INTERPOL as an International Organization

There is no single definition of “international organization” for the purposes of international law,Footnote ³ or indeed of terms such as “intergovernmental organization”Footnote ⁴ or “public international organization.”Footnote ⁵ The UN International Law Commission (ILC), for example, has adopted several definitions of “international organization,” for various purposes.Footnote ⁶ A recent and rather elaborate example refers to “an entity possessing its own international legal personality, established by a treaty or other instrument governed by international law, that may include as members, in addition to States, other entities, and has at least one organ capable of expressing a will distinct from that of its members.”Footnote ⁷

Past uncertainties as to the status of INTERPOL were hardly surprising since in 1923 the law of international organizations was undeveloped; indeed it remained rudimentary until some years after 1945.Footnote ⁸ And some of the mysteries may have resulted from nothing more than strange drafting in INTERPOL’s constituent instruments or the difficulty, in the past, of accessing first-hand information about the organization.

Changing attitudes within the UN between 1947 and 1982 and thereafter, together with the terms of the current INTERPOL Constitution, adopted in 1956, have largely settled the debate over the status of INTERPOL in international law. What is perhaps surprising is that doubts continued, especially among certain writers, even after the UN Office of Legal Affairs opined in 1982, following an in-depth analysis, “that the present constitutional provisions of INTERPOL fully justify the decisions of the Economic and Social Council to consider INTERPOL as an intergovernmental, rather than a non-governmental, organization.”Footnote ⁹

A question frequently raised in the past was whether INTERPOL’s 1956 Constitution was an international agreement governed by international law.Footnote ¹⁰ It is, and it is regarded as such by INTERPOL’s members and General Secretariat. But this is not the central question, for there is no requirement in international law that an international organization be established by treaty. The central question is whether states have agreed to establish an international organization, and while this is most often done by treaty, it can come about in other ways.Footnote ¹¹

There no longer seems to be serious doubt over INTERPOL’s status as an intergovernmental organization. This is so among states and within the UN, and also among writers—though some apparently find past legal questions sufficiently intriguing to maintain critical engagement.Footnote ¹² The INTERPOL General Secretariat has a clear position:

The current position has evolved over the last sixty years, and it is now clear, as is demonstrated by the practice of states, of the UN, and of other international organizations. In 1949, at a time when UN practice on such matters was not well-defined, INTERPOL was granted consultative status as a non-governmental organization by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the UN’s principal organ responsible for economic and social matters, acting under Article 71 of the UN Charter. That decision was based on the view that INTERPOL’s membership consisted not of states but of police bodies. Yet whether the police are organs of the state for the purposes of international law is not determined by internal law and arrangements, which vary greatly, mostly for constitutional and historical reasons. Whatever their position within the internal legal order, persons and entities engaged in law enforcement, including the police, exercise elements of governmental authority. Because they exercise governmental or sovereign authority, their conduct is that of the state for the purposes of international law,Footnote ¹⁴ for example, as regards state responsibilityFootnote ¹⁵ and state immunity.Footnote ¹⁶ There is no reason why law enforcement agencies cannot represent states within an international organization.

Various policy concerns may have led to questions about the status of INTERPOL under international law. On a policy level, these seem to have included a desire to protect law enforcement activities from external (governmental/diplomatic) political interference. This is consistent with the aim of securing the independence and neutrality of INTERPOL, which are among its foundational principles. But it is far from obvious that this would have been seriously affected by the status of INTERPOL.

In 1975, ECOSOC changed its position and designated INTERPOL an intergovernmental organization in accordance with ECOSOC’s rules of procedure. The legal correctness of ECOSOC’s decision was supported by Reuter’s 1980 advice,Footnote ¹⁷ and, most importantly, it was upheld by the UN Office of Legal Affairs’ 1982 legal opinion.Footnote ¹⁸

In 1996, the UN General Assembly granted INTERPOL observer status,Footnote ¹⁹ less than two years after it had decided that such status would henceforth be granted only to states and intergovernmental organizations.Footnote ²⁰

In 1982, France (INTERPOL’s host state) entered into a headquarters agreement, explicitly recognizing INTERPOL’s intergovernmental character.Footnote ²¹ On June 16, 1983, the United States president designated INTERPOL an international organization entitled to privileges and immunities under the U.S. International Organizations Act.Footnote ²² In 2023, the United Kingdom (UK) entered into an Agreement with INTERPOL, which states in its preamble “that ICPO-INTERPOL is an international organization governed by public international law.”Footnote ²³ The Agreement accords INTERPOL privileges and immunities under powers which are conferred in UK law by the UK’s International Organisations Act 1968.Footnote ²⁴

Who May Be Members of INTERPOL and Who Represents the Members?

These two questions were sometimes discussed together, leading to some confusion. The wording of the 1956 Constitution may be to blame. The confusion begins with Article 4 of the Constitution, which reads: “Any country may delegate as a Member of the Organisation any official police body whose functions come within the framework of the activities of the Organisation.”

As of October 2025, INTERPOL has 196 member countries.Footnote ²⁵ The membership comprises 190 states members of the UN,Footnote ²⁶ two entities with UN observer state status,Footnote ²⁷ and the four constituent parts of the Kingdom of The Netherlands.Footnote ²⁸ Thus, despite the term “country” in Article 4 (a usage that is in fact not consistent throughout the Constitution), the overwhelming majority of members are states.

The fact that the Constitution did not refer to member states but to member countries led to suggestions that INTERPOL was not an intergovernmental organization.Footnote ²⁹ Yet, “country” is in fact a word that is sometimes used interchangeably with “state,” though it has the advantage of potentially embracing other territorial entities such as overseas territories, and as such was appropriate in the case of INTERPOL in particular given the participation of the four Dutch countries and, until its reincorporation into Germany from January 1, 1957, the post-World War II Saar Territory.

As for representation, the Assembly is “the body of supreme authority” in INTERPOL. It is “composed of delegates appointed by the Members of the Organisation.”Footnote ³⁰ The delegation head is “appointed by the competent governmental authority.”Footnote ³¹ Members should attempt to include in their delegations, among others, “[h]igh officials of departments dealing with police matters.”Footnote ³² None of this is unusual for a specialized intergovernmental organization; indeed, such arrangements emphasize the governmental nature of INTERPOL’s members.

In September 2017, INTERPOL’s General Assembly adopted Resolution No. 1, which aimed to remove any remaining doubts by confirming that the word “country” in Article 4 of the Constitution is to be interpreted as “state” and that, as of September 27, 2017, the INTERPOL membership shall be open to “states” as members of the Organization.Footnote ³³

The participation of the four countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands as Members of INTERPOL is not an obstacle to INTERPOL being regarded as an international intergovernmental organization. While the members of such organizations are usually sovereign states, there are many cases where international organizations have included and still include as members territories that are not sovereign states.Footnote ³⁴ The League of Nations,Footnote ³⁵ the UN,Footnote ³⁶ and the World Trade OrganizationFootnote ³⁷ are prominent examples.