United Nations Headquarters Agreement Case

The dispute will only focus on the situation that will arise when the PLO observer mission office is finally closed. It is only in this situation that it can be said that there is no dispute between the United Nations and the United States over the interpretation of the agreement, since they both agreed that it would be contrary to that agreement in this case. However, the Secretary-General`s request relates to an additional issue for which it is clear that both parties disagree on the interpretation of the agreement. 9. Therefore, there has never been an obvious conflict between the United Nations and the United States over how to interpret or apply Sections 11 to 13 of the agreement. While it is not possible to rule out that the United States could in the future argue that a forced closure did not contradict these paragraphs, it was virtually agreed because it believed that the forced closure of the PLO`s observer office would be a violation of these provisions of the agreement. Nevertheless, “the Attorney General of the United States stated that the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987 required him to close the plo observer mission office” (letter from the Permanent Representative of the United States to the Secretary-General of the United Nations of 11 March 1988). The real issue facing the United Nations was the constitutional structure of the United States, which would have allowed national legislation to enter into force in violation of the rights of another party to a treaty concluded by the United States; and this “regardless of the obligations that the United States may have under the agreement” (letter as noted above) or “regardless of an international legal obligation that the United States may have under the siege agreement” (U.S. written statement); or regardless of “the interpretation or application of the agreement”; Allegedly on the grounds that “Congress has the power to repeal treaties and international law for domestic law purposes” or that, in this case, “Congress, regardless of international law, prohibits the presence of all PLO offices in that country, including the presence of the PLO`s observation mission at the United Nations” (Briefing of the Ministry of Justice) March 11, 1988).

Posted in Uncategorized