International organizations: should we restrict diplomatic immunity and privileges?
The diplomatic immunity of International Organizations (IO) is controversial in international law. Are these privileges justified or unfair? Vote & discuss
Debate suggested by Gonza
Diplomatic immunity for international organisations?
International Organizations need immunities in order to act independently and allow them to apply initiatives and policies accross countries so they can serve their purpose. However, UN IO's immunities were granted back in 1946 with the General Convention on Privileges and Immunities. This Convention has never been updated; today, some countries provide different level of immmunities to UN IO's, for example, the United States doesn't recognize the UN Laissez Passer in spite the fact that they have subscribed the Convention. Is this protective "shield" still necessary and adapted to today's needs?
One of the main consequences is the process of litigation concerning IOs and its staff members. Employees of these organizations enjoy immunity from suit in local courts. This is justified by the nature of the work of many of these IOs and that sometimes they operate in conflict areas where the legitimacy of courts could be questioned. But this also create a problem for those litigating against the members of IOs. Although lower courts tend to restrict immunity, often after defence appeal, higher courts tend to confirm absolute immunity. Immunity may have implications from an ethical perspective. This becomes problematic in particular when litigations are linked to traffic violations, sexual abuse, contract disputes, and employment rights. The costs of litigation at an international level are higher than at local courts and the accusation charges may be dropped for this reason.
The United Nations is the organization that benefits the most from these immunities and privileges. However, tt is sometimes contested that immunities have a basis in customary international law. There have been criticisms concerning this provision. One of the best known examples is the litigation between the "Mothers of Srebrenica" and a Dutch batallion operating under the banner of the UN. The latter who was in charge of the enclave in July 1995 but that did not protect it from Bosnian Serb forces of General Mladic that ending up committing a genocide.
What do you think: Are immunities for IO's fair? Should they be narrowed to certain activities? Should they be cancelled and IO's comply with local law? To what extent would the action of IOs be slow down or threaten if immunities and privileges were reduced?
If you change your mind, you can change your vote simply by clicking on another option.
New to netivist?
Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free. You will not receive any promotional materials from third parties.
Join the debate
In order to join the debate you must be logged in.
Already have an account on netivist? Just login. New to netivist? Create your account for free.
You are viewing a filtered list of comments. Click the button above to view all comments.
721 xp
89 posts
UN staff is not subject to local law because they have an international mandate that shouldn't be hindered by local regulation. Laws vary from country to country and, in order to apply international measures, it is necessary to have a common regulatory frame. This doesn't mean that UN staff don't have any limits, each UN agency's set of rules is the law by which they're bound and each UN agency may decide to surrender its staff's immunities if negligence or intention is proved.
In the case of Haití, the fact that the UN is providing aid to fight cholera doesn't make it responsible for starting the disease which cause is still under investigation. The UN is providing economic aid because it is within its mandate and the Haitian government asks for its intervention. The cause may have been a matter of negligence from UN peace corps camping next to a river or it could have been the population who used the river as dump in the absence of public services, unfortunately, we may never know.
1110 xp
341 posts
This is clearly a case in which an elite is protecting an unfair advantage vis-a-vis the system. The case mentioned above of Srebrenica is just one among many others. What about the issue of cholera in Haiti? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-0q0ttIidg
And the sexual abuse by UN peacekeepers in Africa? I don't see why UN stuff should not be subject to local laws. Could someone explain the case better?
Join the debate
In order to join the debate you must be logged in.
Already have an account on netivist? Just login. New to netivist? Create your account for free.
