§4

International Organizations

A. GENERAL; PERSONALITY AND CAPACITY

Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (International Maritime Organization)

On May 20, 1980, President Carter transmitted to the Senate, for advice and consent to United States acceptance, amendments to the Convention on the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization, signed at Geneva on March 6, 1948 (the IMCO Convention), which the Organization's Assembly had adopted on November 15, 1979, at its eleventh session.

The amendments completed a process that, beginning at the fifth extraordinary session of the Assembly in 1974, updated the Convention to correspond to growth in IMCO membership from 21 States in 1958, when the Convention entered into force, to 113 States in 1979. (For amendments adopted at the Assembly's ninth and tenth sessions, in 1975 and 1977, transmitted to the Senate for advice and consent to acceptance on May 3, 1979, see the 1979 Digest, pages 175-189.)

The President's letter pointed out that the expansion in IMCO membership had given rise to concern that the IMCO Council did not give adequate representation to member States within its existing structure. Three of the four 1979 amendments sought to address this problem by: (1) increasing the number of IMCO Council members; (2) providing for distribution of Council membership among member States with interests in international shipping, international seaborne trade, and other special interests in maritime transport or navigation; and (3) increasing the size of the Council quorum. The fourth amendment provides for a member State to give notification of its withdrawal from IMCO, if an amendment that it strongly opposes is accepted by two-thirds of the IMCO member States. When submitting the IMCO amendments to the President on May 7, 1980, Acting Secretary of State Warren Christopher summarized their provisions as follows:

Three of the four amendments adopted by the Assembly in 1979 concern the expansion of the IMCO Council from 24 to 32 members. This was considered necessary to ensure adequate representation on the Council. Membership in IMCO has expanded from 21 Member States when the Convention entered into force in 1958 to 113 Member States in 1979.

First, Article 17 (renumbered as Article 16 under the 1977 Amendments, which have not yet come into force) was amended to state that the Council shall be composed of thirty-two members elected by the Assembly.

Second, Article 18 (renumbered as Article 17 under the 1977

amendments) was amended to provide for the distribution of the expanded Council among three categories of States. Eight members shall be States with the largest interest in providing international shipping services, eight shall be other States with the largest interest in international seaborne trade, and sixteen shall be States not otherwise elected which have special interests in maritime transport or navigation and whose election will ensure the representation of all major geographic areas.

Third, Article 20 (renumbered as Article 19 under the 1977 amendments) was amended to increase from sixteen to twenty-one the number of Council members required to constitute a quorum. The fourth amendment concerns withdrawal from IMCO. Article 51 (renumbered as Article 66 under the 1977 amendments) was amended to provide that if a member gives notification of withdrawal from IMCO on account of an amendment to the IMCO Convention, such withdrawal will take effect on the date of entry into force of the amendment, provided that such notification takes place within 60 days of the acceptance of the amendment by twothirds of the IMCO membership.

S. Ex. K, 96th Cong., 2d sess. (1980), p. v.

For the reports of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, recommending that the Senate give its advice and consent to acceptance of the amendments adopted by the IMCO Assembly on Nov. 15, 1979 at its eleventh session, see S. Ex. Rept. No. 96-51, 96th Cong., 2d sess. (1980), and S. Ex. Rept. No. 97-20, 97th Cong., 1st sess. (1981).

On July 30, 1981, by a vote of 98 yeas to no nays, with two Senators not voting, the Senate gave its advice and consent to U.S. acceptance of the IMCO amendments transmitted with S. Ex. K, 96th Cong., 2d sess. (1980). Cong. Rec., Vol. 127, No. 117 (daily ed. July 30, 1981), pp. S8809-S8810.

TIAS ; entered into force, Nov. 10, 1984.

The amendments to the Convention on the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (International Maritime Organization), adopted by its Assembly at its tenth session on Nov. 17, 1977, also entered into force on Nov. 10, 1984; see the 1979 Digest, pp. 175-189.

The title of the Convention was changed to the Convention on the International Maritime Organization by the 1975 amendments, and became effective May 22, 1982.

United Nations Industrial Development Organization On January 17, 1980, the Constitution of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), adopted by consensus by the United Nations Conference on the Establishment of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization as a Specialized Agency on April 8, 1979, was signed on behalf of the United States (TIAS ; entered into force, June 21, 1985).

The Constitution, without creating a new entity, changed UNIDO's status as an autonomous organ of the United Nations General Assembly to that of an independent specialized agency of the United Nations, and, by revising its existing legal framework and governing machinery, gave greater control over its programming and budgetary determinations to its major contributors, the United States, the other industrial democracies, and the Soviet bloc.

Article 13 of the Constitution required that UNIDO maintain two budgets, the "Operational Budget", financed by voluntary contributions, and the "Regular Budget", financed by assessments. While technical assistance activities would be financed, in general, from the Operational Budget, six percent of the regular budget would be allocated automatically to technical assistance activities.

Article 14 required that all program and budgetary questions be reviewed by the Program and Budget Committee (PBD) and by the Industrial Development Board (IBD), established by Articles 9 and 10 of the Constitution, respectively, before being presented to the Conference, the plenary body of UNIDO.

Under Article 23, an amendment to the financial and budgetary articles can only come into force after being recommended by a two-thirds vote of all members of the Industrial Development Board, approved by a two-thirds vote of all Members of the Conference, and ratified by three-fourths of the Members of the Organization.

Article 25 of the Constitution provided that it would enter into force when at least eighty States had ratified it and had, after consulting among themselves, notified the United Nations SecretaryGeneral that they had agreed the Constitution was to enter into force. The practical effect of the clause was to ensure that the Constitution would not enter into effect without the ratification of the developed countries whose financial support is essential to the functioning of UNIDO as a Specialized Agency.

President Ronald Reagan transmitted the UNIDO constitution to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification on Oct. 5, 1981.

S. Treaty Doc. No. 97-19, 97th Cong., 1st sess. (1981), p. 4.

For reports of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, see S. Ex. Rept. No. 97-59, 97th Cong., 2d sess. (1982), and S. Ex. Rept. No. 98-2, 98th Cong., 1st sess. (1983). The Senate voted its advice and consent to ratification with understandings on June 21, 1983. See Cong. Rec., Vol. 129, No. 88, June 21, 1983, pp. S8813-S8814.

World Health Organization

Proposed Transfer of Eastern Mediterranean Regional
Office

On December 20, 1980, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion in which, by a vote of twelve to one, it held, first, that should the World Health Organization decide to remove its Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office from Alexandria, Egypt, both the Organization and Egypt would be legally obliged to "consult together in good faith as to the question under what conditions and in accordance with what modalities a transfer of the Regional Office from Egypt may be effected." It held, secondly, that in the event of a final decision that the Regional Office was to be transferred from Egypt, "their mutual obligations of cooperation place a duty upon the Organ

ization and Egypt to consult together and to negotiate regarding the various arrangements needed to effect the transfer . . . in an orderly manner and with a minimum of prejudice to the work of the Organization and the interests of Egypt." The Court held, thirdly, that those mutual obligations "place a duty upon the party which wishes to effect the transfer to give a reasonable period of notice to the other party for the termination of the existing situation regarding the Regional Office at Alexandria, taking due account of all the practical arrangements needed to effect an orderly and equitable transfer of the Office to its new site."

Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO [World Health Organization] and Egypt (Advisory Opinion, Dec. 20, 1980), ICJ Reports 1980, pp. 73,

97.

The Court's ruling thus prohibited removal of the Regional Office upon the basis of a majority vote of the World Health Assembly in favor of such removal, as a number of Arab state members had urged. Egypt and the United States both opposed any move of the Regional Office from Alexandria. If the Organization decided to remove the Office, nevertheless, they argued that two years' notice would have to be given in accordance with section 37 of the Agreement between the World Health Organization and the Government of Egypt for the Purposes of Determining the Privileges, Immunities and Facilities To Be Granted in Egypt by the Government to the Organization, to the Representatives of its Members and to its Experts and Officials (the Host Agreement), signed at Cairo, March 25, 1951 (223 UNTS 87; entered into force August 8, 1951). Section 37 reads:

"The present Agreement may be revised at the request of either party. In this event the two parties shall consult each other concerning the modifications to be made in its provisions. If the negotiations do not result in an understanding within one year, the present Agreement may be denounced by either party giving two years' notice." 223 UNTS, at p. 106.

By its resolution WHA33.16, adopted by the Thirty-third World Health Assembly on May 20, 1980, the World Health Assembly decided, prior to taking any decision on the removal of the Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office (EMRO), to submit to the International Court of Justice for its advisory opinion the following questions:

1. Are the negotiation and notice provisions of Section 37 of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the World Health Organization and Egypt applicable in the event that either party to the Agreement wishes to have the Regional Office transferred from the territory of Egypt?

2. If so, what would be the legal responsibilities of both the World Health Organization and Egypt, with regard to the Regional Office in Alexandria, during the two-year period between notice and termination of the Agreement?

The United States, one of a number of states submitting written statements to the Court pursuant to Article 66 of the Statute, pointed out in its Statement of Facts that, during the thirty-four years of the World Health Organization's existence, the Organization had established six regional offices throughout the world (Alexandria, Manila, New Delhi, Copenhagen, Brazzaville, and Washington). Those in Alexandria and Washington had been established through incorporation of existing regional health organizations-the Alexandria Sanitary Bureau and the Pan American Sanitary Organizationinto the World Health Organization (WHO). After incorporation into the WHO, the Alexandria Sanitary Bureau had become the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office (EMRO).

The World Health Organization, which considered all of its employees, except locally hired, hourly paid employees, to be covered by the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies (adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, November 21, 1947, 33 UNTS 261, and adopted by the WHO on July 17, 1948), also concluded specific privileges and immunities agreements with a number of countries in which it provided services, including Egypt. In addition, it concluded a separate "host agreement" with each country except the United States, that serves as host to a WHO regional office. Each host agreement is for an indefinite duration but has a termination-upon-notice clause substantially similar to section 37 of the 1951 Host Agreement between the WHO and Egypt, ante. All the host agreements were based upon a draft model host agreement, patterned after the 1949 WHO headquarters agreement with Switzerland, which was itself patterned upon a 1946 headquarters agreement between Switzerland and the International Labor Organization. No WHO regional office had ever been moved from one country to another.

In 1979, the United States Statement of Fact continued, a resolution had been introduced in the 32d World Health Assembly, that called for removal of the Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office from Egypt, allegedly because of breaks in diplomatic relations between most of the EMRO countries and Egypt. The United States and other countries opposed this action as "an improper and costly political interference" with the successful operation of a technical, non-political, specialized agency. The Egyptian Government raised the issue whether section 37 of its 1951 agreement with the WHO would apply to any decision to move the regional office and thus require the party wishing to move it to give two years' notification. On May 20, 1980, the 33d World Health Assembly approved a resolution introduced by the United States to postpone any decision on removal until after the International Court of Justice had given an advisory opinion on the questions submitted to it.