For instance, a non-member state may be a party to a treaty con- ferring rights on the organization from the breach of which a claim by the latter

against the non-member state could well arise. Switzerland is a party to headquarters agreements, though it is not a member of some international organizations. Breaches of these agreements could give rise to claims by the organizations. Or again, a non-member state might have received an agent of the organization into its territory in circum- stances implying agreement on its part to be bound, in the treatment of the agent, by the same obligations as are incumbent on member states. Moreover, there may be cases in which the rules of general international dispute resolution may apply by analogy. Rights in regard to staff In regard particularly to the protection of staff, Article 100 of the UN Charter provides in effect that members of the staff of the UN are not to seek or receive instructions from governments or other authorities, that their responsibility is to the organization they serve, and that the member states are not to seek to influence them in the discharge of this responsibility. The constitutions of many other international organiza- tions have similar provisions. Even if such provisions are not included in some constitutions, what is stated in them is implicit in the position of the staff of international organizations international business litigation as international civil servants. In the Reparation Case, the ICJ declined to assimilate the legal bond result- ing from the stipulations of the Charter between the UN, on the one hand, and the Secretary-General and the staff, on the other, to the bond of nationality existing betweeninternational business litigation a state and its nationals. However, the Court derived certain consequences from the position of the interna- tional civil servant in his relationship with his organization: In order that the agent may perform his duties satisfactorily, he must feel that this protection is assured to him by the Organization, and that he may count on it. To ensure the independence of the agent, international business litigationand, consequently, the independent action of the Organization itself, it is essential that in performing his duties he need not have to rely on any other protection than that of the Organization . . . In particular, he should not have to rely on the protection of his own State. If he had to rely on that State, his independence might well be compromised, contrary to 394 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 the principle applied by Article 100 of the Charter. And lastly, it is essential that -- whether the agent belongs to a powerful or to a weak State; to one more affected or less affected by the complications of international life; to one in sympathy or not in sympathy with the mission of the agent -- he should know that in the performance of his duties he is under the protection of the Organization.28 The Court had already concluded that the organization was a distinct international