scholarly journals Responsibility of International Organizations ‘in connection with acts of States’

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nataša Nedeski ◽  
André Nollkaemper

This article offers some reflections on the way in which the ILC Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (ARIO) have addressed the responsibility of international organizations for conduct of member States implementing their normative acts. The ILC has chosen to deal with this issue through the concept of responsibility ‘in connection with’ acts of States, which it had already included in its Articles on State Responsibility (ASR), and more in particular through article 17 on ‘circumvention’. Focusing primarily on this provision, we argue that the attempt to address this particular type of responsibility forced the ILC to relax the conceptual straightjackets it had opted for in the ASR, thereby exposing certain ambiguities in the foundations of the law of international responsibility.

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 311-330
Author(s):  
Martins Paparinskis

Abstract This paper considers the role that the law of international responsibility, both State responsibility and responsibility of international organizations, plays in claims and disputes about covid-19. It proceeds by examining in turn the rubrics of the internationally wrongful act, content of responsibility, and implementation of responsibility. On most points, blackletter law is perfectly capable of answering the questions raised by claims related to covid-19. But evolutionary potential inherent in the normal international legal process should also be recognised, whether it manifests itself by further strengthening current rules, elaborating vague rules by application, filling gaps in current law by generating new practice or even, exceptionally, revisiting rules currently in force.


2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 293-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramses A. Wessel ◽  
Ige F. Dekker

In academic debates on the responsibility of international organizations and their member States the different identities of States play a crucial role. However, apart from the difficulty to clearly separate ‘State’ and ‘member State’ identities, it is even more complex to distinguish between the different roles ‘member States’ may have in the framework of international organizations. As a general introduction to this special forum, this essay aims to clarify the different identities and roles States may have in relation to international organizations, especially in the context of the responsibility of international organizations. As the subsequent contributions reveal, the law on the international responsibility of international organizations takes account of the possible responsibility of their members. By mapping the different identities States may have in different settings, this contribution argues that such differentiations may be crucial for the further development of adequate international rules on the responsibility of international organizations and their members.


Author(s):  
Lorenzo Gasbarri

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.


2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean d’Aspremont

It is against the backdrop of the conceptual impairment inherited from the Articles on State Responsibility (hereafter ASR) that this note, rather than zeroing in on what could have been better devised at the micro-level of the Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (hereafter ARIO), adopts a holistic view on the approaches to the law of international responsibility. In so doing, the ARIO are not approached in isolation but together with the ASR. This paper argues that, envisaged together with the ASR, the ARIO magnify the structural straits of the law of international responsibility. It more particularly argues that the ARIO reveal that the minor and almost invisible defects at the level of the ASR have enlarged on the occasion of their transposition to the responsibility of international organizations, unveiling the conceptual fissures of the whole law of international responsibility (Section 1). It then formulates a few epistemological considerations on how a normative instrument that so openly lays bare the limits of the current law of international responsibility could nonetheless be usefully received by our professional community (Section 2).


2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
August Reinisch

AbstractQuestions concerning the international responsibility of international organizations and/or their member States for internationally wrongful acts primarily raise important issues of attribution. In addition, a concurrent responsibility may arise from situations where international organizations aid or assist or direct and control the acts of States or other international organizations. This contribution intends to highlight some problems that stem from the fact that the current formulations of Articles 13 and 14 of the ILC Draft Articles on responsibility of international organizations are largely based on the corresponding provisions of the 2001 ILC Articles on State responsibility.


2012 ◽  
Vol 106 (2) ◽  
pp. 322-340 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald McRae

On November 17, 2011, the UN General Assembly elected the members of the International Law Commission for the next five years. In the course of the quinquennium that was completed in August 2011 with the end of the sixty-third session, the Commission concluded four major topics on its agenda: the law of transboundary aquifers, the responsibility of international organizations, the effect of armed conflicts on treaties, and reservations to treaties. It was by any standard a substantial output. The beginning of a new quinquennium now provides an opportunity to assess what the Commission has achieved, to consider the way it operates, and to reflect on what lies ahead for it.


Author(s):  
Lorenzo Gasbarri

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.


Author(s):  
Lorenzo Gasbarri

Functionalism is conventionally considered the mainstream paradigm of the law of international organizations: organizations are agents of their member states by the means of a contractual relationship; the law created by international organizations is purely international law; the institutional veil is characterized by a crystallin transparency; the autonomy of the organization is minimal and only granted by a rigid conferral of competences and few implied powers; the conduct of member states acting in the institutional forum is relevant as a matter of international law. This chapter introduces the historical roots of this conceptualization and elaborates why under this perspective the rules of the organizations are purely international law. It describes the flaws of this theory, discussing the breach of institutional rules by the organization and the adoption of countermeasures against a wrongful act committed by a member state.


Author(s):  
James Crawford

This chapter discusses the basis and character of state responsibility, attribution to the state, breach of an international obligation, and circumstances precluding wrongfulness. This chapter focuses on the articulation of the law of responsibility through the ILC’s Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts.


2007 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-89
Author(s):  
Jan Klabbers

AbstractTreaty conflict is one of the more significant practical issues in international law these days, in particular as the law of treaties is unable to solve the most difficult emanations. With international organizations, there is the added consideration that the organization may wish to preserve its internal legal order. The present paper investigates the practice of the EC/EU plus its member states, trying to chart the techniques used by them in order to solve or prevent treaty conflicts. It presents a taxonomy of this practice as well as an interpretation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document