![Show Menu](styles/mobile-menu.png)
![Page Background](./../common/page-substrates/page0194.png)
180
MARTIN FAIX
CYIL 6 ȍ2015Ȏ
The responsibility of international organisations under international law for
wrongful acts is widely accepted, as Article 3 of the Draft Articles on the Responsibility
of International Organizations (DARIO) also suggests. The general principle stated
in Article 3 DARIO that
“Every internationally wrongful act of an international
organization entails the international responsibility of that organization”
applies,
according to the ILC, to
“whichever entity commits an internationally wrongful act”
.
80
Hence there is no doubt about the responsibility of international organisations when
the conduct (an act or omission) is attributable to an international organisation and
constitutes a breach of its international (human rights) obligations.
81
If international organisations are nowadays considered to have (human rights)
obligations and are considered to be able to violate them, there is also no reason
why they should not be able to bear responsibility with all its consequences. In
other words, it would be hardly acceptable to argue that the legal personality of
international organisations includes the ability to bear international human rights
obligations and to breach them, but would not entail the obligation to provide
remedy for consequences resulting out of such breach – regardless of which entity’s
rights have been violated. That is not to say that the international legal responsibilities
of international organisations are the same as those of States, but the
Chorzów Factory
principle, as one of the fundamental principles of international responsibility, can, in
my opinion, hardly be declared as applicable only in interstate relations.
The acceptance of the responsibility and consequently of the duty of international
organisations to provide reparation in international law contributes in general to
the adherence and more effective enforcement of international law. Moreover, the
Chorzów Factory
principle is regarded as a general principle of international law,
and therefore its application cannot – and should not – be restricted to States,
but is conferrable on all subjects of international law, among which international
organisations currently certainly can be counted.
Having established the right to reparation as a general secondary right based on
international responsibility, triggered by violations of primary rights, the individual,
as the other entity participating in the legal relation created on the secondary level,
should be investigated. The question is whether it is possible to consider individuals
80
Draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations, with commentaries
, adopted by the
International Law Commission at its sixty-third session, in 2011, and submitted to the General Assembly
as a part of the Commission’s report covering the work of that session (A/66/10), p. 13, para. 1;
cf.
SCHRÖDER, Meinhard. Verantwortlichkeit, Völkerstrafrecht, Streitbeilegung und Sanktionen.
op. cit.
,
p. 588 paras. 9-10.
81
McCorquodale
considers the international legal responsibility of international organisations for
violations of international human rights law as still “contentious”; see: McCORQUODALE, Robert.
International Organisation and International Human Rights Law: One Giant Leap for Humankind
,
In: KAIKOBAD, K.H., BOHLANDER, M. (eds.).
International Law and Power: Perspectives on Legal
Order and Justice
. BRIL, 2009, pp. 141-162.