Specifically, who owns the United Nations building and property in New York? Is the property considered part of “US Soil’?” If the UN were to relocate or otherwise vacate the land, who would have the rights of ownership? Is there a ‘Title’ for the land?
My guess would be that its owned by the US Government, which provides some arrangement as they do for foerign embassies in Washington.
A quick Google, and visit to the UN website did not easily find an answer.
I think that the UN owns the UN building, in much the same way that Donald Trump owns the Trump Tower. And I believe that embassies own or rent their own buildings.
The UN owns the UN building. It receives tax exempt status just like a US government building does by law, so long as the US is a member. If they quit using it as a headquarters for offices and places of assembly they would still own it, but would have to start paying taxes on it.
Under both customary international law and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic and Consular Relations of 1963 (of which IIRC the U.S. is not a member but generally abides by its provisions), property of foreign missions (whether embassies or something less formal) or the facilities of non-governmental organizations like the UN or NATO is not “foreign soil” as the movies would have you believe – it is and always remains the property of the host country. However, the host country makes certain promises when granting permission for a foreign on NGO entity to establish a mission; in particular, it promises that it will hold the facilities inviolate and will not enter or otherwise harass them or the personnel without that government’s permission.
–Cliffy
Given the rather broad latitudes granted diplomats by various treaties and conventions (yes, I am speaking about massive unpaid and uncollectable parking tickets), I’d say the UN’s land is nominally owned by the US but, in practice, inviolate as far as American law enforcement offciers are concerned.
Strangely enough, the United Nations owns the site of the United Nations buildings in New York. It was a gift from John D. Rockefeller Jr. http://www.aviewoncities.com/nyc/unitednations.htm
Hmm… that site says "The whole area was converted into international territory and officially does not belong to the United States. "
I’m not sure how authoritative that statement is. The site appears to be the work of an individual.
The other resonses seem so say, in aggregate, that it is a piece of NY City real estate, owned by the UN, and subject to the same courtesies that the US Government extends to foreign embassies. Is that about it?
Let’s clarify the question: Do you mean OWN or RULE?
Nearly all territory within the borders of the United States is U.S. territory, for political and jurisdictional purposes, but, except for the huge national parks and such, very little of this acreage is property of the federal government. My house, if I own it, is my house, and the police cannot enter it without my permission or a warrant. On the other hand, I am not a sovereign (though some Americans nowadays, in the militia and “common-law courts” movements, seem to have delusions to the contrary). My house is U.S. territory and if the police HAVE a warrant there is no way I can keep them out without committing a crime in the process.
The grounds of a foreign embassy in Washington or consulate in New York would in most cases be the property of the government of the country whose embassy it is; perhaps it would be property of some private individual or corporation who leases it to that government; perhaps the property of the U.S. government, leased to the foreign government. In any case, the embassy would NOT be U.S. TERRITORY even though enclosed within U.S. borders – the embassy would be an extraterritorial enclave, and no American soldiers or law-enforcement officers would be allowed to enter without permission; such impermissive entry would, presumably, violate the treaty establishing diplomatic relations between the U.S. and the foreign state, and might even constitute an act of war by internationally recognized standards. When Noriega took refuge in the Vatican Embassy in Panama City, U.S. troops couldn’t go in and get him without the permission of the pope or his ambassador/nuncio. (I forget how they resolved that – I think after a few days of amplified rock music coming in through the windows from sound trucks in the street, Noriega ultimately came out, of his own more-or-less free will.)
If the above thread is correct, that Rockefeller gave the U.N. the lot its New York HQ is built on, then the U.N., as a corporate entity, owns the grounds and building, free and clear. But that still leaves open the question: Does the U.N. headquarters, as such, have extraterritorial status, such that NYPD officers or U.S. soldiers could not enter (in their official or military capacity) without permission of the Secretary General’s office? The obvious answer would be yes – since the U.N. is an entity with which we have diplomatic relations and to which we send “ambassadors.” On the other hand, the U.N. is NOT a government or a sovereign state. In that respect, its political status is lower than the Vatican’s. It might not have the right, under international law, to rule or control a single square foot of territory, in a political sense. Does anyone have a theory on this point?
BrainGlutton, welcome to the SDMB. Looks like you pretty much summed up the consensus of the thread. You also bring up a good point about the distinction between OWN and RULE. However, if Cliffy is correct, embassies and the like remain territory of the host country, except that there are diplomatic agreements in place that preclude anyone from entering the premises without permission, express or implied, of the foreign government or its representative. If such is the case, then the UN owns some prime Manhattan real estate, but rules over nothing.
Incorrect. However, you’re right about your next point – as I noted above, the diplomatic facilities and persons are inviolable and may not be entered, harassed, arrested, or detained by the officials of the host country without the sending country’s permission. Such harassment is a violation of the Vienna Convention and would likely be a violation of the specific agreement between the two countries. It would not de facto be an act of war, but depending on the intrusiveness of the host country’s invasion the sending state might take it that way. For instance, when that drunk-driving Ukranian diplomat killed a young pedestrian a couple years ago here in D.C., the cops arrested him. This was a clear violation of the Vienna Convention, but the Ukraine didn’t consider it an act of hostility; indeed, IIRC it eventually removed his diplomatic immunity so he could be prosecuted here. OTOH, if there were, say, a revolution in a given country an the revolutionaries stormed the embassy and took the diplomatic staff hostage, the sending country might consider that an act of war. Or, it might feel that a peaceful solution would be the best way of securing the hostages’ release. The point is that it is up to the sending country to decide how it will respond to invasions of diplomatic inviolability; there is no general rule of international law as to the appropriate sanction, even though there is generally applicable international law which prohibits such invasions.
–Cliffy
RE: “Let’s clarify the question: Do you mean OWN or RULE?”
I was asking about OWN, not RULE.
The answer appears to be, as one person summed up, the UN organization owns a valuable piece of Manhattan real estate.
But that doesn’t answer the question, Cliffy: Whether by treaty or by international law, does the UN HQ in NY have the kind of extraterritorial status and inviolability that a foreign government’s embassy or consulate would have?
From the un.org pages:
The wording is open to interpretation, but strongly suggests that the UN headquarters does, indeed, enjoy extraterritoriality.
The United Nations headquarters in New York is governed by a series of treaties known as the Headquarters Agreement.
I can’t easily find the Headquarters Agreement on line, but citations to the original 1947 agreement and the amendments and supplements from 1966, 1969 and 1980 may be found on page 22 of this PDF File from the U.S. State Department.
Billdo, you weren’t kidding it was a bit of a challenge to find a copy.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/decade/decad036.htm
As to who owns the U.N. I have always believed that John D. Rockefeller, Jr. donated the land to the U.N. Of course it’s a matter of public record. You could check the same way you would check in any county of the U.S. You would go to the county recorder (called register in NYC) and find a copy of the deed.
Let’s not forget the contribution of Robert Moses.
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/finearts/nyc/grand/nations.html
At best, ownership and governing laws of UN building and land are ambiguous therefore subject to a clever legal maneuver by DOJ once imminent domain has been declared via executive order. The key word here is “ambiguous”.
The United Nations possesses separate legal personality. This can, under international law, be derived from treaties (the UN Charter and the protocol on teh UN’s privileges and immunities) and is thus binding on all members of the United Nations; in addition, the ICJ has held, in one of the most frequently cited cases in all of public international law, that the UN’s separate legal personality has effect even on non-members. This is peculiar because it appears to be an exemption from tghe principle that treaties do not bind non-parties; but the question is moot since, vis-à-vis member states, the legal personality can certainly be derived from treaty-based provisions, and this includes nowadays pretty much the entirety of the international legal community. That means that the UN itself owns the UN premises on the East River, very much like a corporation itself own its assets; it’s not a kind of jopint ownership by the member states which make up the UN, very much like a corporation’s assets are not jointly owned by the corporation’s shareholders. Shareholding in a corporation give you a property right in the corporation but not the individual assets of the corporation.
Incidentally, I remember reading that when the plot of land on which the UN headquarters stands was donated by the Rockefeller family, it was decided to put “The Vision” as owner in the New York City land registry. I’m unable to find a cite for it now, but even if it were the case it would be legally immaterial; “The Vision” does not have legal personality, but the UN does.
Eminent domain. Eminent domain is not “declared via executive order.” And there is nothing ambiguous about ownership of the UNHQ. Your entire post is gibberish.
Imminent domain is when I hit the garage door opener and drive my car up the driveway toward my house.