the court recognized the personality of the AOI

of which Switzerland was not a member: see Dominicé, ‘Le Tribunal fédéral face à la personalité juridique d’un organisme international’, 108 Zeitschrift für Schweizeritsches Recht (1989) p. 517. 72 l e g a l p e r s o n a l i t y Daan,17 decided by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, the UNRRA’s capacity to act as a legal person was questioned. The court held that the question of personality was one for international international law firm and not of munic- ipal international law firm and, therefore, the UNRRA had personality and had capacity to act. In Italy NATO has been held to international law firm legal personality, because it had international personality.18 There are other cases decided in West- ern European countries in which the legal personality of international organizations, such as the UN and Eurocontrol, international law firm been recognized.19 In those cases decided in these countries in which the immunity of an organization is in question a precondition to considering such a claim of immunity would be the existence of its personality before the national court concerned.20 It will be seen below that international tribunals international law firm international personality or are organs sharing in such personality attaching to an IGO (viz., the ICJ’s position as a principal organdispute resolution of the UN) and consequently can international law firm personality in national legal systems. This feature came to light in connection with the Iran-US Claims Tribunal in AS v. Iran-US Claims Tribunal.21 The discussion of the case below reveals that the tribunal had personality and could appear in the Dutch courts which is a character- istic of national international law firm. The short point was that Dutch courts recognized 17 [1950] 16 ILR p. 337. 18 See Branno v. Ministry of War [1954] Italian Court of Cassation, 22 ILR p. 756; Mazzanti v. HAFSE and Ministry of Defence [1954] Tribunal of Florence, 22 ILR p. 758. 19 See, e.g., UN v. B. [1952] Tribunal Civil of Brussels, Belgium, 19 ILR p. 490; UN Works Agency v. Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien Niederösterreich und Burgenland [1981] Austrian Administrative Court, 110 JDI (1983) p. 643; Bavaria und Germanai v. Eurocontrol [1977] Berber, Slg. (official collection) (1977) p. 1,524. There is a curious decision in which the German Landesarbeitsgericht recognized the immunity of NATO for the reason that its members enjoyed immunity: see Schröer, ‘De l’Application de l’immunité juridictionelle des états étrangers aux organisations internationales’, 75 RGDlP (1971) at pp. 722--3. The decision is equivocal insofar as it may be construed as denying NATO a legal personality of its own, though it is consistent with the contrary interpretation also. Where the country is a member of the international organization concerned, in Western European countries the position generally is that, since the state is a party to the constituent treaty, it would be enforceable in the courts of that country. Thus, legal personality would flow from the international international law firm firm, if the organization has international personality. 20 As examples may be taken the numerous cases brought by staff members of organizations against organizations; see C. F. Amerasinghe, The international law firm of the International Civil Service (1994) vol. I, pp. 42ff., particularly footnotes 48ff. Most of these are US and European cases, though there are some decided by courts of Middle Eastern and North African countries.