Reparation for injuries suffered in the service of the United Nations - Advisory Opinion of the Court of 11 April 1949

Communiqué No, 49/12,
Unoff icial ,

The following informatioi~ issued by the Registry of the Inter-
national Court of Justice has been communicated to the Frcss.

Today,April Ilth,1949, the lntemational Court of Justice read
in a publicsittlng its AdvisoryOPiilior! on thc question of SepratTon
for injuries suffered in the serviceof the United Naticns. The question

was raferr~d to the Court by the Gonerzl AssmLily of the United ri!atio_ris
(~csolriti.zJnoi' thc: Gcncral Assernbly d~tod ~ccmbai- 3rd, 19.41) in the
f ollawiiiigterms :

"1. In the cvcnt of an sgmt of thc Unitod Nations in the
pcrformancc of his diitics sufSerLng injury in ci.rcumstanccs
vlvolving the rcsponsibility of n Statz ,as th2 Ui~iLed IIntions,
as tir?Organization, thc capacbty to bring an int,em~t~ional
claim qainst the reçponsiblc de jure or de facto gaverment

with 2 view to obtaining tlzc rcparntion duc in respect of the
dam?@ caused (a) to thc United lGntions, (b) to thc vlctk
or to persons crititl~d th:-ough him ?

II Ln the svent of an effirmtivo roply on point 1 (b),
how is action by the Unitcd Nations to bc rcconciled with such
rbghts as may bc possesscd by the Statc of whic1-1the victimis
n nationcl ?Ir

With rcspact to qucsti:ms I (a) and 1 (b),the Court ostablishes
a distinctioa nccording ta whcther the rcsponsiblc Stato is a Wcmber or

ncit of the United Ilzlians, The Court 'unz.nbmously nnswLrsquestion 1 (a)
in the affim.tive. On question 1 (b)the Court is of opil;ion by 11 votes
agninst 4 thc?t thc Orgaflizstion hns the capacity to bring an Internatidn~~l
cl2im v'nether or not thc respclnsible St3.te is 3 Picmbcr of thc United
PIatioils,

Finalpi, on pcint II, the Court is of opinion by 10 votes against 5
thnt when the United Ikticins 2s an orgniz~tion is briilging n cL2im for

repration for d~'L"~gecaused ko its agcnt, it c?-n only do so by hnsing its
clzim up3n n brc:tch rif oblig:?,iians duc to itsclfgrcspcct for thls rule
will usu,zlly prcvent a conflict bctt~em thc nctj-an of the üriitcd 1iintior.s
and suchrights ns the ngcntlsn2,tioml Bt2ta mg possess; moreover, tbis
rcconcili trsn must depuiid upon consider,zticns c?pplic?-ble to each
particulxr cnsc, and upon ngrccments to be nsde bctwecn thc Orgmlzation
2nd individual States.

The disscnting Judgcs appcndçd td the Opinion eitbcr a declaration
or a shtcment of the rcmons for which they cl:-nnot cnncur in the Opinion
of the Court. Tm other Fl~mbers of the Court, whila concurring in the

Opinion, a~pcndcd an zddition?wl statemcnt .

h its hdvisory ûpinhn, the Court begins by reciting the circumstznces
of the procedure. Thc Requast f~r Opinion ms comnwiicnted to nll States
eiltitled to a1:pez.r Scforc the Court; they wcrc further informed thai; the
Court ms prepred to rccci~einfomp-tion £rom thm. Thus, written
stntemeilts wero sont by thc foll6~211~ S:::.tes:
Iizdiz, China, United
St-1.tesor hcricn, Ui~itcd Kingdom of Gre3t Britnin and ?Jorthcrn Ireland
end Fraiilco. In additiori, ûr7.L statements werc i:rcsen.tcd beforu the Court
blr a rc~rcsentative of thc Socret~?ry-Gtneral or" the Ui'lited!.!atioïis,
assisted53'counsel, 2nd by the repreaeiatntiveç of khc SeLgi:?n, Frtlncli
nrid Unit r;d Kingdom Gcivcmincnts . But vfiat is. thc situzti~ri, whzri2. clzir.: isbl-oil<htc.g2irist I~St~tc
which i~ nat a pic~,lb'of the Organiz~tion? Thc Coud is c;f opinira thrtt
th3 i"le;:ibcçf the Unitecl Nations creztcd 2n cntity possassin~ objectivc

i:iterr-iL.tioosp~rs~dn~lity 2nd n3t nerclypers .nality reczgnized by Lhm
[zlone. As in the cnsc c;f Question I (33, th? CDUA thcreforé ?_nswcrs
Question 1 (b) in thc zffinativo,

Question No. II cf the Géncral Asscrhly refcrs tu the rvconcilintion
of ection by th2 United Nntions with u-u-ch sights 3s rwy bc possessedby
' the Stnti. of which the victln is a n-tion~l.'In othcr wrds, what is
involvecl is pouçibl-c c~cipetitim bettireerin¢ s?~hts liploïnztic protectian
e on the on& hm.2 and functi.3nr?l prc'cc-ciicn on tlii ~ther. Thc Court cloes

e ncit çtztc hcrc which of theçe twü CF-tegr~ries of pmtecti~n shouldhzva
priorTty 2nd in thc case 3f Pki~er Stetzsit 'stresses thci- duty to rdndcr
every assistcnc3 provide2 by Article 2 3f the Ghrrter. IL adr:s tkt the
riçkof c~npefition bctweenthe Orgri,nization ;tnd thenc.tii;nal %>.te C~K?
be r~di*cei?cr eli.rLzinated eitl;crby s gùncralecnvention dr hy ?4grcer!ients
cntcred into in wçh pzrticvlzr casa, ?-nd iL rcfvrv fur7tkcr tu c3ses thct
h:ive r.rec-dy 2riseil in which a pr~cti c,-.ls-)luticri_Sc: 7.ready Sem found.

Fin211y,the Cf;urt exxiines the ci.sa in b~l~ic'tht ag;;;clbénrs the
niiticnelitjrof the clefeild:.iS.tntc. Sinco tfie clzin brau~iit by the
Organimtion is ncit hasec! upo11 the n~.tion~lity .:f the victiiiibut rathcr
upon his stetus as an egent the ~3r~~~nim~tàon, it dhes fiot rxtter
whatherZr n'cf,the Scat2 to wl?lch the cl~in is ~.$.dressodrc,ar::s hin 3s
its riwn n~tionzl, The loz:l situ;:.tion is riot mofified thereby.