1 The terms “agent” and “officer” as used in this paper are designed to include all functionaries of international organizations, i.e., the executive heads of the organizations, representatives of governments to the organizations, officials, and experts engaged in missions.

2 Article 19 reads: “The members of the Court, when engaged on the business of the Court, shall enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities.” It should be noted, however, that Art. VIII, par. 4, of the FAO Constitution provides: “Each member nation undertakes, in sofar as it may be possible under its constitutional procedure, to accord the Director-General and senior staff diplomatic privileges and immunities… .” See on this provision par. 39 of the Report of the Subcommittee of the Sixth Committee (so-called Beckett Report) of the General Assembly (U. N. Doc. A/C.6/191, Nov. 15, 1947), pp. 14–15.

3 See, for instance, Charles G. Fenwick, International Law (3rd ed., 1948), pp. 468 ff., and Hackworth, Digest of International Law (1941), Vol. II, pp. 393 ff.

4 See, e.g., Sec. 1 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations which reads: “The United Nations shall possess juridical personality. It shall have the capacity: (a) to contract; (b) to acquire and dispose of immovable and movable property; (c) to institute legal proceedings.”

5 League of Nations Official Journal (October, 1926), p. 1422.

6 See Report of Sub-Committee IV/2/A on the Juridical Status of the Organization, Doe. 803, IV/2/A 7, June 6, 1945. UNCIO Does., Vol. 13, p. 817. The Report [by the United States Delegation] to the President on the Results of the San Francisco Conference (Department of State Publication 2349), p. 157, comments as follows on the omission of “international personality” in Article 104: “The Committee which discussed this matter was anxious to avoid any implication that the United Nations will be in any sense a super-state.” On this point see also Yuen-Li Liang, “The Legal Status of the United Nations in the United States,” The International Law Quarterly, Vol. 2(1948–1949), p. 578; Jenks C. W., “The Legal Personality of International Organizations,” British Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 22 (1945), pp. 267–275; and Clyde Eagleton, “International Organization and the Law of Responsibility,” in Hague Academy of International Law, Recueil des Cours, Vol. 76 (1950), pp. 326–345, especially pp. 335–337.

7 See also the substantially identical Art. VII, Sec. 2, of the Articles of Agreement of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development; also Jessup, Philip C., “Status of International Organizations: Privileges and Immunities of Their Officials,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 38 (1944), pp. 658–662 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Kuhn Arthur K., “United Nations Monetary Conference and the Immunity of International Agencies,” ibid., pp. 662–667.

8 I.C.J. Reports, 1949, p. 174 at p. 179 (italics added) ; American Journal of Interternational Law, Vol. 43 (1949), p. 589, at p. 592.

9 Survey of International Law in Relation to the Work of Codification of the International Law Commission, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/1/Rev. 1, at p. 53.

10 League of Nations Doc. C.45.M.22.1926.V.

11 See on this point also the Report by Mr. Zaleski to the Council of the League of Nations in Official Journal (July, 1927), pp. 749–757. Mr. Zaleski did not consider the question of diplomatic immunities and privileges an urgent one. Moreover, he expressed doubts whether it would be feasible or useful to consider in any general agreement on the subject of diplomatic privileges and immunities the special problems arising under Article 7 of the Covenant or in connection with the Permanent Court of International Justice, and stated: “My conclusion is that limitation of the scope of the contemplated general conference might take the form of the exclusion of the subject of Piracy and possibly also that of Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities.” Loc. ca., p. 753.

12 U.N. Doc. A/925, p. 3; American Journal of International Law, Supp., Vol. 44 (1950), p. 6.

13 Text in Hudson Manley O., International Legislation, Vol. 4 (1931), pp. 2385–2393; American Journal of International Law, Supp., Vol. 22 (1928), p. 142. The following states have ratified the convention without reservation: Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Haiti, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela. In addition to the foregoing twelve states Chile and the Dominican Republic have accepted the convention with reservations.

14 Hudson, op. cit., p. 2388.

15 Ibid., p. 2389.

16 American Journal of International Law, Supp., Vol. 26 (1932), p. 22, and pp. 79–85.

17 For an earlier agreement of this type see, in addition to the modus vivendi between the League and Switzerland, the General Principles, supplemented by Rules of Application of May 22, 1928, relating to the External Status of Members of the Permanent Court of International Justice. See Official Journal (July, 1928), pp. 985–987; also ibid., p. 866, and Permanent Court of International Justice, Series E, No. 4, pp. 57–63.

18 United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 11 (1947), pp. 11–41; American Journal of International Law, Supp., Vol. 43 (1949), p. 8.

19 United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1 (1946–1947), pp. 163–181.

20 Ibid., pp. 15–33; American Journal of International Law, Supp., Vol. 43 (1949), p. 1.

21 United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 33 (1949), pp. 261–303.

22 As of April 20, 1952. See U.N. Doc. GENERAL/ST/AFS/SER.A/108, July 2, 1951.

23 See, for example, Specimen WHO Basic Agreement in [World Health Organization] Administrative Manual Circular No. 13, May 19, 1951. Article V [Alternative 2] of this model agreement reads: “Pending the ratification of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies, the Government shall accord to the Organization, its personnel, property and assets in connexion with the performance of this Agreement and any Supplementary Agreement hereto, the privileges and immunities normally accorded to the United Nations, its property, assets, officials and experts under the provisions of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.” For special agreements relating to privileges and immunities concluded by the United Nations with individual governments, see Annual Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization, 1 July 1950–30 June 1951, U.N. Doc. A/1844, pp. 187–188.

24 See, e.g., Arts. 104 and 105 of the U. N. Charter; see also the following constitutional provisions of international organizations: FAO, Art. VIII, par. 4, and Art. XV; ICAO, Arts. 47, 59, 60; ILO (1946 version), Arts. 39, 40; UNESCO, Art. XII; and WHO, Arts. 66-68.

25 United Nations Treaty Series,Vol. 33 (1949), pp. 298–299.

26 The question whether or not the United Nations or specialized agencies are “parties” to the above-mentioned immunities conventions has occasionally been raised. It is submitted that three situations should be distinguished: First, the United Nations or specialized agencies are no doubt parties to conventions which are concluded in their own name with individual governments (Compare Groups 1 and 3 above). Second, Members of the United Nations which are members of a specialized agency may become parties to the Specialized Agencies Convention by acceding to the convention in accordance with Secs. 41 and 43 of the convention. The convention, however, cannot become applicable vis-a-vis individual specialized agencies, unless a specialized agency “accepts” the standard clauses of the convention, as modified by the final text of the relevant annex, in accordance with Sec. 37 of the convention; since, without such “acceptance” on the part of individual specialized agencies, the convention cannot become effective in respect of the agency concerned, it may be argued that through acceptance of the Annex the individual specialized agency becomes a party to the convention. Third, the United Nations is ostensibly not a party to the General Convention. The convention is not expressly “concluded” between the United Nations and its individual Members. Under Sec. 32 the convention enters into force as regards each Member on the date of deposit of each instrument of accession. From Sec. 35, however, it may be inferred that the United Nations is a party to the convention since it provides;

“This convention shall continue in force as between the United Nations and every Member which has deposited an instrument of accession for so long as that Member remains a Member of the United Nations, or until a revised general convention has been approved by the General Assembly and that Member has become a party to this revised convention.” (Italics added.)

27 See, for example, Sec. 21 of the Specialized Agencies Convention which reads: “In addition to the immunities and privileges specified in Sections 19 and 20, the executive head of each specialized agency, including any official acting on his behalf during his absence from duty, shall be accorded in respect of himself, his spouse and minor children, the privileges and immunities, exemptions and facilities accorded to diplomatic envoys, in accordance with international law.” (Italics added.) United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 33 (1949), p. 276.

28 On this point see Final Report of Subcommittee 1 of the Sixth Committee, U.N. Doe. A/C.6/191, Nov. 15, 1947, p. 8, par. 21.

29 United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1 (1946–1947), pp. 24–26.

30 See above, footnote 27.

31 Quotation from Circular to the League Secretariat Regarding the Rights Conferred and the Obligations Imposed upon Members of the Secretariat of the League of Nations by Article 7 of the Covenant, dated May 1, 1928, reproduced in Hans Aufricht, Guide to League of Nations Publications, 1920–1947 (1951), pp. 479–484; see especially p. 479. See also Art. VII of the 1926 modus vivendi in League of Nations Official Journal (October, 1926), p. 1423.

32 Compare also, for example, Sec. 8(c) of the International Organizations Immunities Act, 59 Stat. 672, 22 U.S.C.288(e), which reads: “No person shall, by reason of the provisions of this title, be considered as receiving diplomatic status or as receiving any of the privileges incident thereto other than such as are specificially set forth herein.” For a discussion of this Act see Lawrence Preuss, “The International Organizations Immunities Act,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 40 (1946), pp. 332–345. For text of Act, see also ibid., Supp., p. 85.

33 See Martin Hill, Immunities and Privileges of International Officials: The Experience of the League of Nations (Washington, 1947).

34 See Georges Perrenoud, Regime des Privileges et Immwaites des Missions diplomatiques etrangeres et des Organisations internationales en Suisse (1949); see also Kunz Josef L., “Privileges and Immunities of International Organizations,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 41 (1947), pp. 828–862; and King John Kerry, The Privileges and Immunities of the Personnel of International Organizations (Geneva, 1949, Thesis No. 66, Institut Universitaire de Hautes Etudes Internationales).

35 Sec. 4 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, 59 Stat. 672.

36 See U.N. Doc. GENERAL/ST/AFS/SER.A/108, July 2, 1951.

37 See Sec. 10.30 of the U. S. Customs Regulations of 1943 (as amended), especially Sec. 10.30(b), in Custom House Guide (1951 ed., New York), p. 1254.

38 See Sec. 10.29 of the U.S. Customs Regulations of 1943 (as amended), ibid., pp. 1252–1253, especially Sec. 10.29(e).

39 Sec. 7(a) of the International Organizations Immunities Act, 59 Stat. 672, 22 U.S.C. 288(d).

40 22 Code of Federal Regulations 42.104 (1949); see also Subsee. 15(G) of Sec. 101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 1952 (Public Law 414, 82d Congress). This Act will enter into force “the one-hundred eightieth day immediately following the day of its enactment.” The day of enactment was June 27, 1952.

41 22 Code of Federal Regulations 42.101 (z) (aa) (1949) provides: “ ’International-organization visa’ means a special passport visa issued by a consular officer to a nonimmigrant alien who is destined to an international organization in the United States.” See also ibid., Par. 42.112.

42 See Secs. 24-28 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1 (1946–1947), p. 28; see also Sees. 2630 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies, United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 33 (1947), p. 282.

43 See Annual Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization, 1 July 1950–30 June 1951, U.N. Doe. A/1844, p. 187.

44 See on this point the Annual Report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the Work of the Organization, 1 July 1947–30 June 1948, U.N. Doc. A/565, pp. 111–112. The Secretary General’s Report envisages “administrative arrangements” between the United Nations and the United States “by which the laissez-passer could be recognized by the United States as a valid travel document and a document of nationality.” No such arrangements had been arrived at as of April, 1952.

45 See Sec. 18(a) of the General Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, loc. cit., p. 21, and See. 19(a) of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies, loc. cit., p. 276. See also Sec. 7(b) of the International Organizations Immunities Act, 59 Stat. 672.

46 American journal of International Law, Supp., Vol. 26 (1932), pp. 20, 67–71.

47 Art. 100 of the United Nations Charter.

48 See Sec. 18(b) and (c) of the General Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, loc. cit., p. 24.

49 Loc. cit., pp. 274–276.

50 Sec. 18(d) of the General Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, loc. cit., p. 24, and Sec. 19(c) of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies, loc. cit., p. 274.

51 See U.N. Doe. GENERAL/ST/AFS/SER.A/108, July 2, 1951.

52 See U.N. Doe. A/2119, pp. 84–89; American Journal of International Law, Stipp., Vol. 46 (1952), p. 66. Sec. 3 of this Resolution states that the General Assembly “Bequests the Secretary-General: (a) In relation to reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, to conform his practice to the advisory opinion of the Court of 28 May 1951; (b) In respect of future conventions concluded under the auspices of the United Nations of which he is the depositary: (i) To continue to act as depositary in connexion with the deposit of documents containing reservations or objections, without passing upon the legal effect of such documents; and (ii) To communicate the text of such documents relating to reservations or objections to all States concerned, leaving it to each State to draw legal consequences from such communications.” 360th Plenary Meeting, Jan. 12, 1952. Consult also the Report of the Sixth Committee, U.N. Doe. A/2047, Jan. 9, 1952. On the practice of the Secretariat of the United Nations regarding reservations to multilateral treaties consult also, “The Handling of Treaties by the Secretariat of the United Nations: Report of the Committee to Study Legal Problems of the United Nations,” in PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, 1951, pp. 143–147. See also Reservations to the Convention on Genocide, Advisory Opinion: I.C.J. Reports, 1951, p. 15 (Sales No. 59), and the related Pleadings, Oral Arguments, Documents, I.C.J. (Sales No. 70).

53 See Sec. 14 of the General Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, loc. cit., p. 22; see also Sec. 16 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies, loc. cit., p. 272.

54 It should be noted that this provision of the Bank Agreement has been incorporated expressly into Annex VI of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies, Zoo. cit., p. 300. In the words of the Annex this provision “shall be substituted for section 4” of the Convention.

55 Loc. cit., pp. 16–18.

56 See Annual Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization 1 July 1950–30 June 1951, U.N. Doc. A/1844, pp. 189–190.