COUR INTERNATIONALEDE JUSTICE
MÉMOIRES,PLAIDOIRIESETDOCUMENTS
APPLICABILITÉ DE L'OBLIGATION
D'ARBITRAGEEN VERTUDE LA SECTION21
DE L'ACCORD DU 26JUIN 1947
RELATIFAU SIÈGE DE L'ORGANISATION
DES NATIONS UNIES
INTERNATIONAL COURTOF JUSTICE
PLEADINGS,ORALARGUMENTS,DOCUMENTS
APPLICABILITY
OF THE OBLIGATIONTOARBITRATE
UNDER SECTlON 21OF THE
UNITED NATIONSHEADQUARTERS
AGREEMENTOF 26JUNE 1947 L'araire deI'ApplicabilirédeI'obligariond'arbirrageen verrudela sectio21 de
l'accorddu 26juin 1947relari/au siegedeI'OrganisariondesNarionsUnies, inscrite
au r6le généralde la Cour sous le numéro77, a fait I'ohjetd'un avis consultatif
rendu le 26 avril 1988(Applicabiliréde l'obligariond'arbirrugeen vertude la sec-
... . ..de l'accorddu26 juin 1947 relatif au s"èpede I'O-panisariondesNarions
Unies.C.I.J. Recueil1980, p. 12).
Le présent volumereproduit la requête pour avisconsultatil, lesdocuments, les
exposés écrits etoraux et la correspondance relatifs àcette affaire.
Parmi les documents transmis a la Cour. la résolution42/229A et la résolu-
tion 421229Bconcernant la demande d'avis consultatif,adoptées parl'Assemblée
générale àsa 104'séanceplénièrel,e 2mars 1988,sont reproduites en anglaiset en
français; lesautresdocuments ne sont reproduits (en uneseulelangue)quedansla
mesure où ils sont utilesàla compréhension del'avisconsultatifet ne setrouvent
pas dans le domaine public.
La Haye, 1990
The caseconcerning Applicubiliryof rheObligarionroArbitrateunderSecrion21
ofrhe UnitedNafions HeadquartersAgreemenioj 26 June 1947 was entered as
No. 77 in the Court's General List and was the suhject of an Advisory Opinion
delivered on 26 April 1988 (Applicabili~~of rhe Obligarionro Arbitrale under
-e-rion21 of rhe UnitedNarionsHeadu~<arrerA sareementof 26 June1947.I.C.J.
Reports19g8, p. 12).
The present volume reproduces the Request for advisory opinion, the docu-
ments, the wntten and oral statements and the correspondence in the case.
Of the documents transmitted to the Court, resolution 42/229A and resolu-
lion 421229B concerning the request for advisory opinion, adopted by the General
Assemhlyat its 104thplenary meetingon 2 March 1988,have been reproduced in
English and French; the others have been reproduced (in one language) only if
they are relevant to the understanding of the AdvisoryOpinion and are not in the
public domain.
The Hague, IWO Page
Requêtepour avis consultat-fRequest for AdvisoryOpinion
THE SECRETARY-GENE RfALHE UNITED NATION7 S0 THE PRESIDEN OP
THE INTERNATIONC ALURT OFJUSTICE ...........
RESOLUTIO4 N2S1229AAND 4212298 ADOPIZD BY THEGENERAA LSSEM-
BLY AT ITS104~~PLENARY MEETING ON 2MARCH1988 ....
RÉSOLUTION 42S/229A rn 4212298 ADOPTE EAR L'ASSEMBL ~ÉNÉ-
RALE A SA 104'SÉANCE PLÉNIÈRE LE2MARS 1988 .......
....... transmis var le Secrétaire eéndeslNations Unies (article 65,
paragraphe 2.d;Statut)- l>oçsi;rtranrmittb)the Secrrtary-Ceneral
of the United Nations (AN. 65, p2,aof the Stature)
CONTENT SF THE DOSSIER [under this heading are listed the themes
[content] of the documents reproduced, while the titles of those not
reproduced are mentioned in the text]..........
Part 1. Documents relating to the proceedings leading to the request
hv the General Assemblv for an advis.r. opinion.....
Correspondence between the United Nations and the Permanent
Mission of the United Statesmerica to the United Nations .
Letter from the Secretary-General of the United Nations to the
Permanent Representative of the United States (13 October
1987). ...................
Letter from the Permanent Representative of the United States to
the Secretary-General of the United Nations (27Octoher 1987)
Letter from the Secretary-General of the United Nations Io the
Permanent Re~resentative of the United States (7 December
1987). ...................
Letter from the Secretary-General of the United Nations Io the
Permanent Representative of the United States (21 Decemher
1987). ...................
Letter from the Acting Permanent Representative of the United
States to tlie Secretary-General of the United Nations(5
January 1988) .................
Leiter from the Secretary-General of the United Nations Io the
Permanent Representative of the United States (14 January
...................
1988)
Lelter from the Secretary-General of the United Nations Io the
Permanent Representative of the United States (2 February
1988) ...................
Letter from the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, the
LegalCounsel, to the Legal Adviserof the Department of State
of the United States (1I February 1988).......X APPLlCABlLlTY OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE
Page
Letter from the Secretary-General of the United Nations to the
Permanent Representative or the United States (4 March 1988)
Materials relating to United States Legislation .......
Foreign RelationsAuthorization Act, FiscalYears 1988and 1989,
Title X, Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987 .........
Introduction of a bill to provide penalties for aiding the PL0 .
Introduction of a orooosed "Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987" in the
form oia bill iathéUnited States Senaie . . ....
Explanaiion ofa proposed "Tcrrorisi Orgsni7ation ExclusionAci
of 1987" in the form of a hill in ihc United Siates Houre of
Reoresentatives
~taiehent rnsdein the LlniiedSiates Senaie on 25June 1987
Siairment made in the Uniicd Si~tesSenate on 10July 1987
Sraiement msdr in the United Siairs Senïte on 14Julv 1987
Sidienient m3de in the llniied Si~ic, Sen~ieon 4 ~u~u;i 1987
Iniroduction and adopiion of the "Anii-Terronsm Act of 1987"
in the Uniied Siaie, Senate in ihc form ofïn nniendment to the
Foreien Relations Authorization Act. ~.sca~ ~ ~~~ ~88 ~~
~nsiruct~onsgi\.ïn by the Uniicd Staies Housc oiReprcseniati\,es
Io ils confercesIo accept the amendment adopted by ihç Senate
Siaiement ninde in ihe United Stsies Senste on 3 November 1987
Siaicmïni m~dcin the United States Senaie on ?ONo\ember 1987
Suienient made in the Uniied Siaies Senate on 10December 1987
House conferencereport No.100-475:joint explanatory statement
of the Committee on Conference, Io accompany the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988and 1989 .
Adoption by the United States House of Representatives of the
conference report on the Foreign Relations Authorization Act,
Fiscal Years 1988and 1989 ............
Adoption by the United States Senate of the conferencereport on
the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988
and 1989 ..................
Statement made by a member of the United States Congress on
the "Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987" adopted by both Houses of
Congress ...... ...........
Statement by the President of tl;e United States upon signing the
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and
1989 ....................
Part II. Materials relevant to the observer status of the 'Palestine
Liberation Organization ...............
Permanent ohsemers of non-member States ........
List of States which still maintain or had maintained oermanent
obser\er ofticesai the he~dqu~riersof ihe Ilniied u ai ions
Siaiemeni by the Legal Counsel. Y?ndmeeting. 14Ociokr 1982,
Commiiiec on Host Countr) Reidti<inî
Permanent observers of intergovernmental organizations
Lis1of intergoi,ernmeninl orgdniz3tions haifing rccei\ed a siand.
ing invilaiion to particip~te in the sessionsand the u,ork of ihe
General Assemhly as obsewers CONTENTS XI
Poge
Permanent observers of other entities .......... 92
List of organizations having received a standing invitation to
narticinate in the sessionsand the work of the General Assem-
bly as gbservers and maintaining officesat the United Nations
Headquarters .................
Legislative authorities relating to the PLO. ........
Security Council, 1975,decision adopted at the 1856thmeeting on
4 December 1975 ................
Statements hy the United Nations Secretariat as ta the legalstatusof
the Officeof Permanent Observer of the PL0 .......
Opinion of the Legal Counsel of the United Nations on the status
of the PL0 officeto the United Nations ........
Opinion of the LegalCounsel of the United Nations on the status,
privilegesand immunities under international law of the repre-
sentatives of the PL0 to the United Nations ......
Relevant cases in United States courts ..........
Anfi-DeJbnarionLeaguev. Kissinger,et al. (Digestof UniledSrares
Practice in lnrernarional Law, 1974,by Arthur W. Rovine,
pp. 27-29) ..................
Harvard Ln%School Forum, et al. v. George P. Shultz (Federal
Supplemeni Volwne 633) ............
Part III.Materials relevant to the United Nations Headquarters
Agreement ...................
Legislative history of the Headquarters Agreement .....
Report of the Preparatory Commission of the United Nations,
1945 ....................
Proposed United States comments upon Convention between the
United Nations and the Government of the United States
regarding arrangements for the permanent headquarters . .
Negotiations Lxtweenthe United Nations and the United States
concerning the arrangements required as a result of the estab-
lishment of the seat of the United Nations in the United States
- sixtb meeting ................
Negotiations Lxtweenthe United Nations and the United States
concerning the arrangements required as a result of the estab-
-isseventh meetingat ...............ationsin the United States
Legislative history of PublicLaw No. 80-357 - Materials relating
to the United States legislation............
Message from the President of the United States transmitting an
agreement between the United States and the United Nations
concerning the control and administration of the headquarters
of the United Nations in the city of NewYork; and a copy of a
letter from the Secretary of State regarding this agreement .
Congressional Record, Proceedingsand debates of the 80th Con-
gress, First Session.Petmanent headquarlers of United Nations
Excerpü from S. Rep. No. 559,80th Cong, 1stSess.(1947)dated
15 July 1947 wherein the Committee on Foreign Relations
recommended passage of two joint resoluiions .....XII APPLlCABlLlTY OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE
Joint resolution (S.J.Res. 144), Congressional Recordof 17July
1947 ....................
Excerpts from H.R. Rep. No. 1093,80th Cong., 1st Sess. (1947)
Congressional Recordof 26 July 194.........
Text of S.J.Res. 144as enacted into law on 4 August 1947(Pub.
L. No. 80-357) ................
Part IV. Materials relating ta the proceedings subsequent ta the
request by the General Assembly for an advisory opi...n
Documents of the forty-second session of the General Assembly
(resumed), 18-23March 1988 ............
Other material..................
Justice Department briefing regarding: Closing of the Palestine
Libration Organizafion Observer Mission to the United Na-
tions, Friday, II March 198...........
Summons in a civilaction, United States District Court, Southern
District of New York (Case numbr 88 CIV. 1962), Unired
SIaresof Americav. PalesrineLiberafionOrganizafion,e. al.
Exposéksrits- Written Statements
1.Introduction ..................
II. Summary of the facts giving rise to the request for the advisory
opinion ................. . .
III. Legal issues arising in relation to the request for the advisory
opinion .
IV. Conclusion
LETFER FROM THE MINISTER OF FOREIGNAFFAIRS OF THE GERMAN
DEMOCRATR IEPUBLI CO THE REGISTRAR. .........
Exposésoraux -Oral Statemenb
OU~ERTUR EE LAPROCÉDUR ORALE ............
ORALSTATEMEN BY MR. FLEISCHHAUE .R.........
QUESTION SYJUDGESCWBEL ..............
QUESTIO NE M. GUILLAUM ...............
QUESTIO NYJUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN ............
QUESTIO Nu JUWEODA ................
ORALSTATEMEN BTYMR. FLEISCHHAUE ...........
Replies to questions pu( by Judge Schw.........
Reply to the first quest.............. Poge
Reply to thesecond question ............ 203
Replyto the thirdquestion............. 203
Replyto the fourthquestion ............. 204
Replyto the fifthquestion............. 204
Réponseà la questiondeM. Guillaume .......... 204
Replyto questionput byJudgeShahahuddeen ........ 205
Reply 10questionput by JudgeOda ........... 205
............. 207
CLOSIN GF THEORAL PROCEEDINGS
Correspondanc e Correspondence
Nos .1-39 ..................... 213REQUÊTE POUR AVISCONSULTATIF
REQUEST FOR ADVISORYOPINION THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS
TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF
JUSTICE
2 March 1988.
Sir,
-~~~~e t~ ~ ~ ~ur to inform vou that the General Assemblv of the United
Nations, at ils 104thpleiary meétingheld on 2 March 1988,adopted resolution
4212298 on the Report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country
under agenda item 136 of its forty-second session.
In the ahove-mentioned resolution the General Assembly decided, in accor-
dance with Arlicle 96 of the Charter of the United Nations, to request the
International Court of Justice, in pursuance of Article 65 of the Statute of the
Court, for an advisory opinion on the followingquestion, taking into account the
tirneconstraint:
"ln the light of facts reflected in the reports of the Secretary-General
[A1421915and Add.11, is the United States of America, as a party to the
Agreement between the United Nations and the United States of America
regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations [resolution 169(Il)], under
an obligation to enter in10arhitration in accordance with section 21 of the
Agreement?"
1 have the honour further to enclose herewith one copy of the English and
French texts of General Assembly resolution 4212298, both duly certified. In
accordance with Article 65of the Statute of the International Court of JustiIe,
shall transmit to the Court as soon as possible al1relevant documents likely to
throw light upon the question.
Accept, etc.
(Signed) JavierBREZ DE CIIÉLLAR. RESOLUTIONS 421229 A AND 421229 B ADOPTEDBYTHE
GENERALASSEMBLYAT ITS 104THPLENARYMEETING
ON 2 MARCH 1988
The CenerolAssembly,
Hovi~zg consideredthe reports of the Secretary-General of 10and 25 February
1988'.
Recolling its resolution 42/210B of 17December 1987,
Reojîrming the applicability to the Permanent Observer Mission of the
Palestine Liberation Organization to the United Nations in New York of the
provisions of the Agreement betweenthe United Nations and the United States of
America regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations, date26 lune 1947',
Hovingbeenopprised of the provisions of the Foreign Relations Authonzation
Act, Fiscal Years 1988and 1989,which was signedon 22 December 1987,Title X
of which establishes certain prohibitions regarding the Palestine Liberation
Organization, inter alia,a prohibition "to establish or maintain an office,
headauarters. nremises.or other facilitiesor establishments within the iurisdiction
of thé~nited 'Statesat the behest or direction of, or with funds proided by the
Palestine Liberation Organization or any of its constituent groups, any successor
to any of those, or anyagents thereof",
Beoringin mind that that provision takes eîïect on 21 March 1988,
Tokinknonreof the oosition of the Secretarv-General in whi~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~d that
a disp& existed betkeen the United ~ations and the United States of America
concerning the interpretation or application of the Headquarters Agreement,
.. -
Noring that the Secretary-General invoked the dispute settlement procedure set
out in section 21 of the Agreement and proposed that the negotiations phase of
the procedure commence on 20 January 1988,
Noiingalso from the report of the Secretary-General of 10February 1988' that
the United States was not in a position and was not willingto enter formally into
the dispute settlement procedure under section 21 of the Headquarters Agree-
ment, that the United States was still evaluating the situation, and that the
Secretary-General had sought assurances that the present arrangements for the
Permanent Observer Mission of the Palestine Liberation Organization would not
be curtailed or otherwise aflected,
' A/42/915 and Add.1.
Seeresolution169(11).
' A/42/915. PAR L'ASSEMBLÉE GÉNERALE À SA 104~ SÉANCE PLÉNIÈRE
LE 2 MARS 1988
L'Assemblée générale,
Ayant examiné les rapports du Secrétaire général,n date des 10et 25 février
1988'.
Rappelantsa résolution421210 B du 17décembre1987,
RéaBrmant que les dispositions de l'accord entre I'Organisation desNations
Unies et les Etats-Unis d'Amérique relatifau siègede I'Organisation des Nations
Unies, en date du 26juin 19472,s'appliquent à la mission permanente d'observa-
tion de I'Organisation de libérationde la Palestine auprès de I'Organisation des
Nations Unies a New York,
Ayantétéinformée desdispositions duForeign RelationAuthorizationAct pour
les exercices 1988et 1989,qui a étésignéle 22décembre1987et dont le titre X
énonce certaines interdictions concernant I'Organisation de libération de la
Palestine et. notamment. l'interdiction «d'établirou de maintenir sur le territoire
rele\,anidelajundioion des Eints-Cnis un bureau. un ,iège.Je\ locauoi!auires
iiahlisiemenis insisllés sur ordre ou sur insiruciions dc I'Organiiaiion de
libéraiionde la P~lcstineou Jc ioui groupe alfiliéa celle-ci. oudc ioui successeur
ou agent de l'un ou de l'autre, ou à Ï'aidéde fonds fournis par l'organisation de
libération de la Palestine ou par tout groupe affiliéà celle-ci, ou par tout
successeurou agent de l'un ou de l'autre»,
Considéran tue cette loi entre en-vieueur le 21 mars 1988.
Prenant note de la position du Secrétaire général qui conclut qu'un différend
existeentre l'Organisation des Nations Unies et les Etats-Unis d'Am~riq~e quant
à l'interprétationet l'application de I'accord desiège,
Notant que le Secrétaire généraal invoqué la procédure de règlement des
diflérends viséea la section 21 de l'accord et a proposé que la phase de
négociations prévuedans le cadre de cette procéduredébutele 20janvier 1988,
Notant éealement au'il ressort du rannort du Secrétaireeénéral.en date du
10févriçriYb8', que les Eiats.Unis ne pouvaient ni ne si,uh~iiaieni'drvenir otti-
cirllemcni partie i I:Iprocédure dercglemcnrdes différendsprévued la seslion 21
de l'accord de siège,-que les ~tats-unis étaient enoore en train d'examiner la
situation et que le Secrétaire général avaidtemandé quel'administration fédérale
lui donne l'assurance que les arrangements actuellement en vigueur en ce qui
concerne la mission permanente d'observalion de I'Organisation de libération de
la Palestine ne seraient ni restreints ni modifiésd'aucune manière,6 REQUCSTFOR ADVISORY OPINION
Afirn~ing that the United States of America, the host country, is under a legal
obligation to enable the Permanent Observer Mission ofthe Palestine Liberation
~reanization to esiablish and maintain oremisesand adeouate functional facilities
and to enable the personnel of the M/ssion to enter and rcmain in the United
States to carry out their official functions,
1.Supports the efforts of the Secreiary-General and expresses ils great appreci-
ation for his reports;
2. Rcufirms that the Permanent Observer Mission of the Palestine Liberation
Organization to the United Nations in New York is covered by the provisions of
the Agreement between the United Nations and the United States of America
regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations' and that it should be enabled
to estahlish and maintain premises and adequate functional facilitiesand that the
personnel of the Mission should be enabled to enter and rcmain in the United
States of America to carry out their official functions;
3 Cotis>ih,rish~tthe application of Titlc 01'the Foreign Relation\ Authorka-
LionAct. Firul Ywrs I1)XR and 19SY.in a mnner inconsisir.niwith p;~rilgraph ?
abotc uould hecontrar) to the intzrnntional leeÿlobliàations of the host country
under the ~eadoudrters Aereement:
4. Considers that a displte exists'between the United Nations and the United
States of America, the host country, concerning the interpretation or application
of the Headauarters Aareement. and that the dk~ute settkment oroceduie set out
in section21 of the ~~reementshould be set in'operation;
5. Culls upon the host country to abide by its treaty obligations under the
Agreement and to provide assurance that no action will be taken that would
infringe on the current arrangements for the official functions of the Permanent
Observer Mission of the Palestine Liberation Organization to the United Nations
in New York;
6. Reyriesrsthe Secretary-General to continue in hisefforts in pursuance of the
provisions of the Agreement. in particular section 21 thereof, and to report
without delay to the Assembly;
7. Becides to keep the matter under active review.
The CenerolAssembly,
Recallingits resolution 42/?10B of 17 December 1987and bearing in mind its
resolution 421229Aabove,
Hovingconsidered the reports of the Secretary-General of 10and 25 February
1988',
Agirniingihc position of the Secrstar).General lhal a dispute rxisls klueen the
United N3tions and the host countrv concerning thc inierprctati~inor application
of the Agrerment htumn the United Nations and the United States of Americd
'See rerolution169(11).
A/42/915and Add.1. Afirmant que lesEtas-Unis, pays hôte, ont l'obligation juridique dedonner à la
~~~~..~ oermanente d'observation de I'Oraanisation de libération de la Palestine
la d'établir et de maintenir des locaux et des installations adéquates
pour l'accomplissement de sa tache et de permettre au personnel de la mission
dentrer aux- Etats-Unis et d'y demeure; pour s3acqÜitter de ses fonctions
officielles,
1. Appuie lesefforts du Secrétaire général e etxprime sareconnaissancepour les
rapports qu'il a établis;
2. Réafirme que la mission permanente d'observation de l'organisation de
libération de la Palestine auprèsde l'Organisation desNations Unies à NewYork
est couverte par les dispositions de I'accord entre l'organisation des Nations
Unies et les Etats-Unis d'Amérique relatif au siègede l'Organisation desNations
Unies', qu'il devrait lui être donnéla possibilité d'établir et de maintenir des
locaux et desinstallations adéquatespour I'accomplissement de satàche et que le
oersonnel de la mission devrait pouvoir entrer aux Etats-Unis d'Amérique et y
iemcurer pour s':icquiiter Je sesfonctions orlicitlles.
3 Con.ridiri.que l'application du titreX du For<.r~nRelaiions Ai~rhori:oiron Ac1
nour lesexercices 1988ci 1989de fi~connon conforme au paragraphe 2 ci-dessu5
&rait contraire aux oblieations iuridiau's internationales contictées var le va.s .
hite au titre de ?accord-de siège;
4. Considèrequ'un différendexisteentre l'organisation desNations Unies et les
Etats-Unis d'Amérique, pays hôte' quant à I'interprétatio? ou l'application de
I'accord de siège,et que la procédure derèglement des differends visée à la sec-
tion 21 de I'accord devrait êtreengagée;
5. Demande au pays hOte de respecter les obligations qu'il a contractéesau
..... ~~ l'accord et'dé donner l'ass;rance au'il nésera ~ns aucune mesureaui
porte aitcinlc du1 3rr.tngcnlenli a~tuc~(cmr'nlr'n vigueur en cc qui concerne ics
fonctions officiclle> de 13 niisiion permanente d'observation de I'Org~nts~tidn
de Iihiralion de 13P~lcstine aur>r?sde I'Orc-inisation des Nütioiis Unies i Ncw
Y.....,
6. Prie le Secrétaire générad l e poursuivre ses efforts en application des
dis~ositions de I'accord, en particulier de la section 21, et de faire rapport sans
déiai à l'Assemblée;
7. Décide de garderla question activement à l'examen.
L'Assemblée générale.
Rappelant sa résolution 42/210B du 17 décembre19R7el ayant à l'esprit sa
résolution 421229A ci-dessus,
dyanr e.miné les rapports du Secrétaire général. ed nate des 10et 25 février
198R2,
Confjrmant la position du Secrétaire généraq lui a constaté L'existence d'un
différend entre l'organisation des Nations Unies et le pays hôte quant à
l'interprétation ou l'application de I'accord entre l'organisation des Nations
'Voir résolution169(11)
A/42/915 et Add.1.8 REQuEST FOR ADVISORYOPINION
reeardine the Headouarters of the United Nations. dated 26 lune 1947'. and
n&ng hrs conclusi<iisihat attempts ai amicshle seillemeni uerc deïdlockcd and
ihai he had invoked ihe arbiiration procedure provided fi)r in seciion 21 ofihç
Agreement by nominating an arbitrator and requesling the host country to
nominale ils own arbitrator,
Bearinginmindthe constraints of lime that require the immediate implementa-
tion of the dispute settlement procedure in accordance with section 21 of the
Agreement,
Noringfrom the report of the Secretary-General of 10Febmary 1988' that the
United States of Amenca wes no1 in a position and was no1 willing to enter
formally into the dispute settlement procedure under section 21 of the Head-
quarters Agreement and that the United States was still evaluating the situation,
Takinginroaccounrthc provisions of the Statute of the International Courl of
Justice, in particular Articles 41 and 68 thereof,
Decides,in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations 10
request the International Court of Justice, in pursuance of Article 65 of the
Statute of the Court, for an advisory opinion on the following question, taking
into account the lime constraint:
"In the light of facts reflectedin the reports of the Secretary-Genera13,is
the United States of Amenca, as a party to the Agreement between the
United Nations and the United States of America reeardine the Head-
quarters of the United Nations1, under an obligation to enter inG arbitration
in accordance with section 21 of the Agreement?"
CERTlFlED TRUE COPY.
New York, N.Y., 3 March 1988.
(Signed) Carl-August FLEISCHHAUER,
The Legal Counsel.
s 'A/42/915.ution 169(11).
'A/42/915 and Add.1.Unies et les Etats-Unis d'Amériquerelatif au siègede l'organisation des Nations
Unies, en date du 26 juin 1947 ,et notant qu'il a conclu que les tentatives de
règlement à l'amiable étaient dans une impasse et que, conformement a la
procédured'arbitrage prévueà la section 21 de l'accord, il a désignun arbitre et
priéle pays hàte de désigner lesien,
Considèranrqu'étantdonnédes contraintes de temps il faut appliquer immé-
diatement la procédure de règlement desdifférendsconformémentàla section 21
de I'accord,
Normr qu'il ressort du rapport du Secrétaire générale,n date du 10 Rvrier
1988'. que les Etats-Unis d'Amériquene pouvaient ni ne souhaitaient devenir
officiellementpartie à la procédurede règlementdes différends prévueà la sec-
tion 21 de I'accord de siège, el que les Etats-Unis étaient encore en train
d'examiner la situation,
Tenanrconrptedes dispositions du Statut de la Cour internationale de Justice,
en particulier des articles 41 et 68,
Décide,conformémentàl'article96de la Charte des Nations Unies, de prier la
Cour internationale de Justice, en application de l'article 65 de son Statut, de
donner un avis consultatif sur la question suivante, en tenant compte des
contraintes de temps:
«Etant donnéles fails consignésdans les rapports du Secrétaire général',
les Etats-Unis d'Amérique,en tant que partie àI'accordentre l'organisation
desNations Unieset lesEtats-Unis d'Amérique relatifau siègede l'organisa-
tion des Nations Unies', sont-ils tenusde recourir à l'arbitrage conformé-
ment à la section 21 de I'accord? »
COPIE CERTIFIÉE CONFORME.
New York, le 3 mars 1988.
(SignéJCarl-August FLEISCHHAUER,
le Conseillerjuridique. DOSSIERTRANSMIS
PARLESECRÉTAIREGÉNÉRAL
DES NATIONS UNIES
(ARTICLE65, PARAGRAPHE2, DU STATUT)
DOSSIER TRANSMITTED BYTHE
SECRETARY-GENERAL
OF THE UNITED NATIONS
(ARTICLE65, PARAGRAPH2, OF THE STATUTE) INTRODUCTORY NOTE
The Requesr
1. On 2 March 1988, the General Assembly, al ils 104th plenary meeting,
adopted under item 136ofits agenda resolution 42/229B entitled "Report of the
Committee on Relations with the Hosl Country" (Dossier, No. 16). By this
resolution, the General Assembly decidedto request the Court for an advisory
opinion.
Frameworkof rheDossier
2. The Dossier, prepared pursuant to paragraph 2 ofArticle 65of the Staiute of
the Court, contains niaterialslikelyto throw light upon thequestion on which the
advisory opinion of the Court is requested. The materials in the Dossier are
certified true copies, numbered consecutively, and identified, as appropriate, by
title or official United Nations symbol.
3. The Dossier is divided inIo three Parts. Part 1contains materials relating to
the proceedings leading 10 the request by the General Assembly for an advisory
opinion and includes: relevant United Nations documentation connected with the
proceedings (Nos. I to 28), correspondence between the United Nations and the
Permanent Mission of the United States of Amenca to the United Nations (Nos.
29 to 37),and materials relating to relevant United States legislation (Nos. 38 10
55). Part II contains matenals relevant to the Observer Status of the Palestine
Liberation Organization. Part III covers matenals relevant to the Headquarters
Agreement.
Introductionto Part 1
4. The General Assembly ai ils forty-second session, on 18 September 1987,
assigned agenda item 136,"Report of the Committee on Relations with the Host
Country", to ils Sixth Commiltee.
5.The Sixth Committeehad before il the Report ofthe Committee on Relations
with theHost Country, A142126(No. 17).Paragraph 46 ofthis Report referred $
an Amendment to the Foreign RelationsAuthorization Billwhichwas then under
consideration in the Senateof the United States of America. TheAmendment was
to render it unlawful,inreralia, for the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)
to establish and maintain officepremisesor officefacilitiesin New York (No. 17,
p. II, infra).The development of this legislation through-the United States
'
Congress is summarized in paragriiph 10 below.
6. The viewsexpressed in the Committee on Relations with the Host Country
hy the members of the Committee and hy the Legal Counsel of the United
Nations are reflectedin paragraphs 47 to 54of the Cornmittee's Report (No. 17).
7.The Sixth Committeeconsidered agenda item 136a1ils 56th, 57th, %th, 61st
and 62nd meetings on 24 and 25 November, and 9 and II December 1987.The
views expressed in the Sixth Committee with respect to the Amendment are
reflected in summary records of the meetings of the Sixth Committee (Nos. 18
to 22).
8. The Sixth Committee also had hefore it under agenda item 136 draft14
APPLlCABlLlTY OF THEORLICATION70 ARBITRATE
resolution A/C.6/42/L.20, dated 23 November 1987 (No. 23) which was sub-
sequently revised in A/C.6/L.20/Rev.I (No. 24) and further revised in
A/C.6/42/L.20/Rev.2 (No. 25). At ils 62nd meeting on 1 I December 1987, the
Sixth Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/42/L.20/Rev.2 by a recorded
vote of 100to I (No. 22).
9. The Report of the Sixth Committee on agenda item 136,A/42/878, dated 14
December 1987 (No. 26), was considered by the General Assembly al ils 98th
Plenary Meeting, held on 17December 1987(A/42/PV.98, No. 27). The General
Assembly at ils 98th plenary meeting on 17 December 1987adopted resolution
42/210B by a recorded vote of 145 10 I (No. 27, p. 7).
10.Meanwhile,at the first session ofthe 100thCongress of the United States in
1987,various billswere tahled in the United States Congress concerning removal
of offices of the PL0 from the United States. lntroductory and explanatory
statements concerning those bills(Nos. 39,40 and 41), as wellas other statements
(Nos. 42, 43, 44 and 45) were made by members of Congress. One such bill
(No. 40) was re-introduced, without change, in the United States Senale as an
Amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988and
1989,and was adopted by the Senate (No. 46) on 8 October 1987.As the two
bouses of Congress had adopted different legislalion regarding the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act. conferees were appointed by both houses to serve
on a Committee of Conference to reconcile tbose differences. The House of
Representatives instructed ils conferees10accept theAmendment which had been
adopted by the Senate (No. 47). Before the malter was reported out of the
Committee of Conference. statements weremade on the Amendment bv members
of Congresi (Nos. 4d. 19 and 50). The Commiitee of Conferencc rîport of 14
December 1987probidcd for the incorporaiion of the Amcndment adopied by ihc
Senaic in10the Foreicn Rel~iionsAu1hori;rationAct (No 51).The Commiiice of
Conference version of the Foreign Relations ~uthorization'~ct was considered
and adopted by the House of Representatives on 15 December 1987and by the
Senate on 16 December 1987(Nos. 52 and 53). A statement was made by one
member of Congress on Title X of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act after
ils adoption by hoth houses (No. 54).
I1.On 22December 1987,the President of the United States signed into law the
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989, Title X of
which is entitled the "Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987" (No. 38). and made a
statement thereon (No. 55).
12. On 13 Octoher 1987,which was before the completion of the legislative
process in the United States Congress with respect to the Amendment, the
Secretary-General wrote to the Permanent Representative of the United States to
the United Nations and made known to the latter his views about the then
proposed Amendment (No. 29).This began an exchangeof correspondence in this
matter between the Secretary-General and the Permanent Representative of the
United States 10 the United Nations. The relevant correspondence during this
period (i.e., between 13October 1987and 4 March 1988) is reproduced in the
Dossier (Nos. 29 10 37). The Reports of the Secretary-General (Nos. I and 2)
contain a summary of the developments that look place betweenthe adoption on
17 December 1987of Assembly resolution 4212108 and the submission by the
Secretary-General of an addendum to his second Report to the General Assembly
on 25 February 1988.
13. On 29 February 1988, the General Assembly resumed ils forty-second
session punuant 10requests made by the Permanent Representative of Bahrain,
as Chairman of the Arah Croup (No. 3), and the Permanent Representative of
Zimbabwe, as Chairman of the Co-ordinating Bureau of the Movement of Non- INTRODUCTORY NOTE 15
Aligned Countries (No. 4). The Permanent Representative of Kuwait, on behalf
of the members of the Oreanization of the lslamic Conference in New York
(~;1~5),and-the chairmanof the Cornmittee on the Exercise of the lnalienable
Rights of the Palestinian People, on behalf of the Committee (No. 6) supported
thérequest to reconvene the General Assembly.
14. The General Assembly resumed its consideration of agenda item 136,
"Report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country", at its 100th to
104th plenary meetings on 29 February and 1 to 2 March 1988. The views
expressed at these meetings are reflected in the provisional verbatim records:
A/42/PV.100to 104(Nos. I1 to 15).
15. On 29 Fehruary 1988, draft rcsolutions Al421L.46 and A1421L.47were
submitted to the General Assembly for consideration (Nos. 7and 9) ;additional
sponsors were subsequently added (Nos. 8 and 10).
16. At its 104th plenary meeting on 2 March 1988, the General Assembly
adopted resolution 42/229B by 143 votes to none (No. 15).
Introductionto Part II
17.Part II of the Dossiercontains material relevant to the observer status ofthe
. .--. .-~
Palestine ~iberation Organization (PI.0). ln viewof the fact that the permanent
observer status has evolved in the United Nations from practice of the pas1four
-~.-~es..t~ ~oresentation of Part II follows that oroceis of evolution ?rom the
Permanent 0bscncrs of noti.member SI~ICS(+os 56 to 57) 10 Permanent
Obscwtrs of intergovcrnmenta1orb.~ni?ations(Niis. 58 10 61), aiid io Permancnt
Obscr\,ers of other cntitics. includine ihe PL0 (Nos 62 to 75)
18 E.ach section containi (i) data';oncerning'the legislative.authorities for the
establishment of permanent obseweis and (ii) statements hy the Secretariat as
to the status, privileges and irnmunities enjoyed by such obsemers. The last
section also contains a suhsection on decisions of relevant cases in United States
Courts.
Materials SpecificallyRelevant ro rhe PL0
19.Dossier Nos. 63to 72refer to decisionstaken by the General Assembly,the
Security Council and the Economic and Social Council upon which the PL0
observer status is hased. After severaldecisionsrelating to the participation of the
PL0 inconferences(Nos. 63to 65),tlie General Assemblygranted observer status
to the PL0 by its resolution 3237(XXIX) (No. 66)adopted al its 2296thplenary
meeting, on 22 November 1974(No. 67). At ils next session, the Assemblyby its
resolution 3375(XXX) of 10November 1975issued an invitation to the PL0 to
participate in al1efforts, deliberations and conferences on the Middle East, held
under the United Nations auspices (No. 68).
20. The PL0 was firstinvited to oariicioate in the discussionof a auestion in the
sesurity ciuncil 31 ils 1859thmcciingo"4 Ileccmber 1975.Ai ihc fame timc, ihc
Securit) Council dccidcd b) E,\oit ihai ils 1m.tt3ttonwould confer upori the PI.0
the same rights of participation as those conferred on a member State invited
under rule 37 of the Provisional Rules of Procedure (No. 70).
21. A similar decision was thereafter taken each lime when the participation of
the PL0 in the Council was oroposed. for example at its 2785th meeting on 27
1954th meeting on 3 July 1975,16 APPLICABILITYOF THE OBLIGATIONTO ARBITRATE
capacity in its deliberations on any matter of particular concern to that
01~anization (No. 69).
23. Pursuant to resolution 2089 (LXIII) of 22 luly 1977of the Economic and
Social Council, the PL0 is a full member of the Economic Commission for
Western Asia which is a regional intergovernmental organ of the Council
>No~ 72-,.
24. Dossier Nos. 73to 75contain statements by the United Nations Secretariat
as to the le-al status of the officeand re~resentalives of the PL0 to the United
Nations.
25.The last section of Part II of the Dossier contains two relevantjudgments of
two United States federal district courts (for the Eastern District of New York
and the District of Massachusetts) (Nos. 76 and 77).
Introduction 10Part III
26. Part III of the Dossier contains materials relevant to the Headquarters
Agreement. It has three sections. Section 1provides the legislativehistory of the
Agreement on the basis of the materials available in the United Nations archives.
Section II contains the legislativehistory of Public Law No. 80-357,by which the
United States Congress approved the Agreement. Section III relates to the
question of accessto Headquarters of representatives of certain non-governmen-
ta1 organizations, raised in 1953 during the 15th and 16th sessions of the
Economic and Social Council.
LegislativeHistory of the Headquarters Agreement
27. The Preparatory Commission of the United Nations in 1945transmitted to
the General Assembly,as a working paper, a draft treaty to beconcluded by the
United Nations with the United Statesfor the location of the Headquarters of the
United Nations (No. 78) and a draft convention on the Privilegesand lmmunities
of the United Nations (not included herein). It also recommended to the General
Assembly that the draft treaty should be negotiated with reference to the general
principles set forth in both those instmments.
28. In its resolution 6 (1) B on Pnvileges and Immunities, adopted on 13
February 1946,the General Assemblyauthorized the Secretary-General (with the
assistance of a Negotiating Committee composed of persons appointed by ten
member States) to negotiate with thecompetentauthorities of the United States of
America the arrangements required as a result of the establishment of the seat of
the Un~t~d~ ~tions in the United States (No. 79'1.Bv the same resolution. the
Assembly transmitted to the ~ecretary-~èneral the ;raft convention (formerly
called the draft treaty) "for use in thesenegotiations as a basis of discussion". The
Assembly requested that the ~ecretary-beneral reporl to it the results of the
negotiations (No. 79)'.
29. From 15May to 6 June 1946,the Secretary-General convened a series of
meetings, attended by his own representatives and those of the members of the
' Section 39 of the dralt convention(formerlyArt. 30) now madethe referralof any
diKerencrr i~arbitraiionoblig~ioryraihrrihanoplional Anaddilionalsenicnce%asaddrd
ai ihrend cf wuiion 40 (formerl)Art. 311requinngihe unipire 10 rcndcr a finddecirion
altermipi ol an Inicrn~i~onaC luun of Ju,iiceddvisoryopinion, hdblng regard 10thai
opinion INTRODUCTOR N OTE 17
Negotiatin 5 Committee, to prepare for the negotiations with the United States
authorities .
30. In a working paper dated 18 May 1946(No. 80) prepared by the United
States Department of State, the United States commented on the various
provisions of the 13 February 1946draft2.
31. From 10 to 18 June 1946, the representatives of the Secretary-General,
assisted bythe Negotiating Committee, met with the competent authorities of the
United States in Washinrton to nerotiate the draft agreement (Nos. 81 and 82).
Theyproduced a draft convention Grcement betweenihe United Nations and the
United States of America (No. 84).
32. The Secretarv-General and the Negotiating Committee submitted to the
second part of the.first session of the Géneral Assembly a joint report on the
negotiations in Washington, dated 1 September 1946 (No. 83). The report
contained a revised text of the draft convention (No. 84)'.
33. On 14 December 1946 the General Assembly, by its resolution 99 (I),
resolved that the Secretary-General be authorized to negotiate and conclude with
the appropriate authorities of the United States an agreement concerning the
arrangements required as a result of the Assembly's decision to establish the
permanent headquarters of the United Nations in the City ofNew York (No. 86).
The Assembly further resolved that in the negotiations the Secretary-General
should be guided by the provisions of the draft agreement and that the agreement
wou~d~onlv come into force after it had been aovroved bv the General Assembly.
34 In puriuance oi resoluttun Y9 (11, th; ~cvreta;).~eneral rzs~mcd 6s
negotiation uiih the c<impctentCnitcJ Stdtci ~iuthoritier~and an 26 June 1947
sicncd. with the Secreiarv of Stütç or the United Stdies. the Agreement betueîn
tG 1ln~ ~d Na~ion~ ~ ~ the United States of America reaa-dinëth- Headauarters
of the United Nations (No. 87).
35. In his report of 3 September 1947,the Secretary-General reported to the
G-.~~.~ Assemblv on the results of his nerotiations with the United States
authorities, incluiing the signing of the ~~reement (No. 85)'.
36.The General Assembly referredthe Agreement to ils SixthCommittee which
in turn referred it to its Sub-Cornmittee 1on Privilegesand Immunities. The Sub-
Committee reported to the Sixth Committee on 17 October 1947 and recom-
mended its approval (No. 88). The Sixth Committee endorsed the Suh-Commit-
tee's report and recommended to tlie Assembly on 27 October 1947 that the
Agreement beapproved (No. 88).On 31October 1947the Assemblyapproved the
report of the Sixth Committee andadopted resolution 169(II) (No. 89).ByPart A
of the resolution, the General Assembly approved "the Agreement signed on 26
June 1947" and authorized the Secretary-General to bring that Agreement into
force in the manner provided in section 28 thereof, and to perform on behalf of
the United Nations such acts or functions asmay be required by that Agreement;
' Themirrials railable lnthe Un~tcd%lion\ ~rchi\esin th,revirdarc no1uselul iur
the iiiuocurrcntlgundercuns>deraiion
h rednlt ofseciton19.delciionofrh-lion?O .nd rcdraltufsection39 (No RU. ~. I?I
an' Changesweremade, inrerolio,in section20 (formerly19).21(formerly20). and 38
(fomerly 39). Section24 of the 1946draftwasdeleted.
a Thematerialsavailablein the UniiedNationsarchivesin thisregard areverylimiled
and do not shed lighton the issuescurrentlyunderconsideration.
' In viewof the fact that the decisionto establishthe permanentheadquartenof the
United Nations in the City of New York calledfor an =.enrive revision of the draft
aereement.manvchaneeshad been introduced(No. 85).ArtncleIVdepartedcons~derably
fÏomthe previobsdrak18 APPLICABILITYOF THE OBLIGATIONTO ARBITRATE
the text of the Agreement was anncxed 10the resolution. Accordingly, pursuant to
section 28, there was an exchange of notes on 21 Novemkr 1947 between the
Secretary-General and the Permanent Representative of the United States to the
United Nations, thus bringing the Agreement into effect oii that date. The
Headquarters Agreement was then registered with the United Nations Secretariat
and published hy it according to Article 102of the Charter.
Legislorive Hisiory of Unired Slores Public Law No. 80.357'
37. Following signature on 26 June 1947 of the Headquarters Agreement (see
para. 34 above), the President of the United States, in a 2 July 1947 message
(No. 90) iransmitted the Agreement to the Congress for ils consideration. On the
following day, Senators Ives and Wagner of New York introduced a joint
resolution in the Senate (S.J.Res. 144) to authorize the President to bring the
Headquarters Agreement into effect (No. 1).
38. The ioint resolution was referred 10 the Senate Committee on Foreien
Relations, which met in executive session on 10and 12July 1947,and on 15.Izy
unanimously reported (No. 92) the resolution favourably 10the Senate, with one
amendment, adding a new section (6). The amendment was agreed to by the
Senate on 17July and, on 18July, the joint resolution, as amended, was referred
to the House of Representatives for its consideration (No. 93).
39. In the House of Representatives the amended joint resolution was referred
to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, which, in turn, referred the joint resolution
to its Sub-Committee No. 6 on International Organizations and International
Law which, in anticipation of the resolution being assigned to it, had, on 10July,
held a hearing, with a further one held on 19July. In its report of 25 July (No. 94)
the Committee on Foreign Affairs recommended that the joint resolution be
passed, as further amended by it. On the same day the Committee's report was
referred 10the Committee of the Whole of the House on the State of the Union.
On 26 July the House adopted the resolution with the amendments recommended
by the Committee and returned it to the Senate (No. 95).
40. The Senate adopted the amended resolution on 26 July (No. 95).
41. On 28 July 1947,S.J.Res. 144was presented,to the President of the United
States, who subsequently notified the Senate that he had approved it on 4 August
1947(No. 96).
'Thr UniicdSiaiesIrglslaiiicmaicnal<(Nos YU-96d 1cal solcl) uiih pawgc of Spndtc
He~dauArieriAcrcemeni.throurh ihc IceiçlaiivcweDroccsscS~JRe,iu 144.as amendrd. waihIr
cnactgd as~ublir~aw No. 80-357 on 4 AG U 194^7(No.96).The onlydocumentsinciuded
in the dus>icrare ihu5chsving romc iubiianii\e conicni and ihai ivcrcasnnlablcin ihc
tinlicd Salions file,and Iibrari'Ibus.dricumcnlsihai mcrcl) rword formaltransaciiuns
or iranrrnissionarc niii lnrluded.
In recenfyearsextensivematerialshave been publishedonoriginallyconfidentialintemal
Unitcd S131~sgo\crnrncni diu.u<sions.mÿinl) involhingihe Dcpa;tmeni, of Staie and
Juriicc~nd the UnitcdSiaicr Rcprïseniaii\c 31ihc UniicdNatlonr.on \mous asprri, uf
ihe Hrddau3ricrr Agrrcrncni. includlnvno<it8onr ir,be takcn i~ ~-~ ~d Natiuns f<>r~.
definition'ofthe hedquarter; districtand ils immediatevicinity.imolementafi&of the
dgrwmcni. \!sa I\\UC<~n\ol\lng pcrsons ~nb~lcdin aticnd U-n~i~dN 'aitons rnwiings.
rrgulaiionofihc movcmcniofpcr,un<roberïd bysrviion II.and IhrrKc1 of thc "rtiuniy
a\a~labli,do no1consiiiuiep~riof ihr0-rraiauiapr>piirdrotreof Ihc Il:adquartcrAtrrc-
meni. JIthc) ucrc n<>tonirrnporsneou>l)availablc 10theoihcr püriy.ihcUniicdSaiions.
Thuw docurncnir arcrcproduced in ihcfallowiog\ulumrs al Forrizn Relorion,/th? Unircd
Stote~.1917.Vol 1.21-30.4346,48-52.61-67 ; thid.1948.Vol 1.59-63.65.78 .ibiil1950.
Vol. 11.51-54.65-71.75-77 , ,b,<l.1951.Vol 1.48 . ihid. 1952.1954.1'01 111.198-202,
214-21Y2 .37-239.211.244.250-251.257-260,262-276,275-284.287.288,290300, 302.304 INTRODUCTORY NOTE 19
The Questionof Access 10 Headquartersof Representativesof Non-Governmental
Orgonirations
42. By its resolution 606 (VI), 1 Febmary 1952,entitled "Application of the
Headquarters Agreement to representatives of non-governmental organizations",
the~G-.~r~l~A~s~ ~l~~~-~orized ~ ~ Secretarv-General to make arraneements to-
enahle the representative designated hy any non-governmental organization
havine consultative status to attend public meetings of the General Assembly
whenever economic and social matiers are discÜssed which are within the
cornpetenceof the Economir ~ndSociülCouncil and the orgnn~,~iic~nc\oncerned
(No 97) Thus. the Ecunumir and SocidlCouncil bylis resolurion455(XI\'/ of25
June 1952. reauested the Secretarv-General to invite such oraanizations in
categories A and B to send repre&ntatives to attend public meetings of the
General Assemhlyat whicheconomicand socialmatters within itscompetenceare
discussed (No. 98).
43. On I April 1953,at the 674th meetingof the Economicand SocialCouncil, a
representative raised the question of accessto Headquarters of certain representa-
tivesof non-governmentalorganizations whose requests for visashad been denied
by the Host Country (No. 99, para. 2). At its 679th meeting on 9 April, the
representative of the United States informed the Council that the United States
had exercised"the right to safeguard itssecurity, whichit had specificallyreserved
in section 6 of the joint resolution (Public Law 357)" (ibid., paras. 3-5). Several
delegatesparticipated in the briefdebate whichensued (ibid.,paras. 6-12).Further
discussion was deferred until the Legal Department of the United Nations had
given its opinion on the United States decision.
44. The Legal Department transmitted ils memorandum of 10 April 1953
(No. 100)and concluded that
"persons falling within the classes referred to in section II of the Head-
quarters Agreement are entitled 10 transit to and from the Headquarters
District, and that this right of transit has not been made the subject of any
reservation" (No. 100).
45. The Economic and Social Council thereupon included an item on the
provisional agenda (item 33) of ils sixteenth session, requesting the Secretary-
General to report on his negotiations with the United States. The Secretary-
General submitted a progress report on 27 July 1953 stating that there was a
measure of aereement which mieht helo to remove difficultiesover the matter in
ihc future anzthîi any remainini qurst;<inswould beresolvcdsîtisraciorily in the
applicjiion oi' the Ileadquïrtrrs Agrcemçni or in furiher neg~tiaiions wiih
reDrcsentativz, of ihc Cnited States iXo 1011.
46. The progress report of the' Secretary-General was discussed by the
Economicand Social Council al ils 743rdand 745thmeetings,held on 31July and
I August 1953,respectively.The viewsexpressedhy the Secretary-General and hy
representatives are reflected inthe sunimary records of those meetings (Nos. 102
and 103).
47.At its745th meeting,theCouncilunanimouslyadopted a resolution(No. 104).
Part IV. Materials relating to the ProceedingsSubsequentto the Requestby
the General Assemblyfor an AdvisoryOpinion
1. Part IV of the Dossier contains materials relating to the proceedings
subsequent to the request hy the General Assembly for an advisory opinion.20 APPLICABILITY OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE
2. On II March 1988, the Acting Permanent Representative of the United
States to the United Nations addressed a letter to the Secretary-General informing
him that the Attorney General of the United States would initiate legal action to
close the PL0 Observer Mission to the United Nations on or about 21 March
1988,if the PL0 had not complied with the United States law to close the PL0
Observer Mission on that date (No. 105,Annex 1).The same day the Attorney
General of the United States addressed a letter to the Permanent Observer of the
PL0 to the United Nations (No. 105, Annex II, Appendix). The Secretary-
General immediately transmitted these communications 10the General Assembly
(No. 105)as a continuation of his earlier report, pursuant to the charge by the
Assemhlv in resolution 421229A (No. 161.Also on II March. the Assistant
~iiorne;~ener<il inchargeofihe okc of ;hc LegalCounrel oflhe United St2ies
1)ep;irtmeniol'Justicc hcld a press briefing on th13maiier. an unofficialtrÿnscnpi
of which aDwars in document No. 116
3.On 14'~arch. the Pcrmanîni Ohssrver of the PL0 replied(No 114,an ne^ 1)
io the Ic'iterhehlid recci\ed from the Aiiurney Gcnc'ral,the Iaticr responded on
21 March (No. 114,Annex 11).On 15March, the Secretary-General repliedto the
II March letter from the Actine Permanent Renresentative of t~ ~ ~i~ ~~States
and made known Io the Isiier h&\.ieus about ihédesi$ionol'ihe Uniied States Io
closethe PI.0 Observer hiis$ionto the Uniied 'laiions (No 106.Annex) .he 3lso
transmitted this communication to the General Assembly as a further continua-
tion of his report (No. 106).
4. On 14March, communications were receivedfrom the Permanent Represen-
tatives of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Algeria to the United Nations
addressed to the Secretary-Generalwith the request that thesecommunications he
circulated as documents of the 43rd session of the General Assembly (Nos. 118
and 119).On 17 March, the Permanent Representative of Saudi Arabia to the
United Nations transmitted to the Secretary-General a communiquéissued on 16
March 1988,by the twenty-sixthsessionof the Ministenal Council of the GulfCo-
operation Council in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (No. 107).
5. Pursuant 10a decision taken at the 104thmeetingof the 42nd session,held on
2 March, and in the light of the developmentsreflected inthe Secretary-General's
reports (Nos. 105and 106),the General Assembly again resumed its session to
consider ils agenda itemon "Report of the Committeeon Relations with the Host
Country". The viewsexpressed during this portion of the session, from 181023
March, are reflected inthe provisional verbatim records(Nos. 109.113).
6. On 22 March, draft resolution Al42lL.48 was submitted by 62 sponsors
(No. 108). At ils 109th plenary meeting, on 23 March, the General Assembly
adopted that draft withoutchange,as resolution 421230,by 148votes to 2, withno
abstentions (No. 115).At the same meeting it decided to proceed withconsulta-
tions with a view to reconvening the General Assembly before II April 1988,to
continue consideration of agenda item 136(No. 113,p. 23 infra).
7. On 22 March, the Department of Justice issued a Complaint through the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, addressed to
the PLO, the Permanent Observer Mission of the PLO, the Permanent Observer
of the PL0 and to fivemembers of his staff,asking that the Court, pursuant to the
Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987, inrer alia, enjoin the defendants from using or
othenvise maintaining the building that at present houses the PL0 Observer
Mission. or from seekine other oremises. or from soendine anv.fund, from the
PL0 for Ii\ing expenscsor oiher purposes. or from rcsciv.ngdny funds from ihe
PL0 (No 117) The Complaini required 3 rcspunse u,iihin 20 dayb CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER '
Part I of the Dossier. Documents Relatingto the Proceedings Leading to the
Requestby the General Assemblyfor an AdvisoryOpinion
A. Documentsof the Forry-secondSessionof the General Assembly(Resumed)'
1. Reporr oflhe Conlmirreeoii Relurionsii'irhihe Hosr Counrry
(1) Report of the Secretary-Cenerd Al421915
(mimeographed)
(2) Report of the Secretary-General Al421915/Add.l
Addendum (mimeographed)
2. Requestfor rhe r<,sumprionof rheforty-second session
(3) Letter dated 18 February 1988 from the Perma- Al421919
nent Representative of Bahrain to the United (mimeographed)
Nations addressed to the Presideni of the General
Assembly
Letter dated 22 February 1988 from the Perma- A1421921
(4) nent Representative of Zimbabwe to the United (mimeographed)
Nations addressed to the President of the General
Assembly
(5) Letter dated 22 February 1988 from the Perma- Al421922
nent Representative of Kuwait to the United (mimeographed)
Nations addressed to the President of the General
Assembly
(6) Letter dated 24 February 1988from the Cheirman Al421924
of the Commit~ ~ ~n~~he Exercise of the lnalien- (mimeographed)
able Rights of the Palestinian People addressed to
the President of the General Assembly
3. Report of Ille Con~niirreeon Relarions with the Hosr Counrry
(7) General Assembly, Report of the Committee on Al421L.46
Relations with the Host Country - Afghanistan (mimeographed)
Algena, Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Byelorussian So-
viet Socialist Republic, Comoros. Cuba, Czecho-
slovakia, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, German
Democratic Republic, Ghana, India, Indonesia,
Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait,
Lao Peo~le'sDemocratic Re~uhlic. Lebanon. Li-
byan rab lamahiriya, ~alà~sia, Malta, Mauri-
tania, Mongolia, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman,
-
' Receivcdin theRegisiryinFrench andin Englishfrom 10Io28 March 1988[Noieby
theRegiriry.]
Documentsnot reproduced. [NorcbyiheRegLrrry.122 APPLlCABlLlTY OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE
Qatar, Saudi Arabia. Senegal. Sierra Leone, Som-
alia. Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic. Tunisia,
Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates,
Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen. Yugoslavia, Zambia
and Zimbabwe: drafi resolution
(8) General Assembly, Report of the Committee on Al421L.46,Add.1
Relations with the Host Country - Afghanistan, (mimeographed)
Algeria, Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Byelorussian So-
viet Socialist Reoublic. Comoros. Cuba. Czecho-
sloi,akia. ~emGrÿiic ~emen. l>,ihouii. Grrman
Democraiic Republi.. . Ghana. India. Inddnesia.
Iran ilslamic Ren~blis 011.Irau. Jurddn. KUU~II.
Lao ~eople's ~&nocratic'~e~u'blic,Lebanon, ~i:
byan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Malta, Mauri-
tania, Mongolia, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman,
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Som-
alia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic. Tunisia,
Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates,
Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia. Zambia
and Zimbabwe: draft resolulion
AJdoidu~> i AJd the fi~llowingcouniries to ihe
lis1 of hponsor~ of the draft rr.<ol~ti<in.ii~ngiJ-
desh. Hotswana. Brunci ilarussdiam. Bu1gari;i.
Guyana, Madagascar, Mali, Pakistan,
Philippines, Poland, Turkey, Uganda and Zambia
(9) General Assembly. Report of the Committee on Al421L.47
Relations with the Host Country - Afghanistan. (mimeographed)
Algeria, Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Byelorussian So-
viet Socialist Republic, Comoros, Cuba, Czecho-
slovakia, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, German
Democratic Republic, Ghana, India. Indonesia,
lran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jordan. Kuwait,
Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Li-
byan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Malta, Mauri-
tania, Mongolia, Morocco, Nicaragua. Oman,
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Som-
alia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia.
Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates,
Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia
and Zimbabwe: draft resolution
(10) General Assembly, Report of the Committee on A/42/L.47/Add.l
Relations with the Host Country - Afghanistan. (mimeographed)
Algeria, Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Byelorussian So-
viet Socialist Republic, Comoros, Cuba, Czeho-
slovakia, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, German
Democratic Republic, Ghana. India. Indonesia.
lran llslamic Reoublic of). Irao. Jordan. Kuwait,
Lao People's ~~mocratic'~e~ublic, ~ebanon, Li-
byan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Malta, Mauri- CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER
tania, Mongolia, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman,
Qatar, Saudi Arahia, Senegal,Sierra Leone, Som-
alia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Repuhlic, Tunisia,
Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of
Soviet SocialistRepublics. United Arah Emirates,
Vanuatu. Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zamhia
and Zimbabwe: draft resolution
Addendunt- Add the following countries to the
lis1of sponsors of the draft resolution: Bangla-
desh. Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria,
Guyana, Madagascar, Mali, Pakistan,
Philippines, Poland, Turkey, Uganda and Zamhia
4. Provisio~raVl erbufiniRecords
(11, Gencral Assenihl). Proiision~l Verhatim Rc~.ord A'42 P\' 100
of the IOUthmceiing. 2')Febrwrv 1988 (minieogr~phed)
~~-, Ge-rrnl Assenihlv. I'rovisioiial Verbatim Re~wrd A/42iP\'.l01
of the~l0lst meel&, 29 February 1988~~ (mime~~raphed)
(13) General Assemhly, Provisional Verbatim Record A/42/PV.102
of the lO2ndmeeting. I March 1988 (mimeo~raohed\
(14) Gencral Assenihly. Provisional Verb~iim Record À/42/pY 103
of the IU3rdmeeting. I .Varch 1988 imimcographed)
. .. Gencral Asxnihlv. I'r»visiondl Vcrbatim Record ,\ 42 PV.104
of the 104thmee& 2 March 1988 (mimeographed)
(16) Resolutions adopied hy the General Assembly: AIRES1421229
42/229A and B: Report of the Commiltee on (mimeographed)
Relations with the Host Country, 2 March 1988
B. Furiy-secondSessionoj ihe GeneralAssembly '
Report of the Committee on Relations with the CeneralAssemhly,
(17) Host Country Oficial Records,
forty-second session.
Supplement No. 26
(At421261
(mimeographed) (see
pp. 8-13 and p. 17)
(18) Sixth Committee, Summary Record of the 56th A/C.6/42/SR.56
meeting, 24 Novemher 1987. Agenda item 136: (mimeographed)
Report of the Committee on Relations with the (see pp. 5-13)
Host Country
(19) Sixth Committee, Summary Record of the 57th A/C.6/42/SR.57
meeting. 25 November 1987. Agenda item 136: (mimeographed)
Report of the Committee on Relations with the (see pp. 2-3)
Host Country
(20) Sixth Committee, Summary Record of the 58th A/C.6/42/SR.58
meeting, 25 November 1987. Agenda item 136: (mimeographed)
Report of the Committee on Relations with the (se P. 2)
Host Country
' Documentno1 reproduced.[Noieby rheRegisiry.j APPLlCABlLlTY OF THE OBLlGATlON TO ARB
Sixth Committee, Summary Record of the 61st A/C.6/42/SR.61
meeting, 9 Decemher 1987. Agenda item 136: (mimeographed)
Report of the Committee on Relations with the (sec P. 2)
Host Country
Sixth Committee. Summaw Record of the 62nd A/C.6/42/SR.62
meeting, II ~ecember 19g7. Agenda item 136: (mimeographed)
Report of the Committee on Relations with the (see pp. 2-6)
HOstCountry
General Assembly, forty-second session, Sixth A/C.6/42/L.ZO
Committee, agenda item 136,Report of the Com- (mimeographed)
mittee on Relations with the Host Country -
Algena, Bahrain, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti,
Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar,
Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab
Republic, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and
Yemen: draft resolution
Generai Assembly, forty-second session, Sixth A/C.6/42/L.20/Rev.I
Committee, agenda item 136,Report of the Com-
mittee on Relations with the Host Country - (mimeographed)
Algeria, Bahrain, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti,
Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar,
Saudi Arahia, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab
Republic, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and
Yemen: revised draft resolution
General Assembly, forty-second session, Sixth A/C.6/42/L.20/Rev.2
Committee, agenda item 136,Report of the Com- (mimeographed)
mittee on Relations with the Host Country -
Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Bangla-
desh, Cuba, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ghana,
India, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao
People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libyan
Arab Jamahinya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauri-
tania, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan,
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan,
Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia,
Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic,
United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugo-
slavia and Zimbabwe: revised draft resolution
General Assembly, forty-second session, Sixth A/42/878
Committee, agenda item 136,Report of the Com- (mimeographed)
mittee on Relations with the Host Country
Report of the Sixth Committee - Rapporteur:
Mr. Kenneth MCKENZIE (Trinidad and Tobago)
General Assembly, Provisional Verbatim Record
of the 98th meeting, 17December 1987
Resolutions adopted hy the General Assembly:
42/210A and B. Report of the Committee on
Relations with the Host Country, 17 Decemkr
1987 CONTENT S FTHE DOSSlliR 25
C. Correspondencebetweenthe United Nations and the Perntanenl Mission of the
Unitrd Srates of Anlerico to rhe United Narions
(29) Letter from the Secretary-General of the United Nations to the Permanent
Representative of the United States
13 October 1987.
1am writine-.0vo, on a matter ihat is ca~~ine ueriousconcern both to me and
io a numhrr nidclcgations to the United Xxtionr. r\s )ou kn<iui.thc unicd Stdtts
Senïtc recentl) adoptcd .in ~mendmcnt ti)the Stdtc Departmïni Appropriati<iiis
Bill. unon the iniiiatiie uf Senaior Griisslcv oiloua.ihït iccks io m.ike unlïuful
theesiablishment or maintenance within ihe ~nited States of any office of the
Palestine Liberation Organization. The amendment would not only apply 10 the
office of the Palestine Liberation Organization in Washington but also to the
Palestine Liberation Organization Observer Mission to the United Nations.
1am aware that the Secretary of State is on record in stating the opposition of
the United States Administration to the closure of the Palestine Liberation
Oreanization Observer Mission to the United Nations. In a lctter addressedto
%;aior Dole on ?Y Januiiry l9h7. ihc Scïrciary of State said ihdt the Palcsiinc
Lihcr;ition Org:ini?aiion Oh,er\,cr Sliision personnel .ire lirc,cni in ihc L'niisd
Siairs 3,"invitees" of the Uniied 'laiion,uithin thc melinine of the He;iduuïrtcrs
Agreement between the United Nations and the UnitedSiates, and t'hat the
United States wasunder an obligation to permit Palestine Liberation Organiza-
lion personnel to enter and remain in the United States to carry out lheir official
functions al United Nations Headquarters. 1 am in agreement with the views
expressed by the Secretary of State in this matter and 1 would trust, in the
circumstances, that the United States Governmeni will continue to vigorously
oppose any steps in the Congress to legislate against the Palestine Liberation
Organization Observer Mission to the United Nations. Since the legislation runs
counter Io obligations ansing from the Headquarters Agreement, 1would like 10
underline the serious and detrimental consequencesthat il would entail.
(SignedJ Javier PÉREZDE CUÉLLAR.
(30) Letter from the Permanent Representative of the United States to the
Secretary-General of the United Nations
27 October 1987.
1 am writing 10 acknowledge receipt of your letter of October 13, 1987,
expressing concern over the recent United States Senate adoption of Senator
Charles Grassley's amendment which proposes the closure of the Palestine
Liberation Organization Observer Mission to the United Nations.
The Dc~artment oistate understands and aooreciatesvour concern with reeard
Io the proposcd lcgisliition hs )Our lettcr noies rhc ~dministr;iiion hïs &or-
oualy opposcd closurc of the Palestine I.ibcraiion Organioiion Ohserscr Mission
to the United Nations.
I uïni to assureyou ihiit the Adminisir~tion rcmains oppoieJ io ihc proposed
legislaiion. and will hc raising thc maiicr with the Congrcss In this regard. ue are
hopcful th31 our efliiri>uillproducc :cr~tisfactory rçsalution of the issue.
(Signed) Vernon A. WAL~RS.
-26 APPLICABILITYOF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE
(31) Lcticr from ihc Sccrctar)-Gcncrill of ihc Unitcd Ndiion~ IO the Pcrmaneni
Rrpresentaiive of ihc United Sraics
7 December 1987
1have beeninformed that legislationin the US Congress is far advanced which,
ifadopted, signed by the Presideni into iawand enforced, would in efiectentai1the
closure of the Observer Mission of the PL0 to the United Nations.
As 1pointed out to you inmy letter of 13October 1987as wellas in our meeting
of 1 December 1987, it is the legal position of the United Nations that the
members of the PL0 Observer Mission are. bv virtue of G~ ~r~l -ssemblv
resolution 3237(XXIX), inviteesto the ~nited~ahons and that the ~nited~tatés
isunder an obligation to permit PL0 personnel to enter and remain in the United
States to carrv-out their official functions ai the United Nations under the
lieadquariers ~~reemeni. This posiiion which also uas ihc objcci ofa staicmeni
by my Spokcsman io ihc press. coincidcs wiih ihe posiiion iaken h) ihe Uniied
Siaics Adrnini%irationin ihc lcttcr addressed to ihe Chairman of the Commiiicc
on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate by the Secretdryof State on 29
January 1987.Consequently, in the viewof the United Nations, the United States
is under a legal obligation to maintain the current arrangements for the PL0
Observer Mission whichhave ken in efiect for the past 13years.
Even a1 this late stage, I very much hope that it will be possible for the
Administration, in line with ils own legalposition, 10act to prevent the adoption
of this leaislalion. However. 1would bearateful if vou could confirm that even if
ihis proposcd legislaiion hecomes 1aw.Ïhc presc~~arrangcmenis for the PI.0
Obser\er Mission uould no1 be curiailcd or oihcrwix akctcd Wiihoui such
Iirsurdnce.a Ji.puie hciuzen ihe UniieJ Naiions and ihc Cniicd Sidtes conïcrn-
ing the interpreiation or application of the Headquarters Agreement would exist
and I would be ohliged Io enter into the dispute settlement procedure foreseen
under Section 21 of the UN Headquarters Agreement of 1947.
(32) Lctter from the Secretary-General of the United Nations to the Permanent
Representative of the United States
21 December 1987.
1wish Io revert Io my letter 10you of 7 December 1987concerning the PL0
Observer Mission to ihe United Nations in New York. The General Assemblv at
iis 98th Plcnary Meetingon 17Dccember 1987has formally ;dopicd aresolu6on
entitled Rcpori of ihc Commiiiec on Relations wiih the Hosi Country (a copy of
which isatiachcd) Opcrdii\c pdragraph 3 rcquesis ihe Sccreiary-Gcnzral io iakc
clfecii\e mcasures IO cnsure full respect for the Ileadquarrcrs Agrecmcnt and IO
report, wiihoui delay, Io the Grnerdl Aswmhly on any furiher developmeni in this
maiicr. In ordcr ihai I miahi fulhl m> responsihiliiio io the General Asscmblv
in this regard, 1 would b; :rateful if you would inform me of any furthir
developments regarding this pending legislation which wouldafiect the PL0
Mission to the United Nations, in particular the signing in10 law of the said
legislation. CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 29
(36) Letter from the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, the Legal
Counsel, to the Legal Adviser of the Department of State of the United States
Il February 1988.
I would like to refcr to the letter dated 14 January 1988 addressed to
Ambassador Walters by the Secretary-General in the matter of the Permanent
Observer Mission ofthe Palestine Liberation Oreanization to the United Nations.
1would liketo inform ;ou thatthe ~"ited Nations has chosen Mr. Eduardo
Jiménezde Aréchaga,former President and Judge of the International Court of
Justice to be its ~rbitrator in the event of an arbitration under Section 21 of the
Agreement between the United Nations and the United States of America
regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations of 26 June 1947.
ln view of the time constraints under which both parties find themselves, 1
would urge you to inform usas soon as possible ofthe choicemade by the United
States of America of an Arbitrator.
(37) Letter from the Secretary-General of the United Nations to the Permanent
Representative of the United States
4 March 1988.
At its 104th plenary meeting on 2 March 1988the General Assembly adopted
resolution 421229A in which,inter olio,it reaffirmedthat the Permanent Observer
.~~~-~~~~. the~Palestine Liberatinn Oreanization IPLO) to the United Nations in
New York is covercd by the ~eadquarters ~ireemenf between the United
Nations and the United States of America and that the PL0 shouldbe enabled to
estahlish and maintain oremises and adeauate functional facilities and that the
personnel of the PI.0 shOuldhe enilbledto enter and remain in lhc United Siales
to cilrrOUI thcir officialïuncti~~ns. he resolution calls upon ihc Cnircd SiatcIO
abide hv ils oblieations undcr the HcaJquartçr> Agreement and Io ~roride
assuranies that no action will be taken that would Fnfringeupon the Current
arrangements for the officialfunctions of the Permanent Observer Missionof the
PL0 10the United Nations in New York. A copy of the full textof the resolution
is attached for ease of reference.
The ~cncral Asscmhly hïialso rrquested that 1continue niy efforts to resolve
this mattcr in pursuance of the provisions uf thç Iieadquartcrr Agrccmcni. in
pariicular Section 21ihcreof, and IOreport wiihout dcla, on thc outcomc of these
éfforts.1interpret this request to mcan that 1should for the present continue to
seek to exhaust the remedies available under Section 21. In this connection, 1
would observe that 1have not receivedan officialresponse to my letters to you of
14January 1988and 2 Fehruary 1988in which I sought assurances regarding the
non-application or the deferral of the application of the Anti-Terrorism Act of
1987 to the PL0 Observer Mission nor has the United Nations received a
response to the LegalCounsel'sletter of II February 1988addressed to the State
Depanment Legal Adviser regarding the choice of an arbitrator by the United
States.
1have taken note of the statement made by Ambassador Okun of the United
States in the General Assembly at the close of the resumed sessionto the effect APPLICABILITY OF THE OBLIGATION ?O ARBITRATE
30
that the United States Government will consider carefully the views expressed
during the session and that it remains ihe intention of the United States
Government to find an appropriate resolution of this problem in light of the
Charter of ihe United Nations. the Headquarters Agreement, and ihe laws of the
United States.
A\ Iindiratcd in m). statcmeni io the Ccncrîl Awemhly lilihc openine of ihc
resumed xriion IIis m) hope ihai iiuill<iiIproie po>sibleior ihc Cnited Sixter
io reconcileII\Jomcsiic lcgislrtiirin uith ils intcrn;iiional obligaiions Should this
noi he ihc rase ihenIrrusi ihai ihe United Staics will rccogn17cihc cxisiencr of a
di.puic and îgree Io ihe uiili7;iiion of ihe dispute rzitlcmcni proccdure providcd
for in Section ?IUT the Hcîdquaricrs A~rccmcni. snd ihîi in the interim period
-
the sraius<lu0will be mainlained.
-
D. Morerialsreloringro UniredSiaresLegislarion
(38) Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988and 1989,Title X,
Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987
(Public Law 100-204 [H.R. 17771, 22 December 1987) (Unired Srares Code
Congressiunaa lnd AdminisrruriveNews,IOOrhCongress - First Sessiun,No. 12,
February 1988, 101Stat. 1331, 1334and 1406-1407)
FORLEGISLATIY HEISTORY OF ACT SEEREPORT FOR P.L. 100-204 IN U.S.C.C. AND
A.N. LEGISLATIVH EISTORY SECTION
An Act to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1988 and 1989 for the
Department of State, the United States Information Agency, theVoice of America,
the Board for lnternational Broadcasting, and for the otherrposes
Be il enacredby rheSenateand House of Represenlalivesof the UniredStatesof
Americoin Congressassembled.
SECTION 1.SHORTTlTLEAND TABLE OF CONTENTS
(a) Short Title- This Act may hecited asthe "Foreign Relations Authoriza-
lion Act, Fiscal Years 1988and 1989".
lb) Table of Contents. -The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1.Short title and table of contents.
Tirle I- rheDeparrmenrof Siate
Parr A - Aurhorizarionof Appropriarions;Allocationsof Funds:Resrricrions
Sec. 101. Administration of Foreign Affairs.
Sec. 102. Contributions to lnternational Organizations and Conferences; Inter-
national PeacekeepingActivities.
Sec. 103. International Commissions.
Sec. 104. Migration and refugee assistance.
Sec. 105. Other programs.
Sec. 106. Reduction in earmarks if appropriations are less than authorizations.
Sec. 107. Transfer of funds. CONTENTS OF THO DOSSIER 31
Sec. 108. Compliance with Presidential-Congressions almmit agreement on defi-
cit reduction.
Sec. 109. Prohibition on use of funds for political purposes.
Sec. 110. Latin American and Canhbean data bases.
Part B - Beparlmenlof Slare AurhoriliesandAciiviries;Foreign Missions
Sec. 121. Reprogramming of funds appropriated for the Department of State.
Sec. 122. Consular and diplomatic posts abroad.
Sec. 123. Closing of diplomatic and consular posts in Antigua and Barbuda.
Sec. 124. Report on expenditures made from appropriation for emergenciesin the
diplomatic and consular service.
Sec. 125. Requirements applicable to gifts used for representational purposes.
Sec. 126. Protection of historic and artistic furnishings of reception areas of the
Department of State building.
Sec. 127. Inclusion of coercive population control information in annual human
rights report.
Sec. 128. Limitation on the use of a foreign mission in a manner incompatible
with its status as a for-ien mission.
Sec..129 Alloiaiion of shared susis at missions ahroad.
Sec 130. Prohihition on the use of iunds for facilitier in Isriicl.Jerusiilcm,or ihe
West Bank.
Sec. 131. Purchasing and leasing of residences.
Sec. 132. Prohibition on acquisition of house for Secretary of State.
Sec. 133. United States Department of State freedom of expression.
Sec. 134. Repeal of Officeof Policy and Program Review.
Sec. 135. Studies and planning for a consolidated training facility for the Foreign
Service Institute.
Sec. 136. Restriction on su~ervision of Government employees by chiefs of
mission.
Sec. 137. Study and report concerning the status of individuals with diplomatic
immunity in the United States.
Sec. 138. Federaljurisdiction of directactions againstinsurersof diplomaticagents.
Sec. 139. Enforcement of Case-Zablocki Act requirements.
.......................
Sec. 1001. Short title.
Sec. 1002. Findings; determinations.
Sec. 1003. Prohibitions regarding the PLO.
Sec. 1004. Enforcement.
Sec. 1005. Effectivedate.
.......................
TirleX - Anli-TerrorismAc1of 1987
Sec.1001. Short Tirle
This title may be cited as the "Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987".
Sec.1002.Findings;Delerminaiions
(a) Findings. -The Congress finds that -
(1) Middle East terrorism accounted for 60 percent of total interna-
tional terrorism 1985 ; APPLICABILITY OF THE OBLIGATION IO ARBITRATE
(2) the Palestine Liberation Organization (hereafter in this title referred
to as the "PLO) was directly responsible for the murder of an American
citizen on the Achille Lauro cruise liner in 1985, and a mernber of the
PLO's Executive Committee is under indictment in the United States for
the murder of that American citizen;
(3) the head of the PL0 has been implicated in the murder of a United
States Ambassador overseas;
(4) the PL0 and its constituent groups have taken credit for, and been
implicated in, the murders of dozens of American citizens abroad;
(5) the PL0 covenant specificallyStatesthat "armed struggle is the only
way to liberate Palestine, thus it isan overall strategy, not merely a tactical
phase";
(6) the PL0 rededicated itselfto the "continuing struggle in al1ils armed
forms" at the Palestine National Council meeting in Aoril 1987: and
(7) the Attorney General has stated that "Gariou; elements of the
Palestine Liberation Organization and its allies and affiliates are in the
thick of international teFror".
(61 Determinations. - Therefore. the Conaress determines that the PL0 and
11safiliaies ared terrorijt org3ni7aiion and a thrrat IO the intererts of ihc United
States, its allies, aIO intern3tional I~u.3nd sho~ld no1benefit from operliiing in
the United States.
Sec. 1003. ProhibirionsregardingrhePL0
It shall he unlawful. if the ouroose he to further the interests of the Palestine
Liberation Organization or any aits constituent groups, any successor to any of
those, or any agents thereof, on or after the effectivedate of this title -
(1) to receive anything of value except informational material from the
PL0 or any of its constituent groups, any successor thereto, or any agents
thereof ;
(2) to expend funds from the PL0 or any of its constituent groups, any
successor thereto, or any agents thereof; or
(3) notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, to establish or
maintain an office. headauarters. oremises. or other facilities or estahlish-
ments within ihr junsdiction of théUnited States at the &herr or direciion
of,tirwith funds pro\,ided by the Palestine I.ibçraiion Organization or any of
its constituent groups, any successor to any of those, or any agents thereof.
Sec. 1004. Enforcernenr
(a) Attorney General. - The Attorney General shall take the necessary steps
and institute the necessary legal action to effectuate the policies and provisions of
this title.
(b) Relief. - Any district court of the United States for a district in which a
violation of this title occurs shall have authority, upon petition of relief by the
Attorney General, to grant injunctive and such other equitable relief as it shall
deem necessary to enforce the provisions of this title.
Sec. 1005. EffecriveDale
(a) EAèctiveDate. -Provisions of this title shall take effect90 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(bl Termination. -The orovisions of this title shall cease to have effectif the
President certifies inwritingto the President pro remporeof the Senate and the CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 33
Speaker of the House that the Palestine Liberation Organization, ils agents, or
constituent groups thereof no longer practice or support terrorist actions any-
where in thëwoild.
LegislariveHistory
(39) Introduction of a Billto Provide Penalties for Aiding the PL0
(CongressionalRecord, Vol. 133,No. 67.29 April 1987,pp. E 1635-E1636)'
Introduction ofH.R. 2211, a Bill toProviding Penalties for Aidingthe PL0
NON. JACK KEMP OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Kemp. Mr. Speaker, 1 am introducing legislation that would make it a
felony for anyone to provide funds or services to the Palestine Liberation
Organization.
The purpose of my billis Io establish unequivocal statutory authority to shut
down PL0 operations in the United States.
The United States has accorded the PL0 every opportunity and incentive to
moderate ils views and its actions. Unfortunately, recent events have reaffirmed
the extremism of the PL0 and its adherence to terrorism.
At the meeting in Algiers - April 20-26, 1987 - of the Palestinian National
Council [PNC], Mohammed "Abu" Abbas, convicted mastermind of the Achille
Lauro hijacking, was reelected Io the executivecommittee of the PLO. So much
for Yasser Arafat's earlier pledgeto punish those responsible forthat despicable,
cowardly act.
The PL0 also abandoned its accord with Jordan's King Hussein, and agreed Io
curtail ties with Eevot because of Eevot's relations with Israel. In retaliation.
ËgYpi clo$çda11~1~0<itficeson its ier;&ry The United Siairs should do no less
Hyclosing the PL0 office.the United Stsies has the opportunity to reallirm ils
conimitment to the PLO-reri~diatedmace efioris of Ardb moder2tr.ssuchas Kine
Hussein and President ~ibarak. li will send a message to the PL0 that the
United States supports a peaceful resolution to the Arab-lsraeli conflict, and
reiects terrorists as inadmissible oarlies to neeotiation
'~nd by making it a criminai offense tosupport PL0 actions, we will be
declaringour intolerance ofany who would oiïer aid and comfort to international
terrorism.
Mr. Speaker, a year ago tomorrow 1 published an article in the Washington
Times, arguing that Our legal arsenal should be brought to bear against PL0
terrorist actions. As 1said then:
"Our American tradition is grounded in the rule of law. We accept as an
article of faith that no person is above the law. It is time that Yasser Arafat
and other sponsors of international terror come to understand that crimes
against the United States, our citizens, or our properly, will not go un-
punished."
Mr. Speaker, 1 would also like to share with my colleagues the exchange of
correspondence 1have had with Secretary of State George Shultz sincethat time,
urging him Io useexistingauthority to shut down the PL0 officeshere and in New
York. The only response 1have receivedto date asserts that such action isoutside
the Executive'spower. 1remain unconvinced that present law does not provide
' This bilwas notenactedinto law.34 APPLICABILITY OF THE OBLIGATION M ARBITRATE
ample basis to end PL0 activities in the United States. But al a minimum, my bill
should clear np that ambiguity.
The letters follow :
House of Representatives;
Washington, DC, October 16, 1986.
Hon. George Shultz,
Secretary of State,
Department of State,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Secretary:Today, a PL0 sponsored terrorist attack occurred near the
Wailine Wall in the OIdCitv of Jerusalem. killinr at least one verson and seriouslv
injuring scores of others i&luding innocent civaians.
The PL0 now threatens - not for the first lime - that more attacks will
follow.
Mr. Secretary, for too long the United States hasallowed the PL0 10mainlain
an officein Washington, D.C., and wehave tolerated the presence of a PL0 U.N.
mission in New York. We have the legal authority, as a matter of policy, to shut
down these terrorist outposts on U.S. soilI believe it ispast time for us to do so.
The PL0 is a terrorist organization. Terrorists are not welcome in the United
States - nor should they be welcome in any country that values human decency
and human hves. 1 urge you Io use the authority of your office Io take the
necessarysteps to close the PL0 oiiice and mission inthe US, and to expelForeign
PL0 operatives now in the United States.
If we fail to take these minimal steps, the PL0 Leadership may be tempted to
conclude - incorrectly - that they can conduct terrorist operations with
impunity. Your swift action can help demonstrate that the PL0 will pay a price
for its acts of terror.
Sincerely,
Jack KEMP,
Member of Congress.
The Secretary of State,
Washington, D.C.
Hon. Jack Kemp,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
Dear Jack: 1 am responding to your letter of October 16, concerning the
Palestine Liberation Organizaiion lnformation Officein Washington and the PL0
Observer Mission in the UN in New York.
Like al1Americans, 1 was outraged by the recent bombing near the Wailing
Wall in Jerusalem, which claimed the life of an lsraeli soldier. 1join you in
condemning this reprehensible and cowardly attack.
1share your deep concern about the claims of responsibility by elements of the
PL0 for this attack. However. ihe continued existence of the PL0 lnformation
Oflice in Washington neithcr reRects nor rcqulrcs ihc dpproval of the United
Stdies Go\crnmeni The PL0 Inforniaiion oflice i$rcgisicred undcr the Foreign CONTENT SF THEDOSSIER 35
Agents Regislration Act of 1938,asamended,with the Department of Justiceand
is subiect 10 the orovisions of that leaislation. The Dcpartment of Justice has
info&ed us that;O long asthai office rëgularly files reports with the Department
of Justice on its activities as an agent of a foreign organization, complies with al1
other relevant US laws, and is staffed by Americans or legal resident aliens. it is
entitled to operate under the protection provided by the First Amendment of the
Constitution.
The PL0 Observer Mission in NewYork was established as a consequenceof
General Assemblv resolution 3237 (XXIX) of November 22. 1974.which invited
the I'LO tu pari;cipiitc ;is an obscrker in ihc resrions and work xi ihe Generîl
As,emhly. The PL0 Ohscr\,er Mission reprcsent, ihr PL0 in the UN .ilis iino
senseaccrcdiied to the US. The US lias niade clear tliai PI.0 Ob,crver Misciun
personne are prcsent in rhc Uiiitcd States$olely in lheir capaciiy as "ini,itces" of
the United Nations wiihin ihe meiining of the Ilciidquarters Agreemeni. While wc
ihercfore are under an obli~atton to permit PLO Obserwr Miss~onperiunnel to
enter and remain in the ~nited States10carrv out their officia1 functions al UN
headqu3rierr. we relain rhe nght io Jeny eniry 10.ur expl. an)' individu31 P1.O
represeniati\e dirccily implicîied in ierrorisi tItsis. moreuvrr. ihe pulicy of the
US to restrtct ihe irawl ol mernhcrsof ihe PL0 Observer Mission io wiihin a 25-
milc radius oiColunibus Circlc. Spccial permissi<~nmusi be receited IO trai,el
beyond thii xrex Such pcrniission is $r.iiiird only liir humanitarian purposrs.
Sincerely yours,
George P. SHULTZ.
Flouseof Representatives
Washington, DC, January 13, 1987.
Hon. George Shultz,
Secretary of State.
Department of State,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Secretary: On October 16of las1year; when PL0 terrorists attacked
and killed innocent civilians in the Old City ofJerusalem, 1wrote to urge that you
usethe authority of your officeto closethe PL0 Office and mission in the US and
to expel foreign PL0 operatives now in the United States. In response,1received
your letter of November 12,in which you discussthe legal andpolicy implications
of the PL0 presencein the United States, but indicate no interest in following
through on my suggestion. 1enclose copiesof this pas1correspondence for your
reference.
Your letter raises a number of questions, which I would like to pose in the
interest of furthering a realistic policy toward the PLO.
First, you indicate that "the continued existenceof the PL0 Information Office
in Washington neither reflects nor requires the approval of the United States
government". Yet doesn't the continued existenceof the PL0 Information Office
imply that the US government condones ils existence,sincethe government could
order the closure of that office?
Second, you say that the Department of Justice hassaid that "so long as the
[PL0 Information] oflice regularly files reports with the Department of Justice on
ils activities asan agent of a foreign organization, complies with al1other relevant36 APPLlCABlLlTY OF THE OBLlGAlTON TO ARBITRATE
US laws,and isstaiied by Americans or legalresidentaliens,it isentitled ta operate
under the protection provided hy the First Amendment of the Constitution."
Does the PL0 Information office"regularly" file reports with the Department
of Justice? How frequently? Would more frequent reporting requirements be
beneficial?
Does the PL0 file full reports on ils activities? Should the PL0 - a known
terrorist organization - he required to file more detailed reports?
Does the PL0 in fact comply with al1other relevant US laws? What about the
Voorhis Act (US Code Title 18, Sec.2386), which requires organizations ta
register separately with the Attorney General if they are subject ta "foreign
control" and engage in "civilian military activity"?
It is mv understandine that reeistration under the Voorhis Act would reauire. .
arnoiigoiher things. "a ictailed siatemeni of ihe aiscis of the org~nizaiion, and of
cÿch hranch. chapter dnd ~ffiliateol'the <irgani7ation.ihe inanncr in whi~.hsuch
assets wereacquired ...; a detailed description ofthe activities ofthe organization,
and of each chapter, branch, and affiliate of the organization, identified by the
manufacturer's number thereon." Wouldn't such information beof use to us in
governing the PLO's presence in the US?
As 1read the "RICO (Racketeer InRuencedCorrupt Organization) Act, under
US law no individual may belong ta any organization that engages in terrorism,
whichisto say murder, etc. -as the PL0 clearlydoes. Doesn't thislegislationgive
the US government a basis upon which ta closedown PL0 operations in the US?
Your letter notes that "[tlhe PL0 Observer Mission in New York was
estahlished as a consequence of General Assembly Resolution 3237 (XXIX) of
November 22, 1974,which invited the PL0 to participate as an observer in the
sessions and work at the General Assembly". But isn't that resolution illegal hy
the UN'Sown Charter, which in Article 2 forhidsthe threat or use of forceagainst
the territorialintegrity or political independence of any state - which the PL0
clearly does?
You also sav that "PL0 Observer Mission~ ~~sonnel are oresent in the United
States solely i; their capacity as 'invitees'of ihe United ~aiions", but isn't their
stay now numbering ten years stretching that invitation a bit? Shouldn't Our
"invitation" be limicedta specific meetings, perhaps even for the entire duration
of the General Assembly, rather than entertaining a year round PL0 presence in
Manhattan?
You note that "we are under an oblieation to ~ermit PL0 Observer Mission
personnel to enter and remain in the ~2" - bu< surely we can put reasonable
limits on their stay here?
Your letter notes that special permission must be received hy PL0 Mission
emoloveesto travel bevond the 25-mileradius. 1wonder if vou could tell me what
ir2;clihe PL0 ~isri& rial7 has ken engdg'ng in for the;>ast iuo )rdr> -and
uhat groundb ihe US has giten for psrrniiiing il?
As a general observation, 1am sure that you would agree with me that - as
part of the President's policyagainst terrorism - we should do al1we can do ta
impede the work of terrorist organizations. In this light, do you believe - as a
matter of policy - that we should continue to welcomethe PL0 into the United
States? If not, 1would urge ?ou to help bring an end ta its presence here.
Sincerely,
Jack KEMP,
Member of Congress. CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 37
(40) Introduction of a Proposed "Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987"in the Form of a
Billin the United States Senate
(CongressionolRecord, Vol. 133,No. 78, 14May 1987,pp. S 6447-S6451)'
Anti-Terrorism Act
By Mr. Grassley (for hirnself, Mr. Lautenherg, Mr. Dole, MI. Metzenhaum,
Mr. Boschwitz, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Symms, MI. McCain, Mr. D'Amato, MI.
Murkowski, Mr. Kames, Mt. Packwood, Mr. Specter, Mr. Hechi, Mr. DeCon-
cini, Mr. Helms, Mr. Simon, Mr. Chiles, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Levin, MI. Trihle,
Mr. Graham, and MI. Gramm:
S. 1203.A bill to amend title 22, United States Code, Io make unlawful the
establishment or maintenance within the United States of an officeofthe Palestine
Liberation Organization, and for other purposes; to the Cornmittee on Foreign
Relations.
MI. Grassley. Mr. President, today we are taking action long overdue - an
action which is designed to put a stop to PL0 activity in this country.
It might come as a surprise to many Amencans that the PL0 has operated
freely,in an officialcapacity, in this country since 1978.Well, those days are past.
The action weare taking today is not because of one so-calledisolated incident
of terrorist activity but because of the years of documented evidence that leaves
one with no douht about the PLO's goals and what its methods are to achieve
those goals.
Let us go down the list of casualties that have directlyresulted from the PLO's,
in Arafat's words, "armed struggle Io liberate Palestine".
First. Who can forge1 the 1972 Black September massacre of Il Olympic
athletes- an Amencan was among those killed.
Second. The 1973murder of a 16-year-oldAmerican.
Third. The 1974downing of a TWA 707 which resulted in the death of 88
people, some of whom wereAmerican.
Fourth. The 1975hornhings in Jerusalem which resulted in the death of three
Americans.
Fifth.The 1976hotelfiresethythePL0 whichcausedthedeathoftwo Americans.
Sixth. The 1976killing of an aide Io Senator Jacob Javits.
Seventh. The 1978 killings of Amencan Medical Student and an American
photographer.
Eighth. And that hrings us to the present day where we have experienced the
massacres al the Rome and Athens airporls, and the murder of Leon KlinghoîTer
aboard the AchilleLouro.
These instances have twothings in common: Amencans have been killed and
the PL0 has taken direct credit for the murders, or those held aceountahle in the
courts have ken members of the PLO.
Becauseof lime, 1have not gone intothe evidenceof other crimescarried out hy
the PL0 such as Narcotics trafficking, kidnapping, fraud, smuggling,or murders
carried out against non-US citizens, no1 to mention the maiming of countless
numhers of others, including Americans.
This is the organization which promotes its goals with the ahove action. How
lone willittake us to come to the decision that the PL0 has no businessoaeratine
in SheUnited tat tele,alone in the rest of the world.
' Seedocument 46 below.38 APPLICABILITYOF THEOBLIGATIONTO ARBITRATE
Egypi, Morocco. and Jordan have rccenll) ordered PL0 officesclosed 1haie Io
admit lh31 itis lime weiake our lead from ceriain Arah nations in the Middle Ea\i
in dealing with terrorists on our own shores and shut down the PL0 operation in
the United States.
MI. President, this iscosponsored by Senators Lautenberg, Dole, Metzenbaum,
Boschwitz, Mikulski, Symms, McCain, D'Amato, Murkowski, Karnes, Pack-
wood, Specter, Hecht, Deconcini, Helms, Simon, Chiles, Dixon, Levin, Tnble,
Graham, and Gramm.
1 ask unanimous consent to have the bill printed in the Record.
The Presiding Officer(Mr. Shelby).The bill will be receivedand appropriately
referred, and the bill will be printed in the Record, wiihout objection.
The bill follows:
Be ii enacied by the Senaie and House of Represenlaiivesof the Uniied
Siaies of Americain Congressassembled.
SHORT TITLE
Section 1. This Act may be cited as the "Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987".
FINDINGS ;DETERMINATIONS
Section 2 (a). The Congress finds that -
(1) Middle East terrorism accounted for 60 percent of total international
terrorism in 1985;
(2) the Palestine Liberation Oraanization (hereafter in the Act referred to
as il;e "PLO") wasdirectly respoisible for the murder of an Amencan citizen
on the Achille Lauro cruise liner in 1985, and a member of the PLO's
ExecutiveCommittee is under indictment in the United States for the murder
of that American citizen; (3) the head of the PL0 has been implicated in the
murder of a United States Ambassador overseas;
(4) the PL0 and its constituent groups have taken credit for, and been
implicated in, the murders of dozens of Amencan citizens abroad;
.~. the PL0 coven~ ~ ~ ~~c~~ica~lv,tates that "armed strueeluuis the onlvwa, ,
IOIiberaieP3lesiine.Thuc II1san owrall straicgy,no1merelya tacticïl phase":
(6) the PL0 rcdediçaied itsclf to the "continuing struggle in al1iis armed
furms" ai ihe Palestine National Council mectine in A~ril 1987.and
(7) the Attorney General has stated that va rio;^eleAents of the Palestine
Liberation Organization and ils allies and affiliates are in the thick of
international terror".
161 Therefore. theConeress determines that the PL0 and ilsaffilialesare a
terrorist organization ani a threai to the interects nf the United States. 11s
allies. and IO iniernaiional lau and should noi bcnefii from operating in the
United States
PROHIBITIONS REGARDING THE PL0
Section 3. It shall be unlawful, if the purpose be to further the interests of
the Palestine Liberation Organization or any of ils constituent groups, any
successorto any of those, or any agents thereof, on or after the effectivedate
of this Act - - CONTENTSOF THE DOSSIER 39
(1) to receive anything of value except informational material from the
PL0 or any of ils constituent groups, any successor thereto, or any agents
thereof:
(2) to expend funds from the PL0 or any of ils constituent groups, any
successor thereto, or any agents thereof; or
(3)not withstanding any provision of the law to the contrary, to establish
or maintain an office,headquarters, premises, or other facilitiesor establish-
ments within the jurisdiction of the United States at the behest or direction
of, or with funds provided bythe Palestine Liberation Organization or any of
its constituent groups, any sucsessor to any of those, or any agents thereof.
ENFORCBMENT
Section 4 (a). The Attorney General shall cake the necessary steps and
institute the necessarylegalaction 10effectuatethe policiesand provisions of
this section.
(b) Any district court of the United States for a district in which a
violation ofthis Act occurs shall have authority, upon petition of reliefby the
Attorney General, 10 grant injunctive and such other equitable relief as it
shall deem necessary 10 enforce the provisions of this Act.
IiFFECTlVEDATE
Section 5 (a). Provisionsof this Act shall take effect,90days after the date
of enactment of this Act.
(b) The provisions of this Act shall cease to have effect if the President
certifies inwriting to the Presidepro rempore of the Senateand the Speaker
of the House that the Palestine Liberation Organization, its agents, or
constituent groups thereof no longer practice or support terrorist actions
anywhere in the world.
The Presiding Officer.The Republican leader is recognized.
MI. Dole. Mr. President,1 thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.
1thank my friend from Iowa for his leadership in this effort.
CLOSEDOWN PL0 OFFICES
1am pleased to join with Senator Grassley, and a lis1of other distinguished
cosoonsors todav. in introducine lewslation to close down the two offices ofthe
~alésiinc1.iberoiionOreanizaii&, ïhe PLO, here in the United Siatcs
One of ihe PL0 officesis here in Washington - 3so-clilledinformîtion office.
The other oflice isinNe* York - ihe officeof the PL0 observer mission IO the
United Nations.
Neither of those officesbelong in this country. It's high time they were shut
down.
The PL0 is a terrorist organization. Its leaders are terrorists.
The organization was directly responsible for the Achille Lauro cruise ship
hijacking, and the murder of an American citizen passenger on that ship. A
member of the organization's executive committee is under indictment for that
murder.40 APPLICABILITY OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRA=
The head of the PL0 has been implicated in the murder of an American
Ambassador.
The PL0 has proudly boasted of its role in planning, carrying out and
supporting terrorist acts around the world.
And within the past week, a PL0 member was arrested in New York, charged
with involvement in the terrorist bombing of a bus in Israel- an attack in which
one person was killed.
And now 1read in yesterday's paper that Abu Nidal - about as notorious a
terrorist as exists in the world today. and long associated with the PL0 - is
threatening retaliation against this country, if we extradite the arrested person.
So the PL0 has not changed ils stripes. The State Department has confirmed
this. The Justice Department has confirmed this. The evidence is written in the
blood of Americans, lsraelis and people of many nationalities around the globe.
This organization, and ils personnel, have no place in America; they have no
place in civilized society. 11'stime they were banished.
ADMINISTRATION HAS NOT MOiZD
1had hoped the administration would take the lead in this effort. 1personally
asked the State Denartment to look into the oossibilities of closinn these offices
undcr cxisting lïu.'l'm still no1 sure that neu'law is rcally needcd-
Hui the executi\c has n~t ).etmo\,cd. and h;is not given a cleîr indic~tion of its
intention to move under current law
To underscore that point, 1would like to include in the record at this point an
exchange of communications 1 have had with Secretary Shultz on the question of
the PL0 offices.
So weare introducing this legislation to provide a clear legal has- and a clear
congressional direction and mandate - to move against these Iwo offices.
CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE INVALID
Some may try to raire a constitutional challenge Io this bill. It is no1 a valid
challenge.
We are no1seeking to prevent the consideration of political views; but we are
seeking to protect Our country against terrorism.
We are not seeking to undermine anyone's rights - neither the rights of any
Americans, nor the rights of anyone anywhere elsein the world; but weare trying
to protect the right of the citizens of this country to be free from the threat of
terrorism.
We are not seeking to weaken the protections of the first amendment; but we
are seeking to strengthen the defenses of this country against the real, physical
threat that the PL0 represents. A threat whose immediacy was underscored by the
arrest made last week.
PROVISIONSOF BlLI
The bill finds that the PL0 is a terrorist organization, and lays out the outlines
of the evidence to suooort that findina.
On the basisof thai findine. and theXght of this country to prolecl ilselfand its
citilsns from terrori~m - itprohibits the rcceipi or eilpenditure of ïny funds from
the PL0 in thir country. and prohibits the establishment or maintendnce of any
PL0 office in the unitid States.
And to make clear that these prohibitions are in place because - and only CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 41
because- the PL0 isa terrorist organization: The bill would lift the prohibitions
once the President certifies that the PL0 is no longer practicing or supporting
terrorism.
PL0 UN OFFICH EASNOSPECIAL STATUS
Let memake two final points. One. somemay question whether the fact that the
PLO's New York office is affiliated with the United Natio-s an observer office
of the United Nations - limits our right to close it down. The answer is, no. In
Our agreement with the United Nations, we have reserved our right 10 defend
ourselves; to take any actions necessitatedby Our national security; and to see
that our national laws are fully observed.
We have claimed and exercised these rights time and time again. All we are
doing here, in this bill, is claiming and exercising those nghts a-aiand for the
clear and compelling reason that the office is one part of the PLO's global,
terrorist network.
And the other pointis: In taking this step, we would only be following the lead
of three moderate Arab States - Jordan. Morocco. Eavuf - that have already
moved to closethe PLO's office. Those are nations- eskiially Jordan - that are
nght in the middle of the peaceprocess.They seethe closing of theseoffices as a
necessaryadjunct to advancing that process. 1 agree with lhem
TERRORISM IS THE ISSUE
So the CBnstitution is not at issue; the United Nations is not at issue; the
Middle East peaceprocessis no1 al issue.
Terrorism is the issue. The right of this country to defend itself against
terrorism is the orinciole on which we seekleeislative acti-n and the reasonwe
introdxe ihis legislaiion ioda)
So 1lusi suggestth;it !hic is an issuethat should headdrejseIthank again the
disiinauished Senaior from loua uhi) strrted thiscfortalmost a yearil.o, and my
colleagues on both sidesof the aisle.
1ask unanimous consent to print in theRecord the two letters 1addressedto the
Secretary of State and to the President.
There being no objection, the material wasordered to be printed in theRecord,
as follows:
US Senate
Washington, DC, February 6, 1987.
Hon. George P. Shulfz
Secretary of State,
Department of State,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Secretary: Thank you for your letter of January 29, 1987,responding
to my earlier telegram on the status of offices of the Palestine Liberation
Organiration (PLO) in the United States.
While Iunderstand the points you make, 1am concerned about your response
on two counts.
Fint, 1 wonder whether the Administration has explored thoroughly al1of the
options under existing law, and consistent with Our obligations as host to the
United Nations (UN), 10move against thesePL0 offices. In order 10help me in
evaluating that question, 1would appreciate a detailed report on how the PL0
office in Washington has responded to the requirements of the Foreign Agents42 APPLICABILITY OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRA^
Registration Act. 1would also ask for an authoritative Administration position,
with explanation, of whether that PL0 office might not be subject to the
reauirements of the Voorhis Act and the Racketeer InfluenceCorm~t Oreaniza-
[ionAct (RICO). Finally. Irequesi diimilarl) detailed rcpdrt ou hcihcr 2nd how
ihc activiiies of ihr PL0 ollice in New York sompori wiih iis status as a UN
"obsrner mission" In ~ariicular. 1would ask thai the latter report address how
the Administration in 'imnlementine our oblieations to nroiide the PL0 a
permanent New ~orkofficé (as o&&d to a temporary office,during the periods
when the UN is in session); to permit PL0 representatives 10 remain in the
United States even when the UN is not in session: and to nermit PL0
representatives travel outside of 25 milesfrom the UN.
Second, 1helieveit is also in the Administration's interest to exp-orwith me
and other concerned Members of Congress - the question of whether new legal
1001sare needed to monitor, regulate and perhaps even close these PL0 offices.
While 1 strongly oppose and would not be party 10 the violation of anyone's
rights, 1am no1satisfiedto simplythrow up my hands and say that nothing can be
done about the fact that a known terrorist organization can maintain open and
active officesin the United States.
1 would appreciate your earliest consideration of these matters, and 1 look
fonvard to working cooperatively with you and others in the Administration 10
address the concerns 1have raised.
Sincerelyyours,
Bob DOLE,
US Senate.
The Secretary of State,
Washington, DC, January 29, 1987.
Hon. Robert J. Dole,
US Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Dole: 1apologize for the delay in responding to a telegram which
you and nine of your colleagues sent to the President concerning the Palestine
Liheration Organization lnformation Office in Washington and the PL0 Ob-
server Mission in the UN in New York.
Like al1Americans, 1was outraged by the bombing near the Wailing Wall in
Jerusalem, which claimed the life of an lsraeli soldier. 1join you in condemning
this reprehensible and cowardly attack.
1share your deep concern about the claims of responsibility by elements of the
PL0 for this attack. However, the continued existence of the PL0 Information
Office in Washington neither reflects nor requires the approval of the United
States Government. The PL0 Information Officeis registered under the Foreign
Agents Registration Act of 1938,as amended, with the Department of Justice and
is subiect to the nrovisions of that leeislation. The Deoartment of Justice has
infornied us ihai so long aihiiioilice Ggularly filesrep<;rtswith the Depariment
of Justice on iis activities as an agent ofa foreign orgÿni?aiion. complies uiih al1
othcr relcv~ni US laws. and is staiTedbv Americans or leeal msideni aliens.iiis
entirled to operate under the protection Provided by the ~yrstAmendment if the
Constitution. CONTENT OSFTHE DOSSIER 43
The PL0 Observer Mission in New York was established as a consequence of
General Assembly resolution 3237 (XXIX) of November 22, 1974,which invited
the PL0 to participate as an observer in the sessions and work at the General
Assembly. The PL0 Observer Mission represents the PL0 in the UN; il is in no
sense accredited to the US. The US has made clear that PL0 Observer Mission
personnel are present in the United States solelyin their capacity as "invitees" of
the Uniied Nations within the meanina of the Headauarters Aereement. While we
thcreforc arc under ;in uhligation to <ennit PL0 ~bscr\.er ~yssion Personnel to
znisr and rcm:lin iithe United States to crrv out their official <unciio~t UPI
IieaJqu3rters. we rclain the righ1,)deny ciitr) to. or expel. 3nv indi\iduai P1.O
rcprcrentïtivc dircstly implicaicd in tcrrori\t acts II 1s.morcover. ihe policy of the
US io restrict the tra\,sl ofmemhcrs oithe PL0 Obsewr Mission to u,tthina 25-
mile radius of Columhus Circlc. Spccial wrmission must be rcceived to iravel
beyond this area. Such permission k granied only for humanitarian purposes
Sincerely yours,
George P. SHULTZ.
US Senate
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, Oct. 17, 1986.
Dear Mr. President: The Palestine Liberation Organization has publicly taken
resnonsibilitv for the attack on Israelisoldiers and their familiesthis week near the
Gtern~Alin ~erusalek, and has vowed to step up such terrorist attacks. This
is iust the latest of a multitude of violent acts of terronsm by this outlaw
organization.
You have been a leader in the fight against terronsm and condemning the
PLO's long-established policy of bombings, kidnappings, hijacking, extortion and
murder. Accordingly, we cal1upon you today 10use every available legal option
to order the closine of the PL0 officein Washineton. DC. That office.accordinn
to jts own regctraïion s<atements liled with the-~e~artment of ~ustice, rcceiv2
$250,000a year from ils parent body, the head of the terrorism empire. We are
outraeed that an oreanization whose mandate is terror isallowed to overate freely
in ou; nation's capzal.
(Signed) Senators Grassley, Dole, Kasten, McConnell, Specter, D'Amato, Laxalt,
Pressler, Heinz, Quayle.
Mr. D'Amato. Mr. President, 1rise to cosponsor legislation introduced by my
good friend. the distinguished senior Senator from Iowa. This legislation, the
Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987, will efectively close the Palestine Libcration
Organization [PLO] officesin the United States.
The act recogriizesofficiallywhat we have al1known for some time; that the
PL0 and its affiliatesare a terrorist organization and a threat to the interests of
the United States, its allies, and international law. This bill will close the New
York City and the Washington, DC, officesof the PLO. It also makes it illegalto
accept anything of value from the PL0 and to expend funds from the PLO.
Because the PL0 is not aKorded diplomatic immunity in the United States, this44 APPLICABILITY OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE
legislation does no1 violate any treaties or other international rules regarding the
treatment of diplomatic missions or their personnel.
Mr. President. thisbill is longoverdue. For some lime, many of us in Congress
have oushed for the closin- of the PL0 offices in this Nation. In October of las1
yelir.scisral colle.~guesand 1seni a telegram to ihe Prcsideni urging ihai stcps be
iaken to close the PI.0 ollice here in Wajhingiùn. The coniinued prescnce of the
PL0 in the Cniicd Sixtes isconvoluteJ nùlic\ The PL0 is not onlv a documenied
terrorist organization which consistentiy renounces any peacefuisolution in the
Mideast. but isalso a sworn enemy of the United States.
That enmity toward America is wellestablished. Since 1972,a tragic number of
American citizens have been viclimsof PL0 terrorism. From the 1974downing of
a TWA jetliner to the senseless murder of Leon Klinghofer aboard the Achille
Lauro, the bloody hands of the PL0 have consistently targeted innocent US
citizens. Over50 Members of this body las1year cosigneda letter to the Attorney
General urging the Department of Justice to act upon information linking PL0
leader Yasser Arafat to the brutal 1973murders of American Ambassador Cleo
Noel and Ci.Curtis Moore in Sudan.
Mr. Presideni, ihis legiilaiion willnul stop PL0 ierronsm againsi Amencünr. It
will. houever. rend a clcar dnd unniistakable signal to PL0 leaders that ihe
Cniicd Staies uill n<1acccpi the prcsencr.ofterronbls in ihls NdtiJn. How cm we
allow an organization inimical io the very principles of Our Nation to enjoy
legitimacy associated with the establishment of offices on Our soil. We do no1
allow missions in the United States from the Red brigade, the Red army faction,
direct action, M-19, the Shining Path, or other equally heinous terrorist groups.
The PLO, however, is aforded this luxury.
Some might argue that the PLO, as self-declared representative of the Pales-
tinian people, has some quasiofficial status, deserving an officialpresence in the
United States. Mr. President, six years ago this month we unceremoniously
expelled the Libyans for their support for terronst activities. Even many Arab
nations - Jordan, Morocco, and Egypt - have closedthe doors of PL0 officesin
their resoective nations. Whv. then. do we allow the PL0 to remain? It is a
diplomaiic charade of no vaGe. Mr. President, we only look foolish.
1 strongly urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important
legislation.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. Lautenberg. Mr. President, 1join Senators Grassley, Dole, Metzenbaum,
Symms, and others in introducing legislation to close down the PL0 office in
Washineton. DC, and the PL0 Observer Mission in the United Nations. This
lçgi,lati;n lilso rnskeilillegalIO recei\e anjihing of \.3lucexcept informational
maienïl from ihc PI.0 or its agcnis in fiirihcrancc ciithe PLUS purposcs. or io
spend money from the PL0 or its agents to further those purposes.
Mr. President. 1 have lone advocated the closine of the PL0 office in
Washington and ihc observer mission in New York. boih in iesiimony bçforc the
Senate Judiciary Suhcommittcc on Terror~smhast)car. and in quesiioning various
witnesrei before the Srnate Budrzi and Aii~ro~riationr Commitiees on which I
sit. 1 have repeatedly urged the ~ttornei ~eneral and Secretary Shultz to
investigate how this could be done.
Last year, 1authored a provision in the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations
bill to reauire that theDenartment of Justice investieate whether the PL0 officein
~ashin~ion was in corn~liance wiih ihe Foreign Xgents Rcgistration Ac1 The
report I received says ihat the PL0 is in violation of thai ;ici
Mr. Presideni. iodav ne arc introducinp 3 hillthat wiIIfinxllvclose there offices.
This bill hangs a sign on America's doors that says, "~er<orists not welcome CONTENT SF THE DOSSIER 45
here". And well ilshould. The time is lone oast when Ourcountrv should hold out
a welcomemat for the PLO, whoserecordofhijackings, murderS.andkidnappings
is well-known and well-documented. Instead, we should pull the rug out from
under an organization who so clearly embodies, in rhetoric and in action, the
word terrorism.
Yasser Arafat, the head of the PLO, has long been recognized by this
administration as a prime culprit in terrorist crimes. On 8 April 1986,Attorney
General Meesedeclared:
"We know that various elementsof the PL0 and its allies and affiliates are
in the thick of international terror. And the leaderof the PLO, YasserArafat,
must ultimately be held responsible for their actions."
ln referring to the fight against terror, Meesestated - "you don't make real
progress until you close in on the kingpin".
Moreover, the PL0 has been implicated in the murder of US diplomats
overseas,and has proudly taken credit Tor the murders of dozens of American
citizensabroad. The PL0 national charter statesthat "armed struggle is the only
wav to liberate Palestine", demonstratina that the dedication to violence is not a
me& passing fancy hui a well.th«ught-&t siraies).IO achicvr lis goîli.
Nor kas ihc iigcr shoun an) indi;;#tion iiichînging its siripes of laie The rïseni
Pslc>tineNaliondl Council IPNCI mcetinr IIIAlriers niadecleJr thai the PL0 ha5
once again said no to peace 'nd yes-to terror. At that meeting, the PL0
rededicated itself to "armed struggle", its code word for terror, in al1foms. Il
pledged its continued rejection of the Security Council Resolution 242 and the
Camp David accords.
This was not mere rhetoric. Ai the outset of the conference, Arafat's Fatah
faction dispatched three infiltrators acrossthe Lebanesefrontier to attack lsraeli
border settlements. The PL0 also pledged ta seekbetter relations with Syria on
the basis of the struggle for objectives hostile to imperialism and Zionism. It
condemned Egypt for its peace treaty with Israel, and cancelled the accord to
coordinate peaceefforts with Jordan.
~e~haosmost revealine. the PalestineNational Council reelectedAbul Abbas.
currcnilj undcr US indic't'mentfor planning and o\crsecing the hilacking or ihe
Achille hurv and murdering an American. to a leadership positi~n~on ihc PLO's
15-man executivecommittee.
~ ~th~re wer~s~ill an, -oubters. the meetine in Alei-rs madeclear that the PL0
is noi inicresied in peîce. only in \,iolcncc.
In ihç wake orihe PNC mcecingin Alpiers. boih Eg)pt and Morwk.soclcird ihe
PL0 officesin their counines. asJordan had earlier. Why haveue uaited %olong?
Thcse offices no1onlp lcgiiimirc the PLO's policy oltcrror. Therc is a rcal icsr
ihai theseoffices in Washington and New York might be usedasbasesfor terror.
Accordinn IO an Anril 13 1986 Nrit, Yurk Tirna ariicle. PI.0 ot7icesin IS non-
~ommunis<countrie~ were put under closescrutiny by European intelligenceand
security officiaisto insure they carry out only official functions.
According to that same article, the Director General of the Israeli Foreign
Minisim. oeoole attached to PL0 offices in Euroue were oreoarine a sunoort
struciu;~ [or icrrorisi operations They recruitcd.'rrnted sk~hous~s. pru;;ded
idcntity doeumeni%,chosepotcntisl targets.and colltcicd operaiional inielligcnce.
While al1 PL0 reoresentaiive~in Eurooc dcwribe ihcir acii\,iiio as poliiiral.
educational. and cuiiural. Professor ~ilk;nion of Akrdeen ~ni\,sriity-in Scoi-
hnd. a speci~listin Palesiinian motements, rays ihere arc \e\eral kinds of people
employed in PL0 offices, and they are al1ready to do violence.
With such questions about the I'LO offices in Europe, can the PL0 office in APPLICABILITY OF THE:OBLIGATION TO ARRITRATE
46
Washington or New York be so diflereni? They, too, say their purposes are
cultural, educational, and political. But their former head, Hatem Hasseini, is a
memher of the PL0 Executive Committee. We should no1 take the chance.
If our tough talk on terror means anything, il means we should not allow a
terrorist organization 10operate freely in Our Nation's Capital, or in New York
City. For too long, this country has said one thing and done another when il
comes to terror. Now is the time to put our money where our mouth is and deny
the PL0 a forum on Our shores for practicing terror.
1urge my colleagues to act swiftly on his Iegislation.
CLOSING THE US OFFICESOF THE PL0
Mr. Karnes. Mr. Pres~d~ ~. 1risein su..ort of the l-eislation introduced bv the
senior ~enator from IOWA and othcrs ihat would provide the hiisisfor clusini the
tuo ottivesmaintained in thc Uniicd S131eshy ihe PLO.
Mr. Preiideni. ihc issuenui forth bv this billroer hcvond iusi the uiiestion iiithc
ierronst actions of ihe PLO. alihou& ihai is ~cniis~l clemenr of tLc bill. ltçon-
cerns uheiher the Unilcd Staies is iacitlygoing io exiend legiiim~IO an organiw-
lion lh!1 b\ ils words and dmds clearlv desen,es no such legiiimacv Nobodv cari
doubi thai'ihc PI.0 is a terrorist organ;7i~tion.The cruel, ex&ution iiyle murder of
Leon Klinghofir 1sunly the milsi tisihle eraniple of the Pl.0'~ trrrorirt ociiviiies
~r~inst the citi7ens ol the Cmied St~ies Thc PL0 openly suprwrts Ihc use of
tërrorism. It has used the tactic of terrorism to thwar<the-attempts to achieve a
peaceful,negotiated resolution of the Arab-lsraeli conflict.The United States, due
to thegeneral policiesof the PLO, includingits support of terrorism, has refuseto
extend even the most limited levelof recognition to the PLO.
Mr. President. il is this last point that isofgreatest concern to this Senator. It is
established US policy that the United States will no1 extend recognition to the
PL0 and that no US oficials will meet with PL0 representatives until the
organization recognizes Israel's right to'exist and renounces terrorism. This
longstanding policy has been sound and should continue to be upheld. The
presence ofthe Iwo PL0 officesin the country Riesin the faceof what should be a
clear and consislent policy.The presenceof the PL0 officesin NewYork and here
in Washington are a form of tacit recognition of the PL0 as a Iegitimate
international power. As 1stated earlier, the PL0 clearly does no1deserve any such
recoanition hv the United States. 1 hooe that the Senate will take immediate
acii& io rl~r/fy Our policy of noi recognrzing ihe PLO. I urge my collcagues IO
suppibrithe hill iniroduced by ihc Senaior from IOWA . ycnacling this bill.wewill
gi;e strength and meanin; to our sound and established policy about no1
recoenizine an oreanization that standsfor terrorism and stands aea.nst the rule
ofci;ilizedbehavTor in international relations.
Mr. Chiles. Mr. President. will the Senator yield?
Mr. Dole. 1yield.
Mr. Chiles. 1want to just join and Say 1am delighted to see that the Senator
from Iowa has introduced this bill. 1am a cosponsor of it.
II seems to me that we should not be allowing terrorist organizations to have
officesor a sale haven in this country. That has ken the policyof the United States.
If and when the PL0 decided that they wanted Io strike that from king their
purpose, that would be one thing. Weknow thereare some factionswithin the PLO.
But 1think this is a eood bill and 1suooort the Senator.
Mr. I>ole.1ihank thï~enaior from ~l;r;d;i no1onl) for hisci>~ponsorzhip.but
for his leadership andcooperation in ihis legislaiion. CONTENTO SF THE DOSSIER 47
(41) Explanation of a Proposed "Terrorist Organization Exclusion Act of11987"
in the Fom of a Bill in the United States House of Representatives
(Congressional Record, Vol. 133, No. 90, 4 June 1987,p. E 3329)
The Terrorist Organization Exclusion Act of1987
HON.ELTONGALLEGLY OF CALIFORNIA IN THEHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Speaker, today 1 rise in strong support of HR 2587, the
"Terrorist Organization Exclusion Act of 1987". 1 am an original cosponsor of
this legislation because1 feel that the United States should take the strongest
possiblestand against terronst actions supported by the premier organization of
ils kind in the world today, the Palestine Liberation Organization.
HR 2587would accomplishthis goal hy eflectively closing the PL0 "observer"
mission to the United Nations in New York. and the PL0 "information" officein
Washingion. DC. Thi, legislaiion u(#uld alsi) preclude the opening oi iinv ne*
PL0 (~ficcs in the Uiiiicd Siaies.
Thcrc arc csseniiallv ihrcc o~cr3ti\,c Drosisio10 ihis bill. Thc bill will. Fir,i.
prohibit anyone in the ~nited States ?rom receiving anything of value except
inromalional material from the PLO, its agents, constituent groups, or any
successorgroup to the PL0 ;second, prohibit the expenditure of any funds in the
United States by the PL0 or any of ils constituent groups, and third, bar the
establishment or maintainence of any PL0 office, headquarters, or other facility
within thejurisdiction of the United States.
The reasons for this bill are obvious. The barharic practice of terrorism
continues to he one of the graves1threats facing the free world. The activities of
the PL0 in both engaging in terrorist atrocities, and training a wide variety of
terrorist o~eratives, have in large part heen responsible for the advent of modern
terrorism.'ln fact, the crime07 Grcraft hijacking was primanly developed and
refined by the PLO.
The PL0 has been largely responsible for unleashing a bloody scourge of
terrorism on the world, and the United States has &en a primary target. In 1983
alone, 274 Americans were killed and 118injured in terrorist attacks. In 1986,the
State Department has reported that 27 percent of al1 terrorist attacks were
targeted at US citizens and property.
The PL0 has been directly involved in a large number of terrorist attacks
against the United States which has cos1the lives of dozens of American citizens.
While the complete list of these atrocities is too long to recount here, a few
examples are illustralive. In 1973,Cleo Noel, the US Amhassador to the Sudan
was assassinated hy the PL0 Black September group at the order of Yasser
Arafat, the chairman of the PLO. In 1985, the PL0 planned and executed the
hijacking of the Achilleinuro ship and the subsequent murder of Leon Kling-
ho~le~.~a ~S citizen. The mastermind of this crime. Abu Abbas. was tried and
scnicnc~d in absrntiî iolife imprironmcni by the Italian couri foi hi; rolc in the
KlinghoKcr murdcr. Incrcdibly. Abbas currently s:tr on ihc executive comrnittee
of the PL0 JUSIa iew uccks ago. hlahmoud Ahmiid was arrcrtsd in Sew York
for his iole in a 1986hiimbing (if do I5raeli bu, uhich killcd ihc drii,cr and lell
ihree prirscngcrs seriousl) wounded A PL0 ierroriri. Abu Nidal. has olrcad)
ihrrüicncd IO rcraliaie aeainsi ihe Uniied Siaies if Ahmad isexiradiicd Io Israel as
is expected.
' This bill wasnotenactedinto law.Howevcr,its provisiare sirnilarta thoseolTifle
X as finally adopted.48 APPLtCABlLlTY OF THE OBLtGATtON TO ARBITRATE
Today, the PL0 remains an organization dedicated to the practice ofterronsm
to further its aims. The United States must take direct action against any
organization that espousesterrorism. II isludicrous to allow the PL0 free rein to
spread their ideology ofhate and violence inOurcountry. The United States has
everyright to defend itscitizens from terrorist attack, and this billis a step in that
direction.
(42) Statement Made in the United States Senate on 25 Juue 1987
(Congressional Record, Vol. 133, No. 105, 25 June 1987, pp. S 8775-S 8776;
ibid., No. 114, 10 July 1987, pp. S 9627-S 9628; ibid.. No. 116, 14 July 1987,
pp. E 2895-E 2896; and ibid., No. 130, 4 August 1987, pp. E 3248-E 3249)
Mr. Simon. Mr. President, on May 14 Senator Grassley introduced a bill to
curb PL0 activitv in the United States, S. 1203.1am a cosponsor of that billand
would liketo~~aie a few moments to discuss its imnortance
Terrorirm isa siourgc. It stnkes ai the vcryb~si,ofsociety. ItIiitempis tu force
~oliiical and social change through r.iolençr. Bccaure terrorism depcnds on the
ihock etïect of its actions. it sirikes at the unsus~ectine. the innocent. the
defenscle\\ Terrurist îcts, likc the iiidiscriminate atidik. onwomrn dnd children
in ihe Rome ïnd Viennd dirportr 2nd the brut31cold-hloodcd murder of I.eon
Klina-otïer cannot be toleraied
Unfortunaicly. we have secn a trsmendous iiicrearc in terrorism ovcr the paii
decîde. Experts sïy the prohlem uill gel worsc kcause ierrorists have iound thïi
violenceand the threat of violenccpus.of~ in dealinr w-th many goi~.nments. No
one is safe from this threat.
More than half of al1 terrorist incidents in the world today are.Middle East
related, and most of those are directed against Europe, the United States and
Israel. It isclear that manv of these threats have been rremtrated hv the PLO. a
self-abowed tcrrorist orginiralion. lis coienant speciiic~llystaies ihat '.armed
struggle is the only way to Iiheratc Palestine". a position that mas reafiirmed as
reccntlvai this nast April at a meetingof the Palestine Nati.>ndlCouncil. Despite
hones amone Some ihat the oreankation would moderate ils ~ositions and
act;\ities overtime. the lcop~rd bas no1chmgcd ils spots Itwd, and continues to
hî one of the primary sponsors of ierron\m in the Middle East I don't nwd 10
remind you O? the numerous Americans among ils victims. They range from
ambassadors to tourists, young to old, and healthy to those with handicaps.
There is no reason why a terrorist organization should be allowed to operate
within the United States and under the protection of our laws. And yet it does
operate, hoth here in Washington and in New York. 11'slime that weclosed these
offices.Senator Grassley's bill would provide a clear legal basis and a congres-
sional mandate for doing that.
Some have questioned whether the bill violates free speech. 1do not believeit
does. The bill specificallyexcludes infonnational material from this prohibition.
And, there is nothing in S. 1203 which will prohibit Americans from publicly
advocating for the PLO. It does prohibit any organization from operating at the
behest or direction of the PL0 or to receiveor spend money from the PL0 or its
agents.
Taking this stand against terronsm is no! in competition with my longstanding CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 49
work to revise and rcpeal those sections of the McCarren-Walter Act which
restrict the free speech and cxchange of ideas of Amencans and loreigners alike.
In the 99th Congress, Ijoined my former colleague Senator Charles Mathias of
Maryland in introducing the lnternational Communication and Travel Act, a bill
which would~hav~ ~mended the ideolorical exclusions in McCarren-Walter and
rrmovcd rrsirictions on the impcin ;ind eAport of iniormation. 1sponsorcd an
amendment prohibiiing ideological exslusion~on ihis year's Slate Dcpsrtmcnt
Auihon7;ition Act 3nd willbc rciniri>ducinr! s McCarreii.Wülicr reform billaeain
later this summer. Like those reforms, ~ecator Grassley's bill, S. 1203,procects
the free flow of information. Again, 1 would like to point out that purely
infornational materials are not covered by this legislation. In sa doing it respects
the interests of bath the audience and the speaker.
But terronsm is something else.The protection of US law does no1extend to
the support of terrorists or terrorism. This bill addresses tcrrofism; McCarren-
Walter reform does not. Clearly, the free flow of information and ideas and the
restriction of terrorism are not conflicting goals. Both my McCarren-Walter
reforn and S. 1203 are cognizant of each of these national priorities. Taken
together, these reforms will protect Americans'nght to free speech and go some
way toward oiïcnng Americans greatcr protection against terronsm.
(43) Statement Made in the United States Senate on 10July 1987
CLOSING OP PL0 OFFICES IN THE UNITED STATES
Mr. Grasslcy. Mr. President, 1 corne before this body at this lime to ask
~ons~ ~ ~tion aeain of more than a maioritv of mv collea~ueswho have not vet
joinçd in ;osponsoring S. 1?03.the hiilihai.would'bring about the closingof ihc
PL0 oRccs in the United Yatcs. I should like to have my collcaguerconridcr ihe
following undisputed facts:
In 1974, a TWA jet was exploded in midair by the Palestine Liberation
Organization. Eighty-eight people were killed,including many Americans.
In 1976,an aide to Senator Jacob Javits was murdcred by an affiliate of the
PLO.
In 1985,PL0 terrorists took credit for the massacres in the Rome and Vienna
airports.
Later in 1985.PL0 ruerrillas hiiacked theAchilleLauroand killedan American
passenger, ~eon ~linghoffer.
Consider also the followingastonishing fact: The PL0 - the world's preemi-
nent terrorist organization - has operated two otlices within the borders of the
United States for the aast 10vears. Within the shadow of the White House. the
PLO maintains an "~nforma~on" office. They also maintain a UN "observer
mission" in NewYork. For some lime, Membersof Congress havequestioned the
administration oolicv which oermits PL0 overations on our soil; Because the
adminisiraiion ka, iot actcd.'sc\er;il uçcks ;go 1iniroduwd lcgiilaiion ta shui
doun the PLO's sale harhor in ihe United Siaics.
I iniruduccd thir lcpislai~onhcciiiibeI cannot support !tic hspocrisy of ialki-p,
tough about terrorism while playing hast to the wokld kingpi& or tirror.
PL0 offices in Europe have long been used to support terrorist operations.
Their European agents recruit, rent safehouses,provide identifiesand documents,
choosepotential targcts, and collectoperational intelligence.The New York Times5x0 APPLlCABlLlTY OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE
reported on April 14, 1986,that each PL0 mission in Europe has on its staff a
"specialist inclandestine operations including terrorism".
Moderate Arab leaders. diseusted with the PL0 and ils commitment to terror.
hatc respondcd. Presidcnt ~tb~rdk of Eg)pt and King Hassan uf Morocco have
actcd dcci~ii~el)tu clu.c ihc PL0 oiiicei on their mil. joining King Hussein of
Jordan who did so a year earlier.
Some have suggested that legislation to close the PL0 officesviolates the free
speech guarantee of the first amendment. 1 disagree. No Foreignentity has a
constitutional right to operate on Our soil. Our Government does not recognize
the PL0 and has committed itself not to do so until the PL0 ends it policy of
terror. Moreover, nothing in my bill would restrict the right of anyone in the
United States to speak out in support of the PLO. We could not do that
oonstitutionally, nor does this bill do it.
As Professor Robert Friedlander of the Ohio Northern Universitv Pettit
Collcgcof I.aw har wrikcn, Ïhcl'alestine Informîtion Otficc,whichderi/;%a11of
ils fundinc and hupport rrom thr Palestine Liberaiion Orpsnifaiion. and 1sin fact
a PL0 fr6nt. is noi orotected bv~,he first amendment. The Sunreme Court. in
SC& v. US;held th& there is
"no reason whv membershin when it constitutes a oumoseful form of
complicityin a gkoupengaghg in thissameforbiddenadv&iy, should receive
any greater degree of protection from the guarantees of that amendment".
With respect to the New York officein particular, the fact that it is loosely
connected with the United Nations does not confer any automatic rights for the
PL0 nor create anv ahsolute ohliaa-ions on the United States. The UN Officeof
Legal Anairs has iuled that
"Permanent Observer Missions(such as that of the PLO) are not entitled
io diplomatic privilegesor immunities ...If they are no1listed in the United
States diplomatic list, whatever facilities they may be given in the United
States are merely gestures of courtesy by the United States authorities."
Those who allegethat this legislationwillhurt the peaceprocess have it exactly
backward. Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco have closed the PL0 ofices in those
countries to send a clear messaee.That messaeeis if the PL0 wants 10oarticinate
in ihe diplomatic pruccss. the irst step must be Io renouncc tcrrur. lt ;s this,'înd
nuthing more or Ikss.that moii\ates m? 3ctions to closc the PL0 onices in ihc
Unitcd Stritts. ihiriv-eiahi Senaiors hî\c ioincd mein this cfort and I s~eak this
afternoon because 1 want~~ ~ rest of m; colleaeues to consider io~~ine in the
cosp<inrorshipof this lrgisliriionro Ihat Ge can hi hiter prcparrd khcn somes
io ihc floor of ihe Senaic and maybe hnpcfully ihat the Whiic Housc. ihc Staie
Deoîrtmcni and Justicc willactuirllvcloseihat oiiicein Washinrt-n. DC. uithout
the'necessityof legislation.
1thank my colleagues and 1yield the floor.
(44) Statement Made in the United States Senate on 14July 1987
Peace in theMiddle East
HON. DAVID E.BONIOR OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSEOF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Bonior. Mr. Speaker, 1 wish tn clarify my position on a letter to my
colleagues that 1 recently cosigned opposing legislation designed to close the CONTENTS OF THE DQSSIER 51
information officesof the PL0 in the United States. The fundamental Durnoseof
this letter was 10express concern over legislaiion that, 1believe, wouid threaten
the exerciseof free speech in this country and have damaging consequences for
Ourahility to participate in the peace process in the Middle East.
As we al1know. Mr. S~eaker. the search for oeace in the Middle East has been
elusive. DA^ hel^ convictions have kept ihe peoples of this region from
fostenng mutual understanding. As an important. .ayer in the-region, the United
States nëeds to hear diliering points of view.
My concern that this country not close channels of communications with
representatives of the Palestinian people, must not he misconstrued in any way as
a lack of support for the State of Israel. lsrael is our most important ally in the
region. Our Nation's commitment to defend the State of Israel'sright to exist and
to provide economic and military support must never be questioned.
To underscore this point. 1would like 10quote from a speech 1made to this
body las1year.
"Israel will continue to be a nation with soecial ~roblems and a soecial
relationship to the United States. ~ecause'it is 'surrounded by hostile
neighbors, the question of security will be a priority which overshadows al1
others. America needs to acknowledge this and to continue to provide what
we can to ensure the security of Ourclosest ally in the Middle East."
Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, there wibe no lasting peace in the Middle East, and
no true security for the State of Israel, without a resolution of the Palestinian
issue. The questions of a Palestinian homeland and representation for the
Palestinian oeoole mus!be addressed.
It is in th$ conte-t the need to search for a lasting peace in the Middle East
as well as to protect freedom of speech at home- that 1 have expressed my
ooposition to~lenislation which would deny an organization representi-a the
~iiestinian peopk the opportunity to preseG its views.
Mr. Speaker, 1urge my colleagues to read the followingarticle on this subject.
[From the WashingtonPOSI. July 12, 19871
PLAYINC PL0 POLITIC S ITH ME FIRSTAMENDMENT
(By Nat Hentoff)
Bnnging students to watch Congress at work is chancy. On a good day
they might hear Sens. Paul Simon, Howard Metzenbaum, Car1Levin, and
Ted Kennedy speak with passionate commitment about the need to protect
the Billof Rights, especiallythe First Amendment. On a bad day they might
hear that the very same senators are cosponsors of a bill that would use the
justified abhorrence of the PL0 to weaken the First Amendment.
The bill has heen introduced in the Senate hy Charles Grassley of Iowa,
and its House counterpart has been proudly initiated by Jack Kemp of New
York. Il's called the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987,and, among other things,
il forbids Americans receiving anything of value, except informational
material, from the Palestine Liberation Organization. What happens to a
newsoaoer that runs an ad after the bill has bien oassed ~rotestini -he law
an ai Paid for with PL0 money? Does the gel indicted?-
At the core of this b-llcrafted to make those who vote against it appear
to be soft on terrorism when they'renext up for re-elec-iois a provision
that would close the two PL0 offices in the United States. No one could
establish such an office henceforth "al the behest or direction of, or with APPLlCABlLlTY OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE
52
funds provided hy the PLO. (There has ken an observer mission connected
with the United Nations in New York since 1974,and an information office
in Washington since 1978.)
In speaking for the hill on the Senate floor, cosponsor Robert Dole noted
solemnlv. "We are not seekine to undemine anvone's riehts - neither the
nghis oiany Amcricans nor th; nghts of anyone ;nywher~clsc in the world".
Thdt'i the kind of prologue that givesthe Firsi Amendment the shakes. "WC
arc seekina." added the senaior. "iti iirenrthen the defcnies of this countri
against thë'real, physical threat that the P~O represents."
Factions of the PL0 have murdered and maimed elsewhere, sometimes
with the smilingapproval of Yasser Arafat. But there has been no claim that
~h~ PL0 office~-in th~ ~ ~-~d~ ~ ~~s have been involved in terrorism or in
conspiracies to comniii ierrorism. E\en the ~meriran lsrael Public Aiiiiirs
Commiircc. u hich hds ken mighiily pushing this bill. admits thdt. And iherc
are laws that would put away>nyonë caught in such crimes.
Rep. Barney Frank, the pungent civil libertarian from Massachusetts,
thinks the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987is foolish. "lt's a mistake," hesays,
"for friends of lsrael to put this much energy into the hill because even if it
passes, it'snot going to accomplish anything with regard to terrorism. Oh,
the hill might accomplish one thing. By outlawing the PL0 here, it'll create
an aura of martvrdom around the PLO."
Morion ~Jl~énn.who runs the Washingion office of ihc American Civil
I.ibertic\ Union. points out thdi "II I\çlearly 3 violdtion of the nghis of fret
speechand association to bar American citizensfrom actingasagents seeking
to advance the political ideology of any organization even if that organiza-
lion is hased ahroad". And integral to exercisingthose rights of speechand
association is the corollary ahility to have an office, a staff and a phone
listing. Under the bill, PL0 supporters still do have the right to stand on
Streetcorners passing out literature, and they are also freeto sleep under the
bridges at night.
Americans, moreover, whether they have any use for the PL0 or not, also
have the First Amendment rieht to receiveideas. includine oro-. .nda. -he
senators and representative~cosponsoringthis'hill in such large numbers
ohviouslyforget. as one dissentingcongressman, Don Edwards of California,
told me:"~Ür countrv was builion d~alozue."
ShoulJ the hill k &sscd - or should ihe Siatc and Justice deparimcnts
decide tu close ihe Washington officeunilaierally in order IO short-circuii the
anti-terrorisrn act - a oowerful orecedent will have ken set. Whv not close
Jown the officesof the frica a ~njiional Congress? IIh3sengaged;n \,iolcnse
and sa), il hds no choicc hui tu continue Io.
An orlirial of a Jeuish or~dni~ationihsi docs not support ihe bill notes
wrvlvthat ifsuch leeislation had heen on the books while-Jewsweretrvine to
bnni the State of lskl into being.the lrgun Zvai Lcumiwi>uldhave &cion
the proscribcd Ii,t Thdt tierceeroup engdged in terrorism agdin,i the Bntish
in Palestine for what it considëred urg<nïnationalistic rea6ns.
Seeing the names of Jack Kemp and Jesse Helms on these bills is not
surprising. But some of the other cosponsors - including Barara Mikulski,
Boh Packwood and Arlen Specter - show how shallow the attachment to
the First Amendment is when you can pick up easy political points hy
straightarming it. Somethingfor kids to think about in this bicentennial year. CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 53
(45) Statement Made in the United States Senate on 4 August 1987
The Closingof the Palestine Information Ofke
HON. NlCK JOE RAHALL II OF WEST VlRGlNlA IN THE HOUSEOF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Rahall. Mr. Speaker. There is currently legislation pending before ihis
institution as wellas the other body which wouldforce the closingof the Palestine
Information Office here in Washington as well as the Palestine Liberation
Organization mission at the United Nations in New York. This legislation,in my
opinion, nothing more than a feel-goodbill, isreferred to as the antiterronsm bill.
While it is heing pushed hard hy supporters of the State of lsrael as good for
Israel there are those in Israel. where dehate on Israeli-United States relations
flowsmuch en,ier than in Amcrica.the hasiion of frccspeech,uho fcel a.Idothat
dialog and negotiaiion arc the soluiion io the problcm oi ihe dirplaced I'alci-
tinians in the Middle East.
1 received a letter recentlv from a member of the lsraeli Knesset. Mai. Gen.
Maiii ~eled.eloqucntly staiiag a very validargumcni against this bill 'lnhi; Ictier.
hc rciicraics a drsire I knou th31 1sliarc wiih al1ofY<IU pe~ccbeiu,cen lsrnel
and hcr nciehbors in ihe Middle East And hc 3rruc.s thiitin iirder to br-ne about
that peace.ldialog, and negotiation is necessary.-
1would liketo share Major General Peled'sletter with al1of my colleagues,as
well as the American people, because the points raised here need 10he heard.
July 23, 1987.
Dear Memher of Congress. I am writing to you coucerning the hill known
as "The Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987", which is aimed at closing down the
PL0 officesin the United States. This is king presented as a "pro-lsrael"
bill, and for that reason US senators and representatives who consider
themselvesfriends of Israel are heing urged to support it.
As a member of the lsraeli Knesset (Parliament), 1would like to dispute
that view. 1believe that achievine oeace is a mime reauirement for Israel's
long-term sur\i\aI and prosperit~ ~hcre san'be no kace wiihoui negolia.
iions betwecn ihe Israrli gi)\ernment, reprcscniing the Israeli people. and the
rcnresentaiivis of the Palestinian neopIr. Sush rcvrescntatives can only hr
chosen by the Palestinians ihemselves, and on' each occasion thaï the
Palestinians were asked for their opinion, they unequivocally expressed their
support for the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the PLO. Such for
examole. was the result of the 1976munici~al elections on the West Bank,
whiil; wcre ihc last free elcciionr to behcld there. Sirnil;ir results ucre thc
outcome of apublic opinion poll. held in the Occupicd Tcrritories in August
1986. Indced, ihc Govcrnrnent oi Isracl iticlf. in rciusing lu permit new
municipal elections on the West Bank, admits that in its viëw sukh elections
would be won bysupporters of the PLO.
Together with many ofmy fellow-citizensof Israel, 1have ken urging the
lsraeli Government 10 reconsider ils policies and to agree io negotiate with
the PL0 in the context of an international peace conference. Recentlythis
idea has heen spreading: no1 only opposition members such as myself, but
also Ezer Weitzmann, member of the Israeli Cabinet, as well as several
Knesset Memhers from the Israeli Labor Party. have publicly voiced their
support for lsraeli negotiations with the PLO.
Passage of the hill closing the PL0 officesin the US would, in my view,
constitute a grave setback for the Middle East peace process. It would mean54 APPLlCABlLlTY OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE
total abdication by the US of any role as a mediator in the Middle East
conflict. Hardliners in the lsraeli Cabinet wouldbeencouragcd to persist in
their intransigent position and their refusal to talk with the PLO. Far from
"stopping terrorism", as it is supposed todo, this bill would further escalate
the cycle of bloodshed and violence in the Middle East.
Therefore, as an lsraeli concerned with the wellbeingof my country and
my people, 1 urge you to voice your opposition to this socalled "Anti-
Tcrrorism Act". By so doing, you will not be taking an "anti-lsrael" stand;
on thecontrary, the rejcctionof this bill willbc compatible with the long-term
inlerests of the State of lsrael and will be seen as such by a substantial
number of Israel'scitizens.
Yours Sincerely
Major General Matti PELED,
Member of Knesset.
(46) introduction and Adoption of the "Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987" in the
United Siates Senate in the Form of an Amendment Io the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act. Fiscal Year 1988'
(Congressionul Record, Vol. 133,No. 157, 8 Oclober 1987, pp. S 13787and S
13851-S13855)
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1988
The Senate resumed consideration of S. 1394.
The Presiding Officer.The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. Pell. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The Presiding Officer.The pending business is S. 1394,the State Department
authorization bill.
Mr. Grassley. MF.President, 1wish to send an amendment to the desk.
The Presiding Officer.1sthere objection to setting aside the Helmsamendment,
No. 914?
Without objection, it is so ordered
(Purpose: To make unlawful the establishment or maintenance within the
United States of an officeof the Palestine Liberation Organization, and for
other purposes)
Mr. Grassley. Mr. President, I send an amendmeni to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PresidingOfficer.The clerk willreport the amendment by the Senator
from Iowa.
The legislativeclerk read as follows:
' This amendment war identicalto the separatebill earlierintroduccdin the United
StatesSenaie: reedocument40above. CONTENTSOF THE DOSER 55
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassleyl proposes an amendment numkred
... ~
940.
Mr. Grassley. Mr. President, 1ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The Presiding Officer.Without objection, il is so ordered.
The arnendment is as follows:
To be added at an appropriate place in the bill:
SHORT TInE
Section 1.This Act may becited as the "Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987"
FINDINGS ; DETERMINATIONS
Section 2 (a). The Congress finds that -
(1) Middle East terrorism accounted for 60 percent or total international
terrorism in 1985;
(2) the Palestine Liberation Organization (hereafter in this Act referred to
as the "PLO) was directly responsiblefor the murder ofan Americdncitizen
on the Achille Lauro cruise liner in 1985, and a member of the PLO's
ExecutiveCommittee is under indictment in the United States for the murder
of that American citizen;
(3) the head of the PL0 has ken implicated in the murder of a
United States Ambassddor overseas;
(4) the PL0 and ils constituent groups have taken credit for, and been
implicated in, the murders of dozens of American citizens abroad;
(5) the PL0 covenant specificallystates that "armed struggle is the only
way to liberaie Palestine. Thus il is an overall strategy, not merely a tactical
r-----:
(6) the PL0 rededicated itself Io the "continuing struggle in al1ils armed
forms" at the Palestine National Council meeting in April 1987;and
17) the Altornev General has stated that "varioÜselementsof the Palestine
~ibération ~r~afiization and its allies and affiliates are in the thick of
international te~ror".
(b) Therefore, the Congress determines that the PL0 and its affiliatesare
a terrorist organization and a thr~.atto the interests of the United States ils
allies, and to international law and should no1benefit from operating in the
United States.
PROHIBITIONS REGARDING THE PL0
Section 3. It shall be unlawful, if the purpose be to further the interests of
the Palestine Liberation Organization or any of ils constituent groups, any
successorto any of these, or any agents thereof, on or after the effectivedate
of this Act -
(1) to receive anything of value except informational material from the
PL0 or any of its constituent groups, any successor thereto, or any agents
thereof;
(2) Coexpend funds fromthe PL0 or any of ils constituent groups, any
successor thereto, or any agents thereof; or
(3) not withstanding any provision of the law to the contrary. to establish56 APPLLCAB~L~TO YF THE OBLIGATION 70 ARBITRATE
or mainrain an office,headquarters, premises, or other facilitiesor establish-
ments within the iurisdiction of the United States at the behest or direction
of. or with funds Ürovidedbv the Palestine Liheration Or-anization or anv of
its constituent groups, any successor to any of those, or any agents thereof.
ENFORCEMENT
Section 4 (a). The Attorney General shall take the necessary steps and
institute the necessarylegalaction to effectuatethe policiesand provisions of
this section. . -
(b] Any district court of the United States for a district in which a
violation of this Act occurs shall have authority, upon petition of reliefby the
Attorney General, to grant injunctive and such other equitable relief as it
shall deem necessary Io enforce the provisions of this Act.
EFFECTIVEDAI3
Section 5 (a). Provisions of this Act shall take eiïect 90days after the date
of enactment of this Act.
Ibj The orovisions of this Act shall cease to have eflect if the President
ceitifiesin &ing to thc Prcsident prorempore of the Senate and the Speaker
of the House that the Palestine Liheration Organization. its agents, or
constituent groups thereof no longer practice or support terrorist actions
anywhere in the world.
Mr. Grassley. Mr. President, the contents of the amendment now hefore this
body are exactly the contents of legislation introduced as the Anti-Terrorism Act
of 1987.That bill - not this amendment, that bill has 50 cosponsors, ranging
from 21 Democrats 10 29 Republicans.
So 1myself, not for the other Member cosponsors, unless they later on decide
they want to cosponsor, bring this amendment before this body.
MI. President. 1want this body to consider the followingundisputed facts that
are no1in any way in dispute: In 1974,a TWAjet was exploded in midair hy the
Palestine Liberation Organization. Eighty-eight people were killed, including
manInA1976,aan aide to Senator Jacob Javits was murdered by an affiliate of the
PLO.
In 1985,PL0 terrorists look credit for the massacres in the Rome and Vienna
airports.
Later in 1985,PL0 guerrillas hijackedthe AchilleLnuroand killedan Amencan
passenger, Leon Klinghoffer.
Abu Abbas, who is wanted in connection with the Achille Lauro hijacking, is
now a member of the PLO's ExecutiveCommittee.
1would also like this bodv to consider the followine astonish-ne fact:The PL0
- the world', preeminent terron5t organ17ation - has operatcd tuo offices
within the horders of the United Ftates for the pîst IO)cars Within the shadouof
the White House. the PL0 maintain5 an information office
I suppu\e technislilly thît may bein transition now hecausr of somc changes
that the Stïte Ilepartment is mîking But the PL0 also maintains a UN ohscrver
mission in New York. For some time, Members of Congress have questioncd the
administration oolicv which oermits PL0 o~erations on our soil. Conseauentlv.
several months 3go..l. dong u,ith knators ~ole. Lautenberp. ~etrenha~m, and
Bowhwiu, introduced the Anti-Tcrronst Act of 1987.that 1pre\iously referred to CONWNTS OF THEDOSSIER 57
and in the intervening lime since Ournews conference, we now have 50Senators
who have cosponsored this bill to shut down the PL0 safe harbor in the United
States.
So, at least 50 Members of this body believe that we ought to shut down the
PL0 safe harbor in the United States.
We introduced this leeislation because we cannot support the hvoocrisv of
talking tough about terrokn while playing host to the worid's kingpin; of ic;ror
Tod3.v I 3m oiïenng the Antiterrorism Act as an amendment 10 this Stiite
Deoanment authorizaiion bill. kause I think uecan wdii no long-r io deül uith
.....v-~, ~--~-~~~~~~~sue.
Mr. President, PL0 officesin Europe have long been used to support terrorist
omrations. Their European agents recruit. rent safehouses, provide identities and
dbcuments. choose ootential tarrets. and collect ooerational;ntellT iheencee.
York~irnr.;reportid on April 12.1986.thst each'PL0 mission in~urope has on
lis rtafia "npccialisi in ilandesiinc opîrations including terronsm".
Modernic Arab leaders. diseusied uiih the PL0 and its cornmitment to ierror.
hwe rcsponded. And the) haire respondcd more decisively than WC hii\,e in this
country. President Mubarak of Egypt and King Hassan of Morocco have acted
decisivel\ Io close the PL0 officeson iheir soil, ioinin- Kinc-Hussein of Jordan
who did.so a year earlier.
Some have suggested that legislation to close the PL0 officesviolates the free
speech guarantee of the first amendment. 1 disagree. No foreign entity has a
constitutional right to operate on our soil. Our Government does not recognize
the PLO, and has committed itself not to do so until the PL0 ends its policy of
terror. Moreover nothing in this legislation - absolutely nothing in this
legislation- would restrict the nght of anyone in the United States to exercisehis
first amendment nght of free speech to speak out in support of the PLO.
With respect to the New York office in particular. the fact that it is loosely
connected with the United Nations does not confer any automatic rights for the
PL0 nor create any absolute obligations on the United States. The UN Officeof
Legal Affairs has ruled that -
Permanent observer missions (such as that of the PLO) are no1entitled to
diplomatic privileges or immunities ... If they are no1 listed in the United
States diplomatic list, whatever fiicilities they may be given in the United
States are merely gestures of courtesy hy the United States authorities.
Nor does the United Nations headquarters agreement confer any particular
rights for the PLO. The terms under which the United States accepted the
headquarters agreement specificallystate that -
Noihing in the Agrccmeiit shall beconstrued as innny wï) dimiriiihing ...
the riehi of the United States IO safcauard ils securitv and conioletclv to
- . .
contra the entrance of aliens ...
Under the oower of this reservations clause. the United States has. on hundreds
oToccasions.~xcluded or expelled from LS territor). vanousdelegaies, rcprescnta-
ii\,eî. or invitees of the L'nitcd Nations who, iibelicved. posed a threat to
Anicrican sccurtiv Rîcentlv. for cxam~le. ihc Soviet Cnion - uhich rniols Tar
ereater riehts under the chaiter than a mere observer deleeation- was ordeÏed bv
ïhe ~nited States IO send a third or itr delegaiion home
Those u,ho allege that this Iegislation will huri thc pence proccss hdvilcxactly
backwards Eavot. Jorddn. and Morocco have closcd the PL0 officesin ihose
countries to sGd a clearmessage. That messageis if the PL0 wants toparticipate
in the diplomatic process, the first step mus1be 10renounce terror. It is this, and58 APPLlCABlLlTY Of THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE
nothing more or less, that motivates Our actions to close the PL0 offices in the
United States.
Mr. President, as 10that portion of this amendment that relates to the United
Nations office,we al1know the relationship that the PL0 has had with Colonel
Qadhafi and the role that Libya has played in fomenting terrorism around the
world. How many of my colleagues know and how many Americans know that
the Libyan delegate to the United Nations has just - and 1mean just in the
month of September - ken elected chairman of the General Assembly'sSixth
Committee, which is in charge of the United Nations' terrorism policy?
Mr. President. il's incredihle to me that Colonel Qadhafi is now in charge of
terrorism policyat the United Nations. I cannot believethat weare going to sit by
and let this kind of thing happen. We should al1be outraged. Apparently, UN
delegates have beensarcasticallyjoking that no other country knows more about
terrorism and is, therefore, more suited for the job, than Libya.
The amendment before us, Mr. President, will strike a body blow against
terrorism. It isgoing to send a message,a very strong message,that this bodywill
do everything within ils power to prevent, at the very least, a terrorist attack
wiihin Our borders. 1,therefore, urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
The PresidingOfficer.1sthere further debate on the amendment by theSenator
from lowa?
Mr. Bingaman. Mr. President, 1take the floor to oppose the amendment that is
ofiered by my distinguished colleague from lowa. And 1 need 10 oppose the
amendment - and 1want to be precise on this - in its present form and as it
presently reads.
The amendment embodies what was S. 1203,the Antiterrorism Act of 1987.In
my view, Mr. President, we need to further explore the issues raised by this
amendment. It is an amendment that has not had hearings, has not been
considered in cornmittee, and one that raises verv serious issuesof constitutional
rights; it ihcrcforc necd5Io bc considered wry ieriously hy ibis hody.
'Theproposcd ;imendmcnt uould makc ilillcgal for 3n) Amcririin citizen who
uas syrnpïiheiic 10 lhc non-terrorist activiiics oithe PLO. iciopen an officc IO
oubliiize the PLUS non-terrorist views. if that American citizen ooerated the
office"31the behesior direciion of'' ihc PI.0 Ifihai citizenwanied l<;operaie his
or her 0u.n office.ai his or her ownexpense. IO conduct 3 campaign IO publici~e
the leeitimate virus of ihe PLO. il would bc unlswful for thai ciiiren io iake anv
direccon in that efiort from any representative of the PLO.
The illegality here that is contemplated in this statute would he the taking of
any direction from thePLO. The citizencouldconduct the samecampaign if heor
she did not act "at the behest or direction of" the PLO, or did not take directions
from any other organization but one - the PLO. The citizen could conduct a
similar campaign "al the behest or direction of", or even under the absolute
control of, any other foreign country or principal which had registered its agent
with the Justice Department. So the amendment prohihits certain activitieswith,
connections 10, or associations with, the PLO. But the amendment does not
clearly specifywhat those activities,connections, and associations are. Weare left
to wonder what "al the behest and direction of" means. Thus, the amendment
would prohihit citizens - that means citizens of this country - engaging in
certain collective efiorts to espouse certain public policy positions - positions
which they have the undeniable constitutional right 10 advocate. 11burdens
Ameriean citi~ ~s' firstamendment riehts toufreedom of ~s~ociation. It nlaces -~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -
limitations on, and obstacles in the way of, certain American citizens exercising
their riaht to advocate bcliefswhich are othenvise protected under the Constitu- CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 59
To me, the constitutional analysis of the language in its current form is
straightfomard. The amendment before us today would limit, restnct, and
burden the exercise of the rights of association and free specch under the first
amendment bv certain ~articular Dersonses~ousine certain s~ecificviews.There-
i'orc,thc amendmeni amounis io 31 leasi an'incidefiul rrsinciion on the irccdom
of asmciation and thc right of frcc speech. But the amendmeni çiinnoi meci thc
tesi in Unir~JS~u/~r%.O'Brrenin at Icastone sirnilicani rcsmct. The Govcrnmrnt
i~ ~ ~st in the leeislation is not "unrelated to the sunoressi6n of freesrnech. The
amendment, whether by design or by ils use of vag;eterrns, discnmi&& agakit
the free speech rights of only those American citizens who want to consult with
and coordinate their activities with the PL0 or have some other association with
the PLO.
Proponents of the current language of the amendment argue that there will be
no burden on the exercise of association and free speech rights. They Say that
Amencan citizens still will be able to open up an office with a different title,
advocate PL0 views,and collectmoney from the PL0 solongas they do not doit
"at the behest or direction of" the PLO.
But 1 asked an advocate for the amendment whether, for example, a monthly
phone cal1 to representatives of the PL0 would mean "at the behest or the
direction of" the PLO. He told me "No", that that would only be consultation
with the PLO. That seems like a rrrettv fine distinction to me. Because violatine
the Iiiwdepends on a precise inte;pret~tion of vague ierrnssuch as ..al the hehec
of'. and getting al1of these finedisiinciioni jus1righi. the efïect of the Iliwu,illbe
uncr-rtsinty. Ideologically motivated supporters oithe PL0 willhavc to rrr on the
sidc ofcaution hccauseof the danger of drau,ing ihe lineat the wrong place.Thus.
préciscl)the burdens and the liniitiitions on ihc righi of frec specch thai I 3m
worried about will come to pass.
Ofcourse. this amendment is before this bodv in soite of.and not because of. its
constitutional problems The amendmeni issupportédhy numerous Scnüiors who
are oihemise Piaunch proteciors of ihe Bill of Riphis They do so hecausc the
terronst activities of the PL0 are trulv reorehensibie and re~uenant to al1of the
values for u,hichthis Naiion stands. WC a& so~ustifi~blyout;a&d by the ierrorisi
aciivitics of the PLO. ihat uc see red WCare \O angsrcd. and righily ,o.thai ue
cannoi see the damare 10 ihc Con~titution %,hichthis amendment mas inflict
But we mus1 trv :O see clearlv throueh Our aneer. We must trv io see the
dangerour constit~ii~~al precedent ~hichYthisa&rndment thrcatens~~~stablish~
To xç beiier. let us imagine an amçndment which uould provide the following
"No American citizen shall be pennitted to disserninate information to the
American oublic from anv officewhich heor she maintüins at his or her own
expense ..:if that citizen Coordinates his or her activities with the advice and
direction of any group ...which a majonty of the Congress of the United
States has at any time declared to be 'aterrorist organization and a threat to
the interests of the United States'."
To auote from the oreamble to the amendment before us now.
~nd rcmcmber ihai the idcologiral mîke-up of thc Congreth and the tiirgets of
iis sense ofoutrage çïn from tiiiie to lime uith the tidcsof public opinion.
Onc Senaior's frçedom firhter one dav mav bccomc anaiher Senalor's terrorist
the next. So let us suppose further th& a majority of a future Congress were to
determine that the African National Congress is a terrons1 organization and a
threat to the interests of the United States. Or that the United Nicaraguan
Opposition is such an organization. Or that the Sandanista government in
Nicaragua is such an organization. Or that the IRA or the United Palriots for60 APPLICABILITY OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE
Justice is such an organization. Or suppose that such an amendment had ken law
45years ago, and that a simple majonty of the Congress had determined then that
the World Zio~st Organization, because of the activities of its military am, the
Irgun, was such an organization.
Given those scenarios, would we Lxas pleased to enact such an amendment?
Would we Lxas comfortable that we were no1 restricting basic first amendment
freedoms of speech and association? 1think not.
We are only tempted 10 adopt the proposed amendment because it singlesout
certain connections with one narticular oreanization which has conducted totallv
rcprchensiblelcrronst acis WC think for amomenl that wecan IimitOurintcni to
iusi this one single group - that we can avoid setting prccedcni Ihat will erodr
our first amendme; rights with respect to other organizations and other first
amendment advocacy nghts generally.
But wecannot limit that damage. The imaginary amendment 1proposed isonly
different bxause it applies generallyand no1jus1 10 a singlegroup. Passage of the
amendment proposed today enacts a principle into law which is destructive of
basic constitutional rights.
I believe it is critical for this Senate 10 condemn the activities of terrorist
oreanizations like the PLO. We have a resoonsibilitvto cal1to the attention of the
.rr;rld thrir haieiul arts and iake whatever stcps ire neccsrïry to combat their
terrorist aciiviiics And I have consisienily su~p~ned Senate billsand resoluiions
to that effect.
But il is quite another thing 10 express our outrage by restncting the
constitutional nghts of American citizens. Such a step would have no tangible
effecton the terrorist actions of the PLO. Il would only reduce the freedomswhich
Ourown citizens enjoy.
11is ironic that we havejust completed hearings on the nomination of Robert
Bork. In those heanngs, many Senators spoke eloquently about their concern
about the nght of freespeech in the firstamendment. One of the points made over
and over again was that the nght of freespeechof al1American citizensshould not
be limited by a narrow reading of the Constitution. Senators quite correctly
upheld the standard of Brandenburg v.Ohio that stated that the nght of political
soeech should he limited ~n~v ,o the extent of soeech whicb ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r nroduced
"imminent lawless action".
But this proposed legislation would amend the Brandenburg decision. It would
add a second. sienificant restriction on the rieht of free nolitical smh. It would
say the political'speechwillbe illegalif it eithër incites "imminent iawlessaction",
or if it cornes out of an office which American citizens run with the advice,
consultation, and some kind of direction of one particular organization - the
PLO. Before we vote on the amendment, we need to recall the eloquence with
which many spoke Lxforethe Judiciary Committee less than 3 weeks ago.
The least that we should do today is 10 vote for a motion 10 table the
amendment oendine consideration bv the relevant committee of its merits.
Hcarings ha\,; prei,Ku,l) heen schedulédon S 1203,;ind I belic\c very sinccrely.
Ur. Prcsidcni. wc should hold ihosc hearings bcfore WC movc on this legislation
Moreover. we need IOexolore whether the lanruare of the leeislation before us
should be modified and clîfified in such a way as toremove a& impedimenis iu
the exerci\e of Amencan ciii7cns' consiituiiona1 nghis of free spîeeh and
associaiion This ïmendment has ken offcreddl the IIth hour, and ihis body hss
not had enough time to reviewthe constitutional implications of the language in
the legislation. Nor have we had the chance to contemplate alternative formula-
tions that could achieve the legitimate objectives of the legislation without
restricting the Amencan citizens'constitutional rights. CONTENTS OF THE WSSIER 61
On t~is~200th anniversarv of the Constitution. Mr. President. 1 kl.eve the
amendment needs to he seriouslyconsidered before action istaken on it. 1hope an
effort will be made Io table the amendment. If il is, 1will supp-.t that effort. 1
thank the Chair.
The Presiding Officer. 1sthere funher debate?
The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. Grassley. Mr. President, first ofall, 1think weought to pay close attention
to any colleague who raises questions about legislation that might violate first
amendment rights, so 1listened, as 1should, closely to my colleague from New
Mexico. But 1 find his arguments wanting in several respects because this
amendment in no way violates any of the basic freedoms of speech of American
citizens.
I think first of al1 1 should address my colleague's cal1 for hearings on an
amendment like this before we act on il.
1think that the fact that50 Members of this body have cosponsored legislation
which is exactly like the amendment oiïered, speaks for the concern of my
colleagues - that ishalf of this body - and the study that has already been given
IO this legislation. And yet, year after year, month after month, and 1 suppose
almost daily even though il is no1 reported in our newspapers, there are acts of
terrorism al1over this world. Maybe no1immediately impacting upon Americans,
but a challenge to the nolicv ofour Govemment to root out terrorism anvwhere in
the world regardless ;>fw\;o foments il.
So 1feel that hearings willonly prolong the process, a process that already has
probahly gone on 100-long conceming the acis of terroÏism against Americans
that 1have already enunciated.
1think, too, that 1need Io address more specificallythis issue of constitutional-
ity because nowhere in the Constitution is there a right of a foreign entity to
operate an office in the United States to practice ils method of killings and
assassinations or to spend funds to that end.
This is not constitutionally protected speech as weknow il. There are a number
of examnles of orohibitine certain activitv bv foreien nalionals which claim to
have an impact on firîi amendmeni nghts, such as restrictions on campaign funds
h) i'orcignnaiionals and rcgarding thc Iahclingof propÿganda. as such, uhen itis
king disseminlitcd on behalf of a foreign nÿtional.
In any îvent, ifa US ciii'en desire\ io set up an urticeand 10promote ihe \,ieu,s
of the PLO, ihere is nothing. absoluicly noihing. in ihis amendmeni ihai prcrcnis
that.
What we prevent in this legislation is nothing more or nothing less than the
expenditure of PL0 fundsand the mnning of an officea1the behest or direction of
the PLO.
These are al1activities which are no1 in my view, or anybody else's,constitu-
tionallv orotected.
~e aliow, for instance, in this legislation, the receipt of informational materials
so that there is no infringement upon the freedom of speech,per se.
1think we oueht to think twice before extendinp.t-e first amendment rieht 1-
foreign entities using our soi1and facilitiesin our country to practice and Io carry
out acis of terrorism or even preach that.
The amendment contains no broad prohibition on Americans joining together
to advocate on khalf of the PLO. It does not even prohibit contact with the PLO.
It prohibits only a principal agency relationship between the PL0 and
American citizens.
There is no constitutional doctrine which givesAmericans a constitutional right
to serve as agents of a foreign power. There is no case that wehave found and no62 APPLLCABILITY OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE
orinciole wecan discern which allowsa foreien rrouo hostile to the United States
io inski an functioning hcrc merel) hrcausc iid;vidu~l Amcrisans allegethat they
wish to 5uhmit thenirçl\cs 10 ils dom~nxtion and contr\>l or to serve 5% its
agents.
So 1helieve, Mr. President, that this issuehas been thought out very wellfrom
the standpoint of good public policy, but more importantly, from the standpoint
of constitutionality hecause this Senator in no way wants to step on the
Constitution of the United States and primarily upon oneof the most important
nghts protected hy that document, the First Amendment, which includesfreedom
of speech.
1vield the floor.
Gr. Lautenhcrg. Mr. President, Iloin Scnalors <irds,ley 2nd oihcrs in ofirtng
this amendment IO close down the PL0 officein W3,hington D<: xnd the PL0
Ohsrr\er Mission in ihc Cnited Nations. This ~mendment uhiih tracks S. 1203.
the Anti-Terrorism Act oi 1987.alru makei ttillcg~ltiirciciie ;in)thing of talue
ercept informational maieriîl from the PL0 or tis agents in further~nce of the
PLO's Du.po.esor io qxnd mane! from the PL0 or iis nrcnts - IO further th<ie
purposes.
Mr. President, 1 have long advocated the closing of the PL0 office in
Washington and the Observer Mission in New York, hoth in testimony hefore the
SenateJudiciary Subcommitteeon Terrorism las1year, and in questioning various
witnesses hefore the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committees on which 1
sit. 1have repeatedly urged the Attorney General and Secretary Shultz ta inves-
tigate how this could he done.
Last vear. 1authored a orovision in the Commerce-State-Justiceaoorooriations
billIO réquirethat the ~e~arttneni ofJustice inicitigJtc uhrther I~~'PLOuiliccin
Warhington rvasinsompliancr uith the Foreign AgentsRegisiration Act. Findly.
the State Drriarimcnt has announced 11sintention Io clo5cthe PLO'j information
officein ash hi net onw elcomesteo
But Mr. ~resiéent:this amendmeh goes farther than the State Department's
action. II willfinallyclose not only the officein Washington but the PL0 officein
New York. This amendment hanes a sien on America's doors thal savs.
"Terrorists not welcomehere". And wellit should. The time islong past whenou;
country should hold out a welcomemat for the PLO, whose record of hiiacking,
murder. and kidnaooines is well-knownand well-documented.Instead. wë shouïd
pull the'rug out fr& uider an organization who sa clearly emhodies,in rhetoric
and in action the word terrorism.
Yasser Arafat the head of the PL0 has long ken recognized hy this
administration as a prime culprit in terrorist crimes. On 8 April 1986,Attorney
General Meese declared, "We know that various elements of the PL0 and its
allies and affiliatesare in the thick of international terror. And the leader of the
PLO, Yasser Arafat mus1 ultimately be held responsihle for their actions". In
referring to the fight against terror, Meesestated, "you don't make real progress
until you close in on the kingpin".
Moreover, the PL0 has been implicated in the murder of US diplomats
overseas. and has oroudlv taken credit for the murders of dozens of American
~ ~ ~- ~~ ~~ ~ ~
citirens ahroad. TL national charter Statesthat "armed struggleis the only
way ta liberate Palestine", demonstrating that the dedication to violenceis not a
meÏe oassine.fancv but a well-thou~ht out stratew to achieve its eoals.
NO; has The tiger shown any icdication of changing its strip&. The recent
Palestine National Council [PNC] meetingin Algiersmade clear that the PL0 has
once again raid no Io peace and yes Io terror. At that meeting, the PL0
rededicated itself to armed struggle, ils code word for terror, in ail forms. It CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 63
pledged its continued rejection of the Security Council Resolution 242 and the
Camp David accords.
This was not mere rhetoric. At the outset of the conference, Arafat's Fatah
faction dispatched three infiltrators across the Lebanese frontier to attack lsraeli
border settlements. The PL0 also pledged to seek better relations with Syria on
the basis of the struggle for objectives hostile to imperialism and Zionism. It
condemned Egypt for its peace treaty with Israel, and canceled the accord to
coordinate peace efforts with Jordan. Perhaps most revedling, the Palestine
National Council reelected Ahul Abbas. currently under US indictment for
planning and o\erseeinp the hipcking oc ihe nchiilt Luuro and murdering an
American. 13 3 Iîüdcrship position on the PLO'ç 15-manexecutiwccommiltee
If therc werr siill any doubiers. ihc meeiin,: in Algiçrs madeclenr ihai the PL0
is not interested in oeace. onlv in violence. -
In the wakeof th; PNC meéting in Algicrs.hoih Fgypt and Morocco closedthe
PL0 otliccsin ihcir couniries, as Jordan had e~rlicr.Why hate ue raited solong"
These oiliicq no1onls leeiiimirr itie Pl.0'~ nolicv of terror. There isa real fear
..~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~esin ~aihikton and New ~0r.k mieht be usedas bases for terror.
According 10 an April 13, Ï986, New York Times article,^^^ officesin 18non-
Communist countries wereput under close scrutiny by European intelligenceand
security officiaisto insure they carry out only officialfunctions.
In that same article the Director General of the lsraeli Foreign Ministry was
quoted as saying that people attached to PL0 officesin Europe werepreparing a
support structure for terrorist operations. They recruited, rented safehouses,
provided identity documents, chose potential targets, and collected operational
intelligence.
While al1PL0 representatives in Europe describe their activities as political,
~~ucation. and cultural. Professor Wilkinson of Aberdeen University in Scotland.
a S~CL~IIS inI Palestinian mo\emenis, si)$therc are screral kinds of people
employed in PL0 offices.and thcy arc 311 rcady Io do \,iolencc.
Wiih such uuestions ahoui the PL0 office5in tur~i~e.can the PL0 office in
Washington or New York be so different? They, to8, say their purposcs are
cultural, educational, and political. But their former head, Hatem Hasseini, is a
member of the PL0 Executive Committee. We should not take that chance.
Some have areued that this amendment is unconstitutional because it interferes
with free speec<and other rights. 1disagree.
The bill to closethe PL0 officesin Washington and New York isconstitutional.
and was carefully drafted to protect freedom~ofspeech. American citizens remain
free to speak on behalf of the PLO, ils programs, ils viewson the Middle East
crisis,or even, to the extent it falls short of actual incitement, its use of terrorism.
They may solicit money and contribute it to the PLO, and the bill specifically
allows literature from the PL0 in anv form to enter the countrv without
rrstriciion. Membership in ihc PI.0 is nbi made illcgsl; it is only the.^^^ as a
foreign entity u,hich is prohibitcd from iransacting businr.ssin this couniry aiid
then onlv until it renounccs the use of terrorism as a DOIIIICm ~Ieihod. The PL0
cannot 6e heard in our courts to argue that its own fiee speech rights have been
abridged, sincethe PL0 is nota domestic entity, and is not entitled to invoke the
protection of the first amendment.
If one argues that prohibiting the operation of PL0 offices here deprives
American citizens of the benefitof direct exchange with members of the PL0 and
thus violates the Constitution, 1would point out that restrictions on accessto the
United States and its citizens are a necessaryadjunct of foreign policy which the
courts have consistently upheld over direct challenge. Il is clear that claims that
this bill is unconstitutional are without ment.66 APPLICABILITY OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRA~F
1988and 1989for ihc I>cparimcnt of Siaic, the United Siatcs Informaiion
Agency. ihc Board for Inlcrnaiion31 Rrosdcîsting. and for oihcr purporcs.
bc in\trucieJ Io acrecIO ihe r>ro\isionscontaincd in titlc XI of the Seilaie
amendment (entitkd "Anti-~érrorismAct of 1987").
Mr. Mica. Mr. Speaker,let mesay that we have no objection 10this. We would
be happy io accept the instruction.
Mr. Burton of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, sincethe motion has been accepted, 1will
simply submit my formal siatement.
Mr. Speaker, my motion would instruct House conferees 10 agree 10 an
amendment that has hroad hipartisan support in both Houses of Congress and
passed by voice vote inthe Senate.
Though 1 am confident that this provision would be retained'in conference
given its broad support, 1 believe that it is important that the whole House be
on record in support of closing the official offices of the PL0 in the Uniied
-t~~~..~
The PL0 is ihc world's premier içrrorist organizaiion. Ils ierror is no! only
direcicd againsi Ourally. Isracl, bu1dirrctly againsi Amcrican citizens
In 1974a TWA ici uas exoloded in niidair bv the PL0 : .88 ..O~C u,crekilled.
including many Akericans. '
In 1976,an aide to Senator Jacob Javits was murdered by an affiliate of the
PLO.
In 1985, Navy diver Robert Stethem was murdered in cold hlood hy the
hijackers ofa TWA plane. This terrorist act was carried out by Abu Abbas, who
wasjus1 a few months ago promoted by the PL0 10its executivecommitiee.
The Staie Deoartment. recoenizine the suooort for the Kemo-Mica-Grasslev
bill.closcd ihe ~ashin~ion otti; of icc PL0 H,;thconsidcrablerciuctance. Butthé
PL0 "mission" ai ihe UN uill remain open unlcssthe Kemp-Mica-Grüssleybill is
si-ned in10law.
Some Mcmkrs ha\c claimed in a "I>rdr Colleague" ihai Kemp-Misa-Gra,slcy
is"dangerous Io sii,il Iiherlicsin tlic Unitcd Siatcs IOdihe rc3rch fora jus12nd
lasting peace in the Middle East".
1find it hard to understand how throwing a bone to the PL0 helps bring peace
to the Middle East.
1 too would object to the provision if it denied a single American his or her
constitutional right to freespeech- it does not. The bill prohibits paid agents of
the PL0 from operating an official office on US soil. It does no1 prohibii an
American of advocating, or even actively promoting, whatever cause they wish
wiihin US law.
Nor would this nrovision conflictwith the UN Headauarters agreement. which
specificallystates ihat "noth& in the agreement shall 6e constr6d as in anyway
diminishing, abridging, or weakening the right of the United States to safeguard
its own se&tv and comoletelv tu control the entrance of aliens".
Thc botiomline is ihai ihe'~nited Si3iebcannot ia1k tough aboui icrrorism
uhile coniinuing IO br a salèharbor for agents of PL0 terrorism and legiiimating
ihe PL0 Drcscncein officialhodies and capiials around ihc u,orld.
Mr. speaker. 1yield back the balance of my time.
The Speaker. The queslion is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
lndiana [Mr. Burton].
The motion was agreed to. CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 67
(48) Statement Made in the United States Senate on 3 November 1987
(Congressional Record,Vol. 133,No. 175.3 November 1987,pp. S 156214 15622;
ibid., No. 187,20 November 1987,p. 16605; and ibid., No. 196, 20 December
1987,p. H 11224)
Mr. Grassley. Mr. President, 1want IObring IO the attention of my colleagues
and the American people an issue that is currently the subject of a great deal of
debate among members of the conference committee to the State Department
authorization bill.
The issue involves an amendment to Stdte authorization that 1 s~onsored to
closc the Palestine Liberdiion Organiraiion officesin the United ~ties uniil the
PL0 rcnounces ils policyof terrorisni. The amendment, known as the Antitcrror-
ism Aci of 1987.h3s 50 Scn3ic cosriunsors as a Irce.sundinp bill.
At this time, Our State ~e~artment isbowing to pressure from the United
Nations and is lobbying members of the conference committee arguing that
closing the PL0 observer mission at the United Nations may conflictwith treaty
o~ ~ ~tions the United States has with UN members.
~i;ebattlegoingon overthe~ntiterronsm Actisreallya hattle overtwoextremely
important principles.The fint principle is ihat the United States has a sovereign
rieht and oblieation to rirotecliis terhtorv and citizensfrom terrorism.The second
pnnciple invoÏvesthe absolute requireméntthat before the United States can be
bound to a new provision of a treaty or a new interpretation of a treaty provision,
the United States must affirmativelyagree Io that new provision or in~er~retation.
Mr. President, there is little or no argument that the PL0 is involved in
terronsm, and that the United States has the right to act accordingly. One only
has to look at the recent elevation of Abbul Abbas to the PLUS executivecouncil
to be reminded of the PLO'spolitics of terror. Abbul Abbas, of course, iswanted
in connection with the Achille Lauro hijacking and the murder of an American
citizen Leon Klinghoffer.
Nevertheless, UN officiais, through reinterpreting US treaty obligations argue
that the PL0 observer mission should have the same privileges and immunities
that member States have al the United Nations. In other words, the PL0 should
be equal to a sovereign government whose officeis inviolable under the Charter.
and iherefore, cannct & closed hy the United States even to protect its own
territory and people.
Mr. Presideni, there isabsolutely nothing inthe written agreementsbetweenthe
United States and the United Nations that exoresslv nrovides for observer
missions. Neterthelesr. the L'nitrJ N3tions is ;ittCniptiio Iorce treaty obliga-
iiuns on ihc United States th.11h3t.eneter cvcn becn negi>tiated.let alonr r:ttiried
bv the Senate. and our State Department is howing to the pressure.
.Houc\,er, dopiie the State ~epartmenl's quca~i>n~hleionduci. the Cnitcd
Siaies, up tu this point. ha5 never formally acknouledged an international legal
obligation to accord the pnvileges and immunities Io members of observer
missions beyond thespecificrequirements in the headquarters agreement relating
to entry, residence, and transit.
Historically, the United Nations had a very restrictive view of what privileges
and immunities were accorded to observer missions. A 1962UN Legal Counsel
memorandum stated the following:
"Permanent Observers are not entitled to diplomatic privileges and
immunities under the Headquarters Agreement or other statutory provisions68 APPL~CAB~L~TYOF THE OBL~GAT~ONTO ARBITRATT
of the host State. Those among them who form part of the diplomatic
missions of their Governments to the Government of the United States may
eniov immunities in the United States forthat reason. If thev are not listed in
the United States diplomaiic lijt, whaicvcr faciliiicsthey miy bc giwn in rhc
Uniicd Srares arc mcrcly gesiures ol'couriesy hy the Uniied Siaies authon-
This narrow interpretation continued until observer status was given to the
PL0 in 1974.Since then, the United Nations, over US objections, has steadily
attemvted to unilaterallv extend oowers and vrivileees to observer missions. For
cxamiie. ihc Gcncral ~sscmbl~ Ildopicd thc'so-cakd 1975 Vicnn~Con\,eniion
o\cr USopposition. Thc çonvcniaonuould have gixn observer missionsthe same
riahis accordcd to permaneni missions. The Uniied Statcs h;is ne\,er ci-ncd the
convention, and therefore, cannot be bound 10its terms.
Nevertheless, the UN Legal Counsel has attempted to bind the United States to
the spirit, if not thetter, of the convention by reinterpreting the UN Charter. In
1982,the UN LegalCounsel attempted to expand the interpretation of Article 105
to include the inviolability of ohserver missions. However, there is absolutely
nothing in Article 105of the headquarters agreement that even mentions observer
missions, letalone any obligations that the United States owes to them.
So, MI. President, what exactly is the prohlem? The problem is that even
though the United Stateshas never actually agreed to a reinterpretation ofthe UN
Charter that would extend full privileges and immunities to the PL0 observer
mission, the United Nations is on the verge of successfully forcing the United
States into such an agreement with no negotiation and no Senate ratification.
What makes these events even more incredible is the fact that the State
Deoartment is feeblv ,caui.scine bo this force. contrarv to an interna1 State
Dcparimeni mcmorandum of I3iiApril. According in ihihinlernal mcmorandum.
Siaic Depariment official$should "refus Io recogni7c an obligation io accord
inviol~hilii~io the ~rcmiscsof an obscr\cr mission . ".Unloriunaiel!. ihose in
charge at our State'~e~artment have disregarded this advice and instéadrefused
to protect or promote American interests in this matter.
Mr. President, State Department bureaucrats may sit by and let American
riehts he tossed out the door. but this Senator is eoine to do evervthine he can to
siop suîh a blarani usurpation of Amencan sovëreigky. .
As I hai,e >taled, the baiile oi,cr ihis policy of forfeiiing Amcrican inicrcsts ai
the Uniicd N'ittons. in remrd IOobxrtcr missions. isa subieci ufdehaic ihir uïsk
among the conferees to-the State Department authorization bill. The debate
centers on the Antiterrorism Act amendment which, as 1noted earlier, will close
the PL0 observer mission until the PL0 renounces ils policy of terrorism. Of
course the UN hierarchy has been am-twisting the State Department hureau-
cracy into lohhying against the amendment.
1would liketo remind my colleagues on the conference cornmittee that even if
the State Department isn'twillingto defend US rights in this matter, the Congress
has the oower and the obli-~~ion ~~~do so. Notwithstandine UN interoretalions of
US ire;; ohligaiions, Congress har the constituiional iluïhoriiy 10modify ihose
interpreiaiions ihrough Iceisl3iion. In faci. accordina in the landmark case uf
whiiney v. ~obertsoi, CGgress even has the powerÏto modify hinding treaty
obligations. Therefore, Congress has the authority to define, on our own terms,
what obligations are owed to the PLO.
Mr. President. weare al a crucial ooint in Ourbattles to oromote US orincioles
of proieciing Amcrican sovcrcigniy ~ndpuiiing an end io ierronsm. Congressîan
follow ihr Siaic Deparimeni linc and u,archthcse principlcscollapsc. or Congrsss70 APPLlCABlLlTY OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE
representative, Ambassador Walters. The letter was reportedly sent after a
meeting between the Secretary-General and Zehdi Terzi, the PL0 permanent
representative. In this letter, the Secreiary-General stated the following:
"1 would trust. in the circumstances. t~ ~ ~he~United States Government
will cuniinuc io \igiiri>urlyoppoçc an). itcps in the Congrci5 Id legislaie
agiinsi the Pjlcsiinc Libcrïiiun Orgiini~aiionohsericr miwion Io ihc United
Saii,~n\. Sincc the legislaiion runs countcr IO obligarions arising from ihe
hcadquarters agreemeni. 1would Iiketo underline ihc serious 2nd detrimen-
131sonsequcnccs ihdt IIuiiuld entail."
Mr. President, notwithstanding the fact that the Secretary-General fails to
iealize that the Congress is part of the US Government, 1 have real concerns
about the contents of this letter. Here. we have an examole of a foreian -eader
lobbying one branch of Our Gubcrnmcnt io oppose anoihcr branch In oihcr
tvord>, 3 foreign powcr aitcmpled IO provokc 3 coniiici wiihin Our Govcrnmcni
and, unfortunateÏy succeeded..
1 hope this interference in Our interna1 afïairs will no1 be tolerated by the
Congress or even the administration. Weal1know that nothing unifiesAmericans
more than a roreisn leader trvine.to manipulate US policy.
Mr. Presideni, (urge my chlle&ues to stand up to-thisinternational pressure,
and protect American interests hy supporting the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987.
(50) Statement Made in the United States Senate on 10Decemher 1987
LEAVE THE PL0 OFFICES OPEN
The Speaker pro iempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Crockett] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crockett. Mr. Speaker, 1 rise today in opposition io a grave error that 1
believe this body is about 10 make. On Tuesday, House conferees voted by a
narrow margin to retain Senator Grassley'samendment to the State Department
authorization bill. That amendment would force the closing of the Palestine
Liheration Organization's Observer Mission to the United Nations and the
Palestine Information Officein Washington.
1 oppose the Grassley amendment for three reasons. First, closing the PL0
Observer Mission is in violation of our ireaty obligations to the United Nations.
The Headquarters Agreementof June 26, 1947,hetween the United States and the
United Nations, obliges the United States as the host country to permit UN
delegations to enter and remain in the United States to carry out their official
functions at the United Nations. That would, of course, includethe PL0 Mission,
which was established at the express invitation of the General Assemhly in
resolution 3237 of November 22, 1974.
Second, closing the PL0 offices violates the first amendment rights of US
citizens.No onehas ever allegedany criminal activity by these officesof the PLO.
Even the Justice Department has taken the position that the PL0 offices have
broken no laws. To require that the PL0 stafï, who are American citizens and
permanent residents of the United States, cease their informational and UN
activitieswould denv them their firstamendment rieht 10engage in lawfuloolitical
acti\.ity 3nd ihcir righi poliiiçiilassocialinn l';den) a~imcriçdn ÿCcess IO
buçhIauful information and associaiion isa clear ,iol~tion of the firsi%rnenJmeni CONTENTS OF THE WSSlER 71
Finally, 1believethat closing the PL0 officescreates but another obstacle to a
8~~~~~~~ solution of the Middle East conflict. There can be no Middle East oeace
uithoui the p~riicipr<iiunof Ihc Palcsitn!3n pcopli. 1sm con!,inccd ihai ihr unly
uay .Iiiiniprchcnsi\c pexe ~cttlcnicnl\riIbc achicird 1sthrough an iniern;iiional
conference, involving-al1parties, including the PLO.
I strongly oppose the Grassley amendment, and 1will vote "No" on the State
Department authorization bill.
(51) House Conference Report No. 100-475: Joint Explanatory Statement of
the Committee on Conference, to Accompany the Foreign Relations Authoriza-
tion Act, Fiscal Years 1988and 1989'
(United Srares Code Congressional and Adminisrrarive News. 100th Congress-
Firsr Session, No. 12, February 1988, Legislative History, pp. 2314, 2370 and
2431-2432)
ForeignRelurionsAufhorizarionAci, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989
P.L. 100-204,see page IO1Slat. 1331
DATE3 OF CONSIDERATION AND PASSAGE
HouseJune23. Decemher15. 1987
Senorr Ocrober8, December 16, 1987
House Report (Foreign Aifairs Committee) No. 100-34, March 27, 1987 [To
accompany HR 1777)
Senate Report (Foreign Relations Committee) No. 100-75, June 18, 1987 ITo
accompany S. 13941
House Conference Repori No. 100-475, December 14, 1987 ITo accompany HR
17771
Cone. RecordVol. 133(19.7) .
The tlousc bill ua, passcd in Iicuof the Scnatc bill aficr amcnding ils Ianguagc
to conlain much of the ic~tof the Scn3tc bill 'I'hcScnate Report, is sci oui bclou
and ihc llousc Conlrrcnce Report and the Prcsideni's Signing Siaiemeni follou,
JoinrExplanaror}'Siarementof the Committeeof Conference
The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the conference on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill
(H.R. 1777) 10 authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1988 and 1989 for the
Department of State, the United States Information Agency, the Voice of
America, the Board for International Broadcasting, and for other purposes,
submit the following joint statement to the House and Senate in explanation of
' No cxccrpi,arcincludcà in !hirubmlr,lunfromthe rcpori of ihe Ilouseof Rcprc.
wnialites ForeignAiTai,,Cornmiiiee(HriureRcporiNo 100-34.27Murch1987) or frorn
therrpuri ofihc Enair Furcien KclaiionsCiirnrnliit~(SenateKeporiNu. IW-75.18June
lYX7)a, ncirherCommilimincludd aprnviwn alonyihclinesoflhc ..Ant,.TcrrorismAci
of 1987" SLYducumenl46 zhovc TheConferenccRcpori and Juin!EtplanaiarySwierncni
are alsoinçluded in Congrrrsi<inuHec~rJ.Vol.III. So 198. 14 Dwembcr 1987. pp H
11297-H1135172 APPLICABILITY OF THE OBLIGATIO TO ARBITRATE
the etTcciof the action agrerd upon by ihc managers and reiommendcd in thc
3ccompan)ing confcrence report
Thc Senaie amendmcni siruck out a11of the Houe billafter ihe enaciinr clausc
and inserted a substitute text.
The Housc rrrcdes from its disagrecment to ihe amendmeni of the Senaie uiih
an amendment uhich is î substitute for the Hi>u\ebilland the Senale amendmeni.
The diirerenccs beiwrrn the Houx bill. ihc Scnaic amendment. and the subsiiiutc
agrccd IO in confercncc are notcd bclow. cxccpi l'orclenc~lcorrections. conform-
ing changes made ncccssdry by agreement$ redchcd by thc conferee$, and minor
draftingand clarifying changes
Title X- Anri-Terrorism Act of1987
The Senate amendment (title XI) expresses the findings of the Congress with
respect to the terrorist activities of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO),
makes it unlawful for anyone, for the purposc of furthering the interests of the
PLO, to receive anything of value, except information, from the PLO, makes it
unlawful to spend funds provided by the PLO, and makes it unlawful to establish
or maintain an officewithin the jurisdiction of the United States ai the bebest or
direction of, or with funds provided by, the PLO. In addition, the Senate
amendment requires the Attorney General to enforce these provisions in the
United States District Courts and grants those courts authority to issue the
necessary decrees to enforce these provisions.
The House bill contains no comparable provision.
The conferencesubstitute (sec. 1001-1005)sthe same as the Senate amendment.
(52) Adoption by the United States House of Representatives of the Conference
Report on the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988and 1989'
(Congressional Record, Vol. 133, No. 199, 15 December 1987, pp. H 11420-H
11423,H 11425,H 11427and H 11429-H 11431)
ConferenceReport onH.R. 1777.Foreign Relations Authorirarion Acr,Fiscal Years
1988and 1989
hlr Micd Mr Speaker, 1mdvc Io suspend the rules dnd dgrcc Io ihcconfcrence
report on the bill(H R 1777)to authonze appropriïiions for fiscalyrars I9SRand
1989 for ihe Den~riment of Siaie. the US Informîtion Arenç-. t.. Voicc of
Amenca, the ~oàrd for ~nternational Broadcasting, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the conference report.
Mr. Broomfield. Mr. Speaker, 1 support the conference report on the fiscal
years 1988-89State Department authorization bill, H.R. 1777,and encourage my
colleagues to give it favorable consideration.
The House conferees were under instructions from the House to accept the
Grasslev amendment which would order closed the United States officesof the
~dlcsiine Liberation Organil~tion This provision has bccn rctaincd
Ultimîiely ihc issucs regarding closurc of tlic PLO'sotficci tn thc Uniicd Staies
may be resolved bv the courts. However. the conferees vroceeded on the basis of
strong congressional opinion on this issue.
'Portionsof thedebatenot relevanio theadoptionof TitIeX haw beenomitted. CONTENTS OF TEE IKISSIER 73
Ms. Snowe. MI. Speaker, 1yield myself4 minutes.
MI. Speaker, 1 rise in support of the conference report for H.R. 1777. This
legislalion authorizes the budgets of the State Department, the U.S. Information
Agency,the Board for International Broadcasting, the United Nations, and other
foreign affairs agencies.
This conference report also contains other important provisions. It would:
Close the PL0 information officesin Washington and New York.
The State Department is threatcning Io recomrnend a veto on issues such as:
The closure of the PL0 officein New York.
Mr. Burton of Indiana. Mr. S~eaker. 1 have mv diferences with the State
I>epdrtment but I rise in suppori'ol. the conferenséreport becüuse it tükeî an
impurlani ~tcpügainst the Palestine Liberalion Organiwtion (PLO). A fewweeks
ago 1 offered-a motion to instruct conferees to accept a Senate provision that
would close the PL0 officesin Washington and the PLO's U.N. mission in New
York. This provision prevailed in conference.
MI. Speaker, there has heen a storrn of controversy about this provision, much
of ilbased on misunderstandines. Recentlvthe New York Times echoinethe State
~epartmcii~.edii<inslizedthat;igning thf PL0 provision into law u.o;ld .bock
the Constitution dnd trîaties rclating lu the C 3".
This is complete and utter nonsense and it is time we set the record straight.
First, the U.S. District Court ruled that the PLO's case that ils first amendment
rights were violated was "utterly mentless". Let me repea- "utterly mentless".
That's about the strongest statement a court can make.
This is not a first amendment issue. No American is limited in any way from
advocating the Palestinian cause - the bill only prevents people from acting as
officialpaid agents of the PL0 -a terrorist organization that kills Americans.
It is simolv a lie that this bill violates the U.S. headauarters aereement. An
iniernal SIAI D;epartment mcmorandum ddmiis this, yei Mrmber;of Congress
and the Staie Depdrtmçnt continue to îpread th15misinformation
The U.N. headauarters agreement does not even contain the words "observer
mission". All obseÏÏer missi& exist under a clause oertainine to "invitees" that
was never intended to cover permanent offices or missions.-AII U.N. observer
missionsremain in NewYork under thecourtesy of the United Statesand haveno
- zero - riehts in the headauarters arreement
Moreo\er.-undcr rhc ndtian~l wcuritj clause xtidched hy Congrcw ru the U.U
hçadquartcrs agreement, the L'niicdStates hsh ihe nght tu cxpcl an) alicnr irom
ils territory if necessary for U.S. security interests.
The PL0 is the world's richest and one of the world's most brutal terrorist
organizations. Il has killedmany Amencans, Israelis,and moderate Arabs around
the world.
This is not jus1 a feel good measure. Legitimacy is a terrorist organization's
greatest asset. The U.S. Congress can and should strike a hlow al the heart of the
PLO's legitimacy by kicking the PL0 out of the United States. We can begin,
here and now, Io banish the PL0 from the world's capitols and international
bodies.
The idea that the PLO, an organization who'scharter demands the elimination
of Israel, a member of the United Nations, is somehow protected by the U.N.'s
charter or bv international law. is absolutelv ludicrous
1support.the anti-PL0 provision and théconference report.
Ms. Snowe. Mr. Speaker, 1 yield myself such time as 1may consume.74 APPLICABILITY OF THE OBLIGATION IO ARBITRATE
MT.Speaker, just a final note with respect to this conference report. 1would
urge the Members of this House to adopt il.
It closes the PL0 information officesin Washineton as well as New York.
Ms.Snouc. Mr.Speaker. Iuani l<,th~nkihe@entl;manfrom Floridï(Mr. Mica),
thcchairman ol~hcSubcommittcc on International Opcraiions. for yieldingmethis
lime,and for hiscommentswith respectto Ourrelations withthe State Department.
1think it is a fact of lifethis yearthat the State Department does no1recognizethe
legitimacynor the principleof the authorizing language. It is unfortunate because
thev also think that they can swnd more than $4 billion without any kind of
r~ ~ ~ ~ions or recoenizine the rde that we olav in the authorizine oroc&
In addition, the-~tatè Department did'h&e legitimate con&;ns but the 49
conferees resolved those diferences and 1 think that certainly enhances the State
Department's role.
So 1would hope in the future that we can have better relations with the State
Department with respect to this program. 1 would hope they would not
recommend a vetoto the President, but to remind mycolleagueshere in the House
why they might recommend a veto to the President.
The closure of the PL0 officein New York is another issue.
The Speaker pro fempore(Mr. Montgomery). The question is on the motion
oîTeredby the gentleman from Florida (MF. Mica) that the House suspend the
rules and agreed to the conference report on the bill, H.R. 1777.
The question was taken.
Mr. Walker. Mr. Speaker, 1object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is
not present and make the point of order that a quorum is no1present.
The Speaker pro rempore.Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Anns will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were - yeas 366,nays 49,
not voting 18,as follows:
[Roll No. 4811
Messrs. English, Swindall, and Lightfoot changed their votes from "yea" to
""""7" '
Mr. Schaefer and MI. Hefleychanged their votes from "nay" to "yea".
So (iwo-thirds having voted infavor thereof) the rulcs were suspended and the
conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
(53) Adoption by the United States Senate of the Conference Report on the
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988and 1989'
(CongressionalRecord,Vol. 133,No. 200,16December 1987,pp. S 18185-S18193
and S 18198)
ForeignRelarionsAufhorizarion Acr.Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 - Con/erence
Report
Mr. Byrd. Mr. President, the following request has been cleared with the
Republican leader, Mr. Dole.
' Partionsof thedebateno1relevanito theadoption ofTitleX have been omitted. CONTEPITS OF THE DOSSIER 75
1ask unanimous consent that the conference report on the State Department
authorization bill, H.R. 1777,belaid before the Senate.
The Presiding Officer.The report will be stated.
The legislativeclerk read as follows:
"The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the Iwo Houses
on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 1777) to authonze
appropriations for fiscalyears 1988and 1989forthe Department of State,the
United States Information Agency, the Voice of America, the Board for
International Broadcasting, and for other purposes, having met, after full
and free conference have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their
respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of the conferees."
The Presidine Officer. Without obiection. the Senate will vroceed to the
consideration or the conference report..
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the Record of
Mr. Pell, Mr. ~resident, I urge the Senate to approve the conference report on
H.R. 1777, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 1988 and
1989.
The making of this billhas been a long, drawn out, and sometimescontroversial
process. The final result is, however, one of which the Senate can be proud.
Let me also address two concerns expressed by the administration.
Second,the administration has expressedconcern that the languageon the PL0
might require the closing of the Observer Mission to the United Nations in
violation of U.S. obligations under international law. The bill language, as 1read
it. does not necessarilv.rea.ire the closure of the PL0 Observer Mission to the
UniieJ Sations. since IIisan estahlished ruleof siîiuior) inierprriaiion ihai (;.S.
couris w~llconstrue congressional siaiuics as consislent with US. obligations
under international Iaw, if such construction is at al1plausible.
The proponents of closing the PL0 mission argue that the United States is
under no legalobligation to host observer missions.If they are right as a matter of
international law, then the language in this bill would require the closure of the
PL0 Observer Mission.
On the other hand, if the United States is under a legal obligation, as the host
country of the United Nations to allow observer missions recognized hy the
General Assembly, then the language in this bill cannot be construed, in my
opinion, as requinng the closure of the PL0 Observer Mission. The bill makes no
mention of the PL0 Mission to the United Nations and the proponents never
indicated an intent to violate U.S. obligations under international law. Rather,
they asserted that closure of the New York PL0 office was not a violation of
international law and that they were proceeding on this basis.
Mr. Helms. Mr. President, 1 am pleased that the conference on the State
Department authorization bill, H.R. 1777,has included a significant number of
cons~ruct~ ~ amen~me~ts recomme~d~ ~hv the Senate.
Mr. President. hav/ng pîid my respects IO the primîry managers. Icirnc<iuilinc
sorneof the mostsipnific<ina tsmis of theconfcrencerepori Ir! me star! uliihwhai
are reponed to be Theprima< remainingconcerns of the Department of State.
CLOSlNG THE PL0 OFFICESIN WASHlNGTON AND NEW YORK
Surely. .Mr Presideni. one of ihc mosi sign~ficantprovisions ol ihislegislation is
tlile X. ihc Anii-Terrorism Act of 1967,u hich rïquires the closingof thc oîiicesof
ihc Palesiinc Liheraiion Organi7ation in Washington and New York76 APPLICABILIR OF THE OBLIGATION IO ARBITRATE
This provision wasadded to the bill on the Senate floor, whereit was offeredby
the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grasslev). Over half the Members of the Senate
sojp0nsorr.J ihis prot,isionand ihe ~Gse ~ùtedio instruci iiconferees to accepi
ihis provision. Uliimatcly. the House confcrees did >oie io accrpi the full Scnaie
pro;;ision, aïter rejecting 8 to 11, a substitute motion to require closingonly the
Washington ofice, rather than both Washington and New York.
Mr. President, there are fewthings in this world as uglyas terrorism. Terrorism
randomly singlesout totally innocent people - many limes helplesschildren -
and sentences them to violent and horrible deaths. All too often, victims are
selected out only because they are Americans.
Of al1the terrorist groups in the world, I don't think there is one the American
. .ole find to be more notorious than the PLO. The PL0 has been directlv
responsible for ihe murder oï dozens ol Americlinciiixns over the plis115)car;.
In faci, the PL0 hds boasied aboui murdering Amcrican ciiizens
Yei.despite thc faci th31Amencüns arc one of the prime iargets of thij ierrorisi
organization, the State Department has continued to allow théPL0 to maintain
oficial officesboth in Washington and in New York, ostensibly in connection
with the United Nations.
For vears now. Americans have heard a stream of oronouncements from the
admini;traiion about ihe need io gel tough with ierron;~ group; such as the PI O
But al1the Siate Depdrimeni has giwn us is more of the süme - nccommodîiing
terrorist arouos such as the PL0 and coddlina terrorist nations such as Syria.
They iisist'that the PL0 is not a terrorist &anization, they refused 10-actto
close the PLO's Washington ofice until Congress initiated legislation to close
both Washington and New York offices,and they fought 100th and nail against
the provision in the conference report precisely because it would also close the
PLO's NewYork ofice.
Mr. President, there are two issues involved in the closing of the PLO's
Washington and New York ofices: Whether weare going to exerciseOurrights to
stand up to terrorists, and whether we are going to exercise our rights as a
sovereign nation to decide which foreign groups are entitled to privileges and
immunities.
Byadopting the full Senate provision, the conference wiselydecided to exercise
these rights.
Mr. President, 1also want to note the poignant plea of the family of Navydiver
Robert Stethem, who was tortured and murdered in 1985by terrorists associated
with the PLO. Now is the lime to implement the President's pledgeto the Stethem
family,"Robbie's death willnot have ken in vain". I ask unanimous consent that
the article be pnnted in theRecord.
There king no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Record,as
follows:
[From the Washington Times N,ov. 6, 19871
FRIDAY FORUM - A FAMILY'S PLEA TO CLOSE PU) OFFICES
In Julv 1985.President and Mrs. Reaean visited Arlineton National Cemeterv
10pay tkeir respects 10 Robert ~tethem: the U.S. ~av~'diver who was torturek
and murdered by terronsts of the hijacked TWA Flight 847.
We'll never forgel how the firsi couple pledged-their support in bringing
Rohhie's killers10justice. "Be strong, be patient", theysaid, "Robbie's death will
not have ken in vain". Over the past 24 years, the optimism for judicial
retribution for Robbie'sdeath that once guided our family has al1but dissipated. CONTENTS OF THE WSSIER 77
We have al1 heard stronr! words reeardinn Our aovernment's stance aaainst
rerrorist organizaiions. ~eiïhe emissafcr ofïhe ~aestine Liberttion 0rg:nirt-
lion icrror arc permiried to operate within the shadou olthe Whiie tlousç and the
U.S. sponsored United Nations.
Memkrs of the Fiouseand Senate have proposed legislation to close the PL0
"information" offices in Washington, D.C. and New York. However, the
legislation- H.R. 2587and S.1203 - has met with debate.
Why9
Iiseemsludiîrous thai al1Ourlegi,laiors would notjump 31the oppuriunity io
tdke a forcsful stand againsi inicrn<itionalterrorisi organiralions.
Iti,no secret ihar the PL0 ierror of the 1970sand 19801,in which air piracv
and the slaughter of innocent civilians was elevated10a practiced art, set the stage
for the recent episodes of fanatical terror. It also is no secret that the PL0 offices
which are pemiitted to operate in Western Europe have served as fund raising
bases and "safe houses" for the PL0 and ils terrorist operatives.
While the ringmasters of Shi'ite terror remain elusive, safely ensconced in
Lebanon, Iran and other foreign countries, the emissanes of PL0 terror are
permitted to operate within the boundaries of the United States of America.
Hezbollah, the "Party of Cod" - responsihlefor the TWA Flight 847hijacking,
the kidnapping of Amencans in Bcirut and many other terrorists acts - and the
PL0 - which in Aprilreintegrated the so-called "radicals" under Yasser Arafat's
leadership and reaffimed the organization's terrorist policy - continue to
operate with virtual impunity.
Since President Reagan look &ce in 1981, the United States and other
Western nations have ken targets for innumerable acts of international terror.
Many studies show collaboration between the radical PL0 and extremis1Shi'ite
organizations. One incident of PI.0 and Shi'ite collusion was the April 1985
bombing of a Madrid restaurant frequented by innocent American servicemen
like Robbie. Eighteen people died inthat bombing episode, which linked PL0
involvement alongside the lslamic Jihad, the group which ultimately look credit
for the criminal act.
Now is a golden opportunity for Our legidators to seize the initiative, take a
stand against international outlaws, and recoup some of Our country's los1
prestige. It's time to set an example for Western leaders and show the world that
the United States of America is deadly serious about the war against terronsm.
We belieuethat the willof American citizens, through this legislation,demands
that Our senators and representatives act decisively and expeditiously to close
PLO-financed outlets which prornulgate PL0 terrorist policies. How many more
American citizensmust feelsuch loss, hurt and pain hefore al1elected officiaisact
forcefully?
Robbie suiïered an extremely painful death. Alone and hleeding he was left to
die on the airport runway in a foreigncountry. Young marines have been burned
aliveCaraway from homeand families.Anelderlygentleman wasshot and thrown
overboard, helplessto survive. Are we to allow the PL0 representatives to get a
foothold on Our soil? Are we to allow them to continue working, living and
enjoying American freedoms and Our way of life and at the same time, finance
terror and PL0 policies?
We Say,"No!"
Sherry Stethem,
Patricia Stethem,
Richard L. Stethem,
Waldorf. MD.78 APPLICABILITY OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE
TERRORISM REPORT
Mr. President, as 1 noted previously, there are acts as ugly as terrorism.
Unfortunatelv. international terronsm has ~roven a difficultforce 10 combat.
An important step in combating terrorism is to identify from where terrorist
groups are receivingfinancial,militaryand other assistance. With thisin mind, the
conferencereport, section 140,includesa provision callingfor an annual report on
terrorist groups,and the countries from which they receivedsupport.Among the
groups to be reported on are the PLO, the PFLP, Abu Nidal, Saiqwa, the DFLP,
the Red Amy Faction, and the Red Brigade.
The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). - The Palestine Liberation
Organization was founded in the late 1960s and is the umbrella group for
approximately 10 Paleslinian terrorist factions.
Dunng the 1970%the PL0 was involved in numerous hijackings and in the
early 1980s,aside from attacking civilians in lsraeli cities, it also attacked school
nurseries and civilian buses. Recently, it look credit for the grenade attack at
Israel's holiest sit- the Wailing Wall.
Il was res~onsible for the attack on the Achille Lauro steamshin and for the
murder of an Amencan citizen, Leon KlinghoîTer, who was confined to a
wheelchair. Earlier this year, it tried to infiltrate a smal~ gr~up into lsrael for the
purpose of seizingcivilian hostages at an lsraeli kibbutz.
Abu Nidal. - Ils official name is Fatah (Fah-tah) - the Revolutionary
Council. It also has used several other names, including Black June and Arab
Revolutionary Brigades.
When it attacks Arab tareets. it uses the name Black Seotember. When il
auïcks Britiqhiargels. itcxlliiiself lhc org3niz3lion of ~ocixl~ithluslims
Ilishcadqu~rlcrcd in Syria. Ilua, rcsponsibleCorthe hijackingoCiin Eg)pi Air
commercial ieilincr nhich re\ulied in a iraaic sh<iotoul in Mïliï in Nu\,cmbcr
1985.It alsi played the primary role in themassacres al the Rome and Vienna
international airports in January 1986, wheremore than 20 persons were killed.
It apparently was responsible for the September 1987 massacre of Jewish
worshippers at an Istanbul synagogue.
The Red Army Faction. -A West German Radical Marnist group that has
specialized in bombings directed against American military targets, kidnapings
and executionsof WestGerman civiliansand eovernment officials.and atiemoted
assassinations of United States military office&.
The Red Army Faction has lieswith French and Belgianterrorist group~ as ~ell
as with the ltalian Red Brigade.
The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). - Headed by the
notonous Dr. George Habash. In the early 1980sthe PFLP carried out attacks in
Europe against lsraeli and European civilian targets, including attacks on the
embassies in Vienna and Athens, and bombings of airline offices in ltaly and
Turkey.
11also claimed responsibility for the bombing of a Cypnot cniise ship in the
Haifa Harbor. It is believed to be responsible for the bomhing of a Brussels
synagogue in October 1981.
The Red Brigade. - Italy's longest-lived and most notonous terrorist group,
responsiblefor the kidnaping and execution of former ltalian Premier Aldo Moro
and the kidnaping of American General lames Dozier.
In 1981, in addition to kidnaping General Dozier, the Red Brigades were
responsible for three kidnapings, several bombings and murders, and one hank
robbery. In 1985, itmurdered a prominent ltalian labor economist.
It has also been responsible for the murder and serious bodily harm of a CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 79
number of ltalian newspapermen, judges, and security personnel. In 1987, il
resumed its pattern of assassination of government targets.
PL0 OFFICECLOSING
Mr. President, 1 noted earlier the strong Senate support for the PL0 office
closing provision.It is clear that the State Departmentis totally misreading the
American people. The fact that this provision has so much support in Congress is
one indirntion. a ooll which recentlv ran in Newsweekis another. The ooll asked
respondents whai ther thought to'he the most important issue for the United
States and the Soviet Union to discuss at therecenl summit.
The most important issue for Americans was no1 nuclear weapons, or conven-
tional arms, or even human rights. The most important issue was "international
terronsm", with 86 percent of respondents saying il was "very important".
The ooll shows how concerned the American ouhlic is about terrorism. and
terronsi groups such .is thç PL0 Hui italso ind~c&s thai the puhlic rccognilssd
pomi the Siaie Depariment continuaIl) downpldys That the Soviet Union 1s
behind, or assistsi good deal of international terrorism.
Mr. President, 1 ask unanimous consent that the poll which ran in the
Newswek of December 7, 1987,he printed at this point in the Record:
There being no objection, the poll was ordered to be printed in the Record, as
follows:
Sumrnit Issues: A UniredSiares Soviei Pol1
On the eve of the summit, a comparative sampling of public opinion in the
United Statesand the Soviet Union shows broad agreement on the importance of
amis control. Soviet citizens, however, are more &timistic about thechances of
actiially eliminating nuclear weapons.
TELL ME HOW IMfORTANT YOU FEEL IT IS FOR THE UNITED STATESAND SOVIEI UNION
TO DISCUSSTHE FOLLOWlNG ISSUESAT THE SUMMIT
[In percent]
Very Somewhat Nol so
important important important
Limiting strategic or long-range
nuclear weapons:
United States 78
U.S.S.R. 86
Reductions in medium-range and
tactical nuclear missiles:
United States 69
U.S.S.R. 82
Cutting down on conventional
arms:
United States 48
U.S.S.R. 46
International Terrorism:
United States 86
U.S.S.R. 4980 APPLICABILITY OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE
Very Samewhat Not ao
important important
important
The star war project:
United States 55 27 10
U.S.S.R. 88 9 1
Erasing regional tensions and con-
flicts:
United States 70 20 3
U.S.S.R. 67 28 2
Expanding economic links:
United States 61 28 6
U.S.S.R. 53 43 2
Human nghts in both countnes:
United States 78 16 5
U.S.S.R. 49 33 9
Expanding people-10-peoplecon-
tacts:
United States 71 21 5
U.S.S.R. 64 32 2
A total nuclear test ban:
United States 71 19 7
U.S.S.R. 84 12 I
MI. Helms. During consideration hy the committee of conference, it was
suggested that the provision infringed upon the constitutionai rights of the PL0
and its supporters.
However, there is simply no first amendment issue involved in closing these
offices.The provision adopted hy the conference does not compromise the nghts
of Amencan citizens 10speak on behalf of the PLO, its policies, or its positions.
Furthemore, Americans would not be prohihited from donating legalassistance
to the PLO, nor from making monetary contributions 10the organization.
Rather, the provision prohibits the PL0 from maintaining officesand transact-
ingbusinessin thiscountry. 1might point out, that a foreignentity, the PL0 isnot
entitled to first amendment protections.
In fact, during the lime the conferencewas meeting,a U.S. District Court issued
an opinion on the PLO's objection to the State Department ordering their
Washington officeclosed.Thecourt held that theconstitutional claims of the PL0
do not nse to the level necessary to implicate first amendment concerns.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a New York Times article of
December 3, 1987,discussing this decisiobe pnnted in the Rerordat this point.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be pnnted in the Record,as
follows:
[From the New YorkTimes, Dec. 3, 19871
Rebuffro PalessrinionsisUpheld
Washington, December 2(AP). - A Federal District Court judge today upheld
a State Department order closing an information officeconnected to the Palestine CONTENTSOF THE DOSSIER 81
Liheration Organization, rejecting claims that shutting it down was unconstitu-
tional.
The judge, Charles R. Richey, said that Secretary of State George P. Shultz
"acted lawfully" in detennining that the Palestine Information Office "is a
'foreign mission' ofthe PLO", that could he ordered closed under the Foreign
Missions Act.
The State Department, citing involvement in terrorism hy "individuals and
organizations associated with the PLV, had ordered the officein Washington
to he closed hy December 1, but postponed the deadline until Thursday to give
Judge Richey lime to rule on the challenge, hy the Amencan Civil Liherties
Union.
The A.C.L.U. said that closing the office would violate First Amendment
guarantees of free speech and assembly and that the oRicehad a legal right to
function hecause it was a lohhying officestaffed hy American citizens.
"The Secretary's order merely prohibits the PL0 from operating as a 'foreign
mission"' of the PLO, Judge Richey said in a 16-page opinion. Nothing
prohihited the staff of the officefrom continuing Io engage in political activity for
Palestinians, he said.
Hope Nakamura, an A.C.L.U. lawyer, said the group would appeal.
Mr. Helms. But perhaps the main issue of contention in the conference in
regard to this provision involved the question of closing the New York office.
During consideration of this provision, a motion was made hy Representative
Frank to recede to the Senate position with an amendment to delete the Senate
language closing the PLO's New York office.Representative Frank's motion was
defeated by a vote of II to 8 among House conferees.
The House conferees were wise Io reject this amendment. During the confer-
ence. the State Deoartment re~reseiitatives insisted that closine the PLO's New
York office would constitute'a violation of international la;. However, il is
apparent that the State Department's own intemal legal memorandum difers
fÏom this assessment
Spcciticallythe prcs, har rcported thac the m<m~randumacknowledg~s ihc the
PL0 maintains its ofticein KewYork 3s a couricsy uf the Uniicd States and noi
as a legal right.
It isunfortunate that the State Department continues to -fuse Io declassifythis
memorandum. However, a wire story puhlished hy AP on Novemher 4, 1987,
gives some insights into the content of this memorandum.
MI. President. 1ask unanimous consent that this AP wire storv be inserted in
the Recordat this point.
There being no objection, the wire story was ordered to he pnnted in the Record
as follows:
Siaie Depariment calls shutting downPL0 o@ceimpractical
(By Barry Schweid)
Washington (AP). - The State Department has concluded that the Palestine
Liheration Organization maintains an officein New York thanks to American
courtesv and <ot as a leeal rieht. but that trvine to close il would be imoractical.
The inlysis, obiinex MO:&) hy thc ~<<ocïatedPrcir. could hd\,e in irnpü;l
on Congrc<s.Majorilici in fhc tioii\e3nd Scnatr hate volcd Io cvict th? PLO, but
the action is notfinal
The 25-page document, which traces the history and legal status of permanent
observer missions Io the United Nations, will be considered hy Congressional82 APPLICABILITY OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE
conferees Thursday along with anti-PL0 amendments to the State Department's
Authorization Bill.
The United Nations granted the PL0 permanent observer status in 1973.The
PL0 ~s~not recoe-ized hv~,h~ ~ ~ted States and it has heen imolicated in acts of
terrorism against Americans and Israelis.
At the same time, it enioys diolomatic status in a number of other countries and
is recoenized bv the ~ia6 ~eaeueuas the sole leeiti-ate reoresentative of the
~alestizan
On Septemher 15, the State Department gave the PL0 30 days to close ils
information officein Washineton. but subseaue.tlv extended the deadline for 45
days to allow the officeto sertle &saKairs.
The punitive action was taken "to demonstrate the United States' concem over
terrorism conducted and supported by organizations affiliated with the PLO,
Charles F. Redman, the department spokesman, said in the announcement.
However, the New York officewas permitted to remain open.
Both the Senate and House have enacted legislation to close the office,as well.
The chief-sponsors are Reps. Jack Kemp, R.-N.Y., and Dan Mica, D-Fla., in the
House, and Sens.Charles F. Grassley, R.-Iowa, and Frank R. Lautenberg, D.N.J.,
in the Senate.
According to the analysis, the U.S. agreement with the United Nations to
establish its headquarters in New York did not specifically deal with permanent
U.N. ohservers.
The paper said the United States has never "acknowledged an international
le-al ohli-ation to accord oriviluees and immunities to observer missions".
Thc insiitutc of permlincni oh.;cr\:r "rrsir purely on praciisc" and "pcrnianeni
ohicr\cr; are no1eniiilcd io diplomaiii pri\ilcgçs .ind immuniiies", ihc ÿnalysis
raid
Sincc PL0 dllicials arc noi on ihc CS. diplomîiic Iist. the an~l)sis ioniinued,
an) fiiciliiiesthe? ma! bc givcn in ihis cuunlry "arc nicrçlygcslurc\ of courte\)"
In iact, the anal\,sis said. "A; a niîtter of ~rinciole, the IJS Governmeni.a;
host country, can.argue that it should no[ he ohligated to accord observer
missions privileges and immunities that it has not expressly agreed to provide".
However, the paper said, "ln light of the practice of hoth the United Nations
and the U.S. Government it isnot oractical for the U.S. Government to take such
a position at this time".
Without explanation, the analysis returned to the point again. "As a practical
matter", il said, "it is too late to challenge the institution of permanent observer
missions or the extension of that institution to non-governmental organizations
like the PLO".
The order to close the Washington office was challenged hy Arah-American
groups and some civil libertarians who said it conflicted with the Constitution's
free speech guarantees.
The analysis quotes a classified FBI report as saying, "The investigation has
clearly shown that Chairman Yassar Arafat directs the activities of the PL0
Information Office and has given his personal approval and guidance over its
activities since il opened in 1977."
MI. Helms. MI. President, it is unfortunate that the State Department
continues to make this important legal memorandum unavailahle to the puhlic.
The legal issues involved in closing the New York officeare complex, and 1am
certain that this memorandum would help the Congress and the puhlic hetter
understand our nghts under international law. 1am informed hy knowledgeahle
sources who know of the memorandum that the AP story is accurate in ils
description. CONTENTSOF THE DOSSIER 83
While the State Department continues 10 keep its own legal memorandum
under wraos.the Senatewasindeedfortunate 10hear the Senator from IowaIMr.
~rassley],~hom 1ma) pointout is a memberof theJudiciaryCommittee,pro\ide
3n excellentonal~sisolihc lertl issuesin\ol\ed in cloring the PI.O', Ncw York
office. .
In his speech,the Senator points out how closingthe PLO'sofficeis entirely
within our Nation's obligations under international law. Indeed, the speech
framed the issues involved inthis matter so clearly, that this Senator felt
compelledto share it with al1of the membersof the conference.
Mr. President, 1 ask unanimous consentthat a copy of the letter from the
Senator from North Carolina, and the statement of the Senator from Iowa be
printed in theRecord al this point.
Therebeingno objection,the material wasordered to be printed in the Record,
as follows:
U.S. Senare,Commirteeon Foreign Relations.
Washington, D.C., November4, 1987
Hon. Dan Mica,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Dan: As you are no douht aware,one of the more controversial itemswe
willcover in the Conferenceon the State Department Authorization Bill is the
Senate orovisionclosinethe officesof the PL0 in Washington and New York.
0veAalf the Senateiosponsored this provisionauthored hySenatorsGrassley
and Lautenberg. The House suhsequentlyapproved a motion to instruct their
confereesto acceot theSenate lannuaee.
I undersiand. houcver. thai despiicsuch indicatioiisof support for the Seniiie
provision.an effort u,illhe undcrttkrn iu sirik311Scnatelanguÿgcperiïining io
the PL0 officein New York.
1hope youwilljoin me in persuadingour fellowconferees toretain the Senate
language. Towards this end you may find the information in the enclosed
statement hy Senator Grassley ta be of help. It notes how Congressional
legislationto close the New York officeis entirely consistentwith international
law.
In addition, 1have taken the libertyof enclosinga reprint of a story from the
AP wire. It discusses the State Deoartment's own interna1leeal memorandum
whichacknowledgesthat the PL0 maintainsils officein Newfork as a courtesy
of the United States and not as a l-galri-ht- despite recentState Department
pronouncements 10 the contrary.
1 hope you will 6nd these documents ta be of use. 1 will look forward ta
workingwith you at the Conferenceon this and other items.
Sincerely,
TheAntilerrorismAct oj 1987
Mr. Grassley.Mr. President, 1want to bnng to the attention of my colleagues
and the American peoplean issuethat is currently the subject of a great deal of
debate among memhers of the conference committeeto the State Department
authorization bill.
The issue involvesan amendmeni to State autbonzation that 1 sponsored to84 APPLICABILITYOF m OBLIGATIONTO ARBITRATE
close the Palestine Liberation Orranization offices in the United States until the
PL0 rcnounccs ils policyof terro;ism. The amrndmcni, knoun ahthe Aniiirrror-
ism Act of 1987,han 5UScnaie corponsors as a frcc-standing bill.
At ihii lime, Our Silitc Dcvdrtmcnt is bouinr IO pressure froni the United
Nations and is lobbying members of the conferenci committee arguing that
closing the PL0 observer mission at the United Nations may conflict with treaty
obligations the United States has with U.N. members.
The hattle eoine on over the Antiterrorism Act is reallv a hattle over tw~ ~~ -
cxircmcly im&riant pnnsiplei. The Tirsipnncipls is thai ih;~niied Siaics has a
sutereign right and gihligliiionto protcci ils icrriiory and citi7cnsfrom icrrorism
The second principlc involi,cs the absolutc rcquircmcnt thdt bcforc ihc United
Siaics can bc bound IOa ncu provision of a trc3ty or 3 ncw interpretation of a
ircaty provision, the Uniied Siates niust dlirmati\ely agrcc io ihat new provision
or interpretation.
Mr. President. there is little or no argument that the PL0 is involved in
terrorkm. and ihïtthc Uniicd St;itcs has Thenghi to aci ascordingly. One only
has ro look 31 the ressnt elevaiion ol'Ahbul Ahbai to ihc iJLO'scrccuii~ccouncil
IO bc rsmindcd of the PLUS oolitics of icrror. Abbul Abbïs. ofcoursc. is uanicd
in connection with the chil lieauro hijacking and the muider of an~merican
citizen, Leon Klinghofer.
Nevertheless, U.N. officiais, through reinterpreting U.S. treaty obligations,
areue that the PL0 observer mission should have the same orivileees and
imkunities that member States have al the United Nations. In other wGds, the
PL0 should beequal to a sovereigngovemment whose officeis inviolable under
the Charter, and therefore, cannot be closed by the United States even to protect
ils own territory and people.
Mr. President, there is absolutely nothing in the written agreements between the
United States and the United Nations that exoresslv orovides for observer
missions. Nevertheless, the United Nations is att&npting io force treaty obliga-
tions on the United States that have never even heen negotiated, let alone ratified
hy the Senate, and Our State Department is bowing to the pressure.
However. desoite the State Denartment's auestionable conduct. the United
States, up 1'0th; point, has never'formally acknowledged an internationaÏ le&
obligation to accord the privileges and immunities to members of observer
missions beyond the specifii requkements in the headquarters agreement relating
to entry, residence, and transit.
Histoncally, the United Nations had a very restrictive view of what privileges
and immunities were accorded 10observer missions. A 1962U.N. Legal Counsel
memorandum stated the following:
Permanent Observers are not entitled to diplomatic privilegesand immunities
under the Headquarters Agreement or other statutory provisions of the host
State. Those among them who form part of the diplomatic missions of their
Governments to the Government of the United States may enjoy immunities in
the United States for that reason. If they are not listed in the United States
diplomatic list, whatever facilities they may be given in the United States are
merelv eestures of courtesv bv the United States authorities.
hi'snarrow interpretalioicontinued until observer status was given to the
PL0 in 1974.Since then, the United Nations, over U.S. ohiections, has steadily
attemoted Io unilaterallv extend nowers and orivileees to observer missions. FO~
cx~m~le.thc Gcncrdl ~ssemhl~ idopied ihe'su-cakd 1975Viznna Convcniion
oter U.S. upposiiion. The coni,cntion uould have givcn obssrver missions the
same rights accorded to permanent missions. The United States has never signed
the convention, and therefore, cannot be bound to ils terms. CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 85
Nevertheless, the U.N. Legal Counsel has attempted to bind the United States
to the spirit, ifnot the letter, of the convention byreinterpreting the U.N. Charter.
In 1982,the U.N. Legal Counselattempted to expand the interpretation of Article
105to include the inviolabilityof observer missions. However, there is absolutely
nothing in Article 105or the headquarters agreement that even mentions observer
missions let alone any obligations that the United States owes to them.
So, Mr. President, what exactly is the problem? The problem is that even
though the United States has never actually agreed to a reinterpretation of the
U.N. Charter that would extend full privileges and immunities to the PL0
observer mission, the United Nations is on the verge of successfullyforcing the
United States into such an agreement with no negotiation and no Senate
ratification.
What makes these events even more incredible is the fact that the State
Department is feebly acquiescing to this force, contrary to an intemal State
Department memorandum of last April. According to this intemal memorandum,
State Department officiaisshould "refuse to recognize an obligation to accord
inviolability to the premises of an observer mission...".Unfortunately, those in
charge at OurState Department have disregarded this advice and instead refused
to protect or promote American interests in this matter.
MI. President, State Department bureaucrats may sit by and let American
riehts he tossed out the door. but this Senator is eoineto do ev.rvthine he can to
si& such a hlaiant uqurplition oi Amerisan sovereignty.
As I have stated, the baille ovtr this polit) fr~rieitingAmeric:in intercsilit
the United Kaiioni. in rrrard toob\:r\er missionr. isa subicct of debaie ihir week
among the conferees to-the State Department authorizkion bill. The debate
centers on the Antiterrorism Act amendment which, as 1noted earlier, will close
the PL0 observer mission until the PL0 renounces its policy of terrorism. Of
course the U.N. hierarchy has been arm-twisting the State Department hureau-
cracy into lohbying against the amendment.
1would like to remind my colleagueson the conference committee that even if
the State Deuartment isn't willine to defend U.S. riehts in this matter. the
Congres, has'the pouer and the ;bligation to do sorNotii,irhstanding U K.
inierprttatii)n\ oU.S. trclit) obligaiions. Congress has the constitutional author-
iiv to niodiiv those intemretations ihriiurh Isrislatioii. In iact. dccordinrl Io ihc
landmark case of ~hirne; v. Roberrson,ConGess even has the power tomodify
binding treaty obligations. Therefore, Congress has the authority to define,on Our
own terms, what obligations are owed to the PLO.
MI. President. weare at a crucial oint in Ourbattles to oromote U.S. orinciules
oiprorccting Amcrican sotereignty ;ind putting an rnd io tcrronsm. Congreh clin
follow the Siaie Department Iiiieand watch the~eprinciple, cullüpse.or Congresi
can adopt the Antiterrorism Act and ensure the protection and prexrvation of
these principles.
MI. President, 1yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. Helms. Mr. President, 1 also ask unanimous consent that the following
summary of record votes taken during the conference be included in the Recorda1
this point.
There heing no objection, the maierial was ordered to be printed in the Record
as follows:
Summary of Record Voles Takm During the Conference on KR 1777 and the
Senare Amendment Therero
On December 3, the House conferees, defeated, 8-11, an amendment by Rep.
Frank to the pending motion by Rep. Mack regarding the officesof the Palestine86 APPLICABIL~TYOF THE OBLIGATIONTO ARBITRATE
Liberation Organization. The Frank amendment proposed to close only the
Washington officeof the PL0 ;the Mack motion to recedeto the Senate'stitle XI
encompassed closing both the Washington officeand the New York office.Ayes:
Dymally, Kostmayer. Atkins, Rodino. Mazzoli, Hughes, Frank, Fish (by proxy).
Nays: Fascell (by proxy), Mica, Smith of Florida (by proxy), Broomfield (by
proxy), Snowe, Gilman, Mack, DeWine (by proxy), McCollum, Swindall (by
proxy), (Mr. Yatron was later recorded in the negative). Subsequently, the House
conferees, adopted by voice vote the Mack motion to recede to the Senate'stitle
XI. [Seeconference substitute title X.]
The Presiding Officer.The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
The conference report was agreed Io.
Mr. Byrd. Mr. President, 1move to reconsider the vote by whichtheconference
report was agreed to.
Mr. Symms. 1move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed 10.
Mr. Byrd. Mr. President, 1thank al1Senators.
(54)Statement Made by a Member of the United StatesCongress on the "Anti-
Terrorism Act of 1987" Adopted by Both Houses of Congress
(Congressional Record, Vol. 133,No. 202, 18 December 1987, pp. H 11684-H
11685)
Congressional Voie ro Close Palesrine Liberarion Organizafion's UN Observer
Mission
Mr. Burton of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, 1think everybody in the United States
knows that the Palestine Liberation Organization is a terrorist organization that
kills not only lsraelis and Americans but its own people.
Mr. Soeaker. this bodv and the other bodv oassed in the State Deoartme.t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
authonzation billan amendment which wouldkick the PL0 observer missionout
of the United States of Amenca, out of New York, out of Washington, D.C. It
oassed ovenvhelminelv
This week iiwasanAouncedihat the United Nations condemncd the passageof
thai legisliition.That is Io be expecied. The United Nations docs no! support us
very &uch anyhow. ~.
But the thing that was the most deplorable about that action was that Our
delegation, Our State Department delegation over there did no1vote. They said
they did not vote because the bill was still in progress.
The fact of the matter is the State Department is trying to gel the President to
pocket veto this legislation even though the Congress ovenvhelminglyexpressed
its sentiment toward the PLO.
Mr. Speaker, 1think this body ought to send the State Department a message
to do what we ask them to do when we vote ovenvhelminglyon a measure like
this. CONENTS OF THE DOSSIER 87
(55) Statement hy the President of the United States upon Signingthe Foreign
Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988and 1989
(Unired SratesCode Congressionaalnd AdministrativeNews, 100th Congress-
Firsr SessionNo. 12, Fehruary 1988,p. 2453)
Starementby PresidentRunaldReaganuponSigningHR 1777
23 Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 1547,Decemher 28, 1987
1have today signedHR 1777,the "Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal
Years 1988and 1989". Certain issues raised hy ils provisions, however, require
comment.
............................
Section 1003 of the Act prohibits the establishment anywhere within the
jurisdiction of the United States of an office "10 further the interests of" the
Palestine Liberation Organiration. The effect of this provision is to prohibit
diplomatic contact with the PLO. 1have no intention of establishing diplomatic
relations with the PLO. However, the right to decide the kind of foreign relations,
ifany, the United States willmaintain isencompassed hy the President'sauthority
under the Constitution. includine the exoress erant of authoritv in Article II,
section 3, to receiveambassador\rl am siining CheAct, iherefore:only kvause I
haw ni, intention of esublirhing diploniatic relations with ihc PLO. as a
consequene of uhich no actual conititutii>nïl confl~ctir created hythis provision.
Part II. Materials Relevant to the Observer Status of the Palestine Liberation
Organization
1. Permanent Observero sf Non-member Stores
(56) List of States Which Still Maintain or Had Maintained Permanent Observer
Officesat the Headquarters of the United Nations1
Austria (1949-1955).
Bangladesh (1972-1974).
Democratic Peonle's Re~uhlic of Korea (1973 to oresent)
Finland (1952-1955). .
Germany, Democratic Repuhlic of (1972-1973).
Germanv, Federal Re~ublic of (1952-1973).
- .-
Holy See (1964'to ~;esent).
ltaly (1949-1955).
Ja.an .1952-1955).
Monaco (1956 to prescnt).
Kepuhlic of Kore3 (1949 10 present).
Repuhliç of Vietnam (1952-1977).
' Not an exhaustivelist.88 APPLlCABlLlTY OF THE OBLIGAIlON M ARBITRATE
San Marino (1987 to present)
Soain (1953-1955).
~kitzekland (1948 10present).
Vietnam, Democratic Repuhlic of (1975-1977).
(57)Statement hy the LegalCounsel, 92nd Meeting, 14October 1982,Committee
on Host Country Relations
The Scopeof Privilegesand Immuniriesof the Permanent Observer Missionof the
Democraric People's Republicof Korea ro rhe UniredNations
1. TheinsrifutionofPermanenf Observer Missions.Although the Charter of the
United Nations makes no provision for ohsemers of non-memher States, the
institution of Permanent Observers of non-memher States in United Nations
practice may be traced to the designation by Switzerland in 1946ofa permanent
observer. This practice, which from a formal point of view is hased on an
exchanae of letters bctweenthe non-memher State and the Secretarv-General, was
subseq;ently followed by many oihcr non.membcr Siatcs and théinstiiution of
Pcrmançnt Obsencr Missionshas developed corrrspondingly. The nzçd io cudif)
this practiceled to a study <ifthe topic hs the Internaiional LawCommission and
to the eventual adoptionof a unitid ~ations Convention on the Representation
of States in Their Relations with International Organizations in 1975.
2. The evolurion of the legal basis of the imtitufion of Permanent Observer
Missions. Because the institution of Permanent Observer Missions is one which
has devcloped esseniially through praciicc, ihc legal staius, privilegcs and
immunitiesof such missionsha5evolvedgradually I>cspitcthc laci that thcre are
no specificprovisions relaiina io Permanent Observer Missionsin the Charter. the
Headquarters Agreement or-the Convention on the Privilegesand lmmunities of
the United Nations, as long as the non-memberStates concerned enjoyed hilateral
diplomatic or consular relations with the host country no particular prohlems
arose. The Permanent Observer Missions and their individual members were
aaordcd diplomatic or consular pri\,ilegcsand immuniiics on a reciprocal basis.
As early as 1962the Orficeof Legal Aiïairs stated in a legal opinion ihat while
Permanent Ohscrvers are no1entitled to di~lomatiç nnvileres in the host Staie.
those among them who form part of the dipromatic m~ssioncoftheir governments
Io the Government of the United States may enjoy immunities in the United
States for that reason (Memorandum to the Acting Secretary-General from the
Officeof LegalAiïairs, document ST/LEG/8, 22August 1962).The development
and hroadening of the institution, which hythe early 1970sincluded a numher of
intergovernmental organizations such as the European Economic Community
and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance,led the Officeof Legal Aiïairs
to elahorate further on the legalstatusof such missionsresulting in the conclusion
that Permanent Ohserver Missions were entitled to functional pnvileges and
immunities.
3. Thebasisfor rhefuncfional privilegesand immunitiesof Permanent Observer
Missions. In January 1975the Legal Counsel was requested Io set out his views
concerning the privilegesand immunities to which representatives of the Council
for Mutual Economic Assistance(CMEA) would be entitled in the United States,
as host State to the Headouarters of the United Nations. in the-lieht of General
Assemblyresolution 3209(XXIX)whichrequested the ~n~reiary.Gcneralto invite
the CMEA io psrticipate in ihe sessionsand work ofthe Genersl Asscmblyin the CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 89
capacity of ohserver. After pointing out that the representatives of the CMEA
would benefit from certain orovisions of the Headquaners Agreemen-, namely
sections 11, 12and 13,the iegal Counsel went on t0 say:
"ln addition to the foregoing privilegesand immunities,it is my beliefthat
it necessarily follows from the obligations imposed hy Article 105 of the
Charter of the United Nations that a CMEA delegation would enjoy
immunity from legal process in respect of words spoken or written and al1
acts performed hy memhers of the delegation in their officialcapacity before
relevant United Nations organs." (Unired NationsJuridical Yearbook 1975,
p. 157.)
In 1976the Legal Counsel was called upon once again to state his position with
regard 10 the privileges and immunities of a Permanent Observer of an inter-
governmental organization. In this case the Legal Counsel stated that:
"The Per~~~ent Observer. as an invitee to meetine- of certain United
Nations organs, enjoys in this capacity, in the Secretary-General's view,
functional immunities necessary for the performance of his functions. While
these immunities are not s~eltout in detail in the Headauarters Agreement,
or ihe Convention on the 'Privilegesand Immunities of ihe L'niteL~ations.
the>Rowb, neccssaryintendment (rom Article IO5of the Charter It can he
argued with considerable cogency that such functional immunities, to have
any real substance, should include inviolability for official papers and
documents relating to an observer's relations with the United Nations."
(UniredNarionsJuridicol Yearbook1976,p. 229.)
The foregoing legal opinions represented the views held hy the Office of Legal
Atfai~~-in the lieht of the oractice which had develooed since 1946and takine into
account the pr&isions ohhc Chïncr of the ~niied Nations and the tleadquaners
Agreement. In ihe meanrime, however. the United Nations conference on the
Representation of States in iheir Relations with International Organiz~tions had
considcred and adopted a convention codifying the I3wregarding the reprerenta-
ilon of States in their relations with international organizations The Vienna
Con\,ention of 1975contsins oro\,isions dmling with missions io international
organizations, delegations to oigans and to conférencesand observer delegations
to organs and to conferences. Part IIof the Convention incorporates provisions
dealing with permanent missions of hoth member Statesand non-memher States.
Article 5. oaraeraoh 2. orovides that non-memher States mav, if the mles of the
organizaii8n so &mit; establish permanent ohserver missions for the perfor-
mance of the functions of the permanent observer mission. For al1 practical
purposes the status, privilegesand immunities of permanent observer missions, as
well as their diolomatic staff. is assimilated to that of vermanent missions of
memhrr ~taies,;ncludin~ the jnviolabilii>of the premise;of the mis,ion and the
personal inviolability of the mcmbers of the diplom;itic siaffof the mision The
Convention on Rcprcsent;iiion of States is no! yet in force and in viewof ihe facl
that a number of States, mainly hosi couniries of internaiional org~ni7aiion.i.
either ahstained or voied ùgainst ihe Con\,ention. itwould not be correct to rely
on the Convention as a statement of the accepted customary international law in
the matter. Nevertheless, il may he pointed out that a very large numher of States
voted in favour of the convention which goes well heyond the functional view
whicb bas been espoused by the ORiceof Legal Affairs.
4. Thenecessi~y for andscope of thefunciional immuniiyof Permanent Observer
Mirsians. The foundation of the functional view consistently advanced hy
the Office of Legal Affairs is Article 105 of the United Nations Charter. This90 APPLICABILITYOF THE OBLIGATIONTO ARBITRAIE
nrovision establishes in eeneral terms the nrinci~le that the Reoresentatives of
'Mcmberssh~llcnjo) ihc~nvilcgcs dnd imrnunitie'snecessaryfor ihe independeni
cxcriis of ihcir funciions The Ch~rtcr JS a constituent instrument. did not. of
course. snell out these nrivilezes and immunities but left il to the General
~5,embli to dctcrminc thc swc;fic details of ihe applisaiion of the prinsiplc. The
prinç~plcisclr'arand, 3s ihe legdlopinionsciird aho\r siair..iiflowi hy ncccsrary
intendmcnt frim Articlc IO5that rczardlc,s oi the dctailcd anplicaiion of Article
105 bv the General Assemblv. certain minimum nrivileeesand immunities are
inhcrini to ihc Orgiinization ;id iis Members withoui uhich ilu,ould bc unablc
io I'unction indcpendcnily. Such runctionïl privilcgcs and immuniiies clearly
exirnd io ihç insiiiuiion of Pcmi~ncniObserver Missions which. as ue havr ieen.
has developed in practice and which has been codified in the 1975 ~ienna
Convention. The Charter of the United Nations, while making no express
reference to Permanent Observer Missions of non-member States, nevertheless
contains a number of provisions creating rights or obligations for non-member
States. It was, therefore, contemplated that such States may be brought into
relationship with the Organization and that appropriate legal arrangements
governing such relationship would be made.
Furthermore, non-member States of the United Nations are sovereign States
and they generally are members of other intergovernmental organizations within
the United Nations system. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a
member of FAO, Unesco, WHO, UPU, ITU, WMO, WIPO, ICA0 and the
IAEA. In ils capacity as a member of these agencies, in those host countries, it
enjoys de legeloto the privilegesand immunities which are set out in the relevant
constituent instruments as well as the relevant host countrv agreements.
If, as has been argued in the 1975and 1976 legalopinions, hter-governmental
observers enjoy functional immunity then a fortiori such immunity must also be
enjoyed by States. Such immunity mus1extend to immunity from legalprocess in
respect of words spoken or written and al1acts performed hy members of the
mission in their officialcapacity before relevant United Nations organs as wellas
inviolability for officialpapers and documents relating to an observer's relations
with the United Nations. If such inviolabilityisto have any meaning il necessarily
extends to the premises of the mission and the residencesof its diplomatic staff.
2. PermanentObserversoflntergovernmental Organizations
(58) List of lntergovernmental Organizations Having Received a Standing
Invitation to Participate in the Sessionsand the Work of the General Assemhlvas
Observers
Organization of American States: General Assembly resolution 253 (III) of 16
October 1948.
Leagueof Arab Statesi :General Assemblyresolution477(V)of 1November 1950.
Organization of the Islamic Conference': General Assembly resolution 3369
(XXX) of 10 October 1974.
Organization of African Unityl : General Assembly resolution 2011(XX) of II
October 1965.
European Economic Community ':General Assemblyresolution 3208(XXIX) of
Il October 1974.
Council for Mutual Economic Assistance1 : General Assembly resolution 3209
(XXIX) of Il October 1974.
'Currentlymaintaininga permanent officaet Headquarters, CONTENTSOF THE:mIEX 91
Commonwealth Secretariat: General Assemhly resolution 31/3 of 18 Octoher
.,76
Agency for Cultural and Technical Co-operation: General Assembly resolution
33/18 of ~~Novemher 1978.
~siak~frican Legal Consultative Committee': General Assembly resolution
3512of 13October 1980.
Latin American Economic Svstem: General Assemblv resolution 3513 of 13
- . ... .... . .
African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States: General Assembly resolution
3614of 15October 1981.
African Development Bank: General Assembly resolution 42/10 of 28 October
1987.
Statementsby the Unired NationsSecretariatas Io the legalstarusofpermanent
observersof intergovernmentao lrganizarions
(59) Pnvilegesand immunitiesto whichrepresenta- (Unired Nations Juridical
tives of the Council for Mutual Economic Yearbook1975,p. 157)
Assistance would he entitled in the United
States as host State 10the Headquarters of the
United Nations in the lightof General Assem-
bly resolution 3209(XXIX)
(60) Pnvileges and immunities of a person desig- (UnitedNations Juridical
nated by a Member State as a "member of ils Yearbook1976, pp. 224-
permanent missionto the United Nations with 229)
ambassadonal rank" - automatic entitle-
ment to diplomatic pnvilegesand immunities
of persons referred to in section 15, para-
graphs 1 and 2, of the Headquarters Agree-
ment of the United Nations - the referencein
section 15.oaraeraph 2. of the Arreement to
persons .'ngrced-upin hetuecn th: Sccrctïry-
General" and the host Stütc rriers IOclassesof
persons and not to individuals - entitlement
of r~,resenta~ ~e~ ~f Member States to diolo-
matic privilcgesand iinmuniticsof thc ~nhcd
Nations - intcrprciaiion of the phrase in thai
section "while exercising their functions and
during their journey to and from the place of
meeting" - status of the permanent observer
to the United Nations of an inlergovernmen-
ta1organizationgranted observerstatus by the
General Assembly
(6L) Guidelines for implementation of General As- (UnitedNations Juridical
semblvresolutions rr-ntine -bserverstatus on Yearbook1975. PD. 164-
a regular basis to certain regionalintergovern- 167)
mental organizations, the Palestine Liberation
Organization and the national liberation
movements in Africa
' Currentlymainlaininga permanentoffice al Headquarters.
Documentsnot reproduced.[Noie by ihe Regisiry.192 APPLICABILII'YOF THE OBLlCAnON TO ARBITRATE
3. Permanenr ObserverosJOrher Entiries
(62) Listof Organizations Having Receiveda StandingInvitation to Participate in
the Sessionsand the Work of the General Assembly as Observers and Maintain-
ing Officesal the United Nations Headquarters
1.Palestine Liberation Organization, General Assembly resolution 3237
(XXIX) of 22 November 1974.
2. South West Africa People's Organization, General Assembly resolution
311152of 20 December 1976.
LegislativeauihoriiiesrelaringIO thePL0
(63) Resolution 3102 (XXVIII). Respect for Hu-
man Rights in Armed Conflicts, adopted by
the General Assembly on the report of the
Sixth Committee, twenty-eighth session, 12
December 1973 '
(64) Resolution 1835(LVI). Population Question,
adopted by the Economic and Social Council,
on ihe report of the Economic Committee,
fifty-sixth session, 14May 1974'
(65) Resolution 1840 (LVI). Preparations for the
World Food Conference, adopted by the Eco-
nomic and Social Council. on the reoort of the
Economic Committee, fifty-sixth Session, 15
May 1974'
. .) 'Resolution 3237 (XXIX). Observer Status for
the Palestine '~iberation Organization,
adopted by the General Assemhly, twenty-
ninth session, 22 November 1974'
OfficialRecords of the 2296th meeting of the
(67)
General Assembly, 22 Novemher 1974.
Agenda item 108: Question of Palestine'
(68) Resolution 3375 (XXX). Invitation to the
Palestine Liberation Organization to Partici-
pale in the Efforts for Peace in the Middle
East, adopted by the General Assembly, thir-
tieth session, 10November 1975'
(69) Decision 129 (LIX). Participation of a Na-
tional Liheration Movement in the Work of
the Council, adopted by the Economic and
Social Council, fifty-ninth session, 3 July
1975 '
(70) Resolution 2089 (LXIII). Annual Report of
the Economic Commission for Western Asia,
adopted by the Economic and Social Council,
sixty-third session, 22 July 1977'
' Document no1reproduad. [Noie by ihe Regisiry.] CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 93
(71) Secunty Council, 1975, Decision Adopted at the 1856thMeeting on
4 December 1975
At ils 1859th meeting, on 4 December 1975,the Council decided to invite the
representatives of Lebanon, Egypt and the Synan Arah Repuhlic to participate,
without vote, in the discussion of the item entitled:
"The situation in the Middle East:
(a) Letter dated 3 December 1975from the Permanent Representative of
Lebanon to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security
Council (SI11892);
(6) Letter dated 3 December 1975from the Permanent Representative of
Egypt to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security
Council (Si11893)."
At the same meeting the Council also decided, by a vote, that an invitation
should be accorded to the Palestine Liberation Organization to participate in the
debate and that that invitation would confer upon il the same ngbts of
participation as were conferred when a member State was invited to participate
under mle 37 of the provisional rules of procedure.
Adopted hy 9 votes to 3 (Costa Rica,
United Kingdom of Great Bntain and
Northern Ireland, United States of
Amenca) with 3 abstentions (France,
Italy, Japan).
(72) Secunty Council, Provisional Verhatim Re- SlPV.2785(mimeo-
cord of the 2785th meeting, 27January 1988' graphed)
Staremenrsby the UnitedNations Secrerariatas to thelegalstatus of the OBce of
PermanenlObserverof the PL0
(73) Legal basis for the observer status of the United NationsJuridical
Palestine Liberation Organization - applica- Yearbook 1979, pp. 169,
hility of certain provisions of the Head- 170
quarters Agreement between the United Na-
tions and the Host Country - lack of entitle-
~ ~ ~ ~ PL0 observer to dinlomatic orivileees
and immunities - appliclrhilitj of local zon.
ing laus and rrgulations to properiy acquired
by PL0 in the Heridquürters district1
Letter to a private lawyer
p ~
' Document no1 reproduced.[Noie hy ihe Regiriry.194 APPLICABILIN OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE
(74)Opinion of the LegalCounsel of the United Nations on the Status of the PL0
Officeto the United Nations
Leller/rom the Legal Counsel. UniredNations, 10Mr. T. J. Kane. Counselloral
Law. New York
23 September 1982.
1refer to your inquiry on the status of the Palestine Liberaiion Organization
(hereafter referred to as the PLO) in the United Nations.
As you are doubtlessaware, membership in the United Nations is govemed by
Articles 3 and 4 of the United Nations Charter. Pursuant to these provisions the
Members of the Organization are those States which signed and ratified the
United Nations Charter and those States which were subsequently admitted 10
membership in the Organization by the General Assembly on the recommenda-
lion of the Security Council.
The Charter makes no provision for full participation except in respect of
sovereign States. However, degrees of in the Organization short of
membershio have been evolved overthe vears for certain recoen~~ed entities w~~ch
for one reaion or another were not in a Position to seek or attain full membership
al a particular lime. This has ken the case, for instance, for reoresentatives of
deuendent and trust or mandated territories evolvine towardi indeoendence.
u
which have been described as "proto Statcs" '.
The status of the PL0 has generally evolvedwithin the framework described in
the preceding paragraph to the point where il has been granted a unique position
in the United Nations. Without attempting in any way to summarize the long
history of the Palestine Question as such in the United Nations, the paragraphs
wbich follow iist the principal developments in the evolution of that unique status.
1. Ceneral Assembly
The General Assemblyof the United Nations in 19~59r~ecognizedand reaffirmed
"the inalienable rights of the people of Palestine" and a 1970resolution3 declared
that the Assembly: "Recogniies that the people of Palestine are entitled to equal
ri-hts andselfdetermination. inaccordancewiththeCharter oftheUnitedNation~." ~ ~
In 1973,the PI.0 reques;ed and wirsgrÿntcd a hearingas a petttioncr in the
Special Political Commitice when the Committce took up agenda item 43 (United
Nations Reliefand Works Aacncy for Palestine Refuaees in the Near East)". The
PL0 was subsequently invita (&and participated iRa number of major United
Nations conferences such as the World Population Conference and the Third
United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea as a national liberation
movement recoanized bv the Leaaue of Arab States. For instance. the resolution
adopted by theËconomÏc and al Council on the basis of which the invitation
to the World Populdtion Conferencc was issucd, rcqucsted the Secretary-Gcneral
"10 invite representatives of liberation movements now recognized by the
Organization of African Unity and/or by the League of Arab States, to participate
in the Conference without the right of vote" 5.
' See E.Suy. "SIatusof Observers in InternationalOrganizations",Renreil des cour,
l.I.I..."p II..-
'CicneralArvmbly rcsolution2535 (XXIV) ol 10 Becanber 1969 (fulltrriannrrrd)
'CicncralAsscrnblyresolution2672(XXV) of 8 Decembcr 1970 (fullicrtannexrd)
8, Mn,,....L.r,071y.twrniy-cighthwrsaon. Spmll PoliticntCornmitue.882ndmeeting.
.-'..EconomicandSkal Cauncilrcsolution1835 (LVI)of 14May1974 (fultcxtanncxed). CONTEhTS OF THE WSSlER 95
In Oriober 1974,the Summii Meeting of Arab Hrads of Siate recogni7rd the
PL0 as the sole legitimate represeiitati\e of ihe Palesiinian people. lmmediately
thereaner.on 14Octokr 1974.the General Assembly. bv resolution 32IOlXXIX)
(copy attached) similarly reCognized the PL0 as the representative of the
Palestinian people and invited it to participate in the deliberations of the General
Assembly on the question of Palestine in plenary meetings. Subsequently, by
resolution 3237 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974 (copy attached), the General
Assembly granled observer status to the PLO. In ibat resolution the General
Assembly, inter alia:
"1. Invites the Palcsiine Liberation Organi7;ition io participate in the
sesîions and the work of the General Assembly in the capscity of obser\er:
2. Invites the Palestine Liberation Orranizdtion IO particio;ite in the
....~-ns and~~he work of a~~ internationalConferences convened under the
auspices of the General Assembly in the capacity of observer;
3. Considers that the Palestine Liberation Organization is entitled to
participate as an observer in the sessions and the iork of al1international
conferences convened under the auspices of the organs of the United
Nations."
Generally, observers in the General Assemblyhave the right to attend meetings
and to make oral statements on matters within their comoetence. However. over
the years. the PL0 has bcen accorded more extensive nghts of participation thdn
other entiiies pdriiripating in an obsrner cdpdrity Thu,. for instance. ihe PL0
eniovs the riaht to oarticioate in the olenarvmeeiines of the General Assemblv.
wie;c it,obGrver ;an make staternenis on any matte; whichisconsidercd to have
a bearing upon the \ituation in the Middle East dnd speak Inexerciseof the right
of reply. In main committees of the Assembly, the observer may speak on any
matter of concern to the PLO. Further. bv virtue of the sui neneris ternis of
resolution 3237(XXIX), the PL0 has a standing invitation to participate in al1
United Nations conferencesand meetingswhereasmost organiratlons and entities
require a specificinvitation by the competent intergovemmental organ for each
conference or meetine which thev are to attend in an observer cavacitv. The PL0
has also established a-permaneniobserver Officeat United ~ations ~éadquarters
in New York and one in Geneva.
II. Securify Council
The Security Council of the United Nations, at its 2041st meeting, on 27
October 1977(decision attached) decided by a vote that an invitation should be
accorded to the PL0 to participate in the debate on the situation in the Middle
East and that that invitation would confer upon it the same rights of participation
as those conferred on a member State when it was invited to participate under
Rule 37of the orovisional rulesof orocedure. This invitation has ken reoeated on
numerous occasions since that tirne.
Rule 37of the Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Security Council reads as
follows:
"Any member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Secunty
Council may be invited, as the result of a decision of the Security Council, 10
participate, without a vote, in the discussion of any question brought before
the Security Council when the Security Council considers that the interests of
that Member are speciallyafiected, or when a Membcr bnngs a matter to the
attention of the Security Council in accordance with Article 35 (1) of the
Charter."96 APPLICABILITYOF THE OBLIGATIONTO ARBITRATE
In al1other cases, invitations to representatives of entities other than States have
heen issued under Rule 39, which reads:
"The Security Council may invite members of the Secretanat or other
persons, whom it considers competent for the purpose, to supply it with
information or to give other assistance in remaining matters within its
competence."
III.Economic andSocial Council
Pursuant to a 1975Economic and Social Council decision', the PL0 partici-
pales in an observer capacity in the deliberations of the Council whereit ha; nghts
of participation similar to those it enjoys in the General Assembly and its
suhsidiary organs.
In the Economic Commission for Western Asia. a reeional interaovernmental
organ ol'the Couneil, IIira fullmemher on an cqualfooïing with ncmhrr States.
Parapraph 2 of the terms ui referenceof the Conimission rearls ;I,ïrnendcd' ;is
follo~s :-
"2.The memhers of the Commission shallconsist of the States Memhers of
the United Nations situated in Western Asia which used to cal1 on the
servicesof the United Nations Economic and Social Officein Beimt and of
the Palestine Liheration Organization. Future applications for memkrship
hy memher States shall k decided on by the Council upon the recommenda-
tion of the Commission."
As a full member, the PL0 votes and makes proposals, nghts not exercised hy
entities other than States anywhere within the United Nations.
IV. United NationsAgenciesandIntergovernmentaO l rganizations
Most United Nations Specialized Agencies, such as the United Nations
Educational, Scientificand Cultural Organization, the World Health Organiza-
tion and the Food and Agriculture Organization, have granted the PL0 observer
status.Other international bodies, suchas the non-aligned Conference, the Group
of 77, the Islamic Conference and the League of Arab States, have admitted the
PL0 as a full memher.
Whileinitially, the PL0 was invited to United Nations meetingsas a petitioner,
it then participated as a liberation movement until it won United Nations
recoeniti.on as-the sole leaitimate renresentative of the Palestinian aeoole. As
indiCatedahove, a reviewof the procedural practice of the United ~a6onS shows
that the PL0 now has a unique status in the United Nations with extensive and
continuing rights of participation.
Even outside the United Nations framework, the overwhelming majonty of
States formally recognize the PL0 as the representative of the Palestinian people
and have estahlished direct links with it on a hilateral hasis, sometimes even
granting it full diplomatic status.
1hope that the ahove information willhe of assistance to you. Should you have
'
Ccononiicand Snctal Cdunril deciriun 129 I.IX of 3 luly 1975.
' The original!<mis ul relrrcnccr>fthz Comnii,rioii arc roniained inFronurnlc and
Councilresolution.2089(LXIIi)S1oil22 July1977.973 Subrruuentl>. the,uereamendr.ilbv CONTENT3 OF THE DOSSIER 97
further questions, please, do not hesitate to contact me. Kou are authorized to
make this letter available in any court or other proceeding in which the status of
the PL0 in the United Nations is relevant.
(Signed) Erik SUY,
The Legal Counsel.
(75) Opinion of the Legal Counsel of the United Nïiion% on the Stütu~.Pnvilcges
and Immunities L'ndcr Intçrnationdl Lüw of the Repre\rntativcs of ihe PL0 Io
the United Nations
Lerterfrom rhe kgal Counsel,iinited Nations,Io Mr. R. Clark, New York
II June 1986.
1 wish to refer to vour recent discussion with reoresentatives of this Office in
which you requcstcd~larific~t~onsregarding the 3tüius. privilcgcs and lmmuniiirs
under iniernation~l Iaw of the represcniatives of the Pülçstine Liberüiion.Orgsni-
zation to the United Nations inNew York.
As you know, the Palestine Liberation Organization representation in New
York derivesfrom an invitation of the General Assembly which in resolution 3237
(XXIX) of22 November 1974:
1. [Invited] the Palestine Liberation Organization 10participate in the sessions
and the work of the General Assemblv in the caoacitv of observer:
2. [Inviicdl the Palestine ~iberaliun 0rg;nizariuio par;~~paic in ihesessions
and the work <ifal1intemüiiunal conferencesconvencd under ihe auspicesor
the General Assembly in the capacity of observer;
3. [Considered] that the Palestine Liberation Organization is entitled to partici-
pale as an observer in the sessions and the work of al1 international
conferences convened under the auspices of other organs of the United
Nations:
4. [~equested] the Secretary-General to take the necessary steps for the
implementation of the present resolution.
The resolution did not address the question of the status, privileges and
immunities of the Palestine Liberation Oreanization nor did it refer to the
establishment by the Palestine Liberation ~r~anization of a permanent office in
New York. The decision 10establish an office of the Permanent Observer of the
Palestine Liberation Organization was, however, communicated to the Secretary-
General by the PalestineLiberation Organizationshortly after the adoption of the
resolutionin February 1975and was taken note of in a letter of acknowledgemenl
signed on behalf of the Secretary-General by the then Under-Secretary-General
for General Assemblv Aflairs. Mr. Bradford Morse. dated 3 March 1975.
The niainlenancc .of a pcrrnoncni office in New Yurk by thc Palestine
I.iberailon Organization mïy he considercd a necessaryrequirement in order io
adcquütcly luIfil the ohsener funciions cunlcrred by the Uniied Nüiions Cienerïl
~ssemblv~ Manv other oreanizations have received standinr! invitations to
partisip>c in thésessionsaid work of ihe Gcncral Assenibly observcrs. and
mainiain perrnancnt oflices a1 Heüdquarters. including the Asian.African Legal
Consuliaiivc Coniniiitee. ihe Council fur Mutual Fronomic Assisiance. the
European Economic Community, the Leagueof Arab States,the 0rganizati6n of98 APPLICABILIN OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRA'TF
African Unity and the South West Africa People'sOrganization. While the
particular status.privileges andimmunities of eachof theseorganizationsmay
Vary according to ilslegal nature, theUnited Nations considers il a normal
functionof theobserverstatusthat suchorganizationsmaintainpermanentoffices
and that theyshould haveunimpededaccessio the headquartersdistrict.
The main international legal instruments governing thestatus,pnvileges and
immunitiesof representativesto theUnited Nationswereelaboratedin thepenod
1945-7irnmediatelvafter the foundine of the United Nations. Theseinclude the
Headquariers ~~reementheiueenthe-unitcd Nationsand the Cniied Statesof4
Auguii 1947(Public Law8û-357.Vol. II, U.VTS,p. Il) and the Conveniion on
the Privilrgcsand Immunitiesof the United Nationsof 13Fcbruary 1946(Vol. 1,
UNTS. p. 15) Ncither of thcseinsirumenisspaifically contemplaicdthe institu-
tion of observer status for Statesor for organizations which has devcloped
csscntiallyon the hasisof vr~cticc,iirsi in respectof non-memberStatessuchas
~witzerlandand subsequentlyin respectof inÏer-governmentalorganizationsand
other organizations. The Headquarters Agreementof 1947did, however, provide
in Section II for the unimpeded transit10or from the headquartersdistrict of
"other personsinvited to the headquartersdistrict by the United Nations...on
official business".
In theabsenceof any specificinternationallegalregulationof theprivilegesand
immunities of non-Stateentities invited 10 oarticivate as observersin United
Nationsmeetings.ihe United Nationsin praciiceha; considercdtheissuesarising
in thai conncctiunpnncipally in ihe light of ihc provisionsof the L'nited Nations
Charter and the Headquarters Agreement.
However. in 1975the United Nations Conferenceon the Re~resentationof
States iniheir ~elations wiih Internaiional Org~nizationi adopicd a resoluiion
relatingto theObserverSiatusoi National Liberaiion Movemenisrccogni7edby
the Orcaniwiion of Afnwn Unitv andlor hv theLeaeueof Arab Statesreauesiine
that the question be examinedSbythe cenerai &embly without deiay and
recommended that,in the meantime,
"the Statesconcemed . .. accord to delegationsof national liberaiion
movementswhich are recognizedby the Organization of Afncan Unity
and/or by the Leagueof Arab Statesin their respectiveregionsand which
have beengranted observer statusby the international organization con-
cerned,thefacilities,pnvilegesandimmunitiesnecessary for the performance
of their tasks and to be guidedtherein by the pertinent provisions of the
Convention adoptedby the Conference".
No substantiveaction has vetbeen taken hv the GeneralAssemblvon this
requcst Nevertheless. IIiswidels acceptedthai'mrtain functional pri\iiege\ dnd
immunitiesRowhy necessdryintendmenifrom the HeadquartersAgrWment and
Gencral Asscmblvresolution 3237withoui which ihe invircd entiiy would not be
in a position to carv oui its functions Suchiunctional privilegesandimniunities
certainly extcnd to immonity from legdl proceasin respectof words spokenor
writtenor any act performedin theexercise ofthe observerfunction.
Furthemore. sincetheoermanentnresenceof thePalestineLiberation Oreani-
zationi" ~ew~brk is i~iirect rgult 'of GeneralAssemblyresolution3237 Gd is
restncted to United Nations matters, that presencecould appropriately be
consideredasno1covennathe receivtof serviceof lenalorocessbothr>ersonallv
and rn remin regardio Gatterscompleiely unrelatedio ihat presence'
II hasalsolobe noted thatihcUnited Statesha?neverconferred recognitionon
thePalestineLiixraiion Orgdni7aiionOhsener Missionaiid hasceriainly ne~ther
explicitly nor tacitly agreed-10the performanceon Amencansoi1of suchofficial CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 99
acts as the acceptance of processwith effectfor or against the Palestine Liberation
Organization.
(Signedi Carl-August FLEISCHHA~,
The Legal Counsel.
(76) Relevant Cases in United States Courts
Anti-DefamationLeague v. Kissinger,et al. (Digest of UniredStates Pracricein
InternaiionaiLaw, 1974,by Arthur W. Rovine, pp. 27-29)
HeadquariersAgreement
In Anti-DeJamationLeaguev. Kissinger,et al., CivilAction No. 74C1545hefore
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the League obtained
on October 31, 1974,an Order directing the Departments of State, Justice and
the Treasury to show cause why the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)
representatives, invited to participate in the 29th Session of the U.N. General
Assembly,should not be denied entry in10the United States, or in the alternative,
granted only a restricted C-2 visa limiting their freedom of movement 10 the
purposes of their visit to the United Nations. Before the case was heard, the
Department of State decided to issue only the limited C-2 visas.
After oral argument on November 1, 1974, U.S. District Judge Mark A.
Costantino denied the petitioner's motion without prejudice, subject to the
condition that the members of the PL0 invited to the General Assemblybe issued
the limited C-2 visas. The Court said; in pertinent part:
"...This court has jurisdiction to reviewan alleged abuse of administrative
discretion in the issuance of visas to certain members of the Palestine
Liberation Organization.
This problem mus1 be viewed in the context of the special responsibility
which the United States has to provide access to the U.N. under the
Headquarters Agreement. It is important to note for the purposes of thiscase
that a primary goal of the U.N. is to provide a forum where peaceful
discussion may displace violence as a means of resolvingdisputed issues. At
limes Ourresponsibility to the U.N. may require us to issue visas to persons
who are objectionable to certain segments of Our society.
Althoueh the fears exnressed bv counsel for the Anti-Defamation Leaeue
ma) havësome babis, ihis court irust, ih~i the Iawenforcement aurhoriiies
uill pro\,idc adsquate sccurity for the indi\idud petitioncrs ïj thcy ha\e
apparcnily donc in the pas[. lt is uorth noting that the denial of virasio thebe
PL0 reprcsentati\es would noi nrcessaril) enhance petitioners' sçsuriiy.
The go\ernmcnt', consern ior sccurity ijc\ idenced by ils recçni dccisioin
issue restnctivc C-2 visas 10 the PL0 rcprcsentaii\,es. For ihc rcîsonr this
court has outlined, the reliefrequested isdenied without prejudice, subject to
the condition that the C-2 visas he issued.
The court would Iike, however, to express its view that serious consider-
ation should be given to the imposition of more restrictive territorial
limitations on the movement of the PL0 representatives."
In a letter dated November 7. 1974.to the Deoartments of State and Justice.
counscl Torthe /\nit-Dcfamation ~eï!g;c requcsted. in Iighrof Judge~osisntino'i
suggestion for 'more restrictive terntonal limitations", that the two Departments100 APPLICABILIT OY THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE
cxplicitlydelinelitethe right of movementof the PL0 representati~eswho recri\ed
the C-2 visïh(The C-? visasisiued hmited the PL0 dclegation to a 25-milsradius
l'romColumbus Circlein Manhaltan.)Thc Leaeue-reauested an cx~licitlimitation
to bar the PL0 representatives
"from activitv of anv kind outside the Dhvsicallimits of the United Nations
he~d~uartcrs: that ;t lorbid any part;cil;ation in dcmonstration\, forums.
public meetings.radio and telcvision appearanccs or the Iike off the United
Nations premises.We do not ask that theserestrictions apply ta the activities
of the PL0 leaders undertaken within the territorial confines of the United
Nations headquarters."
nie League asked that the PL0 leaders "be permitted to move about in the U.S.
only as necessary to fulfillthe requirements of the U.N. invitati...".
On November 18, 1974,Robert O. Blake, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
for International Organization Aiïairs, replied to the League as follows:
"1 have been asked bv the Secretan, of State to renlv to vour letter of
November 7, 1974.~av& considerediudge ~ostanti~~s dehsion and the
argumentscontained in your letter, as wellas al1aspects of the presence here
of the PL0 deleeation for the Palestine debate and eivine due reeard to Our
responsibilities inder the Headquarters ~~reement, tKe ~e~artment has
concluded that further restrictions on the activities of the PL0 delegation
above the strict ones alreadv amlied would not be a~~rooriate
You ma) be sure that ue are'iullyconscious of and'\.ympathctiçuith )Our
preoccupations Furthsrmore. you uill recogni7c that the C.S. dclegÿtion
rtrongl) o~~osed the heliring of the PL0 represeniati\cs in the rnannerin
whichihey wereinvited. We appreciate receivingyour letter, and you may be
sure that we continue to give the closest attention to the concerns that
motivated it."
(Dept. of State FileL/SCA. The 1947Headquarters Agreement between the
United States and the United Nations is al TIAS 1676; 61 Stat. 3416. It was
signed al Lake SuccessJune 26, 1947,and entered into force Nov. 21, 1947.)
(77) Harvard Law SchoolForum. et al., Ploinriflsv. GeorgeP. Shulfz,Secrerary of
Stare. Defendanr (Civ. A. No. 86-0977-S. United States District Court, D.
Massachusetts. April 18, 1986) (Federal Supplemenr Volume633)
Law school forum, professor, and student brought action seeking to enjoin
Secretary of State from refusing 10 permit Palestine Liberation Organization
member to travel to narticinate in ooliticaldebate.The District Court. Skinner. J..
hcld ihat (Jaction iid not'raisen&nJuslici3hlepolitical question. and (2) plainriiïs
ucre entitledIO preliminary injunction
Motion ganled
1. ConsiiiulionaLaw e68(1)
Action seeking to enjoin Secretary of State from refusing to permit member of
Palestine Liberation Organization United Nations Observer Mission from
traveling to participate in political debate did not raise nonjusticiable political
question, although proiïered reason For denying request involved executive's
policy of not aiïording recognition to the PLO. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 1;
Immigration and Nationality Act, 5 212(d), 8 U.S.C.A. 8 1182(d). CONTENTS OF TKE DOSSIFB 101
2.Injunctionc75
Law school ïorum uas entitled to preliminary injunction prohibiting Secretary
of Stste from rcfusing to permit mentber of Palestine Liherition Organization
UnitedNation, Ohserver Mission frdm travelin,:to partici~3tein ~oliticdldehate
with law school professor, where ~ecretary'; pÎoffered reasin for denying
member's travel request was related to suppression of protected political discus-
sion, and thus was not faciallylegitimate. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. I ; Immigra-
tion and Nationality Act,§212(d), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(d).
3. Aliensc54.3(2)
Applicable standard for reviewing Secretary of State's decision to refuse to
permit member of Palestine Liberation Organization United Nations Observer
Mission to travel to participate in political dehate was whether Secretary had
faciallylegitimateand bona fidereason for hisdecision. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend.
1; Immigration and Nationality Act,5 212(d), 8 U.S.C.A. 8 1182(d).
Scott P. Lewis, Maria P. Nichols, Palmer & Dodge, John Reinstein, Civil
Liberties Union of Mass. Foundation, Boston, Mass., for plaintiffs.
Asst. U.S. Atty. Martha Sosman, Boston, Mass., for defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A PR!3LIMINARY INJUNCTION
AND DEFENDANT'SMOTION TO OISMISS OR FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT
Skinner, District Judge.
Plaintiffs in this action, the Harvard Law School Forum, Professor Alan
Dershowitz, and a Harvard Law School student, Brad Roth, hring suit to enjoin
the Secretary of State (the "Secretary") from refusing to permit Palestine
Liheration Organization ("PLO) member Zuhdi Labih Terzi to travel to
Cambridge, Massachusetts to participate in a debate with Professor Dershowitz
on Middle Eastern politics. Plaintiffs claim that theretary'srefusal violates
their First Amendment rights to hear a debate on a critical political question.
Facts
The facts in this case are not in dispute. In August, 1985,the plaintiff Harvard
Law School Forum invited Zuhdi Labih Terzi to participate in a debate on
"Prospects for Peace in the Middle Ilast" with Professor Dershowitz. Terziis the
Permanent Ohserver of the PL0 al the United Nations ("UN) and the highest
ranking member of thePL0 in the IJnited States. Professor Dershowitzis said to
be an outspoken member of the Harvard Law School faculty and a well-known
pro-lsraeli activist. Plaintiff Roth arranged the debate and the Forum agreed to
sponsor il, scheduling it for October 31, 1985.
The parties agree that Terzi, as a member of the PLO, is an excludahle alien
under federal immigration law. 8 U.S.C5 1182(a)(28)(F). The excludabilityof a
member of the PL0 is not dependent on any demonstration hy the State
Department that admission ofthe individual to this country would posea security
threat. 22 U.S.C. 5 2691(c). However, the Attorney General may, "in his
discretion", grant a waiver allowing an excludable alien in10 the country
temporarily. 8 U.S.C. 8 1182(d)(3). Such waivers are suhject to conditions as
prescrihed hy the Attorney General. 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(6).102 APPLlCABlLlTY OF THE OBLlGATlON TO ARBITRATE
The United States, as host country of the UN, has entered in10 the "UN
Headauarters Aereement". In Section II of the Headauarters Agreement. the
nitcd Scates &ced nui io inipcdc ihr transit to and (rom ihc UN ?leadqux;ters
oi mcmbcrs ut'Ohsrrvcr \lissions io ihc Uii As d rciuli, ihc Aitorney General.
on advice from the Secretary of State, has granted a waiver of excludability to
allow PL0 Observer Mission personnel access to the UN headquarters, even
though such individuals are excludable under immigration law.
With respect to individuals covered by the Headquarters Agreement who are
from certain States or organizations, the United States has a general policy of
permitting non-UN related travel only within a twenty-five mile radius of the
center of New York City. Since the PL0 Observer Mission in New York was
established in 1974,its personnel have been subject to this geographic limitation.
Within the 25-mile limit, the United States has no1 sought to impose any
restrictions on the non-UN related political activity of PL0 Observer Mission
oersonnel. but members of the PL0 mission mav travel bevond the eeoera~hic
iirnitüiion for non-UN rclated activiiy onl) ifthe;recsive Siate Depxrtmcnt
approv3I uî ihcir proposcd iiincr~ry and purpose of tr;i\el.
In Sc~tcniber. 1985.Teni submitied IO ihc United Siaics Missiun 111the LINa
standard form requesting authorization to travel to Massachusetts to participate
in the debate al the Harvard Law School. The United States Mission notified
Terzi that the State Department had denied his request. No reason for the denial
was given.
Prcvious to ihis deniïl. Terri had kcn itlloue10 iravcl ouiside ihe gcogr~phic
limitaiion on several occasion5 for pcrsonsl reason- or social @therings tlc was
allo\ied on one occasion i<itr~vclio Ma,rachuscits for 3 sumrncr Lacation. Each
tirne Terzi requested a travel permit for the purpose of speaking in public about
the politics of the Middle East or to participate in public political discussions,
however, il was denied. Terzi has not been allowed to accept such invitations to
Georgetown University, Rutgers University and the University of Virginia.
In opposition to the plaintifis' motion, the defendant has suhmitted the
declaration of Alan L. Keyes, Assistant Secretary of State for International
Organization Affairs. In his declaration, the Assistant Secretary sets forth the
United States' policy toward the PL0 generally and toward Terzi's travel
requests. The Assistant Secretary states that the United States has consistently
refused to recognize or negotiate with the PL0 as long as the PL0 does not
recognize Israel's right to exist and does no1accept certain UN Security Council
resolutions.
Our policy is designed to withhold legitimization of the PL0 until it has
satisfiedhese conditions. Consistent with this policy, Ourdiplomatic stralegy
has been aimed at discouraging other States from recognizing or otherwise
according legitimacy to the PL0 unless these conditions are met. If we were
to allow PL0 rnembers to travel freelv throurhout the United States
furthering their political agenda andattempting tibuild their political hase,
wewould undercut Ourpolicy of not lending legitimacy to that organization.
(Keyes Declaration, para. 5.)
With respect to Terzi specifically,the Assistant Secretary states that his travel
requests
have generally been granted when histravel was for personal business,family
visitalion, or other humanitarian reasons ...[and]have not been granted ...
when the purpose of his travel was to engage in political activity on behalf of
the PL0 ... The particular request al issue in this case, namely, Terri's CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 103
request 10 participate on October 31, 1985in the Harvard LawSchool Fomm
in Cambridge, Massachusetts, was denied based on thejudgrnent of respon-
sible officials in the Department of Stale that Terzi's appearance al that
function would have constituted political activity on behalf of the PLO.
(Keyes Dedaration, para. 12.)
In a suoolemental declaration. Assistant Secretarv Keves clariîied that when
assessingLhether a member of the PL0 Observer hiission is requesting a travel
waiver to participate in "political activity", the United States considers that the
category includes but is no1limited to public speaking:
Consistent with Ourpolicy of avoiding the appearance of legitimizingthe
PL0 until certain conditions are met, we subsume within "political activity"
any activity that would lendsupport, honor, recognition, or attention to the
PL0 member in his PL0 capacity, even where public speaking is not
involved. For examde. we would not erant a travel waiver for a PL0
oficial's request to ippear ai a fund.rais;ng dinner. to receivean auard. to
acccpt an Iionorür) degree. to pariicipsie in a rally or parade. or otherwise to
conduct PL0 business not relatcd to the UN. tKeyes Amended Declxration,
para. 10.)
The Harvard Law School Fomm hds now made arrangements for the Terzi-
Dershowitz debate to be held at Harvard Law School on April28, 1986,ifTerzi is
pennitted to travel 10 Cambridge. Plaintilïs bring their motion for a preliminary
injunction 10 enjoin the Secretary from prohibiting Terzi from participating in the
debate.
[Il The first issue presented by the Secretary's motion is whether plaintiff's
comolaint raisesa noniusticiable oolitical auestion. The Secretarv'sareument that
this&se is notjudisialiy re\iewable istwofbld. tirsi, heargues that thgexecutive's
decisions uith respect to the pnvileger and ireatment to be afordcd to foreign
officialsare no1reviewablekause ïhev raise ourelv oolitical auestions. Second.
he arnues that the soecificdecision at isiue in this case: the denial of Terzi'stravei
~~. -~~ ~~~~. -~ r - ~ ~~~ ~~~-~~ ~~. ~ ~~~~~ ~~, ~ ~ -
request, is a discretionary political matter, no1 subject to review under the
Supreme Court's landmark decision in Kleindiensr v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 92
The sec;etary contends thit &ause Tero is "the highest ranking oficial of the
PL0 in this ~ountry" the execuiive'sdecisions as to how to treat him are u,holly
political in characier and noi subject 10 judicial rcview. In the Supremc Coun's
leading case on the political question doctrine, the Court identifiedthe following
Factorsas essential to the finding of a political question:
Prominent on the surface of any case held to involvea political question is
found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue 10a
coordinate ooliiical deoartment: or a lack of iudiciallv discoverahle and
manageable' standards 'for resoiving il; or thé impos;ibility of deciding
without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial
discretion: or the imoossibilitv of a court's undertakine indeaendenïresolu-
lion wiihout exprcs;ing laci of ihc respect due coordinaie branches of
government, or an unusual need for unquestioning adherenu to a political
decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifari-
ous pronounc&ents by variaus deparïments on one question. (Baker v.
Carr, 369 U.S. 186,217, 82 S.Ct. 691, 710, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962).)104 APPLlCABlLlTY OF THE OBLlGAnON TO ARBITRATE
The Court then went on to say that unless one (or more) of the above
"formulations" wasinextricable from the issuein the case,the court should accept
jurisdiction.Id. The Court was careful 10 distinguish "political cases" from
"oolitical auestions". notine that courts cannot reiect "a bona fidecontroversv as
to whether'someaction de&minated 'political'exceedsconstitutional authoriiyn.
Id. See alsoTribe. American ConsrirulionaL lnw 75-76(1978).
The Secretam areues that the issue inthiscaseisa oolhical auestion because the
President, not.thc-judiciary, is charged with the ~uthonty'to mîke decisions
regarding the recognition of foreign governments and the nature of diplomatis
relations to beconducted with those novernments. The kcretam rioints 10Art. II.
5 2, cl. 2 and 8 3 of the ~onsti~ution (the power to appiint and receive
ambassadon) as the "textually demonstrable constitutional commitment" of the
issue to the executive.
It is well settled that the decision whether or not to recognize a ioreign
government or entity is a political question to be decided by the executive.
Chicago& SourhernAirlines v.WarermanSreamshipCorp., 333U.S. 103,68 S.Ct.
431, 92 L.Ed. 568 (1948); GuaranryTrusrCo. v. UniredSrares, 304 U.S. 126,58
S.Ct. 785, 82 L.Ed. 1224(1938). Similarly, the decision to establish diplornatic
relations with a foreign government or entity is a political question.Americans
Unitedfor Separarionof Churchand Siare v.Reagan, 786 F.2d 194,201-02 (3d
Cir.1986). However. this case does no1 involve a challenee to the recoenition.
nonrccogniiion or establishment of relations with a foreigngovernment o; entit)
The issue in this case is whether the Secrctary of Statr cün constitutiondlly deny
the tra\,cl request oa CN Observer on the basis <ifthe Observer's intention 10
participate in a political debüte with Americdn citizens. Although the Secretary's
proflcred reaion for dçn)ing the request in\olves the exmutive's policy of not
aflording recognition to the PLO, the case is not a challenge IO that policv. A
determination of the constitutionalitv of the Secretam's con&tionine of a waiver
of excludability under 8 U.S.C. 1182(d) does not impinge upon the executive's
conduct of foreign relations sim..y because the individual at issue is a member of
a nonrecognized foreign entity.
Moreover, despite the Secretary's argument to the contrary, Kleindiensr v.
Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 92 S.Ct. 2576, 33 L.Ed.2d 683 (1972) and its progeny
strongly indicate that this case is iudicially renewable. In Mandel, the Court
deteiined that whrre Congress had providcd a waiberprocedure in the statutory
rheme govcrning excludability of aliens. the courts could determine whether the
executive's decision not to grant such a waiver was supported by a "facially
legitimateand hona fide" reason. Id. at 767-770.92 S.Ct. at 2584-85.Altboueh the
court did not cxplintly dddress the politicîl question doctrine, thecax suegests
thdt the federal courts have some roleinenforcingconstitutional rcstrainw on the
executive'simplementation of the statutory scheme enacted by Congress. Id.
The lower courts have also rejected arguments that tbey are without the power
to hear First Amendment challenges to the executive'sdecision to excludealiens.
SeeAbourezk v. Reagun, 785 F.2d 1043(D.C.Cir.1986); Allende v. Shulrr,605
F.SUDD.1220(D.Mass.1985). In Allende.the court considered whether the issueof
excl~~ahility of aliens wa; cons~itutio~all~and historically bcstowed on the
political branches such thît judicial review was impermissible. The court con-
cludcd that ildid have iurisdiction over ol;iintiiis'First Amendment chiilleneesto
the exclusion of the widow of former Chilean President Salvador Allende.-
Although the United States Supreme Court has cbnsistently recognized
that the sensitiveand fluctuating nature of international relations dictates "a
narrow standard of reviewof decisionsmade by Congress or the President in CONTENTS OF JHE DOSSIER 10s
the area of immigration or naturalization", ...the Court has nevertheless
emohasized that the eovemment's oower in this area is no1entirelv immune
frok ludicial scrutin) The exer:ise of judicial review. though necessanly
Iimited in scope. is ptrticularly nppropnate in cdscs Iikethe one ai bar which
involve fundamental neht- of LlniiedStates citixens IAllrnde. ruora, ai 1223
(citations omilted).)
In Abourezk,the court of appeals also concluded that thejudiciary has a role in
reviewingthe executive's decisions in this area:
The Executive has broad discretion over the admission and exclusion of
aliens, but that discretion is no1 boundless. It extends only as far as the
statutory authority conferred by Congress and may no1transgress constitu-
tional limitations. It is the duty of the courts, in cases properly before them,
to say where those statutory and constitutional boundaries lie. (Abourezk,
supra, al 1061-62'.)
This case, which involves plaintiffs'First Amendment rights to participate in a
debate with an individual who is ~rohibited bv the Secretarv from travelinp.
ouiside ï confincd geogr~phisareï l'orthe purpme of engaging in political actibity
is indistinguishablc from the exclusion cases cited ahove. In eïch of these cases.
the rouri concluded thït it did h3!e a Iimited role in determinine whethçr the
..nial o~ ~ ~a~ver ofex~ ~ ~ ~l~ ~ ~as constitut~~nal. 1conclude thai thecourt in
this case has a similar role in determining whether the conditions imposed on the
waiversgranted hy the executive are constitutional. Accordingly, the case willno1
be dismi<sedon the basis that il presents a nonjusticiable pditical question
MotionJor Preliminary Injunction
[2]Turning to the merits, plaintiîïs would beentitled to a preliminary injunction
if they could show that (1) they willsufferirreparable harm if the injunction isno1
granted; (2) such harm outweighs any harm that granting injunctive relief would
cause the defendant; (3) plaintiffs will most likely succeed on the merits; and (4)
the public interest willno1be adversely affected by the granting of the injunction.
Agency Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Conno-v, 686 F.2d 1029, 1034(1st Cir.1982).
The Se~~etarv contends that the olaintiffs cannot show either irreoarable harm
or ï Iikelihoodof,uccess on the ments.The Secrctdry'sargunient 3sto irreparable
injury can be quickly dimis5ed. A 105sof First Amendmeni freedoms conslitutes
irreoarïble iniur!. Muccrru 5. I'dndn.649 t 2d R. 181Isi Cir 19811Icitine Elrvdv.
BUA S27 ~:~..347, 373, 96 S.& 5673, 2689.9'0,49 L.Ed.2d 5&'(197g)).
The question as to whether plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success
on the merits is more complicated. Framed in statutory terms, the question is
whether 8 U.S.C. 8 1182(d)(6), providing that the Attorney General shall
prescribe conditions for excludable aliens whose exclusion is waived under 8
U.S.C. 5 1182(d)(3), is unconstitutional as applied here in that il deprives
plaintiffs of freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment'.
(31Before answering this question, however, il is necessary to determine the
applicable legal standard. The Secretary suggests that if any judicial review is
individuals andno1 a foreign officialshorllrepresentative.This distinctionis îactually
inaccuratewithrespfft to Aboureik. whichwncemed the exclusionof TomasBorge,the
Interior Minirtcrof Nicaragua,amongothers. Abourezk.supra. a1 1048.Moreover.the
distinctionis untenablebecauseindividualswho haveofficialgovernmenlal or organiza-
iionalduticsmayalsospeak asprivateindividuals andnot ina representativecapacity.
TheplaintiKsdo notclaimthat Terri's constitutionarlightshave been violated.106 APPLlCABlLlTY OF Tm OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE
permiisihls, thcn only illeIimiicdrcvieu wi forth in .lfu~i<lrilsappropnate. 1agree.
Thc Af~rndesltandard is iippropriatcl) employed hcre io test the consiiiuiion31-
itv of the Secretarv's actions because the conditions imoosed on Terzi are the
c~uiviiieni of denjing him entq inio ihr country io accepi ïn invitation io
participaie in a dcbate in Camhridgc. SinceAmerican citizenscould challenge the
Aitornry Gcncr~l'sdecirion not io uai\c hi5 exclusion under thc .Vu~iilrlsiandard
ifTcri hnd hecncniircly cxcludcd, thai standard is the appropnïie une by uhich
IO memure conditions uhich produce ihr samc rtsult for piaintiîïs in this c~se'
In firtidc4, the Couri hcld that uhcrc ihc exccuiiverefuses io u,aivcan alien's
excludability "on the basis ofa facially legitimateand bona fidereason, the courts
willneither look behind the exerciseof that discretion, nor test it by balancing its
justification against the First Amendment interests of those who seek personal
communication with the aoolicant". Mandel. suora.408 U.S. al 770. 92 S.Ct. al
2585.The governmeni'i proffercdrea\on iurde&ing a uaiwr to Mandel was that
hc hÿd prcviou\ly ïbuscd iuch wai~ersby gtiingbe)ond his staicd iiincrar). Id. at
769.92 S.CI.ai 2585.The Court round ihai [hi, reîson uas I'aciîll)le.iri-ateand
bona fide. Id.
In Allende,Chief Judge Caiïrey explained how Mandelhas been interpreted:
The lower federal courts have interpreted Mandel to require the Govern-
ment to provide a justification for an alien's exclusion whenthat exclusionis
challenged by United States citizens asserting constitutional claims. E.g.,
Burrafato v. UniredBates, 523F.2d 554, 556(2nd Cir.1975),cerr.denied424
U.S. 910, 96 S.Ct. 1105,47 L.Ed.2d 313 (1976); Abourezk v. Reagan, 592
F.Supp. 880,881 (D.D.C.1984). The lineof precedents from the lowercourts
further reveals that the explanation given must be "facially legitimate and
bona fide" not only in the general sense, but also within the context of the
specificstatutory provision on which the exclusion is based. See Abourezk,
592 F.Supp. 880; El-Werfalli v. Smith, 547 F.Supp. 152 (S.D.N.Y. 1982);
NGO Commirree on Disormament v. Haig, No. 82 Civ. 3636, slip op.
(S.D.N.Y. June 10, 1982)affd, 697 F.2d 294 (2d Cir.1982).
Allrn~lr.slipruai 1224 1consur in thi ChicfJudgc's rcadingof thecasesfollowing
MufiJel.The Secrctar) ir oblig:d to jusiify the dcnial oiTerïi's travel requeqiwiih
s iaciallvIceiiimaieand bona fidereasun in the faceoi~laintiiï's asscnion of thcir
First A&e<dment rights Io participate in a dehate wiih Terzi.
The justification the Secretary offers for the denial of Terzi's travelrequest is
that if the Secretary wereto allow Terzi to participate in political activity outside
of the limitedarea in whichhe isoresentlvallowedto travel and oubliclvsoeak. he
u,ould bc undcrmining the 1lnit;d ~tdtc? p<ilii) ol not lendin~lrgiii~ac') to ihr
PL0 Thu\, the Sccreiary sonccdes thai hi. rcJson is hascd on Tcrzi's propo,cd
oarticioation in a oolitical debate with American citizens.
Alt(ough ihc Skrciary's rîason appean tu be bona fidc. il is noi faiially
lcpiiimïic. The Suretary's justification ir dirccily rclaied io ihc supprr~sion of a
poliiicïl debatc wiih Amencan ciiizens.If ~lûintiiï>in ihis casedesired io intcract
with Terzi ina social setting; the ~ecretariwould allow such interaction. Because
they desireto hear his viewson the politicsof the Middle East in a political fomm,
' Whetherplaintiffshave access to Terzi'sideas through alternativemeans, such as
books,,prn.hcs.Wp-s uriilcphonîhooku s irrelevant 10ihr.I:irAmendmeniinquiry in
thircasc.As theCourtnuicd in Alondel .ilhi;argumento\erluuk, uhdi may bcp~niiular
aualiiicsinhcrcniinsud~lnnl.face-IO-hcc dehdic.diw'us,iun anilauesiioninr". M~ndpl.
supra.408 U.S.al 785.92S.Ct.ai 2583.Seealso,~bourezk v.~engm:592F.SU~~ .1
(D.D.C.1984). CONTENTSOF THE DOSSIER IO7
thev are denied access Io him. The Secretary's decision on the travel reauest at
issue is therefore based on the content of the dixusaions and invrüctiofi Terzi
would have uilh lhose outsidc the geographic limitation.The Secretary's actions
are comnletelv ai odds with the First Amendmeni's proteciion of political debate
and ou; "naiional commitment Io the principle that dehate on public issues
should be uninhibited, robust and wide open, and that il may well include
vehernent,caustic, and sometimes uripleasantlysharp attackson government and
public officiais"New York Times v. Sullivan,376U.S. 254,270,84 S.Ct. 710,721,
Il L.Ed.2d 686 (1964).
The speech al issue in this case is at the heart of what was intended to be
protected by the First Amendment:
Whatever differencesmay exist about interpretations of the First Amend-
ment, there is practically 'niversal agreemeni that a major purpose of that
Amendment wasto protect the freediscussion of governmental affairs. (Mills
v.Alabama, 384 U.S.214, 218, 86S.CI. 1434, 1437,16L.Ed.2d 484 (1966).)
This speech is no less protected because the listeners' and debater's Fint
Ameridmciit rights are asserted. Mandel, supra, 4138U.S. at 762-65. 92 S.Ct. at
2581-83.The Secretary's proffered reason for denyingTerzi'stravel request is not
facially legitimate because it is relatIO the suppression of protected political
discussion.Accordingly.even under the limited reviewcontemplated by Mandel, 1
conclude that it is likely that the Secretary'sactions wbeladjudged unconstitu-
tional.
Finally, 1must consider the balancing of the public interest. It may wellbe that
the public interest will,in some respect, be adverselyaffectedby aiiording a forum
to a PL0 representative whose policies are in conflict with those of the United
States and indeed are anathema to many citizens.The public interest in preserving
free and open debate on preciselysuch subjects, however, must beregarded as of
ovenvbelrningpriority, as mandated by the First Amendment, and as being at the
hean of our survival as a free people.
Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is Allon,ed. The Secretary's
motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment is Denied.
Part III.Materials Relevant to the United Nations Headquarters Agreement
1. LegislariveWis1or.voftheHeadquartersAgreemenl
(78) Report of the Preparatory Commission of the United Nations, 1945
C: DRAFT TREATY 'W BE CONCCLUDED BY THE UNITED NATIONS WlTH THE UNITED
STATES OF *MERICA FOR THE LOCATION OF THE HEADQUARTERSOF THE UNlTED
NATIONS
This draft convention is trînsmiited by the Preparatory Commission sc a
working paper for the General Assembly. See Recommcndütion 4 of Chaptcr X
The General Assembly of the United Nations decided by resolulion of
......January, 1946,Io establish the permanent seat of the Organization in the
United States of America, and to conclude a treaty with the United States of108 APPLICABILITY OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE
America. The Coneress of the United States of America. hv Joint Resolution of
.......Januar).. 1946,ÿpprovcd by the I'rcbident.dgreed to ihc establishment of
the permanent seat of the United Nations in the United States of America. and to
the concluiion of î trcatv with the United Nations. The Sccretarv-General of
the United Nations, MI. .................an.d MI. .................h...e been
authorized to sign this treaty on behalf of the United Nations and the United
States of Amenca respectively.
Article 1
The permanent seat of the United Nations shall be the area marked pink on the
annexed map, situated ...................ditions may bemade later to this area
in accordance with the provisions of Article 22. In this treaty the expression
"zone" means this area, together with any additions to il.
Article 2
The United States of Amenca undcrtakes (on iheentry into force of this treaty)
io vcsiin the Unitcd Nations the full vwncrship 01'311land in the zone and of al1
huildingr situated thercon a1 the momeni of transler
Article 3
The United Nations shall have exclusive rights over the subsoil of land
conveyed toit and in particular the nght to make any constructions underground
and to obtain therefrom water supplies. It shall not, however, have the right to
exploit minerais.
Article 4
The United States of America shall be responsible for expropriating and
compensating so far as necessary al1interests in the land and buildings conveyed
to the United Nations.
Article 5
Havine reeard to Article 2 above. the United Nations shall oav to the United
States oi~Gerica a Gir price for any land and buildings &;e;ed, whichsum
shall be credited to the United States of America in the accounts of the United
Nations and be set OBaeainst contributions due from the United States of
America. In default of a&eement, the price shall be detennined by an expert
selected by the President of the International Court of Justice.
Article6
The United Nations zone, including the air space above it, shall be inviolable.
Article7
The zone shall be entirely under the control and authority of the United
Nations.
Article8
Without prejudice to the generality of Article 7,the United States of America
has no jurisdiction over any questions relating to entry in the zone and the
conditions under which persons may remain or reside there, or any questions
relating to the construction or removal of buildings in the zone. CONTENTSOF THE DOSSIER 109
Article9
Officers or officiaisof any authonty in the temtory of the United States of
America whether administrative, judicial, military or police, shall not enter the
zone to perform any officialduties therein except withthe permissionof and under
conditions agreed hy the Secretary-General. The service of civil legal process,
including the seinire of private property, shall take place within the zone under
conditions approved by the Secretary-General.
Subject to Article 12,the lawof the United States of Amenca shall apply within
the zone and in particular the ordinary civil andcnminal law.
Arricle II
The courts of the United States of Amenca shall (without prejudice to any
provisions of the Annex to this treaty and eventually of the General Convention
relating to immunities) have jurisdiction over acls done or transactions taking
place in the zone in the same manner as they have over similaracts or transactions
taking place outside the zone.
Article 12
The United Nations may, however, enact regulations for the zone, excluding
the application of panicular provisions of the lawof the United States of Amenca
and making provisions of an administrative character for the zone.
Arlicle 13
The courts of the United States of Amenca when dealing with casesansing out
of acts done or transactions taking place in the zone or relating thereto shall take
cognizance of the regulations hy the United Nations under Article 12 above,
though they shall no1 be obliged to inflict penalties for infraction of regulations
made by the United Nations unless the United States of Amenca has agreed to
these regulations before the infraction was committed.
Arricle 14
Persons accredited to the United Nations bv Members as oermanent Iresident)
represe"ca~ivesand th& staffs, whether resid:ng inside or ohde the zone, shali
be recognized by the United States of Amenca as entitled on ils territory to the
same oivileees and immunities as the United States of Amenca accords to the
diplo&atic &voys and their staffs accredited to the Government of the United
States of Amenca.
Arlicle 15
The United States of America undertakes to ensure on equitahle terms the
provision of necessarypublic services 10the zone including electncity, water, gas,
post, telephone, telegraph, drainage and collection of refuse. If there is any
difficultyin agreeing upon the terms, the question shall be decided by an expert
appointed by the President of the International Court of Justice.
Article 16
The United States of America undertakes to guarantee at al1limes adequate
means of communication between the zone and the limits of the territory of the APPLlCABlLlTY OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE
110
United States of America both for the passage of persons and the transmission of
corres~ondence and telegrams and the transport of goods required for use and
consukption in the zone.
Article 17
Representatives of the Members, irrespective of the relations existing between
their Government and the Government of the United States of America, and
officiaiof the Organization, and specialized agencies, and their families, shall al
al1times enjoy the right of unimpeded and safe transit over the territory of the
United States of America to and from the zone for the purpose of taking part in
the Organization's work.
Article 18
The accredited representatives of the press, radio and films, and of non-
governmental organizations recognized hy the United Nations for the purpose of
consultation, shall enjoy the nghts referred to in Article 17.
Article 19
Immigration regulations and oiher regulaticmsrcgarding reridcnce of foreigners
in force in the Uniicd States of Americd shîll noi he applied in suih a manner as
10 inierfçre with the riahts referrcd in Articles 16. 17and 18 Any \ira< requ~rcd
shall be granted without charge, without delay, and without Ïequirement of
personal attendance for the issue of the visa.
Article 20
The United States of America shall give facilities for the issue of visa10. and
for the use of the availablemeans of transport by, persons coming from abroad
who desire to visit the zone.
Article 21
Nothing in the preceding paragraphs shall prevent the Government of the
United States of Amenca from taking precautions in the interests of national
secunty provided that such precautions shall no1have the elïect of inlerfering with
the nghts referred 10in Articles 16, 17 and 18.
Article22
The United Nations may establish ils own radio telegrsph sending and
receivine stations iincludine broadcastine. teletme and teleohoto services). The
United Nations shaii makgarrangemen& with-Chelnternahonal ~elecokmuni.
cations Union with regard to wavelengths and other similar matters.
Article 23
The United States of America undertakes al the request of the Secretary-
General, acting in pursuance of a resolution of the General Assembly, 10 vest in
the United Nations full ownership over such further land as may be required for
the purpose of constructing an airport, railway station or radio telegraphic station
or forsuch other purposes as may be required by the United Nations. Such land
whenconveyed to the United Nations shall fom part of the United Nations zone.
The provisions of Articles 3, 4 and 5 shall apply 10 land so conveyed. CONITNTS OF THE DOSSIER 111
Article 24
ln the event of the land conveyed in accordance with Article 23 not king
contiguous to the remainder of the United Nations zone, the United States of
America shall guarantee Creecommunication and transit between the parts of the
zone.
Article 25
The United States of Amenca shall provide on the houndaries of the zone such
police protection for the zone as is rcquired and shall be responsible for ensuring
that the tranquility of the zone is no1 disturbed by the unauthorized entry of
persons from outside, or by disturbance in ils immediate vicinity
Article 26
If so requested by the Secretary-General, the United States of America
undertakes to orovide a sufficient niimber ofoolice to ~erform duties inside the
zone for the pkservation of law and order theiein and fbr the removal ofpersons
who have committed or are suspected of having committed or being likely to
commit offences.
Article 27
The United States of America undertakes to take the necessary steps to insure
that the amenities of the zone and the purposes for which il is required are no1
prejudiced or obstructed by any use of the land in ils vicinity.
Wiihout prcjudirc IO the probisions in Annex I of ihis trent) and subscqucntly
of thc Gcnerdl Convcniion reldting io the immunities oi otficials of the Uniicd
Nations and the represcntJiivcs of Members. ihc United Nations shall not permit
the zone to becoméa refuee for oersons who are avoidine arrest under thelaw of
the United States of ~rn;nca O; are requirrd by the Gtvernmeni of the Uniird
States of Amenca, for exiradiiion nor for person, who are cndeavouring to avoid
service of civil legal process
Article 29
The Secretary-General and the Government of the United States of America
shall settle by agreement the channels through %,hichcorrespondence relating to
the application of the different provisions of tbis treaty and other questions
affecting the zone shall be conducted. If the Secretary-General so requests, the
Government of the United States of America shall appoint a specialrepresentative
for the purpose of liaison with the Secretary-General.
Article30
Any differences between the Secretary-General and the United States of
America conçeming the interpretation or application of this treaty or of any
supplementary agreement or arrangements which are not settled by negotiation
may he referred for arbitration to an umpire appointed for the purpose by the
President of the International Court. of Justice.112 APPLICABILITYOF THE OBLICAnON TO ARBITRATE
Article 31
Either party mdy ask the General Assembly IO request of the lnternational
Court of Justice an advisory opinion on any legalquestion of general importance
arising in the course of the proceedings referred to in Article 30. Pending the
receipt of the opinion of the International Court of Justice, an interim decision of
an umpire shall be observed by both parties.
Arricle 32
Until half the Members of the United Nations have~r~ ~f-ed the Ge~~ ~l
Convention meniioncd in h~icle 32, the pro\irions set out in Anner ltothis
treaiy shall apply betuecn the United Nations and lhs Ilnitcd Siates of America
~hereafter. these nrovisions shall be reolaced bv the ~rovisions of the General
convention, and ihe provisions of the ~eneral convention shall be complemen-
tary Io the provisions of this treaty.
Article 33
If any provision of this treaty and any provision of the General Convention
mentioned in Article 32 relate to the same subject-matter, the two provisions shall
he treated as complementary so that hoth provisions shall be applicable and
neilher shall narrow the effect of the other, provided that if the provisions are in
ahsolute conflict, the provisions of this treaty shall prevail.
Article 34
This treaty shall hind both parties as soon as the Government of the United
States of America notifies the Secretary-General that it has al1 the powers
necessary Io fulfil ils provisions and the Secretary-General has deposited an
instrument of ratification with the Government of the United States of America.
The Governmcnt of thr Unitcd States of America shall takc e\cr>.possible step to
enable ilIo givethe notification as suon as possibleand in an) case nul latcr than.
Article 35
This treaty shall remain in force as long as the seat of the United Nations is
maintained in the territory of the United States of America.
Article 36
The seat of the United Nations shall only be removed (rom the territory of the
United States of America if the United Nations should so decide.
Article 37
If the seat of the United Nations is removed from the United States of America,
the United States of America shall pay to the United Nations an equitahle sum for
the land in the zone and for al1buildings and installations thereon. An expert
named by the President of the International Court of Justice shall decide. in
dehult ofagreement betueen the parties. whlrtsum isequiiahlr, hai,ing regard Io
the then talue Io lhç United States of America of the lands and of the buildings
and installalions as uell as IO the iust incurrcd b) the Cnitcd Nationr inacquiring
land and in erecting buildings and installations MNTENE OF THE DûSStER
Annex
Arficle 1
The United Nations shall possess fulljuridical personality and in particular, the
capacity :
(1) to contract;
(2) to acquire and dispose of immovahle and movable property;
(3) to institute legal proceedings.
Article2
The United Nations, ils properiy and its assets, wherever located and by
whomsoeverheld, shall enjoy immunity from every form ofjudicial processexcept
to the extent that it expressly waivesits immunity forthe purpose of any particular
proceedings or by the lems of any particular contract.
Article3
The premises or the United Nations shall be inviolable. The property and assets
of the Uniied Nations. uhewver lociiredand hg whomsocverheld,shïll k immune
from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and from any other fom of
seinire, whether by executive, administrative or legislativeaction or othenvise.
Article 4
The archives of the United Nations and in general al1documents, belonging 10
it or held by il, shall be inviolable wherever located.
Article5
Without king restricted by financial controls, regulations or moratoria of any
kind
(1) the United Nations may hold funds or currency of any kind and
operate accounts in any currency;
(2) the United Nations shall be free to transfer ils funds from one state 10
another or within any state and to convert any currency held by it in10any
other currency.
Article 6
In exercisine its rieht under Article 3 above the United Nations shall have
-
regdrd to any representations by the naiion;il authonties of any Mernkr in so far
as etTectcati hc given IO the represcniîiions uiihoui detnment io the financial
interests of the Oiganization
Article 7
The United Nations, its assets, income and other property shall be:-
(1) exempt from al1direct taxes, it being understood, however, that the
United Nations cannot claim exemotion from charees for servicesrendered:
(2) exempt lrom customs dutics in respect of articles imported by the
United Nations Tor115otiisial useînd in respect of publications issuedil, II
kine understood. however. that articles im~orted free of customs dutv will
not -k sold in the state into which they were imported except under
conditions agreed with the authorities of that state.114 APPLlCABlLlTY Of THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE
Arricle8
While the United Nations does no1 in principle claim exemption from sales
taxcs and exciseduiies. which form part of ihe pnce of goods &Id, neverihcless
whcn the Uniied Nations is making large purchases for official use of goods on
uhich \uch iaxes and duiics have been chïrgcd or are chargeable. the United
States of Amenca, wherever possible, make appropriate admrnistrative arrange-
ments for the remission or return of the amount of duty or tax.
Article9
The communications of the United Nations shall enjoy treatment not less
favourable than that accorded by the United States of America to any of its
Members in the matter of: franking privileges; priorities, rates and taxes on
cables. tele~rams.radioarams. teleohotos, and telephone communications: use of
codrs. andCouners and-pouches; and press raies for information to the press and
rîdios. uhen originîting with or addresscd to the Sccrr.tary-Generaland the hrdd,
of ihr spccidlized arensies. or ihcir duly auihorized deputics. No censorthip or
delays shallapply t'the transmission of-the correspondence and communica~ons
of the United Nations.
Article 10
Representatives of Members to the organs of the United Nations and to
conferences convened by the United Nations shall be accorded, while exercising
their functions and during their journey to and from the place of meeting, the
following facilities, privilegesand immunities:
(1) immunity from legal process ofany kind;
(2)immunity from immigration restrictions, alien registration and national
service obligations;
(3) facilitiesas regards exchange restrictions no1lessfavourable than those
accorded by the United States of Amenca to diplomatic representatives of
the Governments of Members;
(4) immunities and facilities as regards their personal baggage not less
favourable than those accorded by the United States of America to diplo-
matic representatives of the Governments of Members.
Arricle II
As J mcans of secunng compleie frecdom of speech and independence in the
diwharge of their duiies, the represcniatives of Mcmbers io ihc organs of the
United Ndiions and to confcrcnccs convened by the Uniied Nations shall be
accorded immunity from legal process in respect of al1 acts done and words
spoken or written by them in the discharge of their dulies.
Article 12
The provisions of Article 10(1) and (2)and of Articlc 1I ciinnot be in\,oked by
any ciiilrn of the Uniicd Siaics of Ameriiï againsi the auihonties of ihc United
States of America
Article13
In Articles 10,11and 12"representatives" includesal1representatives, alternate
representatives, advisers, technical advisers, and persons of similar status. CONTENTSOF THE DOSSIER
Article 14
AI1officials' of the United Nations shall:
(1)be immune from legalprocess with respectta acts performed hy them in
their officialcapacity;
(2) be exempt from taxation on the salaries and emoluments paid 10them
by the Oraanization;
.(3) be immune from national service obligations;
(4) he immune, together with their spouses and minor children, from
immigration restrictions and alie'nregistration;
(~, -~ accorded exchanee facilities no less favourable than those accorded
to the oficials of comparable ranks of the Governments of other Members;
(6) be given together with their spouses and minor children repatriation
faciiities iot less Favourable than those accorded to diolomatic reoresenta-
tives in lime of international cnsis.
Article 15
In addition to the immunities in Article 14the Secretary-General, al1Assistant
Secretaries-General, their spouses and minor children shall be accorded the
privileges and immunities, exemptions and facilities accorded to diplomatic
envovs. their soouses and minor children in accordance with international law.
but ;hall not bé entitlcd io invoke before ihe couris orthc state of which thcy arc
naiionals immunity.from legalproccss as regards maiters no1connected wiih their
officialduties
Article 16
United Nations passports issued hy the Organization ta its officials and to
comparable officials of specialized agencies shall be given treatment no1 less
favourahle than that accoÏded bv the United States of ~merica 10o. .oorts issued
hy Members.
Article 17
Aoolications for visas from the holders of United Nations oassports, when
accimpanied hy a ceriifisaie ihat ihcy arc tra\,ellingon the bu,inéssoithe Cnited
Nations. shall be dcalt with with the minimum ofdclay. In addition they shall hc
granted facilities for speedy travel.
Article 18
Similar facilitiesto those specifiedinArticle 17shall be accorded to experts and
other oersons who. thouah not officialsof the United Nations, have a cerlificate
that they are travelling in the business of the Organization
Article 19
The Secretary-General, Assistant Secretanes-General, and Directors travelling
on United Nations passports on the businessof the Organization shall be granted
the same facilities as are accorded diplomatic envoys.
' By thisworditisintendedtocovcral1ranksoftheSecretariatand al1thosewho haveto
make thedeclaralionof loyaltyto theOrganization(ChapterVIII.section3,Regulation2).
but no1to inctudelocalemployees,suchas officecleaners,motor cardrivers,etc.116 APPLICABILITY OF THE OBLIGATION IO ARBITRATE
Arricle20
Privileges and immunities are granted to officials in the interests of the
Organization and not for the benefit of the officials themselves.The Secretary-
General shall waivethe immunity of any officialif, in his opinion, the immunity
can be waived without prejudide to the interests of the United Nations.
Article21
The United Nations shall CO-operateat aJltimes withthe appropriate authori-
ties of the United States of America to facilitate the proper administration of
justice, secure the execution of police regulations and prevent the occurrence of
any abuse in connection with the immunities and facilities provided for in this
Annex. In particular the Secretary-General shall ensure that the drivers of al1
officialmotor carsof the United Nations and al1officialswho own or drive motor
cars shall be properly insured against third party risks.
Arricle22
The United Nations shall make provision for appropriate modes of settlement
of:
(1) disputes arising out of contracts or other disputes of a private law
character to which the United Nations is a party;
(2)disputes involvingany officialof the United Nations, who hy reason of
his officialposition enjoys immunity, if the immunity has not been waived hy
the Secretary-General.
(79) Resolution XIII. 6 B. relatinn to neeotiation
with the compel'entauthoritiis of the United
States of America concerning the arrange-
ments required as a resull of the es1ablishmen1
ofthe seat of the United Nations in the United
States of America and tex1of a draft conven-
tion to be transmitted as a basis of discussion
for these discussions, adopted by the General
Assembly, 13February 1946'
(80) Proposed United States Comments upon Convention Between the United
Nations and the Government of the United States Rerarding Arranrements for
the Permanent ~ead~uarteri
(Square brackets indicate matter to he deleted. Underscoring indicates matter to
be added. Comments are identified hy footnote numbers correspondinr to those
placed in textwhere changes are proposed. There are also additional iumbered
comments not relating to specificproposed changes.)
Prepared in Division of Iniernational Organization Afiairs Department of
State, May 18, 1946.
' Document no1reproduced. [Nore by theReplsrry.] CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 117
Theattached is a working paper prepared for use in the Department of State. It
is not a nr~,o~ ~ ~ade ~v~,he United Stat~~ ~o the United Nations. In the course
ofnegotiations. thc Cnitcd States ma) uiihdrau sny suggestirinsçoniained tiersin
and nia! rniikeadditional suggestions. Subsequcnt IO duplis;iiion of the document
undsr date of May 18. IIhas ken re\~sed as indicnicd bv ink corrections and
typed inserts. ai 23,'1946.
Article III
LAW AND AUTHORITY IN THE ZONE
Section 10
[The zone, including the air spacc above it and the subsoil below il, shall be
iniiolable.] .
The officialpremises shall have the same inviolability as is accorded to foreign
embassies in the United States.
Corrrmen:r
(1) Inviolability would seem to bc needed only for the "official premises" (as
defined in Section 1)as distinct from other premises owned by the United Nations
or privately owned premises within the zone.
(2) The term "inviolable" standing alone is too vague: Even if ils technical
meaning is established, it is susceptible to popular misunderstanding. The
suggested wording has the advantage of making use of a body of laws and
customs which isfairly welldefined. It would also tend to allay the public fear that
land occupied by the United Nations would in effect be ceded by the United
States.
(3) This section should be read in the light of Section 3 of the General
Convention which provides that "The premises of the United Nations shall be
inviolable. The property and assets of the United Nations, wherever located and
by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation,
expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive, adminis-
trative, judicial or legislative action."
[Save as otherwise provided in this convention, the zone shall be under the
control and authority of the United Nations.]'
Comment:
(1) This section seems inconsistent with Section 15 which states that the law
of the United States shall apply to the zone. Moreover, the other sections
of Article III specify the control and authority which the United Nations is to
have over the official premises and the rest of the zone. Residual authority
should be in the United States. It is suggested, therefnre, that this section be
omitted.118 APPLICABILITY OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE
Section 12
IWithout oreiudice to the eeneralitv of Section II. the Government of the
~iited tat tifsAmerica reniunces jksdiction over any matters relating to]'
The Secretary-General may control entry into the officialpremises [the zone] and
prescr hbeconditions under which persons may remain or reside there. [and
over any matters relating 10 the construction or removal of buildings in the
zone.]'
Comment:
(1) Language such as the United States "renounces jurisdiction" should be
avoided. There is no objection, however, to stating the Secretary-General's
authority to control entry to the officialpremises.
As a practical matter it is doubtful if this section is necessary except for
whatever efect it may have to reassure the United Nations. The rights of a
property owner in the United States in combination with the inviolability of
premisesgranted hy Section 10would seem10givethe United Nations everything
which this section seeksto give with respect10the officialpremises. There should
be no right of exclusionfrom the rest of the zone.
(2) The provision relating to construction and removal of buildings is ade-
quately covered hy Sections 16and 16a.
Section13
[Officersor official! of any authority in the territory of the United States of
America, whether administrative, iudicial. military. or police. shall not enter the
zone 10oerform anv officialdutiesiherein excentGith théo,missi~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~d~ ~-~
conditions agreed by the Secretary-Gencral.~l;e scrviceof lcgalprocess. including
the seirure of pnvatc properly, shall take place u,ithin the zone under conditions
approved by Ïhe Secretary-General.]
Comment
This section maybe omitted as it is covered by the redraft of Section 10and by
Section 14.
In lieu of the ahove section, this would seeman appropriate place to insert a
section reservingthe right to innocent passage hy air and the useand maintenance
of transoortation. communication and other oublic utilitv facilities which mav
traverse'the zone; as follows: CONTENTSOF THE DOSSIER 119
Secrion14
Without prejudice ta the provisions which are contained in [Appendix II and
subsequently in]' the General Convention referred to in Section 13g,,and
which relate to the immunities ofofficiaiof the United Nations and of the
representatives of Members, the United Nations shall not permit theofficial
remises 10becomea refugeeither for persons who are avoiding arrest under the
hhe United States of America or are required hy the Government of the
United States for extradition to another country, or for perçons who are
endeavoring to avoid service of legal process. including the seizure of private
m3
Comment:
(1) This is to conform to the change suggested in Section 32.
(2) Since.under the suggestionsmade above, the officialpremises wouldbe the
only area that is inviolable, this section can be so limited.
(3) Seecomment under Section 13.
Section15
[Suhject to Section 161Except as othenvise provided in this Convention,' the
law of the United States of America shall apply within the zone (includinglhe
officialpremises), and in particular the ordinary civil and criminal law.
Comment:
(1) This change clearly leaves United States law in eiïect until such time as the
United Nations may haveacted withiii the scopeof theauthority which isgranted
to ii not only hy Section 16but by other provisions of this agreement.
(2) See comment under Section I1.
The United Nations may enact administrative regulations [making provisions
of an administrative character for the zone] governing the conduct of perçons
while in the official premises.'.' [Any such regulation shall prevail over any
nrovisions in the law of the United States of America which are inconsistent with
and no form of racial discrimination shall bemitted
Wiih respect io ihdt part of the zone whish does-noi con\tiiutc thc-
prcXiscs.IIis rccoyni~cdthdt there should hLtappgm-spri>vi\ionsuithrespect
iojhe ercciion unsu building\.the esiablishnicnt of commercial enterpriscs,Jhe120 APPLICABlLlN Of ME OBLIGATIO NO ARBITRATE
laying of new streets, and similar matters pertaining to zoning, in order to protect
-
Comment:
In addition to acquiring further land under Section 3 and the various privileges
accorded elsewhere inthis agreement and the General Convention, it would seem
that some sort of zoning protection is probably the only privilege which the
United Nations needs with respect 10 that part of the zone which does not
constitute officialpremises.
Section 17
The federal, state, and local' courts of the United States of America shall,
[without prejudice to any provisions of Appendix II and subsequently of the
General Convention referred &in Section 32,)' have jurisdiction over acts done
and transactions taking place in the officialpremises and the zone, in the same
manner as they have over similar acts and transactions taking place outside the
zone.
Comment
(1) Change made to specifythe courts, in lieuof definition in Section 1of term
"courts of the United States of America".
(2) Omitted as unnecessary.
Section 18
The federal, state and localL courts of the United States of America, when
dealing with cases arising out of or relating to acts done or transactions taking
place in the zone, shall take cognizance of the regulations enacted by the United
Nations under Section 16,' though they shall not be obliged to inilictpenalties for
infraction of such regulations [unless the Govemment of the United States of
America has agreed to these regulations] except as may be provided by laws or
regulations adopted by the appropriale American authorities.'
-
Comment:
(1) Change made to specify the courts in lieu of deliniiion in Section I
(2) ItISnoi clcar what is mçoni by the phrase "iake cognizance". This rçquires
furiher ex~loration.Ilis Juubiful whether this sectionianecesrary ai rll. If the
United ~àtions does no1 need any sanction for its own regulations other than
expulsion and exclusion from the zone, Section 17 would seem to make al1
necessary provision with respect to jurisdiction of American courts.
(3) If this section shoubeconsidered necessary,it should be made clear that
the only penalties imposed by American courts should be those prescribed by
American law. Article IV
COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSITTO AN0 FROM THE ZONE
Section 19
The [Government of the United States of Amenca] appropriate American
authonties' shall [guarantee at al1times adequate means of] at no lime impose
any impediments to transit or2 communication to and from the zone, as well as
between any non-contiguous parts of the zone3 through the territory of the
United States of Amenca, for the passage of persons having business with the
United Nations, the transmission of postal correspondence and telegrams,and the
transport of goods required for use and consumptionin the officlalpremisesor bl
the United Nations elsewhere in the zone.
Comment:
(1) To conform to change proposed in Section 1.
(2)It is felt that a "guarantee" would be too sweeping an undertaking. The
obligation to impose no impediments, plus the obligation under Section 28 Io
provide protection comparable 10 that afforded to agencies of the United States
Govemment should suffice.
(3)The reference to non-contiguous parts of the zone incorporates part of the
subject-matter of Section 9.
Section 20
[Representativesof Members, irrespectiveof the relations existingbetween their
Government and the Government of the United States of Amenca, officiaisboth
of the United Nations and of the specialized agencies, and the families of these
representatives and oficials, shall al aII times enjoy the right of unimpeded and
safe' transit through theterntory of the United States of Americato and from the
zone.]
Comment:
This section seemsta add nothing to Section 19,unless "safe transit" implies a
guarantee of physical safety, which should not he undertaken. If referenceto the
irrelevance of relations between Member Governments and the United States is
deemed necessary, it could be included in Section 19.
Comment:
(1) Without the suggested change some question mighl anse as 10who was 10
do the "accrediting" referred to, e.g., pnvate agencies, national governments, or122 APPLICABILIT OF THE OBLlGAnON TO ARBITRATE
the United Nations itself. It isunderstood that the drafters intended accrediting to
be by the United Nations.
The reference to "consultation with the United States" is inserted 10 nive the
United States some security protection against the use of accredita press
representatives as a device for gaining admittance to the United States for
undesirable aliens.
(2) Reference to Article 71 of the Charter is in the interest of identifying the
organizations mentioned.
(3) The question is raised whether this section and Section 22, read in
~o-a~c~i~n~w~t~ ~~c-i~n~20. are nreiudicial to national securitv since our rieht to
exclude what may he undésira6le&lies is given up. The ~nited States Should
reserve its position on this section for further consideration. It should al least be
understood that the United States minht erant limited visas nood onlv for transit
to and from the zone and sojourn there;, and that, by appropriaté legislalion,
criminal peoalties might be imposed for violation of the terms of such visas.
Secrion22 '
Immigration and other regulations in force in the United States of America,
regarding the entry and residence of foreigners, shall not be applied in such a
manner as to interfere with the rights referred to in Sections 20 and 21. Visas
required by the persons referred to in those sections shall be granted without
charge [without delay and without requirement of personal attendance for the
issue of the visa] and as promptly as possible2
Commenr :
~.I This section. as drafted aoo..rs to ~-ke the issuan~~ of visas a ourelv . ,
minisicrial. non-discreiion3ry. funciion. Thç change i;~uggriled so as to give
UniieJ Siaies ;iuihoriiio J rîdsonablc opportunit) to determine uhethrr the
an~lic;intrawlii'\ undcr Seciions ?O or 21and uhethcr visas should he limiied to
. .
thézone as suggested in the comment under Section 21.
Secrion23
[The Government of the United States of America shall giveor cause 10 be
given facilities for] With respect to the issue of visas [to],and [for] the use of the
available means of transport [hy], the appropriate American authorities shall in
no way discriminate against' persons coming from ahroad [(other than those
referred to in Sections 20 and 21)] who desire to visit the zone for anv purpose
related 10 the activities of the United Nations,' althouph they are no1 persons
referred to in Sections 20 and 21. The Secretas.-General of the United Nations
and the Government of the United States of America shall, at the request of either
of them, enter into discussion with regard to the application of this ~ection.~
-
Commenr:
(1) In its present form it is no[ clear whether this section imposes any obligation
on the United States Io issue visas or Drovidetrans~ortation on more favorable
conditions than would bethe case uiih respect iu ;,isitors to other partr <ifthe
United Siairs Apparenily, no such obligaiion is intended. and ihe ab0b.echanges CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 123
are suggested in order to make it clear that the Section merelycontemplates that
visitors to the zone lother than those covered bv Sections 20 and 211he accorded
fair tredtmeni in the Iighi i~1'esi~blirhcstandards.
(2)Il is no1clear who these "persons comina from abroad" arc. eg.. studcnis,
siehi-seers. cetitioners. disafkcied mouos from trust territones. frieids or rela-
ti;es of ~ecretariai members.etc. ~he re;triciivc phrase is suggesiedinthe interesi
of esiahlishing some criterion for ihe business of such "persans".
(3) The las! senience of the above section seems to indicate that the orevious
sentence is merely an expression of policy wilhout specificbinding etTeci.
Secrion24
The provisions of this article shall not prevent the Government of the United
States of America from taking precautions in the interests of national security,
provided that such precautions shall not have the efect of interfering with the
rights referred to in Sections 19, 20 and 21.'
Commenr :
See comments above with respect to the three sections referred Io
Article V
RESIDENTREPWSENTATIVE! TO THE UNtTED NATIONS
[Section25
Persans accredited to the United Nations by Members as resident representa-
tives and their staffs, whether residing inside or outside the zone, shall be
recognized by the Government of the United States of America as entitled on ils
territory to the same privilegesand immunities as thai-Government accords to the
diplomatic envoys accredited to it, and the staffs of those envoys.]
Comment:
In vractiŒ, the nurnber of "resident reoresentatives" mav increaseconsiderably
in ih; years to corne If al1of them and'their siafs receivbdiplomatic privile6c~
and immunities in pursuance of this section. the resuli may bedeinmenial Io local
public relations. ltis recommended that this section be eliminated, the privileges
and immunities of representatives then restine uDon Section II of the General
Convention which &ver mo,i of ihe cuçiorkry diplomaiic pnvileges cxcepi
immunity from suit in respt of iheir non-official actions and exemption from
customsduties on goods imported for personal use after original entry.
Section 39
Any differenŒbetween the United Nations and the Government of the United
States of America concerning the interpretation or application of this convention
or of any supplementary agreement [or agreement] which is not settled by
negotiation or other agreed mode of settlement shall be referred [tothe arbitration
of an umpire appointed for the purpose by the Presideni of the International
Court of Justice.] for arbitration, 10 a tribunal of three arbitrators, one to benamsqhy the Secretary-Ge-ral, one to be namcd h) the Government of the
United States of Ameriç~,and the third 10he cho,cn by the othxmo or,a
@uld hil to agrec upon a ihird, ihen bs the Presideni ofihe Internütional Court
of Justice.
Commenf :
(1) It is felt that a tribunal of three would make possible the presence in
judgment of at least one arbitrator with common-law background.
(2) For some types of cases it would be preferable to invoke the jurisdiction of
the full Court. However, Article 34 of the Statute of the International Court
provides that only Statesmay be parties in cases hefore the Court.
-
(81) Negotiations between the United Nations and the United States concerning
the Arrangements Required as a Result of the Establishment of the Seat of the
United Nations in the United States- Sixth Meeting
18lune 1946, 10.45am.
SD/A/NC.6.
Present:
For the United Nations Secretary-General:
Mr. Ivan Kerno, Assistant Secretary-General for Legal Affairs;
Mr. Marc Schreiber, LegalAdviser to the United Nations, and Secretary to the
United Nations Delegation.
For the United Nations Advisory Committee:
Mr. Hugh McKinnon-Wood (United Kingdom) (Chairman)
Mr. A. H. Body (Australia)
Mr. Joseph Nisot (Belgium)
Mr. Carlos Salamanca (Bolivia)
M. Jean Cahen-Salvador (France)
Mr. Awni el Khalidy (Iraq).
For the State of Connecticut:
Mr. Arthur F. Brown, Assistant Solicitor-General
Mr. Baldwin.
For the United States Government:
Mr. Alger Hiss, Department of State
Mr. 1.N. P. Stokes, Department ofState
Mr. John Maktos, Department of State
Mr. Carl Marcy, Department of State
Mr. William V. Whittington, Department of State
Mr. Herzel Plaine, Department of Justice.
Section5. Representatives of the United Nations who had studied the two
tentative drafts submitted in the previous meeting as substitutes for the first
sentence of Sectio5, submitted language as follows:
"For any real property acquired by the United States of America at the
request of the United Nations for conveyance pursuant to Section 3, the CONTENTS OF THE WSS~ER 125
United Nations shall pay to the United States the actualcost, if any, ta the
United States of anv such acauisition. In case owners of land in the zone
which is noi su con\,é)edihall be hcld io be cntitlcd under ihec~,nsiiturional
rcquirements of ihc Uniicd Siiiics IO compens~tion by the L;nitcdSt3ies for
the taking of an intcrcst in thcir land bv the crcation of the 7one. the uucsiion
of any reimbursement to the United States for such compensation ;hall be
made the subject of discussion, with a view to an equitable settlement
between the United Nations and the United States, taking in account al1the
economic consequences of the creation of the zone."
Discussion of the las1phrase of this proposed language indicated some douht as
to the scoDeof the term "economic conseauences", the United States reoresenta-
tives feeling that this phrase meanl thai the effect on land values Ôf private
property owners would have to be taken into account. The United States
representatives felt that only economic consequences which ailected the local,
state. or fcderal eovernments should be considered.
~greed: That Ïhe reference to economic consequences be eliminated and the
settlement of any disputes as to compensation he made on the basis of the word
"equitable". It was agreed that such settlement would take into account the
profits, ifany, which would accrue to the United States authorities as a result of
increased tax rates.
Agreed:That it was the consensus of the meeting that the language as amended
implied that the question of an equitable settlement would he one which would he
referred to arbitration under Sections 38 and 39, in the event the parties to the
instrument cannot agree upon the compensation to be made.
During the discussion of Section 5, representatives of the State of Connecticut
suggested that there should be included in tbis instrument language to the effect
that the United Nations would give al1due and friendly consideration to any
problems which might anse in connection with the possible displacement of
residents or with loss of tax revenues.decrease of land values. and other oroblems
nilrriing the localiiies invol\cd Iiwas rhc rreling of the ~onneciicui represcnia-
tii,es ihat such a provision mi-hi fore~iallcnticism from residenis in thc area of
the headauarters.
The cnited Nat,ons rcpreseniaii~c~îcii ihai this type of pruv,sion shi~uldno1
br.insludcd in the instrument xnd prcfcrred ihai thr maticr be mentioncd only ina
communi~iiéwhich miehi be iaiurd al the tirnelhe agreemcni ismüde public.'l'hr
L'nitcd States reprcreniatives suggertrd that rciercnce might be niade t,ithe
problrm of tax reimburscmenis eiihcr in a fooinoic io the instrument or in a noie
ai the end.
There was reference 10a discussion whichhad taken dace at the fint meetine o-
the comniittec dunng which therc had heen agrecmeit thai the Uniicd Nations
reprc~niati\~eswould seeka resolution by the Gcncral Assemblywhichuould have
thceReci of re~ssuriiir!localresidents withrcfcrenccio the iax nroblcm. The United
Nations representati&s then referred Io a resolution adopted 'by the Headquarlers
Committee of the General Assembly on Fehruary 13, 1946, and expressed the
opinion that sincethe report of the Headqnarlers Committee had been adopted hy
the General Assemblv.the General Assemblv had.in effect.made the resolution its
oun. The) lcli. ther~lore. thai ii w~s noi nccessary for a new rcsi>lution IO he
\ubniiiieJ II>the Gcncral Assembl'. The suggeiiion uas iilso m3de b) represcnta-
ti\csif the Uniicd Nations thai the matier of rcassur~nsesfor t;ireimh~rsemciiis
was more properly one to be considered by the Headquarters Committee.
In the absence of an agreement as Io the way in which this matter should be
handled, the United States representative stated that when the tex1 of this126 APPL~CABIL~TYOF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE
agreement is made public the United States would want 10make it clear in the
release that the February 13th resolution was designed to reassure localities
concerned on the tax reimbursement oroblem.
Sections 15and 16. Written comments on these sections by Mr. Tepliakov, the
Soviet representative on the Negotiating Committee who was no1 able Io be
present, wereconsidered. It wasthe cons&sus of the meetingthat the substitution
of the word "may" for the word "shall" in Section 15 as suggested by Mr.
Tepliakov would change the nature of the agreement which had beenapproved by
the General Assembly and submitted to the Secretdry-General for his use in
negotiations with the United States.
Mr. Tepliakov'scomment to the eKectthat under Sections 38 and 39 disputes
atising under Section 16 would be decided finally by the Supreme Court of the
United States was considered and it was pointed out that Section 38 had been
amended so that the appeal in caseof a dispute would beeither to arbitration orto
the International Court of Justice. In order 10meet Mr. Tepliakov's suggestion
that the United States Government would not be bound Io accer>ta settlement
under Section 38. the words "for final decision" wereinserted ifter the word
"referred in Section 38.
Agreed: To leave Section 16as drafted. ,
Section 17. Sl-eh~ ~rafti"e chan-es were made in thi~ -~ction.
MI. Tepliako\, rüiscd in hicrnemurandum the question as to the juricdiction of
fedcral. \iate snd lwïl court5 over di~putesbstu,ecn the United Nations and the
United States.Ilu,aspointcd out thxi disputcs betueen the Cnited Nationsanil the
United States u,ould not besuhjwt to the jurirdiction of the United Siatcs courir
but would be settled in accurdance uiih the pro\isions uf Sectio38 and 39.
Sectium 18und 19.The ~hrdsein Section 18'ihough ihev ihs11not he obli~ed
to inflictpenalties for viola'tionof such regulations e<caitmay beprovided-by
laws or regulations adopted by the appropriate American authorities" was
eliminated in accordance with the suggestion of Mr. Tepliakov. II was the feeling
of the meeting that the second sentence of Section 19covers the same subiect.
Section20kfter considerable discussion,dunng the courseof h hi ch the United
Siaies reprcsentati\~essubmitted sn amendnient to this Scction providing that in
the case of excessiveconstruction costs for new roads the United Nations should
agreeto bear an equitable share of the cost, il wasconcluded that it wasdifficultto
be too specificas to assessingcosts in this Section until the exact whereabouts of
the permanent site is known.
Apreed: That the words "nublic roads as swcified in Annex 1" be substituted
for ihe uord "highuays" and'that the rcmainder of Section 20 as itappears in the
June 15thdrafi rcmain as drnfied. Thus the question ufu,hat puhltc roads are to
be construcied and maintained was deferred for treatment in an annex 10 be
prepared when the permanent site of the United Nations is known.
Section 21. Mr. Tepliakov's observations to the eKect that this Section is
acceptable provided the ~rovisionstherein are no1inconsistent with the ~rivile~es
and immunitiesprovision of the GeneralConvention, was noted and it wis agrëed
that there were no inconsistencies.
Section 22. Slight drafting changes were made in this Senion.
Section 23. No chanees were made in this Section.
Secrion 24. Thcrc was discussion of the meaning of the phrase "enter into
discussions with a view IO C~cilitatecntrance" and ttwas agreed that the phrase
"consult as to methods of facilitating entrance" should bcsubstituted.
The meetingudjourned, CONTENTSOF THE DOSSIER 127
(82) Negotiations between the United Nations and the United States concerning
the Arrangements Required as a Result of the Establishment of the Seat of the
United Nations in the Uiiited States- Seventh Meeting
18June 1946,3.15p.m.
SD/A/NC/7.
Presenl:
For the United Nations Secretary-General:
Mr. Ivün Kerno. Assistant Secre1ar)-Cieneralfor LegülArdirs:
Mr. Marc Schreiber, Legal Advisrr 10 the Uniicd Nations and Secretar).Io thc
Uiiited Nations Delegalion.
For the United Nations Advisory Committee:
Mr. Hugh McKinnon-Wood (United Kingdom) (Chairman)
Mr. A. H. Body (Australia)
Mr. Joseph Nisot (Belgium)
Mr. Carlos Salamanca (Bolivia)
M. Jean Cahen-Salvador (France)
Mr. Awni el Khalidy (Iraq).
For the State of New York:
Mr. Orrin Judd.
For the State of Connecticut:
Mr. Arthur F. Brown, Assistant Solicitor-General
Mr. Baldwin.
For the United States Government:
Mr. Charles Fahy (Principal Representative)
Mr. Alger Hiss, Department of State
Mr. 1.N. P. Stokes. Deoarlment of State
Mr Carl Marcy. ~c~üriment of Siaic
Mr William V M'hittington. Depürtment of Siaic
Mr Henel Plaine, ~e~ar.ment of Justice
Section 25. There was a slight drafting change in this section.
Agreed: That the minutes should show that Section 25 is no1 intended to
prevent the United States from applying quarantine and health regulations in a
reasonable manner and in a way that will not unduly interfere with the entry of
persons entitled to corne ta the headquarters district.
Section26. There was a slight drafting change in this section.
Agreed: That there is no confliclbetween the provisions of Sections 12 and 26
and that Section 26 is made necessary by reason of the fact that the United
Nations cannot "build a fence iiround the headquarters district", therefore
making il necessary for the United States 10be able to control the entry in10the
heada.arters district of wrsons. not orivileeed bv Article IV. who mav have
arrived at the headquarters district by air, for-example, with~ut'havin~triversed
United States territory.
Secrion27. Mr. Tepliakov'scomments were read to the eh1 that this section
should be reworded so as to rnake il clear that membe~ offamilies should receive
dipimatic privilegesand immunitics.There wassomediscussion of this point and
ii w3s ihe undersisnding of thc meeting ihüiaccording ro diplomatic practice
familiesof di~lomatic oersonnel normallv receivethe immuniticsaccorded io the
heads of the farnilies.128 APPLlCABlLlTY OF THE OBLIGATIONTO ARBITRATE
Agreed That withoui mentioning f3miliesin Section 27, 11was understood ihai
the) should receiveihc sdmçJegrcc of diploniïtic pri\,ilegesdnd immuniiies as the
familiîs of diplomatic eni.<iysin Waihington receihe.
There was-an inconclus&e discussioi as to whether domestic servants are
assimilïted Io the Cümiliesof diplomatic cnvoys and rhould therefore receite some
of the privilcgesand immunities conlcrred upon the princip~l representati\cs and
other cateaones covered bv Section 27, or whether domestics a& members of the
mission'sSaffand therefok under Section 27would receivediplomatic privileges
and immunities only if it were so agreed.
Mr. Tepliakov's request that the provision of Section 27 providing for
a.,ee~ ~ ~to determi~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~of the staffswho should receivedinlomatic
privilegesand immunitieswasconsidered, but in the light of discussions(eld al an
earlier meetina at which Mr. Tepliakov was no1 present. it was agreed that the
~rovision. as drafted. should be maintained. urine the course of ïhis discussion
ihe thought was expressed that a "reasonable number" of the staff would be
included and that the detemination of the number 10be included would be made
upon the basis of the functions perfomed by the individual members of the staff.
It was pointed out that those members of the staff who do no1 receive full
diplomatic privileges and immunities would, in fact, receive privileges and
immunities as provided by provisions of the General Convention.
Secrion 28. In response to a question as to what was meant by the phrase
"bodies ofpersons", it was pointed out that this section was designed to impose
upon the American authorities the duty of exercisingdue diligenceto be sure that
groups of persons do not enter the headquarters district. So far as individuals, as
distinct from groups of persons, are concerned. it was felt that the United Nations
guards themselves would beable to take care of them.
Agreed: It was agreed to substitute the word "groups" for the word "bodies".
Secrion 29. There were a few drafting changes made in ibis section.
Secrion 30. Consideration was given to Mr. Tepliakov's written statement
covering the use of the phrase "using such services for similar purposes".
Anreed: That this section would be amended to eliminate that ohrase.
~hrre uïr discu~sioiias 10 uhether the section clrürly covrr, th; supplyiiig on
cquitable iermr of municipal ;er\,ices such as fireprotection, snou removal. etc.
AnrrrJ To remord chissection so 3s 10include relcrence to lire protectioii and
snow removal, thus making it clear that the municipal serviceswodd be supplied
to the United Nations on equitable terms. There was a brief discussion as to
whether persons living in the headquarters district would be permitted to send
their children to public schools provided by the state, and if so, whether the
Organization should not, therefore, pay taxes. It was pointed out that persons
Livingwithin the headquarters district would probably be viewedas non-residents
of the school district and, therefore, if their children attend public schools it will
be necessary for them to pay fees as non-residents. On the other hand, if these
persons reside outside the headquarters district they will be subject to property
taxes and will be residents within a school district.
Secrion 31. The United States representative suggested that there should be
inserted in the minutes a statement to the effect that any agreement as to the
establishment of an airport should make provision for the protection of the
amcnities of land surrounding the airport.
Section32. There was no obiection to this section. It was oointed out that both
the sinics of Noi ~ork and 6onneciicui h.i~ anii-dissrini;nation 13~s.
Secrron~33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 36 utidjY uere approved or chünged onl) slightly.
Secrion40. This section war renumbered to read, "Section 41" and Section 41
was renumbered to read "Section 42". This change was made necessary by the CONiFNTS OF THE DOSSIER 129
insertion of a new Section 40 (las1 sentence of old Section 1 (c)) reaaing as
follows:
"Wherever this convention/agreement imposes obligations on the appro-
priate Amencan authorities, the Govemment of the United States of
America shall have the ultimate responsihility for the fulfillment of such
obligations by the appropriate American authorities."
Section40 (Section41). This section was amended at the suggestion of the
United States representative to read as follows:
"This convention/agreement shall be construed in the light of its primary
purpose to enahle the United Nations at ils beadquarters in the United States
of America, fully and efficientlyto discharge its responsibilities and fulfillits
purposes."
Section41 (Section42). There were no changes made in this section.
The United States representative indicated that il would be several days before
he would beableto givehisapproval to the instmment. Il was agreedthat it might
be possible 10make arrangements in the near future for a meetingin NewYork, at
which lime final approval could be given.
The representative of the Secretary-General indicated that, if the Secretary-
General approves the draft instrument, he will probably submit the approved
draft instmment to the General Assembly with the request that il authorize the
Secretary-General to conclude the agreement with the United States subject to
such minor changes as might be necessary.
Before the meeting adjourned the principal representatives of the United
Nations and the United States, as well as the representatives from New York
and Connecticut expressed their satisfaction at the conduct of the negotiations
and the spirit of cooperation which had been present throughout the discus-
sions.
-
(83) Joint report by the Secretary-General and the General Assembly, Ofi
Negotiating Committee on the negotiations cial Records,Sixth Com-
with the authorities of the United States of mittee, legal questions
America concerning the arrangements re- (A/67, I September
quired as a result of the establishment of the 1946),Annex 25
seat of the United Nations in the United
States of America'
(84) Convention Agreement between the United General Assembly, O$-
Nations and the United States of America' cial Records,Sixth Com-
mittee, legal questions
(A/67/Add.l),Appendix1
(85) Report by the Secretary-General on the Generol Assembly, 08-
Agreement between the United Nations and cial Records,Sixth Com-
the United States of America regarding the miltee, legal questions,
Headquarters of the United Nations, signedat Annex II (A/371, 3 Sep-
Lake Successon 26June 1947 '(Original 1e.w tember 1947)
Englishand French)
' Docurnen! notreproduced./Note by the Registry.]130 APPLlCABlLlTY OP THE OBLIGATION TO ARBLTRATE
(86) Arrangements required as a result of the General Assembly, sec-
establishment of the Permanent Headquarters ond part of first session,
of the United Nations in the United States of sixty-fifth plenary meet-
America ' ing, 14 December 1946,
resolution99 (1)
(87) Report of Sub-Committee I on pnvileges and General Assembly, 08-
immunities on the Agreement between the cialRecords,Sixth Com-
United Nations and the United States of mittee, legal questions,
America regarding the Headquarters of the Annex l la (A1371)
United Nations (A/C.6/172, 17 Octoher
.. .. '
Documents officiels de
(88) Rcord entre I'Organisation des Nations Unies l'Assemblée générale,
et les Etats-Unis d'Amérique relatif au siège SixièmeCommission,an-
de l'organisation des Nations Unies' nexe 9b (A14271
(89) Agreement between the United Nations and General Assembly, sec-
the United States of Amenca regarding the ond session, resolution
Headquarters of the United NationsL 169 (II)
2. Legislarive Hisrory of Public Law No. 80-357
Marerials relaring ro the Unired Srareslegislarion
(90) hlesr3ps from the Prcsidcniof ihc United Siaies Transmiiiing .in Agreement
bet\i,cenihr. United St3tes and the United Kriions Conscrning the Conirol and
Administr~iion of the Hexiuuürters of the Uniied N~tions in ihe City of Ncu
York; and a Copy of a ~itter from the Secretary of State ~e~aidin~ this
Agreement
To rhe Congressof the United Srates:
1transmit herewitbfor the consideration of the Congress an agreement between
the United Statesand the United Nations concerning the control and administra-
tion of the headquarters of the United Nations in the city of New York. 1 also
enclose a letter from the Secretary of State regarding this agreement.
As you will recall, on Decemher 10and II, 1945,the Congress hy concurrent
resolution unanimously invited the United Nations to locate ils permanent
headquarters in the United States. After long and careful study, the General
Assemblyof the United Nations decided during its sessionlast winter to make its
petmanent home in New York City.
The United States has heen signallyhonored in the location of the headquarters
of the United Nations within Ourcountry. Naturally the United States wishesto
make al1 appropriate arrangements so that the Organization can fully and
effectivelyperform the functions for which it was created and upon the successful
accom~lishmentof which so much deoends.
This agrccmsni is ihe produci oi months OCnegoilaiions hetwwn rcpresrnia-
tivcsof this Go\ernincnt and ihc United Nations. Rcprcscntativzs of the citv and
State of Neu York psrticipaicd iiiihcrc ncgotisiions. The agreenient ç~rciull)
' Dacurneninoi repr~duad. /Nori, h) thz Rqrrrry.1
D~>curncn ionrcproduii.Iiz'urr du Gref1e CONTENTSOF THE DOGSIER 131
balances the intereiis of ihc United States îs a member of the United Nations and
the interests of the United Nations as an iniernütion;il orraniz~tion
I urge the Congress to giveearly consideration to the enciosed agreement and to
authorize this Government, by joint resolution, to give effect to its provisions.
When the General Assembly of the United Nations mets in New York City
this fall it would be most appropriate if this Government wereready for its part to
bring the agreement into effect.
Harry S. TRUMAN.
The White House, July 2, 1947.
(Enclosures: (1) Draft agreement between the United States and the United
Nations; (2) letter from the Secretary of State.)
State Department
Washington, June 30, 1947.
The President,
The White House:
There is enclosed for your consideration and for transmission to the Congress,
if vou aoorove, an agreement between the United States and the United Nations
resardi~ ~ ~he control a~d~ ~ ~ ~ ~ratio~ ~ ~the headauarters of the United
Nations in the city of New York.
This agreement has ken signed on behalfofthe United States by the Secretary
of State~and ~ ~ behalf of the United Nations bv the Secretarv-General. Bvils
lems, it is to be hrought into effect by an exc6ange of notes duly authohzed
pursuant to appropriate action by the Congress of the United States and by the
General Assembly of the United Nations which is to convene in September.
Article 104 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that -
the Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its members such legal
capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of ils funetions and the
fulfillment of ils purposes.
Article 105 provides in part that -
the Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its members such
privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfillment of its pur-
poses -
and that the General Assembly -
may make recommendations with a view to determining the details of the
application -
of this provision.
The General Assembly of the United Nations during the first part of ils first
session in January 1946requested the Secretary-General, with the assistance of a
committee composed of representatives of 10 member nations, 10 negotiate with
the competent authorities of the United States the arrangements required as a
result of the establishment of the seat of the United Nations in the United States.
A draft for a headquarters agreement describing such arrangements between the
United States and the United Nations was also transmitted by the General132 APPLlCABlLlW OF THE OBLIGATIONTO ARBITRATE
Assembly to the Secretary-General for use as a hasis for discussion in such
negotiations. Since the United States was also 10be a party to the negotiations,
the United States representative look no position in the Assembly on the
proposed draft.
During the first part of its first session, the General Assembly also adopted the
convention on the privileges and immunities of the United Nations, which was
transmitted to the Congress by the Department of State earlier this year. That
convention was designed to describe the rights of the United Nations and its
personnel and representatives of member states on the territory of each of the
memher States.The agreement, which is enclosed, deals, on the other hand, with
the special arrangements to be made with the United States as a result of the
establishment of its permanent headquarters in this country.
The first stage of negotiations between the United States and the United
Nations leading up to the headquarters agreement was completed in June 1946
with a draft which was stipulated to be preliminary only and suhject to revision
after the precise location of the headquarters had been determined. Thisdraft was
subniitted to the General Assembly a1ils session during the fall of 1946.
Following the selection of the site, in December 1946, the General Assembly
authorized the Secretary-General to negotiate and conclude an agreement, to
come in10 force when approved hy the General Assembly. In negotiating this
agreement, he was directed to be guided by the provisions of the draft of June
~946~
Furlhcr cxicnsivc ncgùiiaiions. in which represcniaiiver of thc cil) 2nd Sidte of
Ncu, York pariicipaied, hsvr resulicd in ihc enclo,cd ügrccmcni.
1 desire at thii time to invite your attention Io cërtain provisions of the
agreement.
Article III, which concems law and authority in the headquarters district, is the
result of a careful attemot to grant to the United Nations the freedom (rom
ceriain iypes of rcgulaiion whichis necesstry IO assure ihüi thc Orgînizîiion may
cxcrcisc 11sfunctions and fulfill ils purposcs u,ithoui rcstraint, and in XIIoihcr
respects 10 preserve the normal operation of Federal, State, and local law.
Section 7 states that the Federal, State, and local law of the United States is
generally applicable within the headquarters district and that Federal, State, and
local courts have jurisdiction over acts done and transactions taking place in the
headauarters district. The United Nations is eiven authoritv hv section 8 to make
regulations within the headquarters distri; for the p&pose of establishing
conditions therein necessary for the fulfillment of ils functions. Federal, State, or
local laws which are inconsistent with such reeulations shall be inaoolicable 10the
extent of such incon~~s~ ~ ~ ~However. aiv auestion which 'ihe American
authorities ma hyve as to whether such reklatiÔns go beyond the necessitiesof
the United Nations, and which cannot be settled by agreement, may be resolved
by arbitration or hy reference to the International Court of justice:
The headquarters district, which consists of an area of six city blocks, is to be
inviolable as provided in section 9 (a). This means that Federal, State, or local
officersshall not enter the distri10 perform officialfunctions therein except with
the consent of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. This inviolahility is
similar 10 that which is extended to diplomatic missions in Washington. It does
no1 transfer sovereignty over United States territory to the United Nations.
Section 9 (b) makes it clear that the headquarters district is not to become a
refuge for persons avoiding arrest.
It is necessary for the United Nations to be assured that persons having
legitimate business with the Organization can have access to the headquarters
district.Thus, section II provides that the Federal, State, or local authorities are CONTENTSOF THEDOSSIER 133
not to impose any impediments to transit toor from the headquarters district by
certain limited categories of persons set forth in that section.
Section 13(b), however, makes it clear that persons who abuse these privileges
mav be de~orted either in accordance with the de~ortation laws of the United
taies (sublect to the dpprovlil of ihr Secrrtag. of~tate) or mliy k rsquired to
Imve the United States in accordance u,ith the custom;ir) procedure applicable to
dir>lomatisenvo,s 3ccrrditrJ tu th', Ilnitcd States. Section 13lb, mdkcs ilslear
thât the United States may issue limited visas, valid only for the area comprising
the headquarters district and its immediate vicinity.
Other provisions of the agreement concern such matters as telecommunications
facilities(sec.4), police protection (Art. VI),diplomatic privilegesand immunities
for a limited group of representatives of foreign governments (sec. 15), the
settlement of disputes arising under the agreement (sec.21),and the disposition of
the headquarters if it should cease to be used for the headquarters of the United
Na~i~ns (s~~~~2--.
Inmort cases the obligations assumed hy the United States under the agrczment
are made the res~onsibilits of the '.appropriate American authonties" who are
defined in section 1 (b) ai-
such Federal, State, or local authorities in the United States as may be
appropriate in the context and in accordance with the laws and customs of
the United States, including the laws and customs of the State and local
governments involved.
Section 25, however, makes il clear that the ultimate responsibility for
compliance with the agreement on the part of the United States rests with the
.deral Gov-.nment. ~ ~ ~
The agreement provides, in section 20, for such supplemental agreements with
the a..roo.iate American authontiesas mav be necessarv to fulfillthe purnoses of
the agreement. Thus, detailed arrangem;nts with reSpect to police and fire
protection and similar matters may be made directly with the local authorities. 1
suggest that the joint resolution authorizing the President to make the agreement
effective, include authorization to the local authorities 10 enter in10 such
supplemental agreements subject, except in emergency or in case of routine
matters, to the approval of the Secretary of State.
This Government has taken a leadina role in the creation of the United
Nation\. The encloscd ligrecmeiit will ma& clcdr IO the Lriited kations thïi thc
United States is prcpared to discharge fully its responsibilities as the host of the
Oreanization on which rest the hopes of the world for lastina peace.
~espectfully submitted
(Enclosure: Agreement betwecn the United States and the United Nations.)
(91) CongressionaR i ecord.Proceedings and Debates of the 80th Congress, First
Session. Permanent Headquarters of United Nations
PERMANENT HEADQUARTERS O UFNITED NATIONS
Mr. Ives. Mr. President, yesterday the President of the United States sent a
messageto the Congress transmitting an agreement which has been made between134 APPLICABILITYOF THE OBLIGATIONTO ARBITRATE
the United States and the United Nations concernin~ the control and administra-
tion oithe Unitrd Nations headquarters in ihe citv 8f ~ew York. In the message
the Presidcnt urgcd early consideration of the mattçr by the Congres and dsked
that aoorooriateaction he taken bv ioint resolution 10brine ab&t the eiïective-
ness oi"the'agreement, in so far asihis country is concernez. The senior Senator
from New York [Mr. Wagner] and myself have ken granted the privilege of
introducing an appropriate joint resolution authorizing the President to hring into
effect an agreement between the United States and the United Nations for the
purpose of establishing permanent headquarters of the United Nations in the
United States and authorizing the taking of measures necessary to facilitate
compliance with the provisions of such agreement, and for other purposes.
Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent to introduce this joint resolution
and to have it referred 10the appropriate committee.
The President pro rempore. Without objection, the joint resolution will be
received and referred to the Commitiee on Foreien Relations.
Thcre king no objeciion, the joint resoluiiol (S.J.Rcs 144) auihorklng the
I'rcsidentIO hnng inio effeci an agreement bciwecn the United States and the
United Nations for the nuroose of esiablishinr the nemanent head~uarters oithc
United Nations in the'uiited States and &thonzing the taking' of measures
necessaryto facilitate compliance with the provisions ofuch agreement; and for
other purposes, introduced by Mr. Ives(for himselfand Mr. Wagner), was received,
read twiceby its title and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
-
(92) Excerpts from S.Rep. No. 559, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. (1947) Dated 15 July
1947 wherein the Committee on Foreign Relations Recomrnended Passage of
Two Joint Resolutions'
AUTHOKILIK<i TllE PRF-Sll>liTO A<:ClPT OK Bi.IIA1.F OF Illt. <iO\'ERShlENI OF TIIE
UKIltl> STATÛ 1IIK CUNVWlION OU THE PRIVll.liti*SI> IMMUSITIESOF TllFUNITEU
NATIONS
Mr. Vandenberg, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted the
following Report (To accompany S.J.Res. 144and S.J.Res. 136).
The SenateCommittee on Foreign Relations, having had under consideration the
joint resolution (S.J.Res. 144) authorizing the President to hring in10 effect the
agreement betweenthe United States and the United Nations relating to the head-
quarters of the United Nations, and thejoint resolution (S.J.Res. 136)authorizing
the President to acceot on behalf of the United States the convention on the
privilegesand immun;ties of the Uniied Nations, unanimously report the resolu-
lions f3vorïbly Io ihe Senïte with amendments and recommend ihat they do pass
MAIN PURPOSE OF THE AGREEMENTS
The main purposcs of ihc two agreements may he summan~ed briefly as
follous (1)The headquaricrs agreement dcals with ihosc special arrangements IO
'The two joint resolutionswere reportcd on togcther Io the Senate due ta the
Committee'sviewthat theywerecloselyrelated(Le.)one (S.J.Res.144)dealingwith the
HeadquartersAgreementand theadministrationand control of United Nations Head-
quarters. and the second(S.J.Res.136)dealingwith definingthe rights of the United
Nations, itspersonnel, etc. CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 135
k made between the United States and the United Nations as a result of the
establishment of the permanent headquarters of the United Nations in this
country. (2)The convention on privilegesand immunities of the United Nations is
of a multilateral character and is designed to define the rights of the United
Nations, ils personnel, and the representatives of member states in the territory of
each of the members. Since the two agreements are very closely related, the
committee has adopted the procedure of reporting them together to the Senate.
COMMITTEEHEARINGS
On luly 10, 12,and 15the committee met in executivesession and examined in
detail the provisions of the headquarters agreement and the convention on
pnvileges and immunities. Mr. Charles Fahy, LegalAdviser of the Department of
St~ ~ ~Mr. 1. N. P. Stokes. Associate Chief of the Division ~f ~nternational
01~a~l~ation Aiiairs. and~r Carl Marcy. assistant legislativc counxl of the
I)epïrimrni of Siaie. appeared beforc ihe committec. Memkrs of the commiitec
werc fullv au.are of ihe resoonsihilities of ihc Uniied Slatcs as ho51Io the Uniied
h'ütions..but ai ihe same tikc the) wercpÿriicularly concerned lesiihc obligaiions
~,\umed by the Uniied St3tes resuli in ihc admission of undcrirable ~licnsinio the
countrv. Followina the aooroval of three amendments to the resolution. the
commiÏtee unanim;>uslyai;eed to report them to the Senate.
OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATESAS HOST TO THE UNITED NATIONS
Article 104of the Charter of the United Nations provides that -
the Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of ils members such legal
capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of ils functions and the
fulfillment of ils purposes.
Article 105provides in part that-
the Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its members such
privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfillment of its pur-
poses -
and that the General Assembly -
may make recommendations with a view to detemining the details of the
application-
The obligations of the Charter are equally incumbent on al1member nations. It
is clear, however, that the country in which the headquarters of the United
Nations are located isunder a special responsibility as host to assure that
arrangements are made which will permit the efficient functioning of the
Organization within this framework of its laws.
DEVELOPMENTSLEADINGTO THE CONCLUSION OF THEGENERAL CONVENTIO A ND THE
HEADQUARTE ARGREEMENT
One of the most important questions left open by the Charter was the selection
of the site for the headquarters of the United Nations. While this matter was
pending, the Congress by concurrent resolution unanimously invited the United
Nations "to locale the site of the United Nations Organization withirithe United
States".It was in the light of this invitation that the choice of a site was made by
the General Assembly.
Oneof the tasks undertaken al the first session of the General Assemblywas to136 APPLlCABlLlTY OF THE OBLIGATION TO AIIBITllATE
propose a con\,ention IOthe member nations dcfining ihr pritilegcs and immuni-
ticswhichucre tu bcgranied ihc Unitcd Saiions undcr Article IV5of the Charter.
The convention un pri\,ilcecs and immuniiies of the Unitcd Nations (somctimcs
rcfcrrcdIO as ihc '.gincriilion\cntion") uas adopied by thc Gcncral Aiscmbly for
ihis purpose. Ai the time of ils adoption. the United Stalcs dclcglition made cle~r
that the United States was reserving ils position with respect to immunity from
income taxes and national service as applied to American citizens.
It was also recog~izedduring the first session of the General Assembly that it
would be necessary to have a separate agreement defining in more detail the
arraneements to bemade between the United Nations and the United States as
ihe h&i rouniry. Tt? ihis end, the Assembly requestcd the Secrcisry-Gencral IO
ncgoii~ic ihc nccc.5saryarr~ngcmenis uilh ihe Uniied Siaies and ÿppoinied Io
assisi him in the n-foiiaiiona commiiiee consisiin. of the rcprescntaii\cs of 10
member nations.
Krgoti~tion of ihe hcadquartcrs agreement comnicnccd in Junc 1945and u,as
completcd uiih the cigningof thc agreement on Junc 26, 1916.Representatires of
ihe city and Staie of New York parlicipated in ihc ncgotiations and ha\e rccordcd
iheir approtal of the agreemrnt and ihe resolution which would authorizc ils
king put inio effeci. Thc Dcpartmcnt of Justice Iikcwise paniuipaied and the
aareemcnt has becn clearcd throuph al1inicrcsrcd Fcdcral ag.ncics ihrouah thc
~iecutive Officeof ihe President.-
RELATIONSH BPTWGE NHE HEADQUARTE ARGREEMENTAND THE GENERAL CONVEN-
TION
As has been noted above, the principal difference hetween the two instruments
is that the general conventionis a multilateral instrument defining the privileges
and immunities of the United Nations and its personnel on the territory of al1
member nations, whereas the headquarters agreement is a bilateral instrument
defining the particular arrangements which are considered necessary as between
the United Nations and the United States arising out of the location of the
headquarters of the United Nations in this country.
The headquarters agreement covers many matters which are not mentioned in
the general convention. Both instruments are concerned with the privileges and
immunities of the personnel of the United Nations and representatives of the
member eovernments. The principal diiïerence in this respect is that the head-
quaricrs agreement is conccrncd u.ith thc problcms crcaicd by ihe rcsidcncc of
sush personnel in this country as distinct from thcir rights 3s occasional \isitorr.
which are covered by the general convention. Some overlapping is unavoidable.
lnconsistencv in leeal effect is orevented bv the orovision in section 26 of the
headquaricrï agrce&ni th3i. alihough both'instruhents arc 10be given fullciïeci
uhenwer posihle. the headquarters agreement prcvails in case of absolutc
conflict.
RELATlONSHlP TO EXlSTlNG LAW
Both instruments, when operative, will have the effect of amending any
inconsistent provisions of existing law. The principal law now in effect dealing
with the same subject-matter is the International Organizations lmmunities Act
which became law in December 1945.
The act was passed for the general purpose of defining the privileges,
exemptions, and immunities to be accorded to international organizations in the
United States and their officers, employees, and representatives of member
governments. At the time the act became law, such international organizations as CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 137
UNRRA. FA0 of the United Nations. and the Pan American Union werealreadv
in operation inthe ~nited ~tatei. It was contemplated that the ait would take cak
of requirements of such agencies and it was also hoped that it would cover the
princ<palrequirements of CheUnited Nations, although it was too soon to know
just what these requirements would be since the first session of the General
Assembly of the United Nations had no1 yet heen held.
SUMMARYOF THE PROVISIONSOF THE HEADQUARTP RGREEMENT
Attention is invited to the following most important provisions of the head-
quarters agreement :i
Ariicle IIThis article authorizes the United Nations to establish and operate
certain radio facilities and provides that, if it should be found necessary 10
establish and operate an aerodrome or a postal service,arrangements with respect
to the same shall be covered in supplemental agreements with the United States.
AriicleIll, one of the most iinportant in the agreement, concerns law and
authoritv in the headquarters district. Theurnose of Article III i10 grant Io the
United Nations the fieedom from certain iy&s of domestic regulatiois which is
necessary to assure that the Organization may exerciseits functions and fulfillits
purposes without restraint; and in al1 other respects to preserve the normal
operation of Federal, State, and local law. Although the headquarters district is
inviolable (sec.9 (a)),as was the property of the League of Nations in Switzer-
land, the United Nations is under an obligation to prevent the headquarters
district from becoming a refuge for persons avoiding arrest (sec.9 (b)). Federal,
State, and local laws of the United Statesperate within the headquarters district
and thejurisdiction of Federal courts extends Io actsand transactions taking place
within the headquarters district. The only exception is that the United Nations is
given power to make regulations, operative within the district, for the purpose of
establishing conditions therein necessary to the full execution of ils functions
(sec.8). The only penalty which the United Nations may apply in enforcing these
regulations is to expel or exclude persons from the headquarters district (sec. 10).
In the event of a conflic! between such regulations and the law of the United
States, the conflict is to be settled as provided in section 21.
Ariicle IV. It is necessary for the United Nations to be assured that persons
having legitimate business with the Organization can have access Io the head-
quarters district. Thus, section II provides that the Federal, State, or local
authorities are not to impose any impediments to transit to or from the
headquarters district by certain limited categories of persons set forth in that
-~~tion.
Section 13(b), however, makes it clear that persons who abuse these privileges
may be deported either in accordance with the deportation laws of the United
taies (subject to the approval of the Secretary of-State) or may be required to
leave the United States in accordance with the customary procedure applicable to
diplomatic envoys accredited to the United States. Section 13 (6) also makes it
clear that the United States mav issue limited visas. valid onlv .or the area
compn3ing the helidquariers disinct and 11simmcdi~ie vicinii).
Arrii.l<V Th15ariiclc pro\idci ihdi Iimiiedclassesof represcniaiii,chuf membcr
siaics of ihc Unit4 N3iions are ro hesniiilcd in the United SVJICS "10 the sdme
orivileees and immunities" as are accorded to diolomatic envovs accredited to the
~niiçi Siaies, ,uhjcci. hoive\cr. "in c<irrcspondlngcondition; and ohligliiions"
Thus, a Iimitcd group of the rnorc imporiant represciiidiiiçs to thc L'niicd
Nations willrecci\e the sdme dinlomatic siatui ;isiheir colleaeues ln Washinaton
who are accredited to the ~niied States Government. ~rovLion is made for aphysical limitation of the area in which such immunities may be claimed in the
cases of representatives of mernbers who are no1recognized by the United States.
PRINCIPAL ISSUESCONSIDERED BY THE COMMlllTE IN CONNECTION WlTH THE
HEADQUARTERSAGREEMENT
It is clear that the United States cannot tell the other member nations who
should or who should not rzpresent them a1 the seat of the United Nations and
cannot claim any right of veto over the Sectetary-General's appointment of
personnel to the staff of the United Nations. In general, the United States, as host
country, must permit access to the headquarters on the part of al1persons who
have legitimate business with the Organization. This involves inevitably the
admissionof a numher of aliens,some of whom would not normally be admissible
under immieration laws of the Unite~-States.
The prin$pal problem considered hy the committee was how this right of access
to the headquarters could be granted in amanner which would not prejudice the
security ofihe United Statesagainst infiltration on the part of subveisive alien
elements.
The agreement, in sectionsII and 13,grants the right of entry to representatives
of mernbers. officiaisof the United Nations. and other versons havina business
wiih ilic United Nation5 Two important protections a;, howevcr. p;ovided in
seciion 13 (1JThc United Siaies may require such persons IO have viw, 2nd may
limit the visas which it issuesso as 10be valid onlv for transit to the headquarters
disirici and rojourn in iis immcdiatc i,icinity. (2jin case any spersa nbsse
iI,rir privilegesin activities outsidc thcir oilicial capacity. ihey become IObject
deportation. In orderIO besure thai this rçmcdy will be applicd in a fair manncr,
it [snrovided that deoortation ~roceedines ar& be subiecito the an~roval of the
Scc~tiiry of Siaie, thai full hcirings niusïbe granted toihc intcrestid'parties. and
ihat the Iimitrd clais of persons enj~-~ng diploniatic status may be rrquired Io
leave only in accordancewith diplomatic procedure.
It is the opinion of the committee that these provisions adequately protect the
securityof the United Statesand that the United Nationscould not beexpected to
maintain its headquarters in this country if the United States were to impose
restrictions upon access10the headquarters district which would interferewith the
proper functioning of the Organization.
In order to remove any doubt as to the meaning of these provisions the
committee adoded an amendment 10 Senate Joint Resolution 144makina it clear
ihat there is noamendment, or obligation to amend, the immigration la& in any
way except to give effect to the rights referred to above.
AMENDMEKlS RECOMMENDEDBY THE COMMITTEE
In ordcr Io meet objections raiscd dunng the hcanngs andIO furthcr clsnfy the
positton of the United States with respect io the tuo aprccments, the committec
iecommends the following amendments to the two resilutions:
1.Amendmentto SenateJoint Resolurion 144
Add a new section to the resolution as follows:
Sec.6.Nothing in the agreement shall be construed as in any way diminishing,
abridging, or weakening the right of the United States completely to control the
entrance of aliens into any territory of the United States other than the
headquarters district and its immediate vicinity and such areas as it is reasonahly
necessaryto traverse in transit between theame and foreigncountries. Moreover, CONTENT$ OF THE DOSSIER 139
nothing in section 14of the agreement with respect to facilitatingentrance in10the
United States bv versons who wish to visit the headauarten district and do not
enjoy the right oli,ntr) probided in section II of ihe a;reement sha11be construed
io amend or suspend in any wa) the immigration Iawsof the United States or to
commit the United States in any way to effect any amendment or suspension of
such laws.
RECOUMENDATIONOF TIE FORElGN RELATIONSCOMMITTEE
In viewof the considerations outlined above and in viewof the constant desire
of the United States to encouraee and facilitate the work of the United Nations.
the Foreign Relations ~ommiÏtee recommends the approval of Senate ~oini
Resolution 144and Senate Joint Resolution 136 with appropriate amendments.
The committee further urnes the Senate to consider~the Ïesolutions and the
agreements at the e~rliestpo;sihle date. sincit i\highlydesirahle for the United
Stdtebtu regster ils approval 10thew znstrumentshefore the General Assemblyof
the UnitedNations convenes in the fall
(93) Joint resolution (S.J.Res. 144)CongressionaR l ecordof 17July 1947
PERMANENTHEADQUARTERSOF UNITEDNATIONS
TheSenate proceeded to consider thejoint resolution (S.J.Res. 144)authorizing
the President tu bring into effectan agreement between the United Statesand the
United Nations for the purpose of establishing the permanent headquarters of the
United Nations in the United States and authorizing the taking of measures
necessaryto facilitate compliance with the provisions of such agreement, and for
other purposes, which had been reported from the Committee on Foreign
Relations with an amendment, on page 7,alter line 15;to insert a new section, so
as 10make the joint resolution read:
Resolved ,tc.,That the President is herehy authorized10 bring into eflecton the
oart of the United States the aareement between the United States of America and
ihe United Nations regarding-the headquüricrs of thc United Nstionr. signçd al
Lakc Success.N.Y.. on June 26. 1947(hereinafter referred 10 as the "agreement").
with such channes therein not contràrv 10 the eeneral tenor therd and not
imposing any additionÿl obligations on-the ~nitëd States as the President mny
deem necessar) and appropnatr. and at his discretion. after consultation uith the
aporo~riate State andlocal authorities. to enter into such suoolemental aeree-
ménts-withthe United Nations as may be necessary to fulfillthépurposes 07 the
said agreement.
Sec.2. For the purpose of carrying out the obligations of the United States
under the said aeÏeement and suooleiental aereements with resoect to United
States assurances-that the United Nations shallnot bedispossessedof ils property
in the headquarters district, and with respect to the establishment of radio
facilitiesand the possible establishment of an airport:
(a)The President of the United States, or any officialor governmental agency
authorized by the President, may acquire in the name of the United States any
property or interest therein by purchase, donation, or other means of transfer, or
may cause proceedings to he instituted for the acquisition of the same hy
condemnation.140 APPLICABILIN OF THE OBLIGATION TU ARBITRATE
(b) Upon the request of the President, or such officer as the President may
designate,the Attorney General ofthe United Statesshallcausesuchcondemnation
or other proceedingsto be instituted in the name of the United States in the district
court of the United Statesfor the district in whichthe property is situated and such
court shall have full jurisdiction of such proceedings, and any condemnatiou
Droceedinesshall beconducted in accordance with the act of Aueust 1. 1888(25
ha1 357);s amcnded.and thcdctof Fehru~ry26. 1931(46Siai 1Gl) as amendcd
(r,Aftcr the in\titution of any such condernndtion proccedings. posse5,ion of
the property may be taken at any time the President, or any such officer he may
designate, determinesis necessary,and the court shall enter such orders as mabe
necessary to efiect entry and occupancy of the property.
(d) The President of the United States, or any officeror governmental agency
dulv authorized bv the President. ma, .in the name of the United States. transfer
or convey possess;on of and titleIOany interest in any property acquired or hcld
by the United Stater. pursuani Io paragraph fu,~ho\c, to the United Nations on
the terms orovided in~theaereement o; in-anv su~~lernentalaereement. and shall
erecule nid deli\er such c~n\r.)anccs and ;the; 'insirument;and perforni such
other acts inconneciion thcrcwiih as ma) hr.ncccssdryto carry out the pro\isions
of the aareement
(PITherc are authorized IO he ~ppropriatcd. out oian) money in the Trcasury
no1otheruisc xppropr~ated,such sums as may he rcquired to enable the United
States 10carry out the undertakings hereby authorized.
Sec.3.The President, or the Secretary of State under hisdirection, isauthorized
ro enter in10 agreements with the State of New York or any other State of the
United States and to the extent not inconsistent with State law, with any one or
more of the political subdivisions thereof in aid of efiectuating the provisions of
the aereement.
Se: 4. Any States, or 10the extent not inconsistent with State lawany political
subdivisions thereof, affected by the establishment of the headauarters of the
United Nations in the United scates are authorized to enter into aereements with
the United Nations or with each other consistent with the agreement and for the
purpose of facilitating compliance with the same: Provided.That, except in cases
of emergencyand agreements of a routine contractual character, a rep;esentative
of the United States, to be appointed hy the Secretary of State, may, at the
discretion of the Secretary of State, participate in the negotiations, and that any
such agreement entered into by such State or States or political subdivisions
thereof shall be subject to approvai by the Secretary of State.
Sec. 5. The President is authorized to make effective with respect to the
temporary headquarters of the United Nations in the State of New York, on a
provisional basis. such of the provisions of the agreement as he may deem
appropriate, having due regard for the needs of the United Nations at its
temporary headquarters.
Sec.6. Nothing in the agreement shall be constmed as in any way diminishing,
ahridging, or weakening the right of the United States completely to control the
entrance of aliens into any territory of the United States other than the
headquarters district and ils immediate vicinityand such areas as it is reasonahly
necessarv10traverse in transit between the same and foreien countries. Moreover.
nothing in scciion 14of the agreement with respect tu facil;rati& enirance into the
United States by persons who uish IO \kit the headquariers distnct and do noi
eniov the rieht of entw orovided in section II of the aereement shabe construed
10-amend & suspend.in any way the immigration laws of the United States or
commit the United States in any way to ekt any amendment or suspension of CONTENTSOF THE DOSSIER 141
Mr. Fulbright. Mr. President. may we have an explanation of the joint
resolution?
The President pro tempore. If the Senale will permit the Chair to make the
explanation from the Chair, this is the joint resolution which implements the
United States agreement for the relationship between the City of New York, the
State of New York, and the United Nations site, plus the establishment of the
usual diplomatic immunity so far as the Government of the United States is
concemed. It has theapproval of the mayor of New York, the Governor of New
York, the State Legislature of New York, and the unanimous report of the
Foreign Relations Committee.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment reported by the committee.
The amendment was agreed to.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the
third time, and passed.
The preamble was agreed 10.
(94) Excerpts [rom H.R. Rep. No. 1093,80th Cong., 1st Sess. (1947)
Mr. Smith ofWisconsin,from the Commitlee on Foreign Afairs, submitted the
following Report (Io accompany S.J.Res. 144).
The Committee on Foreign Atiairs, to whorn was referred thejoint resolution
(S.J.Res. 144)authorizing the President10 bring inIo efect an agreement between
the United States and the United Nations for the purpose of establishing the
permanent headquarters of the United Nations in the United States and
authorizing the taking of measures necessary to facilitate compliance with the
provisions of such agreement, and for other purposes, having considered the
same, report favorably thereon aith amendments and recommend that the joint
resolution as amended do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
On page 4, first unnumhered line, strike out the words "a copy of which is
annexed hereto": and insert in lieu thereof "which agreement is incorporated
herein;".
On page 4, line 15,strike out the word "agreement" and the period and insert in
lieu thereof
agreement: Provided, That any supplemental agreement entered in10pursu-
ant to section5 of the agreement incorporated herein shall be submitted to
the Congress Torapproval. The agreement follows:
On page 6, line 14, strike out the word "authorized" and the period and
suhstitute in lieu thereof the following words:
authorized: Provided,That any money appropriated under this authorization
shall he spent only on a basis of reimbursement by the United Nations in
accordance with section 3 of the agreement, and thal the money thus
reimhursed shall be deposited and covered into the Treasury of the United
States as miscellaneous receipts.
On page 7, line 18,after the word "States" insert the following words:
To safeguard its own security and
On page 7, line 20, strike out the word "vicinity" and substitute in lieu thereof
the following words:142 APPLlCABlLlTY OF THE OBLIOATION TO ARBITRATE
vicinity,as to be definedand fixedin a supplementary agreement hetween the
Government of the United States and the United Nations in pursuance of
section 13(3) (e) of the agreement.
The President urged upon Congress favorable action on the agreement in a
message of July 2, 1947, puhlished as House Document No. 376. Eightieth
Congress.
A draft joint resolution prepared hy the Department of State to authorize the
President to bring the headquarters agreement into effectwas introduced in the
Senate bySenalors Ivesand Wagner, of New York. No legislationwasintroduced
in the Housc. The Senate passed the joint resolution on July 17, with one
amendment. which will be discussedbelow.The ioint resolution was forwarded to
the House on July 18, and was referred Io théCommittee on Foreign AtTairs,
which assigned il to Subcommittee No. 6 on International Organizations and
International Law for study.
In anticipation of the legislation the suhcommittee had held a hearing on July
10.A further hearing was held on July 19.The principal witness was Mr. Fahy,
the chief negotiator for the United States in drawing up the agreement. The
hearinesdealt with the collectivenrohlems of the headauarters aereemenl and the
generaï convention on United ~itions immunities, which wasagreed to hy the
Senate in a joint resolution also on July 17,whichjoint resolution has also been
forwarded <O the House
The report of the suhcommittee brought out what werethe critical points in the
agreement and the accompanying resolution.
FREEDOMOF TRANSIT
Sections II. 12. 13.and 14.comorisine Article IV. descrveoarticular attention.
In studying t'heiele"ant provisio~s, the committe~ took note that the United
States cannot undertake to tell the other member nations who should or who
should not reoresent them at the seat of the United Nations and cannot claim anv
nghi of veto;ver the Secretay-General's appointment of personnel IO the ,iaK;f
the L'niiedNations. In gencral, thr Unlied Siütes, 3s host cuuntry. must permit
access10the headquarters on the part of al1persons who have legitimate business
with the Organization. This involves inevitahly the admission of a number of
aliens, some of whom would not normally be admissible under immigration laws
of the United States. The United States has foreclosed itself in undertaking
voluntarily the obligations of the host Government.
It is necessary for the United Nations 10 be assured that persons having
legitimate businesswith the Organization can have access to the headquarters
district. Thus, section 1I provides that the Federal, State, or local authorities are
no~ to~imno.e~ ~ ~imwdiments to transi~~to or ~ ~ ~the headauarters district hv
certain limited c;teg<ries of persons set forth in that section. '
Section 13(b), however,makes it clear that persons who abuse these privileges
either mav be denorted in accordance with the deoortation laws of the United
States (sihject to'ihe appro\ül of ihc Secretar) of~iaic) or msy he required 10
lea\r tlic United Siütes in accordancc wiih the customlir) proccdure appliciblc to
dir>lomaticcntuks accrrdiied to ihc Cnitrd Stoies. Section 13 ih, al,o make, it
clé~ ~th~ ~the United States mav issue limit~d ~i~ ~. valid onlv for the area
comprising the headquarters distict and its irnmediatévicinity. '
The phrase "immediate vicinity" links the section with section 6 of the joint
resolut~on,providing as follows: CONTENT SF THE DOSSIER 143
Sec. 6. Noihing in the agreement shall be construed as in any way
diminishine. ahrideine. or weakenine the rieht of the United States com-
plcicly io Gnirul the &transe of alic; intu an). ierritory oiihc Unitcd Staies
oihcr ihan the hcadquarters di>iri~.iand ils immcdiaie i,iciniiyand such areas
as il is reasonablv nccessary to traverse in transit between the same and
faircign coun1ries~4lurco~e~. noihing in seciion 14 of the agrccnicnt u,iih
rcspect IOfaciliiaiingcnirancc inio the Unitcd Siiies by pcrsons uho wish io
\,irii the hcadqu3rters dirtrict and do not enio) ihc right of entry pri)<idrd in
section II of lhc aerccment shall he constÏued to amend or sus~end in anv
way the immigration laws of the United States or to commit'the unite2
States in any way to eiiect an). amendment or suspension of such laws.
An amendment added hy the committee reserves the right of the United States
to safcguard ils own security along with the right 10control entry of aliens in10
territory other than the hcadquarters area. This right of self-defense is given
expression here as a premise underlying al1American policy. This language was
inscrted in order to makc explicit what is a premise ofsuch an agreement in any
.-.-.
The committce are aware of the difficultyof trying to clinch a tight restriction
with a loose phrase. The tcm "immcdiate vicinity" must be given definitive
meaning in théarrangements to he workcd out hetween this GoveÏnment and the
Secretary-General in pursuance of section 13 (3)(e) of the agreement. This is the
purposc of an amendment proposed hy the committec.
DlPLOMATlC STATUS
Section 16. in Article V. orovides that limited classes of reoresentatives of
member statcs of the ~niicd liions arc IObeeniiiled inthe ~niiédStates "io ihc
same privilcgcs and immuniticr" as arc accorded io diplomatic cnvo)s accrcdited
to the L'nited Siaies. subicci. huwcicr. "10 currcspondinr: conditions and
ohlieations". Thus. a limited erouo of the more imoortant reoÏesentatives to the
unircd Nations will rcceive The &ne diplomatic'status as'their colleagues in
Washington who are accredited to the United States Government. Provision is
made Cora physical limitation of the area in which such immunities may he
claimed in the cases ofreprcscntatives of members who are not recognized hy the
United States.
The committee have taken note that the Charter itself, in dealine with the
question of immuniiies, docs no1 >pc.cifydiplomatic status Iisimpl~siaiîs the
rcquiremcnt of such immunity as is necesssry for the performance ol'ihc function
Thc United Staics and the Uniicd Nations have comc into an agreement that
diolomatic status is the necessarv formula here. The committee have weiehed this
sümç qucsiion in relation 10ihe gencral con\ention on immunities. ~hilrii mighi
be posihle IOstrikc out refcrciiccto diplomatic status and pcrhaps renegoiiate on
a basis that would simdv enumerate the orivileres rranted, to do so would he to
concentrate on words raiher than suhstaice. The prëmise of the agreement is that
the sum total of the privileges necessaryapproximates that of diplomatic status,
and the committee accept this view.
CONCLUSIONSAND RECOMMENDATIONS
The committee believe the orovisions are consistent with the resuirements of
ihc Uniied Nations. The committcc arc auarc ihat the undertaking herc proposcd
is ihc outcomc of an obligation for which the United States, ai the insiance of the
Congress. ~~oluntccredThe commiiiee helievcthat the prùvisions minim?~e,as far144 APPLICABILITY OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE
as practic;iblc,ihcdanger tu naiional securiiy ihrough granting a Iimiird accebIO
persons uho uihcru,ise uould noi bs psrmiiicd IO enter ihc Cniied Staics. The
committee therefore recommend that ihe House concur in Senate Joint Resolu-
tion 144with the proper amendments proposed.
Because il is essential that the United States be in a position to deposit its
ratification in advance of the meeting of the General Assembly of the United
Nations in the fall, the committee recommend that the House act with dispatch.
(95)CongressionaR l ecordof 26 July 1947
(93 Cong. Rec. 10375,10.797,10400)(1947)
MESSAGE FROMTHE HOUSE
A message from the House of Representatives, by MT. Farrell, its enrolling
clerk, announced that the House had passed thejoint resolution (S.J.Res. 144)
authorizing the President to bring in10effect an agreement between the United
States and the United Nations for the purpose of establishing the permanent
headquarters of the United Nations in the United States and authorizine. the
taking of measures necessary to facilitate compliance with the provisions ocsuch
agreement, and for other purposes, with amendments, in which it requested the
concurrence of the Senate:
HEADQUARTERS OF UNITED NATIONS
The President pro rempore laid before the Senate the amendments of the House
of Renresentatives to the ioint resolution (S.J.Res. 144)authorizinethe President
IO bAng inio etTecian igreemeni heiw&n the ~niiédSraies and the IJniicd
Nations Iùr the purposc of esiahlishing thc pcrmsneni hradquartcrs of ihe IJniied
Nat~onrin ihe Uniied Siaici and xuihorizinc!the takinri of mrasurcs ncccssdn IO
facilitate compliance with the provisions-of such agreement. and for oiher
purposes, which were, on the first line of page 4 of the preamhle. strike out "a
copy of which is annexed hereto;" and insert "which agreement is incorporated
herein;"; on page 4, line 15, strike out "agreement." and insert "agreement:
Provided, That any supplemental agreement entered into pursuant 10section 5 of
the agreement incorporated herein shall be submitted to the Congress for
ap..oval. The agreement follows":
On page 6. II& 14.sirikc out "authorizcd" and inscri ..authorixed: IJroi.t<lrd,
Thai any monc'yappropriaicd under thi* authoriz~tion shall hc spcnt onl) on a
basisof reimburscmeni bs ihe Uniied Naiions. in sword~nce u,iihsection 3 dithe
agreement and that the money thus reimbursed shall be deposited and covered
into the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneousreceipts"; on page 7, line
18,after "States" insert "to safeguard ils own security and", and on page 7, line
20, strike out "vicinitv" and insert "vicinitv, as to be defined and fixed in a
,upplcmcniary agreement betu.een the ~o\crnmcnt oithe Unitcd States and the
Uniisd Naiions in pursuance of scction 13(3) (el of ihc agreement "
The Prcsideni pri~renipore.This is the Housc oi Rrprexntati\cs counierpari of
ihe Srnaie üciion on ihe United Nations businsis. Without oblcciion, ihc Scnarc
will concur in the amendments of the House.
There being no objection, the amendments were concurred in. CONTENTS OF THE DOSIER 145
(96) Text of S.J.Res. 144as enacted into law on 4 August 1947(Pub. L.
No. 80-357)
(United States Code Congressional Service, 80th Congress, First Session
pp. 754-765,61 Stat. 756)
TREATIESAND OTHER INTERNATIONAL AC~S SERIES 1676,
HEADQUARTEFG OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Public Law 357 - 80th Congress, Chapter 482 - 1stSession,S.J.Res. 144,Joint
Resolution
Authori7ing the Presideiit io hnng into effectan agreement beturen the Uniicd
Statc, and ihc Cnitcd Nstions for the purpose of cstahlishing the permanent
headuuaricrs of ihe Uniicd Naiions in the tiniird Statcs and auihorizina the
taking of measures necessary to facilitate compliance with the provisions ofsuch
agreement, and for other purposes.
Whereas the Charter of the United Nations was signed on behalf of the United
States on June 26,1945, and was ratified on August 8,1945, by the President of
the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the
instrument of ratification of the said Charter wasdeposited on August 8'1945;
and
Whereas the said Charter of the United Nations came into force with respectIo
the United States on October 24, 1945; and
Whereas Article 104of the Charter provides that "The Organization shall enjoyin
the territory of each of ils Members such legalcapacity as may be necessaryfor
the exerciseof its functions and the fulfillmentof ils purposes"; and
Whereas Article 105of the Charter provides that:
"1. The Organization shall enjoy in the territory oi each of ils Members
such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfillment of its
purposes.
2. Renresentatives of the Members of the United Nations and officiaisof
the Org3nization shïll similarl) enjo) such privilegcsand immuniiies as ïrr
nesesar) for the indeprndent cxerciseUTiheir functions iiconnection with
the Organization.
3. The General Assemblv mav make recommendations with a view to
dctcrmining the details<ifth; appiiçation ol'pûr~grïphs I and 2of this~rticle
or may~ ~opo~ccon5cniions IO the Members iithe United Nations for this
purpose."; and
Whereas Article 28 and other articles of the Charter of the United Nations
contemplate the establishment of a seat for the permanent heddquarters of the
Organization; and
Whereas the intenm arrangements concluded on June 26, 1945,by the govern-
ments reoresented at the United Nations Conference on International Oraani-
laiion in1,tructedihe Prcpïratury Commission established in punuancc if the
arrangemcnis to "makr studic5and prepare rccommend~tionsconcerning the
location of the permanent headquarters of the Organization"; and
Whereas durine the labors of the said~~reoaratorv Commission. the Coneress of
thc ~lnited kiies jn H. Con. Res ~5.'p~ssed'un~nimourlyh) the ll~use of
Keprcsentatiies Deremhcr IV. 1945.and agrecd IO unanimously by the Senïte
Decemhcr Il. 1945.in\,itcdthe LlniiedNaiions "to locatc the ieai of ihc United
Nations ~r~anization within the United States"; and146 APPLlCABlLlTY OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE
Whereas the General Assembly on December 14, 1946, resolved "that the
permanent headquarters of the United Nations shall be estahlished in New
York City in the area bounded by First Avenue, East Forty-eighth Street, the
East River, and East Forty-second Street"; and
Whereas the General Assembly resolved on December 14, 1946, "That the
Secretary-General be authorized to negotiate and conclude with the appropri-
ale authorities of the United States of America an agreement concerning the
arrangements required as a result of the establishment of the permanent
headauarters of the United Nations in the citv of NewYork" and 10 beeuided
in ih& neg<ii!aiionshy the pro\.isions of a p;climinüry drïfi agreement-u,hich
had ken ncyuiiÿied by the Secrei;iry.Gcnerdldnd the Secretary ol Siate ol the
United States: and
Whcrc~sthe Gcncrül As,cmbly resulved on Dccemkr 14. 1946.that pending the
coming inio forccof the ügrecment relerred to shovc "thc Secretary.Gencral he
authonzed to negotiate and conclude arrangements with the appropriate
authorities of the United States of America 10determine on a provisional basis
the privileges,immunities, and facilitiesneeded in connection with the tempo-
rary headquarters of the United Nations."; and
Whereas the Secretary of State of the United States, after consultation with the
appropriate authorities of the State and city of New York, signed at Lake
Success. New York, on June 26. 1947, on behalf of the United States an
aereernent with the United Nations reeardine the headauarters of the United
&ions. which agreement is incorporaïcd hèrein: and '
Wherras ilicafore-aid agreement provides thai ilshallbçbrought into eki byan
cxchanne of notes hetucen the Uniied Siatçs and thc Secretarv-Gcncral of ihe
~nited~ations: Therefore be il
Resolvedb)' the Senare and House ofRepresenrativesoj ihe Unired Stores oj
America in Congress assembled,That the President is hereby authorized to bring
into efect on the part of the United States the agreement between the United
States of Amenca and the United Nations regarding the headquarters of the
United Nations, signedat Lake Success,New York, on June 26, 1947(hereinafter
referred to as the "agreement"), withsuch changes therein no1 contrary to the
-eneral tenor thereof and not im.osin-.anv additional obligations on the United
Statesas ihc Preiidrni maydcem nçcess3r) anJ appropnilte,and ai hisdi.creiion.
aficr consuliaiion with the appropri;ite Siatc and Iorÿl authoniiesIO enter into
such supplemental agreements wiih the United Nations as may be necessary Io
fulfill the ourooses of the said aereement: Provided. That anv suonlemental
airement eniéredinio pur&lini to;ection 5i>fthe agreement in~&~o&iedhcrcin
sh311 be suhmiitcd to ihc Congress fur approval. The 3grcement lollows.
Sec.2. For the purpose of carrying out the obligations of the United States
under said agreement and suoolemental aereements with resvect to United States
assurance, that the Cnited <aiions shall noi bc dispossesscd'ofits propcriy in the
he~dquarlersdistnct, and with respect Io ihc estahlishmcnt of rïdio lacilitiesand
the possibleestablishment of an airport:
(a) The President of the United States, or any officialor governmental agency
authorized bv the President. mav,acau.re in the name of the United States anv
property or interest therein by purchase, donation, or other means of transfer, or
may cause proceedings to be instituted for the acquisition of the same hy (b) Upon the requestof the President,or such officeras the Presidentmaydesig-
nate, the Attorney-General of the United States shall cause such condemnation or
other .ro~ ~ ~ ~s to beinstituted in the name of the United St~t~ ~~~ the district
ioun of the ~zed Statesfor Ïhedisinci in whichthe piopeny issituated and such
court shall have fulljurisdiction of such pr&ings. and any condenindiion pro-
ceedingsshall be conducted in accordance with the Act of August 1. 1888 (25Stat.
357),as amended. and the Act of Febniary 26, 1931(46 Stat. 1421).as amended.
(c, Aftcr the institution of any such condemnation proceedings. possessionof
the property may be taken at any time the President,~orsuch &cer as he may
designate, determines is necessary.and the court shall enter such orders as maybe
necessary to effect entry and occupancy of the property.
(d) The President of the United States, or any officeror governmenlal agency
duly authorized by the President, may, in the name of the United States, transfer
or convey possession of and title to any interest in any property acquired or held
by the United States, pursuant to paragraph (a) above, to the United Nations on
the terms nrovided in the anreement or in anv suoolemental aereement. and shall
cxecute and deliver such conreyanccs and ;the; ;nstrument;and perfonn such
other acts in connection therewith abmay be necessaryto carry out the provisions
of the agreemenL
(e) There are authorized to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury
not othenvise appropriated, such sums as rnay be required 10enable the United
States 10 carry out the undertakings hereby authorized: Provided, That any
money appropriated under this authorization shall be spent only on a hasis of
reimbursement by the United Nations in accordance with section 3 of the
agreement, and that the money thus reimbursed shall be deposited and covered
into the Treasurv of the United States as miscellaneous receiots.
Sec.3 The président.or the Secreiary of Staic undcr his dir&tion, isauthonzed
to enter into agreements with the State of New York or any othcr State of the
United States and to the extent not inconsistent with State law. withany one or
more of the wlitical subdivisions thereof in aid of effectuati..the =rovisions of
the agreement.
Sec.4. Any States, or 10the extent not inconsistent with State law any political
subdivisions thereof. affected bv the establishment of the headauarters of the
United Nations in the United ~Gtes are authorized to enter into dgreemenl>with
the llnited Nations or with each other consistent with the dgrccment dnd for the
oumose of facilitatina comoliance with the same: Provided, That. exceut in cases
8f&ergency and agreements of a routine contractual character, a repiesentative
of the United States, to be appointed hy the Secretary of State, may, at the
discretion of the Secretary of State, participate in the negotiations, and that any
such agreement entered into by such State or States or political subdivisions
thereof shall be subject to approval by the Secretary of State.
Sec.S. The President is authorized to make effective with respect to the
temporary headquarters of the United Nations in the State of New York, on a
provisional basis, such of the provisions of the agreement as he may deem
appropnate, having due regard for the needs of the United Nations al its
temporary headquarters.
Sec.6.Nothinn in the aareement shall be construed as in an. .av diminishina.
abndging, or wëakeningÏhe right of the United States to safeguard its owi
secunty and completely tu control the enirdnce of aliens into any territory of the
United Statesother than the headauarters distnct and ils immediate vicinity.as to
be defined and fixed in a suoolementarv aereement between the Government of
the United Statesand the ~iiied ~ations in pursuance of section 13(3) (e) of the
agreement, and such areas as it is reasonably necessary 10 traverse in transit148 APPLlCABlLllK OF THE OBLlGAnON TO ARBITRAIE
between the same and foreign countries. Moreover, nothing in section 14of the
agreement with resoect to facilitatine entrance into the United States hv versons
nho nish IJ viril ihe heddquarten>istrict and do not enjuy the nghia;f entr)
providcd in section II of the agreement shall becunstrued to amend or suspend in
ans u,aythe immigration 1au.sof the United Stdtci or to commit the United States
in any way to effëct any amendment or suspension of such laws.
Approved August 4, 1947.
-
3. Questionof Access to Headquartersof Representativesof
Non-Governmental Organizations'
(97) Resolution 606(VI).Application of the Head-
quarters Agreement Io Representatives of
Non-Govemmental Organizations, adopted
hy the General Assembly,on the report of the
Sixth Committee, 1 Fehmary 1952
(98) Resolution 455 (X.V)..ADDlication of the
Headquarters Agreement 10 R'cprexntatires
of Non-Go\ernmental Organizdiions (Gen-
er~l Asscmhly resolution 606 tVII), adonted
hy the ~conomic and Social ~o&cil. four-
teenth session, 25 June 1952
(99) Accessto Headquarters of Representatives of Economic and Social
Non-Govemmental Organizations Council, Oficial Records,
fifteenth session, 679th
meeting, 9 April 1953
(ElSR.679)
(100) Memorandum hy the Legal Department on Economic and Social
the Access to Headquarters of Representa- Council, OficialRecords,
tives of Non-Governmental Organizations fifteenth session, An-
10xAnddoc1951t E/2397,
-. .- -..----
(101) Question of Access to Headquarters of Rep- Economic and Social
resentativesof Non-Governmental Oreaniza- Council. O15ïcial ecords.
tions in Consultative Status. ~ro~ress-report sixteenth session, item33
by the Secretary-Generalon negotiationswith (E/2492, 27 July 1953)
the United States of America concerning the
intemretation of the Headauarters Aereement
(102) ~ueition of Accessto ~ead~uarterrof Rep- Economic and Social
resentativesof Non-Governmental Oraaniza- Council. Otficial Re-
lions in Consultative Status: ~e~ortbv the cords. sixteenth session.
Secretary-General on the Result o'fthe Nego- 743rd meeting, 31 JUI;
tiations with the United States Government 1953. Agenda item 33
(Council decision of 28 April 1953)(E/2386, (ElSR.743)
E/2397, El2492, ElL.493 and ElL.560)
(102a) Admission of the Representatives of the Economic and Social
Women's International Democratic Federa- Council, Oficial Re-.
lion for Participation in the Commission on cords, fifteenth session,
the Status of Women, in Accordance with the 686th meeting, 15 April
Resolution Adopted by the Commission 1953. Agenda item 34
(E/2386, El2397 and ElL.493) (ElSR.686)
' Documentsno1reproduced. [Noteby the Registry.] CONTENT3OF THE DOSSIER
(102 b) Admissions of Representatives of the Wom- Economic .and Social
en's International Democratic Federation for Council, 08fcial Re-
Participation in the Commission on theSta- cord, fifteenth session,
tus of Women in Accordance with the Reso- 687th meeting, 15 April
lution Adopted by the Commission (El2386, 1953. Agenda item 34
El2397 and ElL.493) (coniinued) (EISR.687)
(103) Question of Access to Headquarters of Rep- Economic and Social
resentatives of Non-Governmental Organiza- Council, 08fcial Re-
tions on Consultative Status: Report by the cord, sixteenth session,
Secretary-General on the Result of his Nego- 745th meeting, I August
tiations with the United States Government 1953: Agenda item 33
(Council decision of 28 April 1953)(E/2386, (ElSR.745)
E/2397, E/2492, ElL.493 Rev.1, ElL.560 and
ElL.561) (resumed from the 743rd meeting)
Resolution 509 (XVI). Question of Accessto
(104) Headquarters of Representatives of Non-
Governmental Organizations in Consultative
Status, adopted hy the Economic and Social
Council, sixteenth session, 745th plenary
meeting, 1August 1953
(104 a) Annual Report of the Secretary-General on General Assembly, O8fc-
the work of the Organization, I July 1953-30 ial RecordF, ninth ses-
June 1954. See pp. 100-101: Agreement be- sion, Supplement No. I
tween the United Nations and the United (A12663).
States of America regarding the Head-
quarlers of the United Nations
(104 b) Repertory of Practice of United Nations
Organs, Supplement No. 1. Volume II
(Art. 105). See:(b) Right of transit and
freedom of access to the United Nations
Headquarters district or conference area,
paragraphs 26 and 27
(104 c) Non-Governmental Organizations (con- Economic and Social
cluded) Council, O8fcial Re-
cords, twenty-first ses-
sion, 923rd meeting, 3
May 1956.Agenda item
17
Part IV. Materials Relating to thProceedin Subssequentto the Request by the
General Assemblyfor an AdvisoryOpinion
1. Documentsof the Forty-secondSessionof the GeneralAssembly(Resurned).
18-23 March 1988'
(105) Report of the Committee on Relations with Al42i9151Add.2
the Host Country. Report of the Secretary- (mimeographed)
General. ~ddendum. Annex 1: Letter dated
' Documentsnot nproduced. [Noie byIheRegkrry.1150 APPLlCABlLlTV OFTHE OBLIGATION TO
II March 1988from the Acting Permanent
Representative of the United States to the
United Nations addressed to the Secretary-
General. Annex II: Letter dated II March
1988 from the Permanent Observer of the
Palestine Liberation Organization to the
United Nations addressed to the Secretary-
General. Appendix: Letter dated II March
1988 from the Attorney General of the
United States of America to the Permanent
Observerof the Palestine Liberationrgani-
zation to the United Nations
(106) Report of the Committee on Relations with Al421915lAdd.3
the Host Country. Report of the Secretary- (mimeographed)
General. Addendum. Annex 1: Letter dated
15 March 1988from the Secretary-General
addressed to the Acting Permanent Repre-
sentative of the United States to the United
Nations
(107) Letterdated 17March 1988from the Perma- A/42/930S/19642
nent Representativeof Saudi Arabia to the (mimeographed)
United Nations addressed to the Secretary-
General. Annex: Communiquéissuedby the
twenty-sixthsessionof the MinisterialCoun-
cilof the Gulf Co-operationCouncil, heldat
Riyadh from 27 10 28 Rajab A.H. 1408
(15-16March A.D. 1988)
(108) General Assembly, fony-second session, Aj42lL.48
Agenda item 136,Report of the Committee (mimeographed)
on Relations with the Host Country -
Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh,
Benin, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burk-
ina Faso, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist
Republic, Colombia, Comoros, Congo,
Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen,
Djibouti, Ethiopia, German Democratic
Republic,Ghana, Guyana, India, Indonesia,
Iraq, Islamic Republic of Iran, Jordan,
Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic,
Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mada-
gascar, Malaysia, Mali,Malta, Mauntania,
Mexico,Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Nicar-
agua, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Pen,
Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Saudi Arahia,
Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan,
Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Uganda,
Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.Union
of Soviet SocialistRepublics, United Arab
Emirates, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen,
Yugoslavia, Zambia and Zimbabwe: draft
resolution
General Assembly,Provisional Verbatim Re- A/42/PV.105
(109)
cord of the 105thmeeting, 18March 1988 (mimeographed) CONENTS OF THE DOSSIER 151
General Assembly,Provisional Verbatim Re- A/42/PV.106
cord of the 106th meeting, 21 March 1988 (mimeographed)
General Assembly,Provisional Verbatim Re- A/42/PV.107
cord of the 107th meeting, 22 March 1988 (mimeographed)
General Assembly,Provisional Verbatim Re- A/42/PV.108
cord of the 108th meeting, 23 March 1988 (mimeographed)
General Assembly. Provisional Verbatim Re- A/42/PV.109
cord of the 109th meeting, 22 March 1988 (mimeographed)
Letter dated 22 March 1988from the Perma- Al421939
nent Representative of Tunisia to the United (mimeographed)
Nations addressed to the Secretary-General.
Annex 1: Letter dated 14 March 1988from
the Permanent Observer of the Palestine Li-
beration Organization to the United Nations
addressed to the Attorney General of the
United States of America. Annex II: Letter
dated 21 March 1988 from the Attorney
General of the United States of America 10
the Permanent Observer of the Palestine Li-
beration Organization to the United Nations
Resolution 421230.Report of the Committee A/RES/42/230
on Relations with the Host Country, adopted (mimeographed)
by the General Assembly, 23 March 1988
2. OrherMarerials
Justice Department BriefingRegarding: Closing of the Palestinian Liber-
ation Organization Observer Mission 10 the United Nations, Friday II
March 1988
Ensrland:Good afternoon, I'mTerry Eastland. With me isChuck Cooper.
Chuck. as manv ,~,vou know. is the ~ssisiant Attornev General in charee ofthe
office of &a1 Counsel. H; i; here to discu; the issue; involvingour decisio1"
regard Io the PL0 Observer Mission. I should noie to you that WC have handed
oÜt two pieces of paper for your use. One, of course, is the letter from the
Attorney General that was hand-delivered this morning in New York, this, to the
Observer Mission of the PLO, as wellas the Law. And 1should just note 10you,
this isa copy of the Billas it was introduced and this isactually as il was passed as
well.
So, witb that, here is Mr. Cooper.
Mr. Cooper: Earlier today, the Attorney General caused to be delivered to the
PL0 Observer Mission to the United Nations in New York, a letter that each one
of you has been handed. For purposes of the recording of theseproceedings, 1will
read the pertinent provisions of the letter.
"Dear Mr. Terzi,
1am writing to notify you that on March 21, 1988,the provisions of the
Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987, as enacted by Congress, and approved on
December 22nd. 1987.will becomeeffective.The Act vrohibits. amone other
things, the ~nle;tine Liberation Organization from esiiblishin~ or mahain-
ing an officewithin the junsdiciion of the United States.
Accordingly.as of March 21. 1988.maintaining the PL0 Ohwrver Mission152 APPLICABILITY OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE
to the United Nations in the United States. will be unlawful. The leaislation
charges the Attorney General with the responsibilityofenforcing thë~ct To
that end. please be ad\,iscd that should you fail 10 comply with the
reauircmcnts of the Act. the De~artment ofJurtice willforthwith take action
in ihe United States ~e'deralcourts to insure your compliance."
That's the relevant portion of the letter. In passing the Anti-Terrorism Act,
which the administration, you may already know, opposed for a varicty of
reasons, Congress clearly and unambiguously stated ils intent. The Act prohibits
the PL0 from maintaining an officein the United States. The plain language of
this provision directly applies 10 the PLO's Observer Mission 10 the United
Nations.
In addition, the legislativehistory of this statute further demonstrates that one
of Congress' expresspurposes in passing the Act was to close the Observer
Mission in NewYork.
Now it has ken argued that the provision of the Act requiring closure of the
PL0 Ohserver Missionviolatesour obligations under international law. For more
than a century, however, the Supreme Court has held that Congress has the
authority to abrogate treaties and international law for the purpose of domestic
law. Here, Congress has chosen irrespective of international law, 10 ban the
presence of al1PL0 offices in this country, including the presence of the PL0
Observer Mission to the UN.
In disclosingour obligation to enforce the l-w in discharging-excuse me -
our obligation to enforce the law, the only responsible course is to respect and
follow that conaressional decision
As 1mentiona carlier, the Department has notifiedthe PL0 Ohsener Mission
that if isrequired tocloseon Mürch 21. 196% . nd that, iitdoes not comply with
that reauirement. that we will takc cx~editiousaction in Fcderal Court.
1'11bé happy to answer any you may have.
-.-....
Q: Sure. Are you saying that you agree with al1allegations - can you Say
whether you agree or disagree with the allegations that this violates neither
international law or the treaty?
Mr. Cooper: No, 1am no1 saying whether we agree or disagree with that -
with those legal arguments. It really isn't necessaryto inquire into those legal
points, because Congress has decided that without regard to what international
law, or what - or regard to what the UN Headquarters Agreement may provide,
the PL0 Observer Mission to the UN shall be closed. ln other words, interna-
tional law, to the extent it is contrary, has been superseded by this statute.
Q: Weil, is it contrary, in your analysis?
Mr. Cooper: We have not deemed it necessary to come to a definitive
conclusion on that. The examination that we have given10it suggests 10us that
that is not an open and shut legal issue,but we haven't had to,.nor have wecome
to a definitiveconclusion on that. Yes, sir?
Q: What happens now, if, for example, the United Nations makes application
to either US courts or The Hague - the World Court of Justice?What would be
your position? Have you attempted send a representative to represent the US at
the application hearing?
Mr. Cooper: We have determined that we would not participate in any forum,
either the arbitral tribunal that mieht be constituted under Article XXI. as 1
understand il. of the UN ~ead~uarcrs Agreement. or the International ~oht of
Justice As 1said earlier, the statute has superseded the requirîmcnts of the UN
Headquarters Agreement to the extent thaï those requirements are inconsistent CONTE~TSOF m DOSSIER 153
wiih the statute. and thcreforc, partinpaiion in any of these inbunals that you cite
would be to no uieful end The statute's mandate governs. and we hate no choice
but to enforce it. Yes. sir?
Q: Have you heard at al1whether the United Nations legal counsel is going to
corne into court on this?
Mr. Cooper: 1don't know what the latest status of that - of their thinking is.
The last time 1 did know was on the occasion of a visit to - with Mr.
Fleischhauer, and il was my understanding that they did have that in mind at the
time. That's ken -
Q: Well, what day was that?
Mr. Cooper: Oh, ihat's been three or four week ago, now, so that's - that
would not be news. 1don't know what their latest thinking on that is.
Q: Can you explain the timing of this? Why wasn't it done a month ago when
the decision was apparently made? Or why couldn't il have ken delayed for
another month when il wouldn't be so disniplive 10 the - (inaudible) -
Mr. Cooper: Well, Grst,the decision wasn't made arnonth ago. If the decision
had been made a month ago, then there would have ken no reason that I'maware
of to delav disclosure of it. In so fat as whv the decision has now ken made. and
ihe d&nhnarion hîs been made, thai probiding of the decision and of the course
of action thai the Justice Dcp3rtmcnt ha, re\olied io iake should compliançe no1
be iorihcoming, ihat notice of ihesc Pdctsshould be providcd io the PL0 Ohierver
Mission And ihat was whai the purpoie of ihat leitcr was for. Thcre would be no
wav wecould wiihhold either decision of notice ofilfor snoiher month. in light of
the faci ihat the statuic itselfbecomcs annlicdble on the 2Ist of March. The statute
itself govems the timing of- of - o<&sapplication. So il, in a very real sense,
govems also the timing of Ourconduct.
-: Well. wasn't this session announced and then unannounced about a month
ago?
hfr.Cooper. No, il'snever been announced Thcrc have becn spcculation ihat ii
would be announced. Therc's been a lot of anticipation ihat a dccision hdd heen
mtde and would be announced Rut on c;ich of ihose occasions thou uere Calse
SVdrlT.
Q Could sou repeai uhat date ihis would begin? Have you indicated thai in
an, tirdçr tir direciive frorn an srbitration~pancl or ihc World Court elements'!
(~naudible) - didn't participate in it-
Mr. Cooper: Right.
Q: Are there - (inaudible)-
Mr. Cooper:Yes. 1think that would be an accurate - an accurate understand-
ine of the elTectof anv result from an international tribunal that examined the
inïernational law elTeciof this deci,ion, ofthis staiuie JUS!have to keep coming
bdck to the fact that a siatute supersedes any pre-existing. contrary international
law obligation. You know, to give you a beiter, or perhaps aneasier way to
understand this - ifa pre-existing statute in the US Code was superseded, or will
-let me put it this way, if a later-in-lime statute is passed and it is irreconcilable
with an earlierstatute, it'squite black-letter law that the earlier statute givesway
and the later statute supersedes it. A treaty is, like a statute, the law of the land,
but it has no higher status in the law of the land than a previous statute. So an
earlier treaty that is inconsistent witha subsequently enacted statute also rnust
give way to that subsequently enacted statute, at least for dornestic law purposes.
And that is - and weare in tbe businesshere of enforcing domestic law - that is,
laws passed by Congress. So our compass is set on that.
Q: Why is it necessary to go 10-(inaudible) - to closethe office,eventhough
you have the statute now? 1mean, why can't you jus1 go in and close it?154 APPLtCABtLtr YF THE OBLlGATlON TO ARBtTRATE
Mr. Coo~er: The statute itselfcharees the Attornev General with resoonsibilitv
for enforcing the statute. It makes skific referenk to thc~factthat ihe uniteh
States courts are available 10him for that purpose, and that is the enforcement
method that he has chosen. . .
Q: Why is that you - (inaudible)- this announcement in - (inaudible)-
already gone? (Inaudible.)
Mr. Cooper: Our announcement is lied to providing some reasonable notice 10
the PL0 observer mission. Next week. I think we'r~iu~,~~ ~ut ten davs from the
lime - precisely lendays from the effectivenessof the act - of the scatute itself.
And ten days notice seems like a perfectly.lea-timate amount of time 10provide
them.
Q: Last year, when you closed the PL0 officein Washington, you gave it a
weekdelay, 1think more than once. Could that happen again now in referenceto
this UN -
Mr. Cooper: I'm no1real acquainted with what, you know, what the litigation
path of the PLO, the Washington Public Information Officewas. All 1can really
tellyou is that the Department and the Attorney General is resolved 10 seekingthe
necessaryrelief in federal court should the PL0 observer mission still be open on
March 21, 1988.
Q: ...that this isa very dangerousaction in terms of the effectit might have on
US relations with the United Nations and ils future - and existing treaties,
international treaties?
Mr. Cooper: The administration, through the State Department, made known
its opposition to this measure when it was pending in Conaress. 1 think that
amoni the points thev made were ooints thatsounded verv mÜchalone the lines
that y;>uha.veoutlinid. And they ils0 cited international liw conrernsîbout the
measurc. In any event. Congress prrsumably considcrcd those concerns at the
time il was passed. At this point, those concerns cannot govern the Executive in
his oblieation 10 enforce and execute uoon an otherwise con~-i-~tional law.
Q ~;t didn't- wouldn't the ~residénthave a recoura to wy. you know.cite
national secunty concerns and saq uc just can't comply with this law'!Or overnde
il somewhere?
Mr. Conp~r Well,rhcthcr that course wasopen 10 the Presideni is reallyquite
moot The dccision has ken made that the statute isdue to be enforced, and that
we - il's encumbent upon the administration to enforce it. Yes, sir?
O: Just 10follow uo on this ooint. doesn't it establish a nrecedent as oari of US
in~rnational ohlig.ili;>n~(upoi ~redtics)~Supposeat a timéin the futur; you gel a
situation Iikethe Pandmï Canal Torex3mple.and the Congressenacts, and )ou do
exactlv the same. then vou're eivinea siinal 10Connr-ss ihat thev will be able 10
act on other treaties(?j too wieneqer they wish.
Mr. Cooper: 1hope - this is no- this is not new, this reality that Congress
may, as a matter of domestic law, that is in terms of the domestic law of the
United States wholly apart (rom Ourinternational obligations, supersede treaties,
pre-existing treaties, is well known to Congress, and they've been doing it for
centuries - a century, over a century. So this will not come as any startling
revelation to Conaress. 1don't think.
Q Could you ive an example of this, of this kind of action in the part"
Mr Cooper The truth is I can't. Wc'vego1cases in Ouranalysis that uc ha\e
prcpared in Our role in advisina the Attorney General on the leaal status of this
;tatute, theydo no1immediatelycome 10mind, but there area nÜmberof caseson
this, and I'd be happy to provide citations to you if you'd like.
Q: Weil, isn't there a problem here? You keep saying "domestic forum", but
these people have been treated as diplomats up until now, and even the letter is CONTENT3OF THE DOSSIER 155
addressed to the Observer Missional the United Nations. They have had
diolomaticorivileeein the United States. extendedthroueh the State Deoartment.
dn'dnow yo'u'recgllingthem stnctl) dornectlc Can you;eall) swtch y&r horvs
in mid\tream. there. and say that thcse pcople are~.urely a matter of domesiic
forum?
Mr. Cooper: Well. theyhave ben accorded this diplornaticstatus b) virtueof
- no1by virtue of the Presidcni'sConsiiiutional authonty io rwcive ambassa-
dors and to recoanizegoiernments and to establishdiolomdiicrelations.but bv
virtue of the UN and its status - the ~eadquartek Agreement, which wis
incorporated into the US Code as sovereignlaw, and thai is a status that the
Congress can change. They cannot change any diplomatic status that the
President extends. but thev can certainlv chanee di~lomatic status that is
recognizedby virt"e of the ~éad~uarters~beeme;, or ;nything other than what
the President recognizes. Yes?
Q: I'm curious as to why the Justice Deoartment didn't fight this law in the
coÜrtson the grounds thaiit impinges on ihe President'sauihonty to conduct
foreign policy.
Mr. Cooper:Well, ifitdid do that, wewouldfightit, you mayrestassured,and
inmy office,the OfficeofLegalCounsel,wedevotea lot of time,and did devotea
lot oflimein this instance,toexactlythat question,noijust inconnectionwiththe
statute as passed. butinconnectionwiththestatute as proposedwhenit wasking
debated. 1doubt any of you rememberwhenthe Presidentsignedthe billtbat -
in whichthis provisionwascontained, buthemade noteof the factthat it wasnot
a provision he favored, but it- he did not believe,and 1think he was correct
then,that thestatute infringedupon hisexclusiveforeignaffairspowen. This isto
say that the President has notexercisd his exclusiveforeignaffain powen vis-a-
vis the PLO. They are oot recognized; theynever have been. 1am aware of no
intention on the part of the administrationtoecognizethe PLO. If recognitionof
the PL0 and exerciseof presidentialConstitutional prerogativein thisarea would
indeedchange the analysis.
Q: In other words, if Congress - for example, if Congress, in its wisdom,
should pass a law closingthe Soviet Missionto the United Nations, the Justice
Department andthePresidentwouldfighlthat,becausethereisdiplomaticrelations?
Mr. Cooper: That would plainly be unconstitutional. Yes,sir? Bert?
Q: Would an injunclion be the normal means of (inaudible)forcement?
Mr. Cooper: ...1don't know whatthe normal means would be, beeausethis
stalute is no1a normal kind of statute. It is clearly among the means that are
available to the President and to his instrument, the Attorney General, for
enforcing thisstatute, - rather than speculateon the other meansavailableto
us,1just willconfirmyetagainthat we'vechosento go intocourt and to punue a
means that, on the face of the statute - (coughs) - excuse me - is clearly
available.(Coughs.) 1beg your pardon. Ruth?
Q: Secretary Shultz-(inaudible)-Congress insomeway.Do you agreewith
that? Or -
Mr. Cooper: 1 am going to simply defer to Secretary Shultz on the policy
wisdomof this statute. We'rejust lawyers over here.Yes, sir?
decisinnon this?sue referredto the President? And did he, in effect,make the
Mr. Cooper: It just wouldn't be appropriate to describe the nature of the
delikrative processon this. Butthis is an administration decision,and it is one
that the Presidentis cognizant of and supports.
Q: On the smarl-dumb scale, how would you rate tbis on the Justice
Department'sdecisionsthat you've seen in your time herein Washington?156 APPLICABILITYOF THE OBLlOATlON TO ARBITRATE
Mr. Cooper: Well, 1 think it's likethe rest of them in that i-'s
Q: (Off-mike) - low or -
Mr. Cooper: 1think it's like al1the rest of them in that it's the right decision.
Yes, sir?
Q: So you Saythat the status of these missions without diplomatic representa-
lion was in sort of a gray zone in international law?
Mr. Cooper: 1 would think that would not be an unfair to characterize the
observer missionsto the PL0 - 1mean, to the United Nations. They have a gray
kind of status, vis-à-vis the United Nations. let alone United - vis-&vis any
- ~ r ~ - ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -
Q: So we'd say that - (inaudible)- contracting parties of the headquarters
agreement. the UN and the US Government? The simatories of the headquarters
agreement? -
Mr. Cooper: At least those two, yes, and the headquarters agreement is
incorporated into US law. It is a - you can find it in the US Code. So it -
Q: So hoth signatories would not have a legallegto stand on to try to keep that
mission open?
Mr. Cooper: Not for domestic law purposes. At least that iscertainly Our
judgment on the matter, which we are prepared to advance and defend in court.
Q: Can you describe the rationale of why you chose the federal court rather
than proceed (?) any other route to enforce the -
Mr. Coo~er: No. I would no1describe anv of the deliberations that went into
that decision. Iust sufficeil to say that is théenforcement method that is clearly
authorized under the statute, and that il has been determined is the most
appropriate means for proceeding al this lime.
Q: 1do want to make sure 1understand the federal - (inaudible). You're not
goingto -if they comply, at leastcloseup shop and go home, you're no1going to
federal court -
Mr. Cooper: Oh, gosh, no, ofcourse not. You know, obviously the only reason
to go to federal court would be to enforce a statute that was not being complied
with. If they comply, that will be the end of it.
Q: (Off-mike)
Mr. Cooper: 1beg your pardon? I'm sorry.
Q: Could you explain to us why you haven't - why you're so reluctant to Say
why the administration chose to go to court? 1 mean I just don't seewhat the
issue - .
Mr Cooper: Well lei me - why is ihat such a puuling dccision? As I Say.the
statute iiselfmakesspecific reference10the avail3hilit).of the United States courts
for enforcinathe statute. It isan orderly and a~~ro~riatewav to go. It ~rorides ail
interested an opportunity to make kn& iheir viewi and legaiarguments
with respect to the validity of the measure. It seems to me to be entirely an
appropriate method.
Mr. Ensrland:Do we have anv other auestions?
Q. (Off-mike) - Well.this uokld bemore a quesiion for the Attorney Gcneral.
- (onimike) - is the Attorney General's decirion. or is thi- (or-mike)?
Mr. Ea.vrland Well.Chuck is ~rebared to answer thïi. but l'IIanswer it for him.
The letter clearlyis the ~ttorney~éneral's letter. Chuck; as most of you, 1assume
know, is the individual in this building charged with basically doing the work in
this area. He is the head of the Officeof Legal Counsel. That officehas existed
since 1950. 11used to be part of the Solicitor General's officesince 1870. It is
charged with giving legal advice and opinion, one of the core dulies of the
Attorney Gcneral since 1789.And so herewehave Mr. Cooper, he isth authority
in this arca. Any other questions? CONTENTSOF THE DOSSIER
Q: Ask some more like that!
Mr. Easrland:Thank you.
(117)Summons in a CivilAction, United States District Court, Southern District
of New York (case No. 88 CIV. 1962), UniredStates of America v. Palestine
LiberariotiOrganization,et al.
Mission of the Palestine Liberation Organization to the United Nations, 115E.
65th Street, New York, New York 10021.
Youare hereby summonedand required to filewilh the Clerk of this Court and
serve upon Mona S. Butler, Attorney. Department of Justice, Civil Division,
Room 3335,'10th & Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20530, an
answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 20 days after
serviceof this summons upon you, exclusiveof the day of service. Ifyou failto do
so, judgment by default will he taken against you for the relief demanded in the
complaint.
UniredSiaies District Courrfor the SouthernDisirict of New York
United States of America, PlaintiK v.Palestine Liheration Organization; Mission
of the Palestine Liheration Organization to the United Nations; Zuhdi Labib
Terzi; Riyad H. Mansour; Nasser AI-Kidwa; Ali Mohammed Abdallah; Veron-
ica Kanaan Pugh and Josephine Villaniel, Defendants.
COMPLAlNT
The United States of America, by its undersigned attorneys, bnngs this civil
action, and for its complaint against defendants alleges as follows:
1. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin defendants
from continuing violations of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987, Title X of the
Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1988-89, Pub. L. No. 100-204, @
1001-1005 ("the Anh-Terrorism Act").
2.This Court hasjurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28U.S.C. @ 1331, 1345
and section 1004of the Anti-Terrorism Act. Declaratory reliefis sought pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. @ 2201 and 2202. lnjunctive relief is sought pursuant to the equity
power of this Court, as well as section 1004 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, which
grants this Court authority to grÿnt injunctive and such other equitable relief
necessary to enforce the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act.
3. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 5 1391(b) and (d) and
section 1004of the Anti-Terrorism Act.
~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~
4. Plaintifl is the UniredSraresofAnteriru.
5. Dcfendant PulesrineL~hrrnrionOrgnnizar~~~ (P1.O") is an unincorpi>rated
forcien eniitv thït manta~ns an Obxr\er Mission to thc United Nations in New
~ork: New Iork ("the Observer Mission"), within this judicial district.
6. Defendant Mission of the Palestine LiberarionOrganization ro the United
Nations is the Permanent Observer Mission of the PL0 accredited to the United
Nations, pursuant to United Nations General Assembly resolution No. 2337
(XXIX) D.efendant Observer Mission is located in New York, New York. within
this judicial district.
7. Defendant ZuhdiLobib Terziholds a passport from Algeria. Defendant Terzi
was admitted to the United Statespursuant to a "B-1" visaissuedto aliensvisiting158 APPLICABILITY OF THE OBLIGATIONTO ARBITRATE
the United States temporarily for business.Defendant Tem maintains an officein
New York, New York, within this judicial district. Defendant Terzi is the
Permanent Ohserver of the PL0 to the United Nations and is the highest ranking
member of the PL0 in the United States. He issued individuallyand in his official
capacity as the Permanent Observer of the PL0 to the United Nations.
8. Defendant RiyadH. Mansour is a United States citizen. Defendant Mansour
resides and is employed in New York, New York, within this judicial district.
Defendant Mansour is the Deputy Permanent Ohserver of the PL0 to the United
Nations. He is sued individually and in his official capacity as the Deputy
Permanent Ohserver of the PL0 to the United Nations.
9. Defendant Nasser Al-Kidwais a citizen of Iraq. Defendant Al-Kidwa was
admitted to the United States pursuant to a "B-1" visa issuedto aliens visitingthe
United States temporarily for business. Defendant Al-Kidwa isemployed in New
York, New York, within this judicial district. Defendant Al-Kidwa is the
Alternate Permanent Ohserver of the PL0 to the United Nations.' He is sued
individuall~,nd in his officialca.acit,~as the Alternate Permanent Observer of the
PL0 &the United Nations.
10. Defendant Ali Mohammed Abdollah is a United States citizen. Defendant
Abdallah residesin New York, New York, within thisjudicial district. Defendant
Abdallah isemployedas a Researcherat the PL0 Ohserver Missionin New York,
New York.
1I. Defendant VeronicaKanaan Puah isa citizen of Great Britain and has been
ddmirted to the United Stiiter îc ;ptmianent resident. 1)cfendant Pugh residesin
New York. New York. uithin thisjudicul district. Defendant Pugh i.ernployed
as an Administrati\e Assistant a1 th? P1.0 Observer Mission in New York. New
York.
12.Defendant Josephinr Vtlluruel iç a citizen of Canada. Defendant Villaruel is
employcd as a Clcrk ai the PL0 Observer Mission in Neu York, New York.
13 Section 1003 of the Anti-Terronsm Act orovides. in rrrtinent oart. as
follows:
It shall be unlawful, if the purpose be to further the interests of the
Palestine Liberation Organization or any of ils constituent groups, any
successorto any of those, or any agents thereof, onor after the effectivedate
of this titl-
(1) to receive anything of value except informational material from the
PL0 or any of ils constituent groups, any successorthereto, or any agents
thereof;
(2) to expend funds from the PL0 or any of ils constituent groups, any
successor thereto. or anv aeents thereof: or
. , u ~ ~ ~
(3) notwithstanding an) provision oflaw to the contrary. to estahlish or
maintain an oîiice. heddquarters, prcmises.or othcr facilitiesor establish-
ments within thejurisdiction of the United States ai the behestor direction
of, or with funds provided by the Palestine Liberation Organization or any
of ils constituent groups, any suCCessor 10 any of those. or any îgents
thereof.
14. The Attorney General of the United States is responsible for enforcing the
policies and provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act.
15.The President has no1cenified in writine. oursuant 10section 1005of the
Anti-Terronsm Act, to the President pro rpmpo;; Ofthe Senate and the Speaker of
the House that the PLO. 11sagcnts, or constituent groups thereof no longer
practice or support terrorist actions anywhere in the world; CONTENTSOF THE DOSS~ER 159
16. Defendant Terzi, eitherhimself or as an agent of the PLO, owns and
maintains a townhouse located ai 115East 65th Street,New York, New York
("the Townhouse"), within the jurisdiction of the United States.
17.DefendantTerzi maintains theTownhouseas an officeandior headquarters
of the PL0 and/or the PL0 Observer Missionto the United Nations.
18.The Townhouseisbeingmaintainedas an officeand/or headquarters of the
PL0 and/or the PL0 Observer Missional the behestor directionof, andior with
fundsprovidedbythe PLO, itsconstituent groups, a successorto any of those,or
agents thereof.
19. The purpose of maintaining the Townhouse as an office andior head-
quarters of the PL0 and101the PL0 Observer Missionis 10 furtherthe interestsof
the PLO, its constituent groups,any successorto any of those, or agents of the
.l--.
20. Upon information and belief,defendants will seek other premisesand/or
willseekthe assistance ofthird oartiesto oblain other oremisesfor useasan office
and/or headquarters of the P~O and/orthe PL0 06server Mission shouldthe
Court enioindefendantsfrom maintaininathe Townhouseas an officeof the PL0
and101the PL0 Observer Mission.
21 The maintenanceor theTownhouseas an officeor headquartersof the PL0
and or the PLUSObscrverMissionto the UnitcdNations is aviolation ofsection
1003(3)of the Anti-TcrrorianiAct
22. Upon information and belief,defendants have expendedand continue to
expend funds from the PLO, its constituent groups, any successorthereto, or
agents of the PLO, for goods and services, including but no1 limited 10 the
following :
A. To purchase supplies for thePL0 Observer Mission;
B. To maintain telephoneservicefor the PL0 Observer Mission;
C. To maintainelectricityand other utilitiesforthe Townhousethal serves
as the office andior headquarters of the PL0 andior the PL0 Observer
Mission;
D. To maintain a policyof fireand casualty insuranceon the Townhouse
that serves as the officendior headquarters of the PL0 and or the PL0
Observer Mission:
E. To pay salkies, living expenses, and/or travel and related business
expensesto agents andior employeesof the PL0 andior the PL0 Observer
23. Uoon information and belief. the PL0 Observer Mission. the PLO. ils
constituent groups, anysucccssorihereto. or agents thereof, maintain account(s)
in banks and/or other financial institutionswithin the United States from which
fundsare drawn for the expenditures setforlh in paragraph 22.
24. The purpose of the expenditureof funds set forth in paragraph 22 is to
further the interests of the PLO, ils constituent groups, any succes10rany of
those, or agents of the PLO.
25. The expenditure of funds as set forth in paragraph 22, above, violates
mtion 1003(2) of the Anti-TerrorismAct.160 APPLICABILITYOFTHE OBLIGATTON TO ARBITRATE
COUNT III
26. Defendants Terzi, Mansour, Al-Kidwa, Abdallah, Pugh, and Villaniel have
receivedand continueto receiveitemsof value, other than informational matenal,
from the PLO, ils constituent groups, any successor thereto, or agents thereof,
includine but not limited to salaries. livine exoenses. andior travel and related
expense: in their capacities as agents andTor~mplo~ees & the PL0 and/or the
PL0 Observer Mission.
27. The purpose of the receipt of the items of value referencedin paragraph 26,
above, is to further the interests of the PLO, its constituent groups, any successor
to any of those, or agents thereof.
28. The receipt of items of value by defendants Terzi, Mansour, Al-Kidwa,
Abdallah. Pueh. and Villaruelasset forth in.oarau .ohs 26and 27. above. violates
section 1603il) of the Anti-Terrorism Act.
Wherefore,Plaintiff respectfully prays as follows:
1. That the Court issue an order declarine that the maintenance of the
Townhouse at 115East 65th Strec.t.NewYork, ku. York. or of any other offices
or prrmises \i,ithin the jurisdiction of the United States.3s an office or head-
uuarters 01'the PL0 and or the PL0 Observer Mission to the United Nations.
Giolatessection 1003 (3) ofthe Anti-Terrorism Act;
2. That the Court enjoin defendants from using or otherwise maintaining the
Townhouse at 115East 65th Street, New York, New York, or any other officesor
oremises within the iurisdiction of the l-nited States. as an office of the PL0
andloithe PL0 oh~&~&Mission to the United ~ati&;
3. That the Court enioin defendants from seeking other premises or soliciting
andior accentine assistance from third oatties. in order to establish anv offi&
andior headquGters for the PL0 andjor PLO Observer Mission within the
jurisdiction of the United States;
4.That the Court declare that the expenditure of funds from the PLO, any of its
constituent groups, any successor thereto, or any agents thereof, to maintain
telephone and utilityservicesfor any officeandior headquarters of the PL0 or the
PL0 Observer Mission; 10maintain policies of insurance for any officeandior
headquarters of the PLO; to purchase supplies for the PL0 and101 the PL0
Observer Mission; or to pay salaries, living expenses, andior travel and related
expenses to agents and/or employees of the PL0 and101 the PL0 Observer
Mission, is a violation of section 1003(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act;
5. That the Court enjoin defendantsfrom expending any funds from the PLO,
any of its constituent groups, any successor thereto, or any agents thereof, to
maintain telephone and utility servicesfor any officeand101headquarters of the
PLO; to maintain policies of insurance for any officeandior headquarters of the
PLO; to purchase supplies for the PL0 Observer Mission; or to pay salaries,
livingexpenses,andior travel and related expensesto agents and101employeesof
the PL0 and/or the PL0 Observer Mission;
6. That the Court declare that defendants' receiptof salaries, living expenses,
and travel and related expenses from the PLO, its constituent groups, any
successor thereto, or any agents thereof, is a violation of section 1003(1) of the
Anti-Terrorism Act:
7.That the court enjoin defendants' receipt of salaries, living expenses, and
travel and related expenses from the PLO, ils constituent groups, any successor
thereto. or anv agents thereof:
8.~hat the CO& order defendants to transfer out of the United States al1funds
held by the PL0 Observer Mission, the PLO, its constituent groups, any successor CONTEN~ OF THE WGSW 161
thereto, or any agents thereof, in banks or other financialinstitutionswithin the
United States; and
9. That this Court order such other and further relief as is necessary and
appropriate Io achievecompliancewith the provisions oftheAnti-TerrorismAct.
Dated: New York, New York
March 22, 1988. Respectfullysubmitted,
Rudolph W. GIULIANI, John R. BOLTON,
United States Attorney. Assistant Attorney General
Peler C. SALERNO, David J. AND~N
AssistantUnited States
Attorney.
One Saint AndrewsPlaza,
New York, New York 10007. VincentM. GARVEY
Tel.: (212) 791-0054.
Mona S. BUTLER
Attorneys, Department of Justice,
Civil Division,Room 3335,
10th& Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.20530.
Telephone: (202)633-3374.
Attorneys for Plaintiff.
3. Documenrsof the Forly-ihird Session of rhe General Assemblyd of the
SecurityCounril '
(118) Letter dated 14March 1988from the Perma- A1431215S119616
nent Representativeof the LibyanArab Jama- (mimeographed)
hiriya to the United Nations addressedo the
Secretary-General. Annex: Letter from the
Secretary of the People's Conmittee of the
People's Bureaufor Foreign Liaison
(119) Lettre datée du 14 mars 1988 adresséeau Al431217SI19623
Secrétaire générp alr le représentantperma- (mimeographed)
nent de l'Algériauprèsde l'organisation des
Nations Unies. Annexe: Déclaration faitele
12mars 1988par le porte-paroledu ministère
des affairesétrangèresde la République algé-
riennedémocratiqueet populaire
' Documentsno1reproduccd .Nore by rheRegLFtry.1
Requête pour avis consultatif (y compris le dossier de documents transmis à la Cour en vertu du paragraphe 2 de l'article 65 du Statut)