that the expenditures incurred for the purpose of financing

the activities of the UNEF and the ONUC under the relevant resolutions presented to it were ‘expenses’ for the purpose of Article 17(2). In doing so the Court did, however, offer certain general considerations: It would be possible to begin with a general proposition to the effect that the ‘expenses’ of any organization are the amounts paid out to defray the costs of carrying out its purposes, in this case, the political, economic, social, humani- tarian and other purposes of the United Nations . . . Or, it might simply be said that the ‘expenses’ of an organization are those which are provided for in its budget.52 The Court offered a negative proposition when it agreed that for expenditures to be ‘expenses’ they must be tested by their relationship to the purposes of the UN, in the sense that if an expenditure were made for a purpose which is not one of the purposes of the UN it could not be considered an ‘expense’ of the organization.53 Positively, the Court was not so specific. The Court did hold that provided the expenses were made in pursuance of an action which was within the scope of the functions of the organization, the fact that the action was initiated or carried out by an organ acting beyond the scope of its powers according to the Charter did not necessarily mean that the expenditure incurred was not an ‘expense’ of the organization: If it is agreed that the action in question is within the scope of the functions of the Organization but it is alleged that it has been initiated or carried out in 50 Ibid. at p. 159. 51 Ibid. at p. 164. 52 Ibid. at p. 158. 53 Ibid. at p. 167. e x p e n s e s 367 a manner not in conformity with the division of functions among the several organs which the Charter prescribes, one moves to the internal plane, to the internal structure of the organization. If the action was taken by the wrong organ, it was irregular as a matter of that internal structure, but this would not necessarily mean that the expense incurred was not an expense of the Organization. Both national and international dispute resolution contemplate cases in which the body corporate or politic may be bound, as to thirds parties, by an ultra vires act of an agent.54 Some authority for the principle was found in what the Court had already said in the Effect of Awards Case, namely that an award of the UNAT created an obligation of the organization which the GA had to honour.55 In such a case an award redresses a breach of contract on the part of the organization, committed through the instrumentality of its agent, the SG, who has defaulted in the execution of the duties of the organization under a contract of service. It might be argued that such default by an organ in the exercise of functions assigned to it in accordance with the Charter is to be distinguished from the exercise by an organ of a function which some other organ should be exercis- ing,