291 / 532
275
ARE INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS BOUND BY INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS…
The set of criteria included the requirement of “
stability of institutions guaranteeing
democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities
”.
Also the membership in the Council of Europe, an organisation established in the
aftermath of World War II specifically for the purpose of human rights protection,
certainly stimulated human rights protection in this part of Europe.
33
Generally it can be argued that international organisations contributed to a higher
effectiveness of international human rights law in many ways, but especially through
the institutionalisation of its enforcement or providing the framework for its
codification. This can be considered as a part of the general tendency for which
not only a shift from the State as the solely responsible entity in the area of human
rights is characteristic but also imposing human rights obligations on other non-state
actors, including international organisations.
34
2. Legal Status of International Organisations under International Law
Before turning attention to the question of whether and to what extent international
organisations are bound by human rights, the question of the legal status of international
organisations under international law shall be addressed. Repeating the discussion or
giving an in-depth view into the still somewhat murky waters of the discussion on
this issue would be inappropriate here; but addressing it briefly appears logical, as
international legal personality seems to be a commonly accepted prerequisite for
an international organisation to have proper obligations under international law,
including those in the area of human rights.
The usual starting point and the leading precedent for considerations regarding
the position of international organisations in international law is the statement of
the ICJ in the
Reparations for Injuries Suffered in the Services of the United Nations
Advisory Opinion:
“The subjects of law in any legal system are not necessarily identical in their nature or
in the extent of their rights, and their nature depends upon the needs of the community.
… In the opinion of the Court, the Organization was intended to exercise and enjoy, and
is in fact exercising and enjoying, functions and rights which can only be explained on the
basis of the possession of a large measure of international personality and the capacity to
operate upon an international plane … Accordingly, the Court has come to the conclusion
that the Organization is an international person. That is not the same thing as saying that
it is a State, which it certainly is not, or that its legal personality and rights and duties are
the same as those of a State … It does not even imply that all its rights and duties must be
upon the international plane, any more than all the rights and duties of a State must be
upon that plane. What it does mean is that it is a subject of international law and capable
33
Even though this question would deserve a more detailed analysis, especially with regard to the issue
of enforcement of human rights protected by the COE treaties, such an analysis would go beyond the
scope of the present contribution. Moreover, it would not lead to any significantly different conclusion
than that of the overall positive effect, which currently the COE system continues to unfold.
34
LARSEN, Kjetil Mujezinović.
The human rights treaty obligations of peacekeepers
.
Supra
note 9, p. 57.