Exposés écrits

COURINTERNATIOEEJUSTICE
MÉMOIRES,PLAIDOIRIESET DOCUMENTS

APPLICABILITÉ DE L'OBLIGATION
D'ARBITRAGEEN VERTUDE LA SECTION21
DE L'ACCORD DU 26 JUIN 1947

RELATIFAU SIÈGE DE L'ORGANISATION
DES NATIONSUNIES

INTERNATILOURTOFIUSTICE
PLEADINGS,ORAL ARGUMENTS, DOCUMENTS

APPLICABILITY
OF THE OBLIGATIONTOARBITRATE
UNDER SECTION21 OF THE

UNITED NATIONS HEADQUARTERS
AGREEMENTOF 26JUNE 1947 Page

Requêtepour avis consultat-f Request for AdvisoryOpinion

THE SECRETARY-GENE ORATHE UNITED NATION7 S0 THE PRESIDEN OTf
THE INTERNATIONC AOLURTOf JUSTICE ...........
RESOLUTIO4 N2S1229A AND 4212298 ADOPTED BY THEGENERAA LSSEM-
BLY AT ITS104~~PLENARY MEETING ON 2 MARCH1988 ....

RÉso~u~ioNs42/229A er 42/229B ADOPTÉES PAR L'ASSEMBL GÉENÉ-
RALE A SA 104'SÉANCEPLÉNIÈRE LE 2 MARS 1988 .......

.....er transmis var le Secrétaire eénéraldesNations Unies (article 65,
paragraphe 2.d;Statut)- l>mi;r tranrmittedb)the Secretary-Ceneral
of the United Nation(Art.65, para2,of the Stature)

CONTENT Sf THE DOSSIER [under this heading are listed the themes
[content] of the documents reproduced, while the titles of those no1
reproduced are mentioned in the text] ..........

Part 1. Documents relating to the proceedings leading to the request
hv the General Assemblv for an advis.rv.opinion......
Correspondence between the United Nations and the Permanent
Mission of the United StatesAmenca to the United Nations .

Letter from the Secretary-General of the United Nations Io 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 Decemher
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 tlie Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, the
LegalCounsel, to the Legal Adviserof the Department of State
of the United States (11 February 1988) .......X APPLlCABlLlTY OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE

Page
Letter from the Secretary-General of the United Nations ta the

Permanent Representative of 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 .........
lntroduction of a bill to provide penalties for aiding the PL0 .
lntroduction of a proposed "Anti-Terrorism Actof 1987" in the
form of a bill in the United States Senate .......
Explanation of a proposed "Terrorist Organization ExclusionAct
of 1987" in the form of a bill in the United States House of
Revresentatives ................
~tatemcnt miidein the Ilnitcd States Senate on 25June 1987
Statemcnt made in the United St~tesSendtc on 10July 1987
Stdtcmcnt msdr in the United Stdtc. Scn~teon 14Julv 1987
Statement made in the United States Senate on 4 ~u~ust 1987 .

lntroduction and adoption of the "Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987"
in the United States Senate in the form of an amendment to the
Foreign Relations Authorization Act. Fiscal Year 1988 ~~ . .
lnsiructions giwn by the United States Houss oiRcpresentati\~cs
to 11sconferccsto 3ccept the amendment adopted by the Senatc
Siaiement ninde in the United Stîtcs Senate on 3 Novcmber 1987
Statement made in the United States Senate on 20November 1987
Statement made in the United States Senate on 10December 1987
House conferencereport No.100-475:joint explanatory statement
of the Committee on Conference, to 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
Conaress ..................
Statemënt by the President of the United States upon signing the
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and

Part II. Materials relevant to the observer status of the 'Palestine
Liberation Organization ...............
Permanent ohservers of non-member States ........

List of States which still maintain or had maintained oermanent
obrcr\er olliccs ai the heddqu~rtcrs of the Ilniied ~ations
Statement by the Lcgal Counscl. 92nd meeting. 14Octohr 1982,
Commiitcc on Host Countr) Reidti6inî

Permanent observers of intergovernmental organizations
List of inlergoi~crnmentalorgdniz3tions haiting rccei\ed a stand.
ing invitation ta participiite in the sessionsand the u,ork of the

Gcncral Assemhl) as observer^ . . ... . . CONTENTS XI

Poge
Permanent observers of other entities .......... 92

List of organizations having received a standing invitation to
narticioate 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 by the United Nations Secretariat as to the legalstatusof
the Officeof Permanent Observer of the PL0 .......
Opinion of the Legïl Counsel of the United Nations on the status
of the PL0 ottice to thc IJn,icd Nations .... . .

Opinion of the LcgalCounsel of the United Nations on ihe stdtus.
privilegssand immunitiej under international law of thc rspre-
senialivesO( the PL0 to the United Nations ......
Relevant cases in United States courts
Anti-DeJbnationLeegue v.Kissinger,et al.(Digestof UniledStates
Practice in International Law, 1974, by Arthur W. Rovine,
pp. 27-29) ..................

Harvard Law SchoolForum, 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-
lishment of the seat of the United Nations in the United States

- seventh meeting ...............
Legislative history of Public Law 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.Permanent headquarlers of United Nations
Excerpts 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 1947.........
Text of S.J.Res. 144as enacted into law on 4 August 1947(Pub.
L. No. 80-357) ................
Part IV. Materials relating to the proceedings subsequent to the
request by the General Assembly for an advisory opin...

Documents of the forty-second session of the General Assembly
(resumed), 18-23March 1988 ............
Other material..................
Justice Department briefing regarding: Closing of the Palestine
Liberation Organizafion Obsewer Mission to the United Na-
tions, Friday, II March 1988...........
Sumrnonsin a civilaction, United States District Court, Southern
District of New York (Case number 88 CIV. 1962), Unired
Staresof Americav. PalesrineLiberafionOrganizafion,et.al.

Exposéskrits- 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 LA PROCÉDURE ORALE ............

ORALSTATEMEN BYMR. FLEISCHHAUE .R.........
QUESTION BYJUDCESCWBEL ..............

QUESTIO NE M. GUILLAUM E..............
QUESTIO NY JUDCESHAHABUDDEE N...........

QUESTIO NY JUDGEODA ................

ORALSTATEMEN BYMR. FLEISCHHAUE .R.........
Replies Io questions pu( by Judge Schwe.........

Reply to the first quest.............. CONTENTS Xtll

Poge
............ 203
Reply to the second questi.............. 203
Reply to the fourth question ............. 204
Reply to the fifth question............. 204

Réponseà la question de M. Guillaume .......... 204
Reply to quertjon put by Judge Shahahuddeen ........ 205
Reply to question put by Judge Oda ........... 205

Correspondanc e Correspondence
.....................
Nos . 1-39 213 EXPOSÉSÉCRITS

WRITTENSTATEMENTS WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE SECRETARY-
GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS

1.INTRODUCTION

1.By its resolution 42/229B adopted on 2 March 1988,the General Assembly
decided to request an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the
following question:

"ln the light of facts reflected in the reports of the Secretary-Generall, is
the United States of America, as a party to the Agreement ktween the
United Nations and the United States of America regarding the Head-
quarters of the United Nations2, under an obligation to enter into arbitration
in accordance with section 21 of the Agreement?"

2.The present statement willexamine the facts and the legalissuesto which this
question gives rise. In viewof the lime constraints inherent in the request, and to
which reference ismade by the General Assembly in resolution 421229B.evew
effort has ken made to oiesent the information contained in this statement as
succinctly as possible. hé documents transmitted 10the Court by the S;retary-
General in accordance with Article 65 of its Statute provide, of course, a
comprehensive background Io LhisSLaternent3.
3.The meaning and scope of the question requested by the General Assembly
emerge fromthe statements made in ils meetingsleading to the formal adoption of
the resolution on 2March 198S4.Section 21 ofthe Agreement between the United
Nations and the United States of America regarding the Headquarters of the
United Nations (the "Headquarters Agreement '") provides that:

"loi Anv ,is~u.e ktween the United Nations and the United States
conce;ning ihe interprctation or application of ihis agreement or of any
supplcmrnial agreement. which is nui seitlcd b) negoiiaii(~nor oiher agreed
mode of settlcmeni, shall be refcrrcd for final decision to a tnbunïl of threr
arbitrators. oneIo k named by the Secretary-Gencral. one IO be named by
the Secrriar) of State ofthc IJniird States. and the ihird io be chosen hy the
tuo. tiriiihc, should fail Io arrcc upon 3 third. then hbihe President of the

International Court of ~ustice.-
(b) The Secretary-General or the United States may ask the General
Assemblyto request of the International Court of Justice an advisorv opinion
on any legal question arising in the course of such proceedings. Pending the

IO'the Couriby the SecretaryGeneral.Seenotet3tbelow.efcrto theDossiersuhmitted
2 .>. <.,
Document,rclaiingto ihc Qucstion on which an ridviwir) Opinion3srrqucst+ by
GencralAswmbl)resoluiion42122911 of 2 March 1988.transmiited IO ihr Intcrmiional
Court ofJusttcehv ihe'*crctarv.Gençralofihc UnitcdNaiionr in accordancuiih Article
65,varaaraph 2.of theSratute>fthe Court.166 APPLlCABlLlTY OF THE OBLIGATION IO ARBIlRATE

receipt of the opinion of the Court, an interim decision of the arbitral
tribunal shall be observed by both parties. Thereafter, the arbitral tribunal
shall render a final decision, having regard to the opinion of the Court."
The court; in the q;es60n put before il, is requested to give an advisory

opinion on whether, in the light of certain facts, as reflected in two reports of the
Secretary-General to the General Assembly 6, the United States as a party to the
Headquarters Agreement is under an obligation to enter into arbitration with the
United Nations, the other party to the Agreement, in accordance with section21
thereof.
4. In formulating this question, the General Assembly has confined itself to a
relatively narrow issue,amely, whether the parties 10the Headquarters Agree-
ment have undertaken an oblieation with resoect to the manner in which disnutes
arising from the interpretati& or application of the Headquarters ~&&ent
mus1be settled and whether, in the light of the particular facts referred to in the
Secretary-General's reports to the General Assembly, the necessary conditions
have ken met to place on the United States an obligation to arbitrate. The
procedural nature of this question, however, cannot disguise its fundamental
importance for the United Nations Organization, its member States and intema-
tional law, the development of which is one of the principal functions of the
United Nations under the Charter. The primary purpose of the Headquarters

Apreement, as stated in section 27. is to "enable the United Nations at its
he-adquariersin the Uniied Staics,Julk undefl;ctunrl~to dischtrgc 11sresponsibili-
tirs and CulfiIliis (iurpojes" (emphasis added). The integrity and biability of this
Agreement is of paramount importance no1 only as a legal framework for
relations between the United Nations and the United States as host country, but
also as an internationaltreaty whoseobligations mus1be carried out in good faith.
5. The question referred 10 the Court for its advisory opinion requires the
consideration of a number of factual and legal issues which will be examined in
greater detail in the following pages. Since no question exists in a vacuum, the
present statement will, in the first place, summarize the pertinent facts which have
given rise to the question. Having provided the factual framework, the Statement
will then take un the leeal issues that in the ooinion of the Secretarv-General fall
IO beconriderid in reLiion to the quesiion.'The siaiemcni will Chow ihtt ihe
lieadquarters Agreement is a valid ireaty in force beiwcen the Ciiitcd Naiionï
and the United Siates. thai seciion ?I is the annlicable lau for ihc settlement of
disputes concerning the inierpreiaiion or appli&iion of the Agretmcni, ihat such

a dispute cxisis and thai ihe Uniied Nations has made cwry eRori io scttlc this
dispute by means of negotiation or any other agreed mode of settlement, that such
efforts have not been successful and that, consequently, the United Nations has
the right to request and the United States has an obligation to enter into
arbitration.

11.SUMMARY OF THE FACTS GIVING RlSE TO THE REQUEST FOR
THE ADVISORY OPINION

6. The central legal fact which has given rise to the request for the present
advisorv ooinion is Title X- Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987(the "Anti-Terrorism
Act" O; A~A)' oi the Foreign Relations Auihonzaiion A&. Fixa1 Years 19RR
and 1989.uhich wîs signcd into Iaw by the Presidcnt of the Uniicd Staie5on 22

DOCS 1and 2.
' Doe. 38.December 1987,with Title X to take effect90 days after the date of enactment8,
i.e., on 21 March 1988.Section 1003of the Act provides:

"It shall be unlawful, if the purpose be to further the interests of the
Palestine Liberation Organization or any of ils constituent groups, any
successor to any of those, or any agents thereof, on or after the effectivedate
of this titl-
(1) to receive anything of value except informational material from the
PL0 of any of its constituent groups; any successor thereto, or any agents
thereof;
(2) 10expend funds from the PL0 or any of ils constituent groups, any
successor thereto, or any agents thereof; or
(3) notwithstandine anv orovision of law to the contrarv. to establish or
miintain an office, headquarters. premises. or othcr faciliiies or establish-

ments within the jurisdiction of the United States al the behest or direction
of. or with funds nrovided bv the Palestine Libration Ornani7ation or anv of
itsconstituent groups, any iuccessor 10any of those, or iny agents thereof."
It is not in dispute that the intent of this legislation is to obtain the closure of the
Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Permanent Observer Mission 10 the
United Nations, which has functioned in New York since 1975,soon after the
General Assemblv. bv resolution 3237 (XXIXI of 22 November 1974. eranted

observer status 1; thiPLO and extended to il an invitation to participate in the
sessions and the work of the General Assembly, and of al1 international
conferences convened under the auspices of the General Assembly or of other
organs of the United Nations9. This intent is confirmed by the fact that on 11
March 1988 the Secretary-General was informed by the Acting Permanent
Representative of the United States that the Attorney General of the United
States had determined that he was reauired bv the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATAI to
closethe officeof the PL0 Observer ~ission io the United Nations in New York,
"irrespective of any obligations ihe United Stdtes mdy have under the [Head-
quarters Agreementy ''.
7. Anticipating the adoption of the Anti-Terrorism Act by the United States
Congress - a legislaiiveprocess that look several months" - the Secretary-
General wrote to the Permanent Representative of the United States to the United
Nations on 13~~ctober 1987 10 exnress his concem. and that of a number of
de~eiation, io the United Gations, ihat the proposed'legislation (which he noted

w~s opposed bv the Secretarv of Siaie) ran counter IO United Siates obligations
ansiné-from the Headauariers Aereiment and to underline the serioÜs and
detri~cntal consequenck that ~uch'ie~islationwould entail ". In hisreply on 27
Osiokr 1987. the Permanent Rcpresentative of ihe United Siaies assured the
Sscretarv-General that the Administration of the United Sidtes remained oooosed
to the pcoposed legislation, that il intended to raise the matter with congrë;s and
that it was hopeful that its efforts would produce a satisfactory resolution of the
issuet3.
8. The first occasion on which the proposed legislation was raised in an inter-
govemmental body of the United Nations wasduring a meetingof the Committee

Ibid.sstion 1005 of thePubli Law.
Doc. 66.
Doc.105. Sce para.30 below.
For thelegislativchistoryof tAct, seedm. 39to 55.
" Doc. 29.
"Doc. 30.168 APPLlCABlLIN OF ïKE OBLIGATIONTO ARBIiIUTE

on Relations with the Host Country, which look place on 14October 1987.At
that meeting. the Permanent Observer of the PL0 drew the attention of the
Committce ;O the proposed legislation and refcrrcd in this conneetion to a leticr
addressed to the Chairman of ihc Senate Foreign Relations Committec on 29
Januar) 1987by the Secretary of State, Mr. George Shulta, in which the latter
-
stated, inter alia, that:
"The PL0 Observer Mission in New York was established as a conse-

auence of General Assemblv resolution 3237(XXIX)of November 22. 1974. ~~ ~
\;hich invited ihe PL0 to participate as an observc6n~Ïhe sessionsand work
ai the General Assembly.The PL0 Observer Mission rcpresents the P1.Oin
ihc UN. it is in no xnse accreditcd 10 thc US. The US has made clcar that
PL0 Observer Mission personnel are present in the Uniied Siaies solcly in
their capacity as inviiees of the United Nations within the meaning of the

Headquarters Agreement "."
While the letter textuallv recognized that the United States was under an
oblieation to ~ermit ~~00h6er Mission nersonnel to enter and remain in the
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~niïed ~titisio carry out their officialfunctikns at ~nited~ations Headquarters,
the Observer of the PL0 stated that his Organization would welcome anv move
that would prevent the entry into forceof thëlegislation and sought a clarification
of the situation.
9. Severalmembers of the Host Country Committee expressedsimilar concerns

and the LegalCounsel of the United Nations stated that the Organization shared
the legalopinion expressed inthe Secretary of State's letter. The core point of that
letter was that the United States was under an obligation to permit PL0 Observer
Mission personnel to enter and remain in the United States to carry out their
official functions at United Nations Headquarters. The representative of the
United States sympathized with the concerns expressed by the members of the

Committee but noted that it was premature to speculate on the outcome of the
legislative process. He did, however, state that in the opinion of the Executive
Branch of the United States Government, the closing of the PL0 Mission would
no1 he consistent with the host country's obligations under the Headquarters
Agreement 15.
10. The General Assembly itself first became seized of the questions arising

from the proposed legislation with the consideration of the Report of the Host
Country Committee by the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly on 24
November 1987.The Sixth Committee subsequently devoted al1or part of five
meetings to a consideration of the Report of the Host Country C~mmittee'~,
including the question of the proposed legislation concerning the PL0 Observer
Mission. At its 62nd meeting at the 42nd session, on II December, the Sixth

Committee adopted, by a recorded vote of 100to I with no abstentions (the
United States not participating), a draft resolution in whichit: reiterated that the
Permanent Observer Mission of the PL0 to the United Nations in New York is
covered bv the Headauarters Aereement and should he enabled to establish and
maintain iremises ani ad~~uaic~functionalfaciliiieî.and that the personnel of the
Mission \hould be enabled io enter and remain inthe Uniied Statcs to cïrry oui

their official functions: reauested the host countrv to abide bv its treatv
obligations undcr ihe uniied Nations Headquarter\~~recmcnt aid to refrain
from iaking any action thlit would prevcnt the discharge of the officialfunctions

'* Doc.No. 17, para. 46.
" Doc.17, paras. 46-54.
l6 DOCS1.8to 22. WRI~N STATEMENTOF THE SEC~ARY-GENERAL 169

of the Permanent Observer Mission of the PL0 to the United Nations; and
requested the Secretary-General to take effectivemeasures to ensure full respect
for the Headquarters Agreement and to report, without delay, to the General
Assembly on any further developments in the matter 17.
II. At the 98th plenary meeting of ils 42nd session, on 17 December 1987,the

General Assembly adopted the draft resolution submitted by the Sixth Commit-
tee, without change, by a recorded vote of 145votes to I IB.Resolution 42/210B
was the first decision taken hy a deliberative organ of the United Nations on the
question of the proposed legislationwhicb, although at a very advanced stage of
the United States leeislative orocess (havine iust been adonted bv both houses of
Congress IV).had no; yet been suhmiitcd tGhe Presidcnt for sigiiture. In vie; of
ihis, and pannularly in the light of the statements of representstivc, of the host
rounirv in the Host Countrv Commiitee and the Generül Assemblv to the elTcci
that the proposed legislalion would not be consistent with the ~ead~uarters
Agreement, the General Assembly confined itself to reiterating ils position of
pnnciple (operative para. Il, addressing a reauest to the host country to abide by
its treaty obligaiioni undci the tleadqÜ3rters Agrcemenl (~~erative-~ara.2) and
requesting the kcreiary-Generdl io take ciTectivcmeasures to ensure full rcspect
for the Headquarters Agrecmrni (opcrdtive para 3)". The Assembly also
decided to kee~ the matte; under active review iowrative nara. 4).

12.Concurr~ntly with the deliberaiions in the ~encral ~&nbli the Secretary.
General on 7 December 1487unce again urote io the Permanent Reprcsentativc
of the United States. After notinr that the proposed Ieaislation in the United
States Coneress was far advanced and would. iiadoo.ed.~.~Uned into law and
enforced, entail the closure of the PL0 observer Mission, the secretah-General
reiterated the l-.al position of the United Nations to the effect that
"the members of the PL0 Observer Mission are, hy virtue of General
3237 (XXIX), invitees 10 the United Nations and that
Assembly resolution
the United States is under an oblieation to permit PL0 oersonnel to enter
and remain in the United States ts carry oit their official lunctions at the
United Nations under the Headquarten Agreement ZL".
In the view of the United Nations the United States was under a legal obligation
to maintain the existina arranaements for the PL0 Observer Mission. which had
been in effect for the past 13Gars. The main purpose of this letter, however, was
twofold. Firstly, to urge the United StatesGovernment, even al this late stage, to

act to prevent the adoption of the legislation by Congress, in line with the
Government's own leeal oosition. which was similar to that of the United
Nations. Secondly. inthe'cvcrit that the proposed Icgi~lation beurne Iîw, to
requcsi thdt the United States provide an assurance thai the arrangements for ihe
PL0 Obser\er Mission would not becunailed or oihenvise affecied.Without such
assurance, the Secretary-General noted that
"a dispute between the United Nations and the United States concerning the
intemretation or anolication of the Headouarters Aereement would existand

I u&ld be obligei'to enicr into the disiule settl&cnt procedure l'oreseen
under \coion 21 of the Unitcd Nations Heddquarlcrs Agreement of 1947""

" Doc. 25.
'' Doc. 27.The UnitedStatesdid no1participatein thevote.
l9 Docs. 52 and 53.
Doc. 28.
l' Doc. 31.
'' Ibid. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL 171

or other agreed mode of settlement, failing which disputes would be referred for
final decision to a tribunal of three arbitrat~rs'~. The procedure envisaged in
paragraph (a) of section 21 of the Headquarters Agreement therefore consists of
a two-stage process. In the first stage the parties attempt to settle their dilïerence

through negotiation or some other agreed mode of settlement on which they
~ ~ ~t aeree. If thev are unable to reach a settlement ihroueh these means. th'
second zage of th~proces~compulsory arhitration, becornes applicable.
18. Thounh an arbitral tribunal established pursuant 10 paragraph (a) of
section 21 mieht be eiven. bv the oarties. the ~ower to make biidinz interim
dccisions, this-is noi ëxplicitl~ prov/drd for in that psragraph. 1nderd:ihe only
provision for such dccision appars in psragraph (bj of section 21. which xllous
the General Assemhlv. a1 the initiative of either of the parties. to request an
advisory opinion oftl;e Court on sny Ieg~lquestion .~ri,ini in the course'of such
proceeding,. dnd $pecifiesihat pending the rneipt of such an opinion. the drbitral
tribunal may issue an interim decision that must be ohserved by both parties.
19.The narticularitv of the disoute eneendered bv the adontion and sienine into
law of the~nti-~err&ism Act ias thatbecause thélegislat;on in question was to-

become effective 90 days after signature on 22 December 1987, the eKective
utilization of the disoute settlemënt orocedure foreseen in section 21 of the
Heîdquariers ~greement was corre~~ondin~lysub,wt IO the time constraints
imposed hy the Act Unlcssthe United Staies agreed io an extension of ihe 90-day
limit or agreed to some special procedure whereby an extension migbt be ordered
as part of an agreed mode of settlement, either a negotiated or other agreed
settlement or a final arbitral award would have to he achieved no later than 21
March 1988;otherwise an interim order would have to be secured from a trihunal,
which reauired that before that date the tribunal be setUD and functionineand an
advi$oryopinion haie been requc\terl of the Court ~ith this time factor;n mind.
the Secretarv-Gencrdl immediately soughi.clarification of the letter addresed to
him on 5 January 1988".
20. Beginning on 7January, consultations were held bctween the two sides and
on 12 January the Legal Counsel of the United Nations met with the Legal

Adviser of the United States State Department. However, that meeting did not
nrovide the necessarv assurance soueht bv the Secretarv-General that the existine
arrüngcmenlsfor th; ~~00bserve~~is~ion ~ould bc'maintained. and therefo;
on 14 January the Secretar).General in 3 Ietter to the Permanent Represcntative
of the United Sidtrs formallv invoked the disoute utilement orocedure set out in
section 21 of the ~ead~uariers ~~reement". The letter priposed that the first
round of the negotiating phase be convened on 20 January at the United Nations
Secretariat Building and named Mr. Carl-August Fleischhauer, the Under-
Secretary-General for Legal Alïairs and Legal Counsel, as the negotiator for the
United Nations. The United States did not formally respond to the Secretary-
General's letter or to his proposa1 that the first round of the negotiating phase
foreseen bv section 21 of the Headauarters Agreement take nlace on 20 Januarv.
At the reiuest of the Unitcd ~iît& side the-date of the pioposed meeting was
posiponed until 27 January The reason for the reluctanse of the Unlied Staies to
resnond officiallvio ihe Secretarv-General's Icttcr bccamc clear in the course of

thai meeting.
21. On 27 lanuary the United Nations Legal Counsel and members of his stalï

l6 Section21 (a) oftheAgreementbctweentheUnitedNationsandthe UnitedStates of
Americaregardingthe Hcadquartersof the UnitedNations. Doc. 89.
" Doc. 33. Supra.para. 16.
" Drr. 34.172 APPLICABILIN OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE

met with the Leaal Adviser of the United StatesState Deoartment. Mr. Abraham
D Sofaer. who W3saccompanicd by the A~aistant~itor&~ General for the Ofice

of the LegalCounsel of the Department of Justice. Mr Charlcs Cooper. a Deputy
State De~artment Leaal Adtiser and the Leeal Adviser of the United States
Mission io the United-~ations.'
22. As far as the substance of the dispute wds concerned. the United Nations
raiwd the question of the possible non-implementaiion of the legislation either by
retxal or bv obiaininc a ruline of the Attornev General bascd on the conflisi of
d&nestic lak with intërnationi lawor on the doctrine of thc~sepdrdtionof powers
in the conduct of Foreign31fairs.These latter suggestions in faci denved rrom the
statements made by the Secretary of State and various United States representa-
tives in the General Assemhlv and the Host Countrv Committeez9 and hv the

President of the United tat téons signing in10 law ihe A~Ï~O. For the Ünited
Nations, the negotiating phase of the procedure contained in section 21 of the
Headauarters Aareemeit was the oroner forum for a consideration of such
ruggestions. whichcould protide a hà\is'for d negotiaied scttlemînt of the di\pute
and thus ohtiaie the need to rrsort Io arbitration
23. The response of the United States side, however, to these suggestions was
confined to setting out the position of the Attorney General in thismatter, as the
officer responsihle for the implementation of the legislation in question3'. The
Assistant Attorney General stated that the Department of Justice was examining

whether the Attorney General had any discretion with regard to the enforcement
of the legislation. If the Attorney General concluded that he had no discretion as
to ils enforcement and application, he would be governed hy and would be
obliged to implement il. The Attorney General would have the last word in
determining whether, in this matter, international or domestic law prevailed3'.
24. The United Nations Legal Counsel responded that the United Nations
would assert and defend ils rights as it perceived them under international law and
bv the means aereed uoon in a bindineinternational treatv which il ha~~c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
$th the ~niteo~tate;. He referred in-this respect to the ~ead~uarters Agreement
and the Secretary-General's letter of 14 January 1988 formally invokina the
-
disoute settlemeni orocedure contained in section~21.
i5. The State ~ebartment LegalAdviser, however, stated that the United States
had no1 acknowledged that a dispute within the meaning of section 21 of the
Headauarters Aareement existed because the leaislalion in auestion had not vet
been implcmented and the E;rcutii,e Branch wd\still evaluatiLg the situation w.ith
a \)su io the possible non-iipplic~tion and non-enforcement of the Iaw.
26.The meeting contirnicd that no1only wdsntinimal proaress king made with
reeard to the substance of the disoute bui that serious differ&ces exiGedbetween
th; tu0 sides uilh regdrd 10 the irocedural frdmeuork within which the marier
shi>uld besettled At the insistenceof the United Nations Leaal Counsel. honever.

the State Deoarlment Leeal Adviser aareed that orelimin&v discussions of an
informal ndi"re on a conïingency basis-could commence be;ween the IWO sides
regarding technical point\ relating to a possible arbitration Such technical
discussions were hrld on 28 January. di which the United Nations made known 11s
views regarding such matters as the costs of the arbitration. ils location. rules of
procedure and the form of the compromis.

le Sec paras.9 and II above.
'O Doc. 55.
" Section 1004of the PublicLawcited supro, note7. Dac. 38.
" The positionswere later set forth by the AssistantAttorneyGcncral at a press
conference on 11 March.Dac.116. WRI~ STATEMEWTOF THE SECRETARY-GENEUL 173

27. Although contacts between the United Nations and the United States
continued, particularly regarding thedecision of the United States on whether it
would implement the legislation, it became increasingly clear to the Secretary-
General that an impasse had been reached. In the light of this unsatisfactory
situation the Secretary-General again wrote to the Permanent Representative of
the United States, on 2 February 33.The Secretary-General noted that while he
ha-.not received an officialresoonse to his letter of 14Januarv (oara. 20 above).
consultdtions betueen the 1lnit;d Nations and the United tat té er ne\erthele;s
king conducted on tarious levels ln ihese conhultations the Unitcd States side
assefied that it wasstill in the orocess of evaluatinp.its oosition and that it did not
k1ict.e that a dispute within 'the frdmçwork of ceciion 21 of thc Headquaners
Agreement crisied ai ihat timc The Secretary-Generdl's leltcr then heni on to say
thit

"The section 21 procedure is the only legal remedy available to the United
Nations in this matter and since the United States so far has not been in
a position to give appropnate assurances regarding the deferral of the
application of the law to the PL0 Observer Mission, the lime is rapidly
approaching when 1 will have no alternative but to proceed either together
with the United States within the framework of section 21 of the Head-
quarters Agreement or hy informing the General Assembly of the impasse
that has been reachedS4."
On 4 February the Secretary-General spoke in the same sense Io the Permanent
Reoresentative of the United States.
28 The Uniicd Sratn \ide continued to posiponc d decision rcgarding the
implementation of the legisldtion and when the Secrctory-Cienerallearncd on 10
~ebruary that a decision had once more been postponed he submitted a report to

the General Assembly3'. In the view of the Secretary-General, the only conclu-
sion to be drawn from the multiple consuliations, contacts, meetings and
correspondence that had taken place between 5January (when the United States
had confirmed the sienine into law of the leeislation) and 10Fehruarv. and from
the rcfusdl<ifthc ho: so;ntrj to enter inio~~~otidtions ua? that th~disputc did
not lend itsclf ta ncgotiated settlement nor had the partie agreed on another
mode of scttlcmcnt In the Iirht of the timc constraints imooscd hy the Icrislation
(see para. 19 above), the -secretary-General concluded that a stagë in the
negotiations had been reached where he was obliged 10 inform the General
Assembly of the impasse reached. On II February the Legal Counsel of the
United Nations informed the State Deoartment Leeal Adviser of the United
Nations choice of arbitrator in accordance with secti'on21 of the Headquarters
Agreement and urged the United States to inform the United Nations of itschoice
as-soon as o0ssib6'~.
29. In 3'second report ro the General Assembly on 25 Februag ". the
Secretary-Gencrdl informed thc General A~semblythai no further communica-
tions had ken received from the United States eiiher on the substance of the
matter or on the orocedure. It was in these circumstances that the reconvened
General ~ssemhl; on 2 March 1988 adopted resolution 42/229A as well as
resolution 421229B which contained its request for the present advisory opinion

" Doc. 35.
" Ibid.
36 DOF.36.
" Doc. 2.174 APPLlCABlLlTY OF THE OBLIGATIONTO ARBITRATE

on the obligation of the United States to enter into arbitration in accordance with
section 21 of the Headquarters Agreement3'.
30. It may be of interest for the Court to know that following the adoption of
resolution 42/229A on 2 March 1988, the Secretary-General, on 4 March.
communicated the text of that resolution to the United States, inur alia,
expressing the hope that it would still prove possible for the United States Io
reconcileits domestic legislationwith ils international obligations, failing which it
would aeree to utilize the orocedure contained in section 21 of the Headauarters
~~reemenl On II i arc hi the Permanent Rcpresentative of the'united

States informed the Secreiary-General that ihe Attorney Gcneral of the United
Siales had determincd that he was required to close ihc PI.0 Observer Mission
irrespective of the United Siates obligations under the Headquaricrs Agreement
and thai undcr the circumstances submission io arbiiration would servr no useful
purpose40 Whereuyn the Secretary-General submitted his third rcport io ihe
Gcncral Assembly' .A furiher report of the Secrctary-Gencral 10 ihc Gcncrnl
Assembly was issued on 16 March4' containing the tex1 of the Secrctary-
Gencral's rrply to ihe Unitcd States letter of II March4'. The Gcncral Assemblv
reconvenedioconsider the ouestion on 18Marchand on 23March 1988adoote~. ~. ,
by a vote of 148to Iwo $th no abstentions, resolution 42/2304'. Dunng the
session of the Assembly, on 22 March, the United States Attorney filed a
summons against the PL0 in an action for declaratory and injunctive relief to
enjoin defendants from continuing violations of the ATA4'.

III. LECAL ISSUES ARISING IS RELATION TO THE REQUEST FOR
THE ADVISORY OPINION
31. The Firstlegal issue that anses in relation to the question placed before the
Court is whether the Headquarters.Agreemen1 is a valid treaty in force belween
the United Nations and the United States of America with al1 the legal
consequences which tbis entails. The Headquarters Agreement was signed hy the
Secretarv-General of the United Nations and the Secretarv of Stateof the United

States O; 26June 1947and approved hy the General ~ss&nbl~hy resolution 169
(II) of 31 Octoher 194746.
32. Section 28 of the Agreement orovided that it be brourht into elïect bv an
exchange of notes between the sec;etary-General and the aipropriate executive
officerof the United States, which exchange was elïected on 21 November 1947,
alter the United States Congress had approved the Agreement by Public Law
No. 80.357"'. The Headauarten Aereement was dulv reeistered with the Secre-
tariai of the United ~aiionsand p;blished hy 11in a&oGance with ~rticle 102.
paragraph 1,of the Char~er*~.Thus. from the point of viewof international law.
Ünleis ii has ban denounced by either party, has ceased to be in force by
operation of law or has othetwise been invalidated, the Headquarters Agreement

" Dm. 117.
'6 For the legislativehistoryof the Agreementwe dm. 78 to 88. For the tcxt of
resolution169(Il),sndm. 89.
" Dac.96.Thehistorvof thal leeislation..cars indocs.90-95.
" UN TreorySeries,Vol.II. p.fi.came into force on 21 November 1947and remains a treaty in force as between the
United Nations and the United States.
33. The Headauarters Aereement has not been denounced bv either oartv nor
has it ceîsed to be in iorccby opcration of section 24 of the ~g;eement:sinie the
wat oithe United Nations remains wiihin the territory of the United Staics No
other claim of invalidity has been made. In particular, no such claim has been
asserted on the basis ofthe Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987(ATA). Firstly, a careful
scmtiny of the ATA demonstrates that it does no1 purport to invalidate or to

override the Headquarters Agreement. However, even ifthe ATA purported to do
so. this would not be oossible under international law. Althoueh international
tr&ties can be abrogatéd or terminatcd by supnessioii. such acbon can only be
brouaht about eiiectivcly in inlcrnationsl law by an international instrument and
no1 b; domestic IeeislaGon.Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
~reat;cs of 1969(and paragraph I of the ssmc-numbered provision of the Kenna
Convention on the Law of Trcaties between States and International Organizd-
tions or betwccn Internation~l Organirütions of 1986) provides, inrer uliu .at:
"A pariy may not invoke the provisions of its interna1law as usr ri fi cafto11s
fîilure to perform 3 tr~aty'~". While the United States has not )et ratified the
1969Vicnna Convention on the Law of Treaticsand the 1986Con\cntion has no1
vetentered into force. the Conventionsand the auoted orovision exoressgenerallv
'acceptedprinciples of customary internationai law génerallyrechgnizèd as thé
authoritative guide to current treaty law and practice. The United States is on
record as shakna this ~osition'~.
34. Since the ~eadiuarters Agreement thus is a treaty in force, the question
anses whether international law places an obligation upon the parties to comply
with its terms in general and section 21 in particular. States as well as other

international entities are bound bv treaties thev have oroverlv concluded and that
have entered inio lorce, and the& treaiies mkt be &rfo&ed by them in good
faith This principlc, which is afimed in the ihird preîmbular paragraph of the
Charter of ihe United Nations and is commonlv exnressed bv the maxim oacla
sunr servanda. is incorporatedin and codified bi~rticle 26 ofboth the 1969and
the 1986 Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treatics Thcse Articlcs provide:
"Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties 10it and mus1be performed by
them in eood faith"". Furthemore. since the Headauarters Aereement was
concludei pursuant 10 Article 105, paragaph 3, of ihe Charte; in order 10
implement the enioyment by the United Nations in the territory of each of ils
members of such pnvileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfilment of
its purposes (Art. 105, para. 1). the special duty of member States 10 "fulfil in
good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present
Charter" expressed in Article 2, paragraph 2, is directly applicable to the
Headquarters Agreement.
35.Having regard to the nature and content of section 21, referencemay also be
made to Article33, paragraph 1,of theCharter and 10Part 1,paragraph 1I, of the
Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlemenl of International Disputes5',

'9 UnitedNationsConfercnccon the Law of Treatic- First and SecondSession-
Oficiaf Donuncnrs (UnitedNations Publication,SalesNo.E.70.V.S).Sa also UN dm.
A/lanRestalmcnt ofthe Foreign Relation saw oftheUnited Staies(Revised).wction321,
Comment (a). aapprovcdbytheAmericanLawInstitute.To bepublishcd inApril1988.
UnitcdNationsConfcrena on the LawofTreatics - First andSsond Sessions -
Ofieiai Docwnenls (United Nations publication.alesNa. E.70.V.5).Sce also UN doc.
A/Conf.39/1I/Add.2;and UN dm. A/Conf.129/15.
'l GcncralArsemblyresolution37/10 of 15Novcmbcr1982.176 APPLICABILITY OF THE OBLIGAnON TO ARBITRATE

which underline the importance of the good faith implementation of agreed
disnute settlement nrocedures. Althoueh these oblieations are stated to a~nlv
prikarily to inter-$tate relations, the wording of th& instruments does not'so
limit them and the pnnciples underlying them may te regarded as having equal
relevanceand sienihncëto relations between States andinternational oraaniza-
...~~-
36. In relation to the question before the Court it is, however, no1 sufficientto
establish that the Headquarters Aereement is a treaty in force and that interna-

tional law places anobligation on Fheparties to comply with ils terms, including,
in particular, section 21. It is also necessary to address the question whether the
United States is under an obligation to enter into arhitration in accordance with
section 21 of the Aereement. ln order for the United States tobe ~laced under an
obligation to do s< iimusi hc shown that a dispuir exirts, thaiiarises from ihe
intcrprciaiion or application of the Headquarters Agreement and that good faith
aitemDis bv the United Nations io rcsolve the dis~ute bv nenotiaiion or oiher
agreed mode of settlement have failed to do so. ~ach of these issues will be
addressed in the following paragraphs.
37. As may te seen from the summary of the facts, in the view of the United
Nations a dispute within the meaning of section 21 of the Headquarters
Agreement existed from the moment the legislation in question was signed into

law hy the President of the United States on 22 December 1987, unless the
Organization received adequate assurances as to non-implementation5'. The
United States, on the other hand, apparently contended that no dispute existed
unless and until the legislation was implemented5'.
38.The existenceof a dispute isan ohjectivequestion. As this Court ohserved in
ils Advisory Opinion on the Interprererion ofPeace Treaties of 30 March 1950,
"Whether there exists an international dispute is a matter for objective
determination. The mere denial of the existence of a dispute does not prove

ils non-existence. ...[In] a situation in which the two sides hold clearly
opposite views concerning the question of the performance or non-perfor-
mance of certain treaty obligations . .. the Court mus1 conclude that
international disputes have arisen"."
The denial of the existence of a dispute in such cases would frustrate the
commitment Io arbitrale. As the United States argued in the Peace Trearies
Opinion: "Such a result could only operate to further the purposes of a Statenot

prepared to liveaccording to the law and carry out ils responsihilities as a member
of the community of nation^'^."
39.In the present case, can il be said that as a matter of ohjective determination
a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Headquarters
Agreement had arisen with the adoption and signinginto lawof the ATA of 1987?
There can be no doubt that the intent of this legislation is to bnng about the
closure of the Observer Mission of the PL0 and to prevent the representatives of
the PL0 from carrying out their officialfunctions to the United Nations, although
the organization has heen invited to participate as an observer by the principal
deliberative organ of the United Nations, as well as hy other principal organs5'.
The legislation makes il unlawful to receive anything of value from the PLO, to

" Dm. 31.
" See para.16,supro.
Interpretorionof Pence Treaeoriwsith Bulgnria,Hungory nnd Romonio, Advisory
Opinionof 30 March 1950,I.C.J.Reports1950.p.65 ai p.74.
'6Ibid .and Phase,I.C.J.Pleadings.p.213al pp.238-239.
" Dm. 63-72. WRI'ITEN STATEMENT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL 177

expend any funds from the PL0 and to establish or maintain an office,
headquarters, premises or other facilitiesor establishments of the PL0 within the
jurisdiction of the United Statess8, and this purpose was repeatedly and clearly
stated in the Congress when it considered the adoption of the ATAS9. The
automaticitv of the orocess of brinfina the ATA into force which was initiated
with the si&ing of the ATA into lai, 6blectivelyconstitutes an immediate threat
to bring about the closure of the racility (rom which PL0 represeniaiion to the
United Nations is accomplishd, and thir immediate threat ir it~elf(oarticularlv

when considered in the iontextof the time factor described in Dari. IRabove)
sufficicntto crcatc a dispute in the absence of an assurance from ihc ~xkutivé
Branch ihat the legislalion uill noi bcenlorced or thai the existingarrangements
for the PI.0 Obxrber Mission in New York will not be affectcd or olhemise
curtailed. Indeed, instead of &i\.ingsuch assurdnce. the Acting Cnited Siatcs
Permanent Representati\e informed the Sccretary-General on II March that the
Attorney General would clox the oAice or the PL0 Obscner Mission Io the
United Nations in New York "irrespective of any obligations the United States
may have under the Agreement hetweenthe United Nations and the United States

regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations", and that "Under the
circumstances. the United States believes that suhmission of this matter to
arbitrdtion uould no1senc d usefulpurpose""O Indeed, as noted in paragraph 30
abovc, on 22 Mdrch the Attorne) General of the United States fileda summons to
close the PL0 office6'.
40. Ifa subiectiveelementinestahlishine theexistenceof a disoute isreauired. it
is sufticien18 note that the Cnited ~;iti&s seçretary-General'forma~l~ heclared
the exisienceof î dispute and invoked seciion 21 of the Headqudrters Agreement
in his letter of 14Januarv 1988to the Permanent Renrrsenutive of the United

States6' and that the ~eneral Assembly expressly éndorsed this position in
operative paragraph 4 of resolution 421229Aof 2 March 198R6'.The continued
denial of the existence of a dispute in these circumstances by the United States
constitutes a violation of its eood faith oblieations arisine from Article 2.
paragraph 2, of the Charter ofihe United ~atrons, Articles 56 of both ~ienna
Conventions on the Law of Treaties and Part 1. parag.aph .., of the Manila
Declaration referred to ab~ve~~.
41. For the reasons set out in the preceding paragraphs, the United Nations
believes that a dispute has existed between the United Nations and the United
States from the moment of the signinginto law of the ATA. Nor can there be any

doubt that this dispute concerns the interpretation or application of the Head-
quarters Agreement. The Secretary of State of the United States and various
representatives of the United States in the Host Country Commitiee and the
General Assemhlyhaveclearlyand consistently recognizedthat the PL0 Observer
Mission personnel are present /n the United States in their capacity as inviteesof
the United Nations within the meaning of the Headquarters Agreement6" and
the Secretary-General has repeatedly taken the position that the ATA is incon-
sistent with the Headquarters Ag~eement~~.Thus, the formal conditions for

6' Supra, paras.34 and 35.
6' Congressio~l Record. Seenote 13,supra. Seealsodoc. 17and doc. 22
66 Dots. 29.31.32, 34.35 and 37.178 APPLICABILITYOF THE OBLIGATIONTO ARBITFATE

invoking section 21of the Headquarters Agreementareclearly established andthe
procedural ohliaations of the parties. therefore, have become effective.
42. As has llreadv ken Gointed out in naraeraoh 17. suora. the disoute
settlement procedure &visai& in sgtion 21chsisis oi two stages: negotiati& or

other agreed mode of settlement, and arbitration. In order to find that the United
States ii under an oblieation to enter into arbitration. it is necessarv to show that
the United Ndiion~h; made a good faith atiempt 10resolve ihe disputethrough
negotiation or some other aprced mode of settlement and ihat such negotiations
haie not resolved the dispute.
43. The summary of facts contained in paragraphs 19 to 29 above shows
conclusively that after first seeking clarification of the United States intentions
through contacts and consultations held between 5 and 14 January 1988, the
Secretary-General on 14January formally invoked the dispute settlement proce-
dure in section 21of the Headquarters Agreement and proposed that the two sides
enter into negotiations. Such contacts and consultations continued until 10
Februarv. on which date the Secretarv-General felt that. eiven the timecon-
sir~ints ikposed by the legislarionin cquesiionand the evide; Iackof progress in
rcach~nga ncgoiiatcd settlement. he was ohliged to inform ihc General Assembl).

44 The United States did noi consider these contacts and consultations to be
formally within the framework of section 21 (a) of the Headquarters Agreement.
However, the United Nations considers that ilis only required to show that il
attempted in good faith to enter into negotiations as foreseen hy section 21 (a).
Whether or not these efforts are characterized by the United States as falling
withinsection 21 (a), thiscan no1alter the fact that the negotiations actually look
place. In the light of the facts as described in paragraphs 19 to 29 ahove, the
United Nations was under no further obliaation to neaotiate before enaaaine in
the second,arhitration phase, of the agreed>ispute settlëment procedure,-no orher
mode of settlement having ken agreed upon6'. The inahility of the parties to
resolve the dispute by negotiation or other agreed mode of settlement created a
clear obligation on the parties to arbitrale, al1the more so since, as the Secretary-
General has pointed out, the section 21 procedure is the only legal remedy
availahle to the United Nations in this matter68.

IV. CONCLUSION

45. For the Durnoseof examinine whether. in the lieht of the facts reflectedin
the reports orihc ~ecretary-GeneraÏio the Gcneral hs&mbly, the unitcd Siates as
a party to the Headquarters Agreement is undcr an obligation 10 enter inio
arbitraiion in accordance with section 21 of the Agreement. ihis Statement has
sought to hrieflyidentify and elucidate upon thelegs issuesto whichthe question
gives rise.
46. Il has accordingly beenshown that the Headquarters Agreement, under
which an oblieation to arbitrale anses. is a valid treatv in force ktween the
United ~ationiand the United States.~he treaiy has no1ken dcnouncrd nor has
itceaxd 10Lxin force by operation of law Thc ATA as domestic law does no1
purport to nor could il, under international law, invalidate or overnde the
Headquarters Agreement.

6' Cf case concerning Miiilory and ParomiiiraryAeriviriesiond ogoinsrNieoroguo
(Nicerogunv. UniredSroresof America),Judgmentor 26 November 1984,I.C.J. Reporls
1984, pp.427-428.
68 DOC .5. WRIiTRU STATEMENT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL 179

47. It hasalso beenshown that section 21is theapplicablelaw for thesettlement
of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Headquarters
Agreement, that such a dispute in fact exists and that the United Nations has
attempted in good faith to reach a settlement of the dispute by means of
neaotiation or to aaree on some other mode of settlement.
48. Since al1 formal and procedural conditions under the Headquarters

Agreement have bcen met, in the view of the United Nations the United Statesis
under an obligation to enter promptly in10 the arbitration proceedings provided
for by section 21 of the Agreement.
49. In reaching theseconclusions, the United Nations is obliged to reiterate the
fundamental importance which it attaches 10 the respect for the good faith

implementation of international obligationsin general and to the Headquarters
Agreement in particular. The question at issue goes far beyond the particular
dispute and has lar-reaching consequencesfor the orderly and efficient discharge
of the responsibilities of the United Nations in the world al large. WRITTENSTATEMENT OF THE SYRIAN ARAB

REPUBLIC

"ln the light of facts reflected in the reports of the Secretary-General.

(1) 1sthe United Statesof America, asa party to the Agreement between the
United Nations and the United States of Amenca reeardine the Head-
quarters of the United Nations, under an obligatT& tlenter in10
arhitration in accordance with section 21 of the Agreement?"

Due to the lime constraint requested by the General Assembly of the United
Nations in ils resolution A/RES/42/229B of 2 March 1988,and,
Due to the lime-limit of Friday 25 March 1988 fixed by Order of the Inter-

national Court of Justice rendered on 9 March 1988,asking Statesso desiring to
submit wntten statements relating to the question, and,
As no document hasbeenreceived by the Synan Arab Republic likely 10throw
l-.ht uoon the .ues~~-~,~an~.
Due to the necessityof submitting a statement exposing the views of the Syrian
Arab Republic in a question relatine to the essenceof the functions of the United
Nations ~reanizatioh. and.
Taking 1;" xccoun; ihç frccdom oi ihe Orgÿni~iliion in d~icharglng 11sJuiirj
:iccorJin,i,,ils Charter and in fuliillin>: ihe noble IOwhich itha, dei,oted the

las1fortiyears of its existence, and,'
As the lime aflorded the Syrian Arab Repuhlic for the presentation of ils
Statement is very short,
This statement shall beconciseand limited to the question askedby the General
Assembly in ils Advisory Opinion of 2 March 1988,and to the legal points related
thereto.
In its 104th plenary session, on 2 March 1988, the General Assembly of the
United Nations adopted the following resolution No. A/RES/42/229 in which it
said:

"Decides. in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter of the United
Nations, to request the International Courtof Justice, in pursuance of Article
65 of the Statute of the Court, for an advisory opinion on the following
question, taking into account the time constraint:
'In the light of lacis reflected in the reports of the Secretary-General, is

the United States of America, as a party to the Agreement between the
United Nations and the United States of America regarding the Head-
quarters of the United Nations, under an obligation to enter into
arbitration in accordance with section 21 of the Agreement'."

On 9 March 1988,the International Court of Justice held a sitting to consider
this requestand delivered an Order that the Registrar of the Court communicated
to the States Members of the United Nations. This Order Statesthat the United

Nations and the United States of America are entitled to furnish information on
the question, in accordance with Article 66, paragraph2, of the Statute. as to the
applicability of arbitrdtion obligations in pursuance of section 21 of the Agree- WRITTZN SCATEMENT OF THE SYRIAN AWB REPIISLIC 181

ment siened on 26June 1947between the United Nations and the United States of
~ierici. (This Agreement was, later on, called the Headquarters Agreement.)
Member States can, ifthey so desire,submit written statements to the Courton 25
March ai the latest.
The Court has also decidedto hear, at a public Sittingto be held on II April, for
this purpose, oral statements and comments on written statements already
submitted to the Court hy the United Nations and the United States of America.
The General Assemblvof the United Nations addressed ils reouest to theCourt
foran advisory opinionin pursuance of Article 96 of the chaiter of the United
Nations which reads in ils first paragraph:

"Article 96

(1) The General Assembly or the Security Council may request the
International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal
question."

Chapter V of the Statute of the International Court of Justice on the basis of
which the General Assembly of the United Nations has requested the advisory
opinion states in ils Article 65:

"Article 65

I The Court may Bivean advisory opinion on any legal question at the
request oi whaiever body may be authon7ed by or in accordance uith the
Charter of the Uniied Nationî io make such .Irequest "

In its reauest for an advisory o~inion. the General Assembly of the United
Nations reierred to the following disposition in section 21 of the
Headquarters Agreement signed on 26 June 1947.

"Section 21

~.) Anv ,isoute between the United Nations and the United States
concerning ihe'incorpor.ition or application of this agreement or of any
supplçmental agreement. which is noi settled by negotiation or other agrecd
mode of seitlcmenl. shall be referred for final decisio10 a tribunal of threc
arbitraiors. one to benmed by the Secreiary-General. one 10 be named by
ihe Secretary or Siate ofihe Uniied States. and the third io be chosen by the
Iwo. or. if thev should fail io üercc uvon a third, then hy the Prcsident of thc
..-~~~~~~-~~ -~
(6) The ~ecretaryI~&eral or the United States may ask the General

Assemblyto request of the International Court of Justice an advisory opinion
on any légalquestion arising in the course of such proceedings. Pending the
receipt of the opinion of the Court, an interim decision of the arbitral
tribunal shall be observed on both parties. Thereafter, the arbitral tribunal
shall render a final decision, having regard 10the opinion of the Court."

A dispute has arisen between the United Nations and the United States of
America conming the application of this Agreement when the American
Congress voted the "Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years
1988-1989"Title X which was known under the name of: "Anti-Terrorism Act
1987".
This law has enumerated several acts which il bas attributed to the Palestine182 APPLICABILITYOF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE

Liberation Organization (PLO) during which American citizens have ken killed.
It has also mentioned under point (5)that: "The PL0 covenant specificallystates
that (armed struggle is the only way to liherate Palestine, thus it is an overall
strategy, not merely a tactical phase)."
The law mentioned under paragraph (B)

"(B) Dererminarions

Therefore, the Congress determines that the PL0 and its affiliates are a
terrorist organization and a threat to the interests of the United States, its
allies, and to international law and should not benefit from operating in the
United States."

And under the title of "Prohibitions" the law mentioned:

"Sec. 1003. Prohibitionregardingthe PL0

It shall be unlawful, if the purpose be to further the interests of the

Palestine Liheration Organization, or any of its constituent groups, any
successorto any of those, or any agents thereof, on or after the effectivedate
of this title.
(1) . . .

(2) . . .
(3) notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, to estahlish or
maintain an office,headquaners, premises,or other facilitiesor establish-
ments within the behest or direction of, or with funds provided hy the
Palestine Liberation Organization or any of ils constituent groups, any
successor to any of those, or any agents thereof.

Sec. IW4. Enforcement

(a) Attorney General. The Attorney General shall take the necessarv steos
and insiitute the necessary legal action to effectuate the polici& 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
reliefas it shall deem necessary to enforce the provisions of this title.

Sec. 1005. ERpcriveDare

(a) Provisionsof this title shall take effect90daysafter the date of enactment

of this Act."
Thus in compiiance with this law,the Attorney General of the United Stateshas
to request from the PL0 to closeits officesat the United Nations not later than 21

March 1988.

The dispute which has arisen betweenthe United Nations and the United States
concerns the closure of the Observer Mission of the Palestine Liberati~n ~ - ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Organizalinn 10 ihc United Nations. This Mission enJOySthe qualifications of
"Pennaneni Observer Mission to the United Naiions". It has ayuired ihis
qualification by the United Nations since 1974when the General Assemhlyvoted WRITTEN STATEMENTOF THE SYR~ANARAB REPUBLIC 183

the resolution 3237 (XXIX) on 22 November 1974.Since that date, that is, since
14years, this Permanent Observer Missionhas enjoyed the diplomatic immunities
extended in accordance with the provisions of the Headquarters Agreement of
1947,to al1United Nations members and Permanent Missions.
ArticleIV of this Agreementenumerates someof those facilitiesand immunities
the American Authorities have to extend to members of the United Nations
officiaisand to members of the Permanent Missions accredited to the United

Nations.
Section 11 provides that the Federal, state or local authorities of the United
States
"shall not impose any impediments to transit to or from the Headquarters
district of ...persons invited to the Headquarters district hy the United
Nations" (emphasis added),

and that: "The appropriate American authorities shall afford any necessary
~rotection to such Dersonswhile in transit to or from the Headquarters district."
Section 12provides that section II is applicable irrespeciiveojreloiions beiween
the govermenrsof the persons referred to in the latter section and the host State
(emphasis added).
Section 13orovides that the host State shall erant visas"without charee and as
prompily a\ ;>ossible"to pcrsons rtfcrrcd tt)in-section II and dl50exekpts such
persons Tram beingrequircd Io lcaic ihc United States on account ofany dbtivitie,
Üerformedbv them intheir officialcariacitv
' Article 105 i>ithe Charter of the 'United Nations. piiriigraph 2, conccrning

pri\ilegcs and immuniiies of the Membcrs of thc IJniied Nations should ;ils0 be
exiended to ihc rnemhers ol'the Permanent Observer Mission of the PL0 Io the
United Nations
On behalf of the spokesrnm for the Sccrctary.Gcner~l. Mr. Francois Giuliani
rcad out, on 22Octobcr 1987.a siatcment roncerning the status of the Permaneni
Observer Mission of the PL0 Descrihine th- Sccreiarv-General'sDositionon the
Observer Mission, he said:
"The members of the PL0 Observer Mission are, by virtue of resolution

3237 (XXIX), invireesto the United Nations. As such, they are covered by
sections Il, 12and 13of the Headquarters Agreementof26 June 1947.There
is therefore a treatv ohlieation on the host countrv to oermit PL0 Observer
Mission personnelio en& and remain in the unitid ~iates to carry out their
officialfunctions at the United Nations Headquarters."
Consequently, it appears clearly that thereexists a dispute between the United
Nations and the United States of America raised by the Anti-Terrorism Act of
1987 which fixes 90 days for the closure of the PL0 Observer Mission to the

United Nations.
The question is one of compliance with international law. The Headquarters
Agreement is a binding international instmment. The Anti-Terrorism Act, if
applied, violates strongly this Agreement and the United States obligations
towards the United Nations.
The Secretary-General of.the United Nations tried to settle this dispute in
accordance with the provisions of the Headquarters Agreement (section 21), "hy
negotiation or other agreed mode of settlement". He did no1 succeed. He
suggested then to refer the matter 10 arbitration and named his arbitrator. He
chose a highly qualifiedjudge known for his integrity and wisdom, Mr. A. 1.de
Aréchaga, a former judge of the International Court of Justice and former
President of this Court.184 APPLlCABlLln OF THE OBLICAlION TO ARBITRAiE

The United States ac&ted neither the negotiations nor the arhitration
stipulated in section 21 of the Headquarters Agreement.
The Acting Permanent Representativeof the United States addressed on II

March 1988a letter to the Secretary-Generalof the UnitedNations in whichhe
said:
"...1wishto inform you that the Attorney Generalof the United States has
determinedthat he is requiredbythe Anti-TerronsmAct of 1987to closethe
office of the Palestine Liberation Organization Observer Mission to the
United Nations in NewYork, irrespecrivofany obligarionîtheUniredSrares
may haveunderthe Agreemenrberweenrhe UniredNarionsand rhe United
Sraresregardingthe Headquarlersof rhe Unired Nations ..
Under the circumstances,the United States believesrharsubmlrsionof the

marrerto arbitrationwouldno1servea wefulpurpose." (Emphasisadded.)
A similarletterwasaddressedon the sameday, II March 1988by the Attorney
General Edwin MeeseIII to the Permanent Observerof the PL0 to the United
Nations. The letterreferredto the Anti-Terrorism Actwhichbecomeseffective21
March 1988:It adds:

"The Actprohibitsamong otherthings, the Palestine LiberationOrganiza-
lion (PLO) fromestablishingor maintainingan officewithinthejurisdiction
of the United States.
Accordingly .sof21 March 1988.mainlainingthePL0 ObserverMissionro
the UniredNarionsin rhe UniredSrareswill be unlawful."(Emphasisadded.)

"The legislationcharges the Attorney General with the responsibilityof
enforcingthe Act.To rhaiend.pleasebeadvisedrhar,shouldyou fail rocomply
withrherequiremenrs of rheAcr, theDeparrmenrof Jwrice willforrhwith roke
aclion in United Statesfederal court to ensureyour compliance.(Emphasis
added.)

Edwin MEESE III,
Attorney General."

Asa resultof thesediiïerencesof attitudes betweenthe UnitedNations and the
UnitedStatesof America,the GeneralAssemblyof the UnitedNations wascalled
for more than a meetingand overwhelminglyvoted resolutionsreaffirming, inter
alia:
1. The right of the Permanent Observer Missionof the PL0 to the United
Nations, tobe coveredhy the Provisions ofthe Headquaners Agreement
and maintain ils missionin New York.

2. That the Anti-TerrorismAct of 1987is contrary to the international legal
obligations of the host country under the Headquarters Agreement.
3.That there existsa dispute betweenthe United Nations and the United
Statesconcerning the interpretation or application of the Headquarters
Agreement.
4. That as a consequenceof this dispute, settlement procedureset out in
section21 of the agreement shouldbe set in operation.
5. That the Host Country should abide by ils treaty obligations under the
Agreementand pronde assurancethat it willtake no action to infringeon
theofficialfunctionsof the Permanent Observer Missionof the PLO.

Section B of this resolution 421229of 3 March 1988,decidesto request the
InternationalCourt of Justice,in accordance with Article96of the Charter and in WRI~ STAEMENT OF THESYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC 185

pursuance of Article65of theStatuteof theCourt, for an advisory opinionon the
questions referred to previously.

A> required by the Charter of the United Nations, theStature and Rulesof the
International Court of Justice. the rcquest for an advisory opinion presentetdo

theCourt bvthe GeneralAsscmblvofthc United Nations.sÿtirfiestheorocedural
..>. ~~...~.~-~.
The requestbas heenpresentedinaccordancewithArticle96of theCharter and
in com~liancewith Chaoter IV ofthe Statute (Art. 65)and with Part IV of the
Rules(~rts. 102, 103and 104).
For the substance.
An international agreement has been signed by the United Nations and the
United States of Americaon 26 June 1947.
This agreement contains the niles and provisionswhichorganizedthe relation-
ship between the Host Country and the United Nations Organization. The
Oreanization has set uo its Headauarters .in the citv of New York. received
~ekancnt Delegationsind organizédits workand acthties during thelas!forty.
two ycars in accordancewith this agreement. Delegationsto the United Nations

bave also establishedand maintained their missionsunder the ausoices of its
clauses.
The United States respected this Agreementand compliedwith its provisions
sinceits entry into forcein 1948.It has accorded membersof the delegationsal1
facilities, protection and immunitiesin the fulfilmentof their officialfunctions
notwithstanding the political relationsbetween their countries and the United
States.
This has facilitatedlargelythe work of the Organizationand helpedit to carry
out its noble aimsin maintaining peaceand secunty, as it could and within its
possibilities.
The Organization sparedno effort in fulfillingits goals in:

"reaffinningfaith in fundamentalhuman nghts, in the dignity and worth of
thehuman person,intheequalnghts ofmenand womenand of nations large
and small",

and in
"establishingconditions under whichjustice and respect for the obligations
ansing from trcaties and other sources of international law can he main-
tained",

and in "~romotina socialoroeressand better standards of lifein laraer freedom".
Asa résultof thiscndeavo&, colonialismhaswitncsscditsend.ad the number
of independent States has nsen from 50 ai the date of the establishmentof the
Organization IO 160now participating activelyin secunng Wace.justice and the
reskct of international iaw in the w&id.
jhe respectof the UnitedStates to this Agreement has facilitated the workof
the Organization and sccured the necessary atmosphere for canying out its
responsibilitiesand international obligations:
htion 21 of this Agreementwhichimplies the recourseto arbitration in case

of dispute between the Organization and the United States is the one to be
applied.
The sccunty resewation which is contained in section 6 of Annex 2 of the
agreement does not apply to this casebecauseit clearlymentions:186 APPLlCABlLlTY OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE

"... the right of the United States to safeguard its own secunty and
completely to conirol the entrana olaliens into any terntory or the United
Statesoiher [hanrhz Heuduuurrers<irsirri.rundils immediareiicinlry . .and
suchareasasir isreasonabhnecessary io traversein rransirberween-thesume
undfareigncouniries ..."(Emphasis added.)

Thus, this reservation does no1 apply to the district of Manhattan where
Permanent Delegations havetheir officesand residences.This district is governed
~, section~ II. 12and 13~f the Headauarters Agre~-~nt.
Thc Permanent Obserber Marion ofihe Palestine Liberation Organi7ation has
bencfited.during the last 14years, of the ~mmunitiesextended by the agreement to
invirrrsof the United Nations in ILSaualification as "Obsener Mission". This
has becn exiended itby United h'%tionsResolution No. 3237 (XXIX) of 22
November 1974. All or almosi a11member States of the Organizaiion have
rwocnized this siatus to the PL0 Ohxrver Mission. The United Siaies, which is
the Host Country, has accorded itsoficcs and memhers.dunng those 14years the
necessaryfaciliiies,immuniiiesand protection. It gave 11smembers the freedom of
transit to and from the United Nations without hindrance. What har chaneed
~~.? -
The Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987can neither amend nor annul the international
agreement which the United States has sianed 42 years aao and respected for this

-.
It is unibersallyadmitied. and wedo no1need to go into dciails of theones and
prsctice. ihat, in case olconflict between internarional law and local or national
Iîw, ihe first has ~reçedçnçe.This 1sone of the arioms of ihc lona h-story of
international law.
Thiç preccdcnce of ~nternationallaw hdd maintained. during the Iîst ccntunes,
the justice. soundness and efiecti\eness of international rel3iions
~hus in case of dispute between the Headquarters Agreement and the Anti-
Terrorism Act the first has precedence and should be hinding on the United
States.
In this dispute, section 21 of the Agreement should be applied.
As the question formulated by the General Assembly and requested in the
advisory opinion, isvery preciseand clear, we expect the reply of the Court ta be
as precise and as clear:

That the United States, as party to the Agreement between the United
Nations and the United States of Amenca regarding the Headquarters of the
United Nations. isunder an oblieation to entir intoarbitrationin accordance
with section 21'0f the ~~reement. 187

LETTER FROM THE AMBASSADOROF THE
UNITED STATESOF AMERICA TO THE
NETHERLANDS TO THE REGISTRAR

25 March 1988

I have the honor to refer to your letter of March 9, 1988,to Secretary of State
Shultz. transmittine a conv of the Court's Order of the same dAoolicabilitv
o/the Obligorionro-~rbi;rBteunderSectio21 o/the UnitedNotions~md~uorter.s
Agreement O/26 Junr 1947 The Court has informecl the Go\ernment of the
United Siste\ of Amencs that. in responsc to UN General Assemblv resolution
4212298, the Court intends t& cons;der, as an advisory opinion, whether the
arbitral procedure set forth in section 21 of the United Nations-United States
Headquarters Agreement is the mandatory method for resolving a dispute
concerning the applicability of the provisions of the agreement to the Permanent
Observer Mission of the Palestine Liberation Organization to the United Nations
in New York. The Court has invited the United States to submit written
statements by March 25 and to participate in oral hearings on Apnl II.
The United States wishes to inform the Coun that on December 22. 1987.the
prrsident of the Ünited States signedinto lawlhc Antiterrorism Acl of 1987(Title
X of the Foreign Relations Authonzation Act for Fiswl Years 1988and 1989).
The Attornev General of the United States has concludcd that this statute was
intended to'diiect the closure of the PL0 Observer Mission in New York
irrespectiveof any international legalobligation that the United States might have
under the Headquarters Agreement. Byletter dated March 11, 1988,the Attorney
General accordingly directed the PL0 Observer Mission to closeby March 21, the
effectivedate of the Act.
The PL0 Mission did not comply with the March II order. On March 22, the
United States Depanment of Justice therefore fileda lawsuit in the United States
District Courl for the Southern District of New York Io compel cornpliance.That
litigation will afford an opportunity for the PL0 and other interested parties to
raise legal challenges to enforcement of the Act against the PL0 Mission. The
United States will take no action to close the Mission pending a decision in that
litigation. Since the matteisstill pending in Our courts, we do not believe
arbitration would be appropriate or timely.
The United States respectfullydeclinesthe Court's invitation to submit further
news on this issue al the oral proceedings scheduled for Apnl 11.
Please accept my assurances of my Government's highestesteem for the Court.

Sincerely,

(Signed)John SHAD. LETTER FROM THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN
AFFAIRS OF THE GERMAN DEMOCRATIC

REPUBLIC TO THE REGISTRAR

March 1989.

In reply10 your telegramdated 9 March 1988,I havethe honour to inform the
International Court of Justice that in the opinion of the German Democratic
Repuhlic the UnitedStates of America as party to the agreement betweenthe
United Nations and the United Statesof Americaregardingthe Headquarters of
the United Nations, sircnedon 26 June 1947.had undertaken. under section 21,

that any disputebetueën the UnitedNationsand the UnitedStatesconcerningthe
interpretationor applicationof the agrecment.which1snot settlcdby negottation
or other agreed mode of settlement,shall be referred to an arbitral tribunal.
This poGtion is hased also on the legal situation describedas reflected inthe
relevant report hy the United Nations Secretary-General and confirmed in
resolution421299Awhich was adopted hy 143States.
Givingeffect10the provisions ofthe Foreign RelationsAuthonzation Act for
the FiscalYears 1988-89,sectionX, of 22December1987isinconsonant with the
internationallegal obligations entered into hy the Host Country under the
Headquarters Agreement. Thus, a dispute has emerged between the United
Nations and the United States as oarties to the above-saida-reement as to the
interpretation or application of th& agreement.
The UnitedNationsSecretary-General'sreport bearsout that since7December
1987the United Nations has becn in contact wiih the United States in ordcr 10

ensure thai ihe relevant provisionsof the Hcadquartcrs Agreementare applied
withregard 10the Palestine LiberationOrganizationwhichunder resoluiion3237
(XXIX) wrs invited to participate in the United Nattons work and uzhichhas
maintaineda oermanenïobse~er missionto t~e w~rl~ ~ ~~ ~zation for 13vears.
With the tajks, contacts and negotiatingefforts of the United Nations having
produced no results, the dispute between the United Nations and the United
States over theabove-mentiined issuecontinues to exist.

(Signed) Oskar FISCHER.