United Nations Headquarters Agreement Case

April 14, 2021 – 2:37 am

“… The staff of the PLO observation mission is only present in the United States as “guests” of the United Nations, within the meaning of the Headquarters agreement…. We therefore have an obligation to allow PLO observer mission personnel to enter and remain in the United States to perform their official duties at UN Headquarters… (Congressional Record, 133, 78, S6449). The 1987 Anti-Terrorism Act contains, in addition to the essential provisions cited by the Court in paragraph 9 of its opinion, the “findings” of the United States Congress on the plo`s activities and “provisions” that the PLO is a “terrorist organization” that “should not benefit from the activity in the United States”; Charges the Attorney General to take the necessary steps and take the necessary legal steps to “pass” the law; and gives the competent courts of american authority, in the case of the Attorney General, the opportunity to “force” the law. It is, of course, true that if a state`s breach of their contractual obligations is obvious and unspeed, such a breach does not escape a jurisdiction clause that gives a court such as the Court of Justice the power to rule on the interpretation or application of that contract. Counsel for the United States so argued in the case of United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (I.C.J. Pleadings, p. 279), and that argument, apparently accepted by the Court, remains prosuasive. The result, however, is that, in the specific case, the existence or absence of a dispute over the interpretation of a contract is not affected by the articulated agreement of the parties` views as to its interpretation. If the question of the application of the siege agreement is set aside for consideration, it appears in this case that the parties` views on its interpretation are “identical” (to use the term used by the Secretary-General). “The Agreement will be interpreted in light of its priority objective, so that the United Nations is able to fully and effectively assume its responsibilities and achieve its objectives at its headquarters in the United States.” 57. The Court must therefore conclude that the United States is bound by the obligation to use arbitration under Section 21 of the Headquarters Agreement.

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.