Google Scholar. Pintor, M. Biotto, Les sujets đu droit international autres que les Etats, Hague Recueil des Cours . , 1932, Vol. III, pp. 251–361 Google Scholar.

82 Kunz, Josef L. “Experience and Technique in International Administration,” in Iowa Law Review. , Vol. XXXI (November, 1945), pp. 40–57 Google Scholar.

83 Recognized by Switzerland in the modus vivendi of 1926. There is a rich monographic literature on this subject. See also the literature on the international personality of the International Institute of Agriculture. Josef L. Kunz, Die Staatenverbindungen, Stuttgart, 1929, pp. 50 ff. and in general; Van der Lühe, Die internationale Juristische Person, 1931.

84 That is why under Sec. 30 of the UN General Convention differences between the UN and a Member are to be decided by an advisory, but binding, opinion of the International Court of Justice. Different is Art. 68 of WHO which provides for the establishment of details concerning immunities by a separate agreement which is to be prepared by the Organization but is to be concluded between the Members. Jenks, work quoted, p. 39, asks for the recognition of the international personality of international institutions as the basis of their capacity to conclude with states and other international institutions agreements governed by international law.

85 Jenks, p. 39.

86 See for the Pan American Union Kunz, Josef L., “The Pan-American Union in the Field of International Administration,” in Iowa Law Review. , Vol. XXXI (1945), pp. 58–89 Google Scholar, at pp. 79-80.

87 See for the PAU Penfield, in this Journal, Vol. XX (1926), pp. 257-262; for the International Institute of Agriculture, Italian Court of Cassation 1931 (Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases, 1989-1930, No. 254).

88 Similarly the Constitutions of the Specialized Agencies. For details as regards the UN in the state of the seat see Draft Convention, P/C, Rep. pp. 75-80.

89 Friedmann, W., “International Public Corporations,” in Modern Law Review. , London, Vol. VI (1942/43), pp. 185–207 Google Scholar.

90 Created by the Hague Convention of January 20, 1930, Hudson, M. O., International Legislation. , Vol. V, pp. 307–313 Google Scholar; 104 L. of N. Tr. Ser., p. 441. See J. F. Williams in this Journal, Vol. XXXIV (1930), pp. 665-673; Cereti, C., La personalità giuridica della Banca dei Regolamenti Internazionali, in Rivista di Diritto Pubblico. , Vol. XXIII (1931), pp. 169–193 Google Scholar; Beitzke, G., Oie Rechtsstellung der Barik für Internationalen Zahlungsausgleich im Völkerrecht. , Leipzig, 1932 Google Scholar, Reynolds, , “The Legal Structure of the Bank of International Settlements,” in American Bar Association Journal. , Vol. XIX (1933), pp. 289–293 Google Scholar.

91 The Bank of International Settlements at Basel was, notwithstanding its creation by international treaty and its far-reaching immunities, legally a Swiss corporation that received its charter from Switzerland. In the same way the Inter-American Bank gets its charter from the United States. A recent Inter-American organ, which is not a public international corporation, the Inter-American Institute of Agriculture, which has its seat in Turrialba, Costa Rica, is incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia.

92 Musurus Bey v. Gadban, Great Britain, Court of Appeals, 1894: 2 Q. B. 352.

93 Genet, R., Un problème de préséance, in Revue de Droit International et de Législation Comparée. , Vol. XIV (1933), p. 254 Google Scholar; Hammarskjöld, A., Un problème de préséance, in Acta Scandinavica Juris Gentiun. , Vol. IV (1933), pp. 158–165 Google Scholar; Aubain, L., Un nouveau Protocole de Vienne?, in Revue de Droit International et de Législation Comparée. , Vol. XV (1934), pp. 129–143 Google Scholar.

94 The Permanent Court of International Justice, New York, 1943, pp. 325-331.

95 “In the exercise of their duties and out of their own country” (Art. 46, 1907).

96 At the time of preparing Art. 19 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice Sir Cecil Hurst proposed to drop the phrase en dehors de leurs pays, but this proposal was opposed by Huber and Loder. It has now been dropped in Art. 19 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice.

97 In X v. Y and the Greek State (Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases, 1933-34, London, 1940, pp. 387-88) the Court of Appeals of Athens (1934) held that the members of the Greco-Bulgarian Mixed Emigration Commission enjoyed no jurisdictional immunity, as the Neuilly Convention of November 27, 1919, did not confer immunity upon them and as they performed independent duties and exercised their functions not for and under the League of Nations; they were not “officials” in the sense of Art. VII, par. 4, of the Covenant.

98 Already the Adatci-de Visscher Report stated that the agreement with the State of the seat and the assimilation of the League officials with Diplomatic agents is “theoretically inexact and would practically lead to an inadmissible inequality.”

99 “International officials” in the sense of Art. VII, par. 4, of the Covenant were the officials of the Secretariat General, of the ILO, of the Saar Governing Commission, of the Registry of the Permanent Court, the High Commissioner at Danzig, the High Commissioner for Refugees, officials of the Paris and Rome Institutes, members of the Mandate Commission, and of the many commissions of the League, insofar as they had not the status of “international experts” or were representatives of the members, the High Commissioners of the League at Vienna and Budapest, Personnel of Nansen office and so on.

100 Work quoted, p. 40.

101 In Assurance Générale des Eaux et Accidents v. F. B. (Cour de Justice Civile, Geneva, May 6, 1929, Annual Digest, 1929/80, London, 1935, pp. 315/16) the Swiss Court decided that an official of the first category of the ILO is immune from civil jurisdiction and cannot validly renounce his privilege; proceedings cannot be continued as long as his immunity is not waived by the Director of the ILO.

102 The Report of the Preparatory Commission (p. 62) proposed the creation of an international passport which “would not, of course, impair the sovereign rights of members in respect of granting visas.” The word “passport” has now been lowered to laissez-passer.

103 Parents of officials do not enjoy benefits of immunity. The mother of an official of the ILO of the second category was held not to be entitled to claim any privilege (W. K. v. Office des Poursuites, Cour de Justice Civile, Geneva, February 16, 1929, Anima Digest, 1929/30, London, 1935, pp. 314/15).

104 Case of driver David Sisson, Queens Traffic Court, New York ; UN waived immunity. Case of Andrew Jackson before the City Judge at Yonkers; no plea of immunity was made in this case (The New York Times, November 5, 1946, p. 5). The most interesting case is that of William Kanalio, chauffeur of Secretary General Trygve Lie, who was before the Court of New Eochelle, N. Y., for speeding (Acting City Judge Rubin). Counsel for the UN stated that “immunity is not the same as the broad, unrestricted immunity of diplomats. It is only when the UN official is carrying out his duties that the immunity is involved.” Judge Rubin took exception to the contention that all UN personnel, from highest to lowest, should have immunity, if engaged on UN “functions.” He said: “to establish such a principle would in effect create a large preferred class. Under diplomatic immunity the law violator is subject to return to his own country for punishment of violations of U. S. law. Immunity to UN personnel could result in offenses receiving no punishment” (The New York Times, November 9, 1946, pp. 1, 7). The immunity appeal was later withdrawn by Trygve Lie. The judge regretted this withdrawal, “as it left the question of right to immunity unsettled for future cases.” For a detailed examination of the Kanalio Case see L. Preuss, “Immunity of Officers and Employees of the UN for Official Acts: the Eanallo Case,” in this Journal, Vol. 41 (1947), pp. 555-578.

105 C. M. v. A. C., Cour de Justice Civile, Geneva, March 2, 1929 (Annual Digest, 1929/30, London, 1935, pp. 313/14) : Creditors of a League official of Swiss nationality applied for an attachment of salary for debt. The Court held that A. C, a Swiss national, was not entitled to immunity. But as the League premises were inviolable, an attachment of his salary in the hands of the employer could not be made. See Avenol v. Avenol, France, Juge de Paix, XVIe arrondissement de Paris, March 8, 1935 (Annual Digest, 19S5S7, London, 1941, pp. 395-397). Sentence in absentia to pay 12,500 francs per month to his wife from whom he was separated as maintenance. Avenol appealed: as Secretary General of the League he was exempt, under Art. VII, par. 4, from the jurisdiction of the Courts of any member state, including that of French Courts. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that (1) his privileges were strictly limited to Geneva and Switzerland; (2) League officials enjoy no exemption in their own country.

106 British Act 1944, American Act 1945, sec. 7a (“other than Nationals of the U. S.”).

107 Monetary Fund, Art. IX, sec. 8b: “not being nationals,” sec. 9b: tax exemption on salaries and emoluments “ for those, who are not local citizens, local subjects, or other local nationals.” ECITO, Art. VII, sec. 17c: exemption from taxation “except in the case of their own nationals. “ UNRRA, Rs. 32 : “Each Member shall determine to what extent the privileges shall apply to its own nationals, and to non-nationals in permanent residence in its territories.”

108 p. 62.

109 Sec. 19.

109a UN Journal, No. 54—Suppl. A—A/P.v/50 (December 9, 1946).

110 Work quoted, pp. 42/43.

111 Same argument as against an international passport in the League of Nations.

112 The UN Budget for 1947 provides $350,000 for income tax refunds; of this sum $330,000 are needed for U. S. income tax refunds (The New York Times, November 13, 1946, p. 11).

113 See the reasoning of the French Court in Avenol v. Avenol and of Judge Rubin (above, note 105).

114 See Parlett v. Parlett, Tribunal de première instance, Geneva, July 21, 1927. Divorce proceedings against an official of the first category of the ILO, waiver of immunity from civil jurisdiction by Director of ILO : Johnstone v. Muttle, Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, August 4, 1942; Annual Digest, 1941, 1945, London, 1945, pp. 376/77. Suit for annulment of marriage, waiver from civil jurisdiction, signed by Director of ILO.

115 Work quoted above, note 88, p. 199.

116 Jessup, P. C., “Responsibility of States for Injuries to Individuals,” in Columbia Law Review. , Vol. XVI (1946), pp. 903–928, at pp. 927, 928)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.