Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T20:40:58.286Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The United Nations Administrative Tribunal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Wolfgang Friedmann  and
Arghyrios A. Fatouros
Get access

Extract

The development, in size as well as importance, of the international civil service is a relatively recent phenomenon in the international scene. One of its consequences is an increase in die number of problems that may and do arise between an international organization and the members of its staff. Such problems exist in all civil services, national as well as international; they arise in relation to the legal position of the service officials, to their dismissals and promotions (or lack of them), to disciplinary measures against any of them, to their salaries, leaves of absence and other such administrative “details”. On all such questions, the views on which the organization, as represented by its higher administrative officers, bases its actions, may differ from the views of the officials concerned. The facts in each case may be in dispute, or the meaning of the terms and provisions of the contracts of employment and the regulations of the service, may be understood in different ways by die parties concerned.

Type
Articles
Information
International Organization , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , Winter 1957 , pp. 13 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 On this last point, with no question of immunity agreements arising, see the decisions of: the Italian Court of Cassation of 26 February 1931, International Institute of Agriculture v. Profili, in Lauterpacht, H. (ed.) Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases, 1929–1930 (London, 1935), p. 413–415Google Scholar; the French Comeil d'Etat, in a case involving the Institute of Intellectual Cooperation, 20 February 1953, Weiss, in 81 journal du Droit International (Clunet), 1954, P. 744–751Google Scholar.

2 See Article V, section 3(a), paragraph 3, of the Regulations of the Pan American Union, as approved by the Governing Board on April 26, 1944; in the new Staff Regulations, this has been replaced by provisions on the establishment of a “procedure” for the consideration of appeals and complaints: see Article 36 of the Regulations approved by the Council on February 16, 1949.

3 See the comments of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal in its Judgment No. 4, Howrani.

4 See Resolution of December 17, 1920, League of Nations Record of First Assembly, Plenary Meetings, p. 663–664Google Scholar, later incorporated in the Staff Regulations of 1926 (Art. 67); abrogated after the creation of the League Administrative Tribunal (1928).

5 See League of Nations Official journal (hereafter cited LoN OJ), 1925, p. 858, 1441 fGoogle Scholar.

6 Resolution of September 26, 1927, LoN OJ, 1927, Sp. Suppl. No. 54, p. 201; see also ibid., Sp. Suppl. No. 58, p. 33–36, 250–257.

7 See sec. 15 of the “Resolution for the Dissolution of the League of Nations” of April 18, 1946, LoN OJ, 1946, Sp. Suppl. No. 194, p. 271, 282.

8 By its Resolution 351 (IV) of 24 November 1949. For the Statute in its present form see UN Document AT/11, United Nations Administrative Tribunal Statute and Rules, 01 1956Google Scholar (hereafter cited: UN AT Statute and UN AT Rules). On the “Legislative History” of the establishment of the Tribunal see the Written Statement by the UN Secretary-General, submitted to the International Court of Justice, in ICJ Pleadings, United Nations Administrative Tribunal, p. 188Google Scholaret seq., at p. 226–231, with ample citations of the relevant documents.

9 Effect of Awards of Compensation made by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion of July 13, 1954, 1CJ Reports 1954, p. 47 et seq.; Judges Alvarez, Hackworth and Levi Carneiro dissented in separate opinions.

10 General Assembly Resolution 782 (VIII) B, of December 9, 1953.

11 General Assembly Resolution 957 (X), of November 8. 1955.

12 See International Labor Conference, 29th Session …, 1946, Record of Proceedings, p. 229Google Scholar; also ibid., 519–520 (amended text of Statute). The first case in application of that article was submitted to the Court by the Executive Board of UNESCO at the end of 1955; the advisory opinion was delivered by the Court on October 23, 1956.

13 See Art. 17 of the Staff Regulations for the Registry of the ICJ, ICJ Yearbook 1946–1947, p. 66–71, at p. 68Google Scholar. A similar situation existed in the Permanent Court of International Justice.

14 UN AT Statute, Art. 3(1).

15 UN AT Statute, Art. 2(1).

16 See the relevant UN Documents A/2463, A/2749, A/2970. Related agreements between the UN and the agencies have been or are in the process of being concluded and the Fund's regulations have been amended to include a relevant article (Art. XLI, see UN Document A/2914, Annex II) adopted by the Resolution 955(X) of November 3, 1955 of the UN General Assembly.

17 ILO Administrative Tribunal (hereafter cited ILO AT) Statute, Art. 2(4).

18 UN AT Statute, Art. 2(2).

19 See UN AT Judgment No. 16, Morrow.

20 See UN AT Judgment No. 60, Hilpern v. UNRW A.

21 See UN Staff Rule 111.3 and UN AT Statute, Art. 7(1).

22 UN AT Statute, Art. 7(3).

23 UN Document A/2909, Annex II, p. 18 (No. 42).

24 See UN AT Statute, Arts. 6 and 8 and UN AT Rules, Arts. 7–15.

25 See the Secretary-General's Report on Personnel Policy, UN Document A/2533 (November 1953), paragraphs 81–7, and the subsequent discussion in the 5th Committee, UN Document A/2615 (December 1953), paragraphs 48–53.

26 UN AT Statute, Art. II(I).

27 Ibid., Art. 11(4).

28 ILO AT Statute, Art. XII(1).

29 See UN Document A/2909, 10 June 1955, p. 12 (No. 14), also its Annex II, p. 20, and Annex IV, p. 2.

30 See the account of that crisis in the “Memorandum by the ILO submitted to the International Court of Justice,” ICJ Pleadings, U.N. Administrative Tribunal, p. 46–90, 60–73, 80–90.

31 Judgments of the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO upon complaints made against the U.N.E.S.C.O., Advisory Opinion of October 23, 1956: I.C.J. Reports 1956, p. 77. The Executive Council of UNESCO, which submitted the request for an advisory opinion, was appealing against four judgments of the ILO Administrative Tribunal awarding compensations to UNESCO officials, whose dismissal the Tribunal considered illegal. For a summary of this opinion, see this issue, p. 160–162.

32 UN Staff Regulations, Annex II (a).

33 UN AT Judgment No. 56, Aglion; see also No. 4, Howrani. For a similar earlier statement see LoN AT Judgment No. 1, di Palma Castiglione (repeated in subsequent judgments of the Tribunal).

34 See especially UN AT Judgment No. 15, Robinson; see also Judgments No. 2, Aubert et al., No. 55, Russel Cobb, No. 56, Aglion, No. 59, Bertrand, and No. 60, Ball.

35 UN AT Judgments No. 15, Robinson (citing Judgment No. 2), No. 16, Morrow (citing Judgment No. 4), No. 53, Wallach (citing “previous Judgments”).

36 UN AT Judgment No. 18, Crawford and several subsequent ones (citing LoN AT Judgments No. 18 and 24, regarding the Tribunal's power to award costs).

37 See ILO AT Judgment No. 11, Desgranges.

38 See LoN AT Judgment No. 1, di Palma Castiglione.

39 See UN AT Judgments No. 11, Howrani, and No. 12, Keeney.

40 See ILO AT Judgments No. 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, Duberg, Leg, Wilcox, et al. v. UNESCO. The validity of the first three was upheld by the recent advisory opinion of the ICJ.

41 UN AT Judgment No. 61, Crawford et al.

42 UN AT Judgment No. 18, Crawford, and subsequent ones; see also Judgment No. 2, Aubert et al., and UN Document A/CN.5/5.

43 UN AT Judgment No. 4, Howrani et al.

44 UN AT Judgments No. 4, Howrani et al., and No. 61, Crawford et al.

45 UN AT Judgment No. 15, Robinson.

46 UN AT Judgments No. 11, Howrani, and No. 12, Keeney.

47 See Report of Committee of Jurists on the Monod Case (cited above, n.5); also Report of a later Committee of Jurists (1932), LoN 0J, 1932, Sp. Suppl. No. 107, p. 206–207.

48 UN AT Judgment No. 19, Kaplan; identical statements are to be found in Judgments No. 20–25, 27, and 53.

49 1CJ Reports, 1954, p. 82 (Hackworth, J.), 95 (J. Levi Carneiro)Google Scholar.

50 See UN Staff Regulations, Annex II (a) (i).

51 UN AT Judgment No. 21, Rubin, repeated in subsequent judgments.

52 UN AT Judgment No. 43, Levinson, repeated in subsequent judgments. The practices in question were those adopted in connection with an advisory selection committee.

53 UN AT Judgments No. 48, Wang, No. 50, Brown.

54 See UN AT Judgments No. 17, De Pojidaeff, No. 46, White, No. 49, Carruthers, No. 52, Zimmet, No. 58, Chattopadhyay, No. 62, Julbiard.

55 See UN AT Statute, Art. 9(2) and UN AT Judgments No. 5, Howrani, and No. 6, Keeney (rescinding) and No. 28, Wallach and No. 59, Bertrand (remanding).

56 UN AT Judgment No. 4, Howrani et al.

57 UN AT Judgment No. 19, Kaplan, and many subsequent cases.

58 Ibid.

59 UN AT Judgment No. 18, Crawford. For a similar case, of particular interest, see ILO AT Judgment No. 13, Mclntire v. PAO.

60 UN AT Judgments No. 19, Kaplan, and No. 20–25.

61 UN AT Judgments No. 29–37.

62 See the observations of Jessup, Philip C., Transnational Law, New Haven, 1956, particularly p. 82–93Google Scholar.

63 UN AT Judgment No. 61 is counted here as a single separate case, though it involved interpretation of several previous cases and bore no case-number of its own.