e-book La règle du jeu nº01 (Revue La Règle du Jeu) (French Edition)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online La règle du jeu nº01 (Revue La Règle du Jeu) (French Edition) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with La règle du jeu nº01 (Revue La Règle du Jeu) (French Edition) book. Happy reading La règle du jeu nº01 (Revue La Règle du Jeu) (French Edition) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF La règle du jeu nº01 (Revue La Règle du Jeu) (French Edition) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF La règle du jeu nº01 (Revue La Règle du Jeu) (French Edition) Pocket Guide.
La règle du jeu nº01 (Revue La Règle du Jeu) (French Edition) eBook: Collectif: efycymepodor.tk: Kindle Store.
Table of contents

Manufacturer warranty may not apply Learn more about Amazon Global Store. Product details Paperback Publisher: Be the first to review this item Amazon Best Sellers Rank: Don't have a Kindle? Try the Kindle edition and experience these great reading features: Share your thoughts with other customers. Write a customer review. There's a problem loading this menu right now.

Learn more about Amazon Prime. Get fast, free shipping with Amazon Prime. Get to Know Us. English Choose a language for shopping. Explore the Home Gift Guide. Amazon Music Stream millions of songs. Amazon Advertising Find, attract, and engage customers. As a result, it is expected that the number of humanitarian actors able to continue activities will be drastically reduced, which in turn will have serious consequences on the living conditions of camps residents. A cost-recovery mechanism requiring payment for access was instead recommended. But camp-dwellers have little if any income, most of which goes toward food and other basic needs.

Nevertheless, the authors point out that new estimates suggest that by March up to four million doses may be available, demonstrating how quickly production can be increased. Although other criticisms have arisen, including the cost-effectiveness and feasibility of implementation, the authors conclude that: We recognize that there is insufficient vaccine today for an immediate mass campaign, and that the current epidemic could be curbed before such a supply becomes available. Without significant investment in Haiti's weakened health system, there will continue to be insufficient human and financial resources to deliver a mass vaccination campaign.

Nonetheless, we believe a rational vaccine strategy should be pursued immediately. From the start of the rains in May to the end of July , , people have been stricken by cholera and 1, have died. In other words, over the course of those three months, a Haitian was afflicted by cholera every minute; every two hours, an infected person died as a result.

According to sources within the U. In July , the U. In addition to reacting to new cases, NGOs should accompany Haitian endeavors in public health and public works, which would provide long-term health solutions and drastically curtail new infections. The maintenance or expansion of health infrastructure like CTCs and CTUs, the promotion of public sanitation projects and the broad implementation of vaccinations can greatly diminish the number of Haitians who unnecessarily suffer and die.

For more information see, http: Center for Economic and Policy Research. Relief and Reconstruction Watch. A Full Course for Healthcare Providers. Cable Depicts Fraudulent Haiti Election. MSF calling on all actors to step up response. The Denial of the Right to Water in Haiti. Haiti List of Appeal Projects grouped by Cluster , with funding status of each as of 5-August Cholera Outbreak in Haiti — Thursday, November 11, - 1.

Théâtre, la nouvelle règle du jeu

Cholera Outbreak in Haiti — Tuesday, November 16, - 2. Cholera Outbreak in Haiti — Saturday, December 11, - 9. Cholera Outbreak in Haiti — Monday, January 10, - Cholera Outbreak in Haiti — Friday, March 25, - Accessed August 8, In opening this mceting, I should lilce t o pay a tribute to Bresident Guerrcro, who for tlic yast three years has occupied the presidential chair. Notking has better contributed to maintaining continuity betmeen the two trihunals.

Three years have gone by. By thc terrns of aur Statute, thc Wilited Nations Assernbly and the Security Council have gone about elections to five seats. Our retiring colleagues inspired the confidence of the United Nations and werc re-elected. La France, le Royaunie-Uni et la. He knows that the support on which he thus relies will not be found wanting. In a speech on January 16th, j, President Max Huber stated tkat on account of its judicial function the Court should rise above the clash of mcn's interests and men's passioiis-above those of party, of class, of nation and of race.

It is asked of tlie Court that it should contribute t o peace by deciding the disputes submitted to it. Perhaps it will make a yet greatcr contribution by inculcating a knowledge of tEiat which, after au, unitcs mankind. III conformity with Article 66 of the Statute, it had been cornmunicated to al1 the governments of those Members of the United Nations which the Court dcerned likely to furnidi information on the question. Furthermore, the Court had decided t o hold sittiilgs as from March 7th, , i. France, the United Kingdorn and Belgiuni had intirnated that they would each present an oral statement.

The representatives appointed for this purpose were the following: L'audience, interrompue k 13 heures, est rcprise 5 16 heurcs. Felier, Principal Director of that Department, as Counsel. The President noted the presence before tlie Court of the represen- tativcs of the above-mentioned States, as also the presence of the representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

He announcecl that he would first cal1 upon If.. Ivan Kerno, representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to speak, and then, as agreed, upon the representatives of Belgium, France and the Unitecl Icingdom. The Court adjourned from I p. KEKNO, who continued and completecl his statement as annexed 2. The PRESIDEXT stated that the Court had listelied to an cxtrtmcly complcte and cletailed statenient of the background of the question before it, as also of thc cognizance of the opinion possessed by each of the Parties.

He called upon Alr. Tlic Court rose at 6. La Cour tirera grand profit de ce qu'elle a entendu. Feller to address the Court. The Court adjourned from They made the statements reproduced in the annex 2. The Court adjournecl from The very important questions referred to the Court in the prcsent request for an advisory opinion were of a new character and wcre of p?

They had been examined with remarkable talent and with great intellectual force. The Court woulcl be greatly helped from the arguments that it had heard. Therefore, having thanked the Secretary-Gencral ancl the Governmcnts, he now clcsired, in the nanie of the Court, to thank the representativcs wlio had addressed it. Hackworth, Badawi Pacha et M.

Il signale en outre que MM. Avis consultatzf dl6 T I avril C'est un grand honneur personne1 que dc pouvoir 1-i: Ce fut, vous le savez, au cours de la session de I? Aucun des fonctionnaires des Nations Unies n'a. Au lieu de II J'cn vicns maintenant a u projet dc rksolution belge. Je voudrais enfin attirer l'attention sur deus autres points importants. II contient, il ne faut pas l'oublier, un prkambule ainsi conp: It is our purpase here t o analyse for the assistance of the Court the two questions presented t o it by the General Assembly, for tlie purpase of determining their scope and lirnits.

At this tirne, althqugh the text of these two questions lias been read this rnorning by the Registrar of the Court, 1 think it may be useful to repeat them again in order that tliis tcxt should be guite fresh in our memory: In the frst place, it is obvious ftom the face of the questions that they are "legal" qsiestions and are tkerefore drawn up fully in accordance with the provisions of Article 65, para- graph I, of tlie Statute af the Court.

En this respect rnay I mention that the Assembly itself has classified in its Resolution tl-tese two ques- tions as legaI questions. The English text says only "the follorving two qucstions" ; the French text says: If you will look at the official copies which the Secre- tary-Geneml has transmitted ta the Court, you will find not only in the Frcnch but d s o in the English text the correct phrase "thc iwo following legal questions". Thc sccond prelimiilary remark is as Eollows: Thesr words are intended t o comprise al1 persons acting on behalf of the United Nations or any of its orgam.

One of the pcrsons involved was a member of the General Secretariat of the United Nations. I t is important to note that the common elemeilt with respect to al1 of these individuals was that they were acting on behalf of the United Nations and not on behalf of any individual Member. In fact, ail of the persons here referred to received some compensation from the United Nations for their activities, either salary or PL? Yd i e m ; al1 of them acted under ordcrs of an organ of the United Nations, either the General Assembly, the Security Council, or one of its subordinate body, or thc Secretary-General.

Even if no compensation were paicl, howcver, al1 pcrsons who are clcarly acting on behalf of the Organization should be consiclerecl as comprisecl within the category of agents. So, for instance, ive inay imagine that the Security Council decides to set up a smail sub-committee in order to enquire into some matters, and this sub-coinmittee is composed of thrcc, four or five members of the Security Council. If these persons are physically injured while perform- ing thcir duties, even if they do not receive any compensation, any salary, or any per dieln from the United Nations, they are to be com- prised in this category of agents because they are acting officially on behalf of the Organization of the United Nations.

Shc question therefore does iiot cover any situation in which the individual suffers injury while engaged on private affairs or while performing duties which are not part of his resporisibility to the United Nations. The injiired indiviclual must not only be an agent of the United N a t'ions ; it must also be shown that the iniury - - was suffered "in the performance of his duties". There is thus no need for the Court to concern itself with such questions as denial of justice, exhaustion of local remedies, and various other cluestions of the same character lvhich were discussed in the Sisth Committee.

The question, in effect, is, assuming that a State is responsible for the injury, does the United Nations have the capacity to bring an international claim? I t shoulcl be noted that the Sisth Committee deliberately drafted the question so that this premise should be made clear.

La règle du jeu, numéro 1: Collectif: efycymepodor.tk: Books

I n the memorandum presented originally by the Secretary-General, the question was asked in a somewhat different fashion, thus: The deliberation with which the Committee adoptecl a diffcrent formula- tion of the question was brought out by the remark of the delegate of Venezuela who thouglit that the first question in the Secretary-General's memorandum was so worded as to emphasize the factor of the State's responsibility, while, in his opinion, the emphasis should be laid on the question as to whether the United Nations was cntitled to claim rcpara- tion.

The phrase "the Utza'ted Natiolzs, as a n Orga? There were several delegatcs, and 1 remeinber that I personally was among tliem as the representative of my State of origin, to propose that the name should not be simply the "United Nations", but the "Organization of the Uxiited Nations". But then the Confercnce decided on the title of the "United Nations" chiefly after the intervention of the American delegate who asked that tlie title should be simply "The United Nations".

Nevcrtlieless, according to the Charter itself, the English words "United Nations" define the Organization as such. I n Our case, however, in order to be quite clear, as 1explained, the words "as an Organization" were added after the words "United Nations" in the English text. May 1 add that in our view the Court does not have t o deal with the question which was raised in the memorandum of the Secrctary- General as to who may present such a claim in the namc and on behalf of the United Nations? The phrase "tlze capacity to bring a.

While the question of the capacity of the United Nations to act as a legal person in the national ' courts of Rlember States cvill be referred to hereafter in Our argument. In short, we have here thc direct issue of thc interriational personality. As has already been pointed out, this is tkc premise on which the ques- tion has becn asked of the Court. Nor need the Court concern itself with the distinction which may exist between a de jure or de facto governmen'c. However, some considera- tiori needs to be given to the phrase "mitk n view to obtaining the: This is also borne out by the fact that most of the discussion in the Sixth Coinmittee revolved around the question of pecunlav injuries and the arnount of compensation which should be yaid.

This cost rnight also include necessary espenditures incurrcd in replacing a valtiable agent, such as the expense of training someone to take his place. Damage to the United Nations might also comprise the loss c f security by other personnel in the area, leading to the ncccssitj? It is, however, necessary for the Court t o distinguish clearly between the datnage to the United Nations and thc d a m q e t o the victim, or to yersnns entitled through llim, because of the division of tliese tivo clernents madc in the question askcd of the Court.

However, it should be emphasized again that we do not believe it necessary for the Court in this proceeding to enter jnto the propriety af the clairn for any particular element of rlatnage caused to the individual. During the discussion, much reference was made to t h e conflict betsveen thc slght of the United Nations to present a d a i m and the right of the State of wliicli the victim was a. TIie phrase "to be rccofzcibd with sztch rights wlziclz way bt: It is not necessary for the Court, in our view, to consider wliich Inay be the right possessed by the State of urhich the victim is a natiorial.

There is, however, one special situatiotl as was pointed out in the Sixth Cornmittee. This is tlie ques- tion which arises as to t h e right of the United Nations in the event that the victim is a national of the respondent State, that is to Say, the State dleged to be responsible for the injury. I t would appear t o us that the Court may pruperly conccrn itself with this hypothetical point, if it sa desires, since, if the victim were a national of a respondent State, t h e question of reconciliation of action bg the United Nations with the rights of that State would imply an ansrver t o the question as to whether tlie United Nations may present a claim at ail under such circurnstances.

E'residcnt, before coiicluding this portion-the second pnrtion- of our statement, 3: For many p a r s scholars have discussed the personality of international organizalions. Now a ptecise question on this major issue has been presented to the highcst international judicial body. Your answer tci the question may Involve thc most important conscqucnces for the development of international organizatian.

I t is not too much to Say that your opinion will be a liistoric rnarker in the development of the system of law of wliich you are the highest exponent. May it please the Court: It will be recalled that when the Charter of the United Nations was uricler discussion at the San Francisco Conference, Ehe question arose as to whcthzr the Charter shoulcl contain a specific provision regarding the international personality of tlie Organizatiori.

The Legal Cornmittee of the Conference believed that such a provision n,oulcl be superRuous, and the report of Cornmittee IV12, approved by Commission 4, states t h a t the international perjonality of the Organization was, in effect, - "to be determinecl implicitly from the provisions of the Charter as a whole". The most striking example is Article 43, wliich empowers the Security Council to enter into agreements with Member States or groups of hlembers regarding the arrned forces, assistancc and facilities to be made available t o the Security Council for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

The Unitcd Nations ha5 authority tu enter into other international agreements. Thc United Nations has entered into international agrecrnents with individual States. The Security Council is authorizcd t o make certain decisions with regard to international peace and sccurity, and these decisions are, by Article 25, binding upon the Menibers of the United Nations. Moreover, Article 81 provides that the Orgarlization itself may bc designated as the administering authority of a trust territory.

It is of course clear that the Article confers s t least this capacity on tlie United Nations, but we submit i t js equally clear that the Article does not mean that the United Nations has only such domestic legal capacity and not capacity under international law.

In our view this Article can properly be interpreted t o require recognition by the Members in each of their territories both of capacity under i n t e r d law and of capacity under interriaiional law. Certain of these functions, for example, the capacity to sue in a private latv contract, or to possess land, require a legal capacity under municipal law. The recognition of international capacity may thus be said t o be properly, and even necessarily, comprehended within the obligation irnposed by this Article.

However, we wish t o make it clear that we do not rest our case on this intcrpretation alnne since, in our view, even if Article ro4 were nnt in the Charter, the United Nations woiild possess international juridical personality by virtue of the provisions of clze Charter taken as a wliole. There are still other indicia of international juridical pcrsonality present bot11 in the Charter and in the practice of States. Under this same Convention the United Nations ma? No Federal, State or local law or regulation of the United States which is inconsistent with a regulation of the United Nations authorizec1 by this Section shsll, t o the extent of such inconsistency, be appIicable within the headquarters district.

These are rights whicll would hasdly be granted to a mere private corporation, but only t o a legal permnality under international law. Under the Agreement between the United Nations and the United States, certain of the rnembers of tliese missions are cntitled to the same psivilcges and imrnunities as the United States accords to diplornatic envovs accreditcd to it.

It may bc remembered in passing that the United Nations has a Bag and an emblem recognized by Member States, and is considering the establishment of its own postal service. I t is instructive to note the differences in this regard betwecn the Cliarter of the United Nations aiid the Covenant of the League of Nations.

Thc Charter, as has heen said, refers over and over again to the United Nations ns an entity. For cxarnple, nowherc in the Covenant is the Lcague called "an organizntion", nor is there aily pro- vision simiIar to that of Article although the League did, of course, eiijoy inviolability of its premises. Contrast also Article 10 ol the. Covenant, in which the hfcmbers of the League undertakc to protect al1 Mernbcrs agaiizst aggression, and the Council i s only authorized to "advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled" ; contrasi this with Chapter ViS of the Charter in whicki the Security Councilis empowered t o determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breacli of the peace, or act of aggression, and may itself decide what rneasures shall be taken.

For example, such writers as Oppenheim, P. These functions and rights do not make of the Uni tcd Nations a super- State, aor indeecl cven a State, but they are certainly indicia of an inter- national juridical personality. Only a very srna11 minority of reputable writers of international law would support so extreme a statemcnt.

The Organization clearly has the right to negotiate with States and has in fact exercised this right continuously since its origin. The right of the United Nations to enter into agreements either with a large group of States or rvith a particular State has already ticen pointed out. Provision for such arbitration rvili be found in treaties and agreements in force, as for instance Scction 21 of the Headquarters Agreement betwcen the United Nations and the United States, and Section 27 of the Interim Arrangement between the United Nations and Switzerland.

Although by Article 34 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice the United Nations may not be a party in a case before this Court, its otgans, under Article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations, rnay reqiiest advisory opinions, and its representativcs nlay appear beforc the Court as is evidenced by the fact we are here to-day.

Mernbers of the Court will recognize that a n agreement of this kincl is incorporated into Section JO of the Convention on the Privileges and Irnrnunities of the Unitcd Nations. Section 30 is as follaws: The opinion given by the Court shall be accepted as decisivc bg the parties. The fact that for ' the exercisc of the right to arbitrate or t o submit a case for juclicial settlemcnt a specisl agreement or compromis between the United Nations and the clefendant State might be necessary, in no way derogates from the Iegal cspacity possessed by the United Nations in positive law.

The essence of legal personality is the capacity 1. It follows tlzat since the United Nations is a personality of international law, it lzas the capncity to enjoy inter- national legal rights. The international legal personality which we cal1 a State enjoys certain riglits iinder general or customary international law, in coilimon with otlier States, such as sovereignty, equality, etc. The international legal personality caIIed tlie United Nations sirnilarlp enjoys rights deriving both from gencral international law and conventional international law.

Thesc rights of the United Nat ions are not necessarily the same as those of States, although the11 rnay in certain circumstances be the same or sirnilar. Obviousty, there are certain of these rights, as, for example, sovereignty, which are not necessary and proper for the exercise of the functions of the international yersonality called the United Nations. On the otlier hand, there are certain other rights whicli States possess which must also be possessed by t h c United Nations if i t is to exercise the functions conferred on it. A few examples will sufice.

When the United Nations enters into an international agreement witli CL State, it is entitled to the right that the contracting State will fulfil the obligations of the agreement in accordance with the riile Pacta szk. If the United Nations were t o becorne the administering authority of a trust territory, it would seem obvious that its a d s in the exercise of this function rvould be entitled to the same recognil ion under the rules of international law as rvould those of a State whicli acted as an adrninistering authorit y of a tnist territory.

Let us 'cake another case, A striking instance would bc the case whete the Security Council foiind it necessary t o employ an international. It would be must extracirdinary t o say that this force could not rely an the protection of the gerieral i-ules of warfare establislled by international law.

Conventions and agreements relating to the United Nations have expressly recognized that sules of general international l a? Mie submit that this view is wholly in accordance with the needs of the modern international community, and with the progressive development of tlie international legal order. I t is not necessary in this proceeding to explore the whole catalogue of tlie substantive rights whicli the United Nations may enjoy under international law. I t is elementary that States possess a right to receive protection for their diplomatic and consular officials by the territorial sovereign.

Freedom from interference with this right to protection either through acts of violence by State officials, through failurc to provide protection from illegal acts of individuals, or through other delicts of a like orsimilar nature is indispensable to enable officials to carry out their functions. A riglit to special protection for those persons occupying officia1 positions is universally recognized in international law.

An inviolabiiity of the pcrson has been said to be tlie first riglit of diplomatic represen- tatives. Nevertheless, States have undertaken to. They are also bound to take special steps to forestail any assault against tlie persons of forcign representatives and to display particular energy in piirsuing the criminals and ensuring the proper course of justice. The reasons which underlie the right of a State to require protection for its officials, apply with equal force in the case of the United Nations.

The Member States have established an international organization, endowed as we have seen with international personality and authorized to carry out functions of high significance to international pcace and security. I t will bc recallecl that General Tellini was assassinated in Greece while serving on a border commission appointed by the Conference of Ambassadors.

In answer to the question "in what circumstances and to what estent is the responsibility of a State involved by the commission of a political crime in its territory", the Committee answerccl in part: In the Convention on Privileges and Immunities the officials of tlie United Nations are espressly accorded immunity from legal process for acts performed in their official capacity, and arc granted other privileges and immunities closely analogous to diplomatic privileges and immunities.

Sincc the right to protection against illegal acts is so firrnly established in international law, it was not neccssary expressly to mention it in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities, which was primarily designed to fiirnish immunity from legal acts of govern- ment. As was pointcd out by the Prcparatory Commission: The Report of Committee IV12 at San Francisco, after indicating that the terms "privileges" and "immunities" indicate in a generai way al1 that could be considered necessary to the realization of the purposes of the Organization, and the free functioning of its organs and to the independent exercise of the functions and duties of its officials, continues: But if there is one certain principle it is that no Member State may liinder in any way the working of the Organization or take any measures the effect of which might be to increase its burdens, financial or other.

The duty to provide protection is clearly included within the obligations imposed on Afember States by Article , and aiso by paragrapli 6 of Article 2, which requires that "al1 Membcrs shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter".

I t is not within the scope of the present question to discuss particular injuries that have occurred. But it may be pointed out that responsibility of a State toward the United Nations might also arise from violation of an espress or an implicd agreement at tlie time that a mission is sent to a particular area.

Buy for others

A violation of a trucc agreement, or a violation of an agreement for the movement of a yarticular convoy might aiso under certain circumstances rcsult in responsibility. The duty which the State lias to protcct United Nations agents is, of course, a duty owed to the Organization. Mihere special protection is accordcd to an individual because of his officia1 status, it is accorded to him not as an individual but as a representative of a State or as a representative of an international organization.

The privileges and irnmunities which are enumerated in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations are "grantecl to officials in the interest of the United Nations and not for the personal benefit of the individuals themselves" Article V, Section This may also be said to be the correct rule for other privileges granted to officials by general inter- national law and by Article of the Charter. I t is, therefore, binding alike on Member and non-member States.

May it please the Court. At the previous sitting we demonstratecl that the United Nations possesses international jiiridical personality and tliat it has procedural capacity to bring an international claim ; also that it possesses certain rights under international law, including the right to insist on the protection of its agents. I t follows, we submit, that the United Nations maj7 bring an international claim for reparation due in respect of damages caused to it as an Organization for the violation of its inter- national right of protection of its agents.

  • .
  • No customer reviews.
  • ?

The Permanent Court of International Justice in the Clzorz6w case pointed out that violation of an international right entails a duty t o make reparation for the clamage suffered thereby. The Court, as you will remember, said that "it is a principle of international law that the breach of agreement involves an obligation to make reparation in an adequate form.

Keparation therefore is an indispensable complement of a failure to apply a convention, and tliere is no necessity for this to bc stated in the convention itself. This principle that the breacl-i of an agreement involves an obligation. Elaborate citation is obviously unnecessary, and 1 need only refer to Article of the French Civil Code, whicli provides: This objec- tion was most succinctly stated by Spiropoulos, representative of Greece on the Sixth Committee, who stated: It was an established principle of international law that an injury to an alien constituted an injury to this State of which he was a national.

In the memorandum of the Secretary- General, it was stated that to the best knowledgc of the Secretariat, no situation esactly similar to the present cases had ever arisen. International law h x often been stated tcri be a primitive and incam- plete systenz. Nevertheless, its entire development has shown that it is a legal order, capable of growth and of adaptation to the changing needs of the States and of the international community.

Such n pririciple would reduce the judicial process of inter- national tribunals, such as this Court, to a mere mechanical listing of precedents and conventional stipulations. The history of international tribunals clearly refutes any such static and mechanistic conception. The 'L'ribunal then said: This is the method of jurisprudeizce. In answer t o the question: We shall discuss this nile at length later.

At this point it is sufficient to state that the general principles underlying this rule apply equally to the case of a claim by the United Nations. This case arises out of a new situation presented by the growth of international organization, in which the necds of tlie inter- national coniinunity require that a step fornard be taken for the protection of the agents of the community. Refarence has already been made to the TelLini case, involving thc assassination of the Italian representative on a border commission appainted by the Cariference of Ambassadors.

The arrogant rnethods adopted by the Mussolini Government towards Greece in this case, and the dispropnrtionate indemnity exacted, can hardly cornrnend themselves to the Mernbers of the Unitcd Nations. It is, however, significant that the Italian Government stated that the assassination involvcd the violation not only of its right, but also of the right of the Conference of Ambassadors.

  • The Book of The Animals - Mini - Episode 5 (Bilingual English-Portuguese) (The Book of The Animals - Mini (Bilingual))?
  • Des Lebens Wegzölle (German Edition).
  • !
  • Shit My (Wifes) Dog Does.
  • HOPE BEYOND TRAUMA...a mothers journey.
  • Chicken Killer.

Such apologies were duly made. This was said in j. The Court will also note the precedents relating to Upper Silesia and the Commission of the Danube, whose citation we owe to the Frcnch Govern- ment In its written staternent t o this Court. As we have said before, the question before the Court does not involve a cletermination of the reparaf ion due in the actual instances where injury hns occurred.

Zt m q be useful, horvever, to indicate briefly some of the ways in which the United Nations as an Organization rnay be damaged by an injury to its agent, and t o point out methods of repara- tian that are sanctioned by international 'law in respect t o such injury. Tllc Secretary- General in his memorandum stibmitted to the General hssembly stated in, respect t o claims of tbis nature: We now corne t o tlze aspect of the question beefre the Court rvhich received much attention in the Sixth Cornmittee: That is point b of the first question asked by the General Asscmbly.

This is even the inost usuai form of reparation.. The rules of law governing the reparation are tlie rules of internatiorzal law in force between the two States concerned, and not the law governing relations between the State which kas committed a wrongful act and the individual who lias suffered damage. The Court thcrc stated: See Vattel, l'lae Law of Natiolzs, text of , 3rd ed. The development of the law of protection of nationals over the past century has led modern writers to re-state its fundarnental postulate in the terrns of "the interest in rnaintaining a reasonable freedom of inter- national intercourse".

As one recent writer, Mr. Frederick Dunn, in his book The Yrotectio? Gooernments may be reliictant to cngage in international controversy becausc of injuries to their citizens in such circumstances. Even wlien there is no oreanization with primary rcsponsibility for their protcction, States have olten declined to press a claim for an injury to their nationals. Professor Jessup has recently written: The Foreign Offices of small States maj7 hcsitate to antagonize a powcrful rieighbour by pressing against it tlic claim of one of its nationals.

In most instances governmcnts may well prefer to let the United Nations handle the case. This lias already been shown to be true in respect of the injuries suffered by the Unitecl Nations' agents in Palestine. Moreover, thc officialsof the United Nations in the performance of their duties may cven bc exposed to the displeasure of tlieir own governments. I t therefore does not seem appropriate that they should have to rely solely on their own govemments for protection against injuries done to them in violation of international law.

In their capacity as agents of the United Nations they ought to be protected principally by the international organization which tliey scrve. Not only should an agent be able to look to the Organization for. The necessity of furnishing such protec- tion has been recognizecl, and the United Nations itself sent guards with the United Nations' Mission to Palestine. The United Xations has also made representations to the territorial sovereigns in order to rcquest special protection in certain instances.

If, notwithstanding these efforts to secure protcction, an agent is injured in circumstanccs involv- ing tlie responsibility of a State, it logically follows that the Organiza- tion has the right to claim reparation for an injury which has occurred from the violation of the obligations of the State. The right of the United Nations to make this claim need not rest solely on the analogy of nationality. In a claim arising from an injury to a private individual, nationality is the only nesus between tlic private individual and his government, but if the individual is abroad not as a private citizen but as an officia1 of his government, there is another Iink upon wliich the right to protection mag be based.

Although in most instances both nationality and agency CO-exist,and the latter is often submerged in the former, a careful analysis of cases involving reclamation for injuries suffered by persons in tlie service of governments reveals that a principle distinct from tliat of nationality is involved in thc latter instance, the principle of special protection of an officia1 representative. The typical cases are those in which injury is donc to an official of the State, particularly a consular or diplomatic official. The recognition accorded to their special status in traditional international law is extended because of their representative character and not because of their status as individuals, although a supplementary claiin may lie for the injiiry to the individual as sucti.

Thcse are al1 cases in whicli the ne. So here, although the ncxus of nationality may be missing, the basis for invoking tlic protection of the United Nations is present. If an officia1 of the United Nations is arrested in violation of the rights of the Organization, the United Nations will make representations to the government to secure his relcase. If necessary, as 1have said, it will address a rcquest for piotection. As alreacly pointed out, the proper functioning of missions of the United Nations requires that the Organization will assume primary responsibility for insisting upon the protection of its agents.

The responsibility cannot be left solely to the. That government, in many cases, has no control over the individual in question so far as his services to thc United Nations arc concerned. I t inay not even knom into what territory he has been sent, or the conditions of peril to which he has beeii esposed. The government of the territory in which thc agcnt functions will look to the United Nations itself to see that the agent comports himself properly, ancl the agent, in turn, tvill expect the United Nations to makc thc arrangements for his proper treatment with the territorial govcrnnicnt.

Under these circumstances, the right of protection of thc national government may in most instances wither away to a mere juridical fiction, and the agent be left without protection unless the United Nations has the right to insist on it. We have relied here on two significant analogies: In connexion with the analogy of protec- tion of nationals, we wish to make it clear that we are not pressing it to the estent that thc United Nations would, in aii circumstances, stand in the same rclationship to its agents as a Statc does to its national.

The question before the Court limits the issue to reparations for the injuries incurred "in the service of the United Nations". I t can be said here that the Secretary-General has nevcr consiclcrecl that such a claim niight be made. We are also well aware of the important part played by the rules of denial of justice and of csl-iaustion of local remedies in the subject of claims by States for injuries to their nationals. Kcrno has pointed out, thcse issues do not come into consideration here, because the question submitted by the Asscinbly assumes, as a premise, that the State is responsible.

In the discussioii of any individual claim which the Unitcd Nations might present, therc would be room for consider a t'ion as to whether these rules of denial of justice and exhaustion of local remedies arc applicable. I t should bc emphasized that we consider the analogy of special protection of officiais far more important to this case than the analogy of protection of nationals.

The latter analogy served mainly to illuminate the reasons for our contention and to show the procedure by whicli the right of special protection of United Nations' agents may bc vindicated. In this sense, however, it has considerable importance, because it shows the well-established rule that although the injury committed against the individual national is under international law an injury to the State, the measure of reparations to be recovered by the State is the lainage to thc individual.

This is what the Permanent Court of International Justice referred to as "tlie most usual form of reparation" and "a convenient scale for the calculation of the reparation due to the State".

Product details

Here lies tlic answer to the doubt expressed in the written statement of tlie United States to this Court p. With your permission 1 propose to spend a few moments analyzing this point of thc United States' statement. I t is said that: The statement then goes on to say that: Either tlie United Nations has the capacity to present a claim for injury to its agent, or it does not.

If it has not the capacity, how can it receive tliat capacity by thc mere fortuitous circumstance that the injured agent happens to be stateless? The only relevance of the fact of statelcssness woiild be tliat no claim by a State of nationality would need to be reconciled with the claim of the Unitcd Nations. So here, we submit that whcre the right of the United Nations to require protection of its agents has been violated, that the same "con- venient scalc for the calculation of the reparation" should be used. The application hcre of the usual rule would enable thc full rcparation for the wrong to be assessed and settled in one proceeding, without placing on the State of nationality the burden of going forward with a separate claim, and inconveniencing the responclent State with a second proceeding in which the facts would have to bc proved all over again.

The only factual reason for departing from the usual rule would be the possibility of conflict between the United Nations and the State of nationality. This point we shall consider later in connexion with the second question asked by the General Assembly. The United Nations has an international juridical personality, possessing, undcr international law, the right to insist on the protection of its agents in the course of their duties, together with thc procedural capacity to vindicate this right on the international plane.

Established rules of international law, the interests of the international community, and the strongest practical necessities lead, we rccpectfully submit, to an affirmative answer to the first question asked by the General As- sembly. This question presents both procc- dura1 and doctrinal aspects. In most instances, as has already been pointed out, it is believed that the Statc of which the victim is a national will prefer that the United Nations should bring a claim. For examplc, the representative of Sweden on the Sixth Committee said that "the impression made in my country by the death in the service of the United Nations of one of its foremost citizens was still very strong.

Sweden did not, for the moment a t least, intend to takc direct action. Shat attitude should not be interpreted to mean that Sweden considered there was no doubt as to the legal competence of the United Nations t o take such action. However, in order to abviate tlzat, the United Nations might consult with the State concerned and corne to some agreement with regard to the alloca- tion of reparations. It may be of assistance to the Court if I review very brieffy tlic prece- dents in the matter of confficting claims. Where the individual injured has the nation: This is the well-known rule of the Cmzcvaro c n m.

Scott, Hague Court Reports, , p. Case of Baron de Born u. Serb-Croat-Slovene State, 6 T. In the Salem d a i m involving the. United States and Egypt, in wliich 1 believe Judge Badawi Pasha was a mernber of the tribunal, it was declarecl in effect that a dispute as to citizensliip rnay not be taken advantage of by a third Power not a party to the difference. Nielsen has summarized the situation as follows: Wliile neither of the two countries whose laws conflict can claim the aIlegiance of such a person to the exclusion of the other, the principle governing a case of that kind is not applicable t o the case of a person who may have a dual allegiance, but who is not a national of a respondent government against whidi a claim is presented.

As an oficinI, ei ther of a foreign govcrnment or of tlie United Nations, he is entitled to special protection whicl-i he cannot claim as a. The primary ncxus in these instances is tlint of service and not of nationnlity. Our analysis, therefore, leads to the coridusion that, cxccpt where the injurcd agent is a national of thc sespondent State, the claim of thc Unitcd Nations would have priority over the clainl of the Statc of bvhich the officia1 is a national.

We do not, horvever, take a definite stand in favour of this conclusiori, since as a. There remailis t o bc considered the situation in which the injured United Nations agent is a national of the respondent State. That statement points out tliat the obligation of klembers to afford assistance and protection to United Nations missions operating in their territory relates equally to any member of the mission wlio is one of their own nationals, and is not in any way diminislied or cancelled by reason of the fact of such nationality.

If so, however, then clearly the State concernecl cannot, or ought not to be pcrrnitted to plead the nation- ality of the injured party as a defence to any international claim which inay be brought on liis behalf by the Organization. At the same time, we desire to make it clear that the Secretary-General woiild consicler the presentation of a claim against the State of the victim's nationality as a niatter of delicacy and woulcl most carefully meigh al1 relevant consiclerations before proceeding fiirther.

President, yesterday you invited us iiot only to give reasons for our points of view but also to suggest to the Court the appropriate answers to the questions asked by the General Assernbly. With al1 due deference we suggest that the following answers should be 5' wen. To the first question our answer would be tliis: