scholarly journals Shared Obligations and the Responsibility of an International Organization and Its Member States

Author(s):  
Nataša Nedeski

Abstract Discussions on the allocation of international responsibility between an international organization and its member states do not comprehensively engage with the role of obligations in assigning responsibility to the organization and/or its members. The present article sets out what will be termed an obligations-based approach to the allocation of international responsibility by exploring the phenomenon of sharing international obligations by an international organization and its members, as well as the implications thereof for their responsibility under international law. It will do so by focusing on the practice of concluding mixed agreements by the EU and its member states, which commonly results in overlapping obligations for the organization and its members. It is ultimately argued that a distinction should be made between two types of shared obligations in mixed agreements in order to untangle who can be held responsible in case of a breach: the EU, the member state(s), or both.

2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 448-467
Author(s):  
Esa Paasivirta

This article outlines the contours of the special case of the eu in the context of the general question of the responsibility of a member State of an international organization. The special case of eu member States is connected with the modus operandi of the eu in general, and the fact that the implementation of eu acts is largely carried out by national authorities rather than by the eu relying solely on its own organs. This special case is also connected with the phenomenon of so-called ‘mixed agreements’ to which both the eu and its member States are parties. In both situations, the role of the member States is important and appears as part of the normal conduct of the organization. Against the background of these observations, the paper reviews the central concepts of legal personality, competence and responsibility in order to consider and assess the special case of the eu in a broader international law context. The paper also reviews recent legal developments which bear on the assessment of the special case of the eu.


Author(s):  
Miriam Bak McKenna

Abstract Situating itself in current debates over the international legal archive, this article delves into the material and conceptual implications of architecture for international law. To do so I trace the architectural developments of international law’s organizational and administrative spaces during the early to mid twentieth century. These architectural endeavours unfolded in three main stages: the years 1922–1926, during which the International Labour Organization (ILO) building, the first building exclusively designed for an international organization was constructed; the years 1927–1937 which saw the great polemic between modernist and classical architects over the building of the Palace of Nations; and the years 1947–1952, with the triumph of modernism, represented by the UN Headquarters in New York. These events provide an illuminating allegorical insight into the physical manifestation, modes of self-expression, and transformation of international law during this era, particularly the relationship between international law and the function and role of international organizations.


2011 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-347 ◽  
Author(s):  
Odette Murray

AbstractThis paper applies two manifestations of the principle of good faith – pacta sunt servanda and the doctrine of abuse of rights – to the complex relationship between member states and international organizations. The paper argues that these existing doctrines operate as a legal limit on the conduct of states when creating, controlling and functioning within international organizations. The paper begins by exploring an innovative provision in the International Law Commission's recently finalised Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organisations – Draft Article 61 – according to which a member state will bear international responsibility for the act of an international organization where the member state uses the organization to circumvent its own international obligations. Examining the development of Draft Article 61 and the jurisprudence upon which it is based, this paper argues that the principle which the Commission in fact seeks to articulate in Draft Article 61 is that of good faith in the performance of treaties. As such, being based on a primary rule of international law, this paper queries whether Draft Article 61 belongs in a set of secondary rules. The paper then considers the role of states in the decision-making organs of international organizations and argues that the widely held presumption against member state responsibility for participation in decision-making organs can and should be displaced in certain cases, in recognition of the various voting mechanisms in international organizations and the varied power which certain states may wield. The paper argues that the doctrine of abuse of rights operates as a fundamental legal limit on the exercise of a member state's voting discretion, and thereby forms a complementary primary obligation placed on states in the context of their participation in international organizations.


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.


2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Esa Paasivirta

AbstractThe paper addresses the issue of possible responsibility of a member state for acts of an international organization of which it is a member. This particular issue forms part of the on-going work of the International Law Commission of establishing rules for the responsibility of international organizations. The particular challenge is posed by possible “responsibility gaps”, i.e. situations where a state might avoid compliance with its own obligations by prompting the organization of which it is a member to act instead. The paper compares the ILC approach, approaching the issue by way of trying to establish general rules of responsibility (“secondary rules”) and the practice of the EU, which has addressed the issue by tailor-made solutions in the context of specific treaties (“primary rules”). The latter approach is more flexible as it allows individual solutions pertinent to particular circumstances and treaty regimes so as to ensure that either the organization itself or its member state is responsible, depending whichever is genuinely responsible. The paper concludes that the ILC work is progressing in the right direction as it narrows down the possibilities where a member state can be held responsible to cover only situations bordering abuse, rather than more open-ended standards for individual member state responsibility, which can open the door for unpredictable results.


Author(s):  
Jan Klabbers

Abstract This article discusses the pioneering role of the ILO not in terms of its contribution to labour law, but in terms of its epistemic relevance: it was the first international organization which cut through the classic borderline between national law and international law. In order to do so, the article sketches pre-ILO legal doctrine, and discusses the creation and particular structure of the ILO at some length: why even create an organization to address labour issues, instead of concluding a convention? This is followed by outlining just how relevant the role of the ILO has been.


Author(s):  
Lorenzo Gasbarri

Exceptionalist conceptualizations are grounded on the belief that certain institutions develop differently from others, and consequently, the same international regulatory framework cannot apply to all: member states are agents or third parties depending on the organization; the rules are internal or international depending on the organization; the institutional veil is characterized in degrees of transparency depending on the organization; the autonomy of the organization is a matter of degrees; the conduct of a member state acting in the institutional forum can be relevant as a matter of international law depending on the organization; organizations are very different entities depending on descriptive elements, such as their level of integration or their geographical scope. This chapter describes the historical roots of this theory and later explains why the rules are either perceived as international or as internal law depending on the organization. The theory is rebutted examining the exceptionalism of the EU and of the OSCE.


Author(s):  
Cremona Marise

This chapter examines the EU’s robust and complex treaty-making. The first section deals with the EU’s treaty-making capacity from the perspective of EU law, and then of international treaty practice. It examines the ways in which international treaty-making practice has accommodated EU participation in bilateral and in multilateral agreements. The second section discusses the legal effects of treaties concluded by the EU, first as regards the EU legal order, including their enforcement and interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the legal effects of mixed agreements. A discussion of the impact of EU treaty-making on the powers of the Member States follows: through the doctrines of exclusivity and pre-emption, the impact of EU law on treaties concluded by the Member States, and finally EU treaty-making from the perspective of international responsibility.


2007 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean d'Aspremont

AbstractIt is classically contended that when an international organization endowed with international legal personality commits an international wrongful act, the organization is to be held exclusively responsible even though the act would have constituted a violation of its member states' obligations if committed by them. This Article intends to depart from such a rigid interpretation of the responsibility of international organization and makes the argument that when member states abuse the international legal personality of an international organization through the exercise of an excessive control over the decision-making process of the organization, they must be held, together with the organization, responsible for violations of international law by the organization provided that such a wrongful act would also constitute a breach of the member states' international obligations if committed by them. It is posited here that, in this situation, member states can no longer hide behind the screen of the international legal personality of the organization. Failing to take the extent of control exercised by member states over the decision-making process of an international organization into account boils down to ignoring that autonomy is one of the constitutive elements of the legal personality of an international organization, which can bolster the contemporary move away from international institutionalism.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document