an introduction to international organizations...

An Introduction to International Organizations Law

The third edition of this market leading textbook (previously called AnIntroduction to International Institutional Law) is written in a clear, three-part structure. It is centred on the dynamics of the relationships betweeninternational organizations and their members, staff, and the outside world.It discusses the essential topics of the law of international organizations,including powers, finances, and privileges and immunities, as well as mem-bership rules, institutional structures, and accountability. The newly revisedtext has been updated extensively to reflect the entry into force of the EU’sLisbon Treaty (and Croatia’s accession), and new articles on the responsibilityof international organizations. The chapters have also been reorganized forfurther clarity. Two new chapters, on the international civil service and therelations between organizations and other institutions, respectively, havebeen added.

Jan Klabbers has been teaching international law and the law of internationalorganizations for more than two decades and currently holds the MarttiAhtisaari Chair at the University of Helsinki. He has held visiting positionsat, among others, New York University Law School, the Graduate Institute ofInternational and Development Studies (Geneva) and the University of Paris.He has received several awards for excellence in teaching, and the first twoeditions of this book have met with general acclaim.

www.cambridge.org© in this web service Cambridge University Press

Cambridge University Press978-1-107-08050-8 - An Introduction to International Organizations Law: Third EditionJan KlabbersFrontmatterMore information

http://www.cambridge.org/9781107080508

http://www.cambridge.org


An Introduction to InternationalOrganizations Law

Third edition

JAN KLABBERS






University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom

Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge.

It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit ofeducation, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence.

www.cambridge.orgInformation on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107439719

© Jan Klabbers 2015

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exceptionand to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,no reproduction of any part may take place without the writtenpermission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 2002Second edition 2009Third edition 2015

Printed in the United Kingdom by Clays, St Ives plc

A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication dataKlabbers, Jan, author.An introduction to international institutional law / Jan Klabbers. – Third edition.

pages cmIncludes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 978-1-107-08050-8 (Hardback) – ISBN 978-1-107-43971-9 (Paperback) 1. Internationalagencies. I. Title.KZ4850.K58 2015341.2–dc23 2014041760

ISBN 978-1-107-08050-8 HardbackISBN 978-1-107-43971-9 Paperback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy ofURLs for external or third-party Internet websites referred to in this publication,and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain,accurate or appropriate.






You are my creator, but I am your master; obey!Mary Shelley






Contents

Preface to the first edition page xiiPreface to the second edition xvPreface to the third edition xviiTable of cases xixA note on documentation xxxiList of abbreviations xxxii

1 Introduction 1Introduction 1Three types of legal dynamics 2Trying to define international organizations 6. . . created between states . . . 9. . . on the basis of a treaty . . . 10. . . an organ with a distinct will . . . 12The structure of this book 14

2 The rise of international organizations 16Emergence and growth 18Classifying international organizations 23Functions 23Membership 24Political v. technical 25Intergovernmental or supranational? 26Why cooperate? 27Legal theory and international organizations 32Organizations and their members 36

part i member states and internationalorganizations 39

3 The legal position of international organizations 41Introduction 41Legal personality under domestic law 43






International legal personality 46The powers of organizations 50The doctrine of attributed powers 53The doctrine of implied powers 56Reconciling the two doctrines 63Inherent powers? 64Rethinking powers? 68Concluding remarks 69

4 International organizations and the law of treaties 70Introduction 70Reservations 72Revision 76Withdrawal and termination 80Interpretation 82The power to interpret 86Concluding remarks 88

5 Issues of membership 90Introduction 90Membership 91Other forms of membership? 96State succession and membership 99Representation 105Termination of membership 106Concluding remarks 111

6 Financing 113Introduction 113The politics of procedure 114Expenditure 116Problems and crises 116Sources of income 124Concluding remarks 129

7 Privileges and immunities 130Introduction 130Functional necessity and its limits 131Applicable law 136Distinguishing rationales 137The UN Convention 139Headquarters Agreement 145Other sources of law 148

viii Contents






Domestic law 150Concluding remarks 151

8 Legal instruments 154Introduction 154Categories of instruments 156Three theories of law-making 158Non-binding instruments 163EU instruments 168Adopting conventions 171Internal and household matters 174Applying the law 174Adopting legal instruments 176European Union 181Validity 182Concluding remarks 188

9 Dissolution and succession 189Introduction 189The modalities of dissolution 191Dissolution 194Succession: different forms 196Succession: some basic issues 197Assets and debts 199Personnel 201Functions 201Concluding remarks 203

part ii internal relations 205

10 Institutional structures 207Introduction 207Regular organs 208Some other bodies 212Comitology 214Creating organs 215Effect of awards 216The position of member states 218Limits? The Tadic case 221Hierarchy between organs and judicial review 224Judicial review in the EU 229The ICJ’s advisory jurisdiction 231External review? 234

ix Contents






Hierarchy between acts 237Concluding remarks 239

11 The bureaucracy 242Introduction 242The law of the international civil service 243Law and procedure: a brief overview 246A role for domestic law? 252Legal counsel 255Leadership 257The Secretary-General and conflict resolution 260Concluding remarks 262

part iii external relations 265

12 Treaty-making by international organizations 267Introduction 267The 1986 Vienna Convention 269Treaty-making powers 272The ties that bind 276Mixed agreements 281Concluding remarks 284

13 Organizational liaisons 286Introduction 286Precondition to membership 288Universal and regional organizations 289Membership of other organizations 291Observer status 296Cooperation and conflict 297Joint programmes 298Joint ventures 300Hosting entities 303Concluding remarks 304

14 Issues of responsibility 306Introduction 306Some preliminary issues 310An illustration: the Tin Council litigation 312ARIO: A quick overview 315Whose behaviour? 318The wrongful act 325Indirect and secondary responsibility 327

x Contents






Limited liability and legal personality 330Beyond a responsibility regime? 331Concluding remarks 339

15 Concluding remarks 340Introduction 340The limits of functionalism 342Rethinking functionalism? 345

Bibliography 346Index 377

xi Contents






Preface to the first edition

It was in the autumn of 1992, or perhaps the spring of 1993, when I received aphone call from a former student of mine at the University of Amsterdam,now working for a solicitor’s firm in London. After the usual expressions ofsurprise and politeness, he asked me what I knew about the responsibility ofinternational organizations under international law.The short answer was: nothing. Teaching international law in Amster-

dam, one was not supposed to inquire into the law of international organ-izations beyond the merest basics (personality, the legal status of GeneralAssembly resolutions, collective security, that sort of thing); after all, wehad a separate department (or section, rather) to cover international insti-tutional law.The one thing I did remember from my student days was that the law of

international organizations was taught to us as a seemingly endless enumer-ation of facts (‘The Council of Europe was established in whenever’), numbers(‘The European Parliament has umpteen members’), abbreviations (‘IROstands for whatever’) and generally incomprehensible phrases (‘Specializedagencies?’ Specialized in what? Agencies of and for whom?).Indeed, leafing through the textbooks I had to read as a student, it

becomes clear that general legal issues relating to international organizationshad no priority. One of our textbooks addressed such issues, but in the partthat was not compulsory reading for our exams.1 The other general textbookwas more in the nature of a comparative review of internal provisions someorganizations may have had in common, without emphasizing general legalissues.2 In short, I had to tell my former student that on points of detail myknowledge displayed, er, a slight deficiency, but that I was sure the professor

1 This book was D. W. Bowett, The Law of International Institutions (4th edn, London, 1982). Ithas been reworked as Philippe Sands and Pierre Klein, Bowett’s Law of International Institutions(6th edn, London, 2009).

2 This was the synoptic Dutch version of H. G. Schermers’ famous International Institutional Law,condensed to some 300 pages under the title, Inleiding tot het internationale institutionele recht(2nd edn, Alphen aan den Rijn, 1980).






of international law at the London School of Economics at the time couldbe of more assistance to him.3

Nonetheless, the episode got me thinking that there might be more to thelaw of international organizations than I had always been accustomed to, andwhen I started teaching EU law some years later (which involved, at the time,yet another department at the University of Amsterdam), I was forced to looka bit more closely into such notions as implied powers, ultra vires, legalpersonality, treaty-making by organizations, and judicial protection. So, whenin 1996 I switched to the University of Helsinki and found out that there wasno separate department for the law of international organizations, I readilyvolunteered to set up a course.

The one problem I encountered was that few of the textbooks availablewould address the issues I found to be important, with the exception ofAmerasinghe’s recent textbook.4 Amerasinghe’s excellent book, however,came with two drawbacks: not only was its retail price prohibitive, I also foundmyself often admiringly disagreeing, in particular when it came to the generaloutlook on international organizations.5 While I could appreciate Amera-singhe’s scholarship, I still felt that his textbook did not explain things in theway I would. And so, I figured, there was only one thing I could do, and thatwas to write my own textbook.

The famous (if controversial) philosopher Richard Rorty once wrote thateducation ought first to socialize people into the customs and ideas thatmake up the society they are a part of, after which at colleges and universitiesthe happy few should be allowed and stimulated to question and debate allthe things they have learned in the past: socialization first, followed byindividualization.6

It is with both goals simultaneously in mind that the present book is written.All too often perhaps, textbooks and courses on the law of internationalorganizations remain limited to socialization: introducing newcomers to theparticular rites of international institutional lawyers. While that is a valuablegoal in its own right (and indeed this book contains much socialization aswell), my ultimate aims are to get people to think about the law of inter-national organizations, and help the reader to understand how interesting itcan be as long as one does not insist on approaching the topic as a meregathering of numbers, dates, abbreviations and incomprehensible phrases. As

3 I did not know half how fortunate that suggestion was: Professor (later Judge) Rosalyn Higginswas at the time preparing a report for the Institut de Droit International on the very topic of theresponsibility of international organizations and their member states.

4 C. F. Amerasinghe, Principles of the Institutional Law of International Organizations(Cambridge, 1996). A second edition was published in 2005.

5 I have set this out more broadly in a review of Amerasinghe’s book at (1997) 66 Nordic JIL,553–55.

6 Richard Rorty, ‘Education as Socialization and as Individualization’, reproduced in hisPhilosophy and Social Hope (London, 1999), pp. 114–26.

xiii Preface to the first edition






my students have convinced me, it might actually be worth the effort oftreating them not as mere receptacles for bits and pieces of information –useful only to impress tuition-fee-paying parents and for boosting theirchances of victory at Trivial Pursuit – but as intelligent adults with criticalfaculties.Admittedly, after reading this book, the reader may still not know how

many seats the European Parliament has, or whether the IAEA is properly tobe considered a Specialized agency, or in what year the Council of Europe wasestablished, or what the name of the WTO’s plenary body is. Instead, thereader will hopefully have come to an understanding of why seemingly simplelegal questions (May organization X engage in activity Y? May state A becomea member of organization B? May state F withhold its contribution fromorganization G?) usually seem to defy easy answers and become the stuff ofpolitics.

xiv Preface to the first edition






Preface to the second edition

Authors of academic works don’t usually get a second chance: once a book ispublished, it is published, and there is no opportunity left to make improve-ments. Unless, that is, when somehow a second edition seems opportune. Such anew edition seemed opportune in this case, for a lot has happened since the firstedition was written. The EU has almost doubled in membership (from 15 to 27),it saw a Constitutional Treaty rejected by citizens in two of its member states,and a watered down version (the Lisbon Treaty) by the citizens of yet a third.The ECSC Treaty, moreover, died a natural death: it expired. NATO continuedits activities out-of-area, which had started with the proverbial bang by bombingBelgrade. 9/11 happened, and arguably is the main factor behind the quasi-legislative role assumed by the UN Security Council and behind the willingnessof the United States to pay its membership contributions to the UN. But most ofall, the discussion on the control of international organizations has really takenoff. While the contours of that discussion have been visible since, say, the early1990s, recent years have seen an explosion of activities somehow related tocontrol: it is no coincidence that over the last couple of years many organizationshave created the function of compliance officer, or have created or boostedorgans dealing with issues of control and accountability. Organizations have, soto speak, become card-carrying members of ‘the audit society’.

In Academia’s ivory tower too, interesting things took place. Some import-ant works were published (and one or two earlier ones belatedly discovered byme). Of greater structural importance, though, is that since 2004, internationalinstitutional lawyers have had their own forum: the International Organiza-tions Law Review brings together practitioners and academics discussing theintricacies and relevance of institutional developments. As the footnotes to thisedition testify, IOLR has already made a huge impact. The control discussionhas in turn appeared in the form of dozens of studies on constitutionalism,judicial review, accountability and responsibility and the closely related phe-nomenon of global administrative law.

The structure of this edition has remained faithful to the first edition, as hasthe central argument that international institutional law owes much to theambiguous relationship between the international organization and itsmember states. All chapters have been updated, incorporating new facts,






new case law, and new insights. Some chapters have been, to some degree,rewritten and restructured. This holds in particular for Chapter 8, on privil-eges and immunities, which contained a lengthy introduction that I was, inretrospect, not very happy with. Next, Chapter 10 on law-making has beenimproved in response to some observations in a published review of the firstedition. The chapter on responsibility, Chapter 14, has been rewritten so as toreflect predominantly the development of my own thinking on the topic, alsodue to having been exposed to the insights of political and moral theorists. InChapter 7, on financing, I deleted most of the discussion on the US contribu-tion, in light of the circumstance that the pre-9/11 financial crisis is not, atpresent, urgent. Some of the general points, of course, remain, and have beengeneralized. Finally, Chapter 16 has largely been rewritten, precisely so as toreflect the discussion on control and accountability beyond the more specificconfines of the responsibility discussion in Chapter 14.Since the publication of the first edition, I have been teaching an entire

course, or sizeable part of a course, on international institutional law, using myown book. This applies to Helsinki, of course, but also to Dresden. As avisiting professor at Hofstra Law School during the spring of 2007, exposureto a class of predominantly American students opened a few vistas that wouldotherwise have remained closed. In addition, I have taught parts of the coursein Reykjavik, and conducted an advanced seminar on issues of control at theGraduate Institute of International Studies and Development. Many thanks tomy hosts on those occasions: Sabine von Schorlemer, Jay Hickey, ThordisIngadottir and Andrea Bianchi. In addition, many, many thanks to James Fry,teaching assistant extraordinaire and an excellent scholar in his own right.Over the years, the working atmosphere at the University of Helsinki within

the Erik Castrén Institute of International Law and Human Rights and, since2006, the interdisciplinary Centre of Excellence in Global GovernanceResearch has proven to be challenging, stimulating and, quite simply, wonder-ful: many thanks to all those I work with on a daily basis. In addition, quite afew people have provided me with things to read, look into, or check up on.I have probably forgotten more of them than is socially acceptable, but thoseI remember having come with tangible suggestions include Niels Blokker,Armin von Bogdandy, Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, Richard Collins,Manfred Elsig, Toni Erskine, André de Hoogh, Antti Kivivuori, Riikka Kos-kenmäki, Pieter Jan Kuyper, Renato Matos, Anne Peters, Aleksandr Popov,Geir Ulfstein, Wouter Werner and Ramses Wessel. In addition, there has beenclose contact with the staff at the European Forest Institute and the NordicInvestment Bank, and conversations, debates and discussions with far toomany people to mention. To all of them, my heartfelt thanks.Finally, on the home front, I am hugely indebted to my son, Johan, for all

the usual reasons and many more, and to the staff at CUP, especially FinolaO’Sullivan and Sinéad Moloney, for their support, encouragement, and skilfulhandling of all sorts of problems.

xvi Preface to the second edition






Preface to the third edition

When this book was first written, one of the things I struggled with wasfinding a decent structure: how can the materials be presented in a sensibleand coherent manner? Eventually I settled, without being overly explicit, forthe idea of a fictitious biography of an international organization, trying todiscuss the sort of things that would need to be arranged when creating anorganization from start (issues of personality and powers) to finish (dissol-ution and termination). While this did the job in that it provided a way ofarranging topics and materials, I never was really happy with the structure.Still, since I could not think of anything better, I left the structure intact for thesecond edition.

In recent years, however, having given considerable thought to the theory ofinternational organizations law, it slowly dawned on me that the leadingtheory had relevant things to say about some issues, but not about others.This leading theory goes by the name of functionalism, and was devised toanswer all sorts of questions concerning the relationship between organiza-tions and their member states. As such, it does a decent job, but the realizationgrew that there is more to international organizations than just the relationswith their member states. In fact, organizations are involved in three ratherdifferent legal relationships.

There are, first and still foremost, those relations between organizations andtheir member states. Here functionalism has a lot to say about such things asthe powers of organizations, their privileges and immunities, questions relat-ing to admission or expulsion of member states, financing, or law-making.Second, however, there are relations internal to the organization: between theorganization and its staff, or between the various organs of the organization.On these relations, functionalism has little to say, and that is no coincidence,precisely because functionalism was not devised to deal with such issues.Third, there are the relations with the outside world (treaty-making, relationswith other organizations and entities, issues of control), and for the samereason here too functionalism has nothing to say. Consequently, I thought itmight be a good idea to restructure the book so as to make these threedynamics (and the different ways in which they are approached) more visible.To this end, the book is divided into three parts (organizations and their






member states, internal matters, and external relations). Some of the earlierchapters have been merged; the earlier chapter on dispute settlement has beendeleted while its contents have been divided over several chapters; and twonew chapters have been written for this edition: the chapters on the bureau-cracy (Chapter 11) and on organizational liaisons (Chapter 13).All chapters have been updated to take into account new materials, new

court decisions and new insights, although I should also point out that I haveresisted the temptation to always replace old cases by new ones saying thesame thing. Where the cases serve mainly as illustrations of something curiousor interesting or unexpected (and that is mostly the situation in this book),I have kept the references in place; where instead judicial decisions are meantto convey a change in the law, naturally newer cases will be referred to.Most of the updating concerns two different things. First, the member states

of the European Union concluded their Lisbon Treaty. Second, the Inter-national Law Commission adopted a set of articles on the responsibility ofinternational organizations. This edition takes both developments intoaccount, and a host of smaller-scale developments as well.I owe a lot of thanks to far more people than I can remember, and it would

be awkward, bordering on impolite, to try and single out some for publicmanifestations of gratitude. Many colleagues around the world have been indiscussion with me on many aspects of international institutional law, invari-ably helping me to sharpen and deepen my understanding. That said, somepeople have lent a more direct helping hand in providing me with materials orreading tips: these include María José Belmonte Sánchez, Céline Folsche, AnttiKivivuori, Gita Kothari, Rain Liivoja, Pauline Mcharo and René Urueña. Inaddition, the staff at Cambridge University Press (Finola O’Sullivan, SinéadMoloney and Marta Walkowiak) was helpful as always. As usual, I haveperhaps learned most from my students, asking probing questions and some-times providing me with helpful examples.

xviii Preface to the third edition






Table of cases

Permanent Court of International Justice

Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzów (claim for indemnity), jurisdiction,[1927] Publ. PCIJ, Series A, no. 8 306

Case of the SS Lotus, [1927] Publ. PCIJ, Series A, no. 10 47, 53Certain Questions Relating to Settlers of German Origin in the Territory

Ceded by Germany to Poland, advisory opinion, [1923] Publ. PCIJ, Series B,no. 6 9

Competence of the ILO to Examine Proposals for the Organisation andDevelopment of Methods of Agricultural Production, advisory opinion,[1922] Publ. PCIJ, Series B, nos. 2 and 3 52

Competence of the ILO to Regulate the Conditions of Labour of PersonsEmployed in Agriculture, advisory opinion, [1922] Publ. PCIJ, Series B,nos. 2 and 3 51

Competence of the International Labour Organization to Regulate,Incidentally, the Personal Work of the Employer, advisory opinion,[1926] Publ. PCIJ, no. 13 52

Interpretation of Article 3, Paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Lausanne, advisoryopinion, [1925] Publ. PCIJ, Series B, no. 12 177

Interpretation of the Greco-Turkish Agreement of December 1st, 1926,advisory opinion, [1928] Publ. PCIJ, Series B, no. 16 57

Jurisdiction of the European Commission of the Danube betweenGalatz and Braila, advisory opinion, [1926] Publ. PCIJ,Series B, no. 14 53, 63

Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco (French Zone), advisoryopinion, [1923] Publ. PCIJ, Series B, no. 4 55

Nomination of the Workers’ Delegate for the Netherlands, advisory opinion,[1922] Publ. PCIJ, Series B, no. 1 209

Railway Traffic between Lithuania and Poland (Railway sector Landwarów–Kaisiadorys), [1931] Publ. PCIJ, Series A/B, no. 42 158–9

Request for Advisory Opinion Concerning the Status of Eastern Carelia,[1923] Publ. PCIJ, Series B, no. 5 231






International Court of Justice

Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privilegesand Immunities of the United Nations (Mazilu), advisory opinion, [1989]ICJ Reports 177 137, 143, 233

Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the UnitedNations Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947, advisory opinion, [1988]ICJ Reports 12 146

Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995 (Former YugoslavRepublic of Macedonia v. Greece), [2011] ICJ Reports 644 325

Application for Review of Judgment No. 158 of the United NationsAdministrative Tribunal (Fasla), advisory opinion, [1973] ICJ Reports166 218, 250

Application for Review of Judgment No. 273 of the United NationsAdministrative Tribunal, advisory opinion, [1982] ICJ Reports 325 34

Application for Review of Judgment No. 333 of the United NationsAdministrative Tribunal, advisory opinion, [1987] ICJ Reports 18 232

Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of theCrime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), preliminaryobjections, [1996] ICJ Reports 595 99, 103

Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of theCrime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro),[2007] ICJ Reports 43 104

Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras), [1988] ICJReports 69 166

Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention andPunishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v.Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)), further request for the indication ofprovisional measures, [1993] ICJ Reports 325 185

Case Concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie(Libya v. UK), preliminary objections, [1998] ICJ Reports 9 227

Case Concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie(Libya v. UK; Libya v. USA), order, [1992] ICJ Reports 3 (UK); 114(USA) 226, 238

Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co. Ltd (Belgium v.Spain), second phase, [1970] ICJ Reports 3 228

Case Concerning the Gabčíkovo–Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia),[1997] ICJ Reports 7 99, 102

Case Concerning Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v.Belgium), preliminary objections, [2004] ICJ Reports 279 103, 311, 324

Case Concerning the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Germany v.USA), [1999] ICJ Reports 9 306

xx Table of cases






Case of Certain Norwegian Loans (France v. Norway), [1957] ICJReports 9 186

Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, Paragraph 2, of theCharter), advisory opinion, [1962] ICJ Reports 151 59, 67, 79, 87, 118,120, 184, 186–7, 225

Competence of the General Assembly for the Admission of a State to theUnited Nations, advisory opinion, [1950] ICJ Reports 4 94

Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations(Article 4 of the Charter), advisory opinion, [1948] ICJ Reports 57 94

Constitution of the Maritime Safety Committee of the Inter-GovernmentalMaritime Consultative Organization, advisory opinion, [1960] ICJ Reports150 85, 184

Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur ofthe Commission of Human Rights (Cumaraswamy), advisory opinion,[1999] ICJ Reports 62 137, 144, 233

Effect of Awards of Compensation made by the United NationsAdministrative Tribunal, advisory opinion, [1954] ICJ Reports 47 58, 63,217, 277

Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (UK v. Iceland), jurisdiction, [1973] ICJReports 3 26

Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania,advisory opinion, [1950] ICJ Reports 65 232

Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO andEgypt, advisory opinion, [1980] ICJ Reports 73 82, 147, 325

Judgments of the Administrative Tribunal of the International LabourOrganization upon Complaints made against the United NationsEducational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, advisory opinion, [1956]ICJ Reports 77 212, 248

Judgment No. 2867 of the Administrative Tribunal of the International LabourOrganization upon a Complaint Filed Against the International Fund forAgricultural Development, advisory opinion, [2012] ICJ Reports 10 303

Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Nigeria v.Cameroon), merits, [2002] ICJ Reports 303 270

Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africain Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security CouncilResolution 276 (1970), advisory opinion, [1971] ICJ Reports 16 60, 87,175, 179, 233

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied PalestinianTerritory, advisory opinion, [2004] ICJ Reports 136 232

Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, advisory opinion, [1996]ICJ Reports 226 165, 224

Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, advisoryopinion, [1996] ICJ Reports 66 63, 185, 232, 286

xxi Table of cases






Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Belgium), [1999] ICJ Reports 124 99Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v.USA), merits, [1986] ICJ Reports 14 161, 165

North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark;Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), [1969] ICJ Reports 3 179

Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), [2010] ICJ Reports14 9

Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, advisoryopinion, [1949] ICJ Reports 174 42, 58–9, 64, 151

Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of theCrime of Genocide, advisory opinion, [1951] ICJ Reports 15 72, 93

South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa),preliminary objections, [1962] ICJ Reports 319 268

South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa),second phase, [1966] ICJ Reports 6 163

Voting Procedure on Questions Relating to Reports and PetitionsConcerning the Territory of South-West Africa, advisory opinion, [1955]ICJ Reports 67 166

Western Sahara, advisory opinion, [1975] ICJ Reports 12 232Western Sahara, order, [1975] ICJ Reports 6 232

Court of Justice of the European Union

8/55, Fédération Charbonnière de Belgique v. High Authority [1954–6] ECR292 57

7/56 and 3–7/57, Algera and others v. Common Assembly [1957–8] ECR39 184

9/56, Meroni and others v. High Authority [1957/8] ECR 133 207–820/59, Italy v. High Authority [1960] ECR 325 5425/59, Netherlands v. High Authority [1960] ECR 355 546/60, Jean-E. Humblet v. Belgium [1960] ECR 559 14825/62, Plaumann & Co. v. Commission [1963] ECR 95 16926/62, Van Gend & Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen[1963] ECR 1 26, 83, 85, 131, 280

6/64, Flaminio Costa v. ENEL [1964] ECR 585 26, 83, 1686/68, Zuckerfabrik Watenstedt v. Council [1968] ECR 409 16922/70, Commission v. Council (ERTA) [1971] ECR 273 60, 27421–24/72, International Fruit Company v. Produktschap voor Groenten enFruit [1972] ECR 1219 230, 294

181/73, Haegeman v. Belgium [1974] ECR 449 28043/75, Defrenne v. Sabena [1976] ECR 455 79, 170105/75, Giuffrida v. Council [1976] ECR 1395 230Opinion 1/76 (Laying-up Fund) [1977] ECR 754 274

xxii Table of cases






50/76, Amsterdam Bulb v. Produktschap voor Siergewassen [1977] ECR137 168, 319

141/78, France v. United Kingdom [1979] ECR 2923 212138/79, Roquette Frères v. Council [1980] ECR 3333 229104/81, Hauptzollamt Mainz v. C. A. Kupferberg & Cie [1982] ECR

3659 28014/83, Von Colson & Kamann v. Land Nordrhein-Westphalen [1984] ECR

1891 169281, 283–5 and 287/85, Germany and others v. Commission [1987] ECR

3203 4185/86, Commission v. Board of Governors EIB [1988] ECR 1281 1492/88, J. J. Zwartveld and others [1990] ECR I-4405 148C-70/88 European Parliament v. Council (Chernobyl) [1990]

ECR I-2041 229C-322/88, Salvatore Grimaldi v. Fonds des maladies professionelles [1989]

ECR I-4407 170C-192/89, Sevince v. Staatssecretaris van Justitie [1990] ECR I-3461 294C-6/90 and C-9/90, Andrea Francovich and others v. Italy [1991] ECR I-

5357 168C-159/90, Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ireland Ltd v.

Stephen Grogan and others [1991] ECR I-4685 68–9C-286/90, Anklagemyndigheden v. Poulsen & Diva Navigation [1992]

ECR I-6019 278Opinion 2/91 (ILO) [1993] ECR I-1061 281C-327/91, France v. Commission [1994] ECR I-3641 208, 229, 278, 322C-405/92, Mondiet SA v. Armement Islais SARL [1993] ECR I-6133 278C-415/93, Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association ASBL and

others v. Jean-Marc Bosman and others [1995] ECR I-4921 24, 88Opinion 1/94 (WTO) [1994] ECR I-5267 62Opinion 2/94 (European Convention on Human Rights) [1996] ECR I-

1759 62C-25/94, Commission v. Council (FAO) [1996] ECR I-1469 182, 295C-191/94, AGF Belgium v. EEC and others [1996] ECR I-1873 148C-268/94, Portugal v. Council [1996] ECR I-6177 274C-311/94, Ijssel-Vliet Combinatie BV v. Ministry of Economic Affairs [1996]

ECR I-5023 159C-321/95 P, Stichting Greenpeace Council and others v. Commission [1998]

ECR I-1651 229C-53/96, Hermés v. FHT [1998] ECR I-3603 283C-17/98, Emesa Sugar v. Aruba [2000] ECR I-665 148C-376/98, Germany v. European Parliament and Council (Tobacco directive)

[2000] ECR I-8419 62, 229C-467/98, Commission v. Denmark [2002] ECR I-9519 68, 276

xxiii Table of cases






C-438/00 Deutscher Handballbund eV v. Maros Kolpak [2003] ECR I-4135 294

C-263/02 P, Commission v. Jégo-Quéré [2004] ECR I-3425 229C-265/03 Igor Simutenkov v. Ministerio de Educacíon y Cultura and RealFederacíon Espanola de Futbol [2005] ECR I-2579 294

C-91/05, Commission v. Council [2008] ECR I-3651 67C-402/05P and C-415/05P, Kadi and Al Barakaat v. Council and Commission[2008] ECR I-6351 153

C-203/07 P Greece v. Commission [2008] ECR I-8161 278C-270/12 United Kingdom v. European Parliament and Council (ESMA),judgment of 22 January 2014, nyr 207–8

General Court/Court of First Instance

T-85/91, Khouri v. Commission [1992] ECR II-2637 253T-115/94, Opel Austria GmbH v. Council [1997] ECR II-39 278T-177/01, Jégo-Quéré v. Commission [2002] ECR II-2365 229T-306/01, Yusuf and Al Barakaat v. Council [2005] ECR II-3533 183, 235T-315/01, Kadi v. Council [2005] ECR II-3649 153, 183, 235Joined Cases T-27/03, T-46/03, T-58/03, T-79/03, T-80/03, T-97/03 and T-98/03, Sp SpA and others v. Commission [2007] ECR II-4331 54

Arbitration

Anglo-French Continental Shelf (France/UK) (1979) 18 ILM 397 72Dalmia Cement Ltd v. National Bank of Pakistan, 18 December 1976, 67 ILR611 92

European Molecular Biology Laboratory v. Federal Republic of Germany,29 June 1990, 105 ILR 1 132

Reineccius and others v. Bank for International Settlements, Permanent Courtof Arbitration, partial award, 22 November 2002 10

UNESCO (Constitution) case, 19 September 1949 (1969) 16 AD 331 83, 210Westland Helicopters Ltd and Arab Organization for Industrialization, UnitedArab Emirates, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, State of Qatar, Arab Republic ofEgypt and Arab British Helicopter Company, 5 March 1984, 80 ILR 600 329

Other international tribunals

European Commission of Human Rights

Spaans v. Netherlands, 1988, 107 ILR 1 134Temeltasch v. Switzerland, 1983, 88 ILR 619 73

European Court of Human Rights

Al Jedda v. United Kingdom, application no. 27021/08, 7 July 2011 236

xxiv Table of cases






Bankovic v. Belgium and sixteen other states, 12 December 2001,123 ILR 94 321

Behrami and Behrami v. France and Saramati v. France and others, 2 May2007, 133 ILR 1 320

Belilos v. Switzerland 1988, 88 ILR 648 73Chapman v. Belgium, application no. 39619/06, decision of 5 March 2013 249Waite and Kennedy v. Germany, 18 February 1999, 118 ILR 121 135, 244

ICTY

Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, 35 ILM 32 221–4

ILO Administrative Tribunal

Brache v. World Health Organization, 3 November 1969, 43 ILR 459 201Judgment no. 1581, In re Romach-Le Guludec, 30 January 1997 136Judgment no. 2232, In re Bustani, 16 July 2003 259, 307

Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Effect of Reservations, advisory opinion, 1982, 67 ILR 558 73

United Nations Administrative Tribunal

Annan v. UN Joint Staff Pension Board, case no. 1592 (2009) 251

World Bank Administrative Tribunal

De Merode et al. v. World Bank, decision no. 1 (1981) 243Planthara v. IBRD, decision no. 143 (1995) 251

Domestic courts

Argentina

Bergaveche v. United Nations Information Centre, CámaraNacional de Apelaciones del Trabajo de la Capital Federal, 19 March 195826 ILR 620 139

Dutto v. UN High Commissioner for Refugees, National Labour Court ofAppeal, 31 May 1989, 89 ILR 90 139

Australia

Civilian Casualty Court Martial, Re, decision of 20 May 2011, 259 Federal LawReporter 208 254

Austria

Airport L. v. United States of America, Supreme Court, 28 August 2003, ILDC3 (AT 2003) 220

xxv Table of cases






Evangelical Church (Ausburg and Helvitic Confessions [sic]) in Austria v.Grezda, Supreme Court, 27 February 1962, 38 ILR 453 141

Karl M. v. Provincial Revenue Office for Vienna, Administrative Court,20 November 1970, 71 ILR 573 141

N. K. v. Austria, Vienna Superior Provincial Court, 26 February 1979, 77 ILR470 323

Belgium

M. v. Organisation des Nations Unies and Etat Belge (Ministre des AffairesEtrangères), Brussels Tribunal Civil, 11 May 1966, 45 ILR 446 328

United Nations v. B., Brussels Tribunal Civil, 27 March 1952, 19 ILR 490 200

Canada

Legislative Jurisdiction over Hours of Labour, In the Matter of, SupremeCourt (early 1920s, no precise date given), (1925–6) 3 AD 393 173

Pushpanathan v. Canada, Supreme Court, 4 June 1998, ILDC 182(CA 1998) 234

Denmark

Carlsen et al. v. Rasmussen, Supreme Court, 6 April 1998 www.um.dk.udenrigspolitik 183

Egypt

Elias and Abdou Noujaim v. Eastern Telegraph Co., Port Said SummaryTribunal, 21 December 1932, (1931–2) 6 AD 413 322

Nader v. Marconi Radio Telegraph Co. of Egypt, Alexandria Civil Court,12 March 1934, 7 AD 471 322

France

Chambre Syndicale des Transports Aériens, Conseil d’Etat, 22 July 1994, 11 1ILR 500 182

Chemidlin v. International Bureau of Weights and Measures, Tribunal Civilde Versailles, 27 July 1945, (1943–5) 12 AD 281 246

Klarsfeld v. Office Franco-Allemand pour la Jeunesse, Paris Court of Appeal,18 June 1968, 72 ILR 191 9

Procureur Général v. Syndicate of co-owners of the Alfred DehodencqProperty Company, Court of Cassation, 6 July 1954, 21 ILR 279 139

Weiss, In Re, Conseil d’Etat, 20 February 1953, 20 ILR 531 246

Germany

2 B v. E 6/99, Federal Constitutional Court, 22 November 2001 78

xxvi Table of cases






IAEA Representative Immunity case, Bavaria Supreme Court, 30 September1971, 70 ILR 413 141

International Military Operations (German Participation), FederalConstitutional Court, 12 July 1994, 106 ILR 319 79, 93

Tornado case, Federal Constitutional Court, 3 July 2007, ILDC 819(DE 2007) 79

Guatemala

Klahr Ehlert Supreme Court, 1952 (no direct source) 163

Italy

Bari Institute of the International Centre for Advanced MediterraneanAgronomic Studies v. Jasbez, Court of Cassation, 21 October 1977, 77 ILR602 75, 244

Branno v. Ministry of War Court of Cassation, 14 June 1954, 22 ILR 756 131Cristiani v. Italian Latin-American Institute, Court of Cassation, 25 November

1985, 87 ILR 20 50Food and Agriculture Organization v. INPDAI, Court of Cassation,

18 October 1982, 87 ILR 1 131, 135International Institute of Agriculture v. Profili, Court of Cassation, February

1931, (1929–30) 5 AD 414 137, 248Maida v. Administration for International Assistance, Court of Cassation, May

1955, 23 ILR 510 131Minnini v. Bari Institute of the International Centre for Advanced

Mediterranean Agronomic Studies, Court of Cassation, 4 April 1986, 87 ILR28 132

Pisani Balestra di Mottola, Re, Court of Cassation, 10 July 1969, 71 ILR 565 141Porru v. Food and Agriculture Organization, Tribunal of First Instance,

25 June 1969, 71 ILR 240 132

Luxembourg

USSR v. Luxembourg & Saar Company, Commercial Tribunal, 2 March 1935,(1935–7) 8 AD 114 92

Madagascar

La Hausse de la Louviére v. Brouard, Court of Appeal, 25 May 1972, 71 ILR562 142–3

Netherlands

Eckhardt v. Eurocontrol (No. 2), Maastricht District Court, 12 January 1984,94 ILR 331 149

Greenpeace v. Euratom, Supreme Court, 13 November 2007 133, 136, 254

xxvii Table of cases






Iran–United States Claims Tribunal v. A. S., Local Court, The Hague, 8 June1983; District Court, The Hague, 9 July 1984; Supreme Court, 20 December1985 94 ILR 321 134, 244

Mothers of Srebrenica v. State of the Netherlands, case no. C/09/295247 /HAZA 07–2973, The Hague District Court, 16 July 2014 137, 324, 327

Srebrenica case, The Hague District Court, 10 July 2008 310UNRRA v. Daan, Utrecht District Court, 23 February 1949 16 AD (1949),337 45

X v. Centrale Raad van Beroep, Decision 2014:284, Hoge Raad,14 February2014 255

Nigeria

African Reinsurance Corporation v. Abate Fantaye, Supreme Court, 20 June86 ILR 655 139

Philippines

World Health Organization and Verstuyft v. Aquino and others, SupremeCourt, 29 November 1972, 52 ILR 389 142

South Africa

Binga v. Administrator-General for South West Africa and others, SupremeCourt, 22 June 1984, 82 ILR 465 232

Switzerland

A. v. B., Federal Supreme Court, 8 April 2004, ILDC 343 (CH 2004) 147Arab Organization for Industrialization and others v. Westland HelicoptersLtd and others, Geneva Court of Justice, 23 October 1987, 80 ILR 622 329

Arab Organization for Industrialization and others v. WestlandHelicopters Ltd, Federal Supreme Court (First Civil Court), 19 July 198880 ILR 652 329

Jenni and others v. Conseil d’Etat of the Canton of Geneva, Swiss FederalTribunal, 4 October 1978, 75 ILR 99 10

Poncet, In Re, Federal Tribunal, 12 January 1948, 15 AD 346 142

United Kingdom

Arab Banking Corporation v. International Tin Council, High Court, Queen’sBench Division, 15 January 1986, 77 ILR 1 313

Arab Monetary Fund v. Hashim and others, House of Lords, 21 February1991, 85 ILR 1 44

Attorney-General v. Nissan, House of Lords, 11 February 1969, 44 ILR359 323

xxviii Table of cases






International Tin Council, In Re, High Court, Chancery Division, 22 January1987, 77 ILR 18 313

J. H. Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v. Department of Trade and Industry andothers, High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, 24 June 1987, 77 ILR 55 314

J. H. Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v. Department of Trade and Industry andothers; Maclaine Watson & Co. Ltd v. Department of Trade andIndustry; Maclaine Watson & Co. Ltd v. International Tin Council,House of Lords, October 1989, 81 ILR 670 315

Maclaine Watson & Co. Ltd v. Department of Trade and Industry, HighCourt, Chancery Division, 29 July 1987, 80 ILR 39 314

Maclaine Watson & Co. Ltd v. Department of Trade and Industry; J. H.Rayner (Mincing Lane) v. Department of Trade and Industry and others,and related appeals, Court of Appeal, 27 April 1988, 80 ILR 47 328

Maclaine Watson & Co. Ltd v. International Tin Council, High Court,Chancery Division, 13 May 1987, 77 ILR 41 313

Maclaine Watson & Co. Ltd v. International Tin Council, Court of Appeal,April 1988, 80 ILR 191 314

Maclaine Watson & Co. Ltd v. International Tin Council (No. 2), High Court,Chancery Division, 9 July 1987, 77 ILR 160 314

Maclaine Watson & Co. Ltd v. International Tin Council (No. 2), Court ofAppeal, 27 April 1988, 80 ILR 211 314

United States

Balfour, Guthrie & Co., Ltd et al. v. United States et al., District Court,Northern District, California, 5 May 1950, 17 ILR 323 139

Boimah v. United Nations General Assembly, District Court, Eastern District,New York, 24 July 1987, 113 ILR 499 139

Broadbent v. Organization of American States, District Court, DC, 28 March1978, 63 ILR 162 134

Diggs v. Schultz, Court of Appeals, DC Circuit, 31 October 1971,60 ILR 393 156

Huynh Thi Anh and another v. Levi and others, Court of Appeals, SixthCircuit, 20 October 1978, 95 ILR 494 163

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and InternationalMonetary Fund v. All America Cables & Radio Inc. and other cablecompanies, Federal Communications Commission, 23 March 1953,22 ILR 705 133

International Refugee Organization v. Republic S. S. Corp. et al., Court ofAppeals, Fourth Circuit, 11 May 1951, 18 ILR 447 139

Jennings v. Markley, Warden, District Court, Southern District, Indiana,19 September 1960, 32 ILR 367 323

Kadic v. Karadzic, and Doe I and Doe II v. Karadzic, Court of Appeals, SecondCircuit, 13 October 1995, 104 ILR 135 145

xxix Table of cases






Karadzole et al. v. Artukovic, Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 24 June 1957,24 ILR 510 164

Klinghoffer and others v. SNC Achille Lauro and others, Court of Appeals,Second Circuit, 21 June 1991, 91 ILR 68 141, 145

Means v. Means, Family Court, New York, 6 August 1969, 53 ILR 588 141Mendaro v. World Bank, Court of Appeals, DC, 27 September 1983, 99 ILR92 134

Pan-American Union v. American Security and Trust Company, DistrictCourt, DC, 6 May 1952, 18 ILR 441 200

People v. Von Otter, City Court, La Rochelle (New York), 30 July 1952, 19 ILR385 140

Permanent Mission of India to the UN v. City of New York, Supreme Court,14 June 2007 150

United States v. Melekh et al., District Court, Southern District, New York,28 November 1960; District Court, Northern District, Illinois, 20 March1961, 32 ILR 308 133

Weidner v. International Telecommunications Satellite Organization, Court ofAppeals, DC, 21 September 1978, 63 ILR 191 134

Wencak v. United States, New York Supreme Court, 18 January 1956, 22 ILR509 200

xxx Table of cases






an introduction to international organizations...

Documents