the stiff ņ
the Decision
reting the
under international law, but merely under Swiss law.
6. It would seem to me that the position is that in practice the governing provisions are those of the Decision of the Swiss Federal Council; but that Article IV of the Interim Arrangement is binding internationally and does apply to permanent missions. But in practice Article IV is not considered since it does not go so far as the Decision. It would seem to me that the position was correctly described in the first two sentences of para 3 of Geneva's letter of 2 January; where
7.
"The representative of the Swiss Mission explained that the privileges enjoyed by members of permanent missions in Geneva are regulated by the Vienna Convention which is more favourable than the UN Headquarters Agreement. the latter agreement ever gave more favourable terms then Representatives could claim such privileges."
If
This rather theoretical question arose because of the sugges- tion that the UN might institute arbitration on the vignette question in accordance with Section 27 of the Interim Arrangement, which provides for the settlement of disputes between the UN and Switzerland "concerning the interpretation or application of this Interim Arrangement or of any supplementary arrange- ment or agreement" Unless it can be argued that the Decision is a supplementary arrangement or agreement, or gives effect to one, the effect of instituting arbitration under Section 27 would be to confine the legal dispute to the interpretation of the Interim Arrangement. This is, it seems, the sum total of the international legal obligations of Switzerland in this matter.
8.
•
Of the three questions in paragraph 4 of the record of the 15 May WEOG meeting, only the first is a legal one.
I do not feel inclined, at this stage, to examine question (a) in more depth; we have given our view in para 1 of FCO telno 27 to Berne.
9. It is not really for me to comment on the policy aspects of this matter. Presumably there is relatively little money at stake for us, and probably no great issue of principle. Each side (the Diplomatic Corps and the Swiss Government) seem to be entrenched in their positions; and I should have thought that from our point of view the most satisfactory way to resolve this matter would be by some very simple form of arbitration, perhaps no more than agreeing to put the question to an independent third party for advice. (If this can be done with the minimum of participation and work on our side, so much the better.)
10. Paragraph 9 of the record of the WEOG meeting of 15 May suggests that the UN Legal Counsel be asked to examine "the whole question". This would appear, from the context, to be a reference to the question of the application of the Interim Arrangement. There would undoubtedly be no harm, and probably much to be said, for getting a considered opinion from the UN Legal Counsel both on this question and on the particular question of exemption from the vignette. Depending on the strength of his opinion, it could then be decided whether to propose to Switzerland that the matter be put to some kind of third party dispute settlement procedure.
/11.