Ifc Articles Of Agreement Pdf
Category : Uncategorized
The ICSID Convention came into force through a multilateral agreement and came into force on 14 October 1966. The IFC statutes contain almost identical provisions.  A literal interpretation leads to the conclusion that the World Bank and IFC do not seek immunity in the national courts of the United States where their headquarters are located, unless a person sues the World Bank on behalf of the United States or one (or more) of its Member States. In The Mendaro/World Bank case, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals therefore had to consider whether Article VII, paragraph 3 of the Bank`s statute constituted a waiver of immunity within the meaning of the IIA and, if so, whether that exemption was broad enough to cover employment-related disputes. The court`s starting point was “the inters interest between the functions of the Bank defined in the statutes and the underlying purposes of international immunity.”  The Tribunal found that “Article VII, para. 3, expressly repeals immunity, but that the extent of its limitation on immunity is unclear.” To clarify this point, the Court of Appeal concluded from the functional justification of IO immunity that “it is likely that most organizations would not be willing to waive their immunity without obtaining a corresponding advantage that would advance the organization`s objectives.” In other words, “if the benefits of the organization resulting from the waiver were strongly offset by the burdens imposed by the judicial review of the organization`s discretion in the selection and management of its programs, it is logically less likely that the organization actually intends to waive its immunity.”  “The application of these principles to the world bank`s statutes,” the Tribunal stated that, despite “the broad language of Article VII, paragraph 3, which does not meet the World Bank`s immunity to the Bank`s actions,” “there is no evidence that the members of the Bank intended to lift the Bank`s immunity from prosecution.”  In short, the constituent contract ensures that the Bank has jurisdiction to “improve the marketing of its securities and the credibility of its activities in the credit markets.”  As Treichl and Reinisch pointed out, “the commitments made by IFIs in financial transactions would have no effect if IFI partners were prevented from making claims against the institution in financial transactions.  The Tribunal`s interpretation of the Bank`s statutes is consistent with its preparatory work.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeals found that “the Bank`s statutes lift the bank`s immunity from the shares arising from the Bank`s external relations with its debtors and creditors,” while “the lifting of immunity on shares arising from the bank`s internal activities, such as its relationship with its own employees, would be contrary to the functional necessity principle set out in Article VII, paragraph 1.”  This interpretation is confirmed by the fact that IFIs with functions similar to those of the World Bank subsequently adopted clearer provisions on their immunity in the jurisdiction.