State and Citizens’ Secondary Responsibility Arising from the Responsibility of International Organizations under the Principles of Morality and Equity
Akhlāq-i zīstī,
Vol. 10 No. 1 (1399),
28 June 2020
,
Page 63-79
https://doi.org/10.22037/bioeth.v10i1.26570
Abstract
The regime of international responsibility of States has been questioned by philosophers of international law. Their main critique pertains to the fairness of the burden of its implementation on blameless individuals in that State, and especially to the fairness of their secondary (mostly financial) liability under domestic or international law (e.g., through taxation in order to pay war reparations). This has been coined the Individualist Challenge to State responsibility. This essay starts by debunking that challenge, before taking the discussion a step further to discuss a related (albeit yet unmade) argument of fairness that one may refer to, by analogy, as the Statist Argument. The Statist Argument would endorse the fairness of the current regime of international responsibility of international organizations (IOs) and in particular the absence of secondary liability of member States of a responsible IO. Addressing the Individualist Challenge and Statist Argument together and understanding why regimes of international responsibility law and our moral intuitions about them each pull in different directions, are the two aims of this essay. The essay turns the Statist Argument on its head and argues that secondary liabilities of member States actually amount to a requirement of fairness to the individuals in those States. It thereby contributes to taking further the debate about the reform of IO responsibility law by drawing on arguments in moral and political philosophy, on the one hand, and does so from the integrative perspective of the moral interests of the individual by discussing both State and IO responsibility lawtogether, on the other.
Please cite this article as: Ahmadnia H, Jalali M, Arashpour AR. State and Citizens’ Secondary Responsibility Arising from the Responsibility of International Organizations under the Principles of Morality and Equity. Bioethics Journal, Special Issue on Bioethics and Citizenship Rights 2020; 63-79.
- International Responsibility Law; International Organizations; Secondary Liability; Fairness; Democracy
How to Cite
References
Larry M. Collective Responsibility. Five Decades of Debate in Theoretical and Applied Ethics. 4th ed. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield; 1991. p.45.
Alain P. International Organizations Are Definitely Not States: Cursory Remarks on the ILC Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations. 7th ed. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff; 2013. p.50.
Supreme Court (NL), Greenpeace Nederland and Procurator General at the Supreme Court of the Netherlands (intervening) v. EURATOM, Judgment on Appeal in Cassation, Decision; 2007. No.LJN: BA9173.
Supreme Court (NL), Mothers of Srebrenica et al. v. The Netherlands and the United Nations; 2012. Case No.10/04437.
Salomon EM. Of Austerity, Human Rights and International Institutions. European Law Journal 2015; 4.
Klabbers J. The Transformation of International Organizations Law European. Journal of International Law 2015; 12(3): 65-74.
District Court the Hague (NL), Staff Union of the European Patent Office v. The European Patent Office, pending appeal; 2015.
Ryngaert C. The Responsibility of Member States of International Organizations: Concluding Observations. International Organizations Law Review 2015; 12(2): 501-521.
Blokker N. Member State Responsibility for Wrongdoings of International Organizations: Beacon of Hope or Delusion?. International Organizations Law Review 2015; 12(2): 41-64.
Sienho Y. Member Responsibility’ and the ILC Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations: Some Observations. 4th ed. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff; 2013. p.8.
The 1972 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (UN Treaty Series, vol. 961, I-13810), 1972. Article.XXII p.3.
Amerasinghe F. Liability to Third Parties of Member States of International Organizations: Practice, Principle and Judicial Precedent. American Journal of International Law 1991; 85(2): 270-272.
D’Argent P. Les réparations de guerre en droit international public: La responsabilité internationale des États à l’épreuve de la guerre. 6th ed. Brussels: Bruylant; 2002. p.535.
Cassese A. International Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. p.241.
Crawford J. International Responsibility. 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010. p.23.
Ian B. The Responsibility of States for the Acts of International Organizations. 4th ed. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff; 2005. p.51.
Falk F. Reparations, International Law and Global Justice: A New Frontier. 12th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006. p.486.
Kelsen H. Principles of International Law. 4th ed. New York: Rinehart and Co; 1952. p.114, 116.
The 1972 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, 1972. Article.XXII p.3.
The 1986 International Cocoa Agreement.
Palchetti P. Exploring Alternative Routes: The Obligation of Members to Enable the Organization to Make Reparation. 5th ed. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff; 2013. p.309-311.
Nagel T. The Problem of Global Justice. Philosophy and Public Affairs 2005; 33(2): 34-38.
Kuijper P. Attribution - Responsibility - Remedy: Some Comments on the EU in Different International Regimes. Revue Belge de Droit International 2013; 46(1): 24-38.
Article 3 of EU Regulation 912/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility to investor-to-state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the European Union is party, 2014. p.121-134.
Schermers G. International Institutional Law. 2nd ed. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff; 1980. p.780.
the two (contradictory) judicial decisions on the subject: UK House of Lords, Maclaine Watson & Co Ltd v. International Tin Council, 26 October 1989 (81 International Law Report 670) and International Chamber of Commerce, Westland Helicopters v. Arab Organization for Industrialization and others, Interim Award No.3879/AS of 5 March 1984 (International Law Materials 23, 1071), 2014.
Third Report on State Responsibility by Mr.James Crawford, Special Rapporteur, Documents of the fifty-second session of the International Law Commission, A/CN.4/507/Add.1. 2000. par.161.
Besson S. La responsabilité solidaire des organisations Internationales et des Etats - une institution négligée. Paris: Publications du Collège de France, Forthcoming; 2017. p.36.
The 1972 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects. Article XXII.3; or Article 3 EU of Regulation 912. 2014.
Howse R. The Concept of Odious Debt in Public International Law. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Discussion Paper 185, 2007. p.64.
Permanent Court of Arbitration, Russian Claim for Indemnities (Turkey v. Russia). 1912. Vol.6 p.443.
- Abstract Viewed: 211 times
- pdf (فارسی) Downloaded: 103 times