United Nations Administrative Tribunal Research Articles

Wpływ opinii doradczych Międzynarodowego Trybunału Sprawiedliwości na postępowanie przed Trybunałami Administracyjnymi w systemie ONZ

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is a principal judicial organ of the United Nations. The main task of ICJ is to settle disputes submitted to it by the states and is also entitled to give advisory opinions which are given on the motion of some United Nations organs and specialized agencies. The expression that ICJ is a “principal judicial organ of the United Nations” doesn’t mean that it is the only one judicial organ within the framework of the United Nations. The United Nations Administrative Tribunal (UNAT) was established by the legal force of the General Assembly resolution 351 A(IV) of 9 December 1949 r. The main purpose of the UNAT was to decide legal employment disputes between United Nations staff and the Organization. In 1955 the Statute of UNAT was amended and the Committee on Application for Review of Administrative Tribunal Judgement was competent to seek advisory opinion form ICJ and this opinion was binding. However Committee only in three cases requested the ICJ to give advisory opinion. Those opinions concerned inter alia the competence of ICJ to respond to the question, the right of Committee to submit such motion, the principle of equality of arms. In spite of that since of the 1st of July 2009 the new system of administration of internal justice was established – the United Nations Dispute Tribunal and the United Nations Appeal Tribunal, which consider the appeals against judgments rendered by the United Nations Dispute Tribunal, the issues discussed in advisory opinions of ICJ on the matters of appealing against a judicial decision of UNAT are still highly topical, especially in the context of the maintained in force competence of ICJ to review judgement of The Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation.

Considerations of Humanity: Accountability in U.N. Transnational Administration of Territory

A recent development in the domain of International Law pertains to the transitional administration of territorial units by the United Nations, on behalf of the International Community. In well known cases of East Timor and Kosovo, the United Nations Security Council passed its resolutions, 1244 (1999) and 1272 (1999), on Chapter VII of the UN charter after determining a threat to peace in the internal situations in both states and thus coming to assist those particularly weakened territorial units. The administrative units that were set up by the United Nations in this regard were on behalf of the international community to protect weakened states. These administrative units were meant to function until the states could become self-governing. All these functions and responsibilities of UNMIK (United Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo) and UNTAET (United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor) were to be in compliance with the basic tenants of Human Rights, the UN Charter and the UNSC resolutions that established these Administrations. During their periods of administration, these administrative bodes committed several Human Rights violations, due to the extremely wide ambit of powers given to these bodies and extremely inefficient and minuscule control measures established over them. Through my research paper, I aim to analyze the solutions employed by the UN in the form of tribunals to hold the administrative bodies responsible. Further, I will research into the role of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal in situations like these. In continuation, I shall suggest mechanisms that may be implemented in future situations like these to ensure that Human Rights are at the core of any transnational administration set up by the United Nations and the interests of the distressed population are the primary concern of the administrative body operating in the territory. Lastly, I shall delve into the atrocities committed by the UN Peace Keeping forces, the administrative and jurisdictional difficulties in holding them accountable and possible solutions for this.

The Internal Dispute Resolution Regime of the United Nations – Has the Creation of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal and United Nations Appeals Tribunal Remedied the Flaws of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal?

Pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 59/283 dated 2 June 2005, the Secretary-General established the Redesign Panel on the United Nations system of administration of justice, which was charged with redesigning the system of the administration of justice at the UN. It was created to address the gravity of the issues that arose out of the immense challenges posed by the management of internal disputes at the UN. The Redesign Panel found that the system of internal justice at the UN was unprofessional, lacked independence, was ineffective, did not accord staff members their due process rights, and the staff had little confidence in the system. The UN is the body charged with the protection of the global order, and it is ironic that its internal justice system was found to be in manifest violation of the rights of its own employees. After years of efforts to reform the internal justice system, a new system of the administration of justice became operational at the UN on 1 July 2009. This paper discusses the establishment and the working of the newly established UN internal dispute resolution machinery. The paper is divided into three chapters. Chapter 1 sets out the context within which international administrative law works, and discusses two issues in particular, the rule of law and due process, and immunities. Chapter 2 deals with the old regime, and Chapter 3 deals with the newly established system. Chapter 2 and 3 not only discuss the working of the now abolished United Nations Administrative Tribunal, and the newly established United Nations Disputes Tribunal and United Nations Appeals Tribunal, but attempt to analyze the dispute resolution process from its very inception. The paper concludes that the newly established machinery at the UN is a genuine attempt to improve the internal dispute-resolution mechanism. However, in addition to a change in the machinery and rules, attitudes of managers and relevant UN staff, including the Secretary-General must change if significant improvement in the manner in which internal disputes are handled at the UN is to be achieved.

From Advisory Opinions to Binding Decisions: The new Appeal Mechanism of the Un system of Administration of Justice

AbstractIn 2009 the United Nations launched a new two-tier system of administration of justice. The system is composed of two standing bodies, the United Nations Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) and the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNApT), the latter acting as an appeals mechanism against decisions of the UNDT. The former system foresaw the United Nations Administrative Tribunal (UNAT) as the sole body of administration of justice within the UN, while the International Court of Justice (ICJ) acted as review mechanism on the decisions of the UNAT. However, this review system was abolished in 1995 and, since then, no option was available to unsuccessful (or partially successful) staff members for having a UNAT judgment reviewed. The lack of any option for review led to criticisms and instances for reform of the whole system, which eventually led to the establishment of a Redesign Panel, which suggested the establishment of a two-tier system of administration of justice, with the aim of meeting the 'basic standards of due process established in international human rights instruments'. The recently established Appeals Tribunal should fill the gap created by the abolition of the ICJ competence to review the judgments rendered by the UNAT. This article evaluates the improvement to the system represented by the establishment of the United Nations Appeals Tribunal in three main steps. The first is the identification of the shortcomings of the previous review mechanism before the ICJ. The second is the overview of the problems of the former system of administration of justice within the UN. The third and final step is the analysis of the scope of jurisdiction of the new UNApT.

From the United Nations Administrative Tribunal to the United Nations Appeals Tribunal – Reform of the Administration of Justice System within the United Nations

From the United Nations Administrative Tribunal to the United Nations Appeals Tribunal – Reform of the Administration of Justice System within the United Nations

The Work of the Sixth Committee at the Forty-eighth Session of the UN General Assembly

At the forty-eighth session of the General Assembly, the Sixth (Legal) Committee reviewed the annual reports of the International Law Commission (ILC), the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization (Special Committee), and the Committee on Relations with the Host Country (Host Country Committee). The Sixth Committee also considered proposals for two new legal instruments relating to (1) the jurisdictional immunities of states and their property, and (2) the safety and security of United Nations personnel. Other items covered by the committee included a proposal to request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on questions regarding extraterritorial jurisdiction, as well as topics concerning international terrorism, economic relations, procedural aspects of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal and the United Nations Decade of International Law (Decade).

Rajan v. Secretary-General of the United Nations

717International organizations — International officials — Determination of status — Official recruited by United Nations to work with Government of Swaziland — Provision of Operational, Executive and Administrative Personnel Programme — Whether United Nations employment — Pension entitlement — United Nations Administrative Tribunal

“Exclusive Preserves” and the New Soviet Policy Toward the Un Secretariat

An “exclusive preserve” of a state in the UN Secretariat is a post that is continuously filled by nationals of the same state. Virtually from the founding of the United Nations, the Secretariat has observed an “unofficial” practice of exclusive preserves for many senior posts held by nationals of several influential states, including the United States; but its most persistent advocate, and with regard to a particularly wide range of posts, has been the Soviet Union. In view of the past underrepresentation of Soviet nationals in the Secretariat, largely because the Soviet Government insisted that its nationals be recruited only on fixed-term contracts based on secondment from the Government and Soviet institutions, a considerable number of posts were set aside to be filled on a replacement basis. The occupants of those posts were selected by the Secretary-General from a very short list of candidates submitted by the Soviet Government. The object of this Editorial is to assess the impact of the new Soviet policy toward the UN Secretariat, recent General Assembly resolutions and the jurisprudence of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal on the practice of exclusive preserves.

Application for Review of Judgment No 333 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal (“yakimetz Case”)

296International organizations — International administrative tribunals — United Nations Administrative Tribunal — Committee on Applications for Review of Administrative Tribunal Judgments — Role of Tribunal — Role of International Court of JusticeInternational organizations — Officials — Terms and conditions of employment — United Nations — Official on temporary contract — Official seconded from government service — Meaning of secondment — Whether legal impediment to consideration of official for permanent post — Whether official entitled to reasonable consideration of application for permanent post — United Nations General Assembly Resolution 37/126 — Whether reasonable consideration entails formal procedure for consideration of application — Discretion of Secretary-General — Whether Secretary-General had unreasonably fettered own discretionInternational organizations — Officials — Independence — Relationship between official and State of nationality — Official seconded from government service — Official seeking asylum — Whether official may be given permanent appointment without consent of State of nationality — Whether lack of consent a factor in caseInternational Court of Justice — Advisory jurisdiction — Scope — Applications for review of judgments of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal — Proper function of Court — Formulation of questions put to Court — Whether Court entitled to reformulate questions

Yakimetz v. Secretary-general of The United Nations

273International organizations — International administrative tribunals — United Nations Administrative Tribunal — Competence — Function in reviewing exercise of discretion regarding staff appointmentsInternational organizations — Officials — Terms and conditions of employment — United Nations — Official seconded from government service — Meaning of secondment — Whether official has legitimate expectation that he will be given reasonable consideration if applying for a permanent appointment — United Nations General Assembly Resolution 37/126International organizations — Officials — Independence — United Nations — Relationship between official and State of nationality — Official seconded from government service and seeking asylum — Whether official may be appointed to permanent post in United Nations without consent of State of nationality — Whether lack of consent a factor in refusing a permanent appointment in present case

In re Herbert Reis

The July ’86 issue of this Journal contains a brief appreciation of the honor done to this country and profession by the election of the U.S. member, Professor Herbert Reis, to the second vice-presidency of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal. We said, at that time, that the “election of Mr. Reis … is a significant recognition of his eminence as a legal scholar by the community of his peers.” Its significance is underscored by the difficulty any American has, nowadays, in being chosen for high office in any international group.

1986 UNAT Elections

The United Nations Administrative Tribunal (UNAT) has elected Herbert Reis of the United States, a former Counselor at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, as its Second Vice-President for the coming year. Mr. Reis has served on the tribunal for 5 years. Samar Sen of India and Arnold Kean of the United Kingdom were elected President and First Vice-President of the tribunal, respectively.

Application For Review Of Judgment No. 273 Of The United Nations Administrative Tribunal (mortished Case)

The individual in international law — In general — Before international tribunals — International Court of Justice — Review of judgment closely affecting individuals — Individuals unable to appear as parties before the Court — Whether compatible with principle of equality of partiesInternational organization and administration — The United Nations — The General Assembly — Resolution 34/165 — Whether to be given immediate effect — Retroactive application of resolution — Relation between resolutions, Staff Regulations and Staff Ru1es — United Nations Charter, 1945, Article 101Disputes — International Court of Justice — Advisory jurisdiction — Competence — Committee on Applications for Review of Administrative Tribunal judgments — Application made by Member State — Whether constituting an intervention by a person not party to original proceedings — Effect on authority of United Nations Secretary-General — Propriety of giving opinion — Nature and scope of opinion requested — Extent of review of merits of Tribunal’s judgment — Equality of parties before Court — Whether principle applicable to Committee — Procedural irregularities in proceedings before Committee — Whether ‘compelling reasons’ to decline to give opinion — Prima facie duty of Court not to refuse participation in activities of the United Nations — Formulation of question in request — Whether Court entitled to determine meaning and implications of question — Whether Court entitled to reformulate requestDisputes — International Court of Justice — Advisory jurisdiction — Procedure — Review of judgments of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal — Effect of individuals being involved in original proceedings — Equality of parties before the Court — Whether correct to dispense with otal hearingsInternational organization and administration — International officials — The United Nations — United Nations Administrative Tribunal — Repatriation grant payable to retiring United Nations officials — Whether entitlement dependent on providing evidence of relocation — Review of judgment of Tribunal — Whether Tribunal erred on a question of law relating to provisions of Charter of the United Nations, 1945 — Staff Rules and Regulations — Whether conferring acquired rights — General Assembly Resolution 34/165 — Retroactive application — Article 101 of the Charter — Whether contradicted by Tribunal’s interpretation of Staff Rules and Regulations — Whether Tribunal exceeded jurisdiction or competence — Jurisdiction defined in Statute of TribunalDisputes — International Court of Justice — Advisory jurisdiction — Competence — Committee on Applications for Review of Administrative Tribunal judgments — Application made by Member State — Whether constituting an intervention by a person not party to original proceedings — Effect on authority of United Nations Secretary-General — Propriety of giving opinion — Nature and scope of opinion requested — Extent of review of merits of Tribunal’s judgment — Equality of parties before the Court — Whether principle applicable to Committee — Procedural irregularities in proceedings before Committee — Whether ‘compelling reasons’ to decline to give opinion — Prima facie duty of Court not to refuse participation in activities of United Nations — Formulation of question in request — 331Whether Court entitled to determine meaning and implications of question — Whether Court entitled to reformulate request — Procedure — Individuals closely affected by review unable to appear as parties before Court — Whether correct to dispense with oral hearing

New Horizons in International Law

VRÜ Verfassung und Recht in Übersee , Seite 185 - 185

Application for Review of Judgement No. 158 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal (Fasla case)

International Court of Justice — Advisory jurisdiction — Competence — Review of judgments of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal — Committee on Applications for Review of Administrative Tribunal judgements — Legality of creation of the Committee by the General Assembly — Competence of the Committee to request advisory opinions — Propriety of giving an opinion — Equality of parties before the Court-Oral proceedings — Binding force of Court’s opinion as laid down in the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal — Alleged failure of Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction vested in it — Definition of failure to exercise jurisdiction — Distinction between jurisdiction and merits-Whether paucity of compensation awarded indicates failure to exercise jurisdiction — Claims for injury to professional reputation and career prospects — Claims for costs — Alleged failure to state reasons for rejecting claims.

Application for Review of Judgment No. 158 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Khederian v. Secretary-General of the United Nations (No. 3).

International organization — Officials — United Nations Administrative Tribunal — Revision of judgments — Interpretation of judgments.

Ho v. Secretary-General of the United Nations (No. 1).

International organization — Officials — United Nations Administrative Tribunal — Admissibility of applications to Tribunal — Frivolous applications — Periodic reports — Extent of Tribunal’s power to rectify periodic reports.

Roy v. Secretary General of the International Civil Aviation Organization.

367International organization — Officials — Dismissal for misconduct — Audi alteram partem — Remand of case for correction of procedure under Article 9, paragraph 2, of Statute of United Nations Administrative Tribunal.

Vasseur v. Secretary-General of the United Nations

International organization — Officials — United Nations Administrative Tribunal — Definition of “staff member” for purposes of Tribunal's jurisdiction — Formation of contract of employment — Anticipatory breach of executory contract — Damages.