Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1011_mkhn.pdf
Page Number: 34

Cite as:  586 U. S. ____ (2019) 

15 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

a  suit  would  lead  to  “disruptive  interference”  with  the 
organization’s functions, the waiver does not apply.  Ibid. 

for 

Other  organizations  have  attempted  to  solve  the  liabil-
ity/immunity  problem  by  turning  to  multilateral,  not
single-nation, solutions.  The  UN, 
instance,  has 
agreed  to  “make  provisions  for  appropriate  modes  of  set-
tlement  of  . . .  [d]isputes  arising  out  of  contracts  or  other
disputes of a private law character.”  Convention on Privi-
leges  and  Immunities  of  the  United  Nations,  Art. VIII, 
§29,  21  U. S. T.  1438,  T. I. A. S.  No.  6900.  It  generally
does  so  by  agreeing  to  submit  commercial  disputes  to
arbitration.  See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations
Law  of  the  United  States  §467,  Reporters’  Note  7  (1987).
Other organizations, including the IFC, have set up alter-
native  accountability  schemes  to  resolve  disputes  that
might otherwise end up in court.  See World Bank, Inspec-
tion  Panel:  About  Us  (describing  World  Bank’s  three-
member  “independent  complaints  mechanism”  for  those 
“who believe that they have been . . . adversely affected by
a World Bank-funded project”), https://inspectionpanel.org/
about-us/about-inspection-panel  (as  last  visited  Feb.  25,
2019);  Compliance  Advisor  Ombudsman,  How  We  Work:
CAO  Dispute  Resolution  (describing  IFC  and  Multi-
lateral  Investment  Guarantee  Agency  dispute-resolution 
process, the main objective of which is to help resolve issues 
raised  about  the  “social  and  environmental  impacts  of 
IFC/MIGA projects”), www.cao-ombudsman.org/howwework/
ombudsman. 

These  alternatives  may  sometimes  prove  inadequate.
And, if so, the Immunities Act itself offers a way for Amer-
ica’s  Executive  Branch  to  set  aside  an  organization’s  im-
munity  and  to  allow  a  lawsuit  to  proceed  in  U. S.  courts.
The  Act  grants  to  the  President  the  authority  to  “with-
hold,” to “withdraw,” to “condition,” or to “limit” any of the
Act’s “immunities” in “light of the functions performed by 
any such international organization.”  22 U. S. C. §288.