The UN General Assembly is the UN’s ‘parliament’.
Its 193 member states, with one vote each, decide on everything the organisation does.
It meets every September at the UN headquarters in New York.
This year, that location is generating some legal controversy.
1. Netanyahu is speaking despite an arrest warrant
Vladimir Putin hasn’t attended the UN General Assembly since 2015.
Certainly not since the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant on him.
Netanyahu also has an arrest warrant. The ICC has clarified that immunity doesn’t apply to either of them.
Yet Netanyahu will be speaking this week.
This puts him in the same building as the 125 ICC member states who are required to arrest him if he enters their territory.
They won’t act (as they’re not in their territory).
The US has no obligation to act, as not an ICC member.
And it won’t, despite Mamdani’s position.
The diplomatic and legal awkwardness of this situation is difficult to ignore.
2. Palestine can’t get in
The US is legally obligated to allow UN representatives and observer entities to enter the US for UN meetings.
That’s under Article IV of the 1947 UN Headquarters Agreement between the US and the UN.
But Palestine has been denied entry by the US.
This has happened before: the US refused to grant Yasser Arafat a visa to address the UNGA in 1988.
In response, the UN moved the entire session to Geneva, Switzerland.
It’s not clear why this hasn’t happened this time round.
3. Trump will address an organisation whose rules he is actively breaking
Every UN member state has ratified the UN Charter.
Article 2(4) is a core part of it. It prohibits the use of force against another state.
The US strikes on Iran (and many other places) raises questions under this provision.
The US has also withdrawn support from multiple UN funds and programmes.
It is also launching a campaign to dismantle the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Trump will address the General Assembly this week, amidst all of that.
Awkward.
So: should the UN General Assembly move?
Nothing in the UN Charter legally requires the UN General Assembly to hold its meetings at its headquarters to be the US.
Nothing even requires the UN headquarters to be in New York; The Headquarters Agreement can — in theory — be terminated.
Geneva is an obvious alternative: it’s the European UN headquarters, hosts lots of UN agencies, has done this before and is currently moving to enshrine its neutrality even more in law.
Legally feasible, but politically likely to face a lot of resistance.
What do you think?
Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:
Real life is beyond parody these days. I wonder if anyone will walk out during his address like that time before.