Məqalələr

Beynəlxalq təşkilatların funksiyası üçün immunitetlərin əhəmiyyəti

Oktyabr 26, 2019May 27, 2021
Beynəlxalq təşkilatların funksiyası üçün immunitetlərin əhəmiyyəti

Introduction.

International organizations enjoy privileges and immunities in order to carry out their purposes and functions smoothly and unhindered in the territory of the host State.[1] They are not subject to national jurisdiction of any State while taking ownership of the property located in different countries or by making property-related deals with citizens of different nationalities. Furthermore, international organizations could not be prosecuted as a respondent in the national courts.[2]

Scope of the privileges and immunities of different international organizations is of varying significance, they have varying degrees of privileges and immunities. The United Nations and its specialized agencies enjoy the largest amount of such privileges. They are almost equal to the privileges and immunities of diplomatic missions. There are a number of various international treaties involving provisions covering the privileges and immunities of international organizations. The International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA), the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (the General Convention), the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Atomic Energy Agency could be served as examples of such international documents.

In contrast to the state immunities based on the principle of sovereignty, immunities of international organizations rely on a treaty basis as a matter of the functional necessity.[3] That is to say, international organizations are given immunities to create such a status when they would be able to exercise their powers smoothly without being subjected to national law, as well as to the jurisdiction of individual states.[4] The main functions of immunities are to protect organizations from control by single powers, to enable them to have their own material resources not covered by states in whose territory organizations’ headquarters are located and to prevent organizations from paying taxes to single states. Taking into account all these tasks, it could be concluded that immunity has a significance importance for international organization.

However, international organizations are entitled to withdraw themselves from immunities. This issue is dealt by each organization with on a case-by-case basis. The proposal to eliminate the immunities could be claimed to international organizations by third parties. For instance, this could be requested by national court considered certain immunities contrary to universal moral standards, for example, when the action is brought by the injured party and the immunity does not allow to compensate.[5]

This paper is addressed a number of important questions such as the concept of immunity in the law of international organizations, types of organizational immunities, treaty provisions including immunities of organizations and their officials, as well as it conducts a comparative law study to analyse the significance of such immunities for the function of international entities.

The concept of immunity from international law perspective: a brief historical background.

As was mentioned above, immunity is the concept which includes special category of rights and advantages granted to international intergovernmental organizations, their personnel, as well as to the missions of Member States to these organizations and their staff in the host States.[6] It is also important to note that intergovernmental organizations enjoy international immunities in international relations related issues of a civil nature, therefore, they are exempted from the  national legislation and proceedings.[7]

The doctrine of immunity makes up an integral part of customary international law. However, there are certain differences between the state immunity and immunity of international organizations. For example, a state begins to enjoy immunity since its inception, while immunity of organization emerges, as it always does, only by means of a treaty and it is enshrined in its constituent instrumens or in other international legal documents. Moreover, such immunities, based on the principle of functional necessity, are accorded to international organizations to freely perform their functions.[8] Therefore, as a cosequence of the functional basis of these immunities, organizations could be granted only those priveleges and immunities which are necessary for fullfilment of that purpose.[9]

First ‘public international unions’ or ‘administrative unions’ appeared upon the scene in the nineteenth century.[10] The Central Commission for the Navigation on the Rhine, established by Article 25 of the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna (1815) and based in Strasbourg, is generally regarded as the earliest.[11] According to Kunz, ‘prior to 1920 granting of diplomatic privileges and immunities to international organizations was clearly an exception, based on particular treaties or statutes…. This remained in principle the law also during the period from 1920 to 1939, but the granting of such privileges and immunities by treaty or statute was greatly extended’.[12]

The foundations of the immunity institution within the quite new field of international law – international organizations law – were laid at the establishment of the first international entities, such as the League of Nations. However, the Statute of the League of Nations accepted on 28 June 1919 provided only for the ‘diplomatic’ privileges and immunities of the League’s officials, as well as inviolability of its property.[13] And only the subsequent agreement of modus vivendi concluded between the League of Nations and the host State indicated that the League has international legal personality and legal capacity, and it ‘cannot, in principle, according to the rules of international law, be sued before the Swiss Courts without its express consent.’[14] It is worth noting that the modus vivendi between the League of Nations and Switzerland does not deal with all officials connected with the League but only with ‘the staff of the League organizations,’[15] including the International Labor Organization.[16]

Indeed, according to the famous English lawyer Jenks Wilfred, ‘Historically, the present content of international immunities derives from the experience of the League of Nations as developed by the International Labor Organization when submitted to the test of wartime conditions, reformulated in certain respects in the ILO-Canadian wartime arrangements, and subsequently reviewed by the General Assembly of the United Nations at its First Session in 1946. The decisions then taken by the General Assembly have been, subject to appropriate (and perhaps in a few cases less appropriate) modifications in individual cases, the basis of all subsequent instruments.’[17] However, the question arose whether this “agreement” between the League of Nations and the host State, called the Swiss modus vivendi of 1926, had been such an effective method to deal with immunities of international organizations. The legal nature of such agreement is doubtful; it is not an international treaty; both parties can at any time renounce it in part or as a whole.[18] It leads only to an agreement with a single Member State and “fails to afford a solid legal foundation for the permanent independence of the international organization”.[19]

After the World War II, the question of organizational immunity still remained to be resolved in detail. When the Charter of the United Nations was drafted, it was found that provisions of immunity included in the Charter were extremely brief. For that reason, after the carefull study of these articles, the Preparatory Commission of the UN in London annexed to its Report a Draft Convention on Privileges and Immunities and a Draft Convention between the United Nations and the United States.[20] The first Convention was studied by the 5th and 6th Committee of the First Part of the General Assembly of the United Nations, held in London; on February 13, 1946, the General Assembly adopted the General Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.[21] It has become one of the first international treaties which was published in the United Nations Treaty Series.

The reasons for granting immunities: why are they important?

Within the framework of functional necessity, international privileges and immunities are increasingly provided for organizations and their officials on several grounds. The necessity of protecting organizational independence is one of the reasons why international organizations claim immunity. The independence of international organizations is an essential factor to safeguard the fulfillment of functions and purposes of the organization. They need to be free from any limitations and restrictions in order to freely carry out common interests of member States. It could be argued that ‘once a State has consented to the presence of an organization on its territory for a particular purpose, it is bound to extend all such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the proper functioning of the organization and the achievement of that purpose’.[22]

Another important factor concerning the importance of immunities underlines the functional reasoning of such immunities. As was mentioned before, the key objective of international organizations is to operate their functions and in order to mobilize their resources they need immunities to be free in material and temporal matters.

Moreover, functional immunity is also justified on grounds of pride and prestige. Particularly, lack of immunity may open a floodgate of baseless claims and, subsequently, may undermine the authority of international organizations. In addition, it could be argued that domestic courts may not be indifferent to the cases involving international organizations. The problem is, in this case, national courts may consider organizations as foreign elements whose interest should be secondary to local ones. Therefore, international organizations have every reason to claim restrictive immunities in order to be able to perform their functions without any difficulties.[23]

Furthermore, international organizations lack most attributes of statehood. They have, inter alia, neither a territory of their own nor a judiciary to which they can resort. With regards to territory, organizations depend on sovereign States to operate with some limitations and restrictions. States allow them to perform within limited framework, both geographically and operationally. Thus, international organizations do not enjoy the same luxury of space as that of States. In addition, organizations lack judicial institutions of their own, as well, which limits their function to initiate a legal action, while States are entitled to bring legal actions in their courts if their interest is violated. Organizations are, meanwhile, unable to, or, at the very least, find great difficulty in bringing one.[24]

Types of immunities.

The classification of immunities in the theory of international law has been made between two doctrines of absolute immunity and restricted (functional) immunity. As for international organizations, immunities of these institutions fall within the concept of functional immunity by all accounts. It follows that international organizations could enjoy immunities only if they are provided in their constitutions[25] and international agreements with concerned States. The Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations accepted on 13 February 1946 could be served as an example of such constitutions. The preamble of the Convention emphasized the functional nature of immunities granted to the UN organizations.[26] Moreover, the preamble of the Convention on Special Missions of 1969 also includes such provisions.[27]

Generally, international organizations are provided functional immunities without any restrictions and exceptions. This covers immunity from any form of legal interference including immunity from prosecution, proceedings, measures of constraints, as well as property immunities, occupational immunities, financial immunities. It should be noted that this list is not exhaustive.

The jurisdictional immunity implies that rules and procedures of international organization may not be censored by legislative, executive and judicial bodies of Member States.[28] The United Nations has become one of the first international entities whose own jurisdictional immunity was specifically addressed by its member States, and the relevant conventional provisions have served in this respect as a model for subsequent organizations and agreements.[29] According to the Section 2 of the General Convention, ‘The United Nations, its property and assets wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process except in so far as in any particular case it has expressly waived its immunity. It is, however, understood that no waiver of immunity shall extend to any measure of execution’.[30] However, the law of international organizations provides for exceptional circumstances when national courts have jurisdiction including cases where Organization expressly waives its immunity, as was mentioned above.[31] Additionally, international organizations are entitled to sue and be sued in the courts, although they enjoy the immunity from application of national law which lies in the fact that the law of international organizations rather than domestic law is considered as applicable law.[32]

In addition, the UN General Convention provides for the remaining privileges and immunities, such as immunity for UN property and assets ‘wherever located and by whomsoever held’,[33] immunity ‘from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial or legislative action’[34], inviolability of archives and premises, freedom from financial controls, regulations, or moratoria of any kind, exemption of assets, income, and other property from all direct taxes, exemption from custom duties and ‘prohibition of and restrictions on imports and exports needed for its official use’ and others.[35] 

The sources of immunities and privileges of international organizations and their officials.

For the successful implementation of the functions enshrined in the constituent documents, international intergovernmental organizations need to be protected against the local jurisdiction and interference by the authorities of the host States. This protection is to provide both universal and regional organizations with necessary privileges and immunities. Generally, such provisions are set out in their founding instruments, General Multilateral Agreements on Immunity (GMAI) and bilateral agreements between organizations and host States, as well as in treaty provisions of domestic legislation.[36] Apart from being provided for in numerous treaties, it is sometimes argued that there is also an obligation under customary international law to grant privileges and immunities.[37]

The principles of opinio juris concerning the immunities of organizations are applied in case of absence of treaty-based provisions.[38] Moreover, customary international law regulates the interpretation and application of domestic law on such immunities.[39] As for national legislation, it regulates interaction of organizations by virtue of domestic legal provisions codified in international immunity instruments including the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA).[40] The IOIA provides for immunities and privileges within the legislation of the USA.[41] According to its provisions, international organizations ‘shall enjoy the same immunity from suit and every form of judicial process as is enjoyed by foreign governments’.[42]

As was mentioned in previous chapters, after the World War II, immunities of international organizations have been commonly addressed in conventional provisions.[43] Some provisions were reflected in the UN Charter, according to which ‘organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfilment of its purposes’, as well as “representatives of the Members of the United Nations and officials of the Organization shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of the functions in connection with the Organization’.[44] These regulations have become a basis for constituent documents of other international documents.[45] According to H. F. Bekker, Article 105 ‘has ever since served as a model for similar provisions in the legal instruments of a wide variety of international organizations’.[46]

Universal organizations, particularly the United Nations (UN), are provided by the largest scope of international privileges and immunities.[47] The UN is mostly engaged in a number of multilateral and bilateral agreements, including the Convention on Immunities and Privileges of the UN (General Convention) of 1946, the UN Specialized Agencies Convention of 1947, as well as Headquarters Agreements.

As a follow-up to the Article 105(3) of the UN Charter, the General Assembly adopted the General Convention of 1946 which offers more detailed arrangements for immunities and previleges.[48] The Convention also includes the provisions on the immunities of the officials of the Organization and representatives of its Member States, as well as the immunities of experts on mission. This one of the widely accepted immunity instruments has been ratified by 191 Member States. Furthermore, according to the UN Legal Counsel’s opinion, the General Convention is important not only for the widespread application and legally binding effect among Member States, but also because of its provisions which have been adopted in special agreements with a number of States which are neither parties to the Convention or nor the members of the Organization.[49] Moreover, the Legal Counsel concludes, therefore, that whatever the status of the provisions of the General Convention may have been in 1946, ‘they are now so widely accepted that they have become part of the general international law governing the relations of States and the United Nations’.[50]

Subsequently accepted Convention of Specialized Agencies of the United Nations of 1947 applies to all specialized agencies of the UN system, with some modification required by their own regulations.[51] The Convention of 1947 constitutes the sole comprehensive multilateral agreement dealing with the privileges and immunities of a large group of international organizations, namely, 17 specialized agencies including WHO, WIPO, ILO and etc.[52] According to the Convention, such agencies and their officials enjoy virtually the same privileges and immunities as the UN itself. Additionally, the full enjoyment of privileges and immunities was given to all senior officials of specialized agencies, including directors-general, their deputies, principal secretaries and members of their families.[53]

The General Convention and the Specialized Agencies Convention deal with immunities and privileges in the same manner with some slight differences. For instance, sections 4 and 31 of the 1947 Convention deal respectively with the questions of jurisdictional immunity and the settlement of disputes of a contractual or private law nature, in exactly the same terms as the provisions of the General Convention.[54] Moreover, both these conventions state that officials are granted immunities and privileges in order to satisfy interests of the organizations and not for personal benefits of individuals themselves.[55] Thus, the organization may waive the immunity where it impedes the course of justice and can be waived without prejudice to the interest of the organization.[56]

Another source of the immunities and privileges of international organizations which is applied by non-party States of abovementioned multilateral agreements is provided by the legal framework of a large number of bilateral agreements included more detailed and specific arrangements.[57] As Bekkers states, ‘the other legal sources for granting the necessary privileges and immunities, i.e., constituent instruments, general agreements, domestic legislation or customary international law, are not sufficiently specific for the regulation of this kind of relationship. In relation to the host State the organization often has a need for privileges and immunities of a wider scope and diversity than those provided for in general multilateral agreements. Moreover, only by means of a headquarters agreement can this special relationship be tuned in to the particular circumstances which characterize a host State’.[58]

One of the most common bilateral agreements containing an immunity clause is the headquarters agreement. Among the first generation of bilateral agreements is the bilateral agreement between the League of Nations and the Swiss Federal Council adopted based on ‘Switzerland’s restrictive approach towards diplomatic personnel’.[59] The Interim Arrangement on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations[60] between the UN and Switzerland concluded in 1946 could be given as another example of agreements between an international organization and a non-member State.[61]

Generally, under such agreements concluded by the United Nations Organizations or any other universal international organizations, representatives of States to these international organizations enjoy immunities and privileges in the same manner as the diplomatic representatives.[62] This could include significant bilateral agreements such as France-International Police Organization (INTERPOL), AU-Ethiopia headquarters agreements[63] and the Headquarters Agreement for the seat of the WHO in Geneva.[64] The newly revised France-INTERPOL agreement provides immunity to INTERPOL except in private interactions-mainly contracts and motor vehicle accidents.[65]

Subsequently, under the more comprehensive bilateral agreement concluded between the United States and the UN in 1947, the host State is responsible for the inviolability of the UN headquarters, as well as for the creation of the conditions for the normal functioning of the UN and its agencies. Thus, the entry to and departure from the territory of the USA should not be challenged for the UN officials, representatives of member States and specialized agencies, and for other persons invited, on official business with the UN (experts, witnesses, victims, detainees, delegates and etc.).[66] Furthermore, local authorities cannot conduct criminal proceedings in respect of crimes committed in the territory of the UN, without the consent of the Secretary General. In turn, the UN and its staff should respect the laws of the host State and not to interfere in its internal affairs.[67]

In addition to the above structures, immunities and privileges of some other intergovernmental organizations and bodies are addressed in specific international agreements, including the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe of 1949;[68] Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the Organization of American States of 1949;[69] Ottawa Agreement on the status of the NATO, National Representatives and International Staff;[70] Convention of the Privileges and Immunities of the League of Arab States of 1953;[71] Agreement on the Status of Western Europe Union, National Representatives and International Staff of 1955;[72] Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Atomic Energy Agency of 1959;[73] Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Organization of African Unity of 1992;[74] Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea of 1997;[75] Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of the International Seabed Authority of 1998; Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Eurasian Economic Community of 2001; Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization of 2004. Briefly, all these documents provide for immunities from every form of legal process except in so far as in any particular case the Secretary General authorizes waiver.[76]

 

Conclusion.

The main conclusions in this paper that were reached during the study indicate that normal conduct of activities of any international organization is not possible without certain immunities and privileges. Thus, organizations are entitled to such immunities in order to be able to carry out their functions and purposes. As it was discussed before, the scope of these privileges is governed by special documents, while in other cases, it shall be determined by domestic legislation. Such provisions are mostly enshrined in the constituent document of each international organization.

Therefore, functional immunities represent a significant guarantee of independence of organizations from control of individual States, as well enable access of international organizations to their own material resources not covered by public authorities of host States and exempt from their taxes.

 

Bibliography

 

  1. Reinisch, International Organizations Before National Courts (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000)
  2. Bekker, The Legal Position of Intergovernmental Organisations – a Functional Necessity Analysis of their Legal Status and Immunities (Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1994)
  3. F. Amerasinghe, Principles of the Institutional Law of International Organizations (2nd edn, CUP 2005)
  4. Wilfred Jenks, “International Immunities” (1961), 56 American Journal of International Law 178
  5. Chanaka Wickremasinghe, The jurisdictional immunities of International Organizations and their officials (UMI 2014)
  6. Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, UN General Assembly, 13 February 1946
  7. David B. Michaels, “International Privileges and Immunities: A Case for a Universal Statute” (1972), 66(4) The American Journal of International Law 900
  8. Fatemeh Mihandoost, “Immunity of International Organizations from the Perspective of International Law” (2016), 9(1) Journal of Politics and Law, 41
  9. Gian Luca Burci & Egle Granziera, “Privileges and Immunities of the World Health Organization: Practice and Challenges” (Koninklijke Brill Nv, Leiden, 2015), 91
  10. Gordon H. Gleen & Mary M. Kearney & David J. Padilla, “Immunities of International Organizations” (1982), 22(2) Virginia Journal of International Law 247
  11. F. Bekker, “The Legal Position of Intergovernmental Organizations: A Functional Necessity Analysis of Their Legal Status and Immunities” (1994), 17 Legal Aspects of International Organizations
  12. Henry G. Schermers & Niels M. Blokker, International Institutional Law (5th edn, 2011)
  13. International Organizations Immunities Act, 29 December 1945, Pub.L. 79−291 59 Stat. 669, H.R. 4489
  14. Johan G. Lammers, “Immunity of International Organizations: The Work of the International Law Commission” (2014), 10 International Organizations Law Review 276
  15. Josef L. Kunz, “Privileges and Immunities of International Organizations” (1947), The American Journal of International Law 828
  16. Joseph A. Bongiorno, “Sovereign Immunity and International Organization: The Case of DeLuca v. the United Nations” (1996), 10(2) International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society 317
  17. Jurisdictional Immunity of Intergovernmental Organizations” (1982), 91 The Yale Law Journal 1167
  18. Ahluwalia, The Legal Status, Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations and Certain Other International Organizations (The Hague, M. Nijhoff, 1964)
  19. Kibroom Tesfagabir, “The State of Functional Immunity of International Organizations and Their Officials and Why it should be Streamlined” (2011), 10 Chinese Journal of International Law 97
  20. Klabbers Jan, An introduction to International Institutional Law, (2nd edn, CUP 2009)
  21. Legislative Texts and Treaty Provisions concerning the Legal Status, Privileges and Immunities of International Organizations, United Nations Treaty Series, New York, 1959 & 1961
  22. Martin Hill, “Immunities and Privileges of International Officials: The Experience of the League of Nations” (1948), 42(2) The American Journal of International Law 520
  23. Michael Wood, “Do International Organizations Enjoy Immunity under Customary International Law” (2014), 10 International Organizations Law Review 287
  24. Niels Blokker, “International Organizations: The Untouchables?” (2013), 10(2) International Organizations Law Review 259
  25. Niels Blokker & Nico Schrijver, Immunity of International Organizations (Brill Nijhoff, 2015)
  26. Norman L. Hill, “Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities in International Organization” (1931), 20 Georgetown Law Journal 44
  27. Sands & P. Klein, Bowett’s Law of International Institutions (6th edn. 2009)
  28. Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, “Immunity of International Organizations” (2019)
  29. United Nations Charter, UN General Assembly, 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI
  30. C. Jenks, International Immunities (London, Stevens & Sons, Ltd, 1961)

[1] C. F. Amerasinghe, Principles of the Institutional Law of International Organizations (2nd edn, CUP 2005) 316

[2] Ibid

[3] Chanaka Wickremasinghe, “The jurisdictional immunities of International Organizations and their officials” (UMI 2003) 62

[4] Niels Blokker & Nico Schrijver, Immunity of International Organizations (2nd edn, Brill 2015) 2

[5] Ibid (n 3) p.202

[6] C. F. Amerasinghe, Principles of the Institutional Law of International Organizations (2nd edn, CUP 2005) 338

[7] Michael Wood, “Do International Organizations Enjoy Immunity under Customary International Law” (2014), 10 International Organizations Law Review 300

[8] Niels Blokker, “International Organizations: The Untouchables?” (2013), 10(2) International Organizations Law Review 260

[9] Ibid (n 5) 316

[10] P. Sands & P. Klein, Bowett’s Law of International Institutions (6th edn. 2009), pp. 5–8,

paras. 1.011–1.017.

[11] ibid (n 6) 32

[12] J. Kunz, “Privileges and Immunities of International Organizations” (1947), 41 American Journal of International Law 829–830

[13] League of Nations, Covenant of the League of Nations, 28 April 1919, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3dd8b9854.html [accessed 26 April 2019] – Article 7

[14] Wood, “Do International Organizations Enjoy Immunity under Customary International Law” (2014), 291

[15] Communications du Conseil Fiddral Suisse concernant le Rdgime des Immunitis Diplomatique du Personnel de la Socidtd des Nations et du Bureau International du Travail, entered into by the League of Nations and the Swiss Government on 18 September 1926, 7 OJLN (1926), Annex 911a, 1422.

[16] Norman L. Hill, “Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities in International Organization” (1931), 20 Georgetown Law Journal 50

[17] Ibid 190

[18] J. Kunz, “Privileges and Immunities of International Organizations” (1947) 848

[19] C. Wilfred Jenks, “International Immunities” (1961), 56 American Journal of International Law

[20] Ibid (n 18) p.833

[21] Johan G. Lammers, “Immunity of International Organizations: The Work of the International Law Commission” (2014), 10 International Organizations Law Review 277-278

[22] Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (8th edn, 2012), p. 173.

[23] Kibroom Tesfagabir, “The State of Functional Immunity of International Organizations and Their Officials and Why it should be Streamlined” (2011), 10 Chinese Journal of International Law, p.109

[24] Ibid p.110

[25] Constitution, in this context, refers to a founding instrument of an international organization, which is alternatively referred to as constituent instrument.

[26] UN General Assembly, Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, 13 February 1946, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3902.html [accessed 27 April 2019]

[27] UN General Assembly, Special missions, 1 December 1967, A/RES/2273, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3b00f1d94c.html [accessed 3 May 2019]

[28] Ibid (n 21)

[29] Chanaka Wickremasinghe, “The jurisdictional immunities of International Organizations and their officials” (2003) 126

[30] Ibid (n 26)

[31] Ibid (n 29) 130

[32] United Nations Charter, UN General Assembly, 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI, Article 104

[33] Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, 13 February 1946, Article 2, Section 2

[34] Ibid Section 3

[35] Ibid Article 2

[36] Kibroom Tesfagabir, “The State of Functional Immunity of International Organizations and Their Officials and Why it should be Streamlined” (2011), 10 Chinese Journal of International Law, p.100

[37] Klabbers Jan, An introduction to International Institutional Law, (2nd edn, CUP 2009) p.148

[38] C. Wickremasinghe, “The jurisdictional immunities of International Organizations and their officials” (2003) p.244

[39] Wood, “Do International Organizations Enjoy Immunity under Customary International Law” (2014) p.290

[40] “The State of Functional Immunity of International Organizations and Their Officials and Why it should be Streamlined” (2011), 10 Chinese Journal of International Law, p.108

[41] International Organizations Immunities Act, 29 December 1945, Pub.L. 79−291 59 Stat. 669, H.R. 4489

[42] Ibid Section 2, para B

[43] Chanaka Wickremasinghe, “The jurisdictional immunities of International Organizations and their officials” (2003) 131

[44] UN Charter, Article 105(1) and 105(2)

[45] C. F. Amerasinghe, Principles of the Institutional Law of International Organizations (2nd edn, CUP 2005) p.317

[46] H.F. Bekker, “The Legal Position of Intergovernmental Organizations: A Functional Necessity Analysis of Their Legal Status and Immunities” (1994), 17 Legal Aspects of International Organizations, p.127

[47] K. Ahluwalia, The Legal Status, Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations and Certain Other International Organizations (The Hague, M. Nijhoff, 1964)

[48] Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, 13 February 1946

[49] C. Wickremasinghe, “The jurisdictional immunities of International Organizations and their officials” (2003), p.128

[50]  Statement made by the Legal Counsel at the 1016th meeting of the Sixth committee of the General Assembly on 6.12.67 (1967 UNJY 311-314)

[51] Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 33, p. 261.

[52] Gian Luca Burci & Egle Granziera, “Privileges and Immunities of the World Health Organization: Practice and Challenges” (Koninklijke Brill Nv, Leiden, 2015) p.93

[53] Ibid Article 6

[54] C. F. Amerasinghe, Principles of the Institutional Law of International Organizations (2nd edn, CUP 2005) p.342

[55] Section 20, UN Convention; and Section 22, Specialized Agencies Convention

[56] C. F. Amerasinghe, Principles of the Institutional Law of International Organizations (2nd edn, CUP 2005) p.343

[57] Burci & Granziera, “Privileges and Immunities of the World Health Organization” (Leiden, 2015) p.94

[58] H.F. Bekker, “The Legal Position of Intergovernmental Organizations: A Functional Necessity Analysis of Their Legal Status and Immunities” (1994), 17 Legal Aspects of International Organizations, p.136

[59] K. Tesfagabir, “The State of Functional Immunity of International Organizations and Their Officials and Why it should be Streamlined” (2011), 10 Chinese Journal of International Law, p.106

[60] Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly during its resumed 1st session, Volume II, 23 October-15 December 1946. – A/64/Add.2. – 1947. – p. 194. – (GAOR, resumed 1st sess.)

[61] UN Doc ST/LEG/SER.B/10 at p. 196

[62] Klabbers Jan, An introduction to International Institutional Law, (2nd edn, CUP 2009) p.146

[63] On 30-31 May, the 8th meeting of the African Union-Regions Steering Committee of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) and Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration (DDR) was held at AU Headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

[64] Burci & Granziera, “Privileges and Immunities of the World Health Organization: Practice and Challenges” (Koninklijke Brill Nv, Leiden, 2015) p. 106

[65] Agreement regarding INTERPOL’s headquarters in France, 14 and 24 April 2008

[66] The UN–USA Headquarters Agreement

[67] C. F. Amerasinghe, Principles of the Institutional Law of International Organizations (2nd edn, CUP 2005) p.330-331

[68] UN Doc. ST/LEG/SER.B/11 at p.390

[69] UN Doc. ST/LEG/SER.B/11 at p.377

[70] Ottawa Agreement on the status of the NATO, National Representatives and International Staff 200 UNTS 3

[71] UN Doc. ST/LEG/SER.B/11 at p.414

[72] UN Doc. ST/LEG/SER.B/11 at p.421

[73] UN Doc. ST/LEG/SER.B/11 at p.357

[74]Documents of the Organization of African Unity (Mansell, London 1992).

[75] International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea – Basic texts 1998 (Kluwer, The Hague 1999) at p. 81

[76] C. Wickremasinghe, “The jurisdictional immunities of International Organizations and their officials” (2003), p.136

 

Bu bloqda yerləşdirilən məqalələr hüquqi məsləhət xarakteri daşımır və belə olaraq nəzərə alınmamalıdır. Əlaqədar məsələ üzrə hüquqi dəyərləndirmənin və məsləhətin əldə olunması üçün müvafiq hüquqi məsləhət xidmətləri göstərən şəxsə müraciət etməyiniz tövsiyə olunur.