DXCC Status

CAUSE:

For the sake of consistency, 4U1A should be accorded DXCC status.

• There are only three United Nations “capitals” in the world — in Geneva, New York, and Vienna — with the privilege, normally reserved to countries, of issuing postage stamps.

• Each of these UN “capitals” has an amateur station associated with it. The stations — 4U1ITU, 4U1UN, and 4U1A – have the UN prefix 4U rather than host-country prefixes.

• UN authorities thus exercise authority in each of the three UN “capitals” akin to that exercised by countries through their national postal and telecommunication administrations.

• For amateur radio purposes, the United States treats 4U1ITU and 4U1A as distinct from amateur stations subject to the authority of host-country telecommunication administrations. It has third-party arrangements covering 4U1ITU and 4U1A, but has no third-party agreement with Switzerland or Austria.

• 4U1A, along with 4U1ITU and 4U1UN, counts as a separate country in various contests and for various certificates.
The only “argument” recalled in support of denying DXCC country status to 4U1A is that 4U1ITU and 4U1UN were “grandfathered in” and 4U1A was not. The gist of the underlying thought seems to be If we accord DXCC country status to 4U1A, we’ll be flooded by attempts to have similar status conferred on similar stations.

Such a fear is baseless because there are no similar stations. There are three and only three UN “capitals” and three and only three corresponding amateur stations in the world. There are no prospects for an increase in either. There should consequently be no difficulty taking, and standing by, a decision to treat all three stations, and only these three stations, in the same manner.

Despite the foregoing, 4U1A continues to be denied DXCC country status. This patently illogical and inequitable situation cries out for resolution, even if the unusual and regrettable step of overriding the DX Advisory Committee’s recommendation has to be taken. While almost everyone would agree that advisory committee recommendations should normally be followed — otherwise why have such committees?

— the ARRL Board of Directors would be remiss in carrying out its own duties as an elected body if it did not reserve to itself the right to reverse what it found to be a flawed finding by an advisory committee. A preferable path, of course, would be for the DXAC itself to reconsider the matter.

Official request to DXAC / ARRL (July 25, 2017)

Official request to DXAC / ARRL (November 04, 2016)

Comments from OH2BH: Open the book “WHERE DO WE GOING NEXT ?” at Page 131. Author – OH2BH

These DXCC “rules” contradict themselves:
What about ZC4 ( The U.K. Western Sovereign Military Base Area Cyprus) and 1A0 (The Order of Malta’s Italian Relief Corps CISOM) ?

These territories are still DXCC separate countries. Or ARRL will say again that this is happened historically …?

On December 14, 1984 – Mr. Sumner (K1ZZ) ARRL General Manager wrote: DX ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Gentleman: Enclosed you will find the briefing paper on the Vienna International Centre called for in Minute 68 of the October Meeting of the ARRL Board of Directors. I wish to apologize for its being 12 days late; when you inspect it I believe you will see that it took a great deal of research and work to compile, and in fact significant new information has been received just in the past few days. Minute 68 instructs the DX Advisory Committee to reconsider the 4U1VIC question no later than January 20, 1985, in light of the facts set forth in this briefing paper. The timing is, of course, intended to permit the process to be completed by the time of the 1985 Annual Meeting of the ARRL Board on January 24-25. This means that your reconsideration will have to be accomplished more quickly than is normally the case. In your deliberations, please make reference only to the enclosed briefing paper, and not to any earlier communications from Headquarters which you may have received. Our analysis indicates that the United Nations is, in fact, a “government” and that a literal application of criterion 5(b) does not disqualify the Vienna International Centre as an entity separate from Austria. In view of the earlier DXAC vote this conclusion may be somewhat surprising to many of you. The Chairman will be contacting you regarding the specific question to be considered in light of the enclosed briefing paper. Best wishes for the holiday season. 73, Sincerely, David Sumner, K1ZZ General Manager.

On 27 January 1986 – Mr. Olsen (K7AWD/OE1ZOS) The former 4U1VIC President officially wrote to President of the ARRL Mr. Price (W4RA): Dear Larry, Thank you for sending me a copy of the ARRL paper ” International Status of the Vienna International Center I have read it with great interest and, unless you have any objections, I would like to distribute copies to interested individuals. The paper states in its conclusion that criterion 1 ” government ” permits the separate recognition of 4U1V/C for DXCC country purposes and the conclusion of the third-party agreement between the U.S. government and UN Vienna represents ” the exercise of international-recognized legal authority over postal and electronic communications”. Since this ARRL legal recommendation for DXCC country status occurred before the recent change to criterion 5Cb), we feel 4U1VIC should be a separate country under the previous criteria. Criterion 5Cb), as changed, prevents a like situation from arising again. In this manner, 4U1VIC would be granted country status in a way similar to that of 4U1UN. The main difference in our case would be that the criteria under which we qualified were changed before the country status was actually granted. As the legal status paper implies, 4U1ITU and 4U1UN also qualify as DXCC countries under criterion and would not have been disqualified under the previous criterion 5(b). Recognizing 4U1VIC will put it on an equal plane with these other UN amateur radio stations. Therefore, on behalf of the Vienna International Amateur Radio Club, I request the ARRL Board of Directors, acting upon the conclusions of the legal status paper and in consideration of the DXCC criteria under which it was prepared, grant separate DXCC country status to 4U1VIC. Please keep us informed on the actions occurring with this matter. Should you have any comments, I would appreciate receiving them at your earliest convenience.

---

( 02 July, 2001) About 10 days ago I posted a question about the DXCC status of 4U1VIC. I received many and somewhat varied responses. I am including for your review and excellent response from Horst-OE1OLW that should further enlighten many on the blurred status of the station. 73,Pete-K8PT — Dear Pete, read your query concerning the status of 4U1VIC. This is the station of the Vienna International Amateur Radio Club. It is located at the Vienna International Centre in Vienna which is NOT Austrian but extra-territorial area. Nevertheless, ARRL ignores this status and does not recognize it as a separate entity, but as part of Austria, thereby flagrantly disregarding international negotiations between the UN (of which the US are a Member State) and the Govt of Austria. A Press release will clarify this odd situation in the near future. It is correct that 4U1VIC is being recognized as a distinct entity for the Worked-All-Europe Award. 73, Horst H. Eisenlohr, OE3OLW, former (1.) president of the VIARC.

INTERNATIONAL LEGAL STATUS OF THE VIENNA INTERNATIONAL CENTRE

 According to the published rules regarding ARRL DXCC awards, where the area in question meets at least one of the points in the criteria it may be considered eligible as a separate entity. The present controversy over the country status of the Vienna International Centre (Amateur Radio Contest DX Club station 4U1A) centers on two of the Countries List Criteria. Criterion 1 holds that an area may be considered eligible as a separate entity, i.e., country, by reason of “Government.”

1) Government. An area by reason of Government constitutes a separate entity.

The second pertinent criterion is 5 (b), which states as follows:
(b) Embassies, consulates and extra-territorial monuments will not be eligible for consideration as a separate entity from the host country.
If the Vienna International Centre (hereinafter referred to as VIC) is considered under Criterion 1 to be a separate “government,” it could be eligible for separate DXCC country status. On the other hand, if VIC is an embassy, consulate or extra-territorial monument, it would be ineligible for separate status under criterion 5 (b).

The goal of this paper is to provide information and an opinion on the international legal status of the Vienna International Centre.
Specifically, this paper will analyze the facts and legal doctrine that distinguish VIC as an international legal entity separate from the State of Austria.

INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ENTITY
The State of Austria is, of course, a State in the international legal sense. It is a politically organized body of people that occupies a definite territory and exercises sovereignty over the territory. In the common vernacular such is called a country. In international political circles, however, the term “State” means the independent political and territorial legal entities that make up the international body politic. Examples are the State of Austria, the State of Israel, etc. The United States of America is, in this strict legal sense, a State.

The Vienna International Centre is an “international entity”; however, it seems odd to label it as a legal “State.” The people of the Vienna International Centre are accorded no indigenous citizenship by virtue of their being associated with VIC. Rather, they retain the citizenship of other countries. Nonetheless, some legal scholars are of the opinion that an entity that seems to participate in treaty relations can be thought of as a State or, if not a bona fide State, as simply an entity possessing an international personality. This latter category encompasses a broad range.
However, this label, by itself, does little more than inform one that an entity has, under international law, some legal capacities.

OFFICE ACCOMMODATIONS AT VIC
The Vienna International Centre serves as the Headquarters for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), The United Nations-related Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and other U.N. entities. According to the United Nations Yearbook for 2016 (the latest available), as of February, 2016 there were 2,497 persons employed by the United Nations and its affiliates at the Vienna International Centre.

LEGAL BASIS FOR THE INVIOLABILITY OF THE PREMISES
The VIC enjoys an international “personality” separate from the State of Austria. What is at issue, however, is determining the legal source of the inviolability of premises. What is meant by inviolability is the ability of the VIC to govern much of its daily affairs independently from the law of Austria.

TERRITORIAL ENCLAVES
The Vienna International Centre is not a State, but in the law of treaties there are territorial entities other than States. Such entities fall into several broad subcategories: members of composite States (i.e., federal unions, real unions); “Dependent States” (such as protectorates, vassal States, Associated States, etc.); Colonial dependencies; Territories administered under mandates or trusteeships; and entities subject to special forms of international control or supervision. None of the above are applicable to VIC.

The problem with applying any of these categories to VIC is that ultimate sovereignty of all of the above is vested in the people of the territory. An historical example of an internationalized territory is that of the Free City of Danzig (once in Germany and now in Poland, known as Gdansk). It once had a special autonomous status created by the Versailles Treaty and was under the protection of the League of Nations. As a general rule, however, the consent of the people of Danzig was required in order make treaties applicable to it. The indigenous people have the ultimate authority.

Other territorial entities have an international legal status but do not fit into any established category. The best example of this is the State of the Vatican City and the Holy See. The designation “The State of the Vatican City” has been used for treaties which had a specific territorial application to the Vatican City (e.g., telecommunication). “The Holy See”, however, has been more commonly used for purposes of international relations.

It has been the position of the Holy See that its international personality is based on its religious and spiritual authority and not on its territorial enclave in Rome. Research of this issue has turned up no legal decision on the issue by the United Nations or other international organizations; however, most diplomats use the name Holy See and no longer the State of the Vatican City.

THE INVIOLABILITY OF DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS
The inviolability of diplomatic missions gets its basis not from its territorial enclave; rather, it flows from an international treaty, The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Article 22 of the Convention states as follows:

1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.

2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.

3. The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.

Letters from Clayton C. Timbrel, Assistant Secretary-General for General Services at VIC (dated September 30, 1982) and Davina Davis, Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary-General for General Services at VIC (dated March 23, 1982), could lend support to the proposition that the inviolability of the premises known collectively as the Vienna International Centre are based legally on its status as a diplomatic mission.

For example, Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations states, in part, the following:
1. The receiving State shall permit and protect free communication on the part of the mission for all official purposes. In communicating with the Government and other missions and consulates of the sending State, wherever situated, the mission may employ all appropriate means, including diplomatic couriers and messages in code or cipher. However, the mission may install and use a wireless transmitter only with the consent of the receiving State.

However, further legal analysis leads to the observation that the Vienna International Centre does not fit the category of a “typical” diplomatic mission. The Vienna International Centre acts not as a diplomatic mission representing the sending State (U.N.) to the receiving State (Republic of Austria). Its role transcends the exchange of ambassadors and diplomats between two legal entities. VIC functions as an administration of intergovernmental organizations that goes beyond the relationship between the organization and Republic of Austria.

INTERNATIONAL JURIDICAL CONSIDERATIONS
An additional consideration when deciding the status of an international entity is whether the entity is a legal person in an international juridical sense. In 1949, the International Court of Justice issued the landmark international law case that dealt with the “international personality” of the United Nations, itself, as an organization. At issue was the legal capacity for the United Nations to bring an international claim in its own right.

QUOTING FROM THE DECISION
Accordingly, the court has come to the conclusion that the Organization is an international person. This is not the same thing as saying that it is a State, which it certainly is not, or that its legal personality and rights and duties’ are the same as those of a state. Still less is it the same thing as saying that it is a “super-State,” whatever that expression may mean. It does not even imply that all its rights and duties must be upon that plane. What it does mean is that it is a subject of international law and capable of possessing international rights and duties and that it has the capacity to maintain its rights by bringing international claims.

. . .

Whereas a State possesses the totality of international rights and duties recognized by international law, the rights and duties of an entity such as the Organization must depend upon its purposes and functions as specified or implied in its constituent documents and developed in practice. The functions of the Organization are of such a character that they could not be effectively discharged if they involved the concurrent action, on the international plane, of fifty-eight or more Foreign Offices, and the Court concludes that the Members have endowed the Organization with capacity to bring international claims when necessitated by the discharge of its function.
(International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion, 1949, I.C.J. 174)

Where the above leads is to a determination of the entity’s “rights and duties” and the dependency of them as specified or implied in their “constituent documents and developed in practice.”

THE CONSTITUENT DOCUMENTS
There is no constituent document of the Vienna International Centre, per se. Rather, the constituent documents pertain to the United Nations Organizations that occupy the premises at VIC.

UNIDO
The constituent document regarding the relationship between the United Nations and the State of Austria pertaining to the Headquarters of UNIDO was signed in 1967. The document is No. 8679, and entitled “AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA REGARDING THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE UNITED NATIONS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION.” Article III is entitled “Extraterritoriality of the Headquarter Seat.” Section 7 contains the part pertinent to this discussion:

(a) The Government recognizes the extraterritoriality of the headquarters seat, which shall be under the control and authority of the UNIDO as provided in this Agreement.

(b) Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement or in the General Convention, and subject to any regulation enacted under section 8, the laws of the Republic of Austria shall apply within the headquarters seat.

(c) Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement or in the General Convention, the courts or other appropriate organs of the Republic of Austria shall have jurisdiction as provided in applicable laws, over acts done and transactions taking place in the headquarters seat.

Sections 8 and 9 also are of interest:

SECTION 8
(a) The UNIDO shall have the power to make regulations, operative within the headquarters seat, for the purpose of establishing therein conditions in all respects necessary for the full execution of its functions. No law of the Republic of Austria which is inconsistent with a regulation of the UNIDO authorized by this section shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be applicable within the headquarters seat. Any dispute between the UNIDO and the Republic of Austria as to whether a regulation of the UNIDO is authorized by this section or as to whether a law of the Republic of Austria is inconsistent with any regulation of the UNIDO authorized by this section, shall be promptly settled by the procedure set out in section 35. Pending such settlement, the regulation of the UNIDO shall apply and the law of the Republic of Austria shall be inapplicable in the headquarters seat to the extent that the UNIDO claims it to be inconsistent with the regulation of the UNIDO.

(b) The UNIDO shall from time to time inform the Government, as may be appropriate, of regulations made by it in accordance with sub-section (a).

(c) This section shall not prevent the reasonable application of fire protection or sanitary regulations of the appropriate Austrian authorities.

SECTION 9
(a) The headquarters seat shall be inviolable. No officer or official of the Republic of Austria, or other person exercising any public authority within the Republic of Austria, shall enter the headquarters seat to perform any duties therein except with the consent of, and under conditions approved by, the Executive Director. The service of legal process, including the seizure of private property, shall not take place within the headquarters seat except with the express consent of, and under conditions approved by, the Executive Director.

(b) Without prejudice to the provisions of the General Convention or Article X of this Agreement, the UNIDO shall prevent the headquarters seat from being used as a refuge by persons who are avoiding arrest under any law of the Republic of Austria, who are required by the Government for extradition to another country, or who are endeavouring to avoid service of legal process.

The above clearly establishes the inviolability of the premises of the Vienna International Conference occupied by UNIDO. The Agreement also establishes its extra-territoriality.

IAEA
The International Atomic Energy Agency’s status in relation to its Headquarters Seat at VIC is governed also by the UNIDO Agreement. Section 30 of the above UNIDO Agreement states as follows:
The provisions of this article shall apply to other officials of the United Nations who are attached to the UNIDO or to other United Nations offices set up with the consent of the Government in the Republic of Austria. They shall also apply to officials of the specialized agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency attached to the UNIDO on a continuing basis.

Again, the premises occupied by the IAEA at VIC are inviolable. The constituent document establishes the VIC’s extra-territorial status.

Ref: History of the Vienna International Centre

History of the Vienna International Centre

RECOGNITION OF THE VIENNA INTERNATIONAL CENTRE AS A SEPARATE COUNTRY FOR DXCC

From the above several conclusions can be drawn. The inviolability of the International Centre does not flow from an independent sovereignty over a territorial enclave. The constituent documents establishing the relationship between VIC and its host country clearly establish that VIC is an extra-territorial entity. What has developed in practice also supports this conclusion. The complex of buildings at VIC were “made available by the Austrian Government, at nominal rent, to United Nations Entities,” according to the 1980 U.N. Yearbook (p. 1238). There have also been agreements regulating specific matters pertaining to the occupancy of the Vienna Centre by the international organizations. For example, Austria and the international organizations occupying the premises have established and jointly administer a common fund for the financing of major repairs and replacements at the Centre. The parties to the agreement have even established a protocol to that agreement listing main elements to be used in defining whether a repair or replacement is deemed major and thus financed from the fund. Such entanglement in the routine administration contradicts the idea of the independent sovereignty of the Vienna International Centre based on territorial enclave.

The Vienna International Centre is not disqualified under Criterion 5(b).

The fact that VIC is “extra-territorial” does not, however, disqualify it under Criterion 5(b) from being accorded separate DXCC country status.
Criterion 5(b) disqualifies “Embassies, consulates and extra-territorial monuments.” It is the word “monuments” that makes Criterion 5(b) inoperative in this case. The VIC is not a monument in any sense of the word. Nor does VIC fit the category of “embassy” or “consulate.” An embassy or consulate performs the specific function of representing the interests of one State (the sending State) within the territory of another State (the receiving State). The Vienna International Centre’s function transcends the exchange of diplomats between two States. It is the interests of the entire World Community that are represented and advocated from this international center.

If it is the intent of the DXCC to exclude all extra-territorial entities from obtaining separate DXCC country status, Criterion 5(b), as presently worded, does not accomplish it. Should the DXAC wish to close this “loophole,” consideration should be given to rewording Criterion 5(b) as follows:
5(b). The following will not be eligible for consideration as a separate entity from the host country: Embassies, consulates and extra-territorial legal entities of all nature, including but not limited to monuments, offices of the United Nations agencies or related organizations, other inter-governmental organizations, diplomatic missions, etc.

The term “government” permits recognition of separate DXCC status for VIC under Criterion 1.
Criterion 1 permits recognition of separate DXCC status when “an area by reason of Government constitutes a separate entity.” As can be seen by the discussion above, certain operational and administrative matters relating to the Vienna International Centre are governed independently from the government of the Republic of Austria. The question, then, of whether the VIC is a separate entity, turns on an interpretation of the word “government.” The Republic of Austria and the United Nations share the governing authority over VIC. The UNIDO Agreement, for example, delineates the various rights and duties.

Because the entire exercise of determining DXCC country status pertains to communications, for DXCC purposes it makes perfect sense to interpret “government” to mean “the exercise of internationally-recognized legal authority over postal and electronic communications.” While other indicia of “government” should certainly be taken into consideration (e.g., maintenance of armed forces, independent political system, etc.), governance of matters pertaining to communications should play a dominant role.

The Vienna International Centre is one of three major U.N. centers in the world with a U.N. Postal Administration Office that issues U.N. stamps and accepts mail with such stamps. The only other U.N. Postal Administration offices are at the U.N. Headquarters in New York and the U.N. facilities in Geneva.

Also, the Legal Liaison of the Vienna International Centre recently sent a cable, received by the U.S. State Department, that requests that a third-party agreement be concluded between the United States and the International Centre. According to staff at FCC and the U.S. State Department, the U.S. will probably conclude a third-party agreement. This will amount to “the exercise of internationally-recognized legal authority over postal and electronic communications.” U.S. recognition of this authority should play a dominant role in interpreting “government” in DXCC Criterion 1. Such an interpretation would also bring the separate status of 4U1UN and 4U1ITU into conformity with recognition of 4U1A. Furthermore, this interpretation would preclude those DXCC country candidates that cannot claim that their legal authority over postal and electronic communications is internationally recognized. The DXCC community may want, however, an iron-clad rule to prevent future U.N. offices from achieving separate country status in the event the U.N. postal authority is extended to other centers. The suggested amendment of Criterion 5(b) will remove this possibility.

CONCLUSION
Interpretation of “government” in Criterion 1 should be dominated by considering “the exercise of internationally-recognized legal authority over postal and electronic communications.” The Vienna International Centre exercises legal authority over postal and electronic communications, and, according to FCC and U.S. State Department staff, the United States is about to officially recognize this authority by concluding a third party agreement with 4U1A. Therefore, Criterion 1 permits separate recognition of VIC for DXCC country purposes.

Criterion 5(b) does not disqualify VIC because, even though it is extraterritorial in nature, it does not fit any of the categories mentioned in the criterion. Consideration should be given to amending Criterion 5(b) if the DXCC community wishes to permanently close this perceived “loophole.”
Recognizing 4U1A will put it on an equal plane with 4U1UN and 4U1ITU.

The similarities between these U.N. entities constitute an additional argument for equal treatment of these three international legal entities.

from 4U1A website (Jan 2018).

---

 

from DX-WORLD.net website (Dec. 2021).

(Confirmation from K5ZD – Head of CQWW DX Contest):

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 6:48 PM,
To: 4U1A ARCDXC
From: Randy Thompson
K5ZD wrote:

Thanks.

Given this information, 4U1A will count as 4U1V for CQWW scoring.

73 de K5ZD

(Confirmation from DF8AA – Head of WAE):

From: DF8AA
On 29 September 2015 20:53
To: 4U1A
Subject: Re: 4U1A WAE Status

Hello OM,

Congratulations for the new club station. We accept this call sign for the WAE-country 4U1V, the same status as 4U1VIC.
This WAE country need many WAE Award-hunters.

We are hoping for great activities.

73 Wolfgang, DF8AA – WAE-AWARD MANAGER Wolfgang Böhmer Am Wasserwerk 4 D-01796 Pirna, GERMANY.

Should 4U1VIC Have A Separate DXCC Entity Status?
From Ron Notarius WN3VAW on April 9, 2004

Every few months or so, it seems that the issue of the DXCC status (or lack thereof) of the Vienna International Center station, 4U1VIC, comes into question. While 4U1VIC is recognized as a separate entity (or counter or multiplier) by some contest and awards organizers, the ARRL at present treats it as part of Austria for DXCC purposes.

The basic claim is that this is unfair, considering that 4U1ITU at ITU Headquarters and 4U1UN at UN Headquarters in New York City both have separate DXCC entity status.

Is it?

4U1ITU has a separate status because, as stated in the DXCC Rules (and I’m referring here to the “DXCC 2000” rules in effect since 1998), “The International Telecommunications Union in Geneva (4U1ITU) shall, because of its significance to world telecommunications, be considered as a Special Entity.” This status dates well back to the early post-WW2 DXCC era, when the rules of what constituted a DXCC country/entity and how they were applied were administered somewhat differently than they are today.

4U1UN was granted separate status, under rules no longer in effect, recognizing that the UN HQ complex in Manhattan was treated as extra-territorial from the rest of NYC. It has it’s own police, issues it’s own postage stamps, and so forth. At one time, the UN club station had a US issued call sign (K2UN if I recall correctly) but has operated under a 4U call since roughly the time it was recognized as a separate entity.

So, why not 4U1VIC? Proponents claim that the Vienna International Center has many of the same extra-territorial functions and abilities as both UN HQ and UN Geneva. Unfortunately, by the time that the applications for recognizing 4U1VIC as a separate entity began, the DXCC rules were changed to exclude most extra-territorial areas from consideration. As I recall, there were many applications at the time (for “entities” including office buildings – 4U1WB for one – the nations of Native American reservations, and so forth). As a result, the rule change excluded not just the most ridiculous applications, but ones that had some degree of legitimacy, of which (IMHO) 4U1VIC had the most.
Was it fair? No. But who ever said life was fair?

In any event, ever since, there have been amateurs upset to one degree or another with the ARRL and the DXCC system, and have periodically kvetched about it ever since.
Is there a solution available? I think there is, and while it may not be what the 4U1VIC proponents entirely wished for, and may require some adjustments to the DXCC rules, it may solve the problem more-or-less fairly once & for all.

I believe that the DXCC rules should be amended to consider the Vienna International Center, and by extension 4U1VIC, part of the UN center in Geneva (ie 4U1ITU) as one and the same entity. By treating 4U1ITU & 4U1VIC as the same entity, the DXCC list does not increase by any additional entities (which would upset the Honor Roll status of many amateurs currently on it or approaching it). It would give many amateurs who’ve worked 4U1VIC but currently lack a QSO with UN ITU one more DXCC counter (and I’m sure in a handful of cases, would remove Austria from some lists – but not that many). And it would solve, frankly, a small political hot potato by removing the objection(s) of those who feel 4U1VIC “deserves” entity status.

But… work needs to be done. First, the case needs to be made that the Vienna International Center is indeed a UN administrative complex, like Geneva and NYC are. If it’s merely a few office buildings that happen to house UN agencies, co-located in the same area of the city, but not considered extra-territorial by the local governments, then any chance of making 4U1VIC a separate entity becomes slimmer.

Secondly, and more importantly, the case needs to be made to the administrators of the DXCC program – that is to say, the DXCC Desk, the DX Advisory Committee, and eventually the ARRL Board of Directors – that either the rules need to be modified or a special one-time exception needs to be made.

Under current rules, 4U1ITU is considered a Special Entity (under the Special Areas rules) and cannot be considered as the “parent” entity for others (Section II Rule 3A). All other UN areas (except 4U1UN, which is grandfathered in as a pre-1998 entity (Section II Rule 3e)) are explicitly excluded as an Ineligible Area (Section II Rule 4Aii). These are the rules that we have to deal with. (See http://www.arrl.org/awards/dxcc/rules.html#si for the current DXCC rules that I am referring to). I had hoped that only one of these would need modification, but the Separation by Land area (Section II Rule 2A) does not apply, as the distance from Geneva to Vienna is approximately 818 km, well beyond the current 100 km rule.

Therefore, in order to grant entity status to 4U1VIC, I would suggest that one of the following occur:

Section II Rule 3A be modified to permit the VIC to be considered as part of the same geographic area as the 4U1ITU entity (ie the ITU be permitted to be the parent of just this one entity because of the unique status of the VIC); that Section II Rule 2A be waived or extended to 900 km for this one case only; and Section II Rule 4Aii be waived for this one case only

A new sub-rule be added to Section II Rule 3; something on the lines of “3Ai. The Vienna International Center station 4U1VIC is considered to be part of the ITU entity for DXCC purposes only”

A new Special Area be added under Section II Rule 3 to recognize 4U1VIC as a separate entity, and as a separate one from the UN ITU. (I do not favor this one as I think it has the least probability of occurring)

The DXCC and all of it’s derivatives are amongst (if not the) the most sough-after awards of the DX community due to it’s high standards and strict enforcement of the rules. Changes to them should not be made on a whim, and special exceptions need to be weighed carefully. By the same token, the rules should be applied as fairly as possible and practical.

If indeed there is an injustice regarding the 4U1VIC lack of status, it should be investigated and dealt with accordingly, and fairly.

The time has come to put this small controversy to an end, one way or another.

I believe 4U1VIC has a case that it deserves the status that only unfortunate timing denied it, that had the station existed before the rules changes years ago, it may have indeed qualified. In all fairness, I think this matter should be re-opened and IF it is determined that they do have a case, a special one-time exception be made.

 

“Why 4U1VIC is not DXCC separate country?”

Subject: RTTY 4U1VIC
From: bernie at dailydx.com (Bernie McClenny, W3UR)
Date: Thu May 8 18:33:46 2003

I think the reason is stated below.
“Areas having the following characteristics are not eligible for
inclusion on the DXCC List, and are considered as part of the host

Entity for DXCC purposes:

i) Any extraterritorial legal Entity of any nature including, but not
limited to, embassies, consulates, monuments, offices of the United
Nations agencies or related organizations, other inter-governmental
organizations or diplomatic missions;”

I believe this rule was put in to effect after 4U1ITU and 4U1UN were
added to the list and before 4U1VIC, 4U1WP, 4U1WB, etc. were QRV.
4U1ITU and 4U1UN were grandfathered, so to speak. Until something
changes they will remain on the list.

Bernie, W3UR
—
Bernie McClenny, W3UR – Editor of The Daily DX, The Weekly DX and How’s DX.

From: rtty-bounces@contesting.com
On Behalf Of Thomas Korinek
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 20:08
To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: RTTY 4U1VIC

Unfortunately Jeff wk6i is right – at least according to the ARRL-rules.
The ARRL tells us that 4U1VIC counts for OE.

Just wonder why 4U1ITU does NOT count for HB???

And why 4U1UN does not count for W ???

The Vienna International Center definitely is NOT part of OE. It is exterritorial !!!!
So since it is NOT austrian territory – why should it count as OE ???
(Just because a bunch of old mans = ARRL decided it that way ???) Ahh – to err
is human – so pse forgive me – ahh them ….

PSE Do us a favor:
If you want to get your DXCC send them a qsl card from an OE-station NOT
the one from 4U1VIC to get your credit for OE.

PS: I also have operated from 4U1VIC in the early 90?s. (Till we had cleaned
up the bands – then it became boring since nobody else needed a qso …)
That?s all for now
73 de Tom – OE1KTS

From: Jeff Stai WK6I <wk6i@twistedoak.com>
To: Roberto <ea2ry@ea2ry.com>; RTTY Reflector <rtty@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: </rtty@contesting.com></ea2ry@ea2ry.com></wk6i@twistedoak.com>RTTY 4U1VIC

> At 09:25 AM 5/8/2003, Roberto wrote:
> >Today i have received following qsl via bureau:
> >
> >4U1VIC – Vienna International Amateur Radio Club – United Nations in Vienna
> >QSO1: SEP-1999 – RTTY – 15M
> >QSO2: NOV-2001 – CW – 15M
> >
> >This callsign is valued for 4U-ITU or 4U-UN ??????
>I have contacts with 4U1WB (World Bank) in Washington DC, which are considered a US (K) contact.
>
> If this is an indication, then your QSL would be OE (Austria).
>Best to check with the DXCC desk to be sure – 73! – jeff wk6i
>
> Jeff Stai jds@twistedoak.com
> Twisted Oak Winery http://www.twistedoak.com/
> Rocketry Org. of CA http://www.rocstock.org/
> Amateur Radio WK6I

 

4U1VIC DXCC status explained
B. Peter Treml Mon, 02 Jul 2001 18:35:23 -0700

About 10 days ago I posted a question about the DXCC status of 4U1VIC. I received many and somewhat varied responses. I am including for your review and excellent response from Horst-OE1OLW that should further enlighten many on the blurred status of the station.

73,Pete-K8PT — Dear Pete, read your query concerning the status of 4U1VIC. This is the station of the Vienna International Amateur Radio Club. It is located at the Vienna International Centre in Vienna which is NOT Austrian but extra-territorial area. Nevertheless, ARRL ignores this status and does not recognize it as a separate entity, but as part of Austria, thereby flagrantly disregarding international negotiations between the UN (of which the US are a Meber State) and the Govt of Austria. A Press release will clarify this odd situation in the near future.

It is correct that 4U1VIC is being recognized as a distinct entity for the Worked-All-Europe Award.

73, Horst H. Eisenlohr, OE3OLW, former (1.) president of the VIARC.
———————————————————————
B.Peter Treml, K8PT
725 W. Magnetic St.
Marquette,
Michigan USA

• DXCC ARRL Rules
• DXCC ARRL DXCC List ( PDF file)
• DXCC FAQ
• DX-WORLD.net