Summaries of Judgments, AdNot an official documentrs of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
INTERPIRETATIO O FTHE AGIREEMEN OTF 25 MARCH 1951
BE'I'WEE NHEWHO AND EGYIPT
Advisory Opinionof 28December1!#80
In its AdvisoryOpinionon the question concerning theactual and legai!background to the submissionof the
Interpretationof theAgreementof 25ch 1951 between Request
the WHO and Egyptsubmittedto it by a requestfromthe (p'uas.1-32 oftheAdvisoryOpinion)
WorldHealthAssembly,the Court setortlhtheiegd princi-
ples and rulesconcerning consultation, negotiation an(paras.1-9), the Court recountsthe antectsftheWHOedings
notice that would apply as betweenthe 'WHOand Egypt RegionalOfficeat Alexandria,fromthecreationinthatcity
if theRegionalOfficeof tWHO forthe EasternMediter- of a generalBoardofHealthin 1831forthepurposeofpre-
ranean, in Alexandria, were transferred1from Egyptianventing epidemicsup tothe integrationof the Alexandria
temtory. SanitaryBureauwiththeWHOin 1949as aregional organ.
1. By12votesto 1,theCourtdecidedtcomplywiththe The Eastern MediiterraneanRegional Officecommenced
Requestforanadvisory opinion. operations on 1July 1949, while negotiations were in
2. WithregardtoQuestionI, which=.adasfollows: propss betweentheWHOandEgyptfortheconclusionof
"Arethe negotiationand notice provisionsof Sectionnagreementontheprivileges,immunitiesandfacilities
37ofthe Agreementof25March1951 b:tweentheWorld begrantedto the Organization. This agreetaseventu-
HealthOrganizatioandEgyptapplicableintheeventthat ally signedon 25 ]March1951and enteredinto force on 8
eitherpartyotheAgreement wishes to havtehe RegionalAugust 1951.(Paras1CL27.)
OfficetransferredfromthetemtoryofEgypt?", TheCourtnexte:xarninestheeventswhichledto thesub-
theCourt,by 12votesto1,expressed the opinion thaitntheissionoftherequestforanAdvisoryOpinion.It recapitu-
eventof a transferofthe Regional Officec~ftheWHOfrom latesproceedingsvvithinthe WHO, from the recommenda-
Egypt,theWHO andEgyptwould,inparticular,have(a) a tionbya Sub-committeeofthe Regional Committeforthe
mutualobligationtoconsult togetherin goodfaasto the Eastern Mediterraneanon 11May 1979 thatthe Officebe
questionunderwhatconditionsand inccordancewith what transferretoanotherStatein the region,topthe recom-
modalitiesthetransfermightbeeffected,)amutualobliga- mendationbythe sameSub-committeeon 9 May 1980that
tion to consult togetherand to negotiate regarding thehe RegionalOffice be transferred assoon as possibleto
arrangementsneededtoeffect such translkr in an orderlymman (Jordan) randthe adoptionby the World Health
meqner andwitha minimumofprejudicetotheworkofthe Assemblyon 20 May 1980of resolutionWHA33.16by
WHO andtheinterests&Egypt; and(c)anobligationonthe Section37oftheAgreementof25March1951tothetransferlityof
partof thepartywhichwishesto effectthetransferto giveoftheRegionalOflice, it soughtthe Court'sadvisory *in-
reasonableeriodofnoticetotheotherparty. ion ontwo questionspriorto taking any decisi(has.
3. WithregardtoQuestion2,whichrerid: 28-32.)
"Ifso, what wouldbethelegalrespr~sibilitiesof both
theWorldHealthOrganizationandEgypt,withregardto Competenceto&liveran Opinion
the RegionalOffice in Alexandria, during the 2-year(para.33oftheAdvisoryOpinion)
period between notice andtehnation of the Agree-
ment?". Before goinganyfurther,the Court considerswhetherit
theCourt,by 11votesto2, expressedtheopinithat,inthe oughttodeclinetoreplytotherequestforanAdvisoryOpin-
eventofadecisiontotransfer, the lesponsibilitiesoftheionbyreasonofits,allegedpoliticalcharacter.Itconcludes
WHO and Egypt between the notificationof the proposedthautodo sowouldmnmcountertoits settledjurisprudIfce.
transferand theaccomplishmentthereofwoluldbetofulfilin question submittedin a requestis onethat otherwisefalls
goodfaiththemutualobligations statedinthereplytoQues-withinthe normalexerciseof itsjudicial powers,the Court
tion 1. hasnottodealwith themotiveswhichmayhaveinspiredthe
request.
Signifianceandscopeofthequestionsput totheCorn
(pahas34f. oftheAdvisoryOpinion)
TheCourtnextconsidersthe meaningandimplicationsof
The Courtwascomposedasfollows:Prt!si&ntSirHum- the hypotheticalquestionson whichit is asked to advise.
phreyWaldock;Wce-PresidentElias;Judgta Forster, Gros,Section 37ofthegreementof25 March1951,towhichthe
Lachs, Morozov, Nagendra Singh, Ruda!,Mosler, Oda, firsitquestionrefers,reads:
Ago, El-ErianandSette-Camara. "The presentAgeement may berevisedat therequest
JudgesGros, Lachs, Ruda, Mosler,Odri,Ago, El-Erian d eitherpartIIIthis event thetwopartiesshallconsult
and Sette-Carnarahave appendedseparateopinionsto the eachotherconcerning the modificatito bemadein its
Advisory Opinion. provisions.Ithen:gotiationsdo not resultinunder-
JudgeMorozov hasappendedadissentingopinion. standingwithinone year, the presentAgreementmay be
denouncedbyeitherparty givingtwoyears'notice!'
explain their reasons for SAepositions vvhichthey take TheCourt pointsout that,if it istoremainfaithfultothe
in regard to the various mattersdealt with in the Coureqi~irementof itsjudicial characterin the exercitsof
opinion. advisoryjurisdiction, it must ascertainouethe legalquestionsreallyinissueinquestionsformulated ir~arequest. inthe 1951Agreement. According totheproponentsofthis
Thisit hashadoccasionto dclinthepast,ashadalsothe Per- view, evenif that interpretationwasrejected,Egyptwould
manentCourtof InternationrllJustice. TheCourtalsonotes stillbe entitled receive noticeunderthe general rulesof
thatareply toquestionsoftht:kind posedin therequestsub- internationallaw.
mittedto it may,if incomplete,be not only ineffectualbut
actuallymisleadingastothe legalrulesapplicabletothemat- Whateverviewmaybe takenof theargumentsadvanced
terunderconsiderationbythe WHO. conceniing the relevance and applicabilityof the 1951
Having regardto the differingviews e:cpressedin the Agreement,theCourt findsthat certainlegalprinciplesand
WorldHealth Assembly on 21numberof points, it appears rules areapplicablein the caseof such a msfer. (Paras.
that thetruelegal questionnderconsiderationintheWorld 40-42.)
Health Assembly,whichmust also be consideredto be the
legal questionsubmittedtothe CourtintheIWO's request, Mutualobligationsofco-operation and good faith
is: (paras.4347)
Whether the mutual understandings reached between
questionunderwhatconditioiisandinaccordancewith whatthe Egypt andthe WHO from 1949to 1951areregarded asdis-
modalitiesatransferof theRegional.OfficefromEgyptmay tinctagreementsoras separatepartsofasingletransaction,a
beeffected? contractuallegaldgime wascreatedbetweenEgyptandthe
Organizationwhichremainsthe basisoftheir legalrelations
The differingviewsadvance^! today. 'rheserelationsremain thoseof a host Stateand an
(paras.3742) international organization, thevery essenceof which is a
bodyof mutualobligationsof co-operation and good faith.
Inansweringthe questionthus formulatedt,heCourtfirst Having regard tothe practicalproblemswhich a transfer
notesthattherightofaninternationalorgani;catioitiochoose wouldcause,the WHO andEgyptmustco-operateclosely to
thelocationof itsheadquartersorregionalofficeis notcon- avoid my risk of serious disruptionto the work of the
tested. Itthen turns to the differingviewsexpressedin the Regional Office.In particular,a reasonable periodof time
WorldHealth Assemblyand,beforetheCourt,inthewritten shouldbeallowedfortheprocess.(Paras. 43f.)
and oral statements, regarding therelevanceof the Agree- IntheCourt'sview, certainpointerstothe implicationsof
mentof25 March 195 1and tiheapplicabilityofSection37to these~nutualobligationstoco-operateingoodfaithina situ-
atransferoftheRegionalOfiicefromEgypt. ationliketheonewithwhichitisconcernedmaybefoundin
Withrespectto the relevanceofthe 1951 Agreement,one numerous hostagreements, aswell as in Article 56, para-
oftheviews advancedwasthatthat agreementwasaseparate graph 2,oftheViennaConventionontheLawofTreatiesand
transaction, subsequenttoth~e:stablishmentoftheRegional the conrespondingprovisionin the InternationalLawCom-
Office,andthat, althoughit mightcontain~eferencesto the mission'sdraftarticlesontreatiesbetweenStatesandinter-
seatof theRegionalOffice in Alexandria,it didnot provide national organizationsor between international organiza-
fortheOffice'slocationthere.It wouldfollowthatithadno tions.(has. 4547.)
bearingon the organization!'rightto removethe Regional
Office from Egypt. TheAgieement, it was claimed, con- Applicablelegalprinciplea sndrules
cernedthe immunitiesand privilegesgrantedto the Office (paras. 48f.)
within thelarger contextof the immunities;andprivil-ges
grantedby~Gpt tothe WHO. The Court thus findsthe applicable legal principlesand
Accordingto theopposing:view,theestatjlishmentofthe rules,andtheconsequentobligations,toconsistin:
RegionalOffice andits integrationwiththeWHOwerenot -consultation ingoodfaithastothe questionunderwhat
completedin 1949; theyweie accomplishedby a seriesof conditionsandinaccordancewith whatmodalitiesatransfer
acts in a composite process, thefinal anddefinitive stepinoftheRegional Officefrom Egypm t aybeeffected;
whichwastheconclusionof.the 1951 hostagreement.Itwas
contended,interalia,thattheabsenceofaspecificprovision -if a transferis decidedupon, consultationand negotia-
regarding the establishmentof theHO O!Kcein Alexan- tionregardingthe arrangementsneededtoeffectthetransfer
driawasdue tothefactthatthrAgreementwitsdealingwitha in anorderlymannerandwithaminimumofprejudicetothe
preexisting Sanitary Bure,a~u aheady establislhedthere. workoftheorganizationandthe interestsofEgypt;
Moreover, it was stated, ft~eAgreement was constantly -the givingofreasonablenoticebythe partydesiringthe
refend toasahostagreemeritintherecordsdthe: WHO and transfer.
inofficialactsoftheEgyptianState.(Paras.37-39.) Preciselywhatperiodsoftimemaybeinvolvedintheobser-
Sofar as the applicabilityoSection37to thetransferof vanceofthe dutiestoconsultandnegotiate,andwhatperiod
the Office from Egypt was concerned, the:diflerencesof ofnotice shouldbegiven, arematterswhichnecessarily vary
viewresulted essentiallyromthe meaning;attributedto the accordingtothe requirementsofthe particular case.Inprin-
word"revise" inthefirstsenlance.Accordingtooneview,a ciple,therefore,itisforthepartiesineachcasetodetermine
transferofthe seatwouldnotconstitutearevisionandwould them. Someindications asto thepossibleperiodsinvolved
thusnotbecoveredbySection37, whichwcdd notapply to canbe seeninprovisionsofhostagreements,includingSec-
the denunciationof the Agreementwhich a msfer of the tion 37of the Agreementof 25 March 1951,as wellas in
Office from Egypt wouldhvolve. Upholdersof this view Article56of theViennaConventionon theLawof 'Zkeaties
concludedtherefromthatsincetherewasno provisionin the and in the corresponding articleof the InternationalLaw
Agreementfor denunciation, the general rulesof interna- Commi.ssion's draft articleson treatiesbetweenStates and
tionallaw whichprovidedforthepossibilityof denunciation internationalorganizationor betweeninternationalorgmi-
andtheneedfor aperiodof iioticeinrespectof suchagree- zations.TheparamountconsiderationforboththeWHOand
mentsappliedinthepresentcase.Accordin& t: tlieopposite the host Statein every casemustbe theirobligationto co-
view, theword"revise" mightalsosignifyageneralrevision operatein goodfaithtopromotethe objectivesandpurposes
of an agreement,includingitstermination,tmdwassoused oftheWHO.SecondquestionsubmittetotheCourt the practicalmngements neededto effectan orderlyand
(para5.0) equitabletransferofthe Officetoitsnewsite.
It followsfrom theforegoingthattheC:ourt'sreplytothe 3. WithregardtoQuestion 2,
second questionis thatthe legalresponsibilittheOr- Byelevenvotes3totwo?
ganizationand Egyptdurintheaansitioilperiodbetween Isof theopinionthat, in the eventof a decision thatthe
notificationofthem transfeandtheaccomplishment Regional Officeshall be transferredfrom Egypt, the legal
there w ofldbetofulfilingoodfaiththe :mutlbligations responsibilitiesof'theWorldHealthOrganizationandEgypt
setoutabove. dtningthetransiti~opleriod between thenotificationofthe
pi~posed transfer of the Office and the accomplishment
thereofretofulfilingoodfaiththe mutualobligationswhich
theCourthassetalutinansweringQuestion1.
SUMMAR OF JUDGEMOROZOV's
For thesemsons, the Courthas de1ivr:redthe Advisory DISSENTINGOPINION
Opinion whose complete operativepro~?isioare repro- Judge Morozov voted against the Advisory Opinion
ducedbelow: becauseinsubstanceit is an attempt to involvetheCourtin
thehandlingofoneofthe consequencesofaseriouspolitical
OPERATIV PEROVISIONOFTHE conflictexistingin!the MiddleEast. This conflict isdirectly
ADVISORO Y~ION rellatedto thecausl:of the increasingly tenseintheation
Esasternhaeditemmean Region, which results from the
Agreement signeatCampDavid in theUSAon27Septem-
THECOURT,* ber 1978which,aswassaidparticularlyintheWrittenState-
1. Bytwelvevotes1toone,2 mentpresentedto the Court by the SyrianArab Republic,
"prevented the region fromachieving the comprehensive
Decides to comply with the Request for an advisory andtruepeacecalledbytheArabStates".
pinion; Accordingtothedissentingopinion,theCourt,which,by
2. WithregardtoQuestion1, virtueofArticle5ofits Statute,hasa discretiorighto
bytwelvevotes1toone,2 giveor nottogiveanAdvisoryOpinion,shouldinthis case
declineodeliveranOpinioninorder toavoidanembarrass-
Isoftheopinionthat inthe eventspifieinthe Request, ingsituationwhereitwouldbeinvolvedinhandlingadispute
thelegal principlesand rules, and the mutualobligationbetweenStateswithadefinitepolitical character.
which theyimply,regardingconsultation,,negotiationand
noticea,pplicabasbetweentheWorldHealthOrganization Judge Marozov also expressed theview that the Court,
andEgypt, arthosewhich have beesetoutinparagraph49 even fromthe pointof viewof thosewhoconsider thatthe
ofthisAdvisory Opinion and particularthat: Requestof theWIO is a purely legal one, acted wrongly
(a) Theirmutualobligationsunderthoselegalprinciples when insubstanceitchanged thetwoquestionssubmittedby
andrules placeadutybothuponthe 0rgan.izationandupon the WHOintoquestionsof itsown. Thus Question1onthe
Egypt to consulttogetherin goodfaitasto the question applicabilityof Sestion 37 of the 1951 Agreementwas
underwhatconditionsandin accordancewith whatmodali- replaced by the question "under what conditions and in
ties a transfer of the Regional OfficeEgypt may be accordancewithwlmtmodalitiesa transferof the Regional
effected,. Ofticefrom Egyptmay be effected?" Thesameattemptto
redraftwasalsomadeinrelationtoQuestion2.
(b) In theevent of its being finally decidedthat the The referencesm~adto theprevious practiceoftheCourt
RegionalOfice shallbetransferredfromEgypt, theirmutualdonot inhisviewjustifysuch kindof redrafting whasa,
obligationsof co-operationplaceadutyupanthe Organiza- matterof principle, is incompatiblewith thejudicial func-
tionandEgypt to consulttogethand to negotiateregardingtions of the Cou;a sefined inChapterIV of its Statute.
thevariousammgements neededto effecthetransferfrom Moreover,the Courttacitlyrecognizesthat Sec37ofthe
theexistingto the newsitein an orderlymimer and witha 1951Agreementisnotapplicabletothequestionofthetrans-
minimumof prejudiceto the workof the Organizationand feroftheofficebecrauseitdoesnotgive theanswertoQues-
theinterestofEgypr; tion 1submittedby,theWHO.
(c) Theirmutualobligationunder thost?legalprinciples Judge Morozovconsidered thatcertainrecommendations
and rulesplacea dutyuponthepartwhichwishesto effect which weremadebytheCourt to theWMO areinsubstance
thetransfertogiveareasonableperiodof notice to the othnotananswertoitsrequest.Theyconstituteattemptsto inter-
for theerminationof the existingsinlationregardinferewiththeactivityoftheWHO,which,inaccordancewith
%he gionalOfficatAlexandria, takingdueaccountof all itsConsti~tionhas an exclusiverightto take the decision
relating totheestablishmentofitsRegionalOffices,andcon-
+Compo#d a~fo110~~:PresidentSir Waldock;Vice- sequently tothera~isferthereof, includingall stepsfor the
Ruda ,08kr.da,Ago.El-EriSatc-Camare.N Vw.dra Singh, implementationofthe decision concerned.
'ResidmrSiHumpineWy aldoc;ce-PresiEtlias;JvdgcsForstcr,
Gm, LachaN, agenSW. Ruda , osle,da,AgoEl-Wan,Sew- 'Presidetir~umphry aldoc;ce-Residetlia;udgesFmpcr,
camp.e. Gms,MagendmSigh,RudaM.osle,da,Ago. l-EsiSewCamara.
2~ud8~ ~~OJZOV. 4Judges acandMorozov.
--
Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 20 December 1980