Hamdan v. The United Nations Organization Headquarters

Background

Mostafa Fehmi Hamdan and Raymond Fouad Azar, who proceeded without lawyers, alleged that they are members of the Lebanese military and were being held before trial in a facility in Beirut, Lebanon. They alleged that Lebanese authorities and members of the United Nations Independent International Investigations Commission arrested them after accusing them of helping cause the February 14, 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri and the deaths of 22 other people.

The plaintiffs appeared to seek damages under the Alien Tort Statute, a federal law that can provide a basis for certain claims by non-U.S. citizens arising from violations of international law. They sued the United Nations Headquarters, the commission, its investigators and officials, and unidentified officials or investigators.

Jurisdiction and immunity

The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court lacked legal authority to hear the suit. It held that the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations gives the United Nations absolute immunity from suit unless the organization expressly waives that immunity. The court also relied on the International Organizations Immunities Act, which provides designated international organizations with immunity from suit and judicial process comparable to that enjoyed by foreign governments. The court stated that the United Nations had been designated under that statute.

The court treated the United Nations Independent International Investigations Commission as an arm of the United Nations and therefore held that the commission was also absolutely immune from the claims. The individual defendants did not necessarily have full diplomatic immunity, but the court held that they had functional immunity because the alleged conduct arose from acts performed in their official capacities and within their functions as United Nations officers or employees. The court reached that conclusion even though the complaint indicated that the individuals were sued individually.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the defendants were immune from suit. It declined to give the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend because it found that an amendment could not cure the immunity defect. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment, certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.