Un Headquarters Agreement Case
42. In its written statement, the United States could imply that neither the signing of the Anti-Terrorism Act, its entry into force, nor the Attorney General`s decision to implement it, nor its use of judicial proceedings to close the PLO`s mission to the United Nations would have been sufficient to create a dispute between the United Nations and the United States. since the case was still going before a U.S. court and that the United States will not take „any further action to close“ the mission until the court`s decision, in accordance with the letter of the permanent representative of March 11, 1988. The Court cannot follow such an argument. The existence of a dispute certainly involves a claim arising from the conduct of one of the parties or a decision, it does not require that a contested decision have already come into force. In addition, litigation may arise, even if the party concerned has given assurances that no enforcement action will be taken until it is ordered by decision of the national courts. The argument is interesting, both for its refinement and for its consequences, because, if it is reasonable, it means that a state is prepared to record that it deliberately agrees to violate its accepted contractual obligation – which few States are willing to do (see S. Rosenne, conventional break, 1984, p. 11) – it can evade its obligation to submit to an agreed procedure for resolving disputes over the interpretation of the treaty. On the basis that it does agree with the other party on the importance of the contract, its interpretation is therefore indisputable. My view with the Court relates to whether the dispute between the United Nations and the United States at this stage „concerns the interpretation or application“ of the siege agreement. I am very honoured because there is an important agreement between the United Nations and the United States on the interpretation of the siege agreement.
It is not so clear whether there is currently a dispute over its application. „It is not enough for one party to a disputed case to say that there is a dispute with the other party. A simple assertion is not enough to prove the existence of a dispute, more than a mere denial of the existence of the dispute proves its non-existence. Nor is it sufficient to show that the interests of both parties in such a case are contradictory. It must be proven that one party`s claim is positively opposed by the other. (I.C J.