7 Immunity, 7.10 Mothers of Srebrenica v The Netherlands and the UN , LJN: BW1999, Dutch Supreme Court, 13 April 2012 and Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and Others against The Netherlands , App. No. 65542/12, European Court of Human Rights, 11 June 2013

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Momirov Aleksandar
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Doctrinal Development ◽  
European Court ◽  
The One ◽  
Right Of Access ◽  
Dutch Supreme

Increasingly, domestic and regional courts have engaged in reinterpreting the international law on immunities. The two present decisions add to a broader jurisprudential development through which courts have started to question the scope of immunity enjoyed by international organizations—or rather the unconditionality thereof—as a response to human rights-based critique. Whether or not international organizations enjoy immunity before a domestic court should, according to this developing approach, depend on a balancing act between, on the one hand, the functional interests of the international organization and, on the other hand, the individuals’ right of access to court. The decisions discussed in this section illustrate this doctrinal development as well as the limits of this developing line of jurisprudence by confirming that the immunity of the UN, as a sui generis international organization, shall not be subjected to the aforementioned balancing act.

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.

EFFECTIVE LIMITATIONS AND ILLUSORY RIGHTS: A COMMENT ON THE MOTHERS OF SREBRENICA DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 269-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valentina Spiga
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Critical Review ◽  
The Other ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Alternative Means ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

The latest attempt by the relatives of the victims of the Srebrenica massacre to hold the UN accountable for the inaction of UNPROFOR while the Bosnian enclave was attacked has once again proven unsuccessful. In a unanimous decision in the Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and others v. the Netherlands case, the European Court of Human Rights declared the application to be ill-founded, finding that the decision of Dutch courts to grant immunity to the UN did not violate the applicants’ right of access to a court. An intrinsic tension between two contemporary trends seems to be embodied in this recent decision. On the one hand the decision follows established and authoritative practice according to which a civil claim cannot override immunity from jurisdiction even though no alternative means of redress is available. On the other hand it conflicts with the growing emphasis placed on the right of access to justice and the right to remedy for victims of gross violations of human rights in the last decade. This note aims to provide a critical review of the decision, focusing on the “alternative means of remedy” test in cases involving the immunity of international organizations. In doing so, the note questions whether such a test must always be a prerequisite for the effective enjoyment of the right of access to a court.

The Obligation to Afford Reparation to Injured Individuals

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carla Ferstman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter considers the consequences of breaches of human rights and international humanitarian law for the responsible international organizations. It concentrates on the obligations owed to injured individuals. The obligation to make reparation arises automatically from a finding of responsibility and is an obligation of result. I analyse who has this obligation, to whom it is owed, and what it entails. I also consider the right of individuals to procedures by which they may vindicate their right to a remedy and the right of access to a court that may be implied from certain human rights treaties. In tandem, I consider the relationship between those obligations and individuals’ rights under international law. An overarching issue is how the law of responsibility intersects with the specialized regimes of human rights and international humanitarian law and particularly, their application to individuals.

Cestaro v. Italy: The European Court of Human Rights on the Duty to Criminalise Torture and Italy’s Structural Problem

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 567-585
Author(s):  
Domenico Carolei
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Structural Problem ◽  
European Court ◽  
The One ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Normative Content ◽  
Italian Legislation

In April 2015, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Italian legislation is inadequate to criminalise acts of torture (Cestaro v. Italy). Following the ECtHR’s decision, the Italian Parliament approved the bill A.C. 2168 which aimed to introduce the crime of torture (Article 613-bis) in the Italian Criminal Code. The bill does not seem to comply with the definition of torture provided by international law, and also neglects the legislative guidelines outlined by the ECtHR in Cestaro v. Italy. The purpose of this article is twofold. On the one hand, it will assess the ECtHR’s decision focusing on Italy’s structural problem and its duty to enact and enforce efficient criminal provisions under Article 3 of the European Convention. On the other hand, it will analyse the normative content of Article 613-bis in order to highlight its weaknesses and propose, on each of them, suggestions for amendment.

I. Diplomatic Representations and Diplomatic Protection

2002 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 723-733 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Warbrick ◽  
Dominic McGoldrick
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organisations ◽  
Civil Action ◽  
Diplomatic Protection ◽  
Foreign State ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

The European Court of Human Rights has decided in the last three years five cases dealing with state or international immunities.1 Although the facts differed, the arguments of the applicants were much the same. They contended that allowing a foreign State or an international organisation to claim immunity in a civil action in proceedings in the defendant State violated the applicants' rights to access to a court for the determination of a civil right.2 The European Court accepted the claims in principle but concluded in each case that the limitation imposed on the right of access was for a legitimate reason (the protection of State or international immunities, a condition for effective co-operation between States or with international organisations) and was proportionate to this aim, because in each case, the grant of immunity was required by international law and that in each case there was the possibility of the applicant using another procedure to try to assert his rights, action in the courts of the foreign State or under the special staff regime of the international organisation.

scholarly journals The Phenomena of Fragmentation in the Legal Relations between the Council of Europe and the European Union

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Viktoriya Kuzma
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Continent ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Law

This article presents the current issues in the law of international organizations and contemporary international law in general. It is pointed out that the division of international law into branches and institutions, in order to ensure the effective legal regulation of new spheres of relations, led to the emergence of autonomous legal regimes, even within one region, namely on the European continent. To date, these include European Union law and Council of Europe law. It is emphasized the features of the established legal relations between the Council of Europe and the European Union at the present stage. It is determined that, along with close cooperation between regional organizations, there is a phenomenon of fragmentation, which is accompanied by the creation of two legal regimes within the same regional subsystem, proliferation of the international legal norms, institutions, spheres and conflicts of jurisdiction between the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is revealed that some aspects of fragmentation can be observed from the moment of establishing relations between the Council of Europe and the European Union, up to the modern dynamics of the functioning of the system of law of international organizations, the law of international treaties, law of human rights. Areas and types of fragmentation in relations between international intergovernmental organizations of the European continent are distinguished. One way to overcome the consequences of fragmentation in the field of human rights is highlighted, namely through the accession of the European Union to the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950. Considerable attention has also been paid to defragmentation, which is partly reflected in the participation of the European Union in the Council of Europe’s conventions by the applying «disconnection clause». It is determined that the legal relations established between an international intergovernmental organization of the traditional type and the integration association sui generis, the CoE and the EU, but with the presence of phenomenon of fragmentation in a close strategic partnership, do not diminish their joint contribution into the development of the law of international organizations and contemporary international law in general. Key words: defragmentation; European Union; European Court of Human Rights; Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950; conflict of jurisdictions; «disconnection clause»; Council of Europe; Court of Justice of the European Union; fragmentation; sui generis.

Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Breaches Attributable to International Organizations

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carla Ferstman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
International Organization ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Attribution Of Responsibility

The chapter considers how to determine whether a particular internationally wrongful act is attributable to an international organization, or another actor under international law. It considers the circumstances in which international organizations may breach the human rights and international humanitarian law obligations that they are bound to respect and incur liability in the case of a breach. It also considers when the conduct amounting to a breach is an act of the organization for the purposes of assigning responsibility. It analyses the framework for the attribution of responsibility set out in the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations.

Interim Conclusions

2021 ◽  
pp. 80-90
Author(s):  
Lorenzo Gasbarri
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
International Organization ◽  
The Other ◽  
Absolute Point ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Argumentative Strategy

This chapter summarizes the previous findings and exposes the false dichotomies that led to the proliferation of the different conceptualizations. It shows how the four conceptualizations can be applied to a legal dispute concerning the responsibility of an international organization. In particular, it discusses the Al-Dulimi case before the European Court of Human Rights. The circumstances of the case prompt the adoption of one or the other conceptualization on the basis of the argumentative strategy. The analysis highlights the difficulties in providing a general legal framework to establish the responsibility of international organizations and/or of their member states. The chapter is divided into two subsections, focusing on the admissibility and the merits of the Al-Dulimi case. It concludes that the adoption of an international legal framework applicable to all international organizations is subject to the possibility to rebut limited perspectives and to adopt an ‘absolute point of view’.

Belgian Courts and the Immunity of International Organizations

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 464-504
Author(s):  
Eric De Brabandere
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Organization ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Alternative Means ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

The functional underpinning of institutional immunity remains crucial today in order to guarantee the independent fulfilment by the organization of its mandate. Despite this relatively firmly established principle, domestic courts and tribunals have shown in recent cases that they are very critical of the idea of the absolute character of international organization immunity, not the least in relation to the right of access to court, guaranteed inter alia by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Belgium is host to between 50 and 100 international organizations or liaison offices of international organizations, most of which are located in Brussels. For that reason, the number of potential disputes involving an international organization in Belgium is important. This paper gives an overview of the official Belgian policy in respect of international organization immunity, and analyses relevant Belgian case-law that considers the rationale behind the grant of privileges and immunities to international organizations. It then considers the source of an international organization’s immunity, the scope of that immunity, and the obligation to provide for alternative means of dispute settlement and the individual’s right of access to court.

DUAL ATTRIBUTION OF ACTS COMMITTED BY A UN PEACEKEEPING FORCE: AN EMERGING NORM OF CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW? THE DUTCH SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENTS IN NUHANOVIÇ AND MUSTAFIĆ

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 287-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Bakker
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Un Peacekeeping ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court

In two cases lodged by victims (or their relatives) of the massacre in Srebrenica in 1995, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands has taken a progressive stance on the interpretation of international law on the responsibility of States and international organizations for wrongful acts. The Supreme Court upheld the earlier decisions of The Hague Court of Appeal, confirming that the Netherlands can be held responsible for the death and injuries of these victims, despite the fact that the Dutch troops employed to protect this enclave were part of a United Nations (UN) peacekeeping force. By accepting the possibility of dual attribution of an internationally wrongful act to both the UN and the troop-sending State, it has departed from the restrictive approach adopted in current judicial practice, in particular by the European Court of Human Rights. In this note, the Supreme Court’s judgments are discussed, focusing on (i) the question of dual attribution of an international wrongful act, and (ii) the extraterritorial application of human rights treaties. It concludes that, although the Supreme Court’s reliance on two sets of Draft Articles of the International Law Commission without referring to any State practice is surprising, these judgments should be welcomed as significant precedents, which may contribute to the development of a norm of customary international law. They also constitute an important step towards ensuring access to justice and reparation for the victims of gross human rights violations, such as those committed in Srebrenica.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document