For the purposes of this subchapter, the term “international organization” means a public international organization in which the United States participates pursuant to any treaty or under the authority of any Act of Congress authorizing such participation or making an appropriation for such participation, and which shall have been designated by the President through appropriate Executive order as being entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions, and immunities provided in this subchapter. The President shall be authorized, in the light of the functions performed by any such international organization, by appropriate Executive order to withhold or withdraw from any such organization or its officers or employees any of the privileges, exemptions, and immunities provided for in this subchapter (including the amendments made by this subchapter) or to condition or limit the enjoyment by any such organization or its officers or employees of any such privilege, exemption, or immunity. The President shall be authorized, if in his judgment such action should be justified by reason of the abuse by an international organization or its officers and employees of the privileges, exemptions, and immunities provided in this subchapter or for any other reason, at any time to revoke the designation of any international organization under this section, whereupon the international organization in question shall cease to be classed as an international organization for the purposes of this subchapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
85
cases (
13 in the last 5 years), 1949–2025 · leading case:
Jam v. Int'l Fin. Corp., 139 S. Ct. 759 (2019).
Jam v. Int'l Fin. Corp., 139 S. Ct. 759 (2019).
· cites it 4× “” 22 U. S. C. §288 . The court understood that provision to “delegate to the President the responsibility for updating the immunities of international organizations in the face of changing circumstances.”
United States v. Ng Lap Seng, 934 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2019).
· cites it 4× “See 22 U.S.C. § 288 (listing more than 80 entities “designated by executive order as public international organizations”).”
Oss Nokalva, Inc. v. Eur. Space Agency, 617 F.3d 756 (3rd Cir. 2010).
· cites it 5× “A federal statute enacted in 1945, the International Organizations Immunities Act, 22 U.S.C. § 288 , et seq. (“IOIA”), applies to those international organizations which the President designates as entitled to the benefits of the Act.”
El Omari v. the Int'l Crim. Police Org., 35 F.4th 83 (2d Cir. 2022).
· cites it 7× “__________________ Oussama El Omari appeals from the dismissal, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, of his civil action against the International Criminal Police Organization (“Interpol”), based on the district court’s conclusion that Interpol is immune from suit under the…”
Budha Jam v. Int'l Fin. Corp., 860 F.3d 703 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
· cites it 4× “” 22 U.S.C. § 288a(b). The President determines whether an organization is entitled to such immunity.”
Elkins v. Moreno, 435 U.S. 647 (1978).
· cites it 2× “669 , 22 U. S. C. § 288 et seq. ], and the members of their immediate families.”
Toll v. Moreno, 458 U.S. 1 (1982).
· cites it 2× “669 , 22 U. S. C. § 288 et seq. At the time suit was brought, the named plaintiffs in this case were dependents of employees of either the Inter-American Development Bank or the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank).”
Mendaro v. World Bank, 717 F.2d 610 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
· cites it 3× “22 U.S.C. § 288 -288Í (1976 & Supp. V 1981).”
Morales-Santana v. Lynch, 804 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2015).
· cites it 4× “that such gaps should not count against a finding of physical presence for purposes of § 1401(a)(7); (2) that the South Porto Rico Sugar Company, which employed his father after his father moved to the Dominican Republic, was a multinational United States-owned company and…”
Noah Rosenkrantz v. Inter-Am. Dev. Bank, 35 F.4th 854 (D.C. Cir. 2022).
· cites it 3× “The IDB moved to dismiss the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting immunity under the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA), 22 U.S.C. §§ 288–288l. The Plaintiffs countered that their case fell within two exceptions to IOIA immunity: the commercial…”
Zuza v. Off. of the High Representaitve, 107 F. Supp. 3d 90 (D.D.C. 2015).
· cites it 7× “669 (1945) (codified as amended at 22 U.S.C. §§ 288 -288f). As a general matter, in order to qualify as an “international organization” under the Act, an entity must satisfy two criteria provided in section 1 — participation in some manner by the United States and designation by…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.