The Allocation of International Responsibility between International Organizations and Their Member States: A Case of Indirect Responsibility?

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 755-770
Author(s):  
Christiane Ahlborn
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Review Essay ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Extensive Discussion ◽  
Member States ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
Insightful Analysis ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

Abstract While the responsibility of international organizations and their member states has been on the agenda of courts and scholars for decades, the adoption of the Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (ARIO) by the International Law Commission in 2011 has given new impetus to the debate. Nikolaos Voulgaris’ Allocating International Responsibility between Member States and International Organizations is one of the few general books on the topic that post-dates the adoption of the ARIO. Despite its broad title, however, the focus of the book is rather narrow: it concentrates on the responsibility of an international organization or a state in connection with the act of a/another state or international organization, which Voulgaris describes as ‘indirect responsibility’. Considering the book’s extensive discussion of the function and nature of international responsibility, this review essay first submits that the book’s actual aim is a rethinking of indirect responsibility. Second, it examines Voulgaris’ reconceptualization of the pertinent provisions on indirect responsibility in terms of what he calls the ‘complicity’ and ‘derivative responsibility’ models. This review essay concludes that the reader who expects detailed guidance on the allocation of responsibility between international organizations and their member states will be left wanting. Instead, the interaction between international organizations and their member states serves as an illustration for the book’s insightful analysis of the under-theorized provisions on international responsibility in connection with the act of another.

International Responsibility

2021 ◽  
pp. 176-207
Author(s):  
Lorenzo Gasbarri
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Final Consequence ◽  
Law Commission

The final consequence of the dual legal nature discussed in the book concerns the international responsibility of international organizations. In particular, this chapter describes how the absence of a common conceptualization affected the work of the International Law Commission, the International Law Institute, and the International Law Association. Afterwards, the chapter focuses on the dual attribution of conduct to an international organization and to its member states. It contends that dual attribution is extremely important in practice and it reviews the cases in which it was at issue. After providing a set of principles on how to apply the dual attribution, it distinguishes between three sets of circumstances: dual attribution via institutional links, dual attribution via factual links, and exclusion of dual attribution when the conduct is attributable to only the organization or its member states. Finally, it discusses the effects of dual attribution in terms of joint responsibility.

The Use of Analogies in Drafting the Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations An Appraisal of the ‘Copy-Paste Approach’

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christiane Ahlborn
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Considerable Uncertainty ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

In view of the adoption and future reception of the Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (ARIO) on second reading, this contribution seeks to offer some reflections on the ‘copy-paste narrative’ that has characterized the process of drafting the ARIO by the International Law Commission (ILC). On the basis of a brief introduction to the concept of analogies in international law, it is explained that the use of analogies is not to be equated with a mechanical exercise of copy-pasting legal rules; rather, it constitutes a method of legal reasoning based on a principled assessment of relevant similarities and differences. By comparing the ARIO with the ILC’s Articles on State Responsibility (ASR), it will be demonstrated that the ARIO actually do not follow the example of the ASR in many key provisions. Interestingly, much of the critique of the ARIO has been directed against these dissimilar provisions, especially when they concern the relations between an international organization and its member States. Since this critique is mainly driven by considerable uncertainty as to the determination of the responsible actor(s), it will be suggested that the ILC should have used closer analogies with the ASR in order to enhance the overall coherence of the law of international responsibility. This is because, as argued in conclusion, the corporate complexity of international organizations and States may necessitate a unified set of Articles on International Responsibility.

Internationally Wrongful Acts in the Domestic Courts: The Contribution of Domestic Courts to the Development of Customary International Law Relating to the Engagement of International Responsibility

2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 615-642 ◽  
Author(s):  
SIMON OLLESON
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Further Development ◽  
Law Commission ◽  
Point Of Reference

AbstractThe rules of customary international law governing when a state or international organization will be held to have committed an internationally wrongful act, thereby engaging its international responsibility, are relatively well settled in international practice and jurisprudence. A key point of reference in this regard is the work of the International Law Commission on State Responsibility and Responsibility of International Organizations. The present paper examines relevant practice of domestic courts from a variety of jurisdictions which have relied upon the ILC's work, and discusses the extent to which domestic courts may make a contribution to the further development of the rules relating to engagement of responsibility. It concludes that, due to the operation of rules of, inter alia, immunity and non-justiciability, the principal instance in which domestic courts may actually apply the rules of international law is where it is the responsibility of the forum state which is in issue.

Member States’ Due Diligence Obligations to Supervise International Organisations

2020 ◽  
pp. 59-74
Author(s):  
Kristina Daugirdas
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
International Organisations ◽  
Member States ◽  
Distinct Category ◽  
Private Actors ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

There are two reasons to consider member states’ obligations to supervise international organisations as a distinct category of due diligence obligations. First, due diligence obligations typically require states to regulate third parties in some way. But it is harder for states to regulate international organisations than other private actors because international law protects the autonomy of international organisations. Second, such due diligence obligations merit attention because they may compensate for the dearth of mechanisms to hold international organisations accountable when they cause harm. This chapter canvasses member states’ existing obligations vis-à-vis international organisations, and argues in particular that the International Law Commission (ILC) missed an opportunity to frame broader obligations when drafting the Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (the ARIO). The chapter closes by making the normative case for establishing a due diligence obligation on member states to ensure that international organisations do not abuse their immunities.

Rethinking Indirect Responsibility

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-52
Author(s):  
Nikolaos Voulgaris
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Contextual Approach ◽  
Normative Analysis ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
To Come ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
First Time ◽  
Included Article ◽  
Law Commission

In its Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations, the International Law Commission included Article 17 in order to regulate instances in which binding decisions and authorizations were made by international organizations that bound or applied in respect of their member States. Given that courts have struggled in vain to come up with a uniform approach applicable in such situations, one would expect that Article 17 would have been a cause for celebration. Commentators, however, lamented the inclusion of the provision, arguing that it cannot function effectively because it forms part of the problematic Chapter IV that regulates scenarios of indirect responsibility. The article rejects this approach. For the first time, it offers an integrated normative analysis of all Chapter IV provisions, and calls on the reader to rethink indirect responsibility in a way that advances and promotes coherence in the law of international responsibility. The paper adopts a contextual approach, and suggests that this understanding of Article 17 offers courts a twofold opportunity: first, the ability to effectively tackle cases that have troubled them to date; and second, to initiate a change in the way in which States and international organizations interact in the international arena.

scholarly journals The Dual Legality of the Rules of International Organizations

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorenzo Gasbarri
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
The Law ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

This paper examines the legal nature of the ‘rules of international organizations’ as defined by the International Law Commission in its works on the law of treaties and on international responsibility. Part 1 introduces the debate with an example concerning the nature of un Security Council anti-terrorism resolutions. Part 2 challenges the four theories of the rules envisaged by scholarship. Part 3 is an attempt to examine the characteristics of the legal system produced by international organizations taking advantage of analytical jurisprudence, developing a theory of their legal nature defined as ‘dual legality’. Part 4 concludes by appraising the effects of the dual legality looking at the law of treaties, international responsibility and invalidity for ultra vires acts.

Conclusion

2021 ◽  
pp. 208-210
Author(s):  
Lorenzo Gasbarri
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
The Law

This chapter summarizes the main findings of the book. The concept of an international organization is defined by looking at the nature of the legal systems they develop. The notion of ‘dual legal nature’ describes how organizations create particular legal systems that derive from international law. This peculiar condition affects the law they produce, which is international and internal at the same time. The effects of the dual legal nature are discussed by analysing international responsibility, the law of treaties, and the validity of organizations’ acts. This conceptualization allows the development of a common legal framework applicable to all international organizations, despite their differences in terms of powers, membership, size, and other descriptive features. In particular, the most valuable consequence of this conceptualization is to rebut a frequent argumentative motif, under which organizations are either perceived as vehicles for member states’ interests or as autonomous entities.

Responsibility of the United Nations for Wrongful Acts Occurred in the Framework of Authorized Operations in Light of the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (dario)

2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-151
Author(s):  
Frédérique Lozanorios
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
International Organization ◽  
The Other ◽  
European Court ◽  
Chain Of Command ◽  
The One ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

When the Security Council authorizes a State or an international organization to use force, it entrusts it with authority over the chain of command of the operation. That is why the un has always declined to assume responsibility for conduct occurring in the context such operations. While this position is widely supported by practice, and by the 2011 Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (dario) of the International Law Commission (ilc), certain cases brought before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) such as Behrami/Saramati have challenged this principle. These cases had the merit of bringing to the fore uncertainties about the rules of responsibility applicable to complex schemes of peacekeeping. This study aims to address the question: in the light of the dario, to what extent could responsibility be attributed to the un for conduct occurred in the framework of authorized operations, and what kind of responsibility would that be? First, it argues that no basis can be found in the principles of independent responsibility to justify the attribution of wrongful conduct committed on the occasion of authorized operations to the un, unless in exceptional factual circumstances. Second, it contends that indirect responsibility could be an appropriate way to apprehend the specific relationships established between the un on the one hand and the operations it has authorized on the other hand.

The Fifty-Sixth Session of the International Law Commission

2005 ◽  
Vol 99 (1) ◽  
pp. 211-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Matheson
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Diplomatic Protection ◽  
Sixth Session ◽  
International Liability ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Fragmentation Of International Law ◽  
Law Commission

The International Law Commission held its fifty-sixdi session in Geneva from May 3 to June 4, and from July 5 to August 6, 2004, under the chairmanship of Teodor Melescanu of Romania. The Commission completed its first reading of draft principles on international liability for transboundary harm and draft articles on diplomatic protection, which have now been submitted for comment by states with a view to their completion in 2006. The Commission also continued its work on reservations to treaties, responsibility of international organizations, unilateral acts of states, fragmentation of international law, and shared natural resources. In addition, the Commission decided to start work next year on the effect of armed conflict on treaties and the expulsion of aliens, and to recommend adding a new topic—the obligation to prosecute or extradite—to its long-term program. The following is a summary of where each topic stands and what issues are likely to be most prominent at the Commission's 2005 session.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document