International Organizations Immunities Act

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also: diplomatic immunity
International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945
Great Seal of the United States
United States Supreme Court cases

The International Organizations Immunities Act[1] (IOIA) is a United States federal law enacted in 1945. It "established a special group of foreign or international organizations whose members could work in the U.S. and enjoy certain exemptions from US taxes and search and seizure laws".[2] These advantages are usually given to diplomatic bodies.

Background information[edit]

The 79th United States Congress passed the IOIA on December 29, 1945; the Act can be found under Title 22, chapter 7, sub-chapter XVIII. The IOIA entitles international organizations and their employees to certain exemptions, immunities, and privileges that other organizations and their employees are not granted. In addition, the entitled benefits organizations and their employees receive are similar to the benefits that foreign governments are granted. For example, international organizations and employees of the organizations are exempted from certain taxes. In addition, property and assets belonging to international organizations or their employees cannot be searched or confiscated. A lawsuit or any other type of legal action cannot be brought upon these organizations or their employees. The privileges, exemptions, and immunities that the employees and officers receive are extended to their immediate family members as well.

The IOIA was passed to strengthen the international organizations that the U.S. collaborates with, including those that are located in foreign countries. The Senate Committee believed that passing this Act would allow international organizations to perform more effectively and accomplish their goals.[3] The Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Labour Organization, and the United Nations are examples of designated public international organizations covered by the Act when it was passed.[4]

If international organizations want the advantages listed in the title, they need to fit the Act's definition of what an "international organization" is. The IOIA states: "For the purposes of this title, the term "international organization" means a public international organization in which the United States participates pursuant to any treaty or under the authority of any Act of Congress authorizing such participation or making an appropriation for such participation..." (Section 1 of the Act).[5] International organizations need to fit the definition to be protected by this particular Act. Although the Act initially vised at international organizations of which the U.S. was a member, recent extensions have covered also international organizations with which the U.S. cooperates but in which they do not participate, such as the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices.[6][7]

The IOIA also states powers of certain offices. Since the time it was passed, the Department of State has been the agency that receives applications from organizations requesting designation under the Act.[8] The Secretary of State was given the power to advise the President (who makes the final decisions) on matters like whether an organization should or should not be granted protection under the IOIA. The Secretary of State also has the power to determine if an employee's presence is no longer "desirable"; in such instances, the Secretary of State can have the employee deported (the international organization, however, has to be notified first and the employee has to be allotted a reasonable time to leave).[9] Besides designating the status of international organizations, the President has the authority to withhold an organization or employees from receiving certain immunities, exemptions, and privileges the Act offers. The President can also limit the benefits an organization or its employees receives. In addition, the President has the power to revoke a designation if an international organization abuses the powers that it is given, which means the organization would no longer enjoy any of the benefits listed in the title.

Privileges, exemptions, and immunities of the act[edit]

International organizations receive the same privileges, immunities, and exemptions as foreign governments. Some of these privileges, immunities, and exemptions (listed under section 4 of the Act) include:

  • Immunity from search and confiscation of any property and assets owned (unless immunity is waived)
  • Exemption from any internal-revenue taxes imposed
  • Free from baggage search and any other procedures related to customs duties

Employees and officers of international organizations designated under the Act also receive benefits. Even though, the Act provides employees, officers, and their family members many benefits, it does not grant full diplomatic immunity. Moreover, any of the rights granted can be waived. Also, organizations and their employees can only receive these benefits if the Secretary of State notifies and acknowledges the international organization and its workers. The benefits that employees and officials enjoy include:

  • Exemption from property taxes imposed by Congress, internal-revenue taxes, communication taxes and taxes on transportation of persons or property
  • Admission of officers and employees representing international organizations without checks from customs
  • Exemption from legal suits or any other legal action in regards to activities related to work (unless the right is waived)
  • Family members of employees and officers of international organizations receive similar privileges, immunities, and exemptions as well.[10]

Many of these benefits of employees and officials, however, do not apply to U.S. citizens (including dual citizens). More specifically, the salary of a person working for an international organization within the United States is exempt from U.S. tax under the condition that the person is either not a U.S. citizen, or is a U.S. citizen as well as a citizen of The Philippines.[11] Furthermore, a U.S. citizen working for an international organization in the U.S. must report self-employment income and pay self-employment tax; a U.S. citizen working for an international organization outside of the U.S. does not pay self-employment tax, nor does a green card holder working for an international organization in the U.S.[12]

International organizations (and their employees) enjoying these benefits include the following.[13]

In 1992, when the State of Maryland changes its income tax laws with retroactive effect, several international organizations pointed out that their foreign employees were exempt from income taxes due to the relevant treaty and that, while the IOIA shielded them from federal taxes, this was not the case for state and local taxes. Subsequently, on May 14, 1994, the President signed and brought into force the Agreement on State and Local Taxation of Foreign Employees of Public International Organizations.[106]

Recent activity[edit]

Attempt to amend the act[edit]

A bill called H.R. 3269 was introduced to the 109th United States Congress on July 13, 2005. The bill called for an amendment in the International Organization Immunities Act so the Bank for International Settlements would be recognized as an international organization under the Act. The United States House of Representatives passed the H.R. 3269 bill on December 6, 2005. The Senate referred the bill to the Committee on Foreign Relations; that was the last action taken regarding H.R. 3269. As a result, the bill did not become a law. Sessions of Congress last for two years, where towards the end bills that have not become law are "cleared from the books." This was the case with the H.R. 3269 bill, but the bill was not successfully passed into law.[107]

Interpol controversy[edit]

In 1983, President Ronald Reagan extended certain benefits to the International Criminal Police Organization(Interpol). Some of these benefits included immunity from lawsuits and prosecution. Likewise in 2009, President Barack Obama granted certain benefits found in the IOIA to Interpol. Conservative bloggers and people such as former Speaker Newt Gingrich did not support the President extending privileges, exemptions, and immunities to Interpol. Conservative bloggers claimed that by increasing the privileges and immunities Interpol received, the President was allowing an international police to run amok without legal restraint. They[who?] also believe that it is a plot to allow international courts to arrest and prosecute American officials.[citation needed]

Government and Interpol officials claim people are overreacting and are against Interpol receiving privileges, immunities, and exemptions because they do not know how Interpol functions. For example, Interpol does not make arrests (a common misconception) and it does not have a police force. Instead, Interpol shares information and files with the 188 countries it serves. Rachel Billington states that the national police force makes arrests based on national laws.[108]

Jam v. International Finance Corporation (IFC)[edit]

In 2019, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the IOIA did not grant international organizations absolute immunity. Rather, it ruled that, like foreign governments, international organizations could be sued under federal law for their commercial activities. This was a rejection of longstanding jurisprudence which held that international organizations shared the same expansive sovereign immunity enjoyed by foreign governments in 1945 (when the IOIA was first enacted) even though Congress had placed restrictions on foreign governments' sovereign immunity in subsequent legislation, including the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act).[109]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ formerly known as Provisional Intergovernmental Committee for the Movement of Migrants from Europe
  2. ^ a b limited privileges
  3. ^ formerly known as the Organization for European Economic Cooperation

References[edit]

  1. ^ Public Law 79-291
  2. ^ Just What Did President Obama's Executive Order regarding INTERPOL Do?, ABCNews.com, December 30, 2009
  3. ^ International Organization Immunities Act, article by Lawrence Preuss
  4. ^ Executive Order 9698--Designating public international organizations entitled to enjoy certain privileges, exemptions, and immunities
  5. ^ International Organizations Immunities Act
  6. ^ Aaron I-. Young, Deconstructing international organization immunity, Georgetown Journal of International Law, pages 311–364. See in particular page 333 with footnotes 155 to 157.
  7. ^ 22 USC § 288k - Extension of certain privileges, exemptions, and immunities to Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices
  8. ^ 2 FAM 1420: International Organizations Immunities, U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 2 (General)
  9. ^ U.S. Code
  10. ^ 22 U.S.C. § 288d
  11. ^ "Employees of Foreign Governments or International Organizations". Internal Revenue Service.
  12. ^ "How to Report Wage Income Paid by Foreign Governments or International Organizations". Internal Revenue Service.
  13. ^ 22 U.S.C. § 288
  14. ^ Executive Order 12403. February 8, 1983.
  15. ^ Executive Order 11977. March 14, 1977.
  16. ^ Executive Order 13377. April 13, 2005.
  17. ^ Executive Order 11334. March 7, 1967.
  18. ^ Executive Order 12904. March 16, 1994.
  19. ^ Executive Order 10983. December 30, 1961.
  20. ^ Executive Order 12904. March 16, 1994.
  21. ^ Executive Order 12904. March 16, 1994.
  22. ^ Executive Order 12567. October 2, 1986.
  23. ^ Executive Order 13240. December 18, 2001.
  24. ^ Executive Order 11596. June 5, 1971.
  25. ^ Executive Order 12766. June 18, 1991.
  26. ^ Executive Order 13307. May 29, 2003
  27. ^ Executive Order 11318. December 5, 1966.
  28. ^ Executive Order 11351. May 22, 1967.
  29. ^ Executive Order 11760. January 17, 1974.
  30. ^ Executive Order 12766. June 18, 1991.
  31. ^ Executive Order 9698. February 19, 1946.
  32. ^ Executive Order 13395. January 13, 2006.
  33. ^ Executive Order 11059. October 23, 1962.
  34. ^ Executive Order 13052. June 30, 1997.
  35. ^ Executive Order 10228. March 26, 1951.
  36. ^ Executive Order 10873. April 8, 1960.
  37. ^ Executive Order 11019. April 27, 1962.
  38. ^ Executive Order 9751. July 11, 1946.
  39. ^ Executive Order 12567. October 2, 1986.
  40. ^ Executive Order 9751. July 11, 1946.
  41. ^ Executive Order 11059. October 23, 1962.
  42. ^ Executive Order 10335. March 28, 1952.
  43. ^ Executive Order 10795. December 13, 1958.
  44. ^ Executive Order 10727. August 31, 1957.
  45. ^ Executive Order 9751. July 11, 1946.
  46. ^ Executive Order 12467. March 2, 1984.
  47. ^ Executive Order 11966. January 19, 1977.
  48. ^ Executive Order 9863. May 31, 1947.
  49. ^ Executive Order 13568. March 8, 2011.
  50. ^ Executive Order 11225. May 22, 1965.
  51. ^ Executive Order 12643. June 23, 1988.
  52. ^ Executive Order 9911. December 19, 1947.
  53. ^ Executive Order 11283. May 27, 1966.
  54. ^ Executive Order 12425. June 16, 1983.
  55. ^ Executive Order 12971. September 15, 1995.
  56. ^ Executive Order 13524. December 16, 2009.
  57. ^ Executive Order 11966. January 19, 1977.
  58. ^ Executive Order 12842. March 29, 1993.
  59. ^ Executive Order 11977. March 14, 1977.
  60. ^ Executive Order 10680. October 2, 1956.
  61. ^ Executive Order 12359. April 22, 1982.
  62. ^ Executive Order 12732. October 31, 1990.
  63. ^ Executive Order 10769. May 29, 1958.
  64. ^ Executive Order 9972. June 25, 1948.
  65. ^ Executive Order 9698. February 19, 1946.
  66. ^ Executive Order 12238. September 12, 1980.
  67. ^ Executive Order 9751. July 11, 1946.
  68. ^ Executive Order 11059. October 23, 1962.
  69. ^ Executive Order 13705. September 3, 2015.
  70. ^ Executive Order 11363. July 20, 1967.
  71. ^ Executive Order 9863. May 31, 1947.
  72. ^ Executive Order 11718. May 14, 1973.
  73. ^ Executive Order 11966. January 19, 1977.
  74. ^ Executive Order 12986. January 18, 1996.
  75. ^ Executive Order 9823. January 24, 1947.
  76. ^ Executive Order 13097. August 7, 1998.
  77. ^ Executive Order 12956. March 13, 1995.
  78. ^ Executive Order 13451. November 19, 2007.
  79. ^ Executive Order 12997. April 1, 1996.
  80. ^ Executive Order 12647. August 2, 1988.
  81. ^ Executive Order 12359. April 22, 1982.
  82. ^ Executive Order 12904. March 16, 1994.
  83. ^ Executive Order 12895. January 26, 1994.
  84. ^ Executive Order 12894. January 26, 1994.
  85. ^ Executive Order 13568. March 8, 2011.
  86. ^ Executive Order 10133. June 27, 1950.
  87. ^ Executive Order 13049. June 11, 1997.
  88. ^ Executive Order 10533. June 3, 1954.
  89. ^ Executive Order 12669. February 20, 1989.
  90. ^ Executive Order 12567. October 2, 1986.
  91. ^ Executive Order 10864. February 18, 1960.
  92. ^ Executive Order 10727. August 31, 1957.
  93. ^ Executive Order 10086. November 25, 1949.
  94. ^ Executive Order 11484. September 29, 1969.
  95. ^ Executive Order 9698. February 19, 1946.
  96. ^ Executive Order 9863. May 31, 1947.
  97. ^ Executive Order 12628. March 8, 1988.
  98. ^ Executive Order 13367. December 21, 2004.
  99. ^ Executive Order 10727. August 31, 1957.
  100. ^ Executive Order 10025. December 30, 1948.
  101. ^ Executive Order 11866. June 18, 1975.
  102. ^ Executive Order 10676. September 1, 1956.
  103. ^ Executive Order 13759. January 12, 2017.
  104. ^ Executive Order 12508. March 22, 1985.
  105. ^ Executive Order 13042. April 9, 1997.
  106. ^ Dalton, Robert E. "National Treaty Law and Practice, Chapter 6" (PDF). American Society of International Law. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 2, 2013.
  107. ^ H. R. 3269
  108. ^ "Order on Interpol Work Inside U.S. Irks Conservatives". New York Times. 31 December 2009.
  109. ^ McDonnell, Tim (2019-03-07). "U.S. Supreme Court Rules That World Bank Can Be Sued". NPR. Retrieved 2019-11-26.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Organizations_Immunities_Act&oldid=1204812643"