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.

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.

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.

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’.

The Twenty-Fourth Session of the International Law Commission

1973 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard D. Kearney
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
The Other ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Unfinished Business ◽  
Complete Work ◽  
State Succession ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Fourth Session ◽  
Law Commission

The agenda that faced the International Law Commission at the first meeting of the 24th session on May 2, 1972, was a formidable one. The 23rd session in 1971, despite an extension to fourteen weeks in place of the usual ten, had been able to complete work on the draft articles on the Representation of States in their Relations with International Organizations only by concentrating on that subject to the substantial exclusion of other topics. As a consequence the Commission had not made any real progress on the other active subjects before it, which included State Succession in respect of treaties and in respect of matters other than treaties, as divide between two Special Rapporteurs, State Responsibility, the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause, and Treaty Law of International Organizations. In addition, the Commission had before it another piece of unfinished business, the review of its longterm program of work in light of the wide-ranging and thoughtful “Survey of International Law” which had been prepared in 1971 by the U.N. Secretariat at the Commission request.

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.

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 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.

To Discriminate in Order to Fight Discrimination

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dolores Morondo Taramundi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The Other ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Main Technique ◽  
Antidiscrimination Law ◽  
The One ◽  
Paradoxical Results ◽  
Conflicts Of Rights

This chapter analyses arguments regarding conflicts of rights in the field of antidiscrimination law, which is a troublesome and less studied area of the growing literature on conflicts of rights. Through discussion of Ladele and McFarlane v. The United Kingdom, a case before the European Court of Human Rights, the chapter examines how the construction of this kind of controversy in terms of ‘competing rights’ or ‘conflicts of rights’ seems to produce paradoxical results. Assessment of these apparent difficulties leads the discussion in two different directions. On the one hand, some troubles come to light regarding the use of the conflict of rights frame itself in the field of antidiscrimination law, particularly in relation to the main technique (‘balancing of rights’) to solve them. On the other hand, some serious consequences of the conflict of rights frame on the development of the antidiscrimination theory of the ECtHR are unearthed.

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