No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 April 2017
1 Citing Advisory Opinion on Keparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, I. C. J. Reports, 1949, p. 174; this Journal, Vol. 43 (1949), p. 589.
2 This Journal, Supp., Vol. 40 (1946), p. 85.
3 Plaintiff’s capacity to sue as assignee of UNRRA was not questioned in United Nations v. Adler, 90 F. Supp. 440 (S. D. N. Y., May 18, 1950). In International Refugee Organization v. Republic S. 8. Corp., 92 F. Supp. 674 (D. Md., July 8, 1950), the court held that although the IRO had capacity to sue, it could not bring in a Federal District Court an action against a Panamanian corporation in which no “federal question” was involved. Jurisdiction based on “diversity of citizenship” was limited to cases between citizens of different States, or between citizens of a State and foreign states or citizens or subjects thereof; and the IRO was not a citizen (or corporation) of one of the United States. Jurisdiction of the Federal courts did not extend to “suits solely between aliens where no federal question is involved.” Although the IRO might be regarded as constituted under an agreement equivalent to a treaty, the cause of action did not “arise under a treaty of the United States” within the terms of the section conferring on the Federal courts jurisdiction over actions arising under such treaties.