Whether the term 'liability' can be used in an unenforceable, non-obligatory context

QUESTIONS PRESENTED An agreement to be liable binds a party to an enforceable obligation in law and justice. This is true under the laws of the United States and it has been affirmed repeatedly in official documents of the United Nations (“UN”). In conflict with this universal and widely understood definition, the Second Circuit ruled that an express assumption of liability by the SecretaryGeneral of the UN, which was then legislatively adopted by the UN General Assembly, was limited to internal UN claims processes that are either nonexistent or not binding. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the term “liability” can be used in an unenforceable, non-obligatory context, making it plausible that an entity would use the term in a legislative enactment to refer to claims processes that have never existed or are otherwise not binding on the party agreeing to be liable. 2. Whether an express agreement to be liable without limiting such liability to a binding forum subjects a party—which heretofore had absolute immunity—to the jurisdiction of any court with otherwise competent jurisdiction to hear the claim. 3. Whether, at the pleading stage of a tort action, a plaintiff has met its burden to survive dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3) where an affirmative, plausible case has been made for jurisdiction and there is no other plausible explanation for the use of a term in a legislative enactment that has a well-known meaning at common law and under the law of the United States.