Holding International Organizations Accountable: Legal Frameworks and Challenges
International Organizations: Accountability Challenges
International organizations, like states, can be held responsible for their actions, but the system to make them truly accountable is unclear and very limited. These organizations have international legal personality, which means they can have obligations and be held liable for their conduct.
However, there is no specific court to enforce accountability. Victims often have no real legal path to claim justice. There are three main problems:
Core Problems in Accountability
Procedural Difficulties: It is almost impossible to sue an international organization because they enjoy legal immunity. National courts cannot take action unless the organization waives that immunity, which rarely happens.
Legality: It is not clear what international rules apply to these organizations. Unlike states, it is often uncertain when and how international organizations become bound by international law.
Efficiency and Costs: If every action of organizations like the UN or NATO was closely reviewed legally, it could slow down or block their operations. Staff may become hesitant to act, fearing legal consequences.
State Options for Addressing IO Actions
When faced with an international organization’s actions, states have limited options:
- Withdraw from the organization.
- Reduce or stop payments.
- Pressure for reforms.
- Request International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinions, but these are not binding.
Individuals cannot directly sue international organizations for harm caused (e.g., by UN peacekeepers). Instead, the affected state can negotiate compensation or use diplomatic channels. The ITC was responsible for its debts, not the member states. This case highlighted how organizations can avoid liability due to their separate legal status.
Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (ARIO)
ARIO: Purpose and Drafting
The Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (ARIO) were drafted by the International Law Commission (ILC) from 2001 to 2011. Their aim is to define when and how international organizations are responsible for wrongful acts.
Challenges in Applying ARIO
Applying ARIO is more difficult than determining the responsibility of states due to several factors:
- Lack of Practice: There is less established practice concerning international organizations compared to states.
- Diversity of Organizations: States are very similar in their legal nature, but international organizations are very different from one another, making a uniform framework challenging.
Key Elements of Responsibility under ARIO
Under ARIO, for a wrongful act to be attributed to an international organization, two conditions must be met:
- The organization violated an international obligation (such as treaties, customary international law).
- The act is directly linked to the organization, meaning it was carried out by its agents or under its authority.
In summary, ARIO attempts to clarify when and how international organizations can be held responsible for their acts or the acts of states operating under their control. However, applying these rules is not always straightforward, especially in multinational missions where multiple actors are involved and responsibility can become diluted.
Case Studies in IO Accountability
Behrami and Saramati Case (Kosovo)
The Behrami case exposes the confusion in assigning responsibility in multinational missions and the lack of clarity about who is accountable for harm caused by forces under UN or NATO command.
Key Legal Issues
- Responsibility: Who was responsible for the incident – France, UNMIK, or NATO? Each actor had a specific mandate, but the division of responsibilities was unclear.
- Attribution of the Act: Who was obligated to remove the mines at that time? France was in charge of the area, but UNMIK had assumed the responsibility for mine clearance.
- Lack of Clear Responsibility: The confusion in mandates allowed each actor to blame the other, resulting in no one taking full responsibility.
In this case, the victims were trapped in a legal gap, where responsibility was unclear and spread among several actors, leaving them without a clear solution.
Haiti Cholera Outbreak
In 2010, UN soldiers from Nepal carried the cholera bacterium to Haiti, contaminating the water and causing thousands of deaths and millions of illnesses. The victims attempted to sue the UN, but the organization has legal immunity and did not pay any compensation. Years later, the UN publicly apologized, but without assuming legal or economic responsibility.
Conclusion: The Accountability Gap
In short, international organizations are legally protected, which makes it very hard to hold them accountable for wrongful acts, even when harm is clear.