8/12/2019 CIG Parere 1949

1/15

INTERN TION L COURT OF JUSTICE

YEAR 1949April llth 1949

R E P A R A T I O N FOR INJURIESSUFFERED IN THE S E R V I C EOF THE UNITED NAl IONS

l~ t jr ivi es st tgered b y agents of Un ited Na tio ns i n course of per-formance of dttties.-Damage to U ni te d Nations.-D afnage fo agents.-Capacity of U nite d Na tio ns to bring claim s for re avation duei n respect of both.-International perso nality of Un ite d Natton s.-Capacity as necessary implication arising from CAnrtev and actiai t iesof U ni te d Na tion s.-F unc tion al protection of agents.-Clnim aga insta Mevnber of the U ni te d 1Vations.-Claim aga inst n non-~izew ~bcv.-Reconcil iat ion of claim b y ?zutional State and claim by Un ited Natzons.-Clailn by Un ited Na tio ns ngainst agent 's national Statr.

ADVISORY OPINION.

1949.April I theneral ListNo 4

Present President BASDEVANT Vice-President GUERREROudges ALVAREZ FABELA HAC KWO RTH INIAR SKIZORICIC E VISSCHER ir Arnold MCNAIRKLAESTADBADAWIPASHA KRYLOV EAD HSU MO AZEVEDO.

8/12/2019 CIG Parere 1949

2/15

O P I N . O F V 9 REP.IKATIOS FOR ISJCKIICS SCPFERED) I jTHEC O U R T ,composed as above,gives the folloming ad1-iory opinion :On Decenlber 3rd, 1948, the General Xssc.mbl'- of t h , Uilitccl

Nations adopted the following KcsolutionLVhereas the series of tragic el*ents ahicli 1iax.e lately befallenagents of the United Nations engaged in the performance of tlieirduties raises, with greater urgency than ever, the question of

the arrangements to be made by the l-nited Sations with a viewto ensuring to its agents the fiillest Ineasiire o f protection in thefuture and ensiiring that reparation be made for the injuriessuffered ; and\Vhereas it is highly desirable tliat the Secretar\ .-Gc~itral lioiiltlbe able to act withoiit question as eificacioiisly as possible \vit11a view to obtaining any reparation dile ; tlieretoreThe General AssenlblyDecides to siibmit the following legal questions to tlie Inter-

national Court of Justice for an acivisor>- opinion1. I n the event of an agent of the United Xatioiis in theperformance of his duties suffering injury i n circiimstancesiilvolving the responsibility of a State, has the United Sations,as an Or-ganization, the capacity to bring an interiiatio~ia:claim against the responsible de jure or de facto governilientwith a view to obtaining the reparation due in respect o f tlieclamage caused (a) to the United Xations, h ) to tlie \ictinior to perons entitled tlirough himII. In the event of an affirmative reply on point 1 b ) , howis action by the United Nations to be reconcilecl \vit11 siiclirights as niay be possessed hy the State of wliicli the xictiniis a national ?Instructs the Secretary-General, after the Court lias gi\-en itsopinion, t o prepare proposais in the liglit of tliat opinion, and tosubmit thein to the General Assembly at its nest regiilar session.

I n a le tter of December 4th , 1948, filed in the Registry onDecember 7 th , th e Secretary-General of the United ,Vations for-warded t o th e Court a certified tr ue copy of the liesoliitioii ofthe General Assembly. On December ~ o t h ,11 accor(1ance ni t hparagraph of Article 66 of the Statu te, the Kegistrar gave noticeof the Request t o al1 Sta tes entitled to appear before t he Court.On Ilecember r ~ t h , y ineans of a special and direct commiini-cation as provided in paragraph of Article 66, he informed theseStates thnt, in an Ortler made on the sanie date, the Court had

8/12/2019 CIG Parere 1949

3/15

stated that it was prepared to receive written statements on thequestions before February q t h , 1949 and to hear oral statementson March 7th, 1949.Written statements were received from the following StatesIndia, China, United States of Amenca, United Kingdom ofGreat Bntain and Northern Ireland, and France. These state-ments were communicated to al1 States entitled to appear before theCourt and to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. 111the meantime, the Secretary-General of the United Nations,having regard to Article 65 of the Statute (paragraph 2 of whichprovides that every- question submitted for an opinion shall beaccompanied by al1 documents likely to throw light upon it), hadsent to the Registrar the documents whkh are enumerated in thelist annexed to this Opinion.Furthermore, the Secretary-General of the United Nations andthe Governments of the French Republic, of the United Kingdomand of the Kingdom of Belgium informed the Court that theyhad designated representatives to present oral statements.

In the course of public sittings held on March 7th, 8th and g t h1949 he Court heard the oral statements presentedon bel-ialf of the Secretary-General of the United Nations byMr. Ivan Kerno, Assistant Secretary-General in charge of theLegal Department as his Representative, and by Mr. A H. Feller,Principal Director of that Department, as Counsel ;on behalf of the Government of the Kingdom of Kelgiurn, byM. Georges Kaeckenbeeck, D.C.L., Minister Plenipotentiary ofHis Majesty the King of the Belgians, Head of the Divisioii forPeace Conferences and International Organization at the JIinistryfor Foreign Affairs, Member of the Permanent Court of Xrbitrationon behalf of the Government of the French Iiepublic, byM. Charles Chaumont, Professor of Public International Law a tthe Faculty of Law, Nancy Legai Adviser to the Ministry forForeign Affairson behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom of GreatBritain and Northern Ireland by Mr. G. G. Fitzmaurice, SecondLegal Adviser to the Foreign Office.

The first question asked of the Court is as folbws"In the event of an agent of the Cnited Sations in tlie per-formance of his duties suffering injury in circumstances involvingthe responsibility of a State, has the United Xations, as anOrganization, the capacit . to bring an international cln in i :igain.;t

8/12/2019 CIG Parere 1949

4/15

the responsible de jure or de in fo government with a view toobtaining the reparation due in respect of the damage causeda ) to the United Nations, b) to the victim or to perons entitledthroiigh him ?I t will be useful to make the follolving preliminary observationsa) The Organization of the United Kations \vil1 be referred tousually, but not invariably, as the Organization .b ) Questions (a) and b ) refer to an international claimagainst the responsible de iure or de facto government . The Court

understands that these questions are directed to claims against aState, and will, therefore, in this opinion, use the expression Stateor clefendant State .c ) The Court uilderstands the word agent in the most liberalsense, that is to say, any person who, whether a paid officia1 or not,and whether permariently employed or not, has been charged byan organ of the Organization with carrying out, or helping to carryout, one of its functions-in short, any person through ~vhomt acts.d ) As this question assumes an injury suffered in such circum-stances as to involve a State's responsibility, it must be supposed,

for the purpose of this Opinion, that the damage results from afailure by the State to perform obligations of which the purposeis to protect the agents of the Organization iil the performance oftheir duties.e) The position of a defendant State which is not a member ofthe Organization is dealt with later, and for the present the Courtwill assume that the defendant State is a Member of the Organization.

The questions asked of the Court relate to the capacity to bringan international claim ; accordingly, ive must begin by definingwhat is meant by that ccipacitj', and coiisider the characteristicsof the Organization, so as to determine whether, in general, thesecharacteristics do, or do not, iiicIiide for the Organization a right topresent an international claim.Competence to bring an international claim is, for those possessirigit, the capacity to resort to the customary methods recognized byinternational law for the establishment, the preseritation and the

settlement of claims. Among these inethods inay be nit,iitionedprotest, request for an enquiry, negotiation, and reqiiest for sub-mission to an arbitral tribunal or to the Court in so far s this maybe authorized by the Statute.This capacity certainly belongs to the State ; a Statcl cari briiig aninternational claim against another State. Such a claim takes theform of a claim between two political entitit.5, cqiial i i l la\\., similar

8/12/2019 CIG Parere 1949

5/15

O P I N . O F I V 49 R E PS R AT IO N F O R I N J U R I E S SGFFERED) 78in form, and both the direct subjects of international law. I t isdealt with by means of negotiation, and cannot, in the present stateof the law as to international jurisdiction, be submitted to a tribunal,except with the consent of the States concerned.

When the Organization brings a claim against one of i ts Members,this claim will be presented in the same manner, and regulatedby the same procedure. I t may, when necessary, be supportedby the political means a t the disposa1 of the Organization. Inthese ways the Orgznization would find a method for securingthe observance of its rights by the Member against which it hasa claim.But, in the international sphere, has the Organization sucha nature as involves the capacity to bring an international clnimIn order to answer this question, the Court must first enquirewhether the Charter has given the Organization such a positionthat it possesses, in regard to its Members, rights which i t is entitledto ask them to respect. In other words, does the Organizationpossess international personality This is no doubt a doctrinalexpression, which has so,netimes given rise to controversy. Butit will be used here to mean tha t if the Organization is recognizedas having that personality, it is an entity capable of availing itselfof obligations incumbent upon i ts Members.

To answer this question, which is not settled by the actualterms of the Charter, we must consider what characteristics itwas intended thereby to give to the Organization.The subjects of law in any legal system are not necessarilyidentical in their nature or in the extent of their rights, and theirnature depends upon the needs of the community. Throughoutits history, r;ie development of international law has been influencedby the requirements of international life, and the progressiveincrease in the collective activities of States has already given riseto instances of action upon the international plane by certainentities which are not States. This development culminatedin the establishment in June 945 of an international organizationwhose purposes and principles are specified in the Charter of theUnited Nations. But to achieve these ends the attribution ofinternational personality is indispensable.The Charter has not been content to make the Organizationcreated by i t merely a centre for harmonizing the actions of nationsin the attainment of these common ends (Article 1, para. 3 .It has equipped that centre with organs, and has given it specialtasks. It has defined the position of the Members in relation tothe Organization by requiring them to give it every assistance inany action undertaken by it (Article 2, para. 5) , and to accept andcarry out the decisions of the Security Council by authorizing theGeneral Assembly to make recornmendations to the Members

S

8/12/2019 CIG Parere 1949

6/15

8/12/2019 CIG Parere 1949

7/15

damage caused by the injury of an agent of the Organization inthe course of the performance of his duties. Whereas a Statepossesses the totality of international nghts and duties recognizedby international law, the rights and duties of an entity such asthe Organization must depend upon its purposes and functionsas specified or implied in i ts constituent documents and developedin practice. The functions of the Organization are of such acharacter that they could not be effectively discharged if theyinvolved the concurrent action, on the international plane, offifty-eight or more Foreign Offices, and the Court concludes thatthe Members h a ~ e ndowed the Organization with capacity tobring international claims when necessitated by the discharge ofits functions.What is the position as regards the claims mentioned in therequest for an opinion ? Question is divided into two points.which must be considered in turn.

Question (a) is as followsIn the event of an agent of the United Nations in the per-

formance of his duties suffering injury in circumstances involvingthe responsibility of a State, has the United' Nations, as anOrganization, the capacity to bring an international claim againstthe responsible de jure or e f cto government with a view toobtaining the reparation due in respect of the damage caused(a) t o the United Nations ?The question is concerned solely with the reparation of damagecaused to the Organization when one of i ts agents suffers injury atthe same tirne. I t cannot be doubted that the Organization has thecapacity to bnng an international claim against one of its Mem-

bers which has caused injury t o it by a breach of its internationalobligations towards it . The damage specified in Question (a)means exclusively damage caused to the interests of the Organiza-tion itself, to its administrative machine, to its property andassets, and to the interests of which it is the guardian. I t is clearthat the Organization has the capacity to bring a claim for tliisdamage. As the claim is based on the breach of an internationalobligation on the part of the Member held responsible by the Organ-ization, the Member cannot contend that this obligation is governedby municipal law, and the Organization is justified in giving itsclaim the character of an international claim.

When the Organization has sustained damage resulting from abreach by a Member of its international obligations, it is impossibleto see how it can obtain reparation unless it possesses capacity tobring an international claim. I t cannot be supposed tha t in suchan event al1 the Members of the Organization, Save the defendantO

8/12/2019 CIG Parere 1949

8/15

OPIN . OF I V 49 REPARATION FOR INJURIES SUFFERED 8State, must combine to bring a claim against the defendant for thedamage suffered by the Organization.

The Court is not called upon to determine the precise extent ofthe reparation which the Organization would be entitled to recover.I t may, however, be said that the measure of the reparation shoulddepend upon the amount of the damage which the Organizationhas suffered as the result of the wrongful act or omission of thedefendant State and should be calculated in accordance with therules of international law. Amongst other things, this damagewould include the reimbursement of any reasonable compensationwhich the Organization had to pay to its agent or to persons entitledthrough him. Again, the death or disablement of one of its agentsengaged upon a distant mission might involve very considerableexpenditure in replacing him. These are mere illustrations, andthe Court cannot pretend to forecast al1 the kinds of damage whichthe Organization itself might sustain.

Question 1 b) is as follows :.... has the United Nations, as an Organization, the capacity tobring an international claim in respect of the damage caiisedb) to the victim or to persons entitled through him ?

In dealing with the question of law which arises out of Question1 b ) , it is unnecessary to repeat the consideations which led to anaffirmative answer being given to Question 1 (a). It can now beassumed tha t the Organization has the capacity t o bring a claim onthe international plane, to negotiate, to conclude a special agreementand to prosecute a claim before an international tribunal. The onlylegal question which remains to be considered is whether, in thecourse of bringing an international claim of this kind, the Organiza-tion can recover the reparation due in respect of the damage caused.... to the victim .The traditional rule that diplomatic protection is exercised bythe national State does not involve the giving of a negative answerto Question 1 b).In the first place, this rule applies to claims brought by a State.But here we have the different and new case of a claim that wouldbe brought by the Orgaiiization.

In the second place, even in inter-State relations, there are impor-tant exceptions to the rule, for there are cases in which protectionmay be exercised by a State on behalf of perons not having itsnationalit y.In the third place, the rule rests on two bases. The first is thatthe defendant State has broken an obligation towards the nationalState in respect of its nationals. The second is that only the pnrty

8/12/2019 CIG Parere 1949

9/15

to whom an international obligation is due can bring a claim inrespect of its breach. This is precisely what happens when theOrganization, in bringing a claim for damage suffered by its agent,does so by i~lvoking he breach of an obligation towards itself.Thus, the rule of the nationality of claims affords no reason againstrecognizing that the Organization has the right to bring a claim forthe damage referred to in Question b). On the contrary, theprinciple underlying this rule leads to the recognition of this capacityas belonging to the Organization, when the Organization invokes, a sthe ground of its claim, a breach of an obligation towards itself.

Nor does the analogy of the traditional riile of diplomatic protec-tion of nationals abroad justify in itself an affirmative reply. I tis not possible, by a strained use of the concept of allegiance,to assimilate the legal bond nrhich exists, under -Article IOO ofthe Charter, between the Organization on the one hand, and theSecretary-General and the staff on the other, to the bond ofnationality existing between a State and its ~lationals.The Court is here faced with a new situation. The questions

to which it gives rise can only be solved bp realizing that the situa-tion is donlinated by the provisions of the Charter considered inthe light of the principles of international law.The question lies within the limits already established; that isto Say it presupposes that the injury for which the reparation isdemanded arises from a brearh of an obligation designed to help anagent of the Organization in the performance of his duties. l t isnot a case in which the wrongful act or omission would merelyconstitute a breach of the general obligations of a State concerningthe position of aliens; claims made under this head \vould be withinthe cornpetence of the national State and not, as a gcneral rule,within that of the Organiza t on.The Charter does not expressly confer upon the Organizationthe capacity to include, in its claim for reparation, damage caiisedto the victim or to perons entitled through him. I he Court musttherefore begin by enqiiiring whether the provisions of the Charterconcerning the functions of the Organization, and the part playedby i ts agents in the performance of those functions, imply forthe Organization power to afford its agents the limited protectionthat would consist in the bringing of a claim on their behalf forreparation for damage suffered in such circumstances. Underinternational law, the Organization must be deemed to have thosepowers which, though not expressly provided in the Charter, areconferred iipon it by necessary implication. as being essential tothe performance of its duties. This principle of law was appliedby the Permanent Court of International Justice to the InternationalLabour Organization in its -4dvisory Opinion No. 13 of July 23rd,

2

8/12/2019 CIG Parere 1949

10/15

1926 (Series B., o. 13 p. 18), nd must be applied to the UnitedNations.Having regard to its purposes and functioris already referredto, the Organization may find it necessary, and has in fact foundit necessary, t o entrust its agents with important missions t obe performed in disturbed parts of the world. Many missions,from their very nature, involve the agents in unusual dangersto which ordinary persons are not exposed. For the same reason,the injuries suffered by its agents in these circumstances willsometimes have occurred in such a manner that their nationalState would not be justified in bringing a claim for reparationon the ground of diplomatic protection, or, at any rate, wouldnot feel disposed to do so. Both to ensure the efficient andindependent performance of these missions and to afford effectivesupport to its agents, the Organization must provide them withadequate protection.This need of protection for the agents of the Organization,as a condition of the performance of its functions, has alreadybeen realized, and the Preamble to the Resolution of December 3rd,1948 supra,p. 175), shows that this was the unanimous view ofthe General Assembly.For this purpose, the Members of the Organization have enteredinto certain undertakings, some of which are in the Charter andothers in complementary agreements. The content of theseundertakings need not be described here but the Court muststress the importance of the duty to render to the Organizationevery assistance which is accepted by the Rlembers in Article 2,paragraph 5 of the Charter. It must be noted that the effectiveworking of the Organization-the accomplishment of its task,and the independence and effectiveness of the work of its agents-require that these undertakings should be strictly observed.For that purpose, it is necessary that, when an infringementoccurs, the Organization should be able t o cal1 upon the responsibleState to remedy its default, and, in particular, to obtain fromthe State reparation for the damage that the default may havecaused to its agent.In order that the agent may perform his duties satisfactorily,he must feel that this protection is assured to him by the Organi-zation, and that he may count on it. To ensure the independenceof the agent, and, consequently, the independent action of theOrganization itself, it is essential that in performing his dutieshe need not have to rely on any other protection than that ofthe Orginization (save of course for the more direct and immediateprotection due from the State in whose territory he may be).In particular, lie should not have to rely on the protection of hisown State. If he had to rcly on thnt State, his independencemight w-eil be compi-omised, contrary to the principle appliedby Article ~ o of the Charter. And lastly, it is essential that-

8/12/2019 CIG Parere 1949

11/15

whether the agent belongs to a powerful or to a weak State; toone more affected or less affected, by the complications of inter-national life; t o one in syrnpathy o r#n ot in sympathy with themission of the agent-he should know that in the performanceof his duties he is under the protection of the Organization. Thisassurance is even more necessary when the agent is stateless.Upon examination of the character of the functions entrustedto the Organization and of the nature of the missions of its agents,it becomes clear that the capacity of the Organization to exercisea measure of functional protection of i ts agents arises by necessaryintendment out of the Charter.The obligations entered into by States to enable the agents ofthe Organization to perform their duties are undertaken not inthe interest of the agents, but in that of the Organization. Il'henit clairns redress for a breach of these obligations, the Organizationis invoking its own right, the right that trie obligations due to itshould be respected. On this ground, it asks for reparation ofthe injury suffered, for it is a principle of international lav thatthe breach of an engagement involves an obligation to makereparation in an adequate form ; as was stated bv the PermanentCourt in its Judgment No. 8 of July 26th, 1927 (Series A. No. g

p. 21). In claiming reparation based oii the injury suffered byits agent, the Organization does not represent the agent, but isasserting its own right, the right to secure respect for undertakingsentered into towards the Organization.Having regard to the foregoing considerations, and to the un-deniable right of the Organization to demand tliat it s Membersshall fulfil the obligations entered into by them in the interest ofthe good working of the Organization, the Court is of the opinionthat, in the case of a breach of these obligations, the Organizationhas the capacity to claim ad.equate reparation, and that in assessingthis reparation it is authorized to include the darnage suffered bythe victini or by persons entitled through him.

The question remains whether the Organization has the capacityto bring an international claim against the responsible de jure orde f cto government with a view to obtaining the reparation duein respect of the damage caused (a) to the United Nations, b )to the victim or to persons entitled through him when the defen-dant State is not a member of the Organization.In considering this aspect of Question 1 (a) and b ) , it is neces-sary to keep in mind the reasons which liave led the Court togive an affirmative answer to it when the defendant State is aMember of the Organization. I t has now been established thatthe Organization has capacity to bring ciaims on the international

8/12/2019 CIG Parere 1949

12/15

plane, arid that it possesses a right of functio~ialprotection inrespect of its agents. Here again the Court is authorized to assumetha t the damage suffered involves the responsibility of a State,and it is not called upon to express an opinion upon the variousways in which that responsibility might be engaged. Accordinglythe question is whether the Organization has capacity to bring aclaim against the defendant State to recover reparation in respectof that damage or whether, on the contrary, the defendant State ,not being a member, is justified in raising the objection that theOrganization lacks the capacity to bring an international claim.On this point, the Court's opinion is tha t fifty States, rcpresentingthe vast majority of the members of the international community,had the power, in conformity with international law, to bring intobeing an entity possessing objective international personality, andnot merely personality recognized by them alone, together withcapacity to bring international claims.Accordingly, the Court arrives at the conclusion that ail affir-mative answer should be given to Question 1 a) and b) whetheror not the defendant State is a Member of the United Xations.

Question II is as follo~vsIn the event of an affirmative reply on point O ) , iow isaction by the Cnited Xations to be reconciled u i t h siicli rights as

may be possessed by the State of which tlie victim is a national ?The affirmative reply given by the Court on point b) obligesit now to examine Question I I. When the victim has a ilationality,cases can clearly occur in which the injury suffered by him mayengage the interest both of his national State and of the Organ-ization. In such an event, competition between the State's rightof diplomatic protection and the Organization's right of functionalprotection might arise, and this is the only case with which theCourt is invited to deal.In such a case, there is no rule of lan n:hich assigns priorityto the one or to the other, or which compels either the State orthe Organization to refrain from br i~ gi ng n international claim.

8/12/2019 CIG Parere 1949

13/15

The Court sees no reason why the parties concerned should notfind solutions inspired by goodwill and common sense, and asbetween the Organization and its Members it draws attention totheir duty to render every assistance provided by -4rticle 2paragraph 5 of the Charter.hlthoiigh the bases of the two claims are different, that doenot mean that the defendant State can be compelled to pay thereparation due in respect of the damage twice over. Internationaltribunals are already familiar with the problem of a claim in whichtwo or more national States are interested. and thev know how toprotect the defendant State in such a case.The risk of competition between the Organization and thenational State can be reduced or eliminated either by a generalconvention or by agreements entered into in each particular case.There is no doubt that in due course a practice will be developed,and i t is worthy of note that already certain States whose nationalshave been iniured in the ~erformanceof missions undertaken forthe Organization have shown a reasonable and CO-operativedisposi-tion to find a practical solution.

The question of reconciling action by the Organizatiori with therights of a national State may arise in another wdy that is to say,when the agent bears the nationality of the defendant State.The ordinary practice whereby a State does not exercise protcc-tion on behalf of one of it s nationals against a State which regardshim as its own national, does not constitute a precedent which isrelevant here. The action of the Organization is in fact based notupon the nationality of the victim but upon his status as agent ofthe Organization. Therefore i t does not inatter whether or notthe State to which the claim is addressed regards him as its ownnational, because the question of nationality is not pertinent tothe admissibility of the claim.In law, therefore, it does not seem that the fact of the possessionof the nationality of the defendant State by the agent constitutesany obstacle to a claim brought by the Organization for a breach ofobligations towards it occurring in relation to the performance ofhis mission by that agent.

8/12/2019 CIG Parere 1949

14/15

The Court is of opinionO n Ques tion I a)

i) unaiiimously,That , in the event of an agent of the United Nations in theperformance of his duties suffering injury in circumstancesinvolving the responsibility of a Member State, the United Nations

as an Organization has the capacity to bring an international claimagainst the responsible de jzwe or de facto government with a view toobtaining the reparation due in respect of the damage Ca us e to theUnited Nations.ii) unanimously,

That , in the event of an agent of the United Nations in theperformance of his duties suffering injury in circumstances involvingthe responsibilit of ii Statc which is not a member, the UnitedNations as an Organization has the capacity to bring an inter-national claim against the responsible e jure or e facto governmentwith a view to obtaining the reparation duc in respect of the damagecaused to the United Nations.O n Ques tion b)

i) by eleven votes agairist four,That , in the event of an agent of the United Xations theperformance of his duties suffering injury in circumstances iiivol\.ing

the responsibility of a Member Statc, the United Satioiis as anOrganization ha.; the capacity to bring an international claimagainst the responsible de jure or ti e f cto government nith viewto obtaining the reparation due in respect of the darnage causedto the victim or to persons entitled through him.ii) by eleven votes against four,

That , in the event of an agent of the United Nations in theperformance of his duties suffering iiijury in circumstances involvingthe responsibility of a State which is not a member, the UnitedNations as an Organization has the capacity to bring an inter-national claim against the responsible e jure or de acte governmentwith a view to obtaining the reparation duc in respect of thedamage caused to the victim or to persons entitled through him.

8/12/2019 CIG Parere 1949

15/15

OPIK. OF I V 49 REPAR- TI OS OR ISJCKIES S C F F I ~ R I ~ D )88On uestion

By ten votes against fi~ve,IVhen the United Nations as an Organization is bringing a claimfor reparation of damage caused to its agent, it can only do soby basing it s claim upon breach of obligations due to itselfrespect for this rule wrill usually prevent a conflict between theaction of th e United Sations and such rights as the agent snational State may possess, and thus bring about a reconciliationbetween their clairns moreovcr, this reconciliation must depend

upon considerations applicable to each particular case, and uponagreements to be made between the Organization and individualStates, either generally or in each case.

Done in English and French, thc English test being nuthoritntive,at the Peace Palace, The Hague, this eleventh day of .-\pril, onethousaiid nine huridred and forty-nine, in t~ v o opie