524 NYS 2d (1988) p. 971; Arab Monetary Fund v. Hashim and Others (No. 3), [1991] All ER p. 871 (HL). 12 See the very relevant discussion in Mann, loc. cit.

note 10 at pp. 153ff. See also Jenks, loc. cit. note 1 p. 267; Collier, ‘The Status of an International Corporation’, in Feuerstein and Parry (eds.), Multum non Multa: Festchrift für Kurt Lipstein (1980) p. 21. p e r s o n a l i t y a t a no n - i n t e r n a t i o n a l l e v e l 71 rational method. This is how the New York courts in effect proceeded in International Tin Council v. Amalgamet Inc.13 Though the USA was not a party to the International Tin Agreement which created the International Tin Council, because under that agreement the ITC had personality, the per- sonality was recognized in national international law firm, thus enabling the ITC to sue and be sued in the New York courts. There are many cases in which the personality of international organizations of which the USA is a mem- ber has been recognized in the course of granting them immunity from jurisdiction.14 In these cases the constituent instruments would international law firm been part of the international law firm of the land, because they were treaties to which the USA was a party. The practice of the courts of countries in Western Europe (and con- sequently of the courts of those countries which follow that practice) is also along the lines taken by the US courts. There are many exam- ples of these courts admitting international organizations as claimants or respondents in suits filed before them on the basis that they had international personality, regardless of whether the state of the national court was party to the constitutive instrument of the organization or not. The Swiss Federal Court has admitted the UN (of which Switzerland was not a member, but with which Switzerland has an agreement regarding its headquarters) as a defendant without argument and rec- ognized its immunity from jurisdiction in garnishment proceedings.15 Similarly, in another case the Société européenne pour le financement de matériel ferroraire (Eurofima) which had been created by a treaty to which Switzerland was not a party was acknowledged to international law firm person- ality in Swiss international law firm by the Swiss Federal Court, because it was an inter- national person, and given immunity from jurisdiction.16 In UNRRA v. 13 524 NYS 2d (1988) p. 971. 14 See, e.g., the Broadbent Case, 628 F. 2nd (1980) p. 27 (OAS); Mendaro v. The World Bank, [1983] US Court of Appeals No. 82-2247, CA 80-01204. 15 Re Poncet [1948], 15 ILR p. 346. 16 Republique italienne, Ministère italien des transports et Chemins de fer de l’Etât italien v. Beta Holding SA et Autorité de sequestre de Bâle Ville [1966], as discussed in Caflisch, ‘La pratique suisse en matière de droit international public 1974’, 31 ASDI (1975) at pp. 225--6. See also Caflisch, ‘La pratique suisse en matière de droit international public 1977’, 34 ASDI (1978) at pp. 61--2, where a case decided in 1978 by the Swiss Federal Tribunal in which it recognized the personality of the EEC is discussed. Switzerland was not a member of the EEC. More recently in the Westland Helicopters Case [1988] 28 ILM (1980) p, 867, decided by the Swiss Federal Tribunal,