Summaries of Judgments, AdvNot an official documents of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
EFFECTSOF,&WARDO SFCOMPIENSATIOM NADE BY THE
1iJNITED NAiTIONS ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AdvisoryOpinion of 13July1954
Thequestionconcerningthe effectof awardsof compen- (JudgeAlvarez,JudgeHackworthandJudgeLeviCarneiro)
sationmadeby the UnitedlqationsAdministrativeTribunal areappendedtothe Opinion.OneJudgewho didnotdissent
had beensubmittedfor ana~dvisorypiniorlto theCourtby (JudgeWiniarski), while votifor the Opinion,appended
the General Assemblyof itheUnited Nations, which,on theretoa statementofhis separateOpinion.
December9th. 1953, adoptedthe followingResolutionfor
thispurpose: *
"TheGeneralAssembly, * *
"Consideringtherequt:stforasupplenlentaryappropri-
ationof $179,420,madeby the Secretary-Generalin his In its Opinion, the Courtbeginsby analysingthefirstof
report (1412534)or the ]purposeof covt:ringthe awards thequestionssubmittedtoit. Thisquestion,whichisgeneral
made by the United NationsAdministrativeTribunalin andabstract,is strictly limitedin scope.Ifone comparesits
elevencasesnumbered26, and37to46inclusive, termswiththoseofthe StatuteoftheTribunal,itisclearthat
"considering theconclmnce in that appropriationby itconcernsonlyawardsmadebytheTribunalwithinthelim-
the AdvisoryCommitteeon Administra,:ivemd Budget- itsofitsStatutoryCompetenc.tis,moreover,clearfromthe
ary Questionscontainediinitstwenty-fonrthreportto the documents submittedto theCourtthat it contemplatesonly
eighthsessionoftheGeneralAssembly(.V2580), awards madeby a properlyconstituted tribunal.Lastly, it
"Considering,nevertht:less,thatimportantlegalques- relates solelyto awardsmadeby the Tribunalin favourof
tionshavebeenraisedin thecourseofdebateinthe Fifth staffnlemberswhosecontractsof havebeentermi-
Committeewithrespecttothatappropriar:ion, natedwithouttheirassent.
The reply to be given to this question--which doesnot
"Decides involveanexaminationofthejudgmentswhichgave rise to
"Tosubmitthefollowinglegalquestions tothe Interna- therequestforanAdvisory onthe statute
tionalCourtofJusticeforanadvisoryopinion: ofthe'Tribunalnd ontheStaffRegulationsandRules. After
" '(1) Having regarclto the Statute of the United examinationofthesetexts, theCourtfindsatthe Statuteof
Nations Administrative Tribunalnd toyotherrelevant the Tribunal employs terminologiyndicativeof itsjudicial
instrumentsand to the re:ilevanrtecords, has theGeneracharacter: "pass judgmet ponapplications", "tribunal",
Assemblytheright onanygroundstorefusetogiveeffect "judgment". The provisionsto the effectthat "in the event
to an award of compensdtionmade by that Tribunalin of a disputeas to whether the Tribl as competence, the
favourofastaff memberofthe UnitedNations whosceon- matter shallbe settledby the decisionof the Tribunal"and
tractofservicehasbeent~mninatedwithouthis assent? that "the judgmentsshallbe final and without appeal"are
'(2) ~ftheanswergivenbytheCourttoquestion(1) similarlyprovisioofajudicialcharacter.Itfollowsthatthe
is in theaffirmative,whatartheprincipalgroundsupon Tribunal isestablished asan independentandtrulyjudicial
whichtheGeneralAssemblycould lawfully exercisesuch bodyPronouncingfinaljudgmentswithoutappealwithinthe
aright?'" limitedfieldofitsfunctions.Thepowerconferreuponitto
The Courthadgivenano~?~ortunitt~othe the Geneml of the United Nations-the chief administrativey-
United Nations andtotheInternationalLabourOrganisation officerof the Organization-confirms itsjudicial character:
tosubmittheirviews on this matter.Writtenstatementswere sucha power could hardly havbeenconferredon an advi-
presented onbehalf of this Organisation andon behalf of soryorsubordinateorgan.
Franc e ,eden,theNetherlands,Greece,:theUnitedKing-
domof Great BritainandNorthern Ireland,theU.S.A., the The Court next points out that, accordingto awell-
Philippines, Mexico,Chile:,Iraq, the Republicof China, establishedand generally recognizedprinciple of law, a
Guatemala, =key and Ecuador.In the courseof hearings has bindingforcebetween theparties tothe dispute.o,nd
held for this purpose,oral statements werebmittedon then, are toberegardedas partiesboundby anaward?The
behalf of the UnitedStates, France, Greece,the United answer isto be found in thecontractsof service. Taree
KingdomandtheNetherlands. concluldedbetween the staff member concerned and the
The~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ -~f?heU~nitldNationshadtransmit- Secretary-General,inhiscapacityasthechiefadministrative
tedto theCourtalldocume~~tlikelytothrowlightuponthe officesof theUnited NationsOrganization, actingon behalf
question;awrittenandanord statementwerealsopresented of that Organizationas its representative. Theretary-
onhisbehalf. GeneralengagesthelegalresponsibilityoftheOrganization,
To the first questionthe that the General which isthejuridical personon whosebehalfhe acts. If he
Assemblyhasnottheright onanygroundstorefuseto give terminatesthe contractof servicewithoutthe assentof the
effecttoanawardofcomperlsationmadebythe Administra- staff member, this action in a disputewhichis
tive'kibunaloftheUnitedlilationsinfavouroa staff mem- re,eme.to the ~,j~i~i~~~i~ ~rib~~al,the partiesto this
beroftheUnitedNationswihosecontractof servicehasbeen disputebeforethe ~rib~~~lrethe staffmember
terminatedwithouhtisassent.AStheansweirtothefirstques- he United Nations organization, representedby the
tionWasinthenegative,it WasUnneCeSSar orrtheCourtto ~~~~~t~-~~~a ~ndt1h,ese willbecomeboundby
considerthe second. the judgmentof the Tribunal.Thejudgment,which is final
TheCourt'sOpinion war reachedby ninevotesto the: andwithoutappealand notsubjecttoanykindofreview, has
thestatementsoftheOpinionsofthethreedissentingJudges bindingforceuponthe UnitedNationsOrganizationas the
31juridicalpersonresponsibleforthe properobservanceof the from theCharter itst:lfthatsuchapowerisconferredbynec-
contractof service. Since the Organizatiobecomeslegally essary implication. indeed,it isessential,inordertoensure
bound to cany outthejudgment,andto pa:?the compensa- the efficientworkingof theSecretariat andto give effectto
tion awardedtothestaff member, itfollowsthat the General the paramount consideratioaof securing thehigheststand-
Assembly,asanorganoftheUnitedNations,mustlikewise ardsofefficiency,competenceandintegrity.
the Statuteof the Tribunalitself, whichmakes itclear that Itwasalsocontendedthatthe General Assembly couldnot
paymentofcompensation awarded bytheTribunalisanobli- establisha tribunalwithauthoritytomakedecisionsbinding
gationoftheUnitedNationsasawhole-or, asthecasemay on the GeneralAssemblyitself. Butthe precise nature and
be,ofthe specializedagencyconcerned. scopeofthemeasuresbywhichthepowerofcreatinga uibu-
nal wasto be exerc:ised-even though the power was an
TheCourt next pointsout thatif,astheresultofadeliber- impliedone-was a matterfordeterminationbytheGeneral
atedecision,theStatuteoftheTribunalcontainsnoprovision Assemblyalone. It was furtherarguedthat the powerthus
for reviewof thejudgmentsor for appeal, nsit mighthave exercisedwouldbe inconsistentwith the budgetary power
done,itdoesnotfollowthat theTribunalcannotitselfrevise reservedto theGeneralAssembly.Butabudgetary poweris
ajudgmentinspecialcircumstanceswhennewfactsofdeci- not absolute.Where:expenditure arisesout of obligations,
sive importancehave been discovered.The Tribunalhas, engagements,andmbavvardsoftheTribunalfallwithinthis cat-
indeed,already adoptedsuchacourse,whichconformswith
principles generallyprovidedin statutesandlaws issuedfor egory.
courtsofjustice. It wasalsocontendedthatthe implied powerof the Gen-
ButhastheGeneralAssembly itself,inentainexceptional eralAssemblytoestablisha tribunalcannotbe canied sofar
circumstances,the righttorefusetogiveeffecttojudgments, astoenablethetribunaltointerveneinmattersfallingwithin
incasesoutsidethescopeofthequestionasdefinedaboveby the provinceof the Secretary-General.Butby virtueof the
theCourt,inthecaseofawardsmade inexcessoftheTribu- timeslimitorcontrolthe powersofthe Secretary-Generalin
nal'scompetenceorvitiatedby someother defect?TheTri- staff matters.It hasauthorizedthe interventof the Tribu-
bunalisonewithintheorganizedlegalsystemoftheUnited nal insuchmatterswithinthe limitsofthejurisdictionwhich
Nations, dealing exclusivelwithinternal disputesbetween it conferredupon the Tribunal. Accordingly,when acting
the membersof the staff and theOrganization;in these cir- withintheselimits,tileTTriunalisinnosenseinterveningin
cumstances,the Court considers that inthe absence ofany a Charter power of the Secretary-General, becausethe
expressprovisionstothiseffect,itsjudgments;cannotbesub- Secretary-General's legalpowers in staff matters have
jecttoreviewbyanybodyotherthantheTribunalitself.The alreadybeenlimitedinthisrespectbytheGeneralAssembly.
GeneralAssemblycan always amend the Statuteof theTri- Moreover,the fact that thekibunalis asubsidiary,subor-
bunaland providefor reviewof its awards:in my event,in dinateor secondaryorgan is of no importance.What is of
the opinionof the Court, the GeneralAssemblyitself, in importanceisthe intentionoftheGeneralAssemblyinestab-
viewof its compositionandfunctions,could hardlyact asa lishing the Tribunal,andwhatit intendedto establishwasa
judicialorgan,allthemoresoas onepartyto thedisputesis judicialbody.
theOrganizationitself.
Anumberofargumentswere putforwardinsupportofthe Withregardto whathasbeencalledtheprecedent estab-
viewthat theGeneral Assemblymay bejustified inrefusing lishedby the Leagueof Nationsin 1946, the Court cannot
to give effectto awardsof the Tribunal.The Courtmeets followit. Theveryspecialcircumstancesexisting thenwere
these argumentsinthe secondpartofitsOpinion. quite different from thepresent circumstances; thereisa
completelack ofidentitybetween the twosituations.
It wascontendedthat the General Assemblyhas no legal Havingthus aniveclattheconclusionthatthefirstquestion
power toestablisha tribunalcompetent torenderjudgments submittedbythe GeneralAssemblymustbeansweredinthe
bindingon the United Nations.But althoughthere areno negative, the Courtfindsthat thesecondquestiondoes not
express provisionsto this effectin the Chater, it appears arise.
Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 13 July 1954