| III. | The International Court of Justice |
| 5. | ADVISORY OPINIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE |
| 5.2. | Request for Advisory Opinion |
¤
Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate
under Section 21 of the United Nations
Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947
Advisory Opinion of 26 April 1988
I.C.J. Reports 1988, p. 12
[pp. 26-27] In the present case, the Court is not called upon to
decide whether the measures adopted by the United States in regard to the
Observer Mission of the PLO to the United Nations do or do not run counter to
the Headquarters Agreement. The question put to the Court is not about either
the alleged violations of the provisions of the Headquarters Agreement
applicable to that Mission or the interpretation of those provisions. The
request for an opinion is here directed solely to the determination whether
under section 21 of the Headquarters Agreement the United Nations was entitled
to call for arbitration, and the United States was obliged to enter into this
procedure. Hence the request for an opinion concerns solely the applicability to
the alleged dispute of the arbitration procedure provided for by the
Headquarters Agreement. It is a legal question within the meaning of Article 65,
paragraph 1, of the Statute. There is in this case no reason why the Court
should not answer that question.
[p. 30] The Court has next to consider whether the dispute is one
which concerns the interpretation or application of the Headquarters Agreement.
It is not however the task of the Court to say whether the enactment, or the
enforcement, of the United States Anti-Terrorism Act would or would not
constitute a breach of the provisions of the Headquarters Agreement; that
question is reserved for the arbitral tribunal which the Secretary-General seeks
to have established under section 21 of the Agreement.
