Accountability of International Organizations in fixing legal Remedies!

Introduction

In the arena of human rights, the principle of accountability is directly related to human rights obligations and somehow strengthens the concept of respect, protect, and fulfill. It recognizes well the obligations and rights of duty bearers and the right holders. Once the concept of accountability is incorporated in any project or program, it helps in finding the national and international obligations at the same time fixes the remedy accessible for an individual. As per Matthew Parish and Greta L. Rios, without the effective remedy, responsibility doesn’t come, and actually, it comes through accountability. The concept of human rights especially for economic, social, and cultural rights has been explored through the 4As (availability, accessibility, acceptability, and adaptability). This concept is the best way for determining the accountability of the stakeholders since in absence of accountability none of the ‘A’ can be achieved. 

Legal Accountability

Hence the legal accountability has been introduced for the realization of the human rights obligations. It raises a question here that accountability is for whom? Freeman answers that accountability is meant for stakeholders and that is “any group or individuals who can affect or is affected by an organization”. In changing scenarios, there are instances that national actors cannot run away from their obligations or simply cannot say that in absence of resources obligations could not be fulfilled. Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there has been a rift between civil, political rights and economic, social, and cultural rights. In the name of justiciability of ESC rights, governments have been ignoring it. But with the emerging concept of minimum core content and judicial activism, the accountability has been somehow fixed. The Grootboom case of South Africa and the case based on the right to life in India has left a landmark impact on national actors’ accountability. The case of Francis Coralie Mullin was linked with the right to life where the Indian Supreme Court has clubbed the right to life with the right to dignity. The meaning of the word life includes the right to live in fair and reasonable conditions, right to the rehabilitation after release, the right to livelihood by legal means, and a decent environment. The Unni Krishnan's case of India and the judgment of the Supreme Court expanded the horizon of the right to life. In the verdict, the court has said that life includes education as well as, as the right to education flows from the right to life. These cases have fixed the accountability of governments and their minimum obligations that need to be respected and protected in any circumstances. 

Failure of State and the International Organisations in Fixing the Accountability

As per the case of Chixoy Dam, it is apparent that the national government has done nothing for the protection of indigenous people rather helped in aggravating the gruesome treatment extended to the people. They were displaced, raped, and murdered but the military regime did nothing for their security or safety. There were endless human rights violations that took place under Guatemala’s judicial system and the inter-American Commission on Human Rights, like the right to life, right to inhumane treatment, right to personal liberty, or property right. The Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations in the area of ESCR says that as a member of an international organization, the state remains responsible for its own conduct concerning its human rights obligations within its territory and extraterritorially. So it was an immediate obligation of the Guatemalan government to honor the human rights of their citizens. Sometimes it happens the poor nations lack the power to make the international organizations accountable for their wrongful act or sometimes the citizens of those nations cannot enter effectively into the decision-making process and their participation is very low. But it was not the case in Guatemala. It was a military regime and that was quite notorious for its dictatorship and human rights violations. So expecting any moral accountability is like a utopia from the regime. The onus was with the international organizations to protect the indigenous people from the tyranny of the Guatemalan military regime. In fact, there was a report of UN Truth Commission that genocide was planned and carried out to displace the Mayan population from the dam site, above all with the growing awareness about human rights violations incurred in the Chixoy Dam project, World Bank agreed to finance the project and disbursed the second loan. Accountability of the organizations is compromised several times like in the case of Chixoy dam or other cases like the Parej East case, where the World bank’s inspection panel failed on fixing the remedy of the victims of the Coal mine project in India. 

Hence the accountability mechanism is very important for determining the redress of internationally wrongful acts committed by international organizations; otherwise, it is impossible to speak about the effective remedy unless there is a forum in which the legality of their actions can be adjudicated. Otherwise, it is like a legal vacuum where individuals have no access to remedy in case of non-compliance with the policies of international organizations from their founding principles. To be accountable, international organizations have to be an international personality, so they can legally enter into any contract or treaties or any other legal instruments.

International organizations enjoy immunities and privileges in their operation and conduct. The host state jurisdiction and member state jurisdiction does not apply to them. Therefore the third parties that are affected by the policies of these organizations have no effective forum for accessing justice or seek remedy against them. The Bretton Woods organizations as the World Bank, IMF have adopted different paths from being accountable. They try to justify themselves by saying that their nature of work is so sensitive in terms of policymaking and financial decisions that they cannot disclose it, since their policies affect nations and their citizens. But it is like an excuse to get rid of the discourse of accountability and remedy.

Role of the United Nations

To overcome the problem of impunity the UN has come up with international administrative tribunals to address employment-related disputes between staff and the employer. But this affirmative action is not enough to account for the wrongful acts of international organizations. It is more about fixing internal accountability but the external accountability is still untouched. It can be understood with an example of the UN peacekeeping missions. These missions are sometimes accused of direct death and injury because of the mission conducted on the territories. As an instance, the peacekeeping mission of the Un in Kosovo or Bosnia came into public scrutiny after the death of numerous Roma people in the refugee camps in Kosovo. The United Nations Kosovo Force (KFOR) was accused of hosting Roma refugee camps on radioactive uranium dumps that caused cancer or other incurable diseases. Now the question arises if someone wants a judicial remedy against the act of the UN for this behavior of KFOR. Where one’s complaint can be lodged and what is the legal compensation available for the victims? Surprisingly there is no forum where their case can be admissible. The general rule is that international organizations enjoy the benefit of legal impunity so nothing can happen against them. There is a famous case of CYNTHIA BRZAK, NASR ISHAK, v. UNITED NATIONS, KOFI ANNAN, RUND LUBBERS, WENDY CHAMBERLIN, wherein a disappointing judgment; the court has given a verdict that the UN is immune from a lawsuit hence the case that was filled by a UN employee was not entertained. Even the International Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to entertain cases about the acts of international organizations.

Even some individuals also tried to hold responsible international organizations into the court of European Human Rights but the case was rejected on the same grounds of legal impunity. The case of Behramiv.FranceandSaramativ.France, Germany, and Norway where the allegations were made about wrongful detention and injury caused by the agency of the UN that is the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo(UNMIK). The court found that the UNSC was the ultimate authority over the actions of UNMIK hence their acts cannot be attributed to any states who had sent their troops for this mission. Cut also said that the UNMIK is a subsidiary agency of the UN and in principle court has no competence over the cases against the UN. 

Conclusion

The idea that comes here that even if the acts are grossly gruesome and abhorrent cannot be brought under the purview of any court. When an individual can be administered according to the rules of international laws and treaties, why is the same rule not applicable for the international organization? Why it is not binding for them, those have germinated the idea of international governance, needs, and introspection. Nowadays the World Bank or other development agencies take an account of the human rights perspective before financing any projects. Still, individuals have no access to remedy if anything wrong has been committed by international organizations. To make the work of International Organizations more responsible, remedy mechanisms need to be invented and adopted in their work. Then only the development work can be achieved in the full sense.