Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Duty of States to Ensure Respect of the Duty of Care through Their Membership in International Organizations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Duty of Care of International Organizations Towards Their Civilian Personnel

  • 478 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter stems from the consideration that States, when becoming members of international organizations, remain bearers of obligations under international human rights law. This entails that, on the one hand, both in implementing binding acts of the international organizations to which they are members (ECtHR, Bosphorus v. Ireland (GC), App. no. 45036/98, 2005, §153) and in case of failure by those international organizations to ensure respect for human rights, States are not relieved from their own obligations under international human rights law (ECtHR, Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v. Switzerland (GC), App. no. 5809/08, 2016). This applies also to the contribution of States in the elaboration of the rules of the organization (ECtHR, Gasparini c. Italie et Belgique). As this chapter argues, it means that States must use their leverage (expressed through their right to vote or their diplomatic influence) to ensure that violations do not result from the programmes, policies and rules of the organization of which they are members (Maastricht Guidelines on Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, §19). This chapter also finds, more specifically, that they are required to act within those international organizations in a manner that fosters respect for human rights in general and, more specifically, for duty of care obligations towards civilian personnel sent on mission.

Annex II—the Table of Cases—can be accessed online here: http://extras.springer.com/.

Martina Buscemi, Research Fellow in International Law, University of Florence, Via delle Pandette 32, 50127 Florence, Italy, martina.buscemi@unifi.it; martina.buscemi@unimi.it

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The question of separate legal personality of international organizations has been addressed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on several occasions. See ICJ, Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, 11 April 1949, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 174; Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt, Advisory Opinion, 20 December 1980, I.C.J. Reports 1980, p. 73; Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion, 29 April 1999, I.C.J. Reports 1999, p. 62.

  2. 2.

    The duty of care can be fairly considered as part of human rights law (see Chap. 2 by de Guttry and Chap. 16 by Poli in this volume).

  3. 3.

    The topic of ‘membership responsibility’ was—to a certain extent—addressed by the International Law Commission in the Draft Articles on Responsibility of International Organizations adopted in 2011, especially in Part V under the heading ‘Responsibility of a State in connection with the conduct of an international organization’ (see Draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations, with commentaries, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2011, vol. II, Part Two, pp. 89 ff.). For an assessment of the approach endorsed by the International Law Commission on this matter see, among others, the contributions written by Nakatani, Palchetti, Šturma, Yee 2013, pp. 293–338.

  4. 4.

    For a powerful overview of different solutions related to the ‘membership responsibility’, see Volume 12 of the International Organizations Law Review (2015, pp. 285–517), extensively devoted to it. For a particular critique of the trend towards the establishment of member State responsibility for wrongdoings of international organizations, Blokker 2015, p. 324.

  5. 5.

    The literature in this field is particularly broad. As for the specific question of attribution of wrongful acts committed by troops put at the disposal of international organizations by sending States, see the pioneer study conducted by Condorelli 1995, further developed (Condorelli 2014, pp. 3–15), as well as the work of Palchetti (among many articles written, see Palchetti 2007, pp. 681 ff.). As for the approach adopted by the ILC see UN Doc. A/CN.4/541 (2 April 2004), para 7 and Article 7 of the DARIO (see DARIO, p. 20).

  6. 6.

    Ryngaert 2015, p. 516.

  7. 7.

    In this context see Murray 2011, pp. 291–347.

  8. 8.

    See, ex multis, d’Aspremont 2007, pp. 91–119.

  9. 9.

    Article 61 of the DARIO and the Commentary enclosed thereby (DARIO, p. 93).

  10. 10.

    ‘[…] membership does not as such entail for member States international responsibility when the organizations commits an internationally wrongful act’ (DARIO, p. 96). In similar terms, see also Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International, vol. 66-II (1996), p. 445.

  11. 11.

    Maastricht Guidelines on Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, para 19; emphasis added.

  12. 12.

    CESCR (2008) General Comment 19—The right to social security, E/C.12/GC/19, para 58 (emphasis added).

  13. 13.

    The text provisionally drafted can be found at: www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/WGTransCorp/Session3/LegallyBindingInstrumentTNCs_OBEs.pdf, p. 6 (accessed on 21 February 2018).

  14. 14.

    While some authors consider the equivalent protection formula as a ‘soft’ way to avoid normative conflicts, others maintain that the difference between this and the ‘supremacy clause’ enshrined in Article 103 of the UN Charter ‘would reside more in their respective scope than in their very nature and purpose’ (in this way, see Arcari 2014, p. 40).

  15. 15.

    The equivalent protection test can be traced back to the early European Commission of Human Rights case law (see EComHR, X v. Federal Republic of Germany, 10 June 1958, App. No. 235/56, para 256 and M & Co v. Federal Republic of Germany, 9 February 1990, App. No. 13258/87, p. 138; the latter decision, rendered in the aftermath of the ‘Solange saga’ (German Constitutional Court, Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft (Solange II), Decision of 22 December 1986, Case n. 73, 339 2 BvR 197/83, para F), affirmed: ‘The Convention does not prohibit a Member State from transferring powers to international organisations. Nonetheless […] a transfer of powers does not necessarily exclude a State’s responsibility under the Convention with regard to the exercise of the transferred powers […] the transfer of powers to an international organisation is not incompatible with the Convention provided that within that organisation fundamental rights will receive an equivalent protection’; and then, again in the Matthews v. United Kingdom, 18 February 1999, App. No. 24833/94, on which see the comments by Wellens 2004, pp. 1159–1181, by Lenaerts 2000, pp. 575–585 and by Costello 2006, pp. 87 ff.).

  16. 16.

    The boundaries between the question of attribution of conduct (which relates to the subjective element of a wrongful act) and the issue of jurisdiction (which instead is linked with the objective one) seem blurred and partially overlapped in the rationale endorsed by the ECtHR (see, in this regard, De Sena 2002, p. 207).

  17. 17.

    ECtHR (GC), Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirket v. Ireland, 30 June 2005, App. No. 45036/98. The decision has rightly been considered ‘as the seminal ECtHR case concerning the responsibility of Member States for the acts of IOs’ (Ryngaert 2011, p. 1000).

  18. 18.

    Regulation CE No. 990/93.

  19. 19.

    UNSC Resolution S/RES/820 (1993), para 24.

  20. 20.

    ECtHR (GC), Bosphorus v. Ireland, para 155.

  21. 21.

    Ibid., para 156. The correction served as a way to narrow the scope of the theory at hand (De Hert and Korenica 2012, p. 883).

  22. 22.

    ECtHR, Waite and Kennedy v. Germany and Beer and Regan v. Germany, 18 February 1999, App. No. 28934/95 and App. No. 26083/94. For an overview on the issue of international organizations’ immunities, see Ascensio 2009, p. 117; and Flauss 2009, p. 85.

  23. 23.

    This principle has been partially put aside with the recent decision Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and others v. the Netherlands, 11 June 2013, App. No. 65542/12 (where the Court found that Netherlands did not violate the Convention by granting jurisdictional immunities to the United Nations, even though there were not alternative means available to the victims within the legal order of the Organization. For this reason the decision received a great deal of criticism; see, among others, Spagnolo 2013, pp. 806 ff.; Papa 2016, pp. 893–907; Spijkers 2016, pp. 819–843), and partially confirmed in Klausecker and Perez v. Germany (see infra Sect. 5.2.2.2). For an overview on the issue of jurisdictional immunity of international organizations and rights of their staff, see the draft resolution and draft recommendation recently adopted by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (11 October 2017). As for the national court’s decision to waive international organizations’ immunities where the latter have no ‘reasonable alternative means of protection’ available to individuals, see, ex multis, Reinisch 2013.

  24. 24.

    ECtHR (GC), Avotiņš v. Latvia, 23 May 2016, App. No. 17502/07.

  25. 25.

    ECtHR, Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v. Switzerland, 26 November 2013, App. No. 5809/08.

  26. 26.

    ECtHR (GC), Al-Jedda v. United Kingdom, 7 July 2011, App. No. 27021/08, para 102.

  27. 27.

    ECtHR (GC), Nada v. Switzerland, 12 September 2012, App. No. 10593/08.

  28. 28.

    ECtHR, Affaire Michaud v. France, 6 December 2012, App. No. 12323/11.

  29. 29.

    ECtHR (GC), Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v. Switzerland, 21 June 2016, App. No. 5809/08.

  30. 30.

    When the ‘harmonious interpretation’ is feasible, the presumption of equivalence does not come into play and the conduct of the State is scrutinised as such.

  31. 31.

    One of the conditions set in Bosphorus v. Ireland in order to apply the presumption of equivalence seems to be precisely the adoption of national measures into the domestic orders of States Parties (ECtHR (GC), Bosphorus v. Ireland, para 137).

  32. 32.

    ECtHR, Boivin v. 34 Member States of the Council of Europe, 9 September 2008, App. No. 73250/01.

  33. 33.

    ECtHR, Connolly v. 15 Member States of the European Union, 9 December 2008, App. No. 73274/01.

  34. 34.

    ECtHR, Boivin v. 34 Member States of the Council of Europe, para 2.

  35. 35.

    ECtHR, Galić v. the Netherlands and Blagojević v. the Netherlands, 9 June 2009, App. No. 22617/07, para 46. The applicants complained of the unfairness procedures before the Tribunal because the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) failed to prove a specific ‘involvement’ on the part of the respondent State and the sole fact that the ICTY had its seat in The Hague was not considered a sufficient ground to attribute the matters complained of to the Netherlands.

  36. 36.

    ECtHR, Lopez Cifuentes v. Spain, 7 July 2009, App. No. 18754/06.

  37. 37.

    Conversely, the application lodged in Kokkelviserij v. Netherlands was found admissible ratione personae (but then considered manifestly ill-founded), since the complaint was based on an intervention by the European Court of Justice which had been actively sought by a domestic court in proceedings pending before it (ECtHR, Cooperatieve Producentenorganisatie Van De Nederlandse Kokkelvisserij U.A. v. the Netherlands, 20 January 2009, App. No. 13645/05, para 3).

  38. 38.

    ECtHR, Gasparini v. Italy and Belgium, 12 May 2009, App. No. 10750/03. For comment, see Rebasti 2010, pp. 65–88.

  39. 39.

    The applicant falls within the jurisdiction ratione loci and personae of the EtCHR although the (alleged) violations have occurred outside the national territory of the respondent States and, precisely, within the legal order of NATO.

  40. 40.

    ECtHR, Gasparini v. Italy and Belgium.

  41. 41.

    ‘Compte tenu de ce qui précède, la Cour estime que les deux Etats mis en cause ont pu à bon droit considérer, au moment où ils ont approuvé le règlement sur le personnel civil et ses annexes par l’intermédiaire de leurs représentants permanents siégeant au Conseil de l’Atlantique Nord, que les dispositions régissant la procédure devant la CROTAN satisfaisaient aux exigences du procès équitable’ (ECtHR, Gasparini v. Italy and Belgium, para B). On this specific issue of voting power, see infra, Sect. 5.3.2.

  42. 42.

    ECtHR, Perez v. Germany, 6 January 2015, App. No. 15521/08. The applicant also complained of the infringement of her right to access to (German) courts because of UN jurisdictional immunity.

  43. 43.

     ECtHR, Klausecker v. Germany, 6 January 2015, App. No. 415/07. The applicant, a candidate for a position in the EPO, complained about the violation of Article 6 ECHR (right to a fair trial), in relation to the procedures he had instituted before the German Courts and before the EPO’s bodies, as well as before the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO. In dismissing his claims, the Court referred to the Beer and Regan and Waite and Kennedy v. Germany and to Bosphorus v. Ireland cases (see above Sect. 5.2.2.1).

  44. 44.

    See supra note 2.

  45. 45.

    See Sect. 5.2.1 above.

  46. 46.

    In that regard it should also be borne in mind that service-related injury or death occur, usually, as a result of the misconducts of non-State actors, rather than of the host State.

  47. 47.

    However, as pointed out in the First Report on Diplomatic Protection adopted by the Special Rapporteur of the ILC, there are elements of State practice that point towards a different conclusion (see UN Doc. A/CN.4/506 (7 March 2000), paras 80–86, and see Article 19 of the Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection adopted by the ILC in 2006). An in-depth inquiry into the existence of an obligation to resort to diplomatic protection goes behind the purpose of this chapter (see, ex multis, Condorelli 2003, pp. 5 ff.; Pisillo Mazzeschi 2009, pp. 211 ff.; Flauss 2003; Milano 2004, pp. 85–142; Pergantis 2006, p. 351).

  48. 48.

    The application of diplomatic and/or functional protection in this context has been analysed by Capone, see Chap. 18 in this volume.

  49. 49.

    Academic literature to the present has paid limited attention to the role assumed by member States in the process of the formation of the institutional will of international organizations. As for the possibility to qualify State voting behaviour as an act of that State, distinct from the final decision of the international organization, see, for some insightful considerations: Palchetti 2012, pp. 352–373; Barros and Ryngaert 2014, pp. 53–82; and Murray 2011, pp. 327–345. The authors all explore the issue from the perspective of the international responsibility of States and tackle the complex question of how to insulate the unilateral conduct of a member State from the expression of the separate will of the international organization. In order to attribute the voting behaviour to a State, the authors deem necessary that the subject casting a vote is sitting in the institutional organs as a representative of a given State. In relation to the decision adopted by member States within financial and economic institutions, see De Sena 2010, pp. 247–274.

  50. 50.

    See Sect. 5.2.2.2 above and infra Sect. 5.3.3.

  51. 51.

    ICJ, The Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995 (The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia v. Greece), Judgment, 5 December 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011, p. 644.

  52. 52.

    According to some authors the willingness of the ICJ to review the voting discretion exercised by a State within an international organization can be traced back to the advisory opinion delivered in Conditions of Admission of a State to the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, 28 May 1948, I.C.J. Reports 1948, p. 57, where it held that the discretion inherent in the right to vote must be exercised in good faith (in this way see Murray 2011, p. 335, who cites the opinion expressed by Cheng 1953, p. 135).

  53. 53.

    See Report of the ILC on the ‘Fragmentation of international law’, under the heading ‘Harmonization – Systemic integration’ (UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682 (13 April 2006), para 37).

  54. 54.

    As the ILC stated, international obligations undertaken by a State ‘may well encompass the conduct of a State when its acts within an international organization. Should a breach of an international obligation be committed by a State in this capacity, the State would not incur international responsibility under the present article [Article 58], but rather under the articles of the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts’ (DARIO, p. 91).

  55. 55.

    Some scholars fairly maintained that the theory of abuse of rights operates as a fundamental legal limit on the exercise of voting discretion and that it forms a complementary primary obligation placed on the State in the context of their participation in international organizations (see Murray 2011).

  56. 56.

    See Sect. 5.4.

  57. 57.

    Disputes concerning employment relations between an international organization and its staff fall—usually—under the competence of administrative tribunals instituted by the same organization or by other organizations, such as the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization. For an overview on the existing international administrative tribunals, see Riddell 2013; for an appraisal of a need for a reform of those, in the light of the ICJ Advisory Opinion of 1 February 2012, see Gallo 2015, p. 509.

  58. 58.

    See Sects. 5.2.2.1 and 5.2.2.2 above.

  59. 59.

    To be precise, in the case of Waite and Kennedy v. Germany, the applicants were employed by foreign companies and were placed at the disposal of the European Space Agency to perform services at the European Space Operations Centre in Darmstadt.

  60. 60.

    See, ex multis, Pavoni 2015, pp. 19–41; Freedman 2014, pp. 4 ff.; Daugirdas 2015, pp. 991–1018.

  61. 61.

    The number of civilians deployed in the MINUSTAH is 1,116 (279 international civilians and 837 local civilians). Note that MINUSTAH ended its mandate on 15 October 2017 and has been replaced by a follow-on mission, the United Nations Mission for Justice Support in Haiti (the MINUJUSTH), as established by SC Res. 2350 (UN Doc. S/RES/2350 (13 April 2017), paras 4–5).

  62. 62.

    See Megret 2013, p. 161; and Alvarez 2014.

  63. 63.

    The 2nd edition is available online at: www.reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/D196C0B0FF3A637BC1256DD4004983B9-dpko-medical-1999.pdf (Accessed on 21 February 2018).

  64. 64.

    The 3rd edition is available online at: www.dag.un.org/bitstream/handle/11176/387299/2015.12%20Medical%20Support%20Manual%20for%20UN%20Field%20Missions.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y (see Annex D and p. 228. Accessed on 21 February 2018).

  65. 65.

    See www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/haiti/UN-cholera-report-final.pdf, p. 30 (Accessed on 21 February 2018).

  66. 66.

    The role of a State in providing medical treatment to its own personnel (seconded to an international organization) triggers the different question of how to allocate and share the responsibility between Sates and the Organization to discharge the duty of care owed to personnel employed (see Chap. 3 by Spagnolo in this volume). According to the Medical Manual, while medical examination and clearance of personnel from national contingents of a peacekeeping force remain the responsibility of the troop contributing country, ‘UN Military Observers, Civilian Police monitors and civilian staff, including those recruited locally, is examined in accordance to UN medicals standards and it is the responsibility of the UN Headquarters to ensure that medical clearance is obtained prior to the deployment in the field of such personnel’ (Medical Manual, 2nd edition, p. 46).

  67. 67.

    From an exchange of emails with the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti (an NGO actively involved in filing a class action against the UN on behalf of the victims), it seems that the cholera also affected UN staff.

  68. 68.

    The permanent representative of Malaysia addressed the UN General Assembly, stating that ‘[…] in the interest of achieving closure and justice for the victims, we would encourage greater engagement by the Secretariat with those victims, particularly on the issue of possible remedies and compensations, where appropriate’. See UN Doc. S/PV.7651 p. 16 (17 March 2016).

  69. 69.

    As for the role played by UN member States within the specific discussion held in the General Assembly on cholera in Haiti, see Buscemi 2017, pp. 1007–1010.

List of References

  • Alvarez JE (2014) The United Nations in the Time of Cholera. www.asil.org/blogs/united-nations-time-cholera. Accessed 21 February 2018

  • Arcari M (2014) Forgetting Article 103 of the UN Charter? Some Perplexities on ‘Equivalent Protection’ after Al-Dulimi. Questions of International Law Zoom-in 6:31 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ascensio H (2009) Le règlement des différends lies a la violation par les Organisations internationales des normes relatives aux droits de l’homme. In: Société Française pour le Droit International (ed) La soumission des Organisations internationales aux normes internationales relatives aux droits de l’homme. Pedone, Paris, p 117 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barros AS, Ryngaert C (2014) The Position of Member States in (Autonomous) Institutional Decision-Making. Implications for the Establishment of Responsibility. International Organizations Law Review 11:53–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Blokker NM (2015) Member State Responsibility for Wrongdoings of International Organizations. International Organizations Law Review 12:319–332

    Google Scholar 

  • Brölmann C (2007) The Institutional Veil in Public International Law. Oxford Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Brölmann C (2015) Member States and International Legal Responsibility. Developments of the Institutional Veil. International Organizations Law Review, 12:358–381

    Google Scholar 

  • Buscemi M (2017) La codificazione della responsabilità delle organizzazioni internazionali alla prova dei fatti. Il caso della diffusione del colera ad Haiti. Rivista di Diritto Internazionale 100:989–1039

    Google Scholar 

  • Condorelli L (1995) Le statut des forces de l’ONU et le droit international humanitaire. Rivista di Diritto Internazionale 78:881 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Condorelli L (2003) La protection diplomatique et l’évolution de son domaine d’application. Rivista di Diritto Internazionale 86:5 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Condorelli L (2014) De la responsabilité internationale de l’ONU et/ou de l’État d’envoi lors d’actions de Forces de Maintien de la Paix: l’écheveau de l’attribution (double?) devant le juge néerlandais. Questions of International Law Zoom-in 1:3–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Costello C (2006) The Bosphorus Ruling of the European Court of Human Rights: Fundamental Rights and Blurred Boundaries in Europe. Human Rights Law Review 6:87–130

    Google Scholar 

  • d’Aspremont J (2007) Abuse of the Legal Personality of International Organizations and the Responsibility of Member States. International Organizations Law Review 4:91–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Daugirdas K (2015) Reputation and the Responsibility of International Organizations. European Journal of International Law 25:991–1018

    Google Scholar 

  • De Hert P, Korenica F (2012) The Doctrine of Equivalent Protection: Its Life and Legitimacy Before and after the European Union’s Accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. German Law Journal 13:883

    Google Scholar 

  • De Sena P (2002) La nozione di giurisdizione statale nei trattati sui diritti dell’uomo. Giappichelli, Turin

    Google Scholar 

  • De Sena P (2010) International Monetary Fund, World Bank and Respect for Human Rights: A Critical Point of View. Italian Yearbook of International Law 10:247–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Flauss J (2003) La protection diplomatique: Mutations contemporaines et pratiques nationales. Actes de la journée d’études du 30 mars 2001 organisée à la mémoire de Georges Perrin. Bruylant, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Flauss J (2009) Immunités des Organisations internationales et droit international des droits de l’homme. In: Société Française pour le Droit International (ed) La soumission des Organisations internationales aux normes internationales relatives aux droits de l’homme. Pedone, Paris, p 85 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman R (2014) UN Immunity or Impunity: A Human Rights Based Challenge. European Journal of International Law, 25:239–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallo D (2015) The Right of Access to Justice for the Staff of International Organizations. In: Virzo R, Ingravallo I (eds) Evolutions in the Law of International Organizations. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, p 509 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K (2000) Fundamental Rights in the European Union. European Law Review 25:575–585

    Google Scholar 

  • Megret F (2013) La responsabilité des Nations Unies aux temps du choléra. Revue Belge de Droit International 1:161 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milano E (2004) Diplomatic Protection and Human Rights Before the International Court of Justice: Re-fashioning Tradition? Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 35:85–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray O (2011) Piercing the Corporate Veil: The Responsibility of Member States of an International Organization. International Organizations Law Review 8:291–347

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakatani K (2013) Responsibility of Member States towards Third Parties for an Internationally Wrongful Act of the Organization. In: Ragazzi M (ed) Responsibility of International Organizations. Essays in memory of Sir Ian Brownlie. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 294–301

    Google Scholar 

  • Palchetti P (2007) Azioni di forze istituite o autorizzate dalle Nazioni Unite davanti alla Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo: i casi Behrami e Saramati. Rivista di Diritto internazionale 90:681 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palchetti P (2012) Sulla responsabilità di uno Stato per il voto espresso in seno ad un’organizzazione internazionale. Rivista diritto internazionale 95:352–373

    Google Scholar 

  • Palchetti P (2013) Exploring Alternative Routes: the Obligation of Members to Enable the Organization to Make Reparation. In: Ragazzi M (ed) Responsibility of International Organizations. Essays in memory of Sir Ian Brownlie. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 303–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Palchetti P (2015) Litigating Member State Responsibility. The Monetary Gold Principle and the Protection of Absent Organizations. International Organizations Law Review 12: 468–483

    Google Scholar 

  • Papa MI (2016) The Mothers of Srebrenica Case before the European Court of Human Rights: United Nations Immunity versus Right of Access to a Court. Journal of International Criminal Justice 14:893–907

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavoni R (2015) Choleric notes on the Haiti Cholera Case. Questions of International Law Zoom-in 19:19–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Pergantis V (2006) Towards a ‘Humanization’ of Diplomatic Protection? Heidelberg Journal of International Law 66: 351–397

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisillo Mazzeschi R (2009) Impact on the Law of Diplomatic Protection. In: Kamminga M T, Scheinin M (eds) The Impact of Human Rights Law on General International Law. Oxford Press, Oxford, p 211 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rebasti E (2010) Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo e responsabilità degli Stati per il trasferimento di poteri ad una organizzazione internazionale: la decisione nel caso Gasparini. Rivista di Diritto Internazionale 93:65–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinisch A (2013) The Privileges and Immunities of International Organizations in Domestic Courts. Oxford Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Riddell A (2013) Administrative Boards, Commissions and Tribunals in International Organizations. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 66 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryngaert C (2011) The European Court of Human Rights Approach to the Responsibility of Member States in Connection with Acts of International Organizations. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 60:997–1016

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryngaert C (2015) The Responsibility of Member States of International Organizations. Concluding Observations. International Organizations Law Review, 12: 502–517

    Google Scholar 

  • Spagnolo A (2013) Immunità delle Nazioni Unite per violazioni dei diritti umani commesse nell’ambito di operazioni di peacekeeping e rimedi disponibili per le vittime. Diritti umani e diritto internazionale 3:806–813

    Google Scholar 

  • Spijkers O (2016) Questions of Legal Responsibility for Srebrenica before the Dutch Courts. Journal of International Criminal Justice 14:819–843

    Google Scholar 

  • Šturma P (2013) The Responsibility of International Organizations and their Member States. In: Ragazzi M (ed) Responsibility of International Organizations. Essays in memory of Sir Ian Brownlie. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 313–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellens K (2004) Fragmentation of international law and establishing an accountability regime for international organizations: the role of the judiciary in closing the gap. Michigan Journal of International Law 25:1159–1181

    Google Scholar 

  • Yee S (2013) ‘Member Responsibility’ for Acts of an Organization and the ILC Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations: Some Observations. In: Ragazzi M (ed) Responsibility of International Organizations. Essays in memory of Sir Ian Brownlie. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 325–336

    Google Scholar 

List of Cases

  • (A) International Courts

    Google Scholar 

  • EComHR, M & Co v. Federal Republic of Germany, 9 February 1990, App. No. 13258/87

    Google Scholar 

  • EComHR, X v. Federal Republic of Germany, 10 June 1958, App. No. 235/56

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR, Affaire Michaud v. France, 6 December 2012, App. No. 12323/11

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR, Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v. Switzerland, 26 November 2013, App. No. 5809/08

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR (GC), Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v. Switzerland, 21 June 2016, App. No. 5809/08

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR (GC), Al-Jedda v. United Kingdom, 7 July 2011, App. No. 27021/08

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR (GC), Avotiņš v. Latvia, 23 May 2016, App. No. 17502/07

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR, Boivin v. 34 Member States of the Council of Europe, 9 September 2008, App. No. 73250/01

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR (GC), Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirket v. Ireland, 30 June 2005, App. No. 45036/98

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR, Connolly v. 15 Member States of the European Union, 9 December 2008, App. No. 73274/01

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR, Cooperatieve Producentenorganisatie Van De Nederlandse Kokkelvisserij U.A. v. the Netherlands, 20 January 2009, App. No. 13645/05

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR, Galić v. the Netherlands and Blagojević v. the Netherlands, 9 June 2009, App. No. 22617/07

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR, Gasparini v. Italy and Belgium, 12 May 2009, App. No. 10750/03

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR, Klausecker v. Germany, 6 January 2015, App. No. 415/07

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR, Lopez Cifuentes v. Spain, 7 July 2009, App. No. 18754/06

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR, Matthews v. United Kingdom, 18 February 1999, App. No. 24833/94

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR (GC), Nada v. Switzerland, 12 September 2012, App. No. 10593/08

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR, Perez v. Germany, 6 January 2015, App. No. 15521/08

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and others v. the Netherlands, 11 June 2013, App. No. 65542/12

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR, Waite and Kennedy v. Germany and Beer and Regan v. Germany, 18 February 1999, App. No. 26083/94 and App. No. 28934/95

    Google Scholar 

  • ICJ, Conditions of Admission of a State to the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, 28 May 1948, ICJ Reports 1948, p 57

    Google Scholar 

  • ICJ, Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion, 29 April 1999, I.C.J. Reports 1999, p 62

    Google Scholar 

  • ICJ, Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt, Advisory Opinion, 20 December 1980, I.C.J. Reports 1980, p 73

    Google Scholar 

  • ICJ, Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, 11 April 1949, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p 174

    Google Scholar 

  • ICJ, The Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995 (The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia v. Greece), 5 December 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011, p 644

    Google Scholar 

  • (B) National Courts

    Google Scholar 

  • German Constitutional Court, Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft, Decision of 22 December 1986, Case n. 73, 339 2 BvR 197/83

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Florence, Via delle Pandette 32, 50127, Florence, Italy

    Martina Buscemi

Authors
  1. Martina Buscemi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martina Buscemi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. DIRPOLIS Institute, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy

    Andrea de Guttry

  2. Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridiche (DSG), University of Florence, Florence, Italy

    Micaela Frulli

  3. Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza, Campus Luigi Einaud, University of Turin, Torino, Italy

    Edoardo Greppi

  4. DIRPOLIS Institute, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy

    Chiara Macchi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 T.M.C. Asser press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Buscemi, M. (2018). The Duty of States to Ensure Respect of the Duty of Care through Their Membership in International Organizations. In: de Guttry, A., Frulli, M., Greppi, E., Macchi, C. (eds) The Duty of Care of International Organizations Towards Their Civilian Personnel. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-258-3_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-258-3_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-257-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-258-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation