13 Dec Nato Ottawa Agreement 1951
The above shows that nato`s institutionalization has not been well studied and that many still believe that NATO is a monolithic international organization. Although NATO is an international organization, it is formed by three other autonomous international organizations 54 This format is replicated in the World Bank [group], an international organization formed by international organizations with their own legal positions. with different legal positions. These international organizations are: the “organization” – commonly referred to as NATO headquarters – although in practice it goes far beyond that and encompasses the international military staff, the international military staff and international military organizations – and the two “senior HQs” that form NATO`s command structure. The first is governed by the 1951 Ottawa Agreement, 55 Ottawa Convention, supra note 36. And these two are taken from the 1952 Paris Protocol, 56TH, NATO SOFA, or 52; Paris Protocol, 52. which enjoys a hybrid nature. Finally, other institutions depend on these treaties, both through a specific charter and through the activation and devolution of powers. This does not include units or organizations of the NATO troop structure, specific structures, assets available to NATO and centres of excellence. NATO has been poorly studied – or not at all – under international institutional law. As a result, the misunderstanding of many is that NATO is a monolithic international organization with a legal position. An in-depth study of initial correspondence and exchanges during contract negotiations, pretrades and texts of NATO`s general multilateral agreements suggest an unprecedented international organization. NATO is indeed an international organization, but at the same time it is the “container” of three other international organizations, with its own legal status and with a series of subordinate elements; All form NATO`s various bodies.
On the other hand, and with regard to headquarters on the ground, an analysis of their applicable legal framework eliminates any dangerous confusion aimed at applying the term “NATO body” to them. NATO Treaties on Regulation 52 Calling the general agreement between the contracting parties to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Status of their Armed Forces (19 June 1951) [the NATO sofa]; Ottawa Agreement, note 36; 1952 Protocol on the Status of the International Military Headquarters established in accordance with the North Atlantic Treaty (August 28, 1952) [the Paris Protocol]; and their endorsements. UN Security Council resolutions, the specific status of armed forces/military technical agreements or specific bilateral agreements – Afghanistan, Iraq – apply to HQs. 53Se also, Andrés B. Muooz Mosquera – N. Chalanaouli, North Atlantic Treaty. Reconstructed Preparatory Works (2019) (peer reviewed) (file copy with author). The use of the term “nato” for headquarters is a bad practice from a legal point of view, as it creates legal uncertainty and confuses the legal status of these multinationals and theatre organisations – which are not in NATO`s governmental treaties – with that of nato`s authentic and unique bodies. The Charter of the United Nations (“United Nations Charter”) and its constitutionality are the necessary reasons for the institutionalization of the idea of promoting international peace and security, under the inspiration of Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, of “interest groups” such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). 2Recognizance of NATO`s future development, except for defence plans: Executive Secretary`s Note, NATO Archives, (September 19, 1951), archives.nato.int/uploads/r/null/1/9/19674/C_7-D_18_ENG.pdf (“Peacekeeping is the essence of this North Atlantic community).” The memo states that NATO is a “community of interest” within which voters have the necessary legal framework on the basis of the United Nations.