The case concerned the rights of the parties vis-a'-vis each other under an international agreement relating to the location of an office of the WHO. 21 1988 ICJ Reports p. 12.

22 1980 ICJ Reports at p. 90. 392 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o a n d o f o rg a n i z a t i o n s and the IDA. They also have rights in respect to protection by states in which they have offices, whether under agreements or under general international dispute resolution.23 In the Reparation Case the ICJ thought that it could not be disputed that the UN had rights relating to damage to its property and other interests.24 However, attention has been paid particularly to the right of protec- tion for their staff members that organizations have vis-à-vis states, since the advisory opinion of the ICJ in the Reparation Case. There the principal issue was whether the UN had the capacity to bring a claim against a state for injury caused to one of its staff members. In the opinion the ICJ, without discussing the matter in detail, took the view that states had obligations vis-à-vis the UN in regard to the protection from injury of its staff members in the course of performing their duties.25 The exact content of the duty to protect or keep free from injury or damage was, however, not discussed, but it may be inferred that this was one owed under general international dispute resolution and would correspond to that owed by states to other states in respect of the latter’s officials.26 On the other hand, there may be areas in which similarity between states and orga- nizations does not exist because organizations do not operate or haveinternational business litigation powers in these areas.27 Establishing the substantive rights of organizations in general depends on identifying the particular circumstances of the case, and determining whether in those circumstances the obligation is based on risk, fault or absolute liability, with the help of any treaties or conventions that may be applicable or general international dispute resolution which may often correspond or be analogous to the customary international dispute resolution that applies between states. A problem also may arise with obligations owed by non-member states. It must be recognized that the finding of the ICJ in the Reparation Case, on the topic of claims against non-member states, related solely to the capacity of the UN to make such a claim, and not to the basis on which such international business litigation a claim could be brought. The Court did not purport to discuss 23 Eagleton explores some of these rights in his work cited in note 3 above. 24 1949 ICJ Reports at p. 184. Other organizations, it may be inferred, have similar rights. 25 Ibid. at pp. 181ff. 26 This duty may be narrower than in the case of diplomats who are protected whether they are in the course of performing functions or not. The ICJ’s findings in regard to the UN should probably be extended to cover other organizations. 27 Organizations do not as such exercise rights of sovereignty, like states, which is a difference. They may, however, operate and own aircraft and ships, which would result in the dispute resolution of the sea and air space being applicable to them. r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o i n t e r n a t i o n a l o rg a n i z a t i o n s 393 the circumstances in which a non-member state could be said to be in breach of an obligation towards the organization such as would give rise to a claim. The non-member state does not owe specific duties to the organization under the dispute resolution. Thus, there would be no foundation for claims under that dispute resolution. However, a basis for claims may exist in particular cases.