LEAGUE OF NATIONS PRECEDENTS

Mrs. BOLTON. May I ask a question there? In drawing this up, has there been any comparison made or any use made of the League of Nations?

Mr. FAHY. Yes, there was, Mrs. Bolton. We had that available. In its main features, it was something like this: The essence of letting people come in and the immunities granted to them. I think, however, that the League never got down to working out as detailed and concise a statement as we have here.

Mrs. BOLTON. My memory may be faulty on this, but I had in mind that there were certain subjects which never could be freely discussed in the League, because the League was located on Swiss soil; that is, the fact that the buildings were on Swiss soil presented the problem that Switzerland did not want to become involved in any international situation. Of course, this is in a different area.

Mr. FAHY. I have some vague recollection of what you have in mind, Mrs. Bolton. I do not know exactly what that was. Switzerland, I know, never wanted to be involved in any obligatory enforcement action against any other nation; something of that sort.

Mrs. BOLTON. Thank you.

Mr. SMITH. Is there anything further you wish to add?

Mr. FAHY. No, sir; not on the headquarters agreement.

Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the
United Nations

(S.J. Res. 136, 80th Cong., 1st Sess.)

Mr. FAHY. Mr. Chairman, the other resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 136, goes along with the headquarters agreement. I am referring to Senate Joint Resolution 136. The two are related and were included by the Senate committee in the committee's final report jointly; the report covered both. It has nothing to do specifically with the headquarters agreement as such, but is a general convention adopted by the General Assembly for all nations to adhere to. In the headquarters agreement we are the only one involved with the United Nations, because it is related to the particular problem of [having] the headquarters here.

TERMS OF THE GENERAL CONVENTION

The General Convention is an effort to make uniform throughout the world the general diplomatic privileges which were contemplated by one of the provisions of the San Francisco Charter. This looks a little formidable but in essence it is rather simple. It starts out with the nature of the United Nations. It is an organ that might contract, acquire and dispose of property, institute legal proceedings. It is an entity. Its property and funds and assets are protected from legal process, like [those of] a state. It is not a state, but is granted in that

See appendix VI, p. 338.

respect the same exemptions or protection as a state, except they are spelled out from the nature of the sovereign itself.

Freedom of communications is granted; a thing that we want everywhere. Then in article IV we have the granting to the representatives of members of the United Nations and its subsidiary organs immunity from personal arrest and legal process while exercising their functions during their journey to and from the place of meeting.

Mrs. BOLTON. Is that the common thing to be granted?

Mr. FAHY. It is the common thing. It is what they have now under the previous statute governing this subject-before we were presented with a convention for all nations and we had a statute ourselves.

U.N.'S LAISSEZ-PASSER PROVISION

There is one point that Senator Lodge raised in the Senate hearing, which I think ought to be pointed out to you, and which we solved to his satisfaction. It is section 24, laissez-passer, if that is the correct pronunciation.

The United Nations may issue United Nations laissez-passer to its officials. These laissez-passer shall be recognized and accepted as valid travel documents by the authorities of Members, taking into account the provisions of Section 25. Mr. LODGE. This has not yet been passed, has it?

Mr. FAHY. It has been approved by the Senate.

Mr. LODGE. I am referring to the Immunities Act. That has not yet been passed?

Mr. FAHY. Yes, they have passed it.

7

Mr. LODGE. Both the headquarters legislation and this? Mr. FAHY. They joined them together in one report and passed both just a couple of days ago. A possible ambiguity in that provision was cleared up by an amendment to the resolution which reads as follows-and it is in the report of the Foreign Relations Committee to the Senate, in Calendar No. 580 [S. Rept. 559]:

Nothing in article VII of the said convention with respect to laissez-passer shall be construed as in any way amending or modifying the existing or future provisions of the United States law with respect to the requirement or issuance of passports or of other documents evidencing nationality of citizens or agents, or the requirement that aliens visiting the United States obtain visas.

It was felt that this provision as worded in the Convention might be construed-although we had never so construed it and did not think it should be that way-as dispensing with the necessity of passports and visas, if they had one of these United Nations laissez-passer. We are just making sure that that is the case.

Mr. LODGE. It would seem to me that if you have that in, you in effect eliminate the Immunities Act.

Mr. FAHY. No, we still have the immigration laws.

Mr. LODGE. This acts to qualify the immigration laws.

Mr. FAHY. It does not dispense with the necessity of securing a passport, and we think that [laissez-passer] should not be construed as a substitute for a passport, but as a travel document to facilitate their contacts and identification of them.

7 See Senate Report 559 in appendix VI, p. 338.

Mr. LODGE. We have to give passports to individuals in spite of the immigration laws, but under this act

Mr. FAHY. We must give a visa if they have a passport from their own country to enter, for the purposes that are granted in it.

DEFINITION OF IMMEDIATE VICINITY

Mr. LODGE. May I ask you this question, and I have not had a chance to read this carefully: One of the things that disturbs me was the way in which you said the immunities are going to be defined for those in the United Nations. You spoke here about the "immediate vicinity," and referred to the fact that that represented a small area. I think we should be frank about these things. Immediate vicinity is a very loose term. We have been living in a country where we do not have barriers such as they have in Europe. We do not have customs barriers, and all of those restrictions on movement within the United States. Is it possible, (a) to determine what is meant by "immediate vicinity," and (b) who will control what happens between the so-called "immediate vicinity" and outside that vicinity?

Mr. FAHY. I think we covered that situation when we were discussing the matter before-the amendment to the resolution before the Senate committee.

Mr. LODGE. The immunities resolution or the one for U.N. headquarters?

Mr. FAHY. The headquarters resolution. This one that I refer to passed the Senate yesterday, was the only other amendment they made with reference to it.

Mr. LODGE. Could you tell us something about how that situation would be taken care of?

Mr. FAHY. That is provided in the resolution itself, as it came over, in these words:

Nothing in the agreement shall be construed as in any way diminishing, abridging, or weakening the right of the United States completely to control the entrance of aliens into any territory of the United States other than the headquarters district and its immediate vicinity and such areas as it is reasonably necessary to transverse in transit between the same and foreign countries. Mr. LODGE. Now what does "immediate vicinity" mean as used therein?

Mr. FAHY. Well you have to give some reasonable construction to that language.

Mr. LODGE. What construction would you place upon it?

Mr. FAHY. I would say in and around New York City.

Mr. LODGE. How far would that be? I think that is important? Mr. FAHY. Yes.

Mr. LODGE. Would you say it would take in Long Island? If you are going to give immunity to the immediate vicinity it means nothing. I believe it would be just a gesture; and I think we ought to be realistic about it. When you say immediate vicinity it has no definite meaning.

Mrs. BOLTON. Would you suggest a radius of so many miles from U.N. headquarters?

Mr. LODGE. I think that would be one way to reach it.
Mr. SMITH. Could you say the island of Manhattan?

Mrs. BOLTON. Then they could not live in New Jersey.

Mr. LODGE. Just how are you going to interpret this language as it is now written?

Mr. SMITH. Perhaps the words have already received some interpretation.

Mr. FAHY. It is language that is not unusual.

Mr. LODGE. There may have been some construction placed on it, but I am afraid unless we have some definition, understanding it will result in confusion.

Mrs. BOLTON. I wonder if you could not work out something that would meet Mr. Lodge's suggestion, Mr. Fahy?

Mr. FAHY. I think we can.

Mr. LODGE. I am not trying to be captious about this Mr. Fahy, but I do think it is quite important for us to have something more specific than this if we are going to be responsible for submitting a report, and that we ought to understand what we are doing.

Mr. SMITH. May I ask our staff member to check on that point and advise us concerning the interpretation placed on that language? Mr. LODGE. I think that would be well.

Mrs. BOLTON. And may I suggest that if there has been no interpretation previously placed on that language, and it is found not to have some specific meaning, then let us consider the advisability of modifying it.

Mr. SMITH. I think that is a good suggestion.

Mr. LODGE, Yes.

Mrs. BOLTON. We might say that the immediate vicinity would mean a radius of so many miles, to be determined.

Mr. LODGE. I think we have to keep control, within reasonsible bounds, over how much we want the United Nations headquarters to

cover.

Mr. FAHY. I think that we can control that by the way the visa is given to them, they stating what area we will permit them to cover. Mrs. BOLTON. By agreement.

Mr. FAHY. Yes.

Mr. LODGE. We have no control over the area. We could not say they cannot go beyond 42d Street and Broadway under any such language as used here.

Mr. FAHY. No.

Mr. LODGE. We have no barriers set up in this country, and the purpose of this is to implement legislation, and I want to know what we are doing.

Mrs. BOLTON. I think you have raised a good point, Mr. Lodge.

LIMITED DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY

Mr. MARSHALL. There is a statement in the staff study-on page 14 of that study, which is now before you. There we have the Secretary of State's statement to the Speaker.

Mrs. BOLTON. Is that in the small print?

8 See appendix VI, p. 343 for the staff report.

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes. That is from his letter to the Speaker, in which he refers to section 11 (g), and states that that paragraph does not confer complete diplomatic immunity, which is enjoyed by diplomatic envoys. The letter states in part:

It is the view of the Department of State that this paragraphreferring to matters stated in the preceding language—

*** does not provide for additional privileges in respect to such matters. Thus immunity from legal process is confined to the limited immunity granted by paragraph (a) and could not be extended under paragraph (g) to provide the complete immunity which is enjoyed by diplomatic envoys.

I raise the point that if the Secretary of State found it necessary to clarify that point in the letter to the Speaker, whether it would not be well to put in such a clarifying reservation in the resolution--because of the language the Secretary used in his letter to the Speaker, which would not be available otherwise.

Mr. SMITH. What is your suggestion?

Mr. MARSHALL. I just raised the question of putting in a reservation with respect to section 11 (g) to the effect that the provision contained therein is understood not to have the effect of conferring complete diplomatic immunity which is enjoyed by diplomatic envoys.

Mr. LODGE. From what language are you reading?

Mr. MARSHALL. That is found on page 18 of the staff's study, where you will find the wording, in the immunity section, on page 18 of that study, which is in the form of amendments that were presented for the committee's consideration. They are listed as a, b, c, d, and e.

The first one is with respect to section 11(g): that the "provision is understood not to have the effect of conferring complete diplomatic immunity which is enjoyed by diplomatic envoys."

In other words, the suggestion is whether it would not be well to write that language into the resolution authorizing the entry and then you would have in the agreement the explanation which the Secretary of State thought it necessary to make in his letter to the Speaker. I think it would be well-I raised the question for the consideration of the committee.

Mrs. BOLTON. I think that is a good question.

Mr. MARSHALL. 11(g) is the provision referring to diplomatic immunity.

Mr. FAHY. From what are you reading?

Mr. MARSHALL. That found on page 18 of the staff study.

Mr. FAHY. Of the committee print of the staff report?

Mr. MARSHALL. The provision we are talking about is on page 6, and on page 14 the comments include what the Secretary of State observed in his letter to the Speaker. And then on page 18 is a proposed amendment to cover the point, and this is a proposed amendment by the staff for the consideration of the committee. The staff took note of the Secretary of State's letter, concerning the explanation to the Speaker, which indicates that that provision is not as broad as the language might indicate, and the question whether it might not be well to write that in as a reservation was raised.

Mr. LODGE. What is that language?