The Concept of an International Organization in

International Law Lorenzo Gasbarri download

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-concept-of-an-international-
organization-in-international-law-lorenzo-gasbarri/

Visit ebookmass.com today to download the complete set of

ebooks or textbooks
We have selected some products that you may be interested in
Click the link to download now or visit ebookmass.com
for more options!.

International Law of Taxation (Elements of International

Law) Hongler

https://ebookmass.com/product/international-law-of-taxation-elements-
of-international-law-hongler/

The Function of Equity in International Law Catharine Titi

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-function-of-equity-in-international-
law-catharine-titi/

The Law of International Watercourses 3rd Edition Stephen

C. Mccaffrey

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-law-of-international-
watercourses-3rd-edition-stephen-c-mccaffrey/

Organization Theory & Design: An International Perspective

4th Edition Richard L. Daft

https://ebookmass.com/product/organization-theory-design-an-
international-perspective-4th-edition-richard-l-daft/
The Many Paths of Change in International Law Nico Krisch

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-many-paths-of-change-in-
international-law-nico-krisch/

The Law of Investment Treaties (Oxford International Law

Library) Salacuse

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-law-of-investment-treaties-oxford-
international-law-library-salacuse/

Comparative international law Roberts

https://ebookmass.com/product/comparative-international-law-roberts/

Territorial Status in International Law Jure Vidmar

https://ebookmass.com/product/territorial-status-in-international-law-
jure-vidmar/

The Oxford Handbook of Jurisdiction in International Law

Stephen Allen (Editor)

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-jurisdiction-in-
international-law-stephen-allen-editor/
OX F OR D MONO G R APHS IN INTE RNATIONA L L AW

General Editors
P R O F E S S O R C AT H E R I N E R E D G W E L L
Chichele Professor of Public International Law at the University of Oxford and
Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford

PROFESSOR ROGER O’KEEFE

Professor of International Law at Bocconi University, Milan

The Concept of an International

Organization in International Law
OX F O R D M O N O G R A P H S I N I N T E R NAT IO NA L L AW
The aim of this series is to publish important and original pieces of research
on all aspects of international law. Topics that are given particular prominence
are those which, while of interest to the academic lawyer, also have important
bearing on issues which touch the actual conduct of international relations.
Nonetheless the series is wide in scope and includes monographs on the
history and philosophical foundations of international law.

RECENT TITLES IN THE SERIES

Neutrality in Contemporary International Law
James Upcher
Geographical Change and the Law of the Sea
Kate Purcell
Statehood and the State-​Like in International Law
Rowan Nicholson
Confronting the Shadow State: An International Law Perspective on
State Organized Crime
Henri Decoeur
Necessity and Proportionality and the Right of Self-​Defence in International Law
Chris O’Meara
 The Concept of an
International
Organization
in International Law
L O R E N Z O G A SBA R R I

1
 3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Lorenzo Gasbarri 2021
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2021
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Crown copyright material is reproduced under Class Licence
Number C01P0000148 with the permission of OPSI
and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2020951498
ISBN 978–​0–​19–​289579–​0
DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780192895790.001.0001
Printed and bound in the UK by
TJ Books Limited
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
 General Editors’ Preface

It is one of the paradoxes in which law, including international law, abounds that
it is often the most fundamental problems that are the least studied. As in life, it
seems that we can get by with the day-​to-​day business of a legal system without
answering many of the big questions, focusing instead on specific rules and their
application to the facts before us. This may explain in part why, despite their exist-
ence for over two hundred years, their significance for international relations for
over a hundred, and their overwhelming numerical predominance today relative
to states, we still lack an agreed understanding of what international organizations
are, even when we confine ourselves to intergovernmental organizations. Various
definitions exist, but Lorenzo Gasbarri’s concern is less the definition of an inter-
national organization than how we conceive of such organizations as phenomena.
His implicit point, moreover, is that we cannot in fact get by, at least coherently,
with the day-​to-​day business of the law of international organizations, applying
specific rules to the facts before us, without an adequate common conception of an
international organization.
Dr Gasbarri’s study, as rigorous as it is original and wide-​ranging, treats as cen-
tral to the concept of an international organization the capacity of the entity to
create a legal system. He examines four competing conceptions of an international
organization and their respective implications for the character as international
or internal of the law produced by such organizations. He argues that these four
conceptions, when viewed as mutually exclusive, each has its explanatory limita-
tions and does so because it embodies a false dichotomy in which the law produced
by an international organization is either international or internal. Embracing in-
stead legal pluralism and the importance of considering the internal point of view
of each legal system, he proposes a conception of an international organization as
an institution established by treaty or other instrument governed by international
law ‘and capable of creating a legal system that derives from international law and
that produces law which is at the same time internal and international’. It is an ap-
preciation of the dual legal character, both internal and international, of the law
produced by an international organization which, in Dr Gasbarri’s thesis, is the key
to resolving a range of controversies in the law of international organizations, from
questions of the law of treaties as applied to international organizations to the val-
idity of the acts and the responsibility of such organizations.
The Concept of An International Organization is ambitious and creative schol-
arship. While in essence theoretical, it analyses with insight and a keen eye
to practical relevance the concrete legal implications, as evident in, inter alia,
vi General Editors’ Preface

international jurisprudence and the work of the International Law Commission, of

the theoretical positions under study. It will be of interest to scholars, students, and
practitioners not only of the law of international organizations but also of public
international law more generally.

RO’K, CR
Milan and Oxford
January 2021
 Table of Cases

PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE

PCIJ, Competence of the ILO in regard to International Regulation of the
Conditions of the Labour of Persons Employed in Agriculture
(PCIJ Series B 1922)����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 35, 163
PCIJ, Competence of the ILO to Examine Proposal for the Organization
and Development of the Methods of Agricultural Production
(PCIJ Series B No 3 1922)��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 35
PCIJ, Competence of the International Labour Organization to Regulate,
Incidentally, the Personal Work of the Employer (PCIJ Series B 1926)������������������� 35, 163
PCIJ, Employment of Women during the Night Case
(PCIJ Series A/​B No 50 1932)������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 35, 163
PCIJ, Jurisdiction of the European Commission of the Danube between Galatz and
Braila (PCIJ Series B, 1927) ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 21
PCIJ, Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzów (Claim for Indemnity)
(PCIJ Series A, 1927)����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 75
PCIJ, Interpretation of the Greco-​Turkish Agreement of December 1st, 1926
(PCIJ, Series B, 1928)����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 21

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

ICJ, Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations
(Article 4 of the Charter) (ICJ Rep 1948)���������������������������������������������������� 36, 135–​36, 161
ICJ, Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations
(ICJ Rep 1949)��������������������������������������������������� 22, 35–​36, 45–​46, 117, 125, 131, 134, 136
ICJ, Competence of Assembly regarding admission to the United Nations
(ICJ Rep 1950)�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������36–​37, 163
ICJ, International status of South-​West Africa (ICJ Rep 1950)����������������������������������������������� 120
ICJ, Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide (ICJ Rep 1951)���������������������������������������������������������������������������111, 161
ICJ, Effect of Awards of Compensation made by the United Nations
Administrative Tribunal (ICJ Rep 1954)���������������������������������������������������27, 54, 56, 60–​61
ICJ, Monetary gold removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v. France, United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America)
(ICJ Rep 1954)������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 189
ICJ, Treatment in Hungary of Aircraft and Crew of United States of America
(United States v. Hungarian People’s Republic; United States v. Ussr)
(ICJ Pleadings 1954)��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 188
ICJ, Judgments of the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO upon Complaints
Made against Unesco (ICJ Rep 1956)��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 56
ICJ, Constitution of the Maritime Safety Committee of the Inter-​Governmental
Maritime Consultative Organization (ICJ Rep 1960)����������������������������������������������������� 161
ICJ, Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, paragraph 2 of the Charter)
(ICJ Rep 1962)����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������36–​37, 108, 135–​36
ICJ, South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v South Africa; Liberia v South Africa)
(ICJ Rep 1962)������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 120
xii Table of Cases

ICJ, South West Africa Cases—​Second phase (Ethiopia v. South Africa;

Liberia v. South Africa) (ICJ Rep 1966)��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 121
ICJ, North Sea Continental Shelf (ICJ Rep 1969)���������������������������������������������������������������111–​12
ICJ, Legal Consequences for States of the Contitiued Presence of South Africa
in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council
Resolution 276 (1970) (ICJ Rep 1971)�����������������������������������������������������������������37, 163–​64
ICJ, Application for Review of Judgment No. 158 of the United Nations
Administrative Tribunal (ICJ Rep 1973)������������������������������������������������������������������������� 111
ICJ, Western Sahara (ICJ Rep 1975)�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 111–​12, 169
ICJ, Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the
WHO and Egypt (ICJ Rep 1980)���������������������������������������������������������������������������27–​28, 169
ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua
(Nicaragua v United States of America) (ICJ Rep 1986)����������������������������188–​89, 195–​96
ICJ, Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United
Nations Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947 (ICJ Rep 1988)������������������������������� 136
ICJ, Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges
and Immunities of the United Nations (ICJ Rep 1989)��������������������������������������������������� 118
ICJ, Public sitting held on Tuesday 12 November 1991, in the case concerning
Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v Australia) (1991)����������������������������������� 191
ICJ, Public sitting held on Tuesday 19 November 1991, in the case concerning
Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v Australia) (1991)����������������������������������� 191
ICJ, Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v Australia)
(ICJ Rep 1992)�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 188–​89, 191, 205
ICJ, Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal
Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya v. United States of America) (ICJ Rep 1992)������������������������������������������������ 122
ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (ICJ Rep 1996)����������������������������������� 108
ICJ, Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict
(ICJ Rep 1996)������������������������������������������������������������������������23–​24, 104, 108, 118, 161–​62
ICJ, Case Concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971
Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie
(Libya v. United Kingdom) (ICJ Rep 1998) ������������������������������������������������ 23–​24, 122, 125
ICJ, Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Spain, USA; Serbia and Montenegro v.
Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal,
United Kingdom) (ICJ Rep 1999)����������������������������������������������������������������118–​19, 197–​98
ICJ, Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of
the Commission on Human Rights (ICJ Rep 1999)������������������������������������������ 111, 118–​19
ICJ, Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria
(ICJ Rep 2002)�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������167–​68
ICJ, Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America)
(ICJ Rep 2003)�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������188–​89
ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory (ICJ Rep 2004)��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 164
ICJ, Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. United Kingdom)
(ICJ Rep 2004)�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������118–​19
ICJ, Public sitting held on Tuesday 1 December 2009, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace,
President Owada, presiding, on the Accordance with International Law of the
Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-​
Government of Kosovo (Request for advisory opinion submitted by the General
Assembly of the United Nations) (Verbatim Record 2009/​24 2009)����������������������������� 123
ICJ, Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of
Independence in Respect of Kosovo (ICJ Rep 2010)�������������������������������������������������122, 123
ICJ, Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995 (the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia v. Greece) (ICJ Rep 2011)������������������������������������������������������������� 24
 Table of Cases xiii

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

ICC, Prosecution Response to the Observations of the African Union and the
League of Arab States (the Prosecutor v Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir)
(ICC-​02/​05-​01/​09 2018)���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 12–​13, 45–​46
ICC, The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan’s submissions following the hearing of 10,
11, 12, 13 and 14 September 2018 (the Prosecutor v Omar Hassan Ahmad Al
Bashir) (ICC-​02/​05-​Dl/​09 2018)���������������������������������������������������������������������������������12–​13
ICC, The Prosecutor v Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir (ICC-​02/​05-​01/​09-​T-​4-​ENG
2018)�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������12–​13
ICC, The Prosecutor v Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir (ICC-​02/​05-​01/​09-​T-​5-​ENG
2018)�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������12–​13
ICC, The Prosecutor v Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir (ICC-​02/​05-​01/​09-​T-​8-​ENG
2018)�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������12–​13
ICC, The Prosecutor v Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir (ICC-​02/​05-​01/​09-​T-​4-​ENG
2018)�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������12–​13
ICC, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar
Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir (ICC-​02/​05-​01/​09-​3 2018)�����������������������������������������������45–​46

INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA

ITLOS, Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-​Regional Fisheries
Commission (SRFC) (ITLOS Report No. 21 2015)������������������� 45–​46, 70, 71–​72, 154–​55

CENTRAL AMERICAN COURT OF JUSTICE

Honduras v El Salvador and Guatemala (American Journal of International
Law 1908)��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 188

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

ECtHR, Lawless v Ireland (App no 332/​57 1961) ������������������������������������������������������������������� 127
ECtHR, Handyside v United Kingdom (App no 5493/​72 1976)��������������������������������������������� 126
ECtHR, The Sunday Times v United Kingdom (App no 6538/​74 1979) ������������������������������� 126
Commission Decision, M and Co v Germany
(App no 13258/​87 1990)������������������������������������������������������������������������84, 186–​87, 198–​99
ECtHR, Waite and Kennedy v Germany (App no 26083/​94 1999) ���������������������������85–​86, 203
ECtHR, Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret AS v Irelan
(App no 45036/​98 2001)�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������84, 85–​86
ECtHR Grand Chamber, Banković and ors v Belgium and ors
(App no 52207/​99 2001)���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������197–​98
ECtHR Grand Chamber, Christine Goodwin v United Kingdom
(App no 28957/​95 2002)��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 126
ECtHR Grand Chamber, Kasumaj v Greece (App No 6974/​05 2007)�����������������������������192–​93
ECtHR Grand Chamber, Gaji v Germany (App No 31446/​02 2007) �����������������������������192–​93
ECtHR, Behrami v France and Saramati v France, Germany and Norway
(App nos 71412/​01 and 78166/​01 2007)���������������������������������45, 82–​83, 84, 192–​93, 195,
199–​200, 201–​2
ECtHR, Galic v the Netherlands and Blagojevic v the Netherlands
(App Nos 22617/​07 and 49032/​07 2009)���������������������������������������������������������������������201–​2
ECtHR Grand Chamber, Al-​Jedda v the United Kingdom
(App no 27021/​08 2011)������������������������������������������������������� 82–​83, 85, 86, 192–​93, 201–​2
ECtHR Grand Chamber, Nada v Switzerland
(App no 10593/​08 2012)���������������������������������������������������������������������������������82–​83, 85, 203
xiv Table of Cases

ECtHR, Al-​Dulimi v Switzerland (App no 5809/​08 2013)�����������������80–​81, 82–​84, 85–​86, 88,

185–​86, 203–​4
ECtHR Grand Chamber, Jaloud v the Netherlands (App No 47708/​08 2014)���������������192–​93
ECtHR Grand Chamber, Al-​Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v Switzerland
(App no 5809/​08 2016)�������������������������������������� 80–​81, 82–​84, 85–​86, 88, 185–​86, 203–​4

COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

Court of Justice of the European Union, van Gend & Loos v Nederlandse
Administratie der Belastingen (Case 26/​62 1963)����������������������������������������������� 37, 88, 130
Court of Justice of the European Union, Flaminio Costa v E.N.E.L.
(Case 6/​64 1964) �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 8–​9, 37–​38
Court of Justice of the European Union, Commission v Council
(European Road Transport Agreement) (Case 22/​70 1971)���������������������������������������37–​38
Court of Justice of the European Union, International Fruit Company v Produktschap
voor Siergewassen (Case 21-​24/​72 1972)������������������������������������������������������������������������� 155
Court of Justice of the European Union, AM and S (Case 155/​79 1982)�����������������������110–​11
Court of Justice of the European Union, Demirel (Case 12/​86 (1987) 1987)�����������������110–​11
Court of Justice of the European Union, Krucken (Case 316/​86 1988) �������������������������110–​11
Court of Justice of the European Union, Opinion 1/​75 (1994) ���������������������������������������136–​37
Court of Justice of the European Union, France v Commission (Case C-​327/​91 1994) ����� 137
Court of Justice of the European Union, European Parliament v Council of the
European Union (Case C-​316/​91 1994)��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 205
Court of Justice of the European Union, Opinion 2/​92 (1995) ��������������������������������������������� 137
Court of Justice of the European Union, Yassin Abdullah Kadi v Council of
the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-​315/​01 2005) ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������11–​12
Court of Justice of the European Union, Mangold (Case C-​144/​04 2005)���������������������110–​11
Court of Justice of the European Union, Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat
International Foundation v Council of the European Union and Commission of
the European Communities (Joined Cases C-​402-​05 P and C-​415/​05 P 2008)������������� 60
Court of Justice of the European Union, Front populaire pour la libération de la
saguia-​el-​hamra et du rio de oro (Front Polisario) v Council of the European
Union (Case No. T-​512/​12 2015)������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 169
Court of Justice of the European Union, Council of the European Union v
Front populaire pour la libération de la saguia-​el-​hamra et du rio de oro
(Front Polisario) (Case No C-​104/​16 P 2016)����������������������������������������������������������������� 169
Court of Justice of the European Union, Case T‑192/​16
(NF v European Council 2017) ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������137–​38
Court of Justice of the European Union, Slowakische Republik (Slovak Republic) v
Achmea BV (Case C‑284/​16 2018)�����������������������������������������������������������������������������129–​30

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

Protection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications for Agricultural
Products and Food-​stuffs (United States v European Communities)
(20 April 2005)���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������43–​44
Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products
(United States v European Communities) (29 September 2006)�����������������������������43–​44
EC—​Selected Customs Matters (12 June 2006) ����������������������������������������������������������������������� 44
Visit https://ebookmass.com today to explore
a vast collection of ebooks across various
genres, available in popular formats like
PDF, EPUB, and MOBI, fully compatible with
all devices. Enjoy a seamless reading
experience and effortlessly download high-
quality materials in just a few simple steps.
Plus, don’t miss out on exciting offers that
let you access a wealth of knowledge at the
best prices!
 Table of Cases xv

ARBITRAL AWARDS
Arbitral Tribunal, Samoan Claim (RIAA 1902) ��������������������������������������������������������������������� 188

LEAGUE OF NATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

League of Nations Administrative Tribunal, Di Palma Castiglione v International
Labour Organization (League of Nations Administrative Tribunal,
Judgment No 1 1929)����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 56

WORLD BANK ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

World Bank Administrative Tribunal, de Merode (World Bank Administrative
Tribunal 1981)������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 111

NATIONAL JURISDICTIONS

United States
US court of claims, Anglo-​Chinese Shipping Co. v United States
(349 U.S. 938 1955) �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������188–​89

Netherlands
Dutch Supreme Court, Nuhanović and Mustafić and others v The Netherlands
(Dutch Supreme Court 2013)������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 199
Dutch Supreme Court, Netherlands v Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica
(Dutch Supreme Court 2013)���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 199–​200

United Kingdom
EWCA, In Re International Tin Council (ILR 1988)��������������������������������������������������������������� 178
EWHC, J. H. Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd. v. Department of Trade and Industry
and Others (ILR 1987)������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 178
EWHC, Maclaine Watson & Company Limited v Department of Trade and Industry
(ILR 1987)��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 178
UKHL, JH Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Department of Trade and Industry and
Others and Related Appeals, and Maclaine Watson & Co Ltd v Department of
Trade and Industry, and Maclaine Watson & Co Ltd v International Tin Council
(ILR 1989)��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 178
UKHL, Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd and others v Australia and
others (ILM 1989)�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 178
 List of Abbreviations

ARIO draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations

ARSIWA articles on responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts
BIT bilateral investments treaty
ECHR European Convention on Human Rights
ECJ European Court of Justice
ECtHR European Court of Human Rights
GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
ICC International Criminal Court
ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
IDI Institut de Droit International
ILC International Law Commission
ILO International Labour Organization
IMF International Monetary Fund
ITLOS International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
IUU illegal, unreported, and unregulated
OSCE Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
PCIJ Permanent Court of International Justice
SRFC Sub-​Regional Fisheries Commission
TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
UNCLOS UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
UNGA United Nations General Assembly
UNMIK United Nations Mission in Kosovo
UNTWO World Tourism Organization
WHO World Health Organization
WTO World Trade Organization
 1
Introduction

The 1975 Vienna Convention on the Representation of States in their Relations

with International Organizations of a Universal Character was the first formal
product of a historical process in which the law of international organizations
achieved the dignity of a discrete area of international law.1 Until the 1960s, only
disparate studies of international organizations, focusing on specific issues relating
to particular institutions, had appeared. No general classification was attempted.
International organizations themselves were a fragmented phenomenon, ranging
from administrative unions and international commissions to conferences where
states debated international politics. It was only in the decade preceding the 1975
Vienna Convention that the law of international organizations became an autono-
mous field of study, relying on a comparative methodology to address common
issues such as attribution of competences, legal personality, and immunities.2 With
the Convention, different institutions were subjected for the first time to the same
regulatory framework, in this case in the field of diplomatic law. The 1975 Vienna
Convention evidenced of a new era in the study of a discrete phenomenon with
common roots and common aims.
At the same time, the story of the 1975 Vienna Convention is the story of a failure.
The Convention represents the failure of the comparative methodology that sought
to develop a general legal framework applicable to a large category of international
organizations. Indeed, the comprehensive scope of the 1975 Vienna Convention is
founded on the absence of any critical discussion of what international organiza-
tions are. Earlier debates on the structural differences among international organ-
izations were downplayed in order to achieve the circumscribed aim of a technical
instrument delineating the legal framework governing member states’ permanent
missions.
In the work that led to the 1975 Vienna Convention, the International Law
Commission (ILC) adopted a model of reasoning, since applied in its other pro-
jects on international organizations, according to which the aim of a particular
project, be it diplomatic relations, the law of treaties, or the law of international
responsibility, is not to define what international organizations are, but to provide

1 Vienna Convention on the Representation of States in their Relations with International

Organizations of a Universal Character (opened for signature 14 March 1975, not yet in force) UN Doc
A/​CONF.67/​16 (hereafter VCRS).
2 Jan Klabbers, ‘The Life and Times of the Law of International Organizations’ (2001) 70 NJIL 287.

The Concept of an International Organization in International Law. Lorenzo Gasbarri, Oxford University Press (2021).
© Lorenzo Gasbarri. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780192895790.003.0001
2 Introduction

a set of rules applicable to the particular, limited circumstance on which the pro-
ject focuses. For instance, the aim of the 1986 Vienna Convention is not to define
from where the legal personality of international organizations comes; rather, the
project presumes the existence of such personality, since this enables the conclu-
sion of treaties.3 Similarly, the aim of the project on responsibility is not to deter-
mine whether the law produced by international organizations is international
law; rather, the project starts from the premise of the existence of an international
obligation.4
In short, the few legal instruments that should identify a comprehensive legal
framework applicable to international organizations are based on a lack of theoret-
ical analysis of what international organizations are. This is one of the reasons why
the law of international organizations does not meet the expectations of a world in
which these institutions have a preeminent role.
Several ILC Special Rapporteurs attempted in fact to stimulate debate on
how to conceptualize international organizations, but they never succeeded in
achieving consensus. As early as in 1958, while discussing the codification of the
law of treaties, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Sixth Committee
invited the Commission to redouble its efforts on the law of international organ-
izations and to begin studying on the vast topic of the ‘Relations between States
and International Organizations’.5 Abdullah El-​Erian was appointed as Special
Rapporteur and he submitted his first report in 1963.6
El-​Erian began by conducting a study of the evolution of the definitions of an
international organization, identifying three ‘categories’ of definitions. The first
category sought to integrate international organizations into the classical para-
digm of the international law of its time. Anzilotti and his theory of international
organizations as collective organs of their member states was the paradigmatic ex-
ample.7 According to this conceptualization, international organizations were not
independent entities but merely represented the collective will of their member
states. Under the same rubric, El-​Erian identified another definition, provided by
Kelsen:

An organized international community is constituted by a treaty which insti-

tutes special organs of the international community for the pursuance of the
purposes for which the community has been established. This community
is an ‘international’ community; it has not the character of a State . . . [it] is an

3See Chapter 9.
4See Chapter 11.
5 Relations Between States and International Organizations, UNGA Res 1289 (XIII) (5

December 1958).
6 ILC, ‘First report on relations between States and inter-​governmental organizations by Abdullah

El-​Erian’ (1963) UN Doc A/​CN.4/​161 and Add.1 (hereafter El-​Erian, ‘First Report’) 164.
7 Dionisio Anzilotti, Cours de Droit International (Gilbert Gidel ed, Receuil Sirey 1929) 283.
 Introduction 3

international organization. In contradistinction to a federal State, it is a confed-

eration of States.8

The second category was obscurely defined by El-​Erian as any definition that
‘project[s]‌our present understanding of the phenomenon retrospectively to cover
certain earlier experiences, thus explaining the past by the present’.9 He cited the
work of Stanley Hoffman, who defined international organizations as
‘toutes les formes de la coopération entre les états, tentant à faire régner par leur
association un certain ordre dans le milieu international, crées par leur volonté
et fonctionnant dans un milieu dont les états sont les personnes juridiques
majeures.’10
Between the lines, this definition sought to combine the existence of a separate
order with its derivation from international law.
The third category of definitions was based on an attempt to isolate and empha-
size certain elements considered essential for defining an international organiza-
tion.11 Different authors relied on different fundamental elements, but in general
they considered the purpose, the conventional basis, the permanent character, the
possession of organs separate from those of member states, and the possession of
legal personality. Under this heading El-​Erian quoted several authors, focusing in
particular on the work of the ILC on the law of treaties.12
The broad understanding of the topic led El-​Erian to formulate an impressive
agenda for the future work of the Commission. In his preliminary intentions, this
is the mandate he received:

I. First group—​the general principles of international personality, which would

include: 1. Definition of the concept of the international personality of inter-
national organizations; 2. Legal capacity; 3. Treaty-​making capacity; 4. Capacity
to espouse international claims. II. Second group—​international immunities and
privileges, which would include: 1. Privileges and immunities of international
organizations; 2. Related questions of the institution of legation in respect to
international organizations; 3. Diplomatic conferences. III. Third group—​
special questions: 1. The law of treaties in respect to international organizations;
2. Responsibility of international organizations; 3. Succession between inter-
national organizations.13

8 Hans Kelsen, Principles of International Law (Rinehart & Co 1952) 172; Jochen von Bernstorff,

‘Autorité oblige: The Rise and Fall of Hans Kelsen’s Legal Concept of International Institutions’ (2020)
31 EJIL 497.
9 El-​Erian, ‘First Report’ (n 6) 164.
10 Stanley Hoffmann, Organisations internationales et pouvoirs politiques des Etats (Armand Colin

1954) 12.
11 El-​Erian, ‘First Report’ (n 6) 166.
12 See Chapter 9.
13 El-​Erian, ‘First Report’ (n 6) 184.
4 Introduction

However, the Commission drastically narrowed down the scope of the project and
prioritized diplomatic law in its application to relations between states and inter-​
governmental organizations.14 In his second report of 1967, the Special Rapporteur
concluded that his discussion of ‘general principles of juridical personality of inter-
national organizations’ generated great controversy within the Commission.15 In
his third report of 1968, he proposed defining an international organization as ‘an
association of States established by treaty, possessing a constitution and common
organs, and having a legal personality distinct from that of the member States’.16
As already mentioned, the Commission rejected the need to define international
organizations and it refused to include this definition. It ‘thought, however, that
such an elaborate definition was not necessary for the time being since it was not
dealing at the present stage of its work with the status of the international organiza-
tions themselves, but only with the legal position of representatives of States to the
organizations’.17 Eventually, the Commission dealt with the topic of diplomatic law
by avoiding any theoretical issue and focusing on practical questions concerning
the permanent missions of member states.
The contemporary work of the ILC on the law of treaties showed that there was
disagreement between scholars on fundamental issues such as the nature of legal
personality, the capacity to develop an internal order, and the nature of the law pro-
duced by international organizations.18 The 1986 Vienna Convention on the Law
of Treaties proved unsuccessful in solving the dilemma of the transparent institu-
tional veil, which makes organizations neither self-​contained in the way that states
are, nor perfectly open to international law as are the conferences of the parties to
a treaty.19
At the historical moment when international organizations were proliferating,
their normative foundation had already started to manifest its pitfalls. The com-
paratist method revealed itself to be sufficient to provide a description of common
features, but completely inadequate to solve the fundamental legal dilemmas which
characterize the law of international organizations. Consequently, agreement was
only to be found in general provisions, too general to be useful. Lawyers lacked an

14 ILC, ‘Relations between States and inter-​governmental organizations: suggested list of questions as

basis of discussion for the definition of the scope and mode of treatement: working paper prepared by
Mr. Abdullah El-​Erian, Special Rapporteur—​contained in A/​5809, para. 41’ (1964) UN Doc A/​CN.4/​
L.104.
15 ILC, ‘Second report on relations between States and inter-​governmental organizations by Abdullah

El-​Erian’ (1967) UN Doc A/​CN.4/​195 and Add.1, 137.

16 ILC, ‘Third report on relations between States and inter-​governmental organizations by Abdullah

El-​Erian’ (1968) UN Doc A/​CN.4/​203 and Add.1-​5, 124.

17 ILC, ‘Report of the Commission on the Work of its 20th Session’ (27 May–​2 August 1968) UN Doc

A/​7209/​REV.1, 196. See also, ILC, ‘Sixth report on relations between States and inter-​governmental or-
ganizations by Abdullah El-​Erian’ (1971) UN Doc A/​CN.4/​241 and Add.1-​6, 17, para 43.
18 See Chapter 9.
19 Catherine Brölmann, The Institutional Veil in Public International Law: International Organisations

and the Law of Treaties (Hart 2007) 11.

 Conceptualizing versus Defining 5

agreed definition of international organizations, except for the brief ‘international

organizations are intergovernmental organizations’.20
In sum, the international legal framework of international organizations remains
limited to a set of rules that do not have a clear object of application. Scholarship
and practice do not share a common understanding of international organizations
and different approaches are confusingly assembled. In short, we do not know what
international organizations are. In particular, the 1975 Vienna Convention started
a process of crystallization of what I will define in this book as a ‘false dichotomy’,
under which organizations are either perceived from a state-​centric perspective or
an organization-​centric perspective. The aim of the following pages is to analyse
different conceptualizations, to assess the existence of a general regulatory frame-
work, and to provide a definition of the concept of an international organization in
international law.

1.1 Conceptualizing versus Defining

International organizations are usually defined on the basis of certain char-

acteristics they should possess. For instance, the ILC stressed their intergovern-
mental nature in the context of the law of treaties and the possession of separate
legal personality for their international responsibility.21 Virally considered the
relevance of five elements, including the ‘inter-​State basis, their voluntaristic basis,
their possession of a permanent system of organs, their autonomy and their co-
operative function’.22 Schermers and Blokker preferred to rely on three funda-
mental elements and defined international organizations as ‘forms of cooperation
(1) founded on an international agreement; (2) having at least one organ with a
will of its own; and (3) established under international law’.23 Other scholars have
proposed different variations of the same theme, which have been aptly described
by Alvarez in International Organizations as Law-​Makers, in which he concludes
that ‘[e]‌laborate definitions of IOs raise more problems than they are worth’.24
Indeed, defining international organizations on the basis of descriptive elements is
a limited approach which does not solve the problems raised in this book. Similarly
to the approach described above adopted by Special Rapporteur El-​Erian, the term
‘concept’ is employed in this book differently from ‘definition’.

20 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (adopted 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January

1980) 1155 UNTS 331, art 2(i).

21 See Chapters 9 and 11.
22 Michel Virally, ‘Definition and Classification of International Organizations: a Legal Approach’ in

George Abi-​Saab (ed), The Concept of International Organizations (UNESCO 1981) 50.
23 Henry G Schermers and Niels M Blokker, Institutional Law: Unity within Diversity (Nijhoff 2011)

para 33.
24 José E Alvarez, International Organizations as Law-​makers (OUP 2005) 4.
6 Introduction

Scholars do not agree on the essential elements because they start from different
premises on what international organizations are. The aim of this book is to iden-
tify the legal conceptualizations under which international organizations are per-
ceived. For instance, I will not focus on whether legal personality is a fundamental
element, but on the consequences of the different conceptualizations under which
legal personality is conferred by member states or is inherent to the creation of an
organization. I will compare the idea that international organizations are created
by states and endowed with essential elements to perform specific tasks with the
attempt to consider them as autonomous subjects that do not derive from acts of
states but from the inherent possession of elements that are required to achieve
‘organizationhood’.25
I do not intend to build a constraining framework to delineate the boundaries of
a social phenomenon. The aim of this book is not to define international organiza-
tions and describe their essential characteristics, but to identify the concept of an
international organization in international law.
Even if I do not exclusively focus on defining international organizations as a
sum of structural elements, as article 2(a) of the Articles on the Responsibility of
International Organizations (ARIO)26 does, there are two starting points that de-
limit my research. First, the book is limited to institutions that are created on the
basis of a norm of international law. I will later describe the implication of this
premise, but for the moment it is useful to stress that I do not focus on other non-​
state actors such as non-​governmental organizations and multinational corpor-
ations. However, I do focus on controversial entities, such as organizations that
are arguably based on parallel acts of domestic laws or on political and not legal
agreements.
Second, and more importantly, I contend that the absence of an agreed con-
cept of an international organization is due to the nature of their legal system. The
complexity that arises in applying the concept of a legal system to international
organizations is the reason for the lack of clarity in the relationship between or-
ganizations and their member states, which remains the unresolved problem of
the institutional architecture of international organizations.27 This book seeks to
define international organizations on the basis of the legal nature of the legal sys-
tems they develop. In particular, I give fundamental importance to the nature of
the law produced by international organizations in order to distinguish four main
conceptualizations.

25 On the relevance of this approach, also see Jan Klabbers and Guy Fiti Sinclair, ‘On Theorizing

International Organizations Law: Editors’ Introduction’ (2020) 31 EJIL 489.

26 ILC, ‘Draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations, with commentaries’ (2011)

UN Doc A/​66/​10 (hereafter ARIO).

27 Jan Klabbers, An Introduction to International Organizations Law (3rd edn, CUP 2015) 2.
 Four Concepts of an International Organization 7

1.2 Four Concepts of an International Organization

General regulatory instruments such as the 1975 Vienna Convention and the 2011
project on international responsibility contain clauses that give relevance to the par-
ticular rules that govern each organization. The notion of ‘rules of international or-
ganizations’ appeared for the first time in article 1(34) of the 1975 Vienna Convention,
which defines them as meaning ‘in particular, the constituent instruments, relevant
decisions and resolutions, and established practice of the Organization’.28 This defin-
ition emerged during the conference negotiations on the 1975 Vienna Convention
and was not included in the draft articles prepared by the ILC.29 The Commission
could not agree on the nature of these rules, which in some respects are international
law and in others are laws internal to each institution. The decision to avoid contro-
versial questions introduced the definition of ‘rules of international organizations’
into the vocabulary of the ILC with no controversial debate and some years prior
to its work on the law of treaties. However, this comprehensive definition which in-
cludes every normative act of international organizations was neither based on schol-
arship nor practice. Before the 1975 Vienna Conference, scholarship had identified
the rules of international organizations, moving from employment relationships to
internal administrative regulations, but there was not a comprehensive framework.30
Contemporary scholarship often lacks a historical perspective and applies a compre-
hensive definition of the law of international organizations to analyse the work of
authors who only had a specific category in mind.31
The 1975 Vienna Convention employs the definition of rules of international
organizations in a general clause and in many specific provisions. In general, art-
icle 3 states that ‘The application of the present articles is without prejudice to any
relevant rules of the Organization or to any relevant rules of procedure of the con-
ference.’32 Then, the rules are used to give relevance to the lex specialis provided by
each organization in terms of establishment of permanent missions (article 5) and
issue of credentials (article 10). In sum, ‘the rules of international organizations’
are employed as a saving clause, under which the general regulatory framework ap-
plicable to every international organization is relevant only if there are no specific
rules applicable to the circumstance.
The lex specialis principle is a well-​established feature of international law,
enshrined in several instruments, such as the ILC project on international

28 VCRS (n 1) art 1(34).

29 ILC, ‘Draft articles on the representation of States in their relations with international organiza-
tions’ (1971) UN Doc A/​26/​10. However, a similar definition was included in para 5 of the commentary
to art 3.
30 Suzanne Basdevant, Les fonctionnaires internationaux (Sirey 1931); Andrea Rapisardi-​Mirabelli,

‘La Théorie Générale des Unions Internationales’ (1925) 7 RCADI 345.

31 For instance, see ARIO (n 26) commentary to art 10.
32 VCRS (n 1) 287.
8 Introduction

responsibility.33 However, in the context of international organizations, it is not

triggered only by the regime under which the organization acts, for instance after
concluding a headquarter agreement which includes specific rules that derogate
from the 1975 Vienna Convention. The rules that constitute organizations them-
selves can derogate from international law, establishing normative systems that are
peculiar to each institution.
Consequently, I believe that in order to analyse the concept of an international
organization in international law, it is relevant to start by categorizing how the
lex specialis established by institutional rules has been defined. In particular, the
ILC identified four theories on the nature of the law produced by international or-
ganizations.34 First, it identified a mainstreaming approach which considers that
the rules of treaty-​based organizations are part of international law.35 Secondly, it
recognized that this theory is contested by those scholars who argue that the in-
ternal law of the organization, once it has come into existence, does not form part
of international law.36 Thirdly, it contended that another view is that international
organizations that have achieved a high degree of integration are a special case.37
Finally, it considered the possibility of a distinction according to the source and
subject matter of the rules, and excluded, for instance, certain administrative re-
gulations from the domain of international law.38 The commentary to article 10
of ARIO stressed that the violation of a rule of an organization generates inter-
national responsibility only if this rule is part of international law.
This book is based on the hypothesis that these four theories on the nature of
the rules reflect the absence of an agreed concept of an international organization
and the existence of four conceptualizations that have emerged in literature and
practice. First, organizations have been perceived as functional entities. According
to this theory, the relationship between member states and the organization is
governed by international law as established in the constitutive treaty.39 Second,

33 ILC, ‘Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commen-

taries’ (2001) UN Doc A/​56/​10, art 64: ‘These articles do not apply where and to the extent that the
conditions for the existence of an internationally wrongful act or the content or implementation of the
international responsibility of a State are governed by special rules of international law.’
34 ARIO (n 26) commentary to art 10.
35 Under this theory, the ILC quoted Matteo Decleva, Il diritto interno delle unioni internazionali

(Cedam 1962); Giorgio Balladore Pallieri, ‘Le droit interne des organisations internationales’ (1967)
127 RCADI 1; Alain Pellet and Patrick Daillier, Droit international public (7th edn, LGDJ 2002) 576–​77.
36 Under this theory the ILC quoted Lazar Focsaneanu, ‘Le droit interne de l’Organisation des

Nations Unies’ (1957) 3 AFDI 315; Philippe Cahier, ‘Le droit interne des organisations internationales’
(1963) 67 RGDIP 563; Julio A Barberis, ‘Nouvelles questions concernant la personalité juridique in-
ternationale’ (1983) 179 RCADI 147; Christiane Ahlborn, ‘The Rules of International Organizations
and the Law of International Responsibility’ (2011) 8 IOLR 397; Rudolf Bernhardt, ‘Qualifikation
und Anwendungsbereich des internen Rechts internationaler Organisationen’ (1973) 12 Berichte der
Deutschen Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht 7.
37 The ILC mentioned the European Community as a paradigmatic example, and quoted Case 6/​64

Flaminio Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585.

38 The ILC did not cite scholarship nor case law for the last theory.
39 See Chapter 2.
Visit https://ebookmass.com today to explore
a vast collection of ebooks across various
genres, available in popular formats like
PDF, EPUB, and MOBI, fully compatible with
all devices. Enjoy a seamless reading
experience and effortlessly download high-
quality materials in just a few simple steps.
Plus, don’t miss out on exciting offers that
let you access a wealth of knowledge at the
best prices!
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
 Obvious punctuation errors repaired.
Page 513 (illustration caption), “paletta” changed
to “patella” (S, femur; T, patella; U, tibia;)
Page 519, “nterspaces” changed to “interspaces”
(cavernous interspaces where trickling springs)
Page 521, “be” added (from which it will be seen)
Page 524, “Picadilly” changed to “Piccadilly”
(Egyptian Hall, Piccadilly, London)
Page 528, “Calvanism” changed to “Calvinism”
(Calvinism was revolutionary)
Page 534, “durion” changed to “durian” (we can
only refer to the durian)
Page 541, repeated word “of” removed (a
method of taking things)
Page 545, “gradest” changed to “grandest” (best,
most beautiful, and grandest)
Page 548, “unfaverably” changed to “unfavorably”
(he compared unfavorably with others)
Page 558, “Chautauquo” changed to
“Chautauqua” (printed in the grove at Chautauqua)
 *** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE
CHAUTAUQUAN, VOL. 05, JUNE 1885, NO. 9 ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States
copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy
and distribute it in the United States without permission and
without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the
General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree
to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease
using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for
keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the
work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement
by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full
Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge
with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and
with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it,
give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project
Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country
where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of
the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
 containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute

this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must,
at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy,
a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy
upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive
from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
 payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt
that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project
Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these
efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium
on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as,
but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data,
transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property
infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be
read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE
THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT
EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE
THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you
do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission

of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status
by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or
federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions
to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact
 Section 4. Information about Donations to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws

regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine
the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states

where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot

make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current

donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and
credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About

Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several

printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by
copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus,
we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear
about new eBooks.
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookmasss.com