1 Ph.D. Student in International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Allameh Tabataba'i, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Prof., Department of Public and International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Allameh Tabataba'i, Tehran, Iran


One of the most important features of the law governing the work relationships of international organization staff is its protective character. Functional protection for staff in cases such as protecting staff from interference, arbitrary actions of governments or even their international organizations or influence, as well as providing functional protection to staff of international organizations in matters relating to immunities or compensation for damages. They are crystallized in their area of rights and organizational duties.
In the case of damage done to the staff of international organizations, the right to exercise Functional protection with organization for staff is recognized, and, on the other hand, the state of the affected employee of the organization can exercise diplomatic protection for his or her nationals. Functional protection by the organization is not a barrier to diplomatic protection, or inherent superiority over the diplomatic protection of a state to support an employee who is a national of his own. So there may be a synchronization between them, which must be resolved in any particular case by an agreement, in which case none of these two types of protection is superior to another at a single time.


  1. . فارسی

    1. زمانی، سید قاسم (1388). حقوق سازمان‌های بین‌المللی شخصیت، مسئولیت، مصونیت، تهران: مؤسسۀ مطالعات و پژوهش‌های حقوقی شهر دانش.

    2. انگلیسی


    1. Brownlie, (2012). Principles of PublicInternational Law, Oxford University Press.
    2. C. F. Amerasinghe, (2005). Principles of the institutional law ofinternational organizations, Cambridge University Press.
    3. Chittharanjan Felix Amerasinghe, (2005). Local Remedies in International Law, Cambridge University Press.
    4. Eagleton, (1950). International organization and the law of responsibility, New York University Press.
    5. Garcia Amador,( 1956). ‘First Report on State Responsibility’, YBILC, vol.2.
    6. Grotius, (1990). Local Remedies in International Law, Cambridge press.
    7. Hackworth, (1943). Digest of International Law , Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office, vol. 5.
      1. Hardy , (1961). Claims by international organizations in respect of injuries to their agents, 37th British Yearbook of International Law.
      2. M.Benlolo Carabot and M.Ubéda-Saillard, (2010). The Law of International Responsibility, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
      3. Organizations, Oxford University Press.
        1. Schermers and Blokker, (2011). International Institutional Law, Martinus Nijhoff publisher, leiden, boston.
        2. The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758) in Fenwick (trans.), Classics of  International Law (1916).
        3. the letter of Secretary of State Frelinghuysen of 11 February 1884, Moore, International Law, vol. 6.
        4. Yearbook of International Law, (2002). vol. II.
        5. Yearbook of the United Nations,(1948–49). United Nations publication, Sales No. 1950. I.11.



    1. A/1287, A/1851, A/1844 and A/2141
    2. A/955. and  Remiro Brotóns and others, Derecho Internacional
    3. UN Docs. A/CN.4/195 and Add. 1, reprinted in 2 YBILC ,1967.


    1. ICJ Reports, 1989, Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion.
      1. ICJ Reports , , 1955, Nottebohm Case.
      2. ICJ Reports, 1999, Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion.
        1. ICJ reports, 1970, Barcelona traction case.
        2. ILR, 1970, Jurado Case, vol. 40.
        3. Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-eighth Session, Sixth Committee, 14th meeting (A/C.6/58/SR.14).
        4. Official Records of the General Assem­bly, Part I, Third Session, Sixth Committee, 112th–121st meetings.
        5. PCIJ Reports Series A, No. 5, 1925, Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions Case,
          1. PCIJ Series  A No. 17,1928, Merits.
          2. PCIJ Series A No. 20, 1929 , Serbian Loans Case.
          3. PCIJ Series A No. 2. 1924.
          4. PCIJ Series A No. 17, 1928, Chorzów Factory Case.
          5. PCIJ Series A No. 20, 1929.
          6. PCIJ Series A/B No. 76, 1938, Panavezys--Saldutiskis Railway Case.
          7. PCIJ Series, 1949, Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion.
          8. Special Rapporteur, 2004, Fifth report on diplomatic protection, by Mr. John Dugard.
          9. UNRIAA , 1923, Administrative Decision No. II (US v. Germany).
          10. UNRIAA , 1924, (US v. Germany).
          11. UNRIAA, 1931, the Dickson Car Wheel Co.Claim(US v. Mexico).
          12. UNRIAA , 1934, the Finnish Ships Arbitration (Finland v. Great Britain).
          13. UNRIAA,1923, the Spanish Zone of Morocco Case (Great Britain v. Spain).