Georges v. United Nations
834 F.3d 88
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (U.S. or Haitian citizens) sued the United Nations, MINUSTAH, and UN officials alleging the UN’s personnel and base operations caused the 2010 cholera outbreak in Haiti and asserting tort and contract claims.
- Plaintiffs alleged UN deployed personnel from cholera-endemic Nepal, failed to screen/test them, and that sewage from a UN base contaminated Haitian water supplies.
- The Executive Branch filed a statement of interest arguing the UN and UN officials are immune under the UN Charter, the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (CPIUN), and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR).
- The district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding the UN enjoys absolute immunity under CPIUN art. II §2 and UN officials Ban and Mulet are immune under VCDR art. 31.
- Plaintiffs appealed, principally arguing (1) compliance with CPIUN §29 (to provide dispute-resolution mechanisms) is a condition precedent to CPIUN §2 immunity, (2) a material breach of §29 defeats immunity, and (3) application of immunity violated plaintiffs’ constitutional access-to-courts rights.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, holding §29 compliance is not a condition precedent to §2 immunity, plaintiffs lack standing to assert a material-breach defense to treaty immunity, and the access-to-courts challenge fails.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UN’s compliance with CPIUN §29 is a condition precedent to CPIUN §2 immunity | §29’s dispute-resolution requirement must be satisfied before §2 immunity applies | CPIUN §2’s unqualified grant of immunity (except express waiver) is not conditioned on §29; no textual condition links the provisions | §29 compliance is not a condition precedent to §2 immunity; affirm dismissal |
| Whether the UN’s alleged material breach of §29 forfeits its §2 immunity | A material breach of §29 should strip the UN of treaty immunities | Individuals cannot raise a sovereign’s treaty-breach claim absent protest by the offended sovereign; no state has objected | Plaintiffs lack standing to assert UN’s material breach of §29; argument not reached on merits |
| Whether application of CPIUN immunity violated plaintiffs’ constitutional right to access federal courts | Immunity here denies plaintiffs access to courts and is unconstitutional as applied | Immunities are longstanding, permissible doctrines; CPIUN §2 provides immunity unless expressly waived | Access-to-courts challenge rejected; immunities are constitutionally permissible in this context |
| Whether UN officials (Ban, Mulet) are immune when UN is immune | UN officers are not entitled to immunity if the UN lacks immunity | VCDR grants diplomatic immunity to certain officials; since UN is immune, officials retain immunity | Officials are immune under VCDR; because UN immunity stands, officials’ immunity remains valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Brzak v. United Nations, 597 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2010) (held inadequacies in UN dispute-resolution did not waive UN immunity)
- Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (2010) (treaty interpretation begins with text)
- BG Group, PLC v. Republic of Arg., 134 S. Ct. 1198 (2014) (treaties are interpreted like contracts)
- Lozano v. Alvarez, 697 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2012) (Executive Branch treaty interpretations entitled to great weight)
- Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) (international agreements do not automatically create private enforceable rights)