Abstract:
International organizations, created for the promotion of common benefits of member States, are given immunity from undue interference by local authorities of the host State in order that they may properly discharge their functions. As the nature of the activities of the organization varies, so do the functions, and, therefore, also the immunities. Immunities should be granted in accordance with the objectives of the organization, and with the functions of the officials. In this respect, international organizations may be divided into two categories: first, those engaged in political, sociological, cultural and economic activities; and, secondly, those engaged in commercial activities more typical of private institutions (eg. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development). The immunities granted to international organizations and their officials include immunity from legal process; the inviolability of premises, archives, property and assets; exemption from immigration restrictions and alien registrations, from national service obligations; and immunities in respect of communications and telecommunications. In principle, the personal immunity of officials varies according to their functions and rank. Common abuses include the assertion of immunities for personal interests, the assertion of immunities which could compromise national security, and the assertion of immunities by unqualified persons. Because Thailand is host of several international organizations, it can be directly and adversely affected by any inappropriate, inadequate or imprecise determination of immunities. This dissertation seeks, first, to examine how and to what extent such immunities are defined, granted and upheld in local Thai practice; secondly, to examine existing devices for coping with abuses; and, thirdly, to propose new ways of preventing and dealing with such abuses. Comparisons are made with the practice of certain Western countries, notably the United States.