maarit pimiä
University of Helsinki, Faculty of Law, Department Member
This article offers some reflections on the way in which the ILC Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (ARIO) have addressed the responsibility of international organizations for conduct of member States... more
This article offers some reflections on the way in which the ILC Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (ARIO) have addressed the responsibility of international organizations for conduct of member States implementing their normative acts. The ILC has chosen to deal with this issue through the concept of responsibility ‘in connection with’ acts of States, which it had already included in its Articles on State Responsibility (ASR), and more in particular through article 17 on ‘circumvention’. Focusing primarily on this provision, we argue that the attempt to address this particular type of responsibility forced the ILC to relax the conceptual straightjackets it had opted for in the ASR, thereby exposing certain ambiguities in the foundations of the law of international responsibility.
Research Interests:
The thesis studies the responsibility of international organizations for wrongful acts under international law, specifically the responsibility of the United Nations (UN). The thesis studies takes the draft articles on the responsibility... more
The thesis studies the responsibility of international organizations for wrongful acts under international law, specifically the responsibility of the United Nations (UN). The thesis studies takes the draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations of 2011 (DARIO), that are intended to provide a basis for the responsibility of international organizations. However, the DARIO are considered progressive and their authority depends on how they will be received. The thesis studies the provisions that are considered most controversial; the provisions related to rules of the organization, lex specialis and attribution of conduct.
The principles and provisions adopted in the DARIO, relating to the legal personality and the rules of international organizations are challenged in this thesis. International organizations, especially the UN performs functions, that go beyond the scope of traditional international organizations and they perform more and more state-like functions. The rules of the organization are on the one hand equated with internal laws of states, with limited effects on responsibility; on the other hand, they are part of international law and may be considered lex specialis to the general provisions of the DARIO. Recourse to lex specialis could make the DARIO redundant.
Article 7 of DARIO attempts to resolve the ambiguity of attribution between two entities in cooperation, e.g. UN peacekeeping operations. The UN does not accept responsibility for wrongful acts that have happened in UN peacekeeping operations. The UN invokes agreements it has made with national contingents, the rules of the organization and claims it does not have effective or overall control over the conduct. The study looks at the DARIO and recent jurisprudence and academic writings in the light of the UN practice.
In the recent decade the role of victims and their right to effective legal remedies and reparation have started to gain more interest in the field of human rights. Human rights treaties formally bind states, but this study suggests that due to the increasing amount of governmental functions, that many international organizations exercise, they are also obliged to follow human rights norms. Moreover, the UN, as a patron of the universal human rights treaty system, is morally obligated to uphold human rights in its mission.
The last decades have indicated a willingness of the international community to end impunity and even heads of states are no longer considered immune from the jurisdictions of international tribunals for international crimes. The study looks at the immunities of international organizations, and challenges the functional necessity principle. The study looks at the rise of independent international tribunals, which could provide an independent and impartial review of international organizations, in order to carry out their responsibility of human rights obligations.
The principles and provisions adopted in the DARIO, relating to the legal personality and the rules of international organizations are challenged in this thesis. International organizations, especially the UN performs functions, that go beyond the scope of traditional international organizations and they perform more and more state-like functions. The rules of the organization are on the one hand equated with internal laws of states, with limited effects on responsibility; on the other hand, they are part of international law and may be considered lex specialis to the general provisions of the DARIO. Recourse to lex specialis could make the DARIO redundant.
Article 7 of DARIO attempts to resolve the ambiguity of attribution between two entities in cooperation, e.g. UN peacekeeping operations. The UN does not accept responsibility for wrongful acts that have happened in UN peacekeeping operations. The UN invokes agreements it has made with national contingents, the rules of the organization and claims it does not have effective or overall control over the conduct. The study looks at the DARIO and recent jurisprudence and academic writings in the light of the UN practice.
In the recent decade the role of victims and their right to effective legal remedies and reparation have started to gain more interest in the field of human rights. Human rights treaties formally bind states, but this study suggests that due to the increasing amount of governmental functions, that many international organizations exercise, they are also obliged to follow human rights norms. Moreover, the UN, as a patron of the universal human rights treaty system, is morally obligated to uphold human rights in its mission.
The last decades have indicated a willingness of the international community to end impunity and even heads of states are no longer considered immune from the jurisdictions of international tribunals for international crimes. The study looks at the immunities of international organizations, and challenges the functional necessity principle. The study looks at the rise of independent international tribunals, which could provide an independent and impartial review of international organizations, in order to carry out their responsibility of human rights obligations.