315.3/7–1354: Telegram
The Ambassador in the Netherlands (Matthews) to the Department of State 1
72. International Court by 9 votes to 3, Judges Alvarez, Hackworth and Levi Carneiro dissenting, has decided that General Assembly does not have right on any grounds refuse give effect award of compensation made by UN Administrative Tribunal. Court’s opinion makes following points:
Administrative Tribunal was established by General Assembly as judicial body competent to pronounce final judgement without appeal. It is not advisory organ or mere subordinate committee of General Assembly. As judicial body, Tribunal’s judgement binding on parties to dispute, and parties are UN and staff member concerned. UN legally bound carry out judgement and pay compensation awarded. In order that judgement Tribunal itself, it would be necessary, in opinion of Court, that statute of Tribunal contain express provision to that effect. In absence such provision in present statute, no legal grounds upon which General Assembly can review judgements already pronounced by Tribunal. Court further declared that General Assembly competent under Charter to establish Tribunal empowered to render judgments binding on UN, and specifically on General Assembly. Budgetary powers General Assembly under Charter does not mean that General Assembly has absolute power to approve or disapprove expenditures proposed to it since some part of expenditures arises out of obligations already incurred by UN, and to this extent, General Assembly has no alternative but to honor these engagements. Tribunal awards constitute such obligations. Finally Court rejected 1946 League of Nations precedent contending that there is complete lack of identity between two situations.
Copies will be air pouched when available.
- The telegram was repeated to Paris for information of the Department’s Legal Adviser, Mr. Phleger. Source text does not indicate the time of day sent.↩