Historical discussion of UNRRA immunity and U.S. contract procurement post‑World War II

10 JAM v. INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORP. BREYER, J., dissenting and other relief supplies to children freed from Nazi con- centration camps and to others in serious need. 3 id., at 429; see generally L. Nicholas, Cruel World: The Children of Europe in the Nazi Web 442-518 (2005). These activities involved contracts, often made in the United States, for transportation and for numerous com- mercial goods. See B. Shephard, The Long Road Home: The Aftermath of the Second World War 54, 57-58 (2012). Indeed, the United States conditioned its participation on UNRRA’s spending what amounted to 67% of its budget on purchases of goods and services in the United States. Id., at 57-58; see also Sawyer, Achievements of UNRRA as an International Health Organization, 37 Am. J. Pub. Health 41, 57 (1947) (describing UNRRA training programs for foreign doctors within the United States, which presuma- bly required entering into contracts); International Refu- gee Org. v. Republic S. S. Corp., 189 F. 2d 858, 860 (CA4 1951) (describing successor organization’s transportation of displaced persons, presumably also under contract). Would Congress, believing that it had provided the abso- lute immunity that UNRRA sought and expected, also have intended that the statute be interpreted “dynamic- ally,” thereby removing most of the immunity that it had then provided—not only potentially from UNRRA itself but also from other future international organizations with UNRRA-like objectives and tasks? C This history makes clear that Congress enacted the Immunities Act as part of an effort to encourage interna- tional organizations to locate their headquarters and carry on their missions in the United States. It also makes clear that Congress intended to enact “basic legislation” that would fulfill its broad immunity-based commitments to the UN, UNRRA, and other nascent organizations. S. Rep. No. 861, at 2. And those commitments, of neces- HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_028568