Georges v. United Nations

In 2010, Nepal experienced a surge of cholera infections. The United Nations (UN) (defendant) transferred peacekeeping personnel from Nepal to a base in Haiti. The base discharged raw sewage into a water source that flowed into a water supply for the area. Haiti then experienced a serious cholera outbreak that led to over 10,000 deaths. Haitians sickened by the cholera outbreak and the families of people who died due to the outbreak (collectively, the cholera victims) (plaintiffs) made claims to the UN for (1) individual compensation and (2) a fund to build better water and sanitation infrastructure to prevent the cholera from spreading further. The UN responded that it would not hear the claims because they “would necessarily include a review of political and policy matters.” The cholera victims then sued the UN in a United States federal district court, seeking damages. The UN did not appear in the case. However, the executive branch of the United States federal government submitted a brief arguing that the UN was immune from the lawsuit because the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (CPIUN) made the UN immune from lawsuits in any court unless the UN chose to waive its legal immunity—and the UN had not waived it. The cholera victims argued that: (1) under the CPIUN, providing another mechanism for resolving a dispute was a condition precedent to having immunity, and the UN had not met this condition; (2) the UN could not rely on the CPIUN’s legal-immunity provision because it had materially breached the CPIUN by failing to provide another dispute-resolution mechanism; and (3) granting the UN immunity for these claims would deny the cholera victims their constitutional right to access federal courts. The district court ruled that the UN had immunity and dismissed the case. The cholera victims appealed.