¹ Individual defendants included the Permanent Observer of the PLO, who possesses an Algerian passport but whose citizenship is not divulged; the Deputy Permanent Observer of the PLO, a United States citizen; the Alternate Permanent Observer of the PLO, an Iraqi citizen; and an administrator at the Mission, a citizen of Great Britain.

² Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1988–1989, tit. X, Pub. L. No. 100-204, §1001, 101 Stat. 1331, 1406 (codified at 22 U.S.C.A. §§5201–5203 (West Supp. 1988)).

³ June 26, 1947, 61 Stat. 3416, TIAS No. 1676, 11 UNTS 11, authorized by S.J. Res. 144, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., set out in 22 U.S.C. §287 note (1982).

⁴ 326 U.S. 310, 320 (1945).

⁵ Section 21(a) of the Headquarters Agreement, supra note 3, provides, in pertinent part: “Any dispute between the United Nations and the United States concerning the interpretation or application of this agreement or of any supplemental agreement, which is not settled by negotiation or other agreed mode of settlement, shall be referred for final decision to a tribunal of three arbitrators … .”

⁶ The court also rejected the argument of defendants that it should defer to an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice finding a dispute between the United States and the United Nations subject to arbitration under section 21. Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947, 1988 ICJ Rep. 12 (Advisory Opinion of Apr. 26), reprinted in 27 ILM 808 (1988). The Secretary-General argued before the ICJ that a dispute within the meaning of section 21 existed upon enactment of the ATA, in the absence of adequate assurances from the United States that the ATA would not affect the status of the PLO Mission. The United States argued that arbitration would not be “appropriate or timely” because it pledged not to take any action to close the Mission pending the outcome of the district court litigation. The ICJ agreed with the Secretary-General, finding that the United States had taken measures against the PLO Mission that could not be reconciled with the position of the Secretary-General. The ICJ also noted that the United Nations had not agreed to settle this dispute in U.S. court and had restricted its role in the district court suit to amicus curiae.

⁷ See, e.g., Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996, 996–97 (1979) (vacating, with instructions to dismiss, an attack on the President’s action terminating a treaty with Taiwan); Clark v. Allen, 331 U.S. 503, 509 (1947) (President and Senate may denounce a treaty and thus terminate its life); Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581, 602 (1889) (whether government can disregard an engagement with another nation is not for determination by the courts).

⁸ No. 88 Civ. 1962 (ELP), slip op. at 3.

⁹ Headquarters Agreement, supra note 3, §11.

¹⁰ GA Res. 3237, 29 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 31) at 4, UN Doc. A/9631 (1974).

¹¹ Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith v. Kissinger, Civ. No. 74 C 1545, slip op. at 37 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 1974), excerpted in 1974 Digest of United States Practice in Interna Tional Law 27, 28, quoted in PLO, slip op. at 6.

¹² 22 U.S.C.A. §5201(b) (West Supp. 1988).

¹³ Id. §5202(3).

¹⁴ See, e.g., Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U.S. 25, 32 (1982); Chew Heong v. United States, 112 U.S. 536, 602(1884).

¹⁵ The court afforded “great weight” to the views of the executive branch in reaching its conclusion. The United Nations Secretariat and General Assembly also opined that the Headquarters Agreement protected the PLO Mission, and the court afforded these views “some weight,” particularly because the UN position was consistent with that of the State Department. Slip op. at 26.

¹⁶ 22 U.S.C.A. §5202(3) (West Supp. 1988) (emphasis added). Other parts of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, of which the ATA was a part, specifically superseded treaty obligations and referred to “United States law (including any treaty).” 101 Stat, at 1343. See slip op. at 29.

¹⁷ In a related case, Judge Palmieri construed the ATA as not prohibiting the opening of an information office to gather, write and disseminate materials on the subject of the Palestinian people, so long as such office did not accept any money from the PLO or purport to act in any kind of official capacity for the PLO. The court also held that the ATA, as narrowed, did not violate the First Amendment or bill of attainder clause of the U.S. Constitution. Mendelsohn v. Meese, No. 88 Civ. 2005 (ELP) (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 1988).

¹⁸ N.Y. Times, Aug. 30, 1988, at Al, col. 8 (Justice Department statement).