“I hope that the United States will continue to be able to align its domestic legislation with its international obligations. If this is not the case, I hope that the United States will recognize the existence of a dispute and accept the application of the dispute settlement procedure under Section 21 of the siege agreement and that, in the meantime, the status quo will be maintained. There is no doubt that the siege agreement is an existing contract that binds the parties. The Court of Justice must therefore, in response to the question put to it, rule on the existence of a dispute between the United Nations and the United States of the nature provided for in Section 21 of the agreement. To this end, the Court will first set out the events leading up to the adoption of Resolutions 42/229A and 42/229B, which first lead the Secretary-General and then the United Nations General Assembly to conclude that such a dispute existed. “The United States is still assessing the situation that would result from the application of the legislation and, pending the completion of this assessment, it is considered that it cannot enter into the dispute settlement procedure described in Section 21 of the Siege Agreement.” It was agreed that no form of racial or religious discrimination is permitted within the headquarters. (c) facilities in this section may be built and operated outside headquarters to the extent necessary for effective operation. The competent US authorities, at the request of the United Nations, are making provisions regarding the conditions and modalities that can be agreed by additional agreement, with a view to the acquisition or use of appropriate premises by the United Nations for this purpose and the reception of these premises in the headquarters. On 11 February 1988, Mr. Fleischhauer, Un Legal Counsel, wrote to Justice Sofaer to tell him that the United Nations, Former President and Judge of the International Court of Justice, had chosen Eduardo Jiménez de Aréchaga, former President and Judge of the International Court of Justice, as an arbitrator “in the event of arbitration under Section 21…”, and, given the time constraints, urged the United States, given the time constraints, to inform the United Nations as soon as possible of its choice of a arbitrator.