- Immunities of the Organization
- Immunités de l'Organisation
- Inmunidades de la Organización
CHAIRMAN (original language Arabic): I would like to thank you on behalf of myself and of the two Vice-Chairmen. Our Commission will be dealing with the legal and constitutional questions facing the Organization which, of course, are issues that have an impact on the task to be carried out by the FAO. As you know it has been proposed after consultations that we should elect the following countries - Gabon, Ethiopia, Jordan, People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, Malaysia, Indonesia, El Salvador, Costa Rica, the United States, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Switzerland and Poland to the Drafting Committee. It was also proposed that the representative of Malaysia would be Chairman of the Drafting Committee for Committee III. I take it that you all concur. We shall tell you at a later date when the Drafting Committee will be meeting. Allow me to inform you of the agenda of Commission III adopted by the Plenary included in Document C 85/INF/18 and that item 23 will not be examined by our Commission. We will be studying C 85/LIM/15 and C 85/LIM/28. I also hope that you have received C 85/LIM/29 and C 85/LIM/25. As regards our Commission's timetable we would suggest some alterations which we can discuss later on. However, I will first ask Mr Roche to introduce item 20.3 which deals with "Relations with Host Government."
LEGAL COUNSEL: There are two documents for this sub-item; C 85/LIM/15 which is an extract from the report of the Eighty-seventh session of the Council; and C 85/LIM/10 which consists of a detailed Note by the Director-General.
It would take too much of the Conference's time if I were to recount in detail the whole history of the question of FAO's immunity from legal process in Italy. The background to the problem is, however, summarized in paragraphs 1 to 9 of the Director-General's Note, while the position of the governing bodies - including the Conference at its last Session - as well as the position of the Host Government, are summarized in paragraphs 9 to 15 of the same document.
In a nutshell, in 1978, the landlords of Building F brought an action against FAO before the Italian courts claiming arrears of rent. FAO invoked its, I quote, "immunity from every form of legal process" unquote, laid down in Section 16 of the Headquarters Agreement. Nevertheless, in 1982, the Italian Corte di Cassazione gave, in general terms, an extremely restrictive interpretation of FAO's immunity and denied FAO's immunity in the specific action brought by the landlords. The Corte di Cassazione is the highest court in Italy. As a consequence, FAO is exposed to litigation in respect of almost any transaction it may conclude in Italy. And in fact, several actions were brought against FAO from 1982 onwards. Therefore the problem is by no means academic.
The Conference and Council have recognized that this untoward situation not only undermines the Organization's legal status in Italy, but is also prejudicial to the smooth administration of the Organization and the independent exercise of its constitutional functions.
Therefore, since 1982, the Council and the Conference have expressed their deep concern and have requested the Host Government to take measures to safeguard FAO's immunity in the future. These measures would have to be of a legislative nature if they were to nullify the effect of the Corte di Cassazione's judgement which the Italian authorities consider as binding on them. This problem has been discussed with the Host Government, even at the highest levels. As explained in paragraph 13 of the Director-General's Note, the Host Government has sought to attenuate the consequences of the Corte di Cassazione's judgement.
Nevertheless, the Organization's position at present is, for all intents and purposes, the same as the one in which it found itself three years ago when the Corte di Cassazione rendered its judgement. That is to say, the Host Government has not so far taken measures that will safeguard FAO's immunity in the future. Thus, FAO is still exposed to the jurisdiction of the Italian courts, notwithstanding the clear and unambiguous wording of Section 16 of the Headquarters Agreement. That, briefly, is the problem and the present legal situation.
Naturally, means of finding a way out of this impasse have been explored over the past three years. Ultimately, however, the Council, at its Eighty-sixth Session in November 1984, took up a suggestion that had first been made at the November 1983 session of the Conference. That is to say, the Organization should seek an Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice in The Hague on the interpretation of the Headquarters Agreement. The Council requested the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters to formulate the questions that might be submitted to the Court, if, in the meantime, no appropriate legal action had been adopted by the Host Government and the Conference decided to follow this course of action. The CCLM carried out this task, and at its Eighty-seventh Session, the Council forwarded the questions to the Conference for consideration. They are to be found on page 2 of the English version of document C 85/LIM/15 and also in paragraph 26 of document C 85/LIM/10.
Now I feel I must explain, in rather more detail, the principal aspect of the immunity question which requires action by the Conference.
The issue before the Conference is whether or not to seek an Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice. In this connection I wish to draw your attention to document C 85/LIM/10. After a review of developments over the past three years and all other solutions that might be envisaged, the Director-General felt that there were a number of arguments in favour of the Conference seeking an Advisory Opinion from the Court. In this way, the parties to the Headquarters Agreement could obtain authoritative guidance on their reciprocal rights and obligations concerning immunity from legal process.
There cannot be I believe the slightest doubt that the most appropriate authority to provide guidance on the parties' legal position is the International Court of Justice in The Hague, which is in fact the highest international judicial authority.
I have laid some emphasis on the word "guidance" because, as most delegations are no doubt aware, Advisory Opinions are not binding. But, of course, independent and authoritative guidance on the parties' legal position cannot fail to enable them to review their respective positions and open the way to a satisfactory solution.
In so far as some delegations have expressed the view in the Council that recourse to the Court should only be a last resort, I wish to mention that the Director-General has given consideration to a specific alternative solution - that is a solution other than legislative action taken by the Host Government - which has been mentioned by the Council and by the CCLM. This alternative is arbitration under Section 35 of the Headquarters Agreement. However this solution does not appear to commend itself for the various reasons set forth in paragraph 23 of document C 85/LIM/10.
Should the Conference consider that recourse to the International Court of Justice is still premature, the only remaining solution would be in the meantime, for FAO to explore with the Italian authorities, ways in which FAO's immunity could be safeguarded.
There are of course innumerable aspects to the immunity problem and it would be impossible for me to refer to them all in this introduction. However, most of these aspects, including those relating to the procedure for requesting Advisory Opinions and the authority of the Conference to do so, are covered in document C 85/LIM/10. In any event, I shall be pleased to provide any further information that delegates may request.
Therefore, just to conclude, may I say that in the absence so far of any legislative action to safeguard the Organization's immunity from legal process in the future, recourse to the International Court of Justice seems to be a practical course of action which merits consideration by the Conference.
E. PASCARELLI (Italy): May I be permitted a foreword. I am a newcomer in the Organization, and as Representative of Italy I have been serving for the last four and a half months after a long period abroad. If I am not yet very familiar with the regulations, perhaps you will forgive me if at times I violate inadvertently one of them.
When I assumed this function I found an atmosphere between FAO and Italy which was very encouraging and serene. As a matter of fact my first duty was to be Vice-Chairman of the National Committee on the 40th Anniversary Celebration, and at the same time I participated in some meeting concerning other gestures of goodwill by my Government toward FAO for the extension of these headquarters and in various manifestations - and as a matter of fact I am leaving tonight for another one. You might believe that this has nothing to do with the theme, but I wanted to convey to you my impression of the general and global atmosphere with the FAO, which we have been hosting for forty years formally, but actually for eighty years because it was initiated by David Lubin in 1905, if I am not wrong.
In this frame of excellent relations, between host and guest, I was surprised at the reading of document C 85/LIM/10 that Mr Roche just summarized in his brief opening of the subject. It caused me surprise and alternatively sorrow, and what is more important, it frankly displeased my Government. I want to add immediately that I do not feel to be on the defendant's bench today since there are in the documents some rare acknowledgements of what my Government has tried to do in the matter, but again I want to stress that from the reading of the document as a whole, one is led to believe that there is a great tension between the host and the guest. I do not think this is true at all, and I hope that the distinguished colleagues who reside in Rome, or who have come to Rome for the Conference, feel likewise. As a matter of fact, no controversy exists between FAO and my Government; the document makes it clear, so I do not feel more than the Representative of Italy, called upon to cooperate in the evaluation of a planned recourse to the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on a legal matter, and on the interpretation of a clause of the Headquarters Agreement concerning immunity in a country where there is a very rigid separation of powers between the judiciary, the executive and the legislative.
So I feel that only to justify its proposed step, the FAO Secretariat has issued a lengthy document which in our view is full of academic points, sometimes inaccurate, sometimes tendentious, with dramatic conclusions - we are on the brink of war! - and with serious omissions which we regret; so we would have been happier if it had never been written. However, since it is on the record we feel entitled to request to put also the Italian remarks on the record rather than dwell on the details tonight. Actually we believe that a debate would benefit none of the parties; it would not help in preserving the cordial relations and the constructive atmosphere of cooperation that the Secretariat sometimes does not detect or, at least, does not operate to strengthen.
Now what is the course of action that Mr Roche was finally proposing? The recourse to the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice that apparently the Secretariat feels will be given overnight. We believe this is the wrong course of action and we are here, of course, to object to it. We have to give our opinion on what is the real and practical and constructive course of action. It is not the best course; not even a possible course. FAO contests that the Court of Cassazione's judgement was illegitimate in their view because of a different interpretation of the Organization's immunity under the Headquarters Agreement. This is the dispute. So the dispute is on the interpretation of a clause in the Headquarters Agreement by the highest Italian Court on one side, and the Organization and the Legal Office of the Organization on the other
side, with the backing of a Council motion. Now I think that che honourable colleagues, delegates of member countries, should know that the International Court of Justice, by Statute Article 34.1, if I am not wrong, cannot consider any case involving a party which is not a State. So this is a very firm point that the Conference should recall; it is prohibited to judge differences between non-States. Advisory Opinion is possible of course - although we do not believe it will take a day or two but some years - on a legal matter; but on a legal matter purporting a possible dispute where FAO would be the plainciff or a party at least. It is clear in this proposed step before the International Court of Justice that you seek an opinion on a case that can become a dispute between FAO and Italy, and where FAO could never seek the help of the International Court because it is against the Statute of the International Court and it is against the Headquarters Agreement. I want, gentlemen, to consider this precise point. The International Court of Justice has no say in a dispute between an Organization and a State, and an Advisory Opinion on a case that can become a dispute is a way to dodge the Statute of the International Court of Justice. So it is the considered opinion of the Italian Government that the International Court of Justice would refuse to give an Opinion, and if given it will take some years, and we would not be asked to produce any documents, nor would FAO.
Now, what would be happening in between? In the case of refusal - that is a waste of time; in the case of a lengthy wait for an answer - loss of time; and the Advisory response, as Mr Roche was saying, would not be binding before the Italian Courts. The problem rather than being solved would be aggravated after spoiling goodwill, because you have to consider that we did not like this brilliant idea of going to the Court before exhausting the ways provided for by Article XVII, Section 35 of the Headquarters Agreement very much.
There is a second possibility; the Court would give a very doubtful answer - if ever an answer is given - which would leave the case as it is for up to five or six years, for three or four Conferences, or could tell you that the opinion of FAO is wrong which would encourage all Italian parties to go before the Court. Is that what we are aiming at? This is not what my Government wants; this is not what my Government has been doing in the past, and not what we are going to do in the future.
Now I mentioned a few moments ago the remarks that we would wish to make regarding the document, and again I ask the Chairman to give us permission to put them on the record. I do not want to read the remarks because I think that would be a loss of time, but one point is clear. I heard Mr Roche say that several cases arose after the judgement of the Court Decision. Gentlemen, this is not true. There were two cases only, both derived from one accident, where one settlement was made, whereas the second did not pursue the legal action. There is today - 20th November 1985 - no - I repeat -no single case pending before the Italian courts and none is likely to go before the Italian courts.
Now the second point of the arbitration clause - and may I again mention one of the remarks is not correct - that after the judgement of the Court of Cassation any sentence of the arbitration court would not be valid.
The Secretariat seems to ignore what the Italian representative said at the Eighty-sixth Session of the Council, namely, that Italy has become a party to the New York Convention of 6th October 1958 and that Parliament has approved, and the Corte di Cassazione has repeatedly maintained, that the arbitration clauses do have the power to derogate from the ordinary jurisdiction of the Italian courto.
I would like the Secretariat of the Organization to be a little better informed on our legislation. After 35 years, I think we can at least ask that.
As for execution, another inaccuracy has been brought to the attention of my colleagues and I think it is my duty to rectify that. The Headquarters Agreement protects FAO and its immunity has never been challenged by anyone in Italy. Even INPDAI, after the court judgement condemning FAO to pay, refrained from asking for execution. On this point I will tell you something new later.
Let us see what the only legal basis is for a sensible course of action that would please my Government, that has been helping FAO and is willing to continue helping it. The only possible course is dictated by our Headquarters Agreement.
There is no dispute between the Italian Government and FAO. As we understand, government, and as you know, government in Italy means executive power. In English, government means everything including Parliament and the judiciary. In Italy the judicial courts - potere giudiziario as we call them -area different body. We consider them absolutely sovereign. The executive has no power over them. Only the legislative power can dictate because the law can modify the attitude of the Corte di Cassazione.
I want nobody to forget that we also have a Constitution which is above Parliament, and there is an article in the Constitution that the Secretariat also seems to ignore - Article 24, which establishes that all Italian citizens are guaranteed the full jurisdiction of che tutelage, that is the assistance. So to deny that assistance to an Italian, be it a citizen or a company, would mean to infringe the Constitution. Just for the record, I want to remind all delegates of this.
What is the suggestion of the Italian delegation? Article XVII, Section 35, is before me in the English text, and I will tell you that the only legal suit we are handling which made FAO possibly a little apprehensive of future happiness is the INPDAI case regarding the former increase of rent on a building that is not in this compound. As you may know, we are giving FAO financial assistance for the construction and extension of the premises here so that that building will no longer be needed by the FAO office. We will have one Government state property given to the Organization for one dollar a year, maybe updated to the present rate, and the new building will not be the cause of any payment of rents or possible legal suits.
Since the case concerns the interpretation of an article on immunity by the Italian Corte di Cassazione on the one side and FAO on the other side, I think we fall within the realm of this paper. Article XVII, Section 35, states that in a dispute between FAO and the Government - and I repeat Government in English means more than the executive - concerning the interpretation or application of this Agreement or any supplementary agreement, or any question affecting the Headquarters seat or the relationship between FAO and the Government which is not settled by negotiation or other agreed mode of settlement - I repeat which is not settled by negotiation or other agreed mode of settlement - shall be referred for final decision to a Tribunal of three arbitrators, one to be chosen by the Director-General, one to be chosen by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Italian Republic, and the third, who shall be Chairman of the Tribunal, to be chosen by the first two arbitrators. Should the first two arbitrators fail to agree upon the third, such arbitrator shall be chosen by the President of the International Court of Justice. And, of course, as you may have heard, this is the only mention of the International Court of Justice in this document which is the basis of the existence and of the welcome presence of FAO in Italy. So wich che present stace of things that would be time consuming and not binding and doubtful as to the effects, but also premature. Because I, personally, from what I have read, - because I took up my post only four months ago - do not find there has been an exhaustive effort for real consultations on the specific ways to prevent any future suits. I want to repeat that there have been no other suits since the one mentioned by Mr Roche. So we can sit down tomorrow if you want to, and I have already proposed that to FAO since the document came out, and together seek the way - because we are on your side; we are not on the other side. That means we cannot overcome the judgement of the Italian Court once it has been given but we can prevent the Italian Court from having anything to do with FAO since we believe that FAO has immunity. So we agree on that. The Corte di Cassazione considers that in a specific case FAO was not immune so opportune advice was given to FAO to prevent such cases in the future.
What in summary is the Italian Governments's position? First of all we respect the immunity of the Organization in matters relating to the sovereign functions. So I think the document could have mentioned that never in 35 years have we interfered with the life of this Organization, never have we impaired the activities of this Organization. It has a side effect in that we spend hundreds of millions of dollars to promote the activities of this Organization and so we can actually say in all conscience that the immunity of FAO has been sacredly respected by the Italian authorities.
When FAO undertakes a contract that is another matter. Here the case arises which has been complained about. How does one go about that? I will give you details of the case and I will not ignore the time.
In matters of property law, what we call in Latin acta iure gestio, such acts as contractual arrangements entered into by FAO with Italian individuals or companies, the Corte di Cassazione has declared that immunity from legal process cannot be recognized on the basis of Section 16 of the
Headquarters Agreement. However, such immunity would be recognized on the basis of proper arbitration contracts stipulated in detail, such clauses would have to provide for formal arbitration awards in accordance with the New York Convention, which I mentioned before, of 6rh October 1958 on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards, of which Italy is a party.
The third point is if a law suit against FAO were carried out to its conclusion, i.e. judgement was given by a competent court, because, for instance, no correct arbitration clause had been included in the contract, no execution of the judgement would ever take place because FAO's immunity from measures of execution under Section 17 of the Headquarters Agreement is undisputed. So I do not want to follow you, Mr Roche, when you say you are facing that. You will never face such a danger, not only because Article XVII has never been disputed - may I recall that after winning for the second time the case mentioned by Mr Roche - the INPDAI - although the judge pronounced his judgement against FAO, they never even tried to initiate execution. So this is a case that I knew very well. Winning the case did not mean execution against the properties of FAO.
If this is litigation, as it is actually, the members of the Conference will agree with me that FAO's position in Italy is not so precarious or dangerous as portrayed in the document. We are not on the brink of the collapse of poor FAO, because you have lived with us for two happy weeks and you have seen that not one member of the law enforcement forces of Italy has approached the premises. You have had no legal case brought here and I do not think you have been harrassed by anybody. So FAO has never been harrassed by any Italian authorities because we respect the immunity.
Understandably, it is a nuisance for the Secretariat of the Organization to have to worry about possible losses before the Italian court, but may I remind you in this connection that the risk of such losses would be diminished if the Secretariat made, as I proposed, an increased effort to learn about the legal system of the host country, the country in which they have been for 35 years, and exerted greater care in trying to respect its rules.
I would like to note in passing, as I did before, that cases of execution never occur.
Now the Italian Government is willing to cooperate with the Secretariat by assisting it in all possible ways in order that it might obtain a better understanding of the Italian legal system and, as all lawyers know, not by any bad faith but by using ways to circumvent some of the laws that might impair or risk the immunity of FAO. So we can find legal ways to circumvent or other legal avenues, if I might express this concept in these legally correct words. So let us join together in looking for new legislation. I heard today that no new legislation has been issued, and I think that the FAO Secretariat should know, as other Italian newspaper readers know, that we have under discussion right now a law to protect foreign states of the Organization from execution, and although FAO is already protected, what would we do? We would find a way to reimburse the plaintiff who cannot exercise execution of the culprits with Government money.
To close these remarks, I am ready to come back to this point and suggest that we fully respect Section 35 of Article XVII by setting aside this idea of the International Court of Justice, which would bring no useful practical results in good time, and recommend to the Conference that as the Italian Government is prepared to sit down tomorrow and look for a way of helping FAO in cases where the courts could risk violating the immunity, which it is not our intention ever to violate, these discussions would certainly be constructive because we can even interpret this Article XVI concerning immunity. We might even be invited by FAO to suggest legislative action on the interpretation, because in the interpretation of that Article there are two different texts, one in English and one in French and they are not actually the same. We could spell out what it means and we could bring the case before Parliament. As I have said, the law is higher than the Corte di Cassazione.
Being the representative of the host country, I have had to try a little of your patience. I thank you very much.
A. RODRIGUES PIRES (Cap-Vert) : Il n'y a pas de doute qu'après l'intervention de M. Roche, l'intervention très claire présentée par mon collègue l'ambassadeur d'Italie, je pense que des efforts ont été déployés de la part du pays hôte; la présence du Président de la République dans cette salle, à l'occasion du 40ème anniversaire de notre Organisation et de la célébration de la Journée mondiale de l'alimentation en témoigne.
Ma délégation est consciente de l'importance du respect de l'immunité, telle qu'elle existe à Genève, à Paris, à New York et ailleurs, mais je suis tenté d'appuyer la proposition du représentant de l'Italie d'essayer de trouver une solution entre familles car il nous a très bien expliqué le mécanisme et les efforts de son gouvernement. D'ailleurs, n'oublions pas que l'Italie est un pays qui fait de grands efforts, à travers son gouvernement; et à travers la FAO, pour aider les pays en développement. Mon gouvernement appuie la proposition faite par l'honorable ambassadeur d'Italie.
A. ABDEL-MALEK (Liban) (langue originale arabe): La délégation libanaise aimerait saisir cette occasion pour remercier M. Roche qui nous a exposé les relations entre les pays hôtes et nous a parlé de la question de l'immunité conformément au document C 85/LIM/10. La délégation libanaise aimerait aussi saluer l'ambassadeur d'Italie auprès de la FAO pour toutes les informations utiles qu'il a bien voulu nous donner.
Nous avons eu l'occasion de traiter de ce sujet lors de la quatre-vingt-sixième session du Conseil au mois de novembre 1984, lors des réunions de la Commission du programme à laquelle j'ai eu l'honneur de participer et lors de la session de juin 1985 du Conseil et le sujet est encore à l'étude. Nous avons tous examiné les documents qui nous ont été présentés qui témoignent que le Gouvernement italien a fourni récemment des efforts louables évidents pour le bien de l'Organisation. Parmi ces démarches, il faut citer les efforts du Président de la République italienne, M. Cossiga, qui a bien voulu visiter l'Organisation le 16 octobre 1985, et ce pour fêter l'anniversaire de l'Organisation et poser avec M. Saouma, Directeur de l'Organisation, la première pierre du nouvel édifice que le Gouvernement italien a l'intention de construire pour donner plus de bureaux pour abriter les fonctionnaires de la FAO et pour "pouvoir se passer du bâtiment qui se trouve à l'extérieur de la FAO", comme l'a dit Son Excellence l'Ambassadeur d'Italie. Donc, il est certain que le Gouvernement italien ne veut que le bien de notre Organisation. Les excellentes relations qui existent entre l'Italie et la FAO incitent la délégation libanaise à proposer d'ajourner toute prise de décision concernant le Conseil consultatif que nous avons l'intention de demander à la Cour internationale de justice au sujet de l'interprétation des deux articles 16 et 17 de l'Accord de siège concernant l'immunité de l'Organisation. Ce sujet devrait être ajourné et toute latitude devrait être laissée à M. le Directeur général pour qu'il puisse se mettre en contact avec le Gouvernement italien dans le but de résoudre le problème d'une façon susceptible de donner l'immunité sollicitée par l'Organisation et accordée aux autres organisations internationales dans d'autres pays, façon qui permettrait de respecter l'indépendance du système judiciaire italien. Ce sujet pourrait être étudié ultérieurement si jamais il n'y a pas de solution possible avec le Gouvernement italien.
R.C. GUPTA (India): Mr Chairman, my delegation would like to express our pleasure at seeing you presiding at our deliberations.
With regard to the subject under discussion, we have carefully gone through these documents which have been presented by the Secretariat, namely C 85/LIM/10 and C 85/LIM/15. We have listened with great interest and close attention to a splendid intervention by His Excellency Ambassador Pascarelli.
I might mention, for the information of my distinguished colleagues here, that Ambassador Pascarelli was representing his country in India before he became the Permanent Representative of Italy to FAO. I have considerable personal regard and admiration for his great qualities, and in his first major intervention in FAO he has really proved his mastery over legal aspects and shown skill in his arguments. I really admire him. However, having said that, the present situation is that the immunity of the Organization is in some doubt. It has not been recognized by the highest court of justice in Italy in a matter which was brought before the court by the landlords of Building F.
We feel that this is a situation which renders the working of the Organization difficult, which would considerably detract from its efficacy and its mandate, which is of great importance the mandate to eradicate hunger and malnutrition from the poor areas and poor countries. If such organizations are engaged in lengthy litigations in courts, we feel that is not a happy situation. We are nevertheless aware of the fact that the Government of Italy lately has been taking an extremely positive attitude towards the Organization. We have considerable regard and admiration for recent steps which the Government has taken. It has announced a contribution of US$ 18 million for the FAO building, for adding to the existing premises to ensure that all the offices of FAO in Rome are housed under one roof.
We also heard Ambassador Pascarelli saying that the Government is proposing legislation which would, to the extent possible, remedy the situation created by the judgment of the highest court of justice in Italy and would safeguard the immunity of the Organization. We have been hearing of such things for quite some time, but with the present mood in the Government and with the present representative of the host country in FAO, we have every hope that things will improve and that the situation which has been created by the judgement will be taken care of by fresh legislation.
Nevertheless, the immunity of the Organization, its effectiveness, its freedom from harassment, is extremely important and dear to us., and we would like to be doubly sure that no effort is spared to ensure this immunity.
If our distinguished colleague from Italy would like us to feel that FAO is completely immune from legal action and that legislation would be undertaken for that purpose, we would be very happy, but we felt that his statement left many things ambiguous, left many things vague, and - let me be very candid - we are not fully assured. In fact, the interpretation given to Section 16 of the Headquarters Agreement and the august interpretation of Section 17, under which FAO is immune from any measure of execution - these two are somewhat contradictory and somewhat difficult to interpret in the sense that, if Italian courts have the jurisdiction in the matter where FAO enters into private contracts with individuals but again if the same individuals cannot execute those orders because of the immunity granted by Section 17, it substantially detracts from the authority of the court. In India we attach the highest importance and honour to the independence of the judiciary, to ensure that their judgements are carried out; but this situation is not at all satisfactory in that what Section 16 gives to a citizen of Italy, Section 17 takes away. This is not a happy situation. We must have some kind of legislation to ensure that Sections 16 and 17 fall in line, and that the immunities of the Organization are clearly defined.
We feel that an advisory opinion is essential unless the Government of Italy categorically assures this Organization and this Conference that the fresh legislation would ensure that the Organization would have complete immunity, as other Specialized Agencies of the United Nations have in other countries where they have permanent headquarters.
Taking all these facts into consideration, we feel that the Conference may not at this immediate juncture decide to refer the matter to the opinion of the International Court of Justice at The Hague, but may perhaps like to delegate this authority to the FAO Council that, by watching the situation as it develops, could perhaps decide whether it is necessary to refer this matter to this court. I am making this suggestion in view of the fact that the Conference will have an opportunity of looking at this matter only two years hence, and if in the meantime the situation is not satisfactory we should have some way of finding recourse for some relief. My suggestion would be that this authority be delegated to the Council for the time being, that we should watch the situation, that we should honour the promise of the Government of Italy, and if we find a satisfactory solution it will not be necessary to refer the matter to the International Court; but if the Organization and its member countries are not satisfied, we would like to have the opportunity of seeking an Advisory Opinion.
J.P. ROLLIN (Federal Republic of Germany) (original language German): Mr Chairman, my delegation wishes you all success in your position.
My delegation shares the concern of FAO that still no solution bas been found to the many years of dispute with the Government of the host country.
The document before us may lead us to the conclusion that two legal opinions are opposing one another, both of which appear dogmatically conclusive. One might argue that the interpretation following the letter of the Headquarters Agreement by FAO which has been under discussion for a long time and the revision of which is more than due, might also make room for a more flexible attitude. Such an attitude could follow more recent Headquarters Agreements which provide for fewer immunities in the ius gestionis area than in the ius imperii area, and which provide for an obligation to relinquish immunity in individual cases at the discretion of the Organization.
It could also be contended that the restrictive attitude of the Host Government might be more generous. Recently, it even raised a reservation concerning accession to the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies which appears to leave possibility in future Headquarters Agreements for restrictive granting of privileges and immunities. Nevertheless, more generous arrangements remain possible, as you have heard from the Italian Government and as we have also heard from the representative of the Italian Government who spoke just now. These two positions, which are apparently difficult to reconcile, could surely be overcome given some goodwill in seeking practical solutions.
My country is unaware of any other countries where international organizations have their head quarters having lengthy disputes such as those faced with in Rome. This presumably means that solutions are found in those countries whenever problems arise which are probably similar to those existing in Rome.
My country is not opposed to the idea of seeking an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice.
Since such an opinion is not legally binding, we can only hope that it will encourage both parties to reflect on a way to solve the situation. Such a way could consist of adopting the Headquarters Agreement to immunity regulations that would appear appropriate to the present situation, which is presently being studied by the International Law Commission.
In any case, my delegation urges both parties to seek practical solutions such as those which, obviously, could be found in other places.
L.E. WILLIAMS (Trinidad and Tobago): Mr Chairman, I should like to join with previous speakers to express my appreciation at seeing you in the Chair. I also wish to thank the legal adviser for his lucid introduction of the subject.
The matter before us has been occupying the attention of the Council, the Finance Committee and the CCLM, as well as the Host Government, for a considerable time. Regrettably, no appreciable headway has been made with regard to the main issue which turns on the legal right of FAO and its property to enjoy immunity from every form of legal process.
The background to what has now become a contentious issue is well known. It is also well known that the Council has fully endorsed the views of the Director-General with regard to the interpretation of Sections 16 and 17 of the Headquarters Agreement.
The Government of Trinidad and Tobago shares the concern of the Director-General that this unhappy situation has continued for too long and should be expeditiously solved. In this context the delegation of Trinidad and Tobago would be inclined to favour the referral of the matter to the International Court of Justice. We feel, however, that this should be the last step to be taken and in spite of the fact that, as I have said before, this matter has been dragging on and on and on. We think that given the goodwill that has been shown by the Host Government, although admittedly this goodwill has not been translated into the positive type of action that we would wish to see, we should persevere in trying to arrive at a solution between FAO and the Host Government prior to going to the International Court of Justice. We are governed in this view by the thought that the decision of the International Court of Justice will not be binding in any event, and that by taking the matter there the results could well be counterproductive in the long run.
Therefore, at this stage we want to accept the idea in principle but to give the parties more time to come to an amicable settlement. This is the position of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago on this matter.
I.P. ALVARENGA (El Salvador): Muchas gracias, Sr. Presidente, nuestra delegación ha venido siguiendo con particular atención el problema que nos ocupa, dado que en él están involucrados algunos principios fundamentales para la existencia y el buen funcionamiento de nuestra Organización. Quisiera, antes de entrar a considerar las cuestiones de fondo, expresar una entusiasta felicitación al Sr. Asesor Legal por la exposición que nos ha hecho. Se ha limitado, como él decia, al proyecto presentado a la consideración de la Conferencia. No ha querido hacer una historia exhaustiva del caso, y de ahí que por eso no se ha referido a algunos pormenores. Por ejemplo, no ha mencionado todos los aspectos legales que el distinguido Embajador de Italia ha señalado, en cierto modo acusando a la Secretaría de no haberlos tenido en cuenta. Todo lo que el Sr. Embajador de Italia invoca está incluido en otros documentos elaborados por la Secretaría, expresa o implícitamente.
Yo pienso que no se trata de eso, no se trata de ignorar o querer ignorar la legislación italiana. El problema es mucho más profundo y voy a llegar a ello dentro de un momento. Sólo quisiera decir que, a nuestro juicio, no es necesario en manera alguna, de ningún modo, llegar a formular acusaciones más o menos drásticas en contra de nadie, ni de la FAO y mucho menos, subrayo profundamente, ni mucho menos, contra el Gobierno italiano. A nuestro juicio, ni siquiera se debe hablar de disputa, no se debe hablar de litigio; se trata - y en esto no nos cansaremos de insistir suficientemente - que lo que hay es un desacuerdo entre amigos. No existe ningún grupo humano, no existe ninguna institución donde no surjan opiniones discordantes. Eso es esencial de la naturaleza humana. Y aquí nos encontramos ante una discrepancia de opiniones que no tiene por qué llevar a ningún enfrentamiento de ningún tipo. Lo que tenemos que hacer es tratar de encontrar una solución satisfactoria para todos que respete la profunda dignidad del Gobierno italiano, a quien nadie, absolutamente nadie, al menos que nosotros sepamos, está pretendiendo poner en el banquillo de los acusados. Nosotros seríamos los primeros en protestar enérgicamente si alguien tuviese, así fuese remotamente, esa intención, y que al mismo tiempo respete los intereses y los derechos legítimos de la Organización para que pueda cumplir adecuadamente con sus fines.
Yo me permitiría, señor Presidente, una brevísima recapitulación de lo que ha ocurrido en este caso, no porque pretenda aburrir al auditorio, no porque crea que sea yo el llamado a hacerlo, sino que, debo necesariamente hacer referencia a algunos datos de hecho cuando intervenga para proponer una solución.
Como ustedes saben, el caso se originó a través del contrato de arrendamiento que existe entre la Organización y los edificios situados en la Via Cristoforo Colombo de la cual son propietarios una asociación de ejecutivos italianos en pensión. En el contrato de alquiler se señalaba que, conforme a un índice que, según en el mismo contrato "se establecía, el alquiler aumentaría con el incremento del costo de la vida o conforme al índice establecido. Cuando se dió la legislación de lo que en italiano se llama "equo cánone", que sería algo asi alquiler equitativo, con base en esa ley, la FAO estimó que no estaba obligada a pagar ese aumento en los alquileres, y se negó a pagarlo, tal como estaba establecido en el contrato. Los propietarios recurrieron ante los tribunales. No se había decidido todavía en los tribunales inferiores, cuando se recurrió a la Corte de Casación, a fin de que ésta dictaminase si la FAO tenía o no plena inmunidad de jurisdicción. La Corte de Casación dio un dictamen desfavorable a la FAO, tal como ha sido recordado por el Sr. Asesor Legal y por el distinguido Embajador de Italia, alegando fundamentalmente una cuestión que me permito referir porque es lo sustancial en todo el litigio. Según la Corte de Casación, la FAO goza de inmunidad de cualquier tipo de procedimiento cuando ejecuta actos que son destinados directamente a la ejecución de sus fines, y no tiene inmunidad cuando realiza actos que son propios de un particular. Nosotros suponemos, para aclarar con un ejemplo - perdonen si soy un poco redundante; seguramente todos los distinguidos delegados entienden la situación, pero quiero explicarla un poco más. A nadie se le ocurriría que la FAO podría llevar a los tribunales italianos por el nombramiento de la FAO en un país, supongamos. No cabe la idea de que eso pueda llevar a los tribunales italianos, porque es parte de la esencia de la FAO, pero si en la FAO se establecieran, por parte de la FAO, negocios privados, venta de artículos para el hogar, etc., que no tienen que ver en relación con la FAO, al menos en términos generales, entonces dice la Corte:
Esos actos que la FAO ejecuta como un privado, como una persona cualquiera, pero eso sí, no se puede impedir que el particular que contrata con la FAO recurra a los tribunales italianos, porque entonces se le niega la aplicación del derecho que la Constitución le señala de poder recurrir a la Justicia.
Cuando la Corte de Casación emitió su dictamen, se presentaron otros casos, no todos de los cuales fueron a los tribunales. En el litigio central con los propietarios del edificio F llegó incluso sentencia y la FAO fue condenada a pagar una fuerte suma a los propietarios del edificio F. En ese momento la Organización se encontraba en una posición de verdadera angustia, y no es exagerado afirmarlo porque se esperaba de un momento a otro que hubiera la ejecución por parte de un juez, de un juez ejecutor que es completamente autónomo en este país, como bien lo ha señalado el señor representante de Italia, donde los poderes gozan de una independencia constitucional. La FAO recurrió a todos sus organismos de gobierno y se analizaron tres posibles soluciones. Ya desde entonces se hablaba de tres posibles soluciones. Una, el arbitraje según señala el Convenio de Sede; dos, una nueva ley que declarara de forma categórica y para siempre que la FAO gozaba de inmunidad plena, y otra, una tercera posibilidad, que siempre se ha visto como un recurso de última instancia, de ir a la Corte Internacional de Justicia. Italia prometió que iba a dar una nueva legislación que resolviese el problema, pero cuando esta ley se promulgó, por así decirlo, porque realmente no fue hecho, sino que lo que ocurrió fue una reforma a una ley ya existente, la situación nueva quedó en que para que la FAO pudiera ser ejecutada, para que los bienes de la FAO pudiesen ser embargados por un juez, tenía que dar primero el Ministro de Justicia una autorización. Aquí ya quisiera referirme de pasada a unas de las afirmaciones que ha hecho el Sr. Embajador de Italia. Si la ley italiana, si la legislación italiana prevé la necesidad de recurrir al Ministerio de Justicia para pedir la autorización para embargar los bienes de la FAO, quiere decir que la legislación italiana prevé la posibilidad de que eso ocurra, y la única esperanza que hay en este momento es que el Ministro de Justicia niegue la ejecución; pero entonces es la ley italiana la que está autorizando a la ejecución, salvo que el Ministro de Justicia se oponga.
El problema de recurrir a la cláusula del arbitraje realmente no es menos disputa que ir a la Corte Internacional de Justicia. Dice el Sr. Embajador de Italia que ir a la Corte Internacional de Justicia es una disputa, yo creo que no es una disputa, no debe plantearse como una disputa, sino insisto como la solicitud de un consejo a un tercero para que dirima una diversidad de opiniones entre dos amigos, pero él dice vamos entonces al arbitraje y yo le preguntaría ¿y eso no es una disputa? Allí vamos a litigar. Vamos a presentar argumentaciones y vamos a tener un abogado que defienda la FAO ante el tribunal, y eso va a tomar años y años, porque no significa que un tribunal de arbitraje se pronuncie en 24 horas. Eso podría tardar incluso más que ir a la Corte Internacional de Justicia y es tan litigio como ir a la Corte. Realmente a nuestro modo de ver, y tal como se argumenta exhaustivamente en el documento presentado por el Director General, la única solución que queda es ir a la Corte Internacional de Justicia.
Nosotros por nuestra parte como delegación no vamos a insistir en que se haga por fuerza y que se haga constar antes. Creemos ante todo, y en esto queremos ser claros, que no se puede ir a la Corte contra la opinión de Italia, porque si vamos contra la opinión de Italia es como una declaratoria de guerra; claro que no es guerra, pero es la máxima instancia, la máxima discrepancia que puede haber entre dos entidades con personalidad internacional.
Cuando un país o un Estado llevan a otra entidad de personalidad internacional ante la Corte, obligándola a comparecer, realmente está haciendo el máximo de un acto amistoso, pero el máximo acto de presión que pueda hacer a nivel internacional que no sea la declaración de guerra o el rompimiento de hostilidades. De modo que yo creo que no podemos pensar en ir a la Corte Internacional de Justicia en contra de la voluntad de Italia, pero sí creemos que deberíamos convencer a nuestro amigo, a nuestro respetado,admirado, noble Gobierno italiano a que resolvamos ante la Corte un problema que será problema en la medida en que no encontremos una solución definitiva para siempre. Lo peor que podemos hacer es no buscar una solución que zanje de una sola vez esta cuestión porque la dificultad surje precisamente en arrastrar un año, otro año, más años el mismo tema de discusión.
Disculpe usted si hablo demasiado pero quisiera mencionar un caso que para nosotros tiene gran importancia ejemplificativa, aunque sea un poco fuera de lugar. Nuestro país tuvo con la hermana República de Honduras una guerra en 1979, una guerra total con enfrentamientos y con muchísimos muertos. La cual se dijo que había empezado por motivos banales. Los motivos realmente eran de fondo y muy graves y son problemas que siguen siendo actuales. Nuestros dos Gobiernos han firmado un tratado de paz en el cual se resolvían sus principales problemas, pero se dejaba una cuestión todavía sin resolver.
Nuestros dos Gobiernos están planeando en estos momentos ir a la Corte Internacional de Justicia de La Haya; no porque se consideran que tienen cuestiones completamente inconciliables y que la única solución sería la guerra, al contrario, para evitar las tensiones futuras para tener un tribunal imparcial autorizado que dicte una opinión que satisfaga a todos. Con ese mismo espíritu creemos nosotros que se debe afrontar esa cuestión. Me permito hacer algunas observaciones a las argumentaciones del Embajador de Italia, no porque quiera entrar en polémica con él, y le pido sinceramente disculpa, sino sólo para aclarar un poco el debate.
Dice el Embajador italiano que sería imposible ir a la Corte porque esto es una disputa y las disputas ante la Corte sólo las hacen los Estados. Perfecto, yo estoy de acuerdo pero entonces digamos que no sea una disputa, que sea como se dice en los textos de la Corte Internacional de Justicia una opinión consultiva. De eso se trata no de plantear una disputa. Entonces el argumento cae por su base. Depende cómo lo enfrentemos. Si nosotros decimos que vamos a una disputa claro que sería imposible, pero si vamos a resolver una cuestión entre amigos es perfectamente factible. Dice que el fallo no resuelve nada, no sirve, porque entre otras cosas, no sé si me equivoco, no vincularía al Poder Judicial italiano. Realmente el fallo sirve como sirven todas las cuestiones a nivel internacional. Los contratos, los pactos, cualquier acto judicial entre los Estados no tiene ni más validez que el papel donde está escrito si los que se han comprometido a ponerlo en práctica no lo cumplen, porque no hay manera de obligar a un Estado a cumplir con lo que ha pactado o con una sentencia de un tribunal internacional.
Esto es verdad pero es cierto también que la sentencia, que el fallo, que la opinión de la Corte tendría un inmenso valor moral, y lo que es más importante, si bien es cierto que no vincularía al Poder Judicial italiano, le daría al Gobierno italiano una base estupenda para presentar un proyecto de ley al Parlamento que pueda resolver la cuestión de una manera definitiva e inequivocable.
En cuanto al arbitraje lo primero hay que recurrir al arbitraje y después a la Corte Internacional de Justicia, pero él leyó el artículo y ustedes se habrán fijado en una frase muy significativa, dice que se recurrirá al arbitraje cuando se haya agotado (cito el texto en inglés) "or other mode of settlement" que fue lo que citó el señor representante de Italia, es decir, si hay otra forma de arreglar la disención, esa forma se puede aplicar sin contravenir el convenio de Sede. Ese "or other mode of settlement" nada impide que no se pueda pedir a la Corte Internacional de Justicia una opinión esclarecedora.
En cuanto a que la inmunidad de la FAO está plenamente garantizada, nosotros no dudamos en lo más mínimo de que el Gobierno italiano tenga en este momento la más firme determinación de impedir la ejecución de los bienes de la FAO. Pero no depende del Gobierno, depende del Poder Judicial, depende de los pretorios, depende de los jueces inferiores sobre los cuales el Gobierno no tiene ninguna capacidad de control precisamente por la independencia de poderes que todos admiramos en este democrático país.
Por otra parte, ahora tenemos un gobierno, dentro de 10 años, dentro de 40 años, cuando la FAO esté cumpliendo de nuevo otros 40 años, ¿quién va a estar en el gobierno? ¿Quién nos lo garantiza que entonces habrá la misma decisión política? No es juzgar mal a los futuros gobiernos italianos, sobre los cuales no quiero emitir juicio, pero es un hecho que nadie nos garantiza que dentro de 5, de 10 años, de 50 años, vamos a tener la misma predisposición por parte del poder ejecutivo. Entonces de ahí lo lógico es que quede establecido de una manera para siempre y claramente cuál es la verdadera solución.
Me parece que el señor representante de Italia la ha esbozado, la ha propuesto concretamente. Una nueva Ley. Efectivamente, eso es lo que la FAO ha venido pidiendo. El Gobierno italiano se prometió a darla, pero después no pudo. Nosotros sabemos las dificultades gravísimas que existen
internamente en el Estado italiano para llegar a una solución: no pudo hacer lo que hubiera deseado seguramente y entonces lo que hizo fue reformar una ley que hoy, repito, no resuelve el problema de manera categórica. De modo que una nueva ley podría ser la solución. Pero mientras tanto la FAO, ¿qué hace? Primero, seguramente, como muy bien han aconsejado varios delegados que me han precedido en el uso de la palabra, continuar tratando con el Gobierno italiano, y eso es indiscutible. Nosotros pensamos que lo primero que debe hacer la Conferencia es pedir al Director General que agote todos los esfuerzos que estén a su alcance para lograr con el Gobierno italiano una solución negociada que no implique ningún tipo de proceso, ningún tipo de recurrir a tribunales de ninguna especie. Pero si eso no se realiza entonces yo creo que debemos dejar la posibilidad de que la Conferencia como ha propuesto el distinguido delegado de la India, faculte al Consejo para que, analizando los elementos de hecho o de derecho que estime oportunos decida entre esta Conferencia y la otra, naturalmente porque la próxima podrá decidir soberanamente si lleva el asunto a la Corte Internacional de Justicia.
Le ruego señor Presidente por tercera vez que me disculpe por la desmesurada extensión de esta intervención, pero es que como, repito, para nosotros este es un tema particularmente interesante en el cual nos preocupa por una parte, repito, la buena marcha de la FAO, y por otra la dignidad, el respeto que nos merece el Gobierno italiano, con el que estamos seguros que no obstante seguirán existiendo las excelentes relaciones que todos deseamos y que por fortuna en esta Conferencia se han mantenido.
C. di MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): Quisiera antes que todo alegrarme con el Sr. Roche no sólo por el brillante documento que él ha presentado, sino por la brillante exposición del tema. Quisiera alegrarme también con el Embajador de Italia porque con su estilo muy eficaz nos presentó muchos aspectos jurídicos interesantes del problema que tenemos a la vista. No estoy completamente de acuerdo con el título del documento que habla de relaciones entre la FAO y el Gobierno del país hospedante, porque las relaciones entre la FAO y el Gobierno del país hospedante son de las más buenas que puedan existir. Todos nuestros países están sumamente agradecidos por 40 años de hospitalidad y esto el Gobierno italiano lo sabe y lo ha demostrado con la calurosa celebración del 40 Aniversario de existencia de la FAO, con la visita del Presidente Cossiga, con lo que va a gastar por construir este nuevo edificio que es la ampliación del edificio existente. Con lo que nos enfrentamos en este momento no es un problema de relaciones, es un problema estrictamente técnico y de funcionalidad, es un problema jurídico desde el punto de vista de funcionalidad.
Todos sabemos que la totalidad de las agencias de las Naciones Unidas gozan de tratados de sede que les asegura plena inmunidad.
En este momento no existen problemas afortunadamente entre la FAO y ninguna organización italiana. La FAO ha demostrado también buena voluntad, como lo han demostrado sus representantes y todo lo que existía como lío en la mesa ha sido completamente resuelto.
Por lo tanto, existe solamente un problema de carácter teórico; el problema de carácter teórico se resuelve en la interpretación del Tratado de Sede; quisiera decir más bien, en un artículo del Tratado de Sede, que es el Artículo VIII.
El Tratado de Sede ha sido estipulado en Wáshington, pero en lo sucesivo ha sido transformado en ley italiana: es la Ley N° 11 de 9 de enero de 1951.
Ha sido transformado en Ley del Tratado de Sede porque se dice que ambos textos son auténticos. Por lo tanto, ambos se equivalen ahora en el texto inglés de esta Ley. En el Artículo VIII se dice que la FAO está exenta "enjoys inmunity from every form of legal procedure." El fallo de la Corte di Cassazione es que no ha aceptado esta exposición literal. Ha aceptado una exposición restrictiva. Yo me permito decir, que a nuestra vez, esta disposición restrictiva deja muchísimas dudas. O sea, no es aceptable. ¿Por qué no es aceptable? Primero, porque contraviene a normas de derecho internacional.
Segundo, porque contraviene hasta normas de derecho internacional que son aceptadas por las leyes italianas.
Las leyes italianas, como ustedes saben, dicen que cualquier código civil está precedido por una parte que se llama Disposiciones sobre la Ley en General.
El Artículo VIII de las disposiciones sobre la ley en general dice exactamente: Aplicando la ley no se puede atribuir a la ley misma otro sentido que el expresado por las palabras mismas, o sea, no se puede absolutamente aceptar desde el punto de vista italiano, claro que el punto de vista italiano refleja un punto de vista que es la doctrina internacional. No se puede aceptar una interpretación restrictiva que esté ya clara. Esto en italiano suena así: "Interpretazione della legge nell'applicare la legge non si può ad essa attribuire altro senso che quello fatto palese del significato proprio delle parole".
El delegado de Alemania hablando hace unos minutos, con una intervención muy interesante, nos habló también que este Tratado de Sede, en ciertos puntos, no está conforme con una evolución sucesiva, ni convenciones que han seguido.
Yo me permito recordar al delegado de Alemania que en el Artículo XVII, en su Sección 35, subpárrafo b) está previsto el caso de evolución del Derecho y se descarta completamente la posibilidad de que lo que está previsto en este Tratado sea limitado por tratados sucesivos, o sea, dice que en tales casos lo que se tiene "the provisions of this agreement shall prevail". Esa es la versión inglesa y está traducida exactamente en el idioma italiano. No estoy muy de acuerdo con el párrafo 42 del documento tan brillante que nos ha presentado la Secretaría. La Secretaría dice que no hay discrepancia entre el texto inglés y el texto italiano. Esto puede ser interpretado restrictivamente y es lo que ha motivado el fallo de la Casazione. El texto inglés en cambio, que es ley italiana como puse de relieve antes, es mucho más preciso y excluye cualquier forma de restricción. A estas alturas yo creo que la única solución legal posible, porque me doy cuenta que el Gobierno italiano está vinculado por el fallo de la Casazione, es lo que ha sido propuesto aquí en esta misma Organización por la delegación italiana no sé si el año pasado, pues es un intercambio de cartas entre la Dirección General de la FAO y el Gobierno italiano, un intercambio de cartas interpretativo que sea ratificado por el Parlamento, y confío que a esto sea posible llegar y recomiendo que éste sea el camino a seguir. De todas maneras tenemos que tener presente que también esto puede no alcanzarse. Por lo tanto me permito apoyar firmemente la propuesta hecha por la delegación de India, apoyada por la delegación de El Salvador y por muchas otras delegaciones, de que se confíe al Consejo la decisión de pedir una opinión exclusivamente consultiva de La Haya, en el caso de que los esfuerzos del Director General y del Gobierno italiano para encontrar una solución no llegaran a la misma. Para ésta sería únicamente una opinión consultiva y por lo tanto no sería absolutamente una guerra; sería algo que daría una cierta fuerza moral a los negociadores para pedir después una solución al Parlamento italiano.
No sé si es necesario para esto una resolución.
Yo creo que sí o si es suficiente poner esto en el informe. Yo creo que el Sr. Roche debería darnos una opinión al respecto sobre en qué forma se podría llegar a delegar estos poderes al Consejo.
H. BENATTALLAH (Algérie): Brièvement nous tenons, Monsieur le Président, à nous associer aux félicitations pour votre accession à la présidence de notre Commission. Nous sommes persuadés que toutes vos qualités aideront chacun à un bon déroulement des travaux.
Nous remercions aussi Monsieur Roche pour l'excellent exposé introductif qu'il nous a présenté.
La position de l'Algérie sur cette question est celle contenue dans le rapport de la quarante-sixième session du CGCJ et de la quatre-vingt-septième session du Conseil, toutes deux réunies en juin 1985.
Nous appuyons donc ce qui a été dit par le délégué du Liban, notamment par le délégué du Cap-Vert, et avons été très attentifs à ce qu'a déclaré l'Ambassadeur d'Italie; nous préconisons nous aussi une ouverture dans ce sens.
Concernant les positions exprimées par le Comité juridique et le Conseil et que nous faisons nôtres, permettez-moi de les rappeler brièvement, parce que dans le document C 85/LIM/10, elles ne figurent pas. C'est à notre avis un élément relativement défavorable au vu de l'analyse très fouillée qui a été faite.
Le rapport du Comité juridique à ce sujet avait estimé qu'il serait encore prématuré de s'adresser à la Cour internationale de justice et a suggéré d'épuiser tous les recours en vue de parvenir à une solution à l'amiable, c'est-à-dire à une solution négociée.
Le Conseil également a estimé qu'il serait prématuré de s'adresser à la Cour internationale de justice et tout en reconnaissant qu'il était encore prématuré de saisir la Cour il a transmis cette question à la Conférence.
Comme membre du Comité juridique et au vu des décisions des recommandations du Comité juridique et du Conseil, nous supposions que cette question était pratiquement résolue, en tout cas dans son principe, et nous partageons un peu l'étonnement exprimé par le délégué de l'Italie devant la production de ce document.
Nous avons cependant un motif de satisfaction parce que c'est un document assez fouillé, extrêmement complet, auquel on ne nous avait pas habitué au Comité juridique bien que cette question ait été longuement analysée et discutée et bien souvent les membres du Comité juridique n'ont pas eu tous les compléments d'information qu' ils souhaitaient. En cela le document qui nous est présenté aujourd'hui mérite notre satisfaction.
Mais cependant nous sommes étonnés de la production de ce document car nous pensions que depuis quelques années la pression avait un peu baissé avec le Gouvernement de l'Etat hôte, et cela a été attesté - nous le supposions en tout cas - par le passage du Président de la République d'Italie, le Président du Conseil, et aussi le Ministre des affaires étrangères. Nous pensions que tous ces éléments réunis ainsi que les négociations qui se sont déroulées pendant ces dernières années avaient abouti ou contribué à clarifier et à assainir la situation. Le paragraphe 13 de ce document atteste néanmoins de la sérénité de l'atmosphère puisqu'il déclare et dispose que presque tous les différends ont été réglés. Partant de ces prémisses il nous semblait que remettre à jour cette question de l'opportunité de s'adresser à la Cour internationale de justice était un peu discutable.
A l'instar de l'Ambassadeur d'Italie, nous avons aussi été étonnés par le ton du texte sur certains points, notamment lorsqu'il parle de menaces permanentes, lorsque, s'adressant au délégué de l'Italie, il regrette une attitude préremptoire. Je trouve cela un peu déplaisant à l'égard d'un Etat Membre, de même lorsqu'il parle de mesures coercitives, je pense que le ton de ce document a été sans doute, volontairement ou involontairement, je l'ignore, gonflé pour une question qui, à notre avis, était déjà résolue.
Le document présente beaucoup de détails de procédure à notre avis mais il est aussi partial et aussi relativement incomplet. Relativement partial parce qu'il nous a semblé que toute la construction de ce document reposait sur le paragraphe 32 qui estime que toutes les conditions sont nécessaires pour se présenter à la CIJ. J'ignore à quelles conditions on fait référence; il s'agit de conditions de procédure, cela est un fait, mais si l'on se réfère à l'ensemble des négociations avec le pays hôte, à l'évolution positive des négociations, il ne me semble pas que toutes les conditions aient été remplies. Relativement incomplet, parce qu'au paragraphe 4 du document on dit que depuis que la FAO n'a pas comparu, depuis l'arrêt rendu par la Cour de cassation, il n'aurait pas été à notre avis inutile de préciser aussi qu'avant cet arrêt et malgré les recommandations des Etats Membres et des organes directeurs de la FAO, la FAO a quand même estimé utile de se présenter devant les tribunaux. Partant de cela il faudrait sans doute que la FAO considère très attentivement la position des Etats Membres et que si au Conseil on ait considéré comme inopportun encore ou prématuré d'aller à la CIJ, je pense que ce jugement devrait être mûrement réfléchi.
Concernant les lignes d'action proposées, grosso modo il y en a trois dont deux aboutissent à une impasse, et la troisième c'est le retour à la CIJ. Celles qui aboutissent à une impasse, c'est-à-dire les législations nationales et l'arbitrage, il me semble que cela est un peu hâtif, parce que, comme l'ont exposé le délégué de l'Italie, le délégué de la RFA et le délégué de l'Inde, des possibilités sont encore ouvertes dans ce sens et devraient à notre avis être exploitées.
Bien sûr, il n'y a pas de différend, mais y-a-t-il aussi divergence conceptuelle comme il en est fait état dans le document? Est-ce vraiment une divergence conceptuelle? Parce que la session 34 . de l'Accord de siège fait état de controverses. L'arbitrage, puisqu'il doit y avoir arbitrage au moins pour respecter une obligation contractuelle, devrait s ' orienter* non sur un différend mais pour résoudre la question à partir de la notion évoquée dans l'Accord de siège qui est celle des controverses. L'Accord de siège parle de controverses; une solution devrait être recherchée dans ce sens et non dans celui d'un différend. Impasse aussi du point de vue de la législation nationale, mais je pense qu'en cela le délégué de l'Italie a fort bien dégagé les perspectives qui s'ouvraient dans ce sens, et il a été appuyé par d'autres délégations. Nous nous y joignons.
En conclusion, nous pensons que nous avons toujours été persuadés, et avons insisté à ce sujet au Comité juridique pour dire que la solution à ce problème se trouvait à Rome et non pas à la Haye, et par la voie de négociations, de solutions négociées.
Quelle que soit l'utilité d'un recours à la Cour internationale de justice, il faudrait aussi s'interroger sur les effets concrets qui pourraient découler d'un avis de la Cour internationale de justice, puisque de toutes façons, même si cet avis était favorable à la CIJ, il faut garder à l'esprit que la Cour de cassation estime que la primauté au plan interne revient aux règles internes et elle estime que quelles que soient les obligations internationales, quel que soit l'avis que pourrait rendre la Cour internationale de justice, elle ne sera jamais tenue par cet avis.
Autrement dit, sur le plan de la recherche des solutions, un avis de la Cour internationale de justice n'aurait pas un effet bénéfique évident.
Nous pensons, à l'instar d'autres délégations, qu'il faut continuer les consultations avec le pays hôte et estimons encore prématuré le recours à la Cour internationale de justice .
J.C. CLAVE (Philippines): My immediate reaction after the introduction of the subject before us by the Legal Advisor was to suggest that we defer pursuing the action recommended. I have known of the existence of this problem for some time, being a member of the Council.
Nevertheless, we cannot fail to take note of the fact that during this 40th Anniversary of FAO there has been a good deal of demonstration of goodwill, particularly from the Government of Italy. His Excellency, the President of Italy, was here to inaugurate or to lay the cornerstone of a new building that will house the Organization.
Only this morning, our colleague from Italy announced here that the City Government of Rome is making a park available to the Organization.
It was in the light of this goodwill that I thought we should prepare any projected referral of the problem to the International Court of Justice. Now in the light of the manifestations made by our colleague from Italy, I am inclined to recommend, furthermore, that we should withdraw the item from the Agenda of this Conference, to leave, in the meantime, no evidence that a dispute - as our colleague has described it - exists between this Organization and his Government, which I think was a legitimate aspiration on his part. So it would be the wish of my delegation that this matter be withdrawn from the Agenda of this Conference and that it be referred back to the Director-General to explore the possibilities now offered by the Government of Italy by its representative to this Organization. Should there be any further need for collective action on the part of Member States, then the Director-General should refer it to the Council for further action as may be determined on the basis of further developments.
I wish to call attention to the observations of our colleague from Italy to the effect that he is new in this Organization but, while he is new, he demonstrated today, I think, some seriousness, earnestness and optimism that this problem could be solved amicably. On this basis I am further strengthened to ask that this Conference - as I have suggested earlier, in line with the thoughts of many other delegations - should in fact refer this to the Director-General. By exploring all possibilities that are now open, we will hopefully be able to resolve the issue. But if there is any need, as I said, for further collective action he should then transmit this to the Council for that action.
I will close with this possibility too. I realize that this problem has arisen because it became necessary in the past for this Organization to lease some buildings to house its expanding offices. Time may solve that problem in the sense that when we have the new" building, then we will probably not be leasing any premises which could give rise to a similar situation like the one we face today.
This is the simple, modest contribution of the Philippines to this discussion.
C. A. HARTMAN (Finland): I shall speak directly and briefly to the issue before us. I have listened with great interest to the introduction of this item by the Secretariat, and to the lengthy intervention by the delegate of Italy. That very long and exhaustive expose has already convinced me in my opinion that FAO should not proceed to seek an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. To choose such a course could be detrimental both to the interests of FAO and the Host Government.
My delegation takes note of the remarkable degree of goodwill that took place throughout the statement of the delegate of Italy and we trust that the goodwill will continue to be deployed in order to reach satisfactory solutions to the present dilemmas.
To seek an advisory opinion would, in my mind, bring rather unnecessary complications and would not meet at all the best interests of FAO, its member countries or the Host Government but, on the contrary, could be quite confusing.
The best and wisest way to proceed then is the one suggested by the Italian representative, that is to continue to pursue the dialogue, to calm down and to prove that the initial goodwill that clearly marked the relations between FAO and the Italian Government will produce viable solutions to legislation or otherwise.
I think the suggestions by the delegate of India, if I understood him correctly, that is, to leave the Council to follow up and decide on further action, is a sound one. That would mean no other decision is taken now but all best efforts will continue to be deployed in order to solve the present problem while the Council follows the problem from the ringside, as it were, in the hope of seeing it resolved through restraint so that no further discussions by the FAO governing bodies will be necessary.
A. Y. BUKHARI (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) (original language Arabic): Mr Chairman, I should like to express my happiness at seeing you in the Chair of this august Commission, which is at present discussing very important legal matters, and I wish you most warmly every success in your endeavours. We hope that our decisions will be satisfactory to all under your able leadership.
The issue of the immunity of the Organization from legal process has been discussed time and again and we believe that the matter was closed. However, it seems to us now that it has been updated in one way or another, and is put forward now with more precision. We have this impression, especially after listening to the statement made by the distinguished delegate of Italy, which was an enthusiastic statement as well as a very sincere one. His enthusiasm shows beyond any doubt that Italy is sincere in its efforts to reach an amicable and permanent solution to this problem, a solution which will bring matters back to their normal course. This encourages us a great deal and will lead us to make decisions that are very clear and satisfactory to all.
My delegation feels that this controversy or this difference of opinion is something very natural, and we should not be afraid of it. It is merely a difference of opinion among friends - among friends who wish to serve the interests of poor, hungry countries.
The FAO, in asking for an implementation of full immunity, is not serving the interests of one party or of a group of individuals. FAO is concerned that its efforts should not be dispersed with the interest of all Member States. It does not wish to waste efforts in courts and tribunals on matters that can be avoided. The FAO feels very strongly about the importance of concentrating efforts in carrying out its main activities in order to serve member states and to implement the development programmes in various countries. We believe that this demand on the part of FAO is logical and legal.
As regards the host country, we should not believe that FAO's attitude is a hostile one directed against Italy. No representative of the host country should believe that FAO is working to provoke his Government or to belittle the importance, the sincerity and intentions of this. Organization. This matter ought to be looked upon with tolerance and understanding. Tensions will not serve the interests of the parties involved, including Member States, in particular developing countries.
We should admit a fact which is obvious to all, that the Organization represented by the Director-General has shown more than once a positive attitude towards Italy, and it has shown its good intentions towards the developing and needy countries. We, in turn, would like to express to the representative of Italy my country's refusal to accept any doubt that may be cast on the intentions of the Italian Government and the stand adopted by the Italian Government on the international level, whether economically, politically or socially. We all know of the assistance that is provided by Italy, technical as well as material, to developing countries. We do not forget the great generosity of Italy and the warm welcome that it extends to all, and to us also. We will not forget these attitudes which have always won our respect.
However, we would like to stress that there is a real, continued, urgent and sincere need to look for a solution, but for a solution that preserves the inmmunity of FAO. We should like to stress this basic demand on our part on behalf of the Organization because full immunity for FAO is an extremely important matter. It is a necessary condition.
We support the statements made by the representative of India and Lebanon and some other representatives who call for referral of this question to the Council. We should also like everybody to note the goodwill that the representative of Italy has invoked, and hope it will help us reach the best solution.
Mrs K. TYCUS-LAWSON (Nigeria): While the Nigerian delegation sympathises with the various efforts made by the Italian Government to find a solution to the problem of immunities accorded to FAO as explained by the Italian Permanent Representative, we feel that the issue of the immunities should be settled as soon as posible and should not be left open-ended or in a precarious situation.
According to the records, this matter has dragged on since 1982. It is for that reason that this delegation has found it necessary to make an intervention here.
The Nigerian delegation notes the efforts and suggestions which the Italian Government has for solving this issue, but I am afraid from the explanations the Italian representative has given that it appears there are some problems which will arise from the solutions he has suggested. He says there is a proposal before the Italian Parliament to take care of the issue, but then he went on to say that the Italian Constitution does not allow for the legislative body to make laws to derogate from the rights of its citizens to resort to exercising their legal rights. He also implied that the Italian Government would prefer to resort to arbitration under Section 35 of the Headquarters Agreement rather than submit it to the ICJ opinion.
However, this presupposes that there is a dispute, and the Italian Ambassador agrees with FAO that there is no dispute. The Italian Government has not indicated at any time that the immunities that are being sought by the FAO, which are contained in Section 16 of the Headquarters Agreement, do not cover both public and private issues. Besides, resorting to arbitration would create a delay which I am sure is undesirable to both FAO and the Italian Government.
For the above reasons, and others already mentioned by some other delegates, the Nigerian delegation would support seeking the opinion of the International Court of Justice so as to clarify this issue. Although the opinion of the ICJ will not be binding on the Italian Government it would, however, have a persuasive effect on the Italian courts and the Italian Government. The opinion of the ICJ does not prevent both FAO and the Italian Government from continuing with whatever efforts have been made by the Italian Government to find a solution to the problem, since we are all seeking different means to the same end. The FAO will not be antagonizing the Italian Government by going to the ICJ, and this delegation wishes to appeal to the Italian Government at this forum that it should not see a recourse to ICJ opinion as an affront to it or as a declaration of a dispute.
As an alternative to this, however, in view of the- objection of the Italian Government, and if we fail to persuade the Italian Government, and in view of its optimism that the matter will soon be resolved, we would recommend to the Conference that after a given- period, if the issue has not been favourably resolved, then both parties, both FAO and the Italian Government, should seek the opinion of ICJ on the matter.
Abdel Moneim Mohamed EL-SHEIKH (Sudan) (original language Arabic): I should like to express our appreciation for the efforts that have been made so far to resolve the problem of immunity on the part of the Italian Government and on the part of FAO, represented by the various bodies and by the Director-General.
We admit that leaving this problem for a long time without a solution introduces an element of uncertainty. However, regarding the thorough and comprehensive explanation presented to us by the representative of Italy, I should like to mention four points in his presentation. First, in such issues to resort to the International Court of Justice, even if it is to obtain an opinion, takes years and years. This is true. And should the International Court of Justice decide in favour of Italy, this will open up the possiblility for other Italian bodies to follow suit. This means that FAO will find itself in a very difficult situation legally, and will complicate matters. Furthermore, during the long years that have passed, as the representative of Italy said, many legal issues have been raised in order to explain the immunity of the Organization. However, the main idea is that there is still a possibility of explaining or interpreting Article XVI of the Headquarters Agreement either by a direct dialogue and exchange of opinion or through legislation.
Therefore, since we are sure of the goodwill of both parties, especially in the last few years, the Sudan delegation would like to give them both the opportunity to deepen the dialogue. In that way we will perhaps be able to arrive at a satisfactory solution. If this is not possible in the next two years, then we will be able to take this matter up again in the forthcoming Conference, and at that time decide whether to resort to the International Court of Justice.
Humberto CARRION HcDONOUGH (Nicaragua): Brevemente después de haber escuchado las intervenciones de los delegados presentes a la luz de los documentos C 85/LIM/10 y 85/LIM/15 y de la introducción que hizo el Sr. Roche sobre el tema en cuestión, consideramos que la declaración del representante del Líbano es muy apropiada.
En pocas palabras, la delegación de Italia ha sido explícita y su Gobierno lo ha demostrado cuando mencionó la voluntad de encontrar una solución entre la Organización y el Gobierno de Italia.
Creemos que por ahora podemos poner a un lado el proyecto de resolución contenido en el documento C 85/LIM/10 e instamos a que continúen las negociaciones pertinentes para encontrar un resultado que satisfaga a las partes y que el Director General nos mantenga informados al respecto a través del Consejo.
Sólo me resta agradecer al delegado de Italia el espíritu conciliador y amistoso de la posición de su Gobierno y el apoyo que ha ofrecido y ofrece a la FAO. Estamos seguros de que este mismo espíritu es el que anima a la Dirección General de esta Organización al velar por los intereses de la FAO.
G. de KALBERMATTEN (Suisse): Tout d'abord. Monsieur le Président, mes félicitations pour votre élection à la présidence de cette Commission.
La Suisse en tant que pays siège de l'office des Nations Unies pour l'Europe attache beaucoup d'importance à l'octroi de conditions qui permettent aux organisations internationales d'exécuter leur tâche en toute indépendance et sérénité mais telle j'en suis sûr est également la position de l'Italie. Nul parmi nous ne peut souhaiter d'endosser une procédure qui pourrait encourager une détérioration de l'atmosphère,' voire des relations entre notre Organisation et l'Etat hôte.
J'aimerais me rallier ici à l'excellente intervention de l'Algérie et rappeler l'idée suggérée dans le paragraphe 274 du document C 85/LIM/15. Il ménage une voie plus amiable que celle suggérée dans le document C 85/LIM/10. Que peut-on en effet attendre d'un avis consultatif de l'a Cour internationale de justice lorsque l'Etat qui est partie intéressée déclare un tel recours totalement inopportun?
A.M. QURESHI (Pakistan): Permit me first of all to extend my heartiest congratulations to you, Mr Chairman, on your assumption of the Chair of this very important Commission.
Unfortunately, we missed the brilliant presentation by Mr Roche to which I have heard some of my colleagues refer. It is my misfortune as I was tied up in Commission II. We have carefully gone into the documents which have been presented to this Commission, C 85/LIM/10 and C 85/LIM/15. We deeply appreciate the presentation by Ambassador Pascarelli on this very long and drawnout issue of immunity. We also share the concern of the Organization with the current situation regarding the FAO's immunity from legal process and measures of execution in Italy.
All of our efforts should be directed towards an expeditious, amicable and practical resolution of this problem. We are greatly encouraged by the statement of Ambassador Pascarelli to believe that the Italian Government is no doubt very seriously concerned with the problem. Therefore, we would like to join the delegates from Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and others to say that if concrete and firm assurances are forthcoming, as appears from the statement of Ambassador Pascarelli, then we would encourage the Director-General to postpone referral of the matter to the International Court of Justice, and to urge the Italian Government to resolve the problem in an expeditious manner. This also appears to be the unanimous view of this Commission.
In view of the explanations given by Ambassador Pascarelli and in line with the high traditions of great and generous hospitality of our Italian host, it is our confident hope that an early negotiated solution to the issue will be found in Rome and a progress report submitted to the next Council.
M. ABDELHADI (Tunisie) (langue originale arabe): Ma délégation est particulièrement heureuse de vous voir à la Présidence de cette Commission III qui est l'une des importantes commissions de la Conférence générale de la FAO. Je voudrais également exprimer mes vifs remerciements à Monsieur Roche, le Conseilleur juridique, pour l'excellente façon dont il nous a présenté ces deux documents, présentation qui nous a permis de comprendre le problème. Je voudrais également féliciter le représentant de l'Italie de son excellent discours qui nous a donné une idée très complète de la position de ce pays sur cette question. Je voudrais féliciter le Gouvernement italien de tout ce qu'il a fait pour permettre aux locaux de notre Organisation de s'agrandir et je voudrais le remercier également pour sa participation active à la célébration du quarantième anniversaire de la FAO. La question dont nous discutons est apparue il y a longtemps. On en a discuté à plusieurs reprises mais on n'a pas encore trouvé de solution définitive. C'est un problème extrêmement sérieux.
Je ne crois pas qu'il soit juste que notre organisation ait été citée devant la Cour de cassation italienne. Le problème dont il s'agit est celui de l'immunité de l'Organisation, cette immunité doit être respectée. Un élément important à cet égard parmi d'autres est la suggestion d'avoir recours à la Cour internationale de justice. Nous croyons qu'avant de s'adresser à cette juridiction il faut avoir épuisé toutes les autres possibilités. Il faut demander au Directeur général d'approfondir le dialogue avec le Gouvernement italien; peut-être le Secrétariat pourrait-il arriver à une solution juste et satisfaisante qui pourra garantir à la fois l'immunité de notre Organisation et les intérêts du Gouvernement italien.
Nous pensons donc que cette question devrait être renvoyée au Conseil de la FAO. De cette façon nous pourrons peut-être arriver à une solution amiable, ce qu'avaient proposé les délégués de l'Inde et du Liban.
I. KABA (Guinée): La délégation guinéenne remercie le Secrétariat et plus particulièrement le Conseil juridique pour la présentation claire de la question dont nous sommes saisis. Le point qui nous préoccupe est d'ordre juridique, c'est donc affaire de spécialistes et des juristes talentueux sont intervenus. Mais tout ce qui touche notre Organisation noús concerne, et exige notre contribution. Ainsi les informations fournies par Monsieur l'Ambassadeur d'Italie nous rassurent, s'il en était encore besoin, sur les meilleures intentions du Gouvernement d'Italie pour le règlement du problème qu'il considère comme mineur.
Personne ici ne doute de l'esprit d'hospitalité du Gouvernement italien. Cependant notre Organisation doit avoir des garanties quant à son immunité. C'est pourquoi nous recourons une fois de plus à la sollicitude des autorités italiennes pour que des précisions soient apportées aux sections 16 et 17 de l'Accord de siège, ce dans le cadre de l'atmosphère cordiale qui existe entre le pays hôte et notre Organisation, comme l'a si bien souligné l'Ambassadeur d'Italie.
P. SKALIERIS (Grèce): Ma délégation souhaiterait que les deux parties en cause puissent épuiser toutes les possibilités afin de trouver une solution négociée, une solution amiable.
M. KARIC (Yugoslavia): The Yugoslav delegation regrets that the problem of the immunities and legal status of our Organization in Italy has not been settled although it has been discussed since 1982. Bearing in mind the existing friendly relations between Yugoslavia and Italy, and expressing our high appreciation for the remarkable commitment of the Italian Government to fostering multilateral cooperation, particularly in the field of agriculture, we should like to express our conviction that the existing problems will be settled in a friendly and satisfactory manner, namely, by ensuring the immunity of the Organization from all forms of legal process in accordance with the principles of the legal status of the United Nations Organization in host countries.
H. LAUBE (Austria) (original language German): The Austrian law is characterized by a relative enthusiasm for agreement. Therefore, I am fully satisfied that the vast majority in this hall is converging upon a solution of compromise, which I would very gladly endorse. However, I wish to point out that one of the essential prerequisites for such a recommendation for compromise would be a pledge on the part of our Italian colleague to arrive at a legal solution within the foreseeable future.
Beyond that, there is a thought I would like to develop here, to which I believe my German colleague has referred. He pointed out that this disagreeable situation does not exist in other countries in similar circumstances, and that is why I would like to suggest that the Secretariat carry out a study of the comparable legal situations, that is, in Geneva, in Vienna, and in New York. Perhaps such a study would give rise to some practical ideas.
A. H. ABDULLAHI (Somalia) (original language Arabic): I welcome you to the Chair and compliment you on your Chairmanship. The Host Government has shown its good will for over 30 years as stated by the Ambassador of Italy to this Organization: we believe that Italy has respected the position of the Organization. Therefore we feel that a reference to the ICJ at the Hague to obtain an advice should only be resorted to if there are no other possibilities of settling this problem.
Y. A. M. HAMDI (Egypt): Dear friend and colleague we are very pleased to see you in the Chair of Commission III and wish you every success. First of all, we thank Mr Roche for the very clear introduction to the item which we are now examining. We also thank the Italian Ambassador whose statement has made the Italian position very much clearer as it gives us the hope of arriving at a satisfactory solution to all concerned. At the same time we share the concern of the Secretariat regarding the non-existence of sufficient guarantees of immunity. Therefore we feel that if there
was more dialogue between the Organization and the host country this would enable us to arrive at the right solution. The Council should be informed of the progress of the contacts between the Host Government and the Organization. Once again we thank the Italian Government for its good will and beg it to make an even greater effort in order to arrive at a definitive solution. We hope that the new Ambassador will give the greatest support to this.
A. JEAN-LOUIS (Haiti): Ma delegation vous présente ses félicitations pour votre élection a la présidence de cette importante Commission.
Ma délégation voudrait d'une façon concise placer son mot dans le débat. A la vérité une bonne entente est toujours mieux qu'un long procès. Il est superflu de m'engager dans les méandres des doctrines, lois et jurisprudences, puisque d'éminents spécialistes ont déjà fait cet intéressant exercice.
De tous les exposés il ressort:
1. que le pays hôte a de bonnes dispositions, voire la volonté de trouver une solution heureuse,
2. que la majorité des délégués ici présents demandent un sursis sur l'action de l'Organisation auprès de la Cour de la Haye et croient à une solution négociée.
Certes, le jugement de la Cour de cassation d'Italie, décision juridique, lie le Gouvernement italien mais nous pensons qu'une décision intervenue entre le Gouvernement italien et la FAO, ratifiée par le Parlement italien, devrait peut-être apporter une solution définitive à cette question.
J.M. WATSON (Panamá): La delegación de Panamá sobre este debate, en particular, siente gran preocupación por el fallo de la Corte di Cassazione de Italia que puede afectar la inmunidad de la FAO.
Sobre el particular mi Gobierno desea dejar en claro que para la FAO no puede haber limitación sobre su inmunidad, ya que el Acuerdo de Sede así lo manifiesta.
Apoyamos las posiciones de Líbano, Costa Rica y Filipinas para que se le otorguen al Director General plenos poderes para dirimir estos problemas aquí, en Roma, y mi delegación recibe con beneplácito lo anunciado por el señor delegado de Italia al informar que el Parlamento italiano está elaborando una nueva ley. Sobre el particular, ya que estamos seguros allanará las diferencias hasta ahora presentadas, nos complace ampliamente el documento presentado al respecto, cuyo texto recoge, no sólo la opinión del Comité Jurídico, sino también la del anterior Consejo de la FAO.
H. AL-ZALTINI (Libya) (original language Arabic): First, I wish to congratulate you on your election to the Chair of this Commission. I thank Mr Roche and congratulate him on his very clear introduction to this item. Having listened to the views of the previous speakers including the representative of Italy we feel that the Italian Government is ready to discuss this issue and negotiate with the Organization in order to reach an appropriate solution instead of resorting to the International Court of Justice which may take a long time and which would not serve the good relations between FAO and the host country. Therefore we feel that it is better to engage even more in this exercise rather than put the matter to the International Court of Justice.
Bawa SAHADOU (Niger): La délégation du Niger voudrait tout d'abord vous féliciter pour votre remarquable preuve de patience dans la conduite de nos travaux.
Concernant cet épineux problème qui nous est soumis ce soir, la délégation voudrait aussi apporter sa pierre à l'édification de la solution constructive à laquelle il est à la fois souhaitable et indispensable d'aboutir.
A en croire l'intervention remarquable du distingue délégué de l'Italie, nous serions tentés de penser que ces problèmes mériteraient une solution interne. Depuis plus de trente ans déjà, l'Italie, beau pays plein de générosité, a accueilli notre Organisation à laquelle elle appartient également. Permettez-moi donc de dire, Monsieur le Président, qu'il s'agit là franchement d'un problème de famille et un vieil adage ne dit-il pas que "le linge sale se lave en famille."? C'est pourquoi la délégation du Niger, tout en souhaitant un règlement rapide à ce litige, estime cependant que la recherche de solutions devrait se faire sur place.
Nous nous permettons à cet effet de saluer tous les éminents orateurs qui nous ont précédés, qui ont plaidé en faveur d'un règlement pacifique et interne de ce problème. La célébration du quarantième anniversaire de la FAO nous a permis de voir une fois de plus combien l'Italie s'inté resse et concourt au bon fonctionnement de la FAO.
En conclusion, la délégation du Niger se joint à tous les pays qui font confiance à l'Italie pour sa disponibilité à mettre fin à ce problème. Des preuves concrètes témoignent de cette disponibilité italienne, nous n'avons nullement besoin de les énumérer.
MOHSIN ALI KHAN (Bangladesh): I congratulate you on your election. I am aware that I should be brief. We have gone very carefully through documents C 85/LIM/10 and C 85/LIM/15. I would also like to congratulate Mr Roche the distinguished Legal Counsellor of FAO. He has very lucidly and correctly given us the information in the documents. We are happy with the statement of His Excellency the Italian Ambassador that discussion may be held immediately to find a practical solution to the problem. We agree with this and feel it is a good idea. We also feel that due immunity should be granted to FAO to enable it to carry out its work. Given understanding, we believe that we can find a mutually acceptable solution. For the present we think that we may be able to postpone the idea of taking the matter to the International Court of Justice for their advisory opinion. I support the other delegations who have preceded me, in this respect.
Point of order
Point d'ordre
Punto de orden
A. ABDEL-MALEK (Liban) (langue originale arabe): M. le Président, il est déjà 17 h 30, heure à laquelle nous devons arrêter pratiquement les débats. Nous sommes en train de débattre de cette question depuis trois heures et j'avais avancé une proposition pour remettre à plus tard la discussion, et un grand nombre de pays sont d'accord avec moi pour dire que la question sera remise à plus tard et que le Directeur général sera chargé de poursuivre ces contacts et ces discussions avec le Gouvernement italien. Donc je propose, M. le Président, d'adopter ma proposition de clore le débat sur ce point, et qu'on passe à d'autres sujets de l'ordre du jour. Je vous remercie.
KOO BUM SHIN (Republic of Korea) (original language Korean): I will be very brief. My delegation has been carefully listening to the other previous speakers.
Some comments come from the side of FAO representing the Legal Counsel's voice on this matter, namely the immunity problem. Some optimistic comments come from the side of the Italian Government required by the executives of the Italian Republic through the Representative of Italy to FAO.
Mr Chairman, the problem raised does need to be solved because a pending problem always requires time. In this connection my delegation looks forward to the attainment of a solution between FAO and the Italian Government without resort to outside interference, i.e. Advisory Opinion, by the next Conference.
Abdul Wahab Naji Ismail AL-SAMURRAI (Iraq) (original language Arabic): On behalf of my delegation I would like in my turn to voice those remarks that have already been given a number of times, namely to safeguard above all the relationship between Italy and FAO. We have all followed the positive explanations given by the Ambassador of Italy, and we have listened to the proposals put forward suggesting that putting the issue before the International Court of Justice would have perhaps some negative effects; I do agree with that idea. Therefore we have to resort to discussion, dialogue and negotiation, we have to think in terms of arbitration or whatever - anything that will safeguard this relationship and bring about an amiable solution. We think that there is still time before asking for the legal opinion of The Hague and we wish to pay tribute to the host country, Italy, which has hosted so many conferences and has always given help and assistance. We are confident that this generous host country will find a solution. Therefore we ask the Director-General and Italy to be patient and perspicacious, to wait and to see to it that the new Bill of Immunity that His Excellency the Ambassador of Italy told us about is passed.
J. ORZESZKO (Poland): My delegation would like to thank Mr Roche for his excellent presentation. We have also heard with great interest the position of the Italian Government. In view of that my delegation believes that there are possibilities for solving the existing problems in direct dialogue between the host country and the Organization. We join the already expressed opinions that it is premature at this stage to turn to the International Court of Justice.
MAZLAN JUSOH (Malaysia): In complying with your request I will be very brief, but first let me take pleasure in congratulating you on chairing this important Commission.
I just wish to add my delegation's voice to the proposal of India which received wide support from other delegations, that is, to delegate this issue to the Council to determine whether it should or should not be referred to the International Court of Justice. We must recognize the goodwill and sincere efforts of the Italian Government to solve the problem in Rome, but at the same time we must also recognize the necessity and importance for this Organization to be guaranteed full immunity from any legal process. We are sure that such a solution will be found very soon and that it will not be necessary to raise this matter any more.
Sra. Doña Mercedes RUIZ ZAPATA (México): La delegación de México se siente muy complacida por verle a usted, Sr. Presidente, presidiendo nuestros trabajos. Le deseamos el mejor éxito en sus funciones.
La delegación mexicana reitera su posición, ya expresada en anteriores ocasiones, en el sentido de solicitar al gobierno italiano, al que reconocemos su buena intención y generosidad como miembro distinguido de la comunidad internacional, que garantice a nuestra organización al pleno derecho de la inmunidad que se desprende del Tratado de Sede.
Insistimos ante el Gobierno italiano para que promulgue una legislación que garantice a la FAO inmunidad de toda forma de procedimiento judicial, tal como se prevé en la Sección 16 de dicho Acuerdo de Sede. Nos pronunciamos, por tanto, a favor de que la FAO siga celebrando un diálogo exhaustivo y constructivo con el Gobierno de Italia para poder tener lo más pronto posible una solución favorable y negociada que haga innecesario el recurso de recabar la opinión de la Corte Internacional de Justicia.
En relación con la posible participación de la FAO en el futuro ante los tribunales italianos para dirimir cualquier diferencia, la delegación de México considera que se debe evitar toda participación de la Organización ante los tribunales italianos, por ser esto incompatible con su condición jurídica, que le concede inmunidad de jurisdicción.
Por último, señor Presidente, dado que la Conferencia se reunirá dentro de dos años, solicitamos que el Consejo siga analizando la situación para valorar los avances que se hagan.
CHAIRMAN: Now before giving the floor to the last speaker I have the following announcement to make. The African Group will meet tomorrow morning at 8.30 in the Malaysia Room.
O. R. da SILVA NEVES (Brazil): Mr Chairman, my delegation expressed in the Council its concern with the long standing lack of definition of this fundamental problem in the relationship between FAO and the host country. I would like to reiterate at this juncture that my delegation firmly believes an understanding can be reached through close cooperation among the parties involved, and I am pleased to verify that document C 85/LIM/10 recognizes that goodwill has been deployed by all concerned.
The Brazilian delegation believes that seeking an Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice on the interpretation of Section 16 of the Headquarters Agreement is a suitable course of action to follow. We understand, however, that further efforts can be made to find an amicable solution before turning to The Hague. We therefore urge FAO and the Host Government to continue to work on all possible steps in order to reach a complete and permanent solution to the question. On the other hand we are perfectly prepared to support the proposal advanced by India.
CHAIRMAN: (original language Arabic): I should like to ask the Representatives of Colombia, Cuba and Cyprus to hand in their statements in writing because we have used up our time for this item.
I will now invite the representative of the Director-General to respond to the statements made.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I will try to be very brief indeed. We certainly recognize the magnificent goodwill of the Host Government, but I think we have to recognize also fact and logic and we must cut through a lot of the points that have been made today in order to arrive at a conclusion.
There are only one or two points I would like to take up. One is that I really did not see anything in the document that we produced that was provocative or even obscure in meaning or tone. I feel it is a sober document, and it should not have given rise to agitation on anybody's part, and I certainly do not think that it is wrong on matters of fact.
On the question of the new building, well we are grateful for the new building but that does not dispose of the problem. We will not have a problem about rent but we could have a problem about all sorts of things in the new building - window cleaners or whatever contract is involved in that new building, so the question is really an irrelevance to this particular legal issue.
Above all I would like to say that it is not really a question of goodwill. If the Italian Government had been lacking in goodwill they would not be seeking to help us. It is not a question of a dispute; we do not have a dispute with them and we do not have a dispute with the Corte di Cassazione: we are not in a position to have a dispute. We have a problem, it is a legal problem and it is a serious problem, and it has to be solved. In order to solve it we prefer of course to do it together with the Host Government and not against them, so the goodwill comes in there and not as regards the existence or not of a dispute and so on. It is a complicated problem because here we are discussing Article 16, but the law to which reference has been made concerns Article 17 - Execution. The problem of Article 16 remains, and in that connection Ambassador Pascarelli really confirms it because he referred to the Article of the Italian Constitution that establishes the rights of Italian citizens. However, he did say that whatever law was passed by the Italian Parliament would prevail over the judgement. Well I think we have to wait and see what the Courts say about that. I hope it never comes to that but the question remains, what law? And here I would refer you to page 5 of our document which analyzes the law so far under discussion. As you see we do not think it would solve the problem.
However, as I have said, we would much rather do things together with the Italian Authorities than against them, or against their wishes, and I would certainly say that while I could not agree with everything he said, Ambassador Pascarelli convinced me of one thing; if I get into trouble with the Italian Courts I want him to be my lawyer!
Now as regards the situation as I see it, the problem of delegation to the Council is that in order to delegate to the Council you would have to do two things. One is that the Conference would have to approve now three questions because only the Conference can approve that, and then the resolution would have to be amended. So it is not as easy as it seems, and furthermore it would seem to be
the view of the majority who have spoken that it is too soon to jump to this, and therefore I would, on behalf of the Director-General, accept - and I hope this is how the Conference would see it -that there is a problem, it is analyzed in the document, they have heard the views of the host country, they have heard the views of other governments, and taking note of those views they decide not to proceed with the matter at this Conference. I hope they will not go into value judgements apart from that, and I hope the Host Government will accept this. We do not express value judgements in the report - who is right, who is wrong, or goodwill or otherwise, dispute or not. Let us just say that we have heard the views expressed which are to be found in the verbatim records, and let us just say that the Conference in the light of these decided not to proceed with this matter at this Conference. That would leave open the question of what it does at the next Conference. This is what I think the Director-General would be satisfied to accept in the light of the views expressed today and in particular in the light of the views of the host country.
CHAIRMAN (Original language Arabic): I think Mr West has in a very clear way described the stage we have reached in our discussions and I would like to take this opportunity of giving my warm thanks to those who participated in this discussion.
I think that all the speakers this afternoon have suggested we find a speedy solution to the problem so that FAO's immunity be settled very quickly once and for all. I feel we all agree as to the need to settle this problem in an amiable manner and solve it with the Italian Government in order to settle all further problems of immunity.
E. PASCARELLI (Italy): Simply ten seconds to agree fully with the Director-General's proposal that we should proceed by mentioning the problem and FAO ' s not using the word "dispute". Once again I thank you and the colleagues who intervened and I want to confirm our preparedness to start negotiating with FAO.
5rta. Hilda LOPEZ DE MORAL (Colombia): Colombia desea unirse a los muchos votos de felicitación que le han sido dirigidos por ocupar la Presidencia de esta importante Comisión.
Nuestra Delegación se felicita, Señor Presidente por el ambiente que aquí se respira, que no es otro que el de entendimiento y comprensión.
Deseamos agradecer al Sr. Roche su clara y precisa exposición. También deseamos agradecer al Embajador Pascarelli su brillante exposición sobre la positiva posición que ha adoptado el Gobierno de Italia en relación con este delicado tema.
Colombia considera que debe definirse sin ningún lugar a dudas la absoluta necesidad de que la Organización goce de la más completa inmunidad para el adecuado desempeño de sus importantísimas funciones.
Si bien existen dos definiciones jurídicas que parecen contradecirse en los Artículos XVI y XVII que se oponen una a otra, en controversias de esta índole siempre hay formas de buscar y de encontrar una solución que satisfaga a ambas partes. En estos casos, ambas partes tienen que ofrecer alguna concesión y demostrar su buena intención de llegar a una solución negociada. El Embajador Pascarelli nos ha informado de todo lo que está haciendo el Gobierno de Italia, inclusive de promulgar una legislación idónea para llegar a una solución adecuada.
En 1951 cuando se estableció la FAO en Roma, en estos magníficos edificios, los funcionarios y sus familias que vinieron fueron objeto de la calurosa y generosa recepción del Gobierno de Italia y del pueblo de Roma.
El solo nombre de Roma contiene ya una garantía de que se encontrará una solución sabia y tan duradera como las piedras milenarias que nos rodean y que desde las terrazas de este edificio nos deleitamos en contemplar.
La FAO ha gozado durante todos estos años de la "generosa hospitalidad del Gobierno de Italia y nada puede hacernos dudar de que una vez más, este generoso país que acoge a nuestra Organización y alberga a sus funcionarios y a sus familias y en ocasiones como ésta, a eminentes Jefes de Estado, Ministros y a representantes del mundo entero, hará prueba de su sabiduría y sabrá encontrar con nuestro Director General y sus hábiles consejeros, una solución negociada.
Por todo lo anterior, Colombia apoya a los Delegados de la India de El Salvador, del Líbano y tantos otros que se han pronunciado en este mismo sentido, de que no se tome ahora una decisión al respecto, que se remita el asunto al Consejo para que se mantenga al corriente de la evolución de las negociaciones y que se informe al próximo Período de Sesiones de la Conferencia del resultado de las mismas para su decisión 1/.
Sra. Doña Silvia CARBALLO-VIVES (Cuba): Permítame felicitarlo en nombre de mi delegación por su elección para presidir los trabajos de esta Comisión.
Señor Presidente seré muy breve tomando nota de su sugerencia. Mi delegación, en relación con esce cerna, considera que se debe tener en cuenta la proposición de la distinguida delegación de la India y Costa Rica, las cuales apoyamos en cuanto a remitir al Consejo este tema para su reconsideración y que le otorgue al Director General plenos poderes para que pueda resolver las pequeñas diferencias existentes 1/.
H. ZANNETIS (Cyprus): Following so many speakers I can be very brief. After the explanation provided by Ambassador Pascarelli of Italy we believe that the matter should not at this stage be referred to the International Court of Justice but more time should be given for negotiations.
We understand that the matter has been discussed for several years now, without a satisfactory solution. But following the recent indications of good will by the Italian Government we believe that more time should be made available. We therefore support the suggestion of the delegation of India and others for the matter to be referred to Council so that this body can take any action if deemed necessary following negotiations that will in the meantime take place. Thank you 2/.
The meeting rose at 17.45 hours
La
séance est levée à 17 h
45
Se levanta la sesión a
las 17.45 horas
__________
1/ Texto incluido en las actas a petición exprssa.
2/ Statement inserted in the verbatim records on request.
