## Facts

- Haitian and U.S. plaintiffs alleged they were injured by the 2010 cholera epidemic in Haiti, which they attributed to negligent sanitation practices by United Nations peacekeeping personnel at a base that contaminated a major river system.
- Plaintiffs sued the United Nations (UN), its Haiti peacekeeping mission (MINUSTAH), and senior UN officials, asserting tort and contract-based claims seeking damages and related relief.
- Plaintiffs alleged the UN failed to provide “appropriate modes of settlement” for private-law disputes as contemplated by § 29 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (CPIUN).
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding the UN, MINUSTAH, and the officials were immune from suit under CPIUN § 2 absent an express waiver.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the UN’s failure to comply with CPIUN § 29 should bar it from invoking immunity under § 2.

## Issues

1. Whether the UN’s fulfillment of CPIUN § 29 dispute-settlement obligations is a condition precedent to the UN’s immunity from “every form of legal process” under CPIUN § 2.
2. Whether, absent an express waiver, CPIUN § 2 requires dismissal of claims against the UN, MINUSTAH, and UN officials for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in U.S. courts.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court held that compliance with CPIUN § 29 is not a condition precedent to immunity under CPIUN § 2.
- The UN’s immunity under § 2 is broad and unqualified, subject only to an express waiver.
- MINUSTAH, as a UN subsidiary organ, shared the UN’s immunity.
- UN officials were immune for acts performed in an official capacity absent waiver, and no express waiver was alleged.

## Legal Principles

- Under CPIUN § 2, the UN enjoys immunity from every form of legal process unless it has expressly waived immunity in a particular case.
- Treaty interpretation begins with the CPIUN’s text and structure; where § 2 states an express-waiver exception, courts should not add unstated conditions based on other provisions.
- CPIUN § 29’s requirement that the UN provide modes of settlement for certain private-law disputes does not create a judicially enforceable exception to § 2 immunity in domestic courts.
- U.S. courts may give significant weight to the Executive Branch’s treaty interpretation in matters affecting foreign relations.
- Claims barred by UN immunity must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that the UN’s immunity under CPIUN § 2 is not contingent on its establishment of dispute-settlement mechanisms under § 29, and it affirmed dismissal of claims against the UN, its Haiti mission, and UN officials because no express waiver of immunity was shown.


Georges v. United Nations, 834 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2016)