text: to support the retention of the provision in Eorne torn! so ‘.hat. RIG c?tnployc~ of ..- _. - 841 1bLd.t and Rr+port of the Inter-national Law Cotnmissiun on the wurk u!. it.8 forty-first. session (Official Hecv~~Is VI thv tieneral iki~vmbly; Forty-fourth se6~i~n~ .Sugglvmvnt No, 19 (A/44/10)), pax-n. 512.a foreign State, since he would have no othsr sffsctivs recourse, might be allowed to bring action against that Stste in 6 court of another State where his service was performed. One ather member, uhfle supporting the retention of the article. pointed out that the article raisei many iesues. He recalled that ia the past States had consistently granted immunity from claims brought by employees of a diplomatic mission employed in the work of the mission, the main reason for Uoing so being that working for a foreign State involved participation in the public functions of that State and that hearing of the co&plaiaaat was likely to involve investigation of governmental functions. Most cases adjudicated in the past had fallen outside the category of governmental activity axd involved employees working in semi-governmental institutions, such as cultural agencies and the like; id such casesI jurisdictional ixununfty clearly could not be claimed, On the other hand, where employees were recruited to work for a governmental institution or for the Government itself, their activities were considered to be governmental functions and the prerogatives of Governments were, by and large, respected. With those consideration& in mind, he preferred the version adopted on first reading to the text recommended by the Special Rapporteur.. 179. One mumber drew attention to the fact that while it was true, as the Special Rapporteur had pointed out, that United States legislation had no specific provision on contracts of eqloyment, there was no doubt that such contracts were covered by the general cosunercial activity exception in
analysis: The text appears to be discussing international law and the treatment of foreign government employees in courts of other states. The language used is formal and diplomatic, suggesting a focus on international relations and the rules governing them. The topic of employment and the immunities granted to government employees also suggests a connection to the field of employment.