which has, moreover, been applied is more consistent with the absence of a right to withhold payment rather than with a liberty to do so, even though there may be some restraint on the part of the organization in applying the sanction. The care

with which the USA avoids being more than two years in arrears also may indicate that it is aware that the sanction could be applied as for a breach of obligation. The issue has been prominent in connection with the UN. But the principle that generally there is an obligation to pay assessed contribu- tions is applicable to other organizations as well, where the organiza- tion has the power constitutionally to make binding assessments. The practice in these organizations, particularly the attitude of members and of the organizations themselves, seems to point in this direction. Where organizations are not self-financing, there may be other means than the obligatory contributions of member states of financ- ing the expenses of organizations, such as voluntary contributions and self-supporting income. While such methods ofinternational business litigation financing may ease the burden of member states, they should not de iure affect the obligation of members to contribute, which still exists, although de facto this obligation may be reduced proportionately or fully in respect of an expense. Further a distinction made between ‘international business litigation ordinary’ and 78 See Chapter 6. t h e o b l i g a t i o n t o a p p rov e t h e b u d g e t 379 ‘extraordinary’ expenses, as the ITU has sometimes made,79 does not affect this obligation.80 Particularly where an organization is self-financing, there may be lim- itations imposed in the constituent instrument on the obligation to con- tribute. In the case of financial institutions, such as the IBRD, the IFC and the ADB, their constituent instruments generally limit the amount international business litigation of the contributions members must make to the organization in any circumstances. Because these organizations generate their own income, they normally have sufficient funds to meet their expenses from their income. However, their constituent instruments generally have provi- sions such as are included in the Articles of Agreement of the IBRD which state that: (i) liability of members is limited to the unpaid portion of the issue price of shares;81 and (ii) if international business litigation the operations of the organiza- tion were terminated, members would be liable for uncalled subscrip- tions to capital stock and in respect of the depreciation of their own currencies until the claims of all creditors were discharged.82 In these cases the obligation to contribute which is clear is limited in explicit terms. The obligation to approve the budget A question of some importance is what are the powers of the organ concerned in relation to the approval of the budget or expenses. This is different from what was the subject of the Expenses Case, namely whether an expense can be characterized as an expense of the organization and, the related question, to what expenses members must contribute. Where in an organization there is a superior plenary organ which approves the budget and other organs have functions which are 79 The ITU characterized as ‘extraordinary expenses’ those pertaining to plenipotentiary conferences, administrative conferences, meetings of the International Consultative Committee