501.AD/8–2747

The Legal Adviser (Gross) to the United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Legal Affairs (Kerno)

My Dear Dr. Kerno: I refer to your letter of August 27, 1947, concerning action taken by the United States Congress during its past session on the Headquarters Agreement between the United Nations and the United States and on the General Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.

I have noted your comment that the reservations, which the United States Senate has suggested with reference to Sections 18(b) and 18(c) of the General Convention, would have very serious effects on the status of United Nations officials and on the financial position of the Organization. The position of the United States on these two provisions has always been clear. The United States Delegation at the first part of the first session of the General Assembly in London indicated, when the General Convention was under consideration, that the question of whether immunity from national taxation and national service could be extended to American nationals employed by the United Nations was a question which was for the determination of the United States Congress. The Congress has not completed action on the Convention as yet but I have no reason to believe that the House of Representatives will reach a different conclusion in this regard than the Senate.

The question of the meaning of Article VII of the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, which concerns the issuance of laissez passer, is troublesome. I feel that the wording of that Article is not clear and have noted that at one stage in the drafting of the General Convention the word “passport” was used but that in the final draft the phrase laissez passer is used.

I appreciate the difficulties which may be caused by any confusion in the meaning of this provision and suggest that this matter be discussed with our Delegation when it is in New York for the General Assembly.

In connection with the questions which you have raised, I think you may be interested in the following excerpt from the Report of the Senate Committe on Foreign Relations on this subject:

“The main issue raised in the committee hearings with respect to the general convention on privileges and immunities centered about section 18(b) which provides that officials of the United Nations shall be immune from taxation on the salaries and emoluments paid to them by the United Nations. The committee recognizes that certain inequalities [Page 54] in the salary scales within the United Nations would inevitably result if the nationals of different states employed as members of the Secretariat are subjected to widely divergent rates of taxation by their own governments. This might lead to difficult problems of morale within the Secretariat. On the other hand, the committee considered it undesirable to create within the United States a group of nationals not subject to the normal responsibilities of citizenship. Even though American members of the Secretariat have obligations to the United Nations, they still retain their citizenship and they derive many benefits from the United States. As such, the committee members believe they should be called upon to contribute in the form of taxes to the work of our Government as other American citizens.

“While the committee agreed that there could be no objection to any arrangement which might be made within the United Nations Secretariat to equalize the tax burden imposed upon staff members, it was believed that the United States should reserve its position with respect to section 18(b) relating to tax immunity. The committee recommends that the terms of the resolution be revised accordingly.

“Still another issue related to article VII of the convention authorizing the United Nations to issue laissez-passer to its officials. Section 24 of article VII provides ‘these laissez-passer shall be recognized and accepted as valid travel documents by the authorities of members, taking into account the provisions of section 25.’

“The committee was assured that this language does not authorize or require the United Nations or any member state to issue or accept a document which is a substitute for a passport or other documentation of nationality. It provides only for a certificate attesting to the United Nations affiliation of the bearer in respect to travel and will be accepted by the United States as such a document. Article VII, in other words, would not amend or modify existing provisions of law with respect to the requirement or issuance of passports or of other documents evidencing nationality of citizens or aliens. To make this point perfectly clear, the committee approved a second amendment to the resolution, which is quoted in a later section of this report.”

Sincerely yours,

Ernest A. Gross