![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 The International Law Commission has defined international organizations as being ‘an organization established by a treaty or other instrument governed by international law and possessing its own international legal personality. International organizations may include as members, in addition to States, other entities’. See ILC, ‘Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations’ (26 April–3 June and 4 July–12 August) (2011) II(2) Yearbook of the International Law Commission, UN Doc A/66/10.
2 A multinational corporation (MNC), also called a transnational corporation, is any corporation that is registered and operates in more than one country at a time (Brittanica, 2023).
3 The OECD has defined non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to include ‘any non-profit entity organised on a local, national or international level to pursue shared objectives and ideals, without significant government-controlled participation or representation’; See OECD, ‘Aid for Civil Society Organisations’ (2018) <https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-topics/Aid-for-Civil-Society-Organisations-2015-2016.pdf> accessed 9 September 2023.
4 Shaoxing Bai et al., ‘Environmental Responsibility of Multinational Enterprises’ (2021) Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research 2764; See also: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’ (2011) United Nations <https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf>; OHCHR, ‘BHR Treaty Process’ <https://www.ohchr.org/en/business-and-human-rights/bhr-treaty-process>.
5 See for example: Lisa Jordan and Peter Van Tuijl (eds), NGO Accountability: Politics, Principles and Innovations (Earthscan 2006).
6 Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations (Advisory Opinion) [1949] ICJ Rep 174.
7 David Stewart, ‘Holding International Organizations Accountable: Recent Developments in U.S. Immunities Law’ (2023) King’s Law Journal, p 3.
8 Waite and Kennedy v Germany App no 26083/94 (ECtHR, 18 February 1999).
9 Ibid, paras 67–68.
10 See for example the Srebrenica case: Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and Others v the Netherlands App no 65542/12 (ECtHR, 11 June 2013).
11 Georges v. United Nations, 834 F.3d 88 (2d Circ. 2016).
12 Ibid; Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations 1946, s 29.
13 For further discussion on this point, see: Rishi Gulati, Access to Justice and International Organisations (Cambridge University Press 2022) 134–155.
14 A leading work on state immunity is Hazel Fox and Philippa Web, The Law of State Immunity (Oxford University Press 3rd edn 2013).
15 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1602–1611 (1976).
16 Jam v International Finance Corporation., 139 S. Ct. 759.
17 Ibid, see Bryer, J., dissent.
18 Stewart, ‘Holding International Organizations Accountable’ (n 7) p 2.
19 Gulati, Access to Justice and International Organisations (n 13) chapter 4.
20 Stewart, ‘Holding International Organizations Accountable’ (n 7) p 14.
21 Gulati, Access to Justice and International Organisations (n 13) chapter 5.
22 A phrase used in Gulati’s Access to Justice and adopted in other works, see: Raul C. Pangalangan ‘Judicial Review at the Asian Development Bank Administrative Tribunal’ (2022) Asian Journal of International Law 248.
23 See generally, Rishi Gulati, ‘An International Administrative Procedural Law of Fair Trial: Reality or Rhetoric?’ (2018) Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online 210.
24 Edward Chukwuemeke Okeke, ‘Assessing the Accountability Mechanism of Multilateral Development Banks against Access to Justice: The Case of the World Bank’ (2023) King’s Law Journal.
25 S. Nicole Liverpool Jordan, ‘Nature and Scope of an International Organisation’s Due Diligence Obligations under International Environmental Law: A Case Study of the Caribbean Development Bank’ (2023) King’s Law Journal.
26 Note as per the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman’s Operational Guidelines, the two related cases have remained ‘open’ as CAO monitors IFC’s response to the findings. See: <https://www.cao-ombudsman.org/cases/india-tata-ultra-mega-01mundra-and-anjar>; <https://www.cao-ombudsman.org/cases/india-tata-ultra-mega-02tragadi-village>.
27 Chukwuemeke Okeke, ‘Assessing the Accountability Mechanism’ (n 24) 12.
28 Ibid.
29 United Nations Security Council, ‘Ombudsman to the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee’ <https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/ombudsperson>.
30 Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission (2008) C-402/05.
31 Amal Clooney and Philippa Webb, The Right to a Fair Trial in International Law (Oxford University Press 2021).
32 Dana Burchardt, ‘Transnational Procedural Guarantees – The Role of Domestic Courts’ (2023) King’s Law Journal 3.
33 Burchardt, ‘Transnational Procedural Guarantees’ (n 32) 5.
34 Gulati, Access to Justice and International Organisations (n 13) chapter 2.
35 ‘Inter-American Juridical Committee Report. Immunities of International Organizations’ (16 August 2018) CJI/doc.554/18 rev.2 (IAJC Guidelines).
36 August Reinisch, ‘Arbitrating Disputes with International Organizations and Some Access to Justice Issues’ (2023) King’s Law Journal 14.
37 Gulati, Access to Justice and International Organisations (n 13) chapter 5.
38 Youseph Farah, Avidan Kent and Valentine Kunuji, ‘Civil Liability under Sustainability Due Diligence Legislation: A Quiet Revolution?’ (2023) King’s Law Journal 2.
39 See generally, José E Alvarez, ‘Are Corporations “Subjects” of International Law?’ (2011) Santa Clara Journal of International Law 3.
40 The Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration (2019) <https://www.cilc.nl/cms/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/The-Hague-Rules-on-Business-and-Human-Rights-Arbitration_CILC-digital-version.pdf>.
41 Gulati, Access to Justice and International Organisations (n 13) 206.
42 Farah, Kent and Kunuji, ‘Civil Liability under Sustainability’ (n 38) 14.
43 European Commission Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence and Amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937, Brussels, 23.2.2022 COM (2022) 71 final 2022/0051 (COD).
44 Farah, Kent and Kunuji, ‘Civil Liability under Sustainability’ (n 38) 28.
45 Rosana Garciandia, ‘Accountability of NGOs: The Potential of Business and Human Rights Frameworks for NGO Due Diligence’ (2023) King’s Law Journal 18.
46 Liverpool Jordan, ‘Nature and Scope of an International Organisation’s Due Diligence Obligations (n 25) 7–9.
47 United Nations Peacekeeping, ‘Standards of Conduct’ <https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/standards-of-conduct>.
48 Nigel White, ‘Protecting Human Rights in UN Peacekeeping: Operationalising Due Diligence and Accountability’ (2023) King’s Law Journal 2.
49 White, ‘Protecting Human Rights in UN Peacekeeping’ (n 48) 2.
50 See for example: Neil McDonald, ‘The Role of Due Diligence in International Law’ (2019) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1041; Heike Kriger and Anne Peters, ‘Due Diligence and Structural Changes in the International Legal Order’ in Heike Krieger, Anne Peters and Leonhard Kreuzer (eds), Due Diligence in the International Legal Order (Oxford University Press 2020).
51 Vedanta Resources PLC v Lungowe [2019] UKSC 20; Philippa Webb, ‘Forum Non Conveniens: A Comparative Perspective’ in Thomas John, Rishi Gulati and Ben Koehler (eds), The Elgar Companion to the Hague Conference on Private International Law (Edward Elgar 2020).
52 See for example, Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum Co 569 U.S. 108 (2013); Jesner v Arab Bank, PLC, 138 S. Ct. 1386 (2018).
53 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (n 4).
54 Rishi Gulati, ‘Meta’s Oversight Board and Transnational Hybrid Adjudication – What Consequences for International Law?’ (2023) 24(3) German Law Journal 473.
55 See generally, Laurence R. Helfer and Molly K. Land, ‘The Meta Oversight Board's Human Rights Future’ (2023) 44(6) Cardozo Law Review; Laurence Helfer and Molly K Land, ‘Is the Facebook Oversight Board an International Human Rights Tribunal?’ (Lawfare, 13 May 2021) <https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/facebook-oversight-board-international-human-rights-tribunal>.
56 For further discussion on this point, see Burchardt ‘Transnational Procedural Guarantees’ (n 32) p 4.
57 Vedanta Resources PLC v Lungowe (n 51).
58 UNGA, ‘Report of the Redesign Panel on the United Nations System of Administration of Justice’ (23 February 2007) UN Doc A/61/205.
59 Stewart, ‘Holding International Organizations Accountable’ (n 7).
60 UNGA, ‘Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 7 December 2022’ (2022) UN Doc A/Res/77/103, para 7.
61 Michael Wood, ‘The Settlement of International Disputes to which International Organizations are Parties’ (2016) II(2) Yearbook of the International Law Commission 387, Annex I, para 5.
62 ILC, ‘First Report on the Settlement of International Disputes to which International Organizations are Parties, by August Reinisch, Special Rapporteur’ (2023) UN Doc A/CN.4/756.
63 Lorenzo Gasbarri, ‘Try Again, Fail Again, Fail Better’: The International Law Commission is back on International Organizations’ (EJIL: Talk!, 28 June 2023) <https://www.ejiltalk.org/try-again-fail-again-fail-better-the-international-law-commission-is-back-on-international-organizations/>.