The Right of Access to Justice for the Staff of International Organizations: The Need for a Reform in the Light of the ICJ Advisory Opinion of 1 Feb. 2012

2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 185-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fulvio Maria Palombino

One of the most common obstacles to the domestic enforcement of international decisions is represented by the presence of a constitutional impediment. Indeed, most national constitutions, though open to international law, can prevent the implementation of an international decision, insofar as the latter conflicts with the basic principles of the constitutional order. This article argues that in such cases it is necessary to preserve a space where the State continues to retain full sovereignty and whose protection acts as an unbreakable “counter-limit” to the limitations deriving from the international legal order (“counter-limits” doctrine). Yet recent judicial and legislative practice in Italy concerning the implementation of the ICJ decision in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State seem to overlook the need to preserve this “space”. As a consequence, certain fundamental constitutional guarantees, such as the right of access to justice, the rule of res judicata and the principle of non-retroactivity of the law, have inescapably ended up being compromised.


2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 269-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valentina Spiga

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.


Author(s):  
Carla Ferstman

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.


2015 ◽  
Vol 109 (2) ◽  
pp. 400-406
Author(s):  
Riccardo Pavoni

With Judgment No. 238/2014, the Italian Constitutional Court (hereinafter Court) quashed the Italian legislation setting out the obligation to comply with the sections of the 2012 decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy; Greece intervening) (Jurisdictional Immunities or Germany v. Italy) that uphold the rule of sovereign immunity with respect to compensation claims in Italian courts based on grave breaches of human rights, including—in the first place—the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Court found the legislation to be incompatible with Articles 2 and 24 of the Italian Constitution, which secure the protection of inviolable human rights and the right of access to justice (operative paras. 1, 2).


Author(s):  
Brölmann Catherine

The 1980 WHO Advisory Opinion elaborates on the general legal obligations (grounded in the duty of co-operation and good faith) that are part of the relationship between an international organization and its host state. In this opinion the ICJ possibly for the first time articulated this relationship as a set of mutual obligations between legal equals. The opinion moreover enunciates the sources of international legal obligations binding upon international organizations (IOs): the treaties they conclude (uncontroversial); I customary international law; their constitutions. The Court uses the proverbial reassurance of UN member states in saying that the WHO is not a ‘super-state’. Finally, in accepting jurisdiction the Court explicitly separated the legal character of the question from the political considerations motivated by that question.


2012 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 253-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric De Brabandere

Abstract The recent IFAD Advisory Opinion of the ICJ has resuscitated the long-standing question of the access of individuals to the Court in advisory proceedings when the Court is acting as a ‘review’ body for judgements rendered by administrative tribunals of international organizations. Under such circumstance, the ICJ is confronted with the existence of an actual underlying dispute between two parties, although only one of the parties to the original dispute may appear before the Court, thus creating an obvious inequality before the Court. This article examines the review procedure before the ICJ, and the position of the individuals before the ICJ in such proceedings. In particular, this article discusses the different inequalities resulting from such procedures, and how the ICJ has remedied these in order not to use its discretion to not reply to the request for an advisory opinion.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-199
Author(s):  
Miguel de Asis Pulido

The purpose of this paper is to study the incidence of new technologies in the judicial process from the perspective of due process. To achieve its objectives, it is important to analyze how the new tools in ICTs and Artificial Intelligence are influencing the rights that must be respected in the judicial and extrajudicial processes, such as the right of access to justice, the right to legal assistance or the right to an independent and impartial tribunal. To do this, the new technological developments are classified in six legal levels of intervention.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document