Atkinson (81) argued first that courts should read into the IOIA a
the 1945 Congress intended to incorporate into the IOIA subsequent
language of the IOIA says that covered international organizations are
Moreover, the court found that the text of the IOIA provided "no
Congress intended to keep the IOIA up-to-date with changes in the law of
international organizations by the IOIA is absolute, it does not contain
227) More importantly, the House and Senate committee reports accompanying the legislation specified that the purpose of section 1611 (a), the only textual overlap between the FSIA and the IOIA, is to allow international organizations "to carry out their functions from their offices located in the United States without hindrance by private claimants seeking to attach the payment of funds to a foreign state; such attachments would also violate the immunities accorded to such international institutions.
238) In 1990, for example, Senator William Roth proposed legislation that would have amended the IOIA by expressly reducing international organization immunity to the extent enjoyed by foreign states under the FSIA.
The IOIA and the FSIA are not the only possible sources of privileges and immunities for international organizations in the United States.
United Nations whether the FSIA "now defines what sort of immunity the IOIA applies to international organizations" because, the court concluded, "the United Nations enjoys absolute immunity from suit" under the CPIUN "unless it has expressly waived its immunity.
For example, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (254) and the African Union, (255) among others, are not technically covered by the terms of the IOIA but derive privileges and immunities from separate legislation and administrative action.
Conversely, Congress or the President can reduce the privileges and immunities of entities that have been designated public international organizations covered by the IOIA.