International Organizations before National Courts

Abstract

A radical, empirical investigation of how national courts 'react' to disputes involving international organizations. Through comprehensive analysis of the attitudes and techniques of national courts and underlying political motives, Professor Reinisch first describes various legal approaches that result in adjudication or non-adjudication of disputes concerning international organizations. Secondly he discusses policy issues pro and contra the adjudication of such disputes. His study then scrutinizes the rationale for immunizing international organizations from domestic litigations, especially the 'functional' need for immunity, and substantially debates the implications of a human rights-based right of access to court on immunizing international organizations against national jurisdictions. Finally he identifies contemporary trends, seeking to ascertain whether a more flexible principle exempting certain types of disputes from domestic adjudication might substitute for the traditional immunity concept, which would simultaneously guarantee the functioning and independence of international organizations without impairing private parties' access to a fair dispute settlement procedure.

International Environmental “soft law”

“…249 Any solution to this state of affairs faces complex regulatory challenges. The FAO estimates that more than half of the marine fish stocks are fully Part 1 64 exploited and 28 percent are either overexploited or depleted.…”

“…252 Apart from these general obligations state parties to the convention enjoy great regulatory autonomy with regards to the substantive regulation and management of fisheries. Articles 117 to 119 UNCLOS merely establish a duty to cooperate and outline some of the main features to 249 guide such cooperation. 254 In addition, fishing on the high seas is only subject to a very rudimentary legal framework.…”

“…248 Criteria such as tonnage or the number of maritime states were not accepted by those that saw a risk in vesting the principal maritime powers with quasi-legislative authority. 249 This combination gives due regard to the purpose of the rules of reference to strive for international uniformity while paying deference to the interests of both coastal and flag states. As a step towards a solution, both 247 This has been proposed by B.H.…”

The Immunity of the United Nations in Relation to the Genocide in Srebrenica in the Eyes of a Dutch District Court

“…that do not fall within the Organization's functional scope. 26 If non-functional acts exist at all, then one would think that the failure to prevent genocide would certainly fi t in that category.…”

“…Instead, one must assess the negative consequences the denial of immunity would have for the proper functioning of the UN. 28 Th e question is thus whether it is necessary for the United Nations, in order to fulfi ll its purposes, to have immunity from domestic jurisdiction in cases relating to acts committed (or 'omitted') by a UN peacekeeping force. When answering this question, one must consider that no organization has the right to claim 'a quiet life, and certainly not a charmed life, set apart from the bustle and travails of the world'.…”