the responsible de jure or de incfo government with a view to

obtaining the reparation due in respect of the damage caused

( a ) to the United Nations, (b) to the victim or to perçons entitled
throiigh him ?"
I t will be useful to make the follolving preliminary observations :

(a) The Organization of the United Kations \vil1 be referred to

usually, but not invariably, as "the Organization".

( b ) Questions 1 (a) and 1 (b) refer to "an international claim

against the responsible de iure or de facto government". The Court
understands that these questions are directed to claims against a
State, and will, therefore, in this opinion, use the expression "State"
or "clefendant State".
(c) The Court uilderstands the word "agent" in the most liberal
sense, that is to say, any person who, whether a paid officia1 or not,
and whether permariently employed or not, has been charged by
an organ of the Organization with carrying out, or helping to carry
out, one of its functions-in short, any person through ~vhomit acts.
( d ) As this question assumes an injury suffered in such circum-
stances as to involve a State's responsibility, it must be supposed,
for the purpose of this Opinion, that the damage results from a
failure by the State to perform obligations of which the purpose
is to protect the agents of the Organization iil the performance of
their duties.
(e) The position of a defendant State which is not a member of
the Organization is dealt with later, and for the present the Court
will assume that the defendant State is a Member of the Organization.

The questions asked of the Court relate to the "capacity to bring

an international claim" ; accordingly, ive must begin by defining
what is meant by that ccipacitj', and coiisider the characteristics
of the Organization, so as to determine whether, in general, these
characteristics do, or do not, iiicIiide for the Organization a right to
present an international claim.

Competence to bring an international claim is, for those possessirig

it, the capacity to resort to the customary methods recognized by
international law for the establishment, the preseritation and the
settlement of claims. Among these inethods inay be nit,iitioned
protest, request for an enquiry, negotiation, and reqiiest for sub-
mission to an arbitral tribunal or to the Court in so far as this may
be authorized by the Statute.
This capacity certainly belongs to the State ; a Statcl cari briiig an
international claim against another State. Such a claim takes the
form of a claim between two political entitit.5, cqiial i i l la\\., similar
 OPIN. O F II I V 49 (REPSRATION FOR I N J U R I E S SGFFERED) 178
in form, and both the direct subjects of international law. I t is
dealt with by means of negotiation, and cannot, in the present state
of the law as to international jurisdiction, be submitted to a tribunal,
except with the consent of the States concerned.

When the Organization brings a claim against one of its Members,

this claim will be presented in the same manner, and regulated
by the same procedure. I t may, when necessary, be supported
by the political means a t the disposa1 of the Organization. I n
these ways the Orgznization would find a method for securing
the observance of its rights by the Member against which it has
a claim.
But, in the international sphere, has the Organization such
a nature as involves the capacity to bring an international clnim ?
I n order to answer this question, the Court must first enquire
whether the Charter has given the Organization such a position
that it possesses, in regard to its Members, rights which it is entitled
to ask them to respect. I n other words, does the Organization
possess international personality ? This is no doubt a doctrinal
expression, which has so,netimes given rise to controversy. But
it will be used here to mean that if the Organization is recognized
as having that personality, it is an entity capable of availing itself
of obligations incumbent upon its Members.
To answer this question, which is not settled by the actual
terms of the Charter, we must consider what characteristics it
was intended thereby t o give to the Organization.
The subjects of law in any legal system are not necessarily
identical in their nature or in the extent of their rights, and their
nature depends upon the needs of the community. Throughout
its history, r;ie development of international law has been influenced
by the requirements of international life, and the progressive
increase in the collective activities of States has already given rise
to instances of action upon the international plane by certain
entities which are not States. This development culminated
in the establishment in June 1945 of an international organization
whose purposes and principles are specified in the Charter of the
United Nations. But to achieve these ends the attribution of
international personality is indispensable.
The Charter has not been content to make the Organization
created by it merely a centre "for harmonizing the actions of nations
in the attainment of these common ends" (Article 1, para. 3).
It has equipped that centre with organs, and has given it special
tasks. It has defined the position of the Members in relation to
the Organization by requiring them to give it every assistance in
any action undertaken by it (Article 2, para. 5), and to accept and
carry out the decisions of the Security Council ; by authorizing the
General Assembly to make recornmendations to the Members ;
S
damage caused by the injury of an agent of the Organization in
the course of the performance of his duties. Whereas a State
possesses the totality of international nghts and duties recognized
by international law, the rights and duties of an entity such as
the Organization must depend upon its purposes and functions
as specified or implied in its constituent documents and developed
in practice. The functions of the Organization are of such a
character that they could not be effectively discharged if they
involved the concurrent action, on the international plane, of
fifty-eight or more Foreign Offices, and the Court concludes that
the Members h a ~ eendowed the Organization with capacity to
bring international claims when necessitated by the discharge of
its functions.
What is the position as regards the claims mentioned in the
request for an opinion ? Question 1 is divided into two points.
which must be considered in turn.

Question 1 (a) is as follows :

"In the event of an agent of the United Nations in the per-
formance of his duties suffering injury in circumstances involving
the responsibility of a State, has the United' Nations, as an
Organization, the capacity to bring an international claim against
the responsible de jure or de facto government with a view to
obtaining the reparation due in respect of the damage caused
(a) to the United Nations .... ?"
The question is concerned solely with the reparation of damage
caused to the Organization when one of its agents suffers injury at
the same tirne. I t cannot be doubted that the Organization has the
capacity to bnng an international claim against one of its Mem-
bers which has caused injury to it by a breach of its international
obligations towards it. The damage specified in Question 1 (a)
means exclusively damage caused to the interests of the Organiza-
tion itself, to its administrative machine, to its property and
assets, and to the interests of which it is the guardian. I t is clear
that the Organization has the capacity to bring a claim for tliis
damage. As the claim is based on the breach of an international
obligation on the part of the Member held responsible by the Organ-
ization, the Member cannot contend that this obligation is governed
by municipal law, and the Organization is justified in giving its
claim the character of an international claim.
When the Organization has sustained damage resulting from a
breach by a Member of its international obligations, it is impossible
t o see how it can obtain reparation unless it possesses capacity to
bring an international claim. I t cannot be supposed that in such
an event al1 the Members of the Organization, Save the defendant
IO