call now: 586-949-5490

United Nations Headquarters Agreement Section 11

In a number of consultations, the United States therefore interpreted the situation that existed at the time as not wrong within the meaning of section 21 of the agreement; The United Nations has called for the Section 21 dispute resolution procedure to be implemented. Discussions focused on applicability and hence the application of Section 21; In other words, the compromise clause itself. 7. The question before the Court is whether the United States of America, referred to as “the United States,” as parties to the United Nations Headquarters Convention, is required to initiate arbitration proceedings. The siege agreement of 26 June 1947 came into force on 21 November 1947 by exchange of letters between the Secretary-General and the Permanent Representative of the United States, in accordance with its terms. The Agreement was registered on the same day at the United Nations Secretariat, in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter. In paragraph (a) of Section 21, the Secretary-General provides: 1. The Secretary-General, through the United States Mission, files with the United Nations the official designation of persons who, under Section 2 of the Agreement, will serve as duly authorized officials to request the advance. Considers that the United States of America, as parties to the United Nations-United Nations Agreement with the United States of America at United Nations Headquarters on June 26, 1947, is required to conduct arbitration to resolve the dispute between itself and the United Nations, in accordance with Section 21 of that agreement. A productive sentence of such strange results cannot be unreasonably suspected of providing its own rebuttal.

I assume that, in the first place, the overconstruction of the argument rests too narrowly on a potentially inconsistent interpretation of the dispute settlement formula provided for in section 21 of the agreement. (e) This section does not preclude the requirement for sufficient evidence to demonstrate that those claiming the rights to Section 11 fall within the categories described in this section or the appropriate application of quarantine and public health legislation. On 4 March 1988, even after the General Assembly had requested an advisory opinion from the Court, the Secretary-General referred to “assurances regarding the non-application or deferral of the application of the law” and stated that the United States would recognize the existence of a dispute if it was not possible for the United States to bring its domestic legislation in line with its international obligations. In his written statement to the Court, the Secretary-General argued that there was a dispute within the meaning of Section 21 of the siege agreement “in the absence of assurance that the provisions in force for the PLO observation mission will remain in place.” In his written statement, the Secretary-General stated that a threat to close the PLO mission had triggered a dispute “I of course welcome the intentions of the US government to use the 90-day period described by Ambassador Okun in the manner described by Ambassador Okun and I explained in detail the State Department`s legal counsel, Justice Sofaer , when he met with the legal counsel on 12 January.


Maxi Mini Warehouse

46670 Continental Dr. Chesterfield, MI 48047 1/4 mile east of I-94, exit 241