Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 11 April 1949

Summaries of Judgments, AdNot an official documentrs of the Internationa
l Court of Justice

REPARATIOP FJORINJURIES SUFFERED IN THESERVICE
OFTHE UNITED NATIONS

Advisory Opinionof 11 April 1949

Thequestionconcerningreparationforinjuriessufferedin tionsonthequestionsubmittetoit. Iproceedstodefinecer-
theserviceof theUnitedNations,was reft:rredto theCourt tain termsin thF!equestfor Opinion, then it analysesthe
bytheGeneral Assemblyof theUnitedNations (Resolution contentsof the fofimula:"capacityto bringan international
of the General Assembly dated Decembe3rd. 1948)inthe claim." Thiscapac:itycertainlybelongsto a State. Doesit
followingterms: alsobelong to theOrganization?Thisistantamounttoasking
"I. In theeventof anagentof theIJnitedNationsin whether theOrgan~izatiohas internationalpersonality.In
the performanceof hisduties sufferingnjuryin circum- termsoftheCharter,theCourtgoesontoconsiderwhatchar-tual
stances involvingthe responsibilityof a State, has theacteristicstheCharterwasintendedto giveto theOrganiza-
UnitedNations, asanOrganization,thecapacityto bring tion.Inthisconnection,theCourtstatesthattheChartercon-
aninternationalclaimagainsttheresponsibledejure orde ferred upon the Organization rightsand obligationswhich
facto governmentwitha viewto obtainingthereparation aredifferentfromthoseof itsMembers.TheCourtstresses,
due in respect of the damagecaused (a)to theUnited further, the importantpoliticatlasksoftheOrganization:the
Nations, (b)to the victimor to persons entitledthroughmaintenanceof internationalpeace and security. Accord-
him? ingly theCourtconcludesthattheOrganizatinossessingas
"11. Intheeventofan affirmativereply on pointI (b),it doesrightsand obligations,has at thesametime a large
howis actionbytheUnitedNationstobereconciledwith measureofinternationalpersonaliand thecapacitytoopr-
suchrightsasmaybepossessedbythe Stateof whichthe ateuponaninternationalplane, althougit iscertainlynota
victim isanational?" super-state.
Withrespectto questionsI (a) andI (b), theCourt estab- The Courtthen examines thevery heart of the subject,
lished a distinctioncordingto whether the responsible namely,whetherthe sum ofthe international rightsof the
State is aMember ornot ofthe UnitedNations.The Court Organization compriseshe right to bring an international
unanimously answered answereqduestionI[(a)in the affir- claimtoobtainrepamtion fromaStateinrespectofthedam-
mative.On questionI (b) the Court was of opinionby 11 agecausedbytheinjiuryofanagentoftheOrganizationinthe
votesagainst4thattheOrganizationhasthecapacitytoring courseoftheperfonnanceofhisduties.
aninternationalclaimwhetherornot theresponsibleStateis On the firstpoint:,I (a),theRequestfor Opinionthe
aMemberofthe United Nations. Courtunanimously]meachetseconclusionthattheOrganiza-
Finally, on point11,theCourt wasof opinionby 10votes tion has thecapacitytobringaninternationalclaim against
against5thatwhentheUnited Nationsas an organizationis State(whetheraMemberornon-member)fordamageresult-
bringing a claim for reparation for darnagecaused to itsing froma breachythatStateofitsobligationstowardsthe
agent,it can onlydso bybasingitsclaimupona breachof Organization. TheC!ourtpointsoutthatit isnotcalledupon
obligationsduetoitself;respectforthise'willusually pre- to determinethe p~ise extentof the reparationwhicthe
venta conflict between tactionoftheUnited Nations and Organizationwouldbeentitledtorecover;themeasureofthe
such rights as theagent's natil tatemaypossess;more- reparationshoulddelpenduponanumberoffactorswhichthe
over, this reconciliationmust depend considerations Courtgivesasexamlples.
applicabletoeachparticularcase,anduponagreementstobe Then the Court proceedsto examine questionI (b),
madebetweentheOrganizationand individualStates. namely, whethertheUnitedNations,asanOrganization,has
The dissenting Judgesappendedto the Opinioneither a thecapacityto bringan international claimwith a view to
declarationora statementofthe reasonsforiwhichtheycan- obtainingthereparatidueinrespectofthedamagecaused,
notconcurinthe Opinionofthe Court.lbo otherMembers notto theOrganizationitself,butto thevictimorto persons
of theCourt, whileconcumngin the Opinion, appendedan entitledthrough him.
additionalstatement. In dealingwiththis point theCourtanalysesthe question
ofdiplomaticprotectionof nationals. TheCourtpoioutin
this connectionthat really only the Organizationhas the
capacityto presenta claimin thecircumstancesreferredto,
inasmuchasatthebasisofanyinternationalclaimtheremust
be a breachby thedefendantStateof an obligationtowards
In its AdvisoryOpinion, the Courtbeginsbyrecitingthe theOrganization.Inthepresentcasethe Stateof whichthe
circumstancesof the procedure. TheRequestfor Opinion victim isanationalccruldnot complainofabreachanobli-
was communicatedto all Statesentitledtoappearbeforethe gation towardsitself. Here the obligation is assumed in
Court;they were further informedthat the Courtwas pre- favourof the Organization.However,the Court admits that
pared toreceiveinformationfrom them.hur;,writtenstate- theanalogyofthe traditionalruleofdiplomaticprotectionof
ments were sent by the following States:India, China, nationals abroaddoesnotinitselfjustifyanaffirmativereply.
UnitedStatesof America, United Kingdomd Great Britain Infact,thereexistsnlinkofnationalitybetweentheOrgani-
andNorthern Ireland anFrance.Inaddition,oralstatements zation andits agents.This is a new situationand it mustbe
werepresented beforethe Courtby a representativeof the analysed. Do the prc~visioof the Charter relatingto the
sel, andby the representativesof theBelgian,Frenchand functionsoftheOrganizationimplythatthelatterisempow-
UnitedKingdomGovernments. eredto assureits agentslimitedprotection?Thesepowers,
whichareessentialto theperformanceofthefunctionsofthe
Thenthe Courtmakesa numberof preliminary observa- Organization,must be regardeds a necessary implicationarising from the Charter.Irrdischarging its functions,the QuestionNo. I1oftheGeneralAssembly refers totherec-
Organizationmayfindit necessaryto entrust its agentswith oncilirltionof actionbythe UnitedNationswithsuchrights
important missions tobeperformedin distu~rbepdartsofthe as mqybe possessedby the Stateof whichthe victimis a
world. Theseagentsmustbeensuredofeffectiveprotection. national.Inotherwords,whatis involved ispossible compe-
It is onlyin thiswaythatthe agentwillbe abletocarryout titionbetweenthe rightsofdiplomaticprotectionontheone
his dutiessatisfactorily.TheCourtthereforereachesthecon- hand md functionalprotectionontheother. The Courtdoes
clusion that the Organization has the ciipacity to exer- not sate here whichof these twocategoriesof protection
cisefunctionalprotectioninrespectof itsagents. The situa- should have priorityand in the case of MemberStates it
tion is comparativelysimplc:in the caseof MemberStates, stresses theirduty to render everyassistanceprovidedby
for these have assumedviuious obligations towards the Article2 of theCharter. Itadds that the riskof competition
Organization. between the Organizationand the nationalState can be
But whatisthe situationwhenaclaim is brought againsat reducedor eliminated eitherby a generalconventionor by
StatewhichisnotaMemberoftheOrganization?The Court agreementsenteredintoineachparticularcase,anditrefers
isofopinionthat the MembersoftheUnitedNationscreated furthertocases thathave already arisenin whicha practical
an entity possessing objectiveinternationa:lpersonalityand solutionhas alreadybeenfound.
not merelypersonalityrecognizedbythemalone. As inthe Finally,the Court examinesthe case in whichthe agent
caseofQuestionI (a),theC411u rtereforeanswersQuestionI bearsthenationalityof the defendant State. Sincethe claim
(6)inthe affirmative. broughtbythe Organization isnotbaseduponthe nationality
of thevictimbut rather uponhis status a!;an agent of the
Organization,it doesnot matter whetheror not the Stateto
whichthe claimisaddressed regardshimas itsownnational.
Thelegalsituationisnotmodifiedthereby.