EXPOSÉS ORAUX
PROCÈS-VERBAUXDESAUDIENCESPUBLIQUES
tenuesoupolois de laà LAUaye, les 11. 12 et 26 avril 1988,
sousla présidencede M. Rudo, Président
ORALSTATEMENTS
MINUTESOF THE PUBLICSlTïINGS
heldat the PeacePalace, TheHogII,12 and26 April1988,
the President.Judge Rudo,presiding PREMIÈRE AUDIENCE PUBLIQUE (1I IV 88, 10h)
PrésentsM. RUDA ,résidentM. KébaMBAYE ,ice-PrésideM;M. L~cw,
NAGENDR SINGHE, LIAS, DA,AGO,SCHWEBEsL ir,Robert IENNINS,M. BED-
IAOUIN, I, EVENSEN, RASSOGV, ILLAUM SH,AHABUDDE jENe,;M. VALENCIA-
OSPINA Gresfer.
Présentigaiement:
Pour l'OrganisationdesNations Unies:
M. Carl-August Fleischhauer, secrétaire adljoint, conseillerjuridique;
M. Ralph Zacklin, juriste principal,bureau du conseillerjuridique;
Mm'Marcia Constable, assistante administrative, bureaudu conseiller juri-
dique. LePRÉSIDENT: La Cour est aujourd'hui réuniepour entendre, en application
de l'article66,paragraphe 4, de son Statut, des observations oralesafférentes
demande d'avis consultatif dont l'Assembléegénérale deNs ations Unies a décidé
de la saisirpar une résolution/229Ben date du 2 mars 1988(ci-dessusp. 7-8) J.
prierai le Greffierde bien vouloir donner lecture de la question sur laquelle l'ans
consultatif de la Cour est demandéaux termes de cette résolution.
The REGISTRAR:
"In the light of facts reflected in the reports of the Secretary-General
[A1421915and Add.11,isthe United StatesofAmerica,asa party to theAgree-
ment betweenthe United Nations and the United Statesof Americaregarding
the Headquarters of the United Nations [resolution169(II)],under an obliga-
tion to enterinto arbitration in accordanceh Section21oftheAgreement?"
Le PRÉSIDENT: Ainsi que le prescrit l'article 66,paragraphe 1,du Statut, le
Greffier a immédiatement notifié la requêtp eour avis consultatif (ci-dessus
p. 3-8), transmise à la Cour par une lettre du Secrétaire géndlatée du 2mars
1988, à tous les Etats admis à ester en justice devant la Cour.
Dans une ordonnance du 9 mars 1988',la Cour a considéréà , la lumièredes
indications fournies par l'Assemblée générale, qu'unperompte réponseà ladite
requêteétaitdésirable, selonlestermes de l'article103de son Règlement,etqu'elle
devait en conséquenceprendre toutes mesures utilespour accélérer la procédure.
Par la mêmeordonnance, la Cour a ~riéle Secrétaireeénéralde fournir à une
date aussi rapprochéeque possible le; documents ~~olvant senir à éluciderla
question>>qui sont visésa l'article 65. paragraphe 2, du Statut de la Cour; ces
documents sont parvenus i la Cour en plu,ieurs envois (ci-dessuso. 13.11.La
Cour a en outre décide, parcette ordonnance: que l'organisation des aii ions
Unies et les Etats-Unis d'Amérique étaienjtugés,conformcment à l'article 66,
paragraphe 2, de son Statut, suxxptibles de fournir des renseignements sur la
question qui lui avait été soumispour avis consultatif. la date-d'exniration du
délai lequel 13Cour serait dtsposeeàrecevoir d'euxdes expoks écntssur
laquestion étantfixéeau 25mars 1988,que lesautres Etats parties au Statut de la
Cour qui en auraient expriméle désirpourraient soumettre"n exposé écris tur la
question, le 25 mars 1988 au plus tard; et que des audiences s'ouvriraient
aujourd'hui 11 avril 1988,au cours desquelles des observations sur les exposés
écritspourraient êtrefaites devant la Courpar l'organisation des Nations Unies,
les Etats-Unis d'Amériqueet les Etats qui auraient déposédes exposés écrits.
Dans les délaisfixés à cet effet, des exposésécnts ou des communications
assimiléesà des exposés écritsont été présenté psar le Secrétaire généradle
l'organisation des Nations Unies et Darle Gouvernement des Etats-Unis d'Amé-
riquë. ainsi que par les gouvernements de la Républiquearabe syrienne et de la
Républiquedémocratique allemande (ci-dessus p. 165.188) Seul le Secrétaire
générad le l'Organisation desNations Unies a manifestéI'intention de formuler
des observations orales en'espkc, ct je constate que son représentantest présent
a I'audicncc.Je donne donc la parole i M. Fleischhauer, conseillerjundique de
l'organisation des Nations Unies.
' C.I.J. Recue1988.p. 3 ORAL STATEMENT BYMR. FLEISCHHAUER
LEGAL COUNSELOF THE UNITED NATIONS
Mr. FLEISCHHAUER: Mr. President, 1 am most grateïul to be given the
opportunity 10 make a brief staterncnt10 the Court in addition Io the Written
Statement which has been suhmitteed on hehalf of the Secretary-General on 25
March 1988.
1.TheCourt willhave seenfrom the Wntten Statementthat the United Nations
urges il to declare that indeed, in the liaht of the pertinent facts. there is an
obii~ationfor the United States of ~merica 10enter inio the arbitralion nrocedure
proGdcd for by section 21 of the Hcadquartcn Agreement ol 1947. AS WC have
endeavoured in demonsrrate in the Wniicn Staicmeni, ihe Headquarterj Agrce-
ment is a ireaiv in forcc ïnd a disouic crists hetwcen thr United Nation5 and the
United Staies ioncerninà the im~lerncniation or application of thai trcaty Th?
di\putc arircs oui of the United States Anri-Terronsm Act of 1987,the intcnt of
which is IOobt;iin the closure of the Pcrnidnent Obscri,er Mission of the Palestine
Liberation Oreanization to the United Nations. We have also endeavoured to
demonsiratc liai the Uniicd Nsiions has made a good-faiih eiTori io rcach a
seillement of the dispute by means of ncgotiation or Io.üpreeon anothcr mzthod
of settlement, which-attempts however have failed.
2. In the discussionsbetweenthe United Nations and the United States, pnor to
the adoption of rcsolution 4212298 of 2 March 1988, the question whether a
dispute had already arisen with the adoption and signing into law of the Anti-
Terrorism Act of 1987 olaved a oarticular role. The ooint is dealt with in
paragroph 39 of the ~riitc~~taierient submiited hy the'~nited Naiions, but I
would IikeIo niakc somr addiiional remarks on it I would also Iike10cvme hsck
brieflyto the question of the completion of the negotiating stage of the procedure
foreseen for the settlement of disputes in section 21 of the Headquarten
Agreement, a matter which is dealt with in paragraph 42 of Our Written
Statement. Finallv. 1would like to exolain bneflv to the Court the oosition of the
secretary-Generaiwith respect 10 théproceedings which have in'the meantime
becn instituted before a domestic court in the United States.
Mr. President, with respectto the existenceof a dispute, the additional remarks
which 1would like to make are the following:
1.The notion of a dispute was definedby the Permanent Court of International
Justice.'in ils decision in tMavrommaris case. as beine a disanreement on a
point of lawor hci, a conilict of legal viewsor oi inieresi;beiueeIwo persons.
The Internaiional Court of Jusiice in ils Advisory Opinion on tInierprer<rrrnf
Peuce Treaoes ~iirh Bulg<rriu.Hunpar). and Rumania held no1 onls thst the
existenceof an internati&al disputëis a matter for objective determination, but
also that a dispute is a situation "in which the two sides hold clearly opposite
viewsconcerning the question of the performance or non-performance of certain
treaty obligations". At no point has the internationalCourt of Justice or ils194 APPLlCABlLllK OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBIIXATE
predecessorlinked the notion of a dispute to an injury sufïered. Nor does it follow
from the eeneral nractice of States or literature that the existence of a disnute
-
presupposes, of n&ssity, that an injury, a violation of existing rights, must have
occurred. But even if a differenceof viewpoints would no1yet constitutea dispute,
in soite of the wordine of the definitions which 1have iust mentioned. the concrete
thrîat of a violation or Jn injury içcertainly sufficienito establish the existence of
a dispute In the prewnt ïax. no1 only did the tuo $ides hold clearly oppostle
views concerninp.the intemretation of the Headauarters Anreement. hutthere
existed, with thesigning ink law of the ~nti-~erro;ism Act, aconcretethreat of a
violation of existing rights.
2. In connection with the case al issue. MI. President. the United Nations has
not soueht to determine the earliest wss.b~ ~ ~ ~ ~ of the existenceof a dis~ute.
~eedle; to Say,the United Nations is extremely coicerned that the disputéhas
arisen and that the United Nations would have preferred to avoid it. The United
Nations wishes to maintain harmonious relations with ils Host Country, but at
the same time the United Nations isdeterrnined and has an obligation to maintain
ils position under the Headquarters Agreement. Thus, the United Nations
deliberately deferred any determination that a dispute existed up to the las1
.o~ ~ ~e~moment in time from which ~ ~ ~~~-ctiv~ ~e~ ~ ~ of the U~i-~~ Nations ~ ~
legal position would slill have been possible That stage uas ccnainly reached by
mid-January 1988.Bythai lime, the President of the United States had signed the
Anti-Tcrronsm Act in10 Iaw and the United States had officially informed the
United N3tii)ns of this. The Secretary-General. u,ith a vieu, to a~oiding a
confrontation bctween the Organiwtinn and the Host Country, had warned lime
and again that the entry into~force of the law would lead to a dispute and had
asked for assurances that the obligations of the Host Country under the
Headquarters Agreement would he respected. No such assurances had been
forthcoming, however, and when the Acting Permanent Representative of the
United States, Amhassador Okun, informed the Secretary-General in his letter of
5 January 1988 (doc. No. 33 of the dossier), that the President had signed the
Anti-Terrorism Act in10 law on 22 December 1987, the Ambassador also
indicated that the law would take effect90 days after that date. He alsostated that
because the nrovisions concernine the P-0 O~ ~rver Mis~ion. if imnlemented.
uould bc coitr3ry 15 the international ohligations of the unitcd ~iate; under the
Headquarters Agreîment. the Administration intended, durina the 90-day period
before this ~rovision was to take efïeci. to eneaee in coniultations wiih the
Congress in'an effort to resolve this matter. ~s\;ever, the Acting Permanent
Representative did not give any assurances to the Secretary-General as to the
maintenance of the ar~annements concernin~ the observer Mission. So the
situation remained that an ~utomatiçism had bëen set in motion which uould lead
10 the applicahility of the Act alter 90 days, which is. Mr. President, a very short
lime even if the dispute scttlement procedure ~rovided for in sectiun 21 of the
Headquarters ~~reement was to be knplement& only to the point of the interim
decision provided for in section 21 (b).
3. The uncertainty of whether. when and inwhat precise way the United States
would internipl the functioning of the PL0 Mission under the Anti-Terronsm
Act does no1 alter the fact that the United Nations had to rely on the official
communication of 5 January 1988that the Act was to take efïect 90 days after
signature by the President; after the signingof the law, the mere lapse of 90 days
would oermit the United StatesGovernment under the domestic law of the United
States io act in ~iolaiion of the Headquarters Agreement. Nor does the faci ihat
the Un~tcdStates üoternmcnt, in order to enforcc the Idw, had ro hii\.e rcïourse
15 an Americsn court, put offthc existenceof 3 dispute This is so hec3useaftcr 90 ORAL STATEMENTS 195
days, thedefence mechanism of section 21 would be rendered ineffective; court
action by the United States would become immediatelypossible, the duration and
outcome of which would be unoredictahle. Besides. the action taken in the
domestic court under the Act is nbt intended on the part of the United States to
secure a re-interpretation of the law or a dèlayin its implementation, but it is for
the swcific ~uroose of closine the Mission.
4. ~r. ~resi&nt. al1that &!hi have been difcreni and indeed the Sccretary-
General would have heen spared the need to invoke 3 di5pute. had ihe United
States been in a position tu givethe assurances aïked for by the Secretary-General
inhis letter of 7 December 1987(duc. No. 31 of the do5sicr).The invoking of the
dispute could ai least have ken postponed if the running of the 90days had ban
suspended for such a span of lime as was necessary for the United States
Government to clarifv its own nosition. for examde bv undertakine - 1~"eive the
United Nations no le&than 60days notice before any &ion was taken under the
law, thus enabling the United Nations to initiate the dispute settlement procedure
foreseenunder section 21. But such assurances werenotgiven, althoughthey were
repeatedly requested and discussed betweenthe United Nations and the United
States.
5. When the meetingof 12January 1988between the LegalAdviser of the State
Deoartment and mvselfaeain did not oroduce anv assurances. then the Secretarv-
~eneral decided tkt he had io decl&ç that a d;spute exisied. The thre=l of tic
impossibility of reaching ai lessi ihe inierim measures phase of the section 21
procedure guided the Sesreiag-General in this choiceof ihe point in timc when he
stated that û dispute eristed For the reasons indicaird in paragraph 19 of the
Written Siaiement. the United Nations had calculated thai M) days would be the
minimum Limeto reach the interim measures stage and with that in mind, the
Secretary-General asked to have the fint meeting under section 21on 20 January
..88
6. MI. President, this is why the United Nations has been and still is of the
opinion that a dispute existed as far back as 14January 1988,even before the
situation had ripened into an accomplished, perfected violation of the Head-
quarters Agreement. The General Assembly, for its part, recognized in its
resolution 42/229B of 2 March, at the time the question was addressed to the
Court on the basis of the reports submitted by the Secretary-General to the
General Assembly, that a dispute existed.
111
As to the good faith attempts of the United Nations to resolve the dispute by
nea.tiation or other a-reed mode of settlement. 1would like to sav the followine:
1.As was pointrd out in paragraph 42 of the Secreiar)-General's stûtement. in
order to find ihai the IJniied Staies isunder an obligation to enter into arbitration
under section 21 of the Headuuarters Aareemeni. iiis necessarv io shou ihai the
United Nations has made a iood fait<attempt 10 resolve thédispute through
prior negotiation or some other agreed mode of settlement.
2. The summary of facts contained in paragraphs 19-29 of the Secretary-
General's written Statement provides a concise account of the attempts made by
the United Nations to achieve such a negotiated settlement of the dispute or to
Rach agreement on another mode of settlement. 1 believe that the Secretary-
General's Written Statement and the documents submitted to the Court (in
particular the reports of the Secretary-General Io the General Assembly -
coniained in documents 1,2 and 105of the dossier) speak largelyfor themselvesin
this regard, but it may, nevertheless, be useful that 1 expand on the Written196 APPLlCABlLlTYOF THE OBLIGATIO NO ARBITRAIE
Statementand provide the Coun with the United Nations perspectiveof the
negotiationsin which itengagedwith the UnitedStatesfollowing thesigninginto
law of the Anti-Terronsm Act, and indeedalreadybeforcthat signature.
3 Mr President,from the United Nations point of vicw. thesenegotiations
constituted a sontinuous dialogue betuccn the Iwo sidesconducted on three
levels: betweenthe ~ecretarv-Ceneraland the Permanent Renresentative or
Acting Permanent~e~resctit~ti~c of the United StatesIo the Ûniied Nations.
betweenmyself.asLegal Counselof the UnitedNations.Andmycounterpart.the
St~teDeDariment Iceal Adnser. Mr Sofaer.and betueenmv\clf and the lcnal
Adviser 'of the unicd States Mission to the United ~atrons, Mr. ~obirt
Rosenstock.The object of this dialogue, with a greater or lesserdegreeof
technicalitvdewndine on the interlocutors.wasthesame:to achieve aneeotiated
resolutionof thedisfite arisingfrom the proposedapplication andenfo~cement
of the Anti-Terrorism Act 10 the PalestineLiberarion Organiration Observer
Mission to ihc United Nations.or alternativelvto resolvethedisputethrouwh the
wording specifiedin section 21of the ~ead~iarters Agreement.- o p urposesof
considenng thisissue,that is the attempt to reacha negotiated solution,ashas
ken pointed out in the Secretary-General'sWritten Statement, it appears
unnecessary Io show that thenegotiationswereheld formally within the frame-
work of section21, but rather that negotiations actuallytook place.
4. The Secretary-General'spersonalinvolvement inthesenegotiations actually
pre-dated the ado~tion of the Anti-Terrorism Act (cf. Dara.7 of the Written
~tntcment) The intervention of the Secretary-Gencral it that stagemight be
descnbedasprevenriieinasinuchas itsoughtthee~clusionof the PL0 Observer
Missionfrom the scow of thelegislationor alternativelytu ohtainAssurancethat
thelegislationif pasGdwould not beimplemented inamannerdetrimentalto the
existing arrangementsfor the PL0 ObserverMission. The Secretary-General's
involvement in the negotiation phase of the dispute might be said to have
commencedon 14 January 1988with his letter to the United StatesActing
Permanent Representative (cf. doc. No. 34 of the dossier). From that lime
fonvard the Secretary-Generam l aintained an on-goingdialogue, formal and
informal. with the Permanent Re~resentativeand other hieh officiaisof the
United StatesGovernment,both in New York and Washington.
5 At theleveloithe respeçti\eLega1Advisersof the United Nations and the
United States,the contactskucen mvsclfand Mr Sofaerwereinitiated on 12
Januarv 1988andcontinuedthroueh two oersonalmeetines.telenhone conversa-
tions and c~rrcs~onden~r~ntilI Ïfehru:ry 1985,whcnï 'infohcd him of the
United Nations choiceof an arhitrator (CCdoc. No. 36 of the dossier).In my
contacts.Isouchtclarification of theintentionsof theUnited StatesGovernmeni
given its contFnuedexpressionsof a willingness to seek a resolution of the
problem. 1 pressedfor the application of the Act in confomity with the
international obligations of the Host Country towards theUnited Nations or
alternatively the suspensionof the 90-dayperiod in order to allow time for the
disputesettlementprocedure especiallyagreeduponasforeseen insection21(b).
6. The third, and in some respects most active levelof negotiations, was
conductedin NewYork betweentheLegalCounselof theUnited Nationsandthe
Legal Adviser of the United StatesMission to the United Nations. A detailed
dialoguetook placeon al1aspectsof the dispute intheperiodbetween thesigning
into law of theAnti-Terrorism Act and thereport of theSecretary-GeneraIlo the
GeneralAssemhlvof 10Febmarv 1988.Theseneaotiationsmav be descnbedas
working Ic\cl dis~us~ionsina théyoften concernëddetailedt&hnical aspectsof
the disputexttlement produre outlincd in wction 21of theHeadquanersAgra-
ment.particularlythetime.tiiblefor a possiblearbttrationandils nilesof procedure198 APPLlCABlLlW OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE
District of New York - dealing with essentially the same issues. This lawsuit,
denominated M~ndelsohn v. Meese, was instituted by 65private American citizens
and organizations and is directed aeainst the aoolication of the Anti-Terrorism
Act 3s;uch 3nd no1only agdinst it~pplicaiion'i~ ihc PI.0 Obseri,cr Mis5ion IO
ihe Ilnitcd Xaiions. In my leiierIOthe Uniied Siates District Judgc of 31March. I
made iiclcar ihai ihc rcaucst ofihc Uniied Nations Io bc admiiicd as sn uniicu,
curiae relates solely to ihe complaint filed by the United States against the
Palestine Liheration Organization. Our request does no1 concern Mendelsohn v.
Meese, and 1 have stated that the United Nations takes no position and wishes to
express no views with respect to the First Amendment or other United States
constitutional arguments which predominate in the latter case.
Again, Mr. President, 1am grateful to have had this opportunity through this
staiement to give the Court additional information.
Le PRÉSIDENT: Je constate que la Cour a entendu les observations qui
avaient été annoncéesA . u nom de la Cour ie voudrais remercier le Secrétaire ~
générad le I'Organioaiiondes Nations Lnics dél'aidequ'ila apporiéc ;ila Courcn
partiripani i la phax orale en cette ejpr'cc.Jc remercie r'yalcmcnison rcpr2scn-
tant, M. Fleischhauer, à la présenteaudienceQUESTIONS BY JUDGES SCHWEBEL, GUILLAUME,SHAHABUDDEEN
AND ODA
Judge SCHWEBEL: 1. You have emphasizedthe importance of appropriate
assurances from the United States. Particularly in view of the letler of the
Ambassadorof the United Statesto the Netherlands10the Registrarof 25March
1988which States:
"The PL0 Missiondid not complywiththe March II order.On March22.
the United States Department of Justice therefore filcd a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern Districtof New York to
compel compliana. That litigation willafiord an opporlunity for the PL0
and other interestcdpartiesto raiselegalchallengestoenforament of theAct
aaainst the PL0 Mission.The United Stateswilltakc noaction 10closethc
~ission pending a decisionin that litigation."
has the United States provided assurancesthat the functioning,of the PL0
Observer Missionwillnot becurtailed pendinga decisionin that Iitigation?Why
do not these assurancessufficefor the lime bong?
2.1 appreciatethe position ofthe UnitedNations as 10the inappropriateness of
its submittinga difierenceoverthe HeadquartersAgreement to a domcsticcourt.
Nevertheless,has the United Nations tacitly "agreed" Io United States Court
settlement of the application of the Anti-Terrorism Act 10the PL0 Observer
Missionas an alternativemeansof settlement - no1nmssanly as a finalmeans
but an alternative means? In that regard, il may be observed that you have
informed us that the United Nations contemplates submittinga brief amicus
rurine ~. ~~~-D~....-. Court.
3. Howdo youintcrpret the statement - particularlythe last sentcnc- in the
letter of the Acting PermanentRcprcwntativcof the United States Io the United
Nations to the Secretarv-Generalof II March 1988that the Attornev General of
the United Stateshad d;termincd that he wasrequired 10 closethe PLO Observer
Mission
"irrespective of any obligations the United States may have under the
Agreementbetweenthe UnitedNations and theUnited StatesRegardingthe
Headquarters of the United Nations. Ifthe PL0 does no1comply withthe
Act, theAttorney GeneralwillinitialelegalactionIoclosethe PL0 Observer
Mission ... The United States will not take other actions Io close the
Observer Mission pendinga decisionin such litigation. Under the circum-
stances, the United States believes that submission of this matter 10
arbitration would no1servea uxful purpose."?
4. In a related vein,may 1ask howyou interpretthe statement in Ambassador
Shad'sletter of 25 March 1988to the Registrar that:
"The United States will take no action to close the Mission pendinga
decisionin that litigation. Sinccthe matter is stillpendingin our courts, we
do not believearbitration would be appropriate or timely."?
1 çeepp. M2-204 ,nfia200 APPLlCABlLlTY OF THE OBLlGATlON TO ARBITRATE
5. Let us assume, for the purposes of argument, that the United States District
Court were to hold that the Anti-Terrorism Act cannot lawfully be euforced
against the PL0 Observer Mission, on the ground that enforcement would
conflict with the international obligations of the United States, or would be
unconstitutional, or othenvise unlawful. Would a dispute then exist between the
United Nations and the United States? If not, is not the United Nations request
for arbitration premature?
M. GUILLAUME: L'Attorney Ceneral des Etats-Unis a décidéd'assurer en
droit américain i'applicationde la loi d22 décembre1987en saisissant le juge
américaind'unedemanded'injonction. Cela étantdit, ilrésultede certaines pièces
du dossier que vous nous avez communiquées,notamment de la conférencede
oresse du déoartement de la iustice du 11 mars 1988 (ci-dessus p. 155). que
i'/lrtorney ~éneralaurait peui-êtreeu d'autres moyensà sa disposition pour
assurer l'application de la loi. La question est lasuivante: quels seraient, s'ily en
a, ces autres moyens et ceux-ci sont-ils encore ouvertsl'Attorney Ceneral?
Judge SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Fleischhauer, my question will relate to your
discourse on the concept of the dispute as followed through by some of the
questions put by Judge Schwebel.1understand from the documentation and from
the way you cast your case this morning that you apprehend that the opposing
legal position, if it were advanced here this morning hy Counsel for the United
States, would be that the law has no1 been enforced specifically.consequently
there could he no breach of the Headauarters Agreement and conseauentlv there
could he no dispute that I would fecl ;s the casîïhat you apprehend'you liave to
meet on ihis question to whai is a legal dispute Do you tackl11by sa)ing rhat
vou have encountered no case in which theconcept of a dispute has been linked
io the concept of an injury. 1 find that, without comm~tting myself, to be
an attractive proposition for which 1 believe positive support can be found
in the dissenting judgment of the learned and distinguished Chief Justice of
Australia, sitting in this Court as a Juadhoc in theNuclear Tests case which
carefullydistinguished between a dispute and the merits ofa claim generating the
dispute.
We regard this intention as sound. It perhaps bas implications for judicial
propriety in economy as to how far this Court can entertain the substance of the
case. Suppose you are wrong. 1don't say wrong. Suppose you are wrong. Would
you then bethinking of shifting on the other legand approaching the matter this
wav. You referred to a threat. You said that with the sianinn of an act there came
intb king a concrete threat of a violation and somewhëre in your learned brief, 1
think it is at page 17supra, you also refer to that concept. Let me read a few
lines, at page-177, paragraph 39. You see:
' Voirci-aprèp.204205.
Sa p. 205,infro. QUESTION BY MEMBERSOF THE COURT 201
"The automaticity of the procrss of bnnging the ATA into forcewhichwas
initiated with the signing of the ATA into law, objcctively constitutes an
immediaie threat to bring about ihe closurc of the facility from which PL0
represcntation io ihc United Nations is accomplished. and this immediaie
threat is itsclf(particularly whcn considinethc context of the timc factor
descnhrd in oara 18ahove) suiiicient tu crrdte a dis~utein the absenceof an
assurance", etc.
May 1inviteyou to consider whether the Court should be concerning itselfwitb
two questions of intemretation. The first auestion would he whether under the
~eadquarters ~~reement the United ~ations isentitled no1only 10ensure that its
invitees maintain an officebut also that they should be able to do so free from
unnecessary harassment or interferenceat al1timesduring their tenure. And ifyou
eivean affirmativeanswer to that auestion. the secondand conseauential auestion
-
of ~ntepreiationwhich 1willput t~'~oufor your responsciswhethérthe en~ctment
of the ATA as from the timc of assent constitutcd a threat which interfered with
the neht of the PI.0 Observer Mission to function without unneceswrv interfer-
ence and was consequently productive of present injury eonstitutinga presenl
violation of the Treaty as from the lime of the signing of the Act. Should 1
understand you, from your reporting this morning and from your brief, that your
case as presented so far did no1quite reach this point.
QUESTION BY JUDGE ODA'
Judge ODA: My question is more or lessrelated 10the question put by ludge
Shahahuddeen, but 1would put the following question Io Mr. Fleischhauer.
Section 21 of the 1946Headquarters Agreement reads:
"Any dispute between the United Nations and the United States concern-
ing the interpretation or application of the Headquarters Agreementwhichis
not settled by negotiation or other agreed mode of settlement shall be
referred for final decision to a tribunal or three arbitrators."
Mr. Fleischhauer are you aware that at the time of the request for an adnsory
opinion there was such a dispute between the United Nations and the United
States. My question is rather simple, whether the dispute between the United
Nations and the United States is the one concerning the interpretation of the
agreement or the application of the agreement or eoncerning both the interpreta-
lion or application of the Headquarters Agreement.In other words 1would liketo
be informed of the viewsof the Legal Counsel of the United Nations concerning
the interpretation or the wording of "the interpretation or application" of the
Headquarters Agreement under section 21 of the 1946Headquarters Agreement.
The PRESIDENT: There are no other questions Mr. Fleischhauer. You have
reæived many questions from the bench and we do not expect you to reply
immediatelv.We are coine to receive them inwritine and vou will have sufficient
timc to rcflici on theman$thcn to reply as soon as p~ssiblebecaWCewant to be
in the dclibcration of ihe Court as soon as possible So, 1think. Mr Fleischhauer,
vou wll have some work to do ihis aftcrnoon Thereforc 1think ihcre is no oiher
business before the Court and 1declare the meeting elosed.
The Court rose ot 11.10o.m.
' Seep. 205infra SECOND PUBLIC SlïTING (12 IV89, 10am.)
Presenl: [Seesitting of II IV 88.1
ORAL STATEMENTBYMR. FLEISCHHAUER
LEGAL COUNSEL Of THE UNlITD NATIONS
Mr. FLEISCHHAUER: Mr. President,1amgratefulforhavingbeengivcnthis
opportunity 10respond oraliy to the questions put10me in yesterday'ssittingof
the Court. 1 would liketo take the questions in the order in whichthey were
presented to me.
Judge Schwebelput to me in al1fivequestions. His first questionisreproduŒd
in paragraph I on page 199,supra, which is,as 1 have been told, before the
Membersof the Court.
1.My reply to this questionis as follows:
The statement made by the United States Ambdssador to the Neihcrlands
coniained in the ihird paragraph ofhis letter to the Registrarof the Court of 25
March 1988indicatinsihat the UnitedSiaieswilliake no actionto closethe PL0
Observer Mission to-the United Nations pending a decision in the litigation
between the United States and the Palestine Liberalion Organization in the
American domestic court, does not constitute the assurance sought by the
Secretary-General.As 1said in my statement yesterday morning.and as you will
see from the exchangebetweenthe UnitedNations and the UnitedStates. and in
particular from the letter of the Secretary-General10the Permanent Representa-
tive of the United States of 7 December 1987fie.. doc. 31 of the Dossier). the
assurance sought by the Secretary-Generalwa; to the effectthat "the
arrangements for the PL0 ObserverMission wouldnot be curtailedor othenvise
aflected"by the legislationin question.
Now. the communicationof the United States Ambassadorto the Registrar of
the lnternational Court of Justicedated 25March 1988,to which JudgeSchwebel
refers,conlains;at theend of ils secondparagraph, the statementthat: "By letter
dated II March 1988. the Attornev General accordinelv directed the PL0
ObserverMission 10 closeby ?I ~arch 1988.the eflective'dateof the Act." This
communication constitutes. in the viewof the United Nations,a violationby the
Hosi Country of ils obligationsunder ihe Headquarters Agrament The United
Nations has constanilytaken the positionihat the preseniarrangementsregarding
the PL0 Observer Mirsion in New York correspond Io the Hosi Couniry's
obligations under the Headquarten Agreement. As 1 pointed out in my oral
statement vesterdav. the actio~,~taken in the domestic court~ ~ -o~ ~he sosific
purpose oiclosin~thc Mission. thus givingcflect IO the lciter of the ~tiinic~
General of II March to the PL0 Observer Mission.Under thesccircumsiances.
the factthai the UnitedStatesGovcrnment,for the lime bcing d. esno! intend to
takc any oiher action IOclow the Misoon. pendinga decisionin that litigation,
does no! hcal the breach of the obligaiions of the Host Country and. thercfore, ORAL STATCMENTS 203
doesnot constitutetheassurancesought bythe United Nationswith respectto the
dispute. Nor is the existenceof the dispute itself in any way affected by the
statement in the Ambassador'sletter.
2. Mr. President, the second question putto me by Judge Schwebel is
reproduŒd in paragraph 2 of page 199,supra.
MY.eol..is as follows:
Thcre is no tacit agreementon the part of the United Nations ihat the coun
proçcedingsactuallyunderwaybeforethe FederalDistrictCourt for the Southern
District ofNewYork constitutean alternativemeansof wttlement in the xnse of
section21 (a) of the Headquarters Agramrnt. As 1infomed theCoun yesterday
the United Nations has deliberatelychosen to becomcin these proceedingsan
amicus curiaeof the court, and not an intervening party. The dispute here in
question is a dispute between the United States and the United Nations and
therefore of necessity,the United Nations would have to be a party 10any other
alternative dispute settlement procedure.
Moreover,it follows fromthe letter which1addressedto the District Judgeon
31 March and which 1 mentioned yesterday,that the United Nations does no1
agree in any way with the proceedingsin the Americancourt. As 1informed the
Court yesterday. 1 have statd in that letter that among the international legal
issues involved, the United Nations has a particular wnŒrn relating to the
obligation of the UnitedStates to enter into arbitration to settle a dispute that
exislsbetweenthe United Nations and the United Statesconcerningthe interpre-
talion and application of the Headquaners Agramcnt usingthe agreedmode of
dispute witlcmcnt provisionsof thai Agreementcontained in ilssection 21
Funhemore. In our interna1dcliberations onthe question of whether there
mieht bea oossibilitvof becominemorethan an amicu~curiaeand to intervenein
thëpr-dings, theguestion thaïsuch an intervention mightthenbeconstruedas
a tacit agreementto alternative means of dispute settlement wason our minds.
And onëof the reasonswhichclearlysookeagainst Ourgoingbeyond the role of
an amim curiae was preciselythat.we wantëd to avoida misperceptionof Our
intentions in this respect.
Finally, the notion that by entcring an appearanΠas amicus in the Federal
District Court. the United Nations has tacitlv anreed 10 that forum as an
alternative meansof xttlcment, uould not be consi~eni uith the position of the
United States regarding the applicabilityof section 21
3.Mr. President, the third question presentedto me by Judge Schwebelis
reproduced in paragraph 3 on page 199,supra.
1think that the parts of theletterof the Permanent Representativeof II March
cited by Judge Schwebelshowsa misconceptionon the part of the senderof the
letter of the relationshipbetweeninternational law and domesticlaw.This letter
seems to overlook the factthat while inany democratic country the legislative
branch of government has thepowerto prevent theexecutive,branchand al1other
branchesof government intemallyfrom wmplying withan international obliga-
tion. that does not do away with the existence ofthe international obligation
unde~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Even if comnliancewith an international obligation is
prevcnted intemally, the ~bli~ation'remains; an international responsibility
ensues, and such international dispute xtilement procedure as may beforeseen
remains in olace. Therefore. 1could not accevt the statement contained in the
letterto the;ffect that the ~ttorne~Ceneral wis rcquircdtoclose theORceof the
PL0 Observer Mission. irrespectiveof any obligations the United States may
have undcr the Hcadquarters Agreementas king jusiified.204 APPLICABILI~OP THE OBLIGATION m ARBITRATE
With respect to the statement to the effectthat the United States will no1take
other actions to close the Observer Mission pending a decision in such domestic
litigation, 1 should like to refer to my answer to the first question of Judge
Schwebelwhich was to the effectthat this sentencedoes not provide the assurance
sought with respect to the dispute by the Secretary-General. Under the circum-
stances, 1cannot see why the submission of this matter to arbitration would not
serve a useful purpose. Since the dispute settlement clause and the eusuing
obligation to arhitrate have no1 been removed by the enactment of the Anti-
Terronsm Act, arhitration remains the only way in which the dispute must be
resolved. In this respect, Mr. President, 1would like to refer to the letter dated 15
March 1988 from thesecretary-General addressed to the Acting Permanent
Representative of the United States to the United Nations. That letter is
contained in Annex 1 to document 106of the Dossier.
4. Mr. President, the fourth question put to me by Judge Schwehel is
reproduced in paragraph 4, on page 199,supra.
My answer is as follows:
The statement in Ambassador Shad's letter of 25 March to the Registrar
mentioned by Judge Schwebel'squestion,appears to indicate that once the matter
is no longer pending in the United States courts, arhitration might become
appropnate and timely. However, il follows from the presentation of the United
Nations that we reaard arbitration as havine been hoth timelv and aonrooriate
ever since the attempts to find a negotiated-solution or othe; agreedameins of
dispute settlement remained unsuccessful.
5.The fifthquestion put to me by Judge Schwebelis reproduced in paragraph 5,
on page 200, supra.
The United Nations request for arbitration is not premature. If the domestic
courts of the United States, as 1 sincerely hope, were to hold that the Anti-
Terrorism Act cannot lawfullv be enforced aeainst the PL0 Observer Mission on
ihe ground thai enforcemcntwi,uld conflict&th ihc inierndtional obligations of
the United States. or would be unconsiiiuiional or oiherwise unlawful, thar uould
no1duiomaiicallv out an end to the dis~ute The law irself.iheenaciment of which
is the hasis of thédisnute. would remah. And it would rehain tbe seenwhether
the pronouncement if thédomesticcourt makes the lawbecome totally moot. But
even if that were the case, that would not mean that the dispute has never existed,
that the disoute would merelvbe terminated. Sincethe disoute existed the disoute
settlement Procedure was applicable and the dispute setfiement procedure fore-
seen for the present case foresees arbitration.
1would liketo add this: ifone wereto hold that as long as a return to legalityis
possible, arhitration is premature, then, 1am afraid, that arbitration could very
rarely take place.
II
Mr. President. 1would like Io come no; to the auestion asked of me bvJudee
Guillaume and uhich is io be found on page 200,;upra. , -
While1am not ver) familiar with the domcstic lawof the United States. 1know
that mv colleaaues dealina with the domestic law asmcts of this matter were
apprehénsive tkat the ~tiorne~ General might choc& a speedier procedure.
And, in this connection, 1note that the Palestine Information Officein Washing-
ton was closed, albeit under a different Act, namely, the Foreign Missions Act,
after a court procedure which was certainly shorter and speedier than the ORAL STATEMENTS 205
proceedingsunderway in New York. So 1mus1supposethat there areother means
open to the Attorney General, but 1 cannot comment on this matter with
certainty
III
1would nextturn to the questionsput to me byJudge Shahabuddeenand which
are tobe found on pages 200 and 201, supra.
My reply is as follows:
Yes, indeed, MI. President, 1 think that Judge Shahabuddeen's point is well
taken. The United Nations has endeavoured to show in our written statement and
in our additional remarks of yesterday, that a dispute existed inthe present matter
even before the divergence of views on a point of law or fact had led to actual
injury, to an actual violation of a legalright. While wehave argued this point, we
had not gone further and looked into the question raised hy Judge Shahabuddeen,
namely, what would be the position if one assumed that "present injury" was
rerarded as constitutina a ~recondition for the determination of a disvute. MY
c~lcagues and I have zvcn thought çincc yestcrdsy to this maticr and'u,e havé
indccd come io the conclusion ihiii if one regards "prcrcni injury" as a neccwary
precondition for the deiemination of the dispute, ihen one would, firstof all. to a
certain degree, be obliged to go into the substance of the matter in order to
determine whether in part there exists a dispute.
1would agree with Judge Shahahuddeen that then the point could validly he
made that the oblieations of the Host Country to ensure adeauate workina
faciliriesfor the inbiics of the Organization comphse not only that ihe ~cmanc~
Observers must beallowed 10ha\c an office,but also that they should beCree(rom
unnecessary harassment or interference at al1limes dnring their tenure. And, 1
also believe that it can he validlv claimed that the enactment of a law that is
designed to lead to the closure of Chi~ission throt& acourt proceeding that can
be initiated after 90 days in the domestic courts of the Host Country would he at
variance with the said obligation
IV
Finally, MI. President, 1come to the question asked hy Judge Oda and which is
to befound on page 201, supra.
My answer is that the present dispute concerns both the interpretation and the
application of the Headquarters Agreement. lnterpretation is, according to the
rule laid down in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of
1969, the meaning a State gives to the tems of a treaty in good faith and in
accordance with their ordinary meaning, in their context and in the light of their
object and purpose. As far as the present dispute is concerned, it iS one of
interpretation, inasmnch as the Host Country puts into question that the
Headquarters Agreement places upon it the obligation to maintain the arrange-
ments in regard to the PL0 Observer Mission as they have existedfor the pas1 14
years.
The application of the Headquarters Agreement is concerned inasmuch as the
Host Country has arrogated for itself, with the enactment of the Anti-Terrorism
Act, the possihility to unilaterally infringe upon the obligations it has towards the
United Nations regarding the PL0 Mission after the lapse of 90 days claiming
supercession of that international treaty by a simple enactment of domestic
law.206 APPLICABILITYOF THEOBLIGATIONTO ARBITRATE
MI.Presidentt,hesearetheanswerswhich 1wouldliketo giveonbehalfof the
UnitedNationsto thequestionsputto meat yesterday'shearing. CLOSINGOF THE ORALPROCEEDINGS
The PRESIDENT: On behalf of the Court I thank Mr. Fleischhauerfor the
replies givento thequestionsput yesterdayby Membersof theCourt.
With theserepliestheCourt closestheoral proçeedingsforesecnin theOrderof
9 Mîrch 1988.TheCourt will now begin itsdeliberationon thisadvisoryopinion
and acîording to the termsof the resolution adopted by theGeneralAssembly,
theCourt will work rxr>sditiousl)to finishassoo.sspossibleaIO-ivetherenly
that hasbeenaskedby the GeneralAssembly.
TheCourrrose arM.35 a.m. TROISIÈME SÉANCE PUBLIQUE (26 IV 88, 10h)
Présents:M. RUDA.Président:M. MBAYEV . ice-Président:MM. NAGENDRA
SINGH,ELIAS,ODA,A.&, SCHWEBEs Li,r Robert JENNINOS M, M, BEDJAOUN I,I,
EVENSEN T,ARASSOjV u,ges; M. VALENCIA-OSPIN GAre,sfer.
LECïURE DE L'AVIS CONSULTATIF
Le PRÉSIDENT: La Cour se réunit aujourd'hui pour rendre en audience
publique, conformémentà l'article67 de son Statut, l'avisconsultatif concernant
I'Applicabiliré& l'obligation d'arbitrageen vertu de la section 21 de l'accord
du 26 juin 1947 relatif au sièee& I'Oreanisationdes Nations Unies.oue I'Assem-
blée généra dles ~ations Ünies I'a ;née de donner aux termes de sa résolu-
tion 421229Ben date du 2man 1988 La question posée a la Cour par l'Assemblée
étaitla suivante:
[Le Président lit laquestioni.]
Je rappelle qu'enI'espècela Cour, à la lumièredes indications fournies par
l'Assembléegénéraledans cette résolution,a décidé, ainsi qu'lst prévuà I'ar-
ticle 103de son Règlement, d'accélérer la procédure.
MM. Lachs, Guillaume et Shahahuddeen, qui ont tous trois pris part au
délihéréet au scmtin final, ont malheureusement étéempêchéd se siégeraujour-
d'hui.
Les premiers paragraphes de I'avis retracentle déroulement de la procédure en
I'aiïaire. Selon I'usaee. ie ne donnerai nas lecture de ces oaraeranhes. Je ne lirai
pa, non plus les pa&,&phes qui contiennent lenposc de; fai; q ou te foiv.ant
de procédera la lecture des paragraphes \uivanis, et aux fins d'en permettre une
meilleure compréhension. je rappellerai quelques-uns de ces faits. L'avis en
comnorte un résumé beaucounnlus comolet.
faits concernent la mis&oi permaiente d'obsenation de l'Organisation de
likration de la Palestineauprésde l'organisation des Naiions Uniesa New York.
Par 1s résolution3237 (XXIX) du 22 nobemhre 1974de I'Ascemhléegénérale,
I'OLPa été invitéejparticiper aux sessionset aux travaux dc I'Assemheénérale
cn qualitéd'ohser\ateur; en conséquence,ellea installéunc mi~siond'ohscwation
en 1974et wsscde un buredu i New York, hors du district administratif du S.ège
de I'oreanisation des Nations Unies.
En Gai 1987.unc proposition de loi a kt? présent&au SCnatdes Etats-Unis
d'Amérique.ayant pour objct de «rendre illégauxla créationou le maintien aux
Etats-linis d'un bureau dc l'organisation de libérationde la Palestine~~.Cette
proposition de loi fut présentéea l'automne 1987au Sénat comme amendement
au FuretgnRelationsAulhori:at~onAct. Fi.sralYears 1988 and 1989(loi d'ouver-
ture de crédits pourlesaiïaires étrangères.exercicesbudgétaires1988et 198Les
termesdecetexte laissaientcraindreaue leGouvemem&t américain chercheraità
fermer le bureau de la mission d'obs;nation de I'OLPsi la loi étaitprtimulguée.
En conséquence.le 13octobre 1987.leSecrétairegénéra alsoulign-2dans unc lettre
' Voir ci-dessp.9adresséeau représentant permanentdes Etats.Unis auprèsde l'organisation des
Nations Unies que la législationenvisagéeétaitcontraire aux obligations qui
découlentde l'accord desiège.
Les disoositions de l'amendement orécitéont étéincornorées dans la loi
d'ou!ertu;e de crédits pour les affai~es'étran~èrese,xercicesbudgétaire, 1988et
1989,en tant que titre X, sous le nom de Anii-TcrrorismAci O/ 1987(loi de 1987
contre le terrorisme).Le 7décembre1987.en. .evisi iode I'ado~tionde ce texte
par le Congrès des'Etats-unis, le Secrétaire généraal rappelé'au représentant
permanent des Etats-Unis sa position, et a demandé,pour le cas où le texte
proposéacquerrait force de loi, qu'on lui donne l'assuranceque lesarrangements
en vieueur concernant la missiond'observation de VOLPne seraient Dasaffectés.
lauchambre des représentantset leSénatder Etats-Unis ontadoptéia loicontre
le terrorisme les 15et 16décembre1987, et lejour suivant l'Assemblée généralea
adoptéla résolution42 2lOB par laquelle elle pnait le pays h6tc dc respecter les
obligations que luiimposait I'accordet, a cetégard,de s'abstenirde prendre toute
mesure qui cmpécher~iila mission de s'acquitter deses fonctions olfinelles.
Le 22 décembre Ic président der Etats-Unis a signe et oromuluué la loi
d'ouverture de crédits pourles affaires étrangères,exercicesb;dgétairës 1988et
1989.La loi de 1987contre le terrorisme qui en faisait partie devait, selon ses
propres termes, entrer en vigueur quatre-vingt-dix jours après cette date. En
informant le Secrétaire généra dlece fait, le représentant permanent par intérim
des Etats-Unis a déclaréle 5janvier 1988que le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis
avait ((l'intention de mettre à profit [ce] délaipour des consultations avec le
Congrès afinde réglerla question». Cependant, le Secrétairegénéra alrépondule
14janvier 1988en faisant observer qu'il n'avaitpas reçu l'assurance qu'il avait
demandée et qu'il ne considérap itas que les déclarationsdes Etats-Unis permet-
taient de compter sur le plein respect de l'accord de siège.II a poursuivi en
indiauant au'il existait «un différendentre l'oreanisation et les Etats-Unis au
sujer'de~'inier~rétntionet de l'application del'acrord de siège,,il qu'il invoquait
la procédurede règlementdes difiérends énoncéaeIdaction 21de mt accord. Le
gré taire ginérala ensuite proposéque des négociations commencent conformé-
ment à la nrocédureétablie à la section 21 de l'accord.
Tout enacceptant que des discussions officieusesaient lieu, les Etats-Unis ont
fait savoir qu'ilsétaientencore en train d'évaluer lasituation qui résulteraitde
l'application de la loi et qu'ils ne pouvaientpas prendre part à-la procédurede
règlement des différends prévue à la section 21. Le 11 février1988,le conseiller
juridique de l'organisation des Nations Unies a fait savoir an conseillerjuridique
du département d'Etat que l'organisation des Nations Unies avait choisi son
arbitre en vue d'un arbitrage aux termes de la section 21.
Le2 mars1989, 1'~sscmbiéc ginérjk a adoptédeux rtsolutions sur la question.
Dans la première.la résolution421229A.l'Assembléea exprimé son opinionque
l'ao~lication de la loi contre le terrorisme d'une facon aui em&herait de
maintenir leslocauxet lesinstallations dela missiond'ohservAion ~FI'OL sPrait
contraire aux ohligations~uridiqucsinternationales contr;ictéespar les Etats-Unis
au titre de l'accorddesièreei que la oroddure de réalementdes diff2rendsrisée
à la section 21 de l'accord devait êireengagée.L'autre résolution, la résolu-
tion 42/229B, que j'ai déjà mentionnée, priait laCour de donner un avis
consultatif.
Le II mars 1988, le représentant permanentpar intérim desEtats-unis a
informéleSecrétairegénérq alue l'AltorneyGeneralavait établique la loicontre le
terrorisme le mettait dans l'obligation de fermer le bureau de la mission
d'observation de I'OLP «quelles que soient les obligations qui incombent aux
Etats-Unis en vertu de l'accord entre l'organisation des Nations Unies et les210 APPLICABILtl'É DE L'OBLIGATIOND'ARBITRAGE
Etats-Unis relatif au siègede l'organisation des Nations Unies», mais que s'il
étaitnécessaired'intenter une action en iustice oour faire a.. .auer la loi il ne
serait pds pns d'autres mesures pour en obtenir Idfencture tant que cetie action
n'aurait pas abouti Dans cescondiiions, les Etats-Unis estimaient que soumetire
l'affaire l'arbitrage ne serait d'aucune utilité.Le Secrétaire généraai énerziaue-
ment contestéce @in1 de vue dans une Ietirc du 15mars. ~n?re-temps. da& ;ne
letiredatéedu Il mars. I'Aiir,rnt,)~Grnsralaraiaverti I'obscrvateur permanent dc
I'OLPqu'à comoter du 21 mars le maintien de sa missionserait illégal.La mission
de I'OLPne s'étantoas conformée auxorescriotions de la loi contrë le terrorisme.
1'Airorne.p~pnuuliRdi~uaii quc, pour ia coniraindrî à r'exécuter,il avait saisi Ic
tribunal fédéraldu district sud de Ncw York. Dans leur exposéécritdu 25 mars,
les Etats-Unis ont informé laCour auc dans I'aitente d'une décision iudiciaire ils
ne prendraient aucune mesure pou; faire fermer la mission et quëla question
ayant été portée devant leurtsribunaux ils pensaient qu'unarbitrage ne serait pas
opportunet que ce ne serait pas le moment pour y recourir.
J'entame maintenant la lecture du texte de l'avis, en commençant par le
paragraphe 33, dans lequel la Cour définitsa tâche en l'espèce.
[Le Président lit lesparagraphes33 à 58de l'avisconsultatif'.]
Je prie maintenant le Greffier de bien vouloir lire le dispositif de l'avis en
anglais.
[The Registrar reads paragraph 58 of the Opinion2.]
M. Elias joint une déclaration à l'avis consultatif; MM. Oda, Schwebel et
Shahabuddeen y joignent les exposésde leur opinion individuelle.
L'audienceest levée.
Le Président,
(Signé)José Maria RUDA.
Le Greffier,
(Signé) Eduardo VALENCIA-OSPINA.
' C.I.JRecueil1988.p. 26-35
I.C.JReporis 1988.p. 35.
Exposés oraux - Procès-verbaux des audiences publiques tenues au Palais de la Paix, à La Haye, les 11, 12 et 26 avril 1988, sous la présidence de M. Ruda, président