## Facts

- Egypt hosted the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean Region in Alexandria under a 25 March 1951 host-State agreement governing privileges, immunities, and facilities.
- Proposals emerged within WHO to transfer the Regional Office from Egypt to another country, creating disagreement over whether the 1951 agreement constrained such a transfer.
- Section 37 of the 1951 agreement addressed duration and termination and included negotiation and notice provisions (including a two-year notice period).
- The World Health Assembly (WHA) requested an advisory opinion through the WHO Director-General after adopting resolution WHA33.16 (20 May 1980), seeking clarification before deciding on removal.
- The International Court of Justice (ICJ) received the request in May 1980 and issued its advisory opinion on 20 December 1980.

## Issues

1. Whether Section 37’s negotiation and notice provisions apply when either WHO or Egypt seeks to transfer the Regional Office from Egypt.
2. If applicable, what legal responsibilities WHO and Egypt have regarding the Alexandria Regional Office during the period between notice and termination in connection with a transfer.

## Decision

- The ICJ found it had competence to render the advisory opinion because the request was made by an authorized organ and concerned WHO activities.
- The ICJ concluded that Section 37’s negotiation and notice provisions apply by analogy to a transfer of the Regional Office from Egypt.
- The ICJ stated that, in a transfer scenario, WHO and Egypt have a mutual obligation to consult together in good faith on the conditions and modalities of transfer.
- The ICJ held that the parties must negotiate arrangements needed to carry out the transfer with minimum prejudice to WHO’s work and to Egypt’s interests.
- The ICJ emphasized that the party seeking transfer must give the other party a reasonable period of notice, and that during the notice/transition period both parties must perform their mutual obligations in good faith.

## Legal Principles

- Advisory jurisdiction may be exercised even where the request arises from a political controversy, so long as the questions are legal and fall within the requesting organization’s activities.
- A host-State agreement for an international organization is interpreted in light of its object and purpose and the functional requirements of the organization’s operations.
- Treaty provisions on termination and notice may apply to closely analogous situations (such as relocation) where the legal and practical effects are comparable.
- Treaty performance requires good faith; in relocation disputes this entails mutual consultation and negotiation aimed at minimizing prejudice to organizational functions and host-State interests.
- Notice requirements are governed by a standard of reasonableness in context, rather than rigid formalism divorced from the practical conditions of transfer.

## Conclusion

The ICJ advised that relocation of the WHO Regional Office from Egypt triggers, by analogy, the 1951 agreement’s negotiation and notice framework, requiring reasonable notice and good-faith consultation and negotiation by both WHO and Egypt to manage the transfer while minimizing harm to WHO operations and Egypt’s interests.


Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt, Advisory Opinion, 1980 I.C.J. 73 (Dec. 20)