its constitution and are, therefore, not ultra vires are expenses of the organization. (iv)

Expenditures incurred pursuant to resolutions of organs which are within the scope of functions of an organization but are not in conformity with its constitution in a ‘non-essential’ particular are expenses of the organization. (v) Expenditures incurred pursuant to resolutions of organs which are not within the scope of functions of an organization or are within the scope of functions of an organization but do not conform to the provisions of its constitution in an essential particular and are, therefore, ultra vires are not expenses of the organization. (vi) Expenditures incurred by the executive organ of an organization pursuant to decisions international business litigation of other organs, which are not ultra vires, or incurred directly pursuant to provisions of the constitution are not expenses of the organization if the act of the executive organ is outside the ‘scope of its apparent authority’, while they are such expenses if the act is within the ‘scope of its apparent authority’.69 (vii) The same principles apply to organizations in general as reflected international business litigation above in regard to tortious acts of servants and agents, breaches of contract, judicial and arbitral awards and extrajudicial settlements. It may be concluded that all expenses incurred as a result of the responsibility of an organization are expenses of the organization.70 69 This is a basic general principle which was adverted to by Judge Spender in the Expenses Case (1962 ICJ Reports at p. 183). It was not relevant in the context of the issues in that case. but it is applicable generally. For dispute resolution, where the executive acts pursuant to a decision of a deliberative organ authorizing it to enter into a capital contract for construction of a building and in fact incurs expenditures in excess of the limits authorized, the expenditures would be expenses of the organization if the executive was acting within the scope of its apparent authority but not otherwise. Such a situation arose in connection with a building contract entered into by the World Bank. The World Bank did not dispute its obligation to pay the excess, presumably because of the ‘apparent authority’ of the executive. Apparent authority depends on the reasonable impression made on the third party. 70 See discussion in Chapter 12 on responsibility. t h e o b l i g a t i o n t o pa y 375 The proposition that is not so easily applicable to organizations in general relates to acts which do not conform to the provisions of the constitution relating to the division of functions among several organs.