1988

ICJ

Applicability of the obligation to arbitrate under section 21 of the UN headquarters agreement 26-6-47 (PLO Mission) Advisory opinion

1988 GA asked the court: In the facts reflected in the reports of the Secretary General, is the USA, as party to the Agreement between the UN and the USA regarding the Headquarters of the UN, under an obligation to enter into arbitration in accordance with section 21 of the Agreement. US contended that since the legislation (Anti Terrorism Act) that pretended to close the PLO mission had not been implemented and since it was in litigation in US courts there was no dispute yet

(38) Where one party to a treaty protest against the behaviour or a decision of another party, and claims that such behaviour or decision constitutes a breach of the treaty the mere fact that the party accused does not advance any argument to justify its conduct under international law does not prevent the opposing attitudes of the parties from giving rise to a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the treaty. (41) A provision of the nature of section 21 of the Headquarters agreement cannot require the exhaustion of local remedies as a condition of its implementation (46) While the existence of a dispute does presuppose a claim arising out of the behaviour of or a decision by one of the parties, it in no way requires that any contested decision must already have been carried into effect. A dispute may arise even if the party in question give assurance that no measure of execution will be taken until ordered by decision of domestic courts