International Organizations Cases

International Organizations Cases

International Organizations in 2013

United States views on international law [1] in relation to International Organizations: United Nations

In 2013, the United States filed a statement of interest in a case brought in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against U.S. Permanent Representative to the UN Susan Rice,*** the UN, and the UN Development Program (“UNDP”) alleging breach of contract, fraud, and harassment relating to plaintiff's failure to secure a position with UN Volunteers (“UNV”) in Laos after allegedly being offered the job. Lempert v. Rice et al., No. 12-01518 (D. D.C. 2013). The U.S. asserted absolute immunity for the UN and the UNDP in its statement of interest, filed on May 3, 2013, which is excerpted below and available in full at (Secretary of State website) state.gov/s/l/c8183.htm.

Some Aspects of International Organizations

I. THE UN IS ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER THE CONVENTION ON PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS.

Absent an express waiver, the UN is absolutely immune from suit and all legal process. The UN Charter provides that the UN “shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfillment of its purposes.” The Charter of the United Nations, June 26, 1945, 59 Stat. 1031, art 105.1. The Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, adopted Feb. 13, 1946 21 U.S.T. 1418, 1 U.N.T.S. 16 (“General Convention”), adopted by the UN shortly after the UN Charter, defines the UN's privileges and immunities by providing that “[t]he United Nations, its property and assets wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process except insofar as in any particular case it has expressly waived its immunity.” General Convention, art. II, sec. 2.

Developments

The United States understands this provision to mean what it unambiguously says: the UN, including its integral component the UNDP, enjoys absolute immunity from this or any suit unless the UN itself expressly waives its immunity. Here, the UN has not expressly waived its immunity. On the contrary, it has expressly invoked its immunity and has requested the United States to take appropriate steps to protect its privileges and immunity from suit. See February 26, 2013 Letter from Patricia O'Brien, Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, to Ambassador Rice (Exhibit A) (“[W]e wish to advise that the United Nations expressly maintains its privileges and immunities” with respect to plaintiff's lawsuit, and that “we respectfully request the Government of the United States to take the appropriate steps to ensure that the privileges and immunities of the United Nations are maintained in respect of this legal action.”). To the extent there could be any contrary reading of the General Convention's text, the Court should defer to the Executive Branch's interpretation that the UN is immune from suit here. See Kolovrat v.Oregon, 366 U.S. 187, 194 (1961) (“While courts interpret treaties for themselves,the meaning given them by the departments of government particularly charged with theirnegotiation and enforcement is given great weight”).

Details

Therefore, because the General Convention provides for the UN to be immune in a suit such as this one, and because the UN has not waived its immunity, the Court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims against the UN Defendants.

More

II. THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS IMMUNITIES ACT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE UNITED STATES TO WAIVE THE IMMUNITY OF THE UN.

Plaintiff alleges that the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 (“IOIA”), 22 U.S.C. §§ 288 et seq., provides jurisdiction over his claims against the UN Defendants and that it authorizes the United States to waive the UN's immunity from suit. See Compl. ¦¦ 2, 6, 48. Plaintiff's position is without merit, because the IOIA neither requires nor authorizes the United States to waive the immunity of the UN.

More

The plaintiff filed an opposition to the U.S. statement of interest, to which the United States replied on June 10, 2013. Excerpts from the U.S. reply brief follow (with footnotes omitted). The U.S. reply is also available at (Secretary of State website) state.gov/s/l/c8183.htm.

Resources

Notes

  1. International Organizations in the Digest of United States Practice in International Law

Posted

in

,

by

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *