A productive sentence of such strange results cannot be unreasonably suspected of providing its own rebuttal. I assume that, in the first place, the overconstruction of the argument rests too narrowly on a potentially inconsistent interpretation of the dispute settlement formula provided for in section 21 of the agreement. The dispute resolution procedure in Section 21 of the agreement clearly applies to disputes arising from complaints of an actual breach of the agreement, but it is not equally clear in these cases. It covers disputes arising from one party`s opposition to the other party`s behaviour or threat to act to develop what the complainant considers to be a violation of the agreement. In the secretary-general`s view, as I interpret, such behaviour or threat was represented by the adoption of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987, which in fact accepted the head of state of the host country, whose recognized duty was to respect the laws of the State. In the absence of assurances to the contrary (requested but never given), the Secretary-General could consider that the President, through his competent officials, would carry out this task with consequences which, according to the Secretary-General, would be contrary to the agreement. This objection was challenged and would give rise to litigation in the existing case law in this area, whether or not the forced closure of the mission resulted in an effective violation of the agreement. The Secretary-General and the relevant authorities of the United States jointly regulate the channels through which they communicate on the application of the provisions of this agreement and other headquarters matters, and may conclude the complementary arrangements necessary to achieve the objectives of this agreement. In agreements with the Secretary-General, the United States consults with the relevant state and local authorities. At the request of the Secretary-General, the Secretary-General of the United States appoints a special representative for liaison with the Secretary-General.
On June 26, 1947, the Secretary of State of the United States, after hearing from the competent authorities of the State and the City of New York, signed an agreement on behalf of the United States with the United Nations regarding the headquarters of the United Nations. Thus, Congress, under this “security reserve,” has limited the United States.