Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 20 July 1982

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

APPLICATION FORREMEWOFJUDGEMENT NO. 273 OFTHE

UNITEDNA.TIONS ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL

AdvisoryOpinionof20July 1982

In its Advisory Opinionconcerningan Applicationfor Nagendra Singh, Ihuda, Mosler, Oda, Ago, El-Khani,
ReviewofJudgementNo2 .73oftheUnitedNationsAdmin- Schwebel,SirRobert Jennings,de Lacharrihre,Mbayeand
No. 273theUnitedNations AdministrativeTribunaldid nott Bedjaoui.
erronaquestionoflawrelatingtotheprovisiiosftheChar- JudgesNagendraSingh, Ruda,MoslerandOdaappended
teroftheUnitedNations,anddid notcomrrtitanyexcessof separateopinionstotheAdvisoryOpinion.
jurisdictionorcompetence. Judges khs, Morozov, El-Khani and Schwebel
appendeddissentingopinionstotheAdvisory Opinion.
Applicationsfor Review of Administrative TribunalJudge-' In their opinions the judges concerned and explain
mentswasasfollows: the positionsthey adoptedin regardto certain points dealt
withintheAdvisory Opinion
"Is thejudgement ofthe UnitedNations Administra-
tive Tribunalin JudgementNo. 273, M1ortishevd. the
Assemblyresolution341165of 17December1979coulderal
not begiven immediate effectin requiring, for thepay-
ment ofrepatriationgrants, evidenceof relocationto
counay otherthan thecountryof the staff member'slast Summary o ffcts
dutystation?" (paras.1-15oftheOpinion)
Havinginterpreted the questionas requiringit to deter- After outlining the successive stof theproceedings
minewhether,withrespecttothemattersmentionedinit,the before i(paras1-9). theCourtgavea summaryofthefacts
Administrative Tribunal ad "erred on a questionof law of thecase (paras1.0-15);the principalfactswere as fol-
relatingo the provisionsof the Charter"or "exceededits lows:
jurisdictionorcompetence", theCourtdecidedasfollows:
Mr. Mortished,anIrishnational,enteredtheserviofthe
therequestforan advisoryopinion.ecidedtocomplywith 1958he wastransferredtotheUnited Nations inNewYork,.n
and in 1967to the United NationsOfficeat Geneva. On
2(A) Byten votesto five, the Courtwar ofthe opinion attainingtheageof60heretiredon30April 1980.
that the Administrative Tribunal otfhe UnitedNationsin
JudgementNo. 273didnoten on a question.oflaw relating Abenefit known ZISthe "repertriationgrant" was payable
totheprovisions of theCharteroftheUnitedNations. incertaincircumstanceso staffmembersatthetimeoftheir
2(B) Bytwelvevotestothree,theCourt'wasoftheopin- separationfromserviice,under United NatiStaffRegula-
ionthattheAdministrativebunaloftheUnitedNationsin grantweredeterminedbytheSecretary-GenerailnStaffRuleis
JudgementNo. 273did notcommitanyexclessof thejuris- 109.5.
dictionorcompetencevestedinit.
At the timeof Mr. Mortished'sretirement, the General
Assembly hadrecentlyadopted two successiveresolutions
relatingto(interalin)the repatriationgrant.By resolution
331119of 19 December 1978,the GeneralAssemblyhad
decided
The Court was composedas follows: P'residentElias; "that paymentof the repatriation grant entitled staff
Mce-PresidentSette-Camara; Judges Lac:hs, Morozov, membersshallbemadeconditionaluponthepresentation

Continued on next page bythestaffmemberofevidenceof actualrelocation,sub- (hereinafter called "the Committee"), astgeCommittee
ject tothe tenns tobe,establishedby the [International toteqUeSRanadvisoryopinionoftheCourt. Thisapplication
CivilService]Commission;"'. was madepursuantto Article11,paragraph1,ofthe'Itibu-
Togiveeffect,from 1July 1.979,to theternnsestablished nal's Statute, which empowered memberStates, the
bytheCommissionfor the pay~menotfthe repatriationgrant, Secretary-Generalor the person in respect of whom the
for whichtherehadpreviouslybeen no requixemeiitof pre- judgementhad beenrendered to object tothe judgement.If
sentationof evidence,the Secretary-Generalhad amended theComrnitteedecidesthatthereisa substantialbasisforthe
Staff Rule109.5 tomakepaylsnentof the repatriationgrant application,it requestsan advisory opinionof theCourt. In
subjecttoprovisionofevidencethat "theformerstaffmem- the caseInquestion, afterexamining theapplicationattwo
ber hasestablishedresidencein a countryotherthanthatof meetings,'heCommitteedecidedthattherewasasubstantial
thelast duty station(para.(d)).However,paragraph(n of basisforit, onthegroundsboththattheAdministrativeTri-
theRulewaswordedtoread: bunalhaderredonaquestionoflawrelatingtotheprovisions
"V) Notwithstanding paragraph (4 above, staff of theCharter, and thatthefibunalhadexceededitsjuris-
membersalready inservice before1July 1979shallretain dictionrcompetence.
the entitlementtorepatriationgrantpropo13iontkto the
yearsand monthsofservicequalifyingforthe gnmtwhich Competencetogiveanadvisoryopinion
theyalreadyhadaccruedat thatdatewithout the necessity (paras. 16-21)
of productionof evidenceof relocationwith respect to The Court beganby consideringwhetherit had compe-
suchqualifyingservice." tenceto comply withthe requestfor advisory opinion sub-
Since Mr.Mortishedhadaccumulatedthe maximumqual- mittedbythecommittee. It recalledthat therequestwasthe
ifyingservice(12years)well before 1July 1979,paragraph secondmadetoitunderArticle11,paragraphs1and2,ofthe
V)would havetotallyexemptedhimfromthe requirementto Statuteof the Administrativeltibunal (the first concerning
present evidenceofrelocation. an Applicationfor Review of JudgementNo. 158 of the
On17December 1979theCieneralAssemblly adoptedres- UnitedNations AdministrativItibunal);itwashoweverthe
olution341165bywhichitdecided, interalia,that firstto arisefromtheCommittee's consideratinf anappli-
"effective 1January 1980110staffmembershall1 be enti- cationbya memberState,the previous case having resulted
tledto anypart of theeloczttiongrant unlessevidenceof from the applicationof a staff member.When in1973 the
relocationawayfromthecountryofthelastdutystationis Court hd agreed to give an advisory opinionin the case
provided". mentioned, it had recognized thatit would be incumbent
uponit to examine thefeaturescharacteristicof anyrequest
The Secretary-General accordingly issuedn administra- for advisoryopinion submittedon theapplicationof a mem-
tive instruction abolishingRule 109.5n with effectfrom berState,andhadindicatedthattheCourt shouldtheb nearin
1 January 1980,followedby a revisionof the StaffRules mind noltonlytheconsiderations applyinto the reviewpro-
deletingparagraph(n. cedure in general, but also the additionalconsiderations
On Mr.Mortished'sretirement,theSecretariatrefusedto proper tothe specificsituation credytheiinterpositioof
pay himthe repatriationgram~wtithoutevidence ofreloca- a memberStateinthe review process.TheCourtfoundthat
tion, and on 10 October 1980 Mr. Mortislledseised the the specialfeatures of the proceedings leadingup to the
AdministrativeTribunaolfanappeal. presentirequestdid notaffordany groundsfor the Court to
TheAdministrative 'Ribunnl,initsJudgementNo. 273of departfromitspreviousposition.
15May1981,foundinteraliathatthe Secretary-Generah lad
"failedtorecognizetheApplicant'sacquiredright,which DiscretionoftheCourtandproprietyofgivinganOpinion
he heldby virtueof thetransitionalystemin forcefrom (paras2. 245)
1 July to 31 December 1979and set forthin StaffRule TheCourtthen consideredwhether, althougihthadfound
109.5 V)". that it had competence, certain aspectsof the procedure
ItconcludedthatMr. MortishcA should notleadittodeclinetogiveanadvisoryopinion,hav-
"was entitledtoreceivethrltgrantonthetermsdefinedin ingregard to the requirementsof itsjudicialcharacter,and
Staff Rule109.5 (n, despitethefactthatthatrulewasno theprinciplesofthe dueadministratioofjustice, to whichit
longerin forceon thedate of thatApplicant's separation must remainfaithfulintheexerciseofitsfunctions,asmuch
from theUnitedNations", inadvisoryasincontentiousproceedings.
and wasthereforeentitledocompensationfoirtheinjury sus- The ~o~urftirstdisposedof a numberof objections,cm-
tained"as theresultof a disregardof StaffRegulation12.1 cerningthe followingpoints:
andStaffRule112.2(a)",whichred.
-whether anapplicationfor reviewmadeby a member
"REGULATION12.1:These regulationsmaybe supple- Stateconstitutedan intervention ban entitynot a party to
mented or amendedby theGeneralAss:mbl:y,without the original proceedings;
prejudicetotheacquiredrightsofstaffme~nbers." -whether the conclusiveeffectof the AdvisoryOpinion
"Rule 112.2 tobe given by the Court wouldfoundan objectiontothe
"(a) Theserules may'beamendedby the Secretary- exercisebythe Courtofitsadvisoryjurisdiction;
General in a manner conriistentwith the!Staff Regula- -whether a refusal by the Court to give the Opinion
tions." wouldput inquestion thestatusofJudgementNo.273ofthe
The compensationwas assessedby the 'Ifibunalat the AdministrativeTribunal;
amount of the repatriation ,grantof which payment was -whether an applicationfor reviewbya memberState
rew. was incontradictionwith certain articlesoffthe Chartor
impingeduponthe authorityof the Secretary-Generalunder
TheUnitedStatesofAmerica didnotacceptthe'Itibunal's otherarticles.
cations forReviewof AdmiilistrativeTribunal Judgements Withreferenceto theproceedingsbefore the Court.great

1importance was attached by the Court to the question "erred on a questionof lawrelating to the provisionsof the
whether realequalitywasensuredbetweentheparties. not- Charter" or"exded itsjurisdictionorcompetence".
withstandingany seemingor nominal absenceof equality TheCourtrecalledthenatureoftheclaimsubmittedtothe
resultingfromArticle66of the Court's Statute,whichcon- AdministrativeTrib~rnalw, hatinfactithaddecided,andthe
finedto Statesand internationalorganizationsthe powerto reasonsithadgiven]Foirtsdecision. TheCourt foundthat,so
submitwritten ororalstatements.Inthatrespect,itnotedthat farfrom sayingthat=solution 341165 (seep. 4above)could
the viewsof thestaff memberconcerned hatibeentransmit- notbegiven immediateeffect,theTribunalhadheldthat the
tedto it through theSecretary-General,ithoutanycontrol Applicanthadsustainedinjurypreciselybyreasonoftheres-
overthe contentsbeingexercisedby the latter,andthat the olution's having been given immediateeffect by the
Courthaddecidedtodispensewithoralproceedingsinorder Secretary-General iinthe new version of the Staff Rules
to ensureactual equality.Withregardtothestageofthe pro- whichomitted Rule 109.5 0, the injury,forwhichcompen-
ceedings involving the Committee, theCourtnoted that it sationwasdue, beingassessedatthe amountof the grantof
was no more than an organ of the party which had been which payment had been refused. The'Itibunalhad in no
Nations. Thus that partywas able to decide:the fate of the way sought to call in question the validity of resolution
application for reviewmade by the other party, thestaff 341165or theStaffRulesreferredto,buthaddrawnwhatin
member,throughthe will of a politicalorgim.That funda- theIrribunal'sviewhadbeenthenecessary consequences of
mental inequalityentailed for theCourt a ciuefulexamina- the factthat the adoption andapplicationof those measures
tionofwhatthe Committeehadactuallydone!whenseisedof had infringedwhat iitconsideredto have been anacquired
theapplicationoftheUnitedStates. right., which waprotectedbyStaffRegulation 12.1(seep. 4
above).While thequestion submitted bythe Committeepro-
The Court referredto the questionof the compositionof ducedthat answer, it appeared thaitt leftanotherquestionas
the AdministrativeTribunailnthecasebeforeit, and posed it were secretedbetween the lines of the questionas laid
bunal had been availableto sit and hadenSid,it had been before theCourt, namely:whether the'Itibunaldeniedthe
thought appropriatetoallowanalternatemembertosit,who fulleffectofdecisionsoftheGeneralAssembly,andsoerred
infactappendeda dissentingopinionto the Judgement. His ona questionof lawrelatingtothe provisionsoftheCharter
participationseemedtorequirean explanatioin, ut the Court or exceededits juristlictionor competence?Thisseemedin
noted that it had notbeen asked to consider whether the of the objectionto the Tribunal'sJudgement,and the one
Tribunal might have committeda fundaniental error in whichtheCommitteehad intended to raise.
procedure having occasioneda failure of justice. Accord-
ingly,furtherconsiderationof the point didnot seemto be
calledfor. Did the United Nations Administrative Tribunalerr on a
WithregardtothediscussionsintheCommittee,theCourt questionoflawrelatingtotheprovisionsof theCharter?
pointedoutthattheyinvolvedanumberof norableirregulari- (paras.57-76)
ties showingthelackofrigourwith whichtheCommitteehad In order to reply, the Court first examinedwhat was its
conducteditsproceedings. Thoseirregularitiesrelatedto: properrolewhenaskedforanadvisoryopinioninrespectof
thegroundofobjectionbasedonanallegederror"on aques-
-its compositionatitstwentiethsession; tionoflawrelatingtotheprovisionsoftheCharter".Thatits
-the application submitteto itbytheUnitedStates; proper rolewas nottcretrythecasealready dealtwithbythe
-the conductof itsmeetings. 'Itibunal,and attempt to substitute itsown opinion on the
Despitethoseirregularities,andthefailure#otfheCommit- meritsforthatofthe Tribunal,wasapparentfromthefactthat
teetoshowtheconcernforequality appropriate toabodydis- the questiononwhichthe Courthad been askeditsopinion
chargingquasi-judicialfunctions,the Court consideredthat was differentfromthatwhichthe'Itibunalhad hadto decide.
it shouldcomply with therequestfor advisoryopinion.The Therewerehoweverotherreasons.Onewasthe difficultyof
irregularities which featured throughoutthe proceedings usingtheadvisoryjurisdictionoftheCourtforthetaskoftry-
could of course be regardedas "compellinigreasons" for ing a contentious case, since it was not certain that the
refusalbythe Courtto entertainthe request; but thestabilityrequirementsofthe equalityofthepartieswould be metifthe
andefficiencyoftheinternationalorganizatio~~wsereofsuch Courtwerecalledupontofunctionasanappealcourtandnot
paramount importance toworldorder thatthe Court should byway ofadvisoryp~:oceedingsL .ikewise,theinterposition
notfailtoassistasubsidiarybodyoftheUnitedNationsGen- of theCommittee,anessentiallypoliticalbody, betweenthe
eralAssemblyinputtingitsoperationupona lirmandsecure proceedings beforethe Tribunalandthosebeforethe Court
foundation.Furthermore,sucharefusalwoul!dleave in sus- would beunacceptable ifthe advisory opinionwere to be
pense a very seriousallegation against the.Administrative assimilatedtoadecisiononappeal.Thatdifficulty wasespe-
Ikibunal:thatit hadineffectchallenged the'uthorityof the cially cogentif,as in the presentcase, the Committeehad
GeneralAssembly. excluded fromitsproceedingsa partyto thecasebeforethe
Ikibunal,whilethe applicantStatehad beenableto advance
Scopeofthe questionsubmittetdothe Court itsownarguments. Furthermore,the factthatby Article 11
(paras.46-56) ofthe'Itibunal'sStatutethe review procedurecouldbesetin
TheCourtthentumedto the actual questionon whichits train by memberStates-that is to say, thii parties-was
opinionhadbeenrequested (seep. 1above),rmdconsidered onlyexplicableon tht:assumption that theadvisoryopinion
firstwhether,in the formin whichit had beeinsubmitted,it wasto dealwitha differentquestion from thatdealtwithby
wasonewhichtheCourtcouldproperlyanswer.Findingthat theIkibunal.
ithadbeenbadly draftedanddidnotappearto'correspondto SincetheCourt co~ddnotbe askedtoreview themeritsin
theintentionsoftheCommittee, theCourt,inthelightofthe thecaseof Mortishedv. the Secretary-Generao lftheUnited
discussionsin the Committee, interpretedthe question as Nations,thefirst questionforthe Courtwasthe scopeof the
requiring itodetermine whether,with respectt:othe matters enquirytobeconductt:dinorderthatitmightdecide whether
mentioned inthe question,the Administrativ 'eibunalhad thelkibunalhaderredonaquestionoflawrelatingtothe pro-visionsof the Charter. Clearly the Courtcould motdecide entirelyindependentofthatconcerninemr onaquestionof
whetherajudgement about theinterpretationofStaffRegula- law reL~ingto the provisionsof the Charter, but rather as
tionsor Rules had so erred*withoultooking attlhatJudge- anotherway of expressing the allegation thatthe Tribunal
ment.Tothatextent,theCourthadto examinethe decision had attemptedto exercise competenceof judicial review
of the Tribunal onthe merits. But itdid not haveto get overa GeneralAssemblyresolution,a matteralreadydealt
involved in the questionofhe properinterpretationof the with. However,it wasclear that theTribunal'sjurisdiction,
StaffRegulationsand Rules furtherthanwaqstrictlyneces-. underAhcle 2of itsStatute,includednotonlythetermsof
sary in ordertojudgewhetherthe interpretationadopteby Mr. Mortished's contractof employment and terms of
the Tribunal wasincontradi~:tiowith the quiiements of appointment,butalsothemeaning andeffectofStaffRegu-
the provisionsof the Charter. Itwouldbe mistakento sup lations,andRulesinforceatthematerial time.Itwasimpos-
posethat anobjectiontoanyiiiterpretationbytheTribunalof sibleto saythat theTribunal-which hadsoughttoapplythe
Staff Ruleor Regulationswasamatterfor amadvisoryopin- termsoffr. Mortished's instrumentsfappointmentandthe
ionofthe Court. relevantStaffRegulationsand Rulesmadein pursuanceof
TheCourtthenexamined vlheapplicabletexts concerning General.Assemblyresolutions-had anywhere strayedinto
the repatriation grant. Thelationsof the 'UnitedNations anarealying beyondthelimitsofitsjurisdiction asdefinedin
withits staffweregovemedpinarily by the Staff Regula- Article2ofitsStatute.Whetherornotitwasrightinitsdeci-
tionsestablishedbytheGeneralAssemblyaccordingtoArti- sionwasnotpertinenttothe issueofjurisdiction.
cle 101. paragraph1,oftheCharter.ThoseRegulationswere
themselveselaboratedandappliedinthe StaffRules,drawn
up bythe Secretary-General,who necessarilyhadameasure
ofdiscretioninthematter.Therewasnodoulbtthat theGen-
eralAssemblyitselfhadthe powerto maketietailedregula- ThecompletetextoftheoperativeparagraphoftheAdvi-
tions, as for examplein Annex IVto the StaffRegulations soryOpinionisreproducedbelow.
whichsetouttheratesofrepatriationgrant;butinresolutions
331119and341165 (seepp. 3;md4above)ithadnotdoneso; OPERATIV PART OFTHE ADVISORY OPINION
instead,it hadlaiddowna principleto whiclhit had left the
Secretary-Generalto give effect. There couldbe no doubt
thatindoingsothe Secretary-Generalspokefbrandcommit-
tedtheUnited Nationsinitsndationswithstatffmembers. 1. Byninevotesto six,
TheTribunal, facedwith Mr.Mortished'sclainn, had had Decicfeto comply withthequest foran advisoryopin-
to take accountof the wholebodyof regulationsand rules ion:
applicabletoMr.Mortished'riclaim (seepp. 3andl4above). INFAVOUR: PresidentElias; Vice-President ette-Camara;
The Tribunalhad also reliedlon Staff Regulation12.1, in JudgesNagendra Singh, Mosler, Ago, Schwebel, Sir
whichtheGeneralAssemblyhadaffirmedtht:"fundamental RobertJemings, deLacharribreand Mbaye;
principle of respect for acquired rights",imd Staff Rule AGAINST: JudgesLachs, Morozov, Ruda, Oda,El-Khani
112.2(a),which providedfoiramendmentoftheStaffRules andBedjaoui.
only in a mannerconsistentvriththe StaffRegulations(see
p. 4 above). Ithadthereforeclecidedthat Mortishedhad 2. Withrespectto the question as forniulatedin para-
indeedanacquiredright,intht:senseofRegulatioln12.1,and graph48 above,isoftheopinion:
thathehadaccordinglysufferedinjurybybeing deprivedof A. Byten votestofive,
his entitlement asa result?resolution341165imdof the Thatthe AdministrativeTribunaloftheUinitedNationsin
textswhich putit intoeffect.'I'heTribunal'sJudgementhad JudgementNo. 273didnoterrona questionof lawrelating
not anywhere suggested thattherecould bea cotltradiction tothep~nvisionoftheCharteroftheUnited Nations;
INFAVOUR: presidentElias; Vice-presidentSette-Camara;
between Staff Regulatio12.:and therelevantprovisionof JudgesNagendraSingh, Ruda, Mosler, Oda, Ago, Sir
resolution341165. RoberJtennings,de LachanibreandMbaye;
Theremight beroomformiorethanoneview on theques- AGAINST: JudgesLachs, Morozov,El-Khani,Schwebeland
tionastowhat amountedto at1acquiredright,andtheUnited Bedjs~oui.
States had contested in its; written statement thMr.
Mortishedhadqy rightundtaparagraphV)of Rule 109.5. B. :Bytwelvevotestothree,
Butto enteruponthatquestionwould,intheCotut'sview, ThattheAdministrative TribunalftheUnitedNationsin
be precisely toretrythecase, which wasnotthe businessof JudgementNo. 273did not commit anyexcessof thejuris-
theCourt. TheTribunalhadfoundthat Mr. Mortishedhadan dictionorcompetencevestedinit.
acquired right.It had hadto interpretandapplytwo setsof INFAVOUR: PresidentElias; Vice-Presidentette-Camara;
rules,both of whichhadbeenapplicabletoMr. Mortished's JudgesLachs.NagendraSingh,Ruda,Mosler,Oda,Ago,
situation.AstheTribunalhaclattempted onlyto applytohis SirRobertJennings,deLacharribre,MbayeandBedjaoui;
case what it had foundto be the relevant* Regulations
and Staff Rulesmade under the authorityof the General AGAINST: JudgesMorozov, El-KhaniandSchwebel.
Assembly,itclearlyhad note~mdonaquestionoflawrelat-
ingtotheprovisionsoftheCharter. SUMMAR OYFOPINIONS APPENDED
TO THEADVISORO YPINION
Did theUnitedNationsAdm!inistrativD eiblunalexceed its
jurisdictionorcompetence? Separateopinions
(paras.77and 78) Whileagreeingmostly withthedispositiveoftheCourtin

Withregardtothesecondgroundofobjection,thattheTri- *ComposedasfollowPresideEliasVice-PresidSette-Carnara;
bunalhadallegedlyexceededitsjurisdictionrcompetence, Judgeskhs, Mo~zov, NagendraSingh,RudaMoslerOda,Ago,El-
it appearedthit that had notbein put forwardas;a ground khan^Schwebel,SRobertJennindeLacharrih,ibayeBedjaoui.thiscase,JudgeNagendra Singhhasobserved thattheCourt Dissentingopinions
shouldhave appliedprinciplesofinterpretation applica-
tionofStatuteandrulesinrelationtoGene:ral ssemblyres- JudgeLack, inhisdissentingopinionv ,nitethat,while
olution34165to come tothe conclusionthatthlattercould hehad foundnou~mpelling reasonforrefusinganadvisory
notbe rehaactivelyappliedtoMr.Mortishtd'scasesincethe opinion,therocetlurairlregularitathe stageoftheCom-
entirerepatriation grahadbeenearnedbyhimandcom- tion)tovoteagainstpoint1oftheoperativeparagraph.The
pleted well befor1January1980,from which datealone Court'shaving decidedto givean opinionhad, however,
wastheresolutionoftheGeneraAl ssemblytobecomeopera- givenhimawelcomeopportunityto considetr he merits.In
withoutgoingintoldthequestionof acquhd rightsof Mr. hisview,theCourtshould have gone moredeeply intothe
Mortishedbecause thesad resolutionhasrclearandunam- nameoftherepatriationgranatndthewishesof the General
biguous prospectivtehrust onlyandcannotbe stretchedto Assembly.Insteadli,thad consideredthat its powersof
applytopastcompletedandfinishedcases like thatof Mr. reviewdidnotenableittoquestionthe'IXbunal'fsindingthat
Mostisbed.However, the resolution34116s ouldcertainly Mr. Mortishedhad possessedan acquiredrightwhich had
applytogovern allcaseswheretherepatriationgrantontin- beendisregadedintheimpositionofthe rule resultifrom
uesto accrueafter 1January1980withtheresult that evi- allegedlytraceable todecisionof the General Assembly
denceofrelocationwould benecessarytoobtainthe grantin andfailuretogivdueattentiontotheeffectofAssemblyres-
suchcases for anyperiodofentitlement,whetherbeforeor olutionsinthe spl~ereof staff regulatiohad raised the
after 1January 1980. essentialquestionalfacquiredrightsandentitledtheCourtto
exmine it.JudgeIachs questionedtheTribunal'sviewthat
thecancelledRule 109.5(n, which had stemmed fromthe
International Civil Serveonqnission'sinterpretationof
its mandate and been incompatible wttevery natureof
JudgeRuda voted infavourofparagraphs2(A)and2 (B) repatriation grant,could have foundanyacquiredright.
oftheoperativeclauseofthe AdvisoryOpiiion,whichcon- bunal hadactedwithinthe boundosfitsjurisdiction.'Ifi-
tained thedecisionsofthe Courtonthe merits;but, sincehe
votedagainstparagraph1, on the preliminary pointas to hemadeeLin 1973regardingthe improvemenoetf thereview
whetherornotthe Court shouldcomplw yiththerequest,he procedure andthe establishmentof asingle international
feltobligedto explaini,nnindividualopiilion,the reasons administrativetribunal.
forhisvote.

JudgeMosler,whilesharingthe view #ofthe Courtas JudgeMorozovclonsidered that, insteadof being guided
expressed itheoperativeparotftheAdvisc~rOypinion,and bytheresolutionsoftheGeneralAssembly,andbyitsown
agreeingto a largextentwiththereasons,ineverthelesfselt Statuteasadoptedbythe GeneraAl ssembly,andbythepro-
boundto raisesome pointswhichseemet dohimto require visionsoftheCharter,whichultimatelyistheonlysourceof
eitheradditionalexplanatioradifferentkindofargument. clearlywas notiwarrantedin determiningthar'tesolution
341165of 17December1979couldnotbegiven immediate
effect.Inreality theJudgementwasdirectednotagainstthe
Respondent-the Secretary-General-butagainst General
As,semblyresolution341165,gainstits letrndspirit.
He believedthat, acting contrarythe provisionof its
Inthe viewofJudge Oh, whovotedagainstthefirstpoint Statute,the'Ikibunalxceededits competence,andin fact
of the operative clause, theCourt ought notto have rejectedresolution3411oftheGeneralAssemblyT . he'Iki-
respondedtotheRequestforanadvisoryopinion because of bunal undetrhepretextofinterpretatofthe1978and1979
ationsof the Committeeon Applicationsfor Reviewofeliber-resolutionsofthe&neral Assemblyerredona questionof
Administrative'IXbunalJudgements didnot convincingly lawrelating totheprovisionsof theCharterof the United
indicateanyreisonablegroundsonwhichthejudgementof Nations.aswellasexdng itsjurisdictionorcompetence.
theAdmhstrative'Ifibunalcouldhave beemobjectedto:in TheAdvisory Opinion ofthe Courtwhichrecognizedthat
addition,itwouldseemthat the Requehstadbeendraftedon the'Ikibunalidnoterr ona questionoflawrelatingtothe
thebasisof anentirelyerroneouspremise. JudOda further supportedby himmidJudgeMorozovcouldnotthereforeotbe .
suggeststhatifin 1979the Staff Rulhsadb~n revisedina considerthe Advisory Opinionas a document whichcoin-
morecautiousandproper mannes roastomeet the wisheosf cidedwithhisunderstandingof animplementationofinter-
thememberStates oftheUnitedNations,confusion could nationaljustice.
schemevemight now have beentotally differentand thet
Adminisnative'Ifibunalmight have delivereda different
judgementonthe subject.

JudgeEl-Khanv iotedagainstpoint1intheoperativepara-
graphoftheAdvisoryOpinionbecause heconsidered: (a) that the Court, whoseprimaryrole iistodeal with Judge Schwebel dissented from the Court's Opinion,
casesbetweenStates,should II~be ledintogivingupopin- essentiallyon twogrounds.Takinga broaderviewthandid
ions which finallyresult injlivertingit from its principalheCouxtof its competence toreview themeritsof ajudg-
jurisdictionandreducing itobeing a courtd appealfrom mentofthe UnitedNations AdministrativeTribunalh,epar-
judgementsoftheUnitedNationsAdministrative'liibunalin ticularlymaintainedthat,when anobjectiontoajudgmentis
casesbetweenofficialsandthe!kretary-Gen~eral;and lodgedonthe groundoferrorof lawrelatingtoprovisionsof
the United NatioCharter*theCourt istoaceinanappellate
"compellingreasons" that sh~oulinducetheCourttocon-uted capacity, passing upon the judgment's merits insofaas
sidertherequestforadvisorylopinioas inadmnissilble. answering thequestionput totheCourt requiresit todo so.
Onthemeritsof theTribunal's judgmenitn thiscase,Judge
Hevotedagainstpoint 2, pimigraphs(A)and(B),inorder Schwebelconcludedthat the Tribunaladerredonquestions
to be consistentand becausehe considered thatthe Court oflawrelatingtoprovisionsofthe Charterandhadexceeded
shouldhavegonenofarther aftepoint 1. its juridiction, primarily becauseits judgment derogated
from an unequivocalexercise of the General Assembly's
authorityunderArticle101(1)of the Charter to regulatethe
conditionsofserviceofthe United NationsSecretariat.