Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, General; the United Nations, Volume I, Part 1

501.AC/1–948

The Director of the Legal Department, Secretariat of the United Nations (Feller) to the Legal Adviser of the Department of State (Gross)

New York, January 9, 1948.

My Dear Mr. Gross: In reference to your letter of 3 December 1947 regarding the meaning of Article VII of the General Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, I wish to thank you for the interest you have expressed in this matter. Your letter is particularly pertinent at this time since the Report of the Sixth Committee, approved by the General Assembly, at its recent session dealt specifically with this question. Section 14 of the Report (Document A/427) which I enclose,¹ indicates the hope of the Committee “that future negotiations between the Secretary-General and the appropriate authorities of the United States might lead to a modification of the views of the United States Government as hitherto expressed to the Secretary-General with the result that the provisions of Article VII should produce the full effects that they were designed to secure”.

Before answering the questions contained in your letter of 3 December 1947, it seems necessary to clarify the position of the United Nations concerning the laissez-passer, and its scope. In this connection, I would like to refer to your letter of 11 September 1947 to Dr. Ivan Kerno regarding the laissez-passer. You mention the fact that in one stage of the drafting of the General Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, the word “passport” was used in Article VII, but in the final draft, the word “laissez-passer” is used. Originally, in the Preparatory Commission and in the Sixth Committee at the first Session of the General Assembly, the word “passport” was used, and Article VII provided that the organization might issue a United Nations passport to its officials, all such United Nations passports to be recognized and accepted as passports by the authorities of members. However, in a sub-committee of the Sixth Committee, at the instigation of the Representative of Poland, a drafting change was made in this section, supplementing for the word “passport” the words “laissez-passer” and “valid travel document”. There was no indication at that time that such a change was meant to alter the original intention of Article VII to have a valid travel document serving as a United Nations passport, or to make such a travel document merely a certificate attesting to the United Nations affiliation of the bearer in respect to travel, as was suggested in the Report of the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate. In fact, the majority of the Committee seemed to feel that such a travel document, serving as a passport was necessary, under the terms of Articles 104 and 105 of the Charter, to insure the independence of the officials of the United Nations so that in each case where it was necessary for such an official to travel, it would not be necessary for his government to be consulted. To make the matter even clearer, Section 25 of the General Convention provides for the additional issuance of a certificate when such an official is travelling on United Nations official business.²

I understand from your present letter and previous conversations with the United States Delegation to the United Nations General Assembly, that your Government is concerned with the situation that might arise insofar as United Nations officials are concerned, if such officials become resident in the United States and are then not returnable to another country at the time when they are terminated from the United Nations. We can fully appreciate your point of view; however, it is felt that this problem does not arise from the laissez-passer or its use. Officials of the United Nations who are in the United States on a valid national passport or are resident aliens before their appointment to the United Nations do not change their status as far as the United States is concerned; nor does it affect their returnability to the country of origin, merely because they may have been given a laissez-passer to depart from and re-enter the United States.

In answer to the first question in your letter of 3 December 1947, the laissez-passer is to be used by officials of the United Nations to facilitate the travel of such persons while on temporary missions abroad, to insure that such missions may be made rapidly and independently of national governments.³ It is however the intention of the United Nations to allow its personnel to travel on laissez-passer for short leaves. In reference to the suggestions made in paragraphs 1 and 2 of your letter, I would like to point out that if the United Nations were to adopt the procedures suggested in these paragraphs, it would mean that in each instance where it was necessary for a United Nations official to travel abroad for the United Nations, the country of which he was a national would have to be consulted in order that permission for such travel might be granted. After that it might still be necessary to consult the Government of a second country. It is obvious that in such cases officials of the organization would not have all the facilities required for the independent exercise of their functions as defined in Article 105 of the Charter. Furthermore, it is to be assumed that an individual will usually be returnable to the country of which he has held a valid national passport.⁴ Therefore, the problems which might arise from the use of the laissez-passer seems to exist primarily as far as the persons not holding a valid national passport at the time of their appointment to the United Nations are concerned.

In conjunction with your letter, and in order to further the wish of the General Assembly that further negotiations be carried out with the United States Government to clarify this matter, we wish to suggest the following procedure in the hope that it may be acceptable to your Government and remove its doubt as far as the laissez-passer is concerned, to such an extent that the resolution of the Congress of the United States acceding to the General Convention will not contain the amendment that is now suggested.⁵ It is suggested that in order to facilitate such an accession, the United Nations make the following administrative arrangements regarding the laissez-passer:

• 1.⁶ When laissez-passer are issued at the seat of the United Nations or in the regional United Nations offices to non-Americans having a valid national passport at the time of appointment to the United Nations, a documentary photostatic copy of each national passport upon which the laissez-passer was issued will be kept and made available to the proper officials of the United States Government.
• 2. Laissez-passer to be issued in the United States to non-Americans not holding a valid national passport at the time of issuance only if they are already residing in the United States at the time of issuance. The names and status of such persons and the number of the documents issued to them to be communicated to the United States Government at the time of issuance.
• 3. Laissez-passer to be issued outside the United States to non-Americans not holding a valid national passport at the time of appointment and resident abroad upon basis⁷ that consuls will be informed of the said lack of a valid national passport on the part of these persons at the time a visa is requested.⁸ Arrangements⁹ can thereupon be made insofar as these persons are concerned.
• 4. Laissez-passer to be issued to citizens of the United States upon proper evidence of citizenship being presented to the proper issuing officials of the United Nations, such evidence to be the same as that required by the United States Passport Bureau as evidence of United States citizenship.¹⁰

If such a procedure is followed it should remove any difficulties which might be caused by the use of the laissez-passer as a passport. The persons mentioned above in category (1) in any case would be admissible to the United States on the basis of a valid national passport which would be visaed under Section 203 (7), Title 8, USC,¹¹ of the United States Immigration Law,¹² inasmuch as the person requesting the visa would be an employee of an international organization. The issuance of a laissez-passer to a person whose nationality was evidenced by his passport would be recorded by the United Nations and the documents made available to the proper United States officials. Such a person should, upon severance from the United Nations, be returnable to the country of which his passport states he is a national. Insofar as persons in category (2)¹³ are concerned, if a laissez-passer is not issued to them until they have already been allowed entry into the United States, the position of the United States Government as far as their deportability is concerned will not be changed by the fact that they are allowed to go out of and re-enter the country on a United Nations laissez-passer.¹⁴ As to those persons in category (3), if these persons are not issued a United States visa on a laissez-passer until some arrangements had been made, and the United States Consul is so directed, such persons cannot become a burden on the United States Government due to the use of the laissez-passer.¹⁵ Since, to enter the United States, United States citizens are ordinarily only required to have proof of citizenship, and there is ordinarily no restriction on their leaving the United States, proper guarantee¹⁶ that such persons are United States citizens before issuance of the laissez-passer, should be a sufficient safeguard insofar as these persons are concerned.

An additional reservation might be made insofar as categories (2) and (3) are concerned to the effect that such laissez-passers are to be returned to the issuing department immediately after use, or are valid only for a limited period, in the same manner that a re-entry permit is picked up by the United States Immigration Officials when an alien immigrant re-enters the country. Of course, all laissez-passers are returned to the United Nations when an official is severed from the organization.

If such an internal administrative arrangement as that suggested in paragraphs 1 to 4 above is acceptable to your Government, an exchange of letters could take place between the Secretary-General, and the Secretary of State, confirming this procedure, and the relevant information could then be communicated to the appropriate committee of the United States Congress in order that such committees might take action accordingly.

I would very much appreciate your views on this matter since it seems highly desirable for some solution to be arrived at as soon as possible. If it appears necessary to carry on further discussions in order to arrive at such a solution, we would be glad to send a member of the staff to Washington to discuss this matter.

Sincerely yours,

A. H. Feller

1. Marginal notation: “No enclosure when read in Le”.
2. At this point the following comment was made in a marginal notation by Richard W. Flournoy, Assistant Legal Adviser for Special Problems, in the Office of the Legal Adviser: “What it says is that applications for visas by holders of such certificates should be dealt with speedily. It recognizes the right to require visas.”

   Other marginal notations inscribed on this document were also made by Mr. Flournoy.

3. Marginal notation: “No. Right to require visas recognized by Sec. 25 of Convention.”
4. Marginal notation: “Yes. Unless he has lost his nationality.”
5. Marginal notation: “What is that?”
6. Items numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4 are blocked off and the following observation inscribed opposite them in the margin: “Shouldn’t they obtain re-entry permits?”
7. The word “basis” is underlined and the marginal entry made, “condition?”
8. At this point a question is noted marginally: “Shouldn’t consuls require satisfactory explanations of failure to submit passports, and satisfactory evidence of nationality?”
9. “Arrangements” is underlined and the marginal query made: “for what—issuance of visas?”
10. A marginal entry beside paragraph numbered 4 reads: “Would this violate U.S. law? See 22 U.S. Code, 211 (a).”
11. Here appears the marginal notation: “or re-entry permit when [laissez-passer] issued in U.S.?”
12. Acts of Congress of May 26, 1924 (43 Stat. 153); July 6, 1932 (47 Stat. 607); July 1, 1940 (54 Stat. 711); and December 29, 1945 (the International Organizations Immunities Act) (59 Stat. 669), related to the definition of immigrant.
13. Marginal notation beside section (2) reads “Yes”.
14. At this point, the query is made: “Why shouldn’t they get re-entry permits?”
15. The lengthy sentence beginning with “Since” carries the notation: “This seems to relate to category (4)”.
16. Here a marginal notation reads: “Who would give the guarantees and on what basis?”