Diplomatic World 67

IMMUNITY FROM JURISDICTION
IF THE COURT CANNOT CONTROL THE IO;
WHO CAN?
Immunity for IOs is increasingly being questioned, because of the
tensions it creates with regards to the right of access to a court. 26
As opposed to states, who enjoy immunity but can be sued before
their national courts, not all IOs dispose of a judicial organ.
In that regard, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
decided that the granting of immunity from jurisdiction is only
allowed if reasonable alternative means to protect the interests of
individuals are provided. 27
IMMUNITY FROM EXECUTION
Immunity from execution seems to be broader than immunity
from jurisdiction, when it comes to IOs. There is still a lot of
controversy on where the line is to be drawn between assets that
are necessary for the institutional purposes of an IO and assets
which are not. The current tendency seems to be that the entire
property of an IO is needed to let it effectively fulfill its functions.
28 The distinction between acta iure gestionis and acta iure
imperii that is also made with regards to immunity from execution
when it comes to states, is thus not transposable to institutional
immunity from execution. 29
CONCLUSION
IOs enjoy immunity from jurisdiction and execution on the
international level. This immunity originates from the constituent
instrument of the IO or from multilateral or bilateral agreements
with the host country. Institutional immunity is aimed at protecting
the effective and independent functioning of the IO. However,
the exact scope of the institutional immunity is still unclear. While
the US seems to regard IOs as being on a par with states when it
comes to immunity from jurisdiction, the rest of the world seems
to be against such analogy. As to immunity from execution, there
is little discussion, due to the rather absolute character of the
institutional immunity in that regard.
SOURCES
Legislation:
European Convention on Human Rights.
International Organizations Immunities Act, § 2(b), ch. 652, 59
Stat. 669 (1945).
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 90 Stat. 2891 (1976).
Case law:
ECtHR 18 February 1999, Waite and Kennedy v Germany
nr. 26083/94.
International Court of Justice 11 April 1949, Reparation for
Injuries Suffered in the Service of the UN (Advisory Opinion),
nr. 4, 180.
US Supreme Court 27 February 2019, Jam v International
Finance Corporation, 586, Opinion of the Court 9.
US District Court for the District of Colombia 9 November 2020,
Rodriguez v. Pan American Health Organization (Opinion of the
Court), nr. 20-928.
Hof van Cassatie België 21 december 2009,
Siedler v. West-Europese Unie, ILDC 1625, nr. S.04.0129.F.
Hof van Cassatie België 21 december 2009, Secretariaat ACP
Groep v. Lutchmaya, nr. C.03.0328.F, ILDC 1573.
Hof van Cassatie België 12 maart 2001, Liga van Arabische
Staten v. TM, nr. S.99.0103F, ILDC 42, 610.
Hoge Raad Nederland 20 December 1985, Spaans v.
Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, NJ 1986, nr. 12627, 438.
Legal doctrine:
BLOKKER, N. en SCHRIJVER, N. (eds.), Immunity of International
Organizations, Leiden, Brill, 2015, 363p.
BONAFÉ, B. I., “Italian Courts and the Immunity of International
Organizations”, IOLR 2013, Vol. 10, nr. 2, 512.
BORDIN, F. N., “To what immunities are international organizations
entitled under general international law? Thoughts on
Jam v IFC and the ‘default rules’ of IO immunity”,
Questions of International Law 2020, 5-28.
COLLINS, R. en WHITE, N. (eds.), International Organizations
and the Idea of Autonomy: Institutional Independence in the
International Legal Order, Abingdon, Routledge, 2011, 464p.
RIOS, G. en FLAHERTY, E., “International organization reform or
impunity? Immunity is the problem”, ILSA Journal of International
& Comparative Law, 2010, 433-455.
VIRZO, R. en INGRAVALLO, I. (eds.), Evolutions in the Law of
International Organizations, Leiden, Brill, 2015, 547p.
WOOD, H. M., “Legal Relations between Individuals and a World
Organization of States” in Transactions of the Grotius Society,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1944, vol. 30, 143–144.
WOUTERS, J., RYNGAERT, C., RUYS, T. en DE BAERE, G.,
International law: a European perspective, Oxford,
Hart Publishing, 2019, 1038p.
Online sources:
ARATO, J., “Equivalence and Translation: Further thoughts on IO
(consulted on 26 July 2021).
1
Both law students at the Catholic University of Leuven,
expressing particular thanks to Billiet & Co, a Brussels -based
law firm specialized in legal services for diplomatic missions.
2
J. WOUTERS, C. RYNGAERT, T. RUYS en G. DE BAERE,
International law: a European perspective, Oxford,
Hart Publishing, 2019, 256-257.
3
J. WOUTERS, C. RYNGAERT, T. RUYS en G. DE BAERE,
International law: a European perspective, Oxford,
Hart Publishing, 2019, 500.
4
J. WOUTERS, C. RYNGAERT, T. RUYS en G. DE BAERE,
International law: a European perspective, Oxford,
Hart Publishing, 2019, 500.
5
International Court of Justice 11 April 1949, Reparation for
Injuries Suffered in the Service of the UN (Advisory Opinion),
nr. 4, 180.
6
J. WOUTERS, C. RYNGAERT, T. RUYS en G. DE BAERE,
International law: a European perspective, Oxford,
Hart Publishing, 2019, 500.
7
M. F. ORZAN, “International Organizations and Immunity from
Legal Process: An Uncertain Revolution” in Evolutions in the
Law of International Organizations, Leiden, Brill, 2015, 377.
8
H. M. WOOD, “Legal Relations between Individuals and a
World Organization of States” in Transactions of the Grotius
Society, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1944, vol.
30, 143–144.
9
N. BLOKKER en N. SCHRIJVER (eds.), Immunity of
International Organizations, Leiden, Brill, 2015, 2;
E. DE BRABANDERE, “Immunity as a guarantee for
institutional autonomy” in
International Organizations and the Idea of Autonomy:
Institutional Independence in the International Legal Order,
Abingdon, Routledge, 2011, 278.
10
§10 Hof van Cassatie België 21 december 2009, Siedler v.
West-Europese Unie, ILDC 1625, nr. S.04.0129.F.
11
E. DE BRABANDERE, “Immunity as a guarantee for
institutional autonomy” in International Organizations
and the Idea of Autonomy: Institutional Independence in the
International Legal Order, Abingdon, Routledge, 2011, 279.
12
N. BLOKKER en N. SCHRIJVER (eds.), Immunity of
International Organizations, Leiden, Brill, 2015, 2.
13
J. ARATO, “Equivalence and Translation: Further thoughts on
IO immunities in Jam v. IFC”, https://www.ejiltalk.org/
immunities in Jam v. IFC”, https://www.ejiltalk.org/equivalenceand-translation-further-thoughts-on-io-immunities-in-jam-v-ifc/
equivalence-and-translation-further-thoughts-on-ioimmunities-in-jam-v-ifc/.
14
G. RIOS en E. FLAHERTY, “International organization reform or
impunity? Immunity is the problem”, ILSA Journal of
International & Comparative Law, 2010, 436; M. F. ORZAN,
“International Organizations and Immunity from Legal Process:
An Uncertain Revolution” in Evolutions in the Law
of International Organizations, Leiden, Brill, 2015, 366.
15
M. F. ORZAN, “International Organizations and Immunity from
Legal Process: An Uncertain Revolution” in Evolutions in the
Law of International Organizations, Leiden, Brill, 2015, 377.
16
US District Court for the District of Colombia 9 November
2020, Rodriguez v. Pan American Health Organization (Opinion
of the Court), nr. 20-928.
17
Pro: Hoge Raad Nederland 20 December 1985, Spaans v.
Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, NJ 1986, nr. 12627, 438;
M. WOOD, “Do international organizations enjoy immunity
under customary international law?” in Immunity of International
Organizations, Leiden, Brill, 2015, 31-32. Contra: Hof van
Cassatie België 21 december 2009, Secretariaat ACP Groep
v. Lutchmaya, nr. C.03.0328.F, ILDC 1573; Hof van Cassatie
België 12 maart 2001, Liga van Arabische Staten v. TM, nr.
S.99.0103F, ILDC 42, 610; B.I. BONAFÉ, “Italian Courts and
the Immunity of International Organizations”, IOLR 2013, Vol.
10, nr. 2, 512; M. F. ORZAN, “International Organizations and
Immunity from Legal Process: An Uncertain Revolution” in
Evolutions in the Law of International Organizations, Leiden,
Brill, 2015, 365-372.
18
International Organizations Immunities Act, § 2(b),
ch. 652, 59 Stat. 669 (1945).
19
G. RIOS en E. FLAHERTY, “International organization reform or
impunity? Immunity is the problem”, ILSA Journal of
International & Comparative Law, 2010, 438.
20
J. WOUTERS, C. RYNGAERT, T. RUYS en G. DE BAERE,
International law: a European perspective, Oxford,
Hart Publishing, 2019, 502.
21
BORDIN, F. N., “To what immunities are international
organizations entitled under general international law?
Thoughts on Jam v IFC and the ‘default rules’ of IO immunity”,
Questions of International Law 2020, 5.
22
US Supreme Court 27 February 2019, Jam v International
Finance Corporation, 586, Opinion of the Court 9.
23
E. DE BRABANDERE, “Belgian Courts and the Immunity of
International Organizations” in Immunity of International
Organizations, Leiden, Brill, 2015, 217.
24
E. DE BRABANDERE, “Belgian Courts and the Immunity of
International Organizations” in Immunity of International
Organizations, Leiden, Brill, 2015, 216.
25
E. DE BRABANDERE, “Belgian Courts and the Immunity of
International Organizations” in Immunity of International
Organizations, Leiden, Brill, 2015, 216.
26
Article 6 ECHR.
27
§68 ECtHR 18 February 1999, Waite and Kennedy v
Germany, nr. 26083/94; M. F. ORZAN, “International
Organizations and Immunity from Legal Process:
An Uncertain Revolution” in Evolutions in the Law of
International Organizations, Leiden, Brill, 2015, 374.
28
M. F. ORZAN, “International Organizations and Immunity from
Legal Process: An Uncertain Revolution” in Evolutions in the
Law of International Organizations, Leiden, Brill, 2015, 378.
29
E. DE BRABANDERE, “Belgian Courts and the Immunity of
International Organizations” in Immunity of International
Organizations, Leiden, Brill, 2015, 379.
By Raffaela Amelia Stoilas & Camille Verstraete
Both law students at the Catholic University of Leuven, hereby
expressing particular thanks to Billiet & Co, a Brussels -based
law firm specialized in legal services for diplomatic missions,
where they conducted a summer internship in this niche field.
160 161