Definition and Essential Elements of International Organization
An international organization is a form of cooperation among sovereign states, which is based on a multilateral international treaty. It comprises permanent participating members and is characterized by having established organs with defined powers and capacities that work towards common objectives.
Essential Elements of an International Organization:
- Multilateral Treaty-Based Origin: The establishment of an international organization is based on a multilateral international treaty.
- Distinct Legal Personality: It possesses a legal personality distinct from its individual member states.
- Permanent Organs: It has permanent organs or bodies that function with a defined purpose and direction.
- Autonomy of Will: These organs often exhibit autonomy of will, which may differ from the collective will of the member states.
- Peaceful Regulation of Competition: The organization helps regulate inter-state competition peacefully.
- Promotion of Peaceful Cooperation: Despite sovereign powers and diverse social systems of member states, the organization promotes mutual cooperation without infringing upon their sovereignty.
Privileges and Immunities of International Organizations
To perform their functions effectively and without obstruction, international organizations and their branches must be granted certain privileges and immunities in the regions where they operate. These include:
- Financial Exemption: Their funds and finances are exempt from local financial regulations and controls.
- Determined by International Conventions: These matters are governed by international conventions and not left to domestic law or practices.
- Headquarters Agreements: These are based on specific agreements, the most notable being the 1947 Headquarters Agreement between the United Nations and the United States.
The 1988 PLO Dispute and UN Arbitration
In 1988, the U.S. Congress ordered the closure of the PLO Information Office in Washington and its observer mission in New York, invoking the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1987. This conflicted with the 1947 UN-USA Headquarters Agreement. The matter was taken up by the UN General Assembly, which passed two resolutions (on 3 March 1988) seeking an advisory opinion from the ICJ.
Result:
The ICJ, on 26 April 1988, concluded that the U.S., as a party to the Headquarters Agreement, was obligated to settle the dispute through arbitration. It also affirmed that in case of conflict, international law prevails over domestic law.
Further Developments:
On 13 May 1988, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution urging the U.S. to initiate the arbitration process. In June 1988, a U.S. District Court ruled that closing the PLO office was not mandatory under the Anti-Terrorism Act, indicating that the American judiciary respects international obligations.
The WHO–Egypt Agreement and Office Transfer Dispute
A similar instance is the Interpretation of the 25 March 1951 Agreement between WHO and Egypt, relating to the WHO regional office in Alexandria.
Due to political difficulties, many member states recommended shifting the office to another Arab country.
The Article 37 of the agreement allowed either party to request revisions or terminate the agreement with two years’ notice if consultations failed.
The WHO sought an advisory opinion from the ICJ regarding:
- Applicability of Article 37: Whether it applies in the case of office relocation.
- Legal Responsibilities During Transition: The responsibilities of both parties between notice and actual relocation.
ICJ's Opinion (20 December 1980):
- Both parties must consult in good faith to ensure the relocation doesn't affect institutional work or national interest.
- The party initiating relocation must provide reasonable notice for orderly transition.
- During the interim period, mutual obligations must be fulfilled harmoniously.
General Elements of Headquarters Agreements
- Applicability of Local Law: Local law applies in the headquarters zone, but administrative staff are governed by institutional rules.
- Restricted Entry: Local authorities may not enter the premises without permission.
- Protection Duty: Host governments are responsible for protecting the premises from external interference.
- Immunity of Premises and Property: Organizational property is immune from local searches or seizures.
- Exemption from Local Taxes: Organizations are exempt from local taxes but must pay for public utilities like water and electricity.
- Freedom of Communication: The organization enjoys full communication freedom, including exemption from censorship.
Conclusion
International organizations are vital instruments of peaceful cooperation among sovereign states. Their structured formation through multilateral treaties, distinct legal identities, and autonomous organs allow them to function beyond mere diplomatic forums. For these organizations to operate effectively, specific privileges and immunities must be respected and preserved by host states. The legal frameworks surrounding such institutions — as seen in the UN-PLO dispute and WHO-Egypt case — reaffirm the precedence of international law and the necessity of fair arbitration and mutual cooperation. Ultimately, these mechanisms reinforce the stability, neutrality, and global legitimacy of international institutions in promoting harmony, development, and global governance.