Responsibility Of International Organizations Research Articles

ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS OF MULTILATERAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS AND THE LAW OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

AbstractMultilateral development banks (MDBs) are international organizations subject to the law of international responsibility. Yet, the relationship between their accountability mechanisms and the International Law Commission (ILC) Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (ARIO) remains unclear. Understanding this relationship is essential in fully realizing the right to remedy in the development finance context. A comparative analysis of these legal frameworks clarifies that notwithstanding their different rationale, scope and functions, the two are not normatively conflicting and both serve to control public power. While the accountability mechanisms correct the ARIO's State-centric orientation by granting legal standing to project-affected people, they have their own deficiency concerning the actions they can prescribe to MDBs upon a finding of noncompliance. Highlighting that the MDBs’ mandate to ‘do no harm’ and pursue sustainable development is left unfulfilled by the accountability mechanisms’ deficient remedial function, this article identifies specific ARIO provisions to complement rather than undermine the MDBs’ accountability system. The ARIO's residual character, combined with the proposition that remedies arise not only from wrongful conduct but also from harm suffered by one party due to another's risky activities, justify this complementarity.

The Articles on the Responsibility of International Organisations – Still Up in the Air after More Than a Decade?

The responsibility of international organizations for internationally wrongful acts is a complex issue of international law – a situation that was meant to be changed by the Articles on the Responsibility of International Organisations (ARIO, 2011). Yet the status of the ARIO remains disputed in theory and practice: it is difficult to say whether it qualifies as customary law or rather the progressive development of the law. This paper outlines some of the most important conceptual frameworks regarding this subject, providing insight into the corresponding questions of interpretation.

Legal Capacity of Regional Organizations in Indonesian Maritime Modernization: A Momentum and Strength

This paper aims to examine the influences of international cooperation between member states of regional organizations in Indonesia's maritime modernization and dispute resolutions of regional international organizations for international violations. This research uses normative juridical research with a statutory approach and a conceptual approach. The results of the discussion show that sea power is the most important element for the progress and glory of a country, which if the sea power is empowered, it will improve the welfare and security of a country. On the other hand, if this sea power is ignored, it will result in losses to a country or even bring down the country. State power can be represented in state membership in international organizations based on the legal capacity of the organization to achieve the objectives of state interests that cover a very broad range of life. Indonesia's active role in international maritime organizations is a momentum and maritime strength in order to support the progress of Indonesia's maritime modernization as stipulated in Presidential Regulation Number 30 of 2019 and dispute resolution between members of the organization based on article 12 Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (DARIO).

FROM THE SECTORAL ANGLE TO THE GENERAL RULES OR HOW THE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY SPACE OBJECTS INFLUENCED THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF STATE RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY?

This article discusses the impact the 1972 Liability Convention exerted upon the further discussion on state responsibility and liability rules within the UN International Law Commission. The question it seeks to answer is the issue of how, and to what extent, its provisions influenced the development of international law on the responsibility of states and international organizations and the institution of international liability of states. Most notably, the present article demonstrates how the Liability Convention served as a reference point for the International Law Commission’s works struggling to codify the general rules of states’ liability. It also examines the factors that, from the mid- 1990s onward, have steadily diminished its role in the ongoing debate and how it finally informed the final shape of the 2006 Draft principles on the allocation of loss in the case of transboundary harm arising from hazardous activities. Furthermore, it analyses the 2001 Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) and the 2011 Articles on Responsibility of International Organizations (ARIO). With this in mind, it is put forward that the differences mandate strict differentiation between international responsibility and international liability at the theoretical level. Nonetheless, the Liability Convention could furnish patterns based on which, notably, the institution of joint and several responsibility of states and international organizations, respectively, have been modelled. Therefore, it is concluded that the lex specialis and the self-contained character of the regime established under this Convention effectively limit its impact on the development of international regimes of responsibility and liability of states and international organizations. However, they do not eliminate them altogether. Ironically, in practical terms, the Convention marked the 2001 ARSIWA and, indirectly, the 2011 ARIO more decisively than the 2006 Draft Principles, even though the Convention – similar to the DP 2006 – addresses states’ liability, not their responsibility.

THE RULE OF ATTRIBUTION FOR PEACEKEEPERS POST-DUTCH SUPREME COURT’S RULINGS ON MOTHERS OF SREBRENICA IN 2019: A DISCOURSE ON PRESUMPTIVE V. PREVENTIVE INTERPRETATION

Peacekeeping operations have become an integral component of the United Nations in promoting global peace and security. Yet, as demands increase to hold peacekeepers accountable for their misdeeds, the legal principle of attribution within the framework of the law of responsibility remains ambiguous and difficult to define. Hence, this study aims to contribute to the discourse on the attribution of the Peacekeepers' conduct, especially on the presumptive v. preventive interpretation of Article 7 Draft Articles on Responsibility of International Organizations. Under the presumptive interpretation, the peacekeeper’s action is presumed to be attributed to the UN; however, attribution can be rebutted if Troop Contributing States (TCS) exercise control over the peacekeepers. In contrast, preventive interpretation argues that attribution must be determined by which entity, TCS or the UN, has the power to prevent the alleged conduct. This study analyzed how the Dutch Supreme Court’s rulings in 2019 approached the question of attribution toward the Dutch Battalion during the mission of UNPROFOR. The Supreme Court found that the action of the Dutch Battalion was attributable to the Netherlands since the Netherlands fulfills the elements of effective control as governed under Article 8 ARSIWA. Moreover, the Supreme Court rejected the preventive interpretation earlier endorsed in the Nuhanovic case. This study employed a normative juridical approach. This study argues that the Court’s rulings on presumptive interpretation are aligned with the practices of the UN’s peacekeepers and the intended purpose of Article 7 DARIO, which emphasizes attribution on factual consideration.

국제법상 국제기구의 행위를 둘러싼 회원국 책임 : 국제기구의 법인격을 중심으로

전통 국제법상 국제기구는 주권국가의 협력을 위한 객체에 불과하였으나 20세기 이후 국제사회의 중요한 행위자로 부상하면서 국제법상의 주체성을 인정 받기 시작했다. 국제기구의 법인격은 국제기구를 이해하는 출발점이자 국제기구의 책임 문제를 판단하는데 결정적인 기준으로 작용해왔다. 국제기구가 회원국과 별개의 법인격을 갖는다는 점에서 국제기구의 의무위반으로 발생한 피해에 대한 책임은 오직 국제기구에 귀속되며 회원국 책임은 원칙적으로 배제된다는 이른바 ‘회원국책임배제원칙(principle of non-liability of member state)’이 확립되어왔다. 그 결과 국제법상 국제기구 책임 문제는 일종의 공식처럼 해당기구가 독자적인 법인격을 향유하는지의 문제로 간주되어왔다. 이러한 회원국 책임배제원칙은 국제기구가 갖는 고유한 구조적인 특징을 간과한 채 국제기구의 법인격을 피상적으로 접근하고 있는 한계가 있다. 국제기구는 국제법상 독립된 주체이지만 동시에 국가들이 공동의 목적을 위해 창설된 수단(vehicle) 내지 장(forum)이라는 혼합된 성격을 갖는다. 국제기구의 창설과 작동, 그리고 해체까지 모든 과정에서 회원국은 중요한 역할을 하며 회원국 없이 국제기구는 작동할 수가 없다. 그에 따라 국제기구가 형식적으로 독자적인 법인격을 향유한다고해도 실질적으로 국제기구와 회원국은 완전히 분리되기 어렵다. 본고에서는 회원국책임배제원칙이 갖는 한계를 살펴보고 국제기구의 법인격, 즉 기관적 장막(institutional veil)을 기능적으로 접근함으로써 국제기구와 회원국 간의 책임 관계를 다각도로 분석하였다. 이를 위해 국제기구 책임 규범의 발전과정을 살펴보고 2011년 국제법위원회(International Law Commission, 이하 ‘ILC’)에 의해 작성된 국제기구 책임에 관한 초안 (Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations) 상의 주요 조항, 그밖에 대리이론 및 법인격투시론을 중심으로 국제기구의 행위를 둘러싼 회원국 책임 문제를 검토해보았다.

Odgovornost međunarodnih organizacija, s posebnim osvrtom na višestruku pripisivost te odgovornost država za čine međunarodnih organizacija

The responsibility of international organizations attracted special attention in theory and practice of international law after the International Law Commission began its work on the topic in 2002. The Commission ended its work in 2011 by adopting the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organization. In this contribution we give an overall review of the Draft articles with special a emphasis on the cases of multiple attribution and responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts of international organizations. Analyzing the critical remarks raised in regard to the Draft, we concluded that they cannot diminish the successful outcome of the work of the Commission, which is, a coherent and consistent system of rules devoted to the responsibility of international organizations.

“WTO Law”: Interconnection with International Law

Regulation of trade relations is a complex process that is getting more complicated year by year. The evolution of such relations led to the idea of creating a specialized institution, namely the World Trade Organization. The Marrakesh Agreement created a truly international organization, that is, as defined by the International Law Commission in its draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations, an organization established by a treaty or other instrument governed by international law and having its own international legal personality. Specialists in the field of international law continue to discuss the law governing the activities of the World Trade Organization (WTO). WTO law is a set of agreements and annexes to them, protocols of accession, decisions of WTO bodies, which allows us to consider it a special treaty regime within the framework of international law. WTO law is not isolated, as it is implemented in accordance with the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This paper attempts to determine the place of WTO law in international law.

The responsibility of international organizations for wrongful acts in peacekeeping operations: the case for dual attribution

The responsibility of international organizations for wrongful acts in peacekeeping operations: the case for dual attribution

Multiple Attribution of Conduct in EU Security Missions

Abstract The paper explores the question of multiple attribution of conduct in the framework of EU security missions. Considering the lack of special rules of the EU on attribution of conduct in the course of Common Security and Defence Policy missions, normative references can be found in the 2011 Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations, in particular Article 7 establishing the concept of effective control exercised by the organization over the conduct, as well as in the 2001 Articles on the Responsibility of States, with regard to participating states and conduct of their organs. Several circumstances can be assumed where multiple attribution of conduct applies in such a scenario. This in turn would guarantee a higher degree of accountability and legal certainty, but it is first necessary for jurisprudence to move more decisively in this direction.

Marchal, Lemaire and Dewez v. Mukeshimana-Ngulinzira and Others; Belgian State v. Mukeshimana-Ngulinzira and Others

179State responsibility — Imputability — International Law Commission Articles on State Responsibility — International Law Commission Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations — Imputability in context of United Nations peacekeeping operations — Responsibility of troop-contributing countries — Ultimate control — Effective controlWar and armed conflict — Non-international armed conflict — United Nations — Peacekeeping — United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR), 1993 — Rwandan genocide — The law of Belgium

The Guiding Principles on Shared Responsibility in International Law: Too Much or Too Little?

Abstract The Guiding Principles on Shared Responsibility aim to ‘substantiate the existing rules of the law of international responsibility’ as they are codified in the International Law Commission’s 2001 Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts and the 2011 Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations. This article examines the contribution of the Guiding Principles to the law of international responsibility and analyses some of their more controversial features, where the Guiding Principles seek to significantly expand the scope of the existing rules and, conversely, where they could have been much more ambitious.

Misconduct Committed by (Civilian) Private Contractors in Peacekeeping Operations

Abstract In peacekeeping operations, private companies are frequently and increasingly engaged by the United Nations to carry-out a wide-range of activities that can potentially impinge on human rights. This article deals with two recent cases of misconduct committed by contractors whose activities, albeit not on the face of it involving the threat or (lethal or not-lethal) use of force, nonetheless caused harm to individuals. The first case-study relates to the mismanagement of sanitary waste, while the second case addresses the (mis)use of unarmed surveillance drones. Against this backdrop, the article purports to assess whether, and under what conditions, wrongdoing committed by private contractors gives rise to the international responsibility of the United Nations. The study explores, firstly, the question of the ‘direct’ attribution of such conduct to the United Nations, based on the qualification of the contractors as agent of the Organization, as understood in the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations. It then analyzes the issue of the ‘indirect’ responsibility of the United Nations for failing to have sufficient oversight of the outsourced activities. In this respect, it highlights the crucial role played by internal accountability mechanisms, in particular the Office of Internal Oversight Services, in appraising the monitoring measures taken by the Organization with regard to the practice of contractors and in recommending remedial actions.

Covid-19 Claims and the Law of International Responsibility

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.

Systemic Reasoning to the Rescue? Fresh Perspectives on the Responsibility of International Organizations

Systemic Reasoning to the Rescue? Fresh Perspectives on the Responsibility of International Organizations

The Allocation of International Responsibility between International Organizations and Their Member States: A Case of Indirect Responsibility?

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.

The Responsibility of Members Due to Wrongful Acts of International Organizations

While for the most part the attribution hypothesis raised by the International Law Commission (ILC) in its articles on the responsibility of international organizations are still purely theoretical, the eventual subsidiary responsibility of the members is marked by a high degree of importance which also counts on numerous precedents. In this alleged scenario, the attributable responsibility of the members would exclusively arise under its membership condition vis-a-vis the international organization — without considering any type of help, assistance, execution, control or coercion exercised by the international organization in the perpetration of the wrongful act. This paper aims to study this subject by conducting a thorough analysis of the theories addressing this issue which have been elaborated over time, the case law, the private codifications and the political arguments set out in the doctrine. All of this will be confronted with the articles adopted by the ILC in 2011. Finally, this study will conclude by assessing whether members are obliged to provide funding so as to enable the organization to fulfil its obligations of repairing the damage caused by the wrongful act.

The responsibility of international organizations for wrongful acts in peacekeeping operations: the case for dual attribution

The United Nations (UN) was founded in 1945 with the primary objective of maintaining international peace and security. As part of this mandate, UN has been engaged in 71 Peacekeeping Operations (PKOs) as of July 2019. There are 13 active PKOs at the time of the writing. In addition, different peacekeeping operations have been undertaken by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), African Union (AU) and Regional Economic Communities in Africa. This paper analyzes the accountability gap in international law with respect to the wrongful acts of peacekeepers. The paper explores the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (DARIO) to describe the attribution of wrongful conducts to IOs through the notion of operational command and control. The paper further examines leading cases of attribution by international judicial bodies in order to elucidate the operationalization of international norms to wrongful conducts during PKOs. Finally, the paper argues that for the adoption of dual responsibility as the way forward to ensure accountability for violations of international rules in PKOs.

The modern concept of international legal responsibility

The author attempts to explore the features of the modern concept of international responsibility in the article. The historical basis of the emergence and formation of the institution of responsibility, current trends in its development are analyzed. The development of the concept of international responsibility from its emergence to the concept of objective responsibility, which formed the basis of the Articles on States' Responsibility for International and Unlawful Actions, developed by the CIL are explored. The modern institute of international responsibility is developing very fast and is being actively codified are emphasized. The current areas of its codification and research are the responsibility of international organizations and succession to the responsibility of states.

Embracing technology

British Journal of Cardiac NursingVol. 14, No. 3 EditorialEmbracing technologyAysha MendesAysha MendesEditorSearch for more papers by this authorAysha MendesPublished Online:2 Mar 2019https://doi.org/10.12968/bjca.2019.14.3.109AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail View article References Shahab L, Goniewicz ML, Blount BC et al.. Nicotine, carcinogen, and toxin exposure in long-term e-cigarette and nicotine replacement therapy users: a crosssectional study. Ann Intern Med. 2017; 166(6):390-400. https://doi.org/10.7326/M16-1107 Crossref, Google ScholarSohal SS, Eapen MS, Naidu VGM, Sharma P. IQOS exposure impairs human airway cell homeostasis: direct comparison with traditional and e-cigarette. ERJ Open Res. 2019; 5(1):00159-2018. https://doi.org/10.1183/23120541.00159-2018 https://tinyurl.com/y94bf4ac (accessed 16 January 2019) Crossref, Google Scholar FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byFrom Theory to Practice: Exploring the Relevance of the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (DARIO)—The Responsibility of the WTO and the UN6 March 2019 | German Law Journal, Vol. 13, No. 5 2 March 2019Volume 14Issue 3ISSN (online): 2052-2207 Metrics History Published online 2 March 2019 Published in print 2 March 2019 Information© MA Healthcare LimitedPDF download