Abstract
In her recent article on the reputation of international organizations (IOs), Kristina Daugirdas concludes that reputation's constraining effect has some serious shortcomings in the context of sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA). This essay extends those conclusions to recent mass torts cases against IOs. In particular, it argues that member states and IOs have independent and overlapping concerns that have contributed to devaluing the relevance of a “good reputation,” particularly when it comes to providing compensation for wrongful conduct. IOs, it seems, do not want to develop a reputation for deep pockets. Nonetheless, this essay also demonstrates that when compensation is not at issue, there are instances in which reputation matters to IOs. It concludes by discussing recent cases related to responsibility and organizational immunities and suggests that the trend of narrowing immunities may change the reputational calculus for IOs and member states significantly.
Highlights
In her recent article on the reputation of international organizations (IOs), Kristina Daugirdas concludes that reputation’s constraining effect has some serious shortcomings in the context of sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA).[1]. This essay extends those conclusions to recent mass torts cases against IOs. It argues that member states and IOs have independent and overlapping concerns that have contributed to devaluing the relevance of a “good reputation,” when it comes to providing compensation for wrongful conduct
It concludes by discussing recent cases related to responsibility and organizational immunities and suggests that the trend of narrowing immunities may change the reputational calculus for IOs and member states significantly
Facing mounting member state withdrawals from the Court, the International Criminal Court (ICC) eventually expanded its investigations to other regions
Summary
In her recent article on the reputation of international organizations (IOs), Kristina Daugirdas concludes that reputation’s constraining effect has some serious shortcomings in the context of sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA).[1]. It concludes by discussing recent cases related to responsibility and organizational immunities and suggests that the trend of narrowing immunities may change the reputational calculus for IOs and member states significantly
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
