Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Victims’ Right to Reparation and the Residual Application of Diplomatic and/or Functional Protection

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Duty of Care of International Organizations Towards Their Civilian Personnel

  • 480 Accesses

Abstract

It is traditionally considered that under the existing international legal framework the obligation to provide reparations is incumbent on any actor/subject of international law that is accountable for the damage, material and moral, resulting from the breach of an international obligation. This is a key corollary of the attribution of international responsibility for wrongful acts, and as such it pertains to both States and international organizations. After providing a short overview of how the right to reparation developed beyond the traditional inter-State paradigm, this chapter will address the issue of redress for victims, focusing on civilian personnel sent on missions or assignments outside their normal place of activity, as well as on international organizations’ breaches of their duty of care. Furthermore, this chapter will discuss the residual application of States’ diplomatic protection and international organizations’ functional protection, in cases where the injury suffered by the staff member engages the interests of the State of nationality, the international organization, or both.

Annex II—the Table of Cases—can be accessed online here: http://extras.springer.com/.

Francesca Capone, Senior Research Fellow in Public International Law, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Piazza Martiri della Libertà 33, 56127 Pisa, Italy, f.capone@santannapisa.it

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Shelton 2015.

  2. 2.

    Gillard 2003, p. 530.

  3. 3.

    Factory at Chorzów, Germany v Poland, Judgment of 13 September 1928 (Merits), PCIJ, Ser. A, No. 17, para 78 (emphasis added).

  4. 4.

    On the issue of causation, see Plakokefalos 2015, pp. 481–483.

  5. 5.

    International Law Commission, Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UN Doc. A/RES/56/83 (2001).

  6. 6.

    While there is overwhelming support in the international legal community for the right to reparation for individuals, see in particular Capone 2017; Shelton 2015; and Evans 2012, some authors, in particular Professor Tomuschat, offer an opposing opinion. See Tomuschat 2002, p. 166; and Tomuschat 2005, pp. 582–584.

  7. 7.

    Nissel 2006; Crawford 2002, p. 201.

  8. 8.

    Buyse 2008, p. 129.

  9. 9.

    Article 36 ARSIWA.

  10. 10.

    Tomuschat 2007, pp. 907–911.

  11. 11.

    Article 37 ARSIWA; Gray 1987, p. 13.

  12. 12.

    Shelton 2002, p. 845.

  13. 13.

    Daugirdas 2015, p. 994. The question of international organizations being subjects of international law and hence bound by certain legal obligations has been addressed by the ICJ: ‘[i]nternational organizations are subjects of international law and, as such, are bound by any obligations incumbent upon them under general rules of international law, under their constitutions or under international agreements to which they are parties’. ICJ, Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt, Advisory Opinion, 20 December 1980, I.C.J. Rep. 73, paras 89–90.

  14. 14.

    Amerasinghe 2005, p. 272, where the author explains the ratio behind the necessity of such internal law: ‘[i]f the national law of the member states applied to relations between the organization and its staff, the courts of states would probably be competent to hear disputes, apart from employment relations being subject to the laws of member states, a situation which would have had drawbacks for the organization. It would then find itself subject to the control of members.’

  15. 15.

    Amerasinghe 2010, p. 375.

  16. 16.

    Amerasinghe 1996, p. 162, to use the author’s words: ‘It is important to note that these are not subsidiary organs of the organ of the organization establishing them or of any other organ. They are true judicial organs with independence and the capacity to give binding decisions like any court of justice, binding on the organization over which they exercise jurisdiction and even on the organs creating them.’

  17. 17.

    Ibid.

  18. 18.

    Articles on the responsibility of international organizations, with commentaries, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2011, vol. II, Part Two (ARIO with commentaries). See Chap. 3 by Spagnolo in this volume.

  19. 19.

    Simmonds 1968, pp. 231–235.

  20. 20.

    The terms ‘injury’, ‘harm’, ‘damage’, ‘loss’ etc… are not defined consistently in international law and there are no agreed or exact equivalencies between in all various official languages of the UN. Crawford et al. 2001, p. 971.

  21. 21.

    Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries, Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2001, vol. II, Part Two, p. 101 (ARSIWA with commentaries).

  22. 22.

    UNGA, Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law UNBPG 2005, A/RES/60/147.

  23. 23.

    Capone 2017, p. 71.

  24. 24.

    On the definition of remedies under international law see generally Capone 2012.

  25. 25.

    UNBPG 2005, p. 6.

  26. 26.

    Pisillo Mazzeschi 1992; Kulesza 2016, pp. 264–266.

  27. 27.

    Kolb 2017, p. 41.

  28. 28.

    Ibid.

  29. 29.

    Kulesza 2016, p. 267.

  30. 30.

    See Chap. 2 by de Guttry in this volume.

  31. 31.

    Blay et al. 2005.

  32. 32.

    Shelton 2015, p. 175.

  33. 33.

    Amerasinghe 2005, p. 489.

  34. 34.

    Ibid.

  35. 35.

    The majority of international organizations base their relations with their staff members on a contractual nexus, in only a handful of cases is the bond between the organization and its staff members statutory and not contractual. Amerasinghe 2005, p. 281. On the different models of internal administrative tribunals, see Chap. 2 by de Guttry in this volume.

  36. 36.

    Ibid., p. 497.

  37. 37.

    As stressed by the International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal (ILOAT) in the Rubio case: ‘[…] an employee of an international organization is entitled to the safeguard of an impartial ruling by an international tribunal on any dispute with the employer’. ILOAT, Rubio v. Universal Postal Union, Judgment, 10 July 1997, Case No. 1644, para 12.

  38. 38.

    The concept that human rights are binding upon international organizations has been endorsed by many administrative tribunals in their jurisprudence; see Reinisch 2008, p. 290. On access to justice as a human rights see Francioni 2007.

  39. 39.

    There are many States whose courts have recognised the immunity from jurisdiction of international organizations in employment-related cases, e.g. Germany, Argentina, Mexico, Chile, the Philippines etc…See Amerasinghe 2005, p. 325.

  40. 40.

    Reinisch 2008, p. 291.

  41. 41.

    Reinisch 2008, p. 287.

  42. 42.

    Gaillard and Pingel-Lenuzza 2008, p. 2.

  43. 43.

    Reinisch 2008, p. 295. For example in some cases French courts have actually refused to accord immunity to international organizations where claimants would have been deprived of a forum hearing their claims, see Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (ord. Re f.), UNESCO v. Boulois, 20 October 1997, Rev. Arb. 575.

  44. 44.

    See ECtHR (Grand Chamber), Waite and Kennedy v. Germany, Judgment (Merits), 18 February 1999, Application No. 26083/94. In this case, which involved contractors suing the territorial State (Germany) for dismissing their claim regarding an employment contract with the European Space Agency (ESA), and in subsequent ones, the ECtHR found that: ‘[i]t would have been incompatible with the object and purpose of the ECHR if the Contracting States were totally absolved from their responsibility under the Convention in a particular field by the attribution of immunity to an international organization’, para 57. See Gaillard and Pingel-Lenuzza 2008, p. 5; see also Webb 2016, p. 756.

  45. 45.

    Ibid.

  46. 46.

    ILOAT, Mr. F. M. against the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, 17 February 2005, Judgment No. 2403, para 16 (see Annex II, Case 14); ILOAT, Mr. A. P. against the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), 6 July 2011, Judgment No. 3025, para 2 (see Annex II, Case 11); ILOAT, J. T. B. (No. 4) v. WHO, 6 July 2016, Judgment No.3689, para 5 (see Annex II, Case 21).

  47. 47.

    Article 10(5)(a) and (b) UNDT Statute, as mirrored by Article 9(1)(a) and (b) UNAT Statute. Both provisions further specify that the UNDT and the UNAT in exceptional cases may order the payment of a higher compensation for harm, supported by evidence, and shall provide the reasons for that decision. Statute of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal (adopted 24 December 2008) by UNGA Res 63/253 GAOR 63rd Session Supp 49, vol. 1, 503; Statute of the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (adopted 24 December 2008) UNGA Res 63/253 GAOR 63rd Session Supp 49, vol. 1, 503.

  48. 48.

    Reinisch and Knahr 2008, p. 476.

  49. 49.

    Robertson et al. 2006, p. 20, para 53.

  50. 50.

    For a brief excursus on how ILOAT and UNDT/UNAT were established see Riddell 2010; see also Klabbers 2015, pp. 216–218. See Chap. 7 by Creta in this volume.

  51. 51.

    Statute of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation (adopted 9 October 1946 as amended 29 June 1949) (International Labour Office Geneva 1954). See Article VIII: ‘In cases falling under article II, the Tribunal, if satisfied that the complaint was well founded, shall order the rescinding of the decision impugned or the performance of the obligation relied upon. If such rescinding of a decision or execution of an obligation is not possible or advisable, the Tribunal shall award the complainant compensation for the injury caused to him.’

  52. 52.

    Administration of Justice: Harmonization of the Statutes of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal and the International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal, Report of the Joint Inspection Unit, Doc. JIU/REP/2004/3, Geneva 2004, 2006, para 5.

  53. 53.

    ILOAT, In re Grasshoff v. World Health Organization (WHO), 24 April 1980, Judgment No. 402, para 6 (see Annex II, Case 19).

  54. 54.

    Article XII, Amended Statute of the World Bank Administrative Tribunal. See Chap. 14 by Viterbo in this volume.

  55. 55.

    Lewis 2012, p. 344.

  56. 56.

    See Chap. 8 by Saluzzo in this volume.

  57. 57.

    Articles 73(1) and (2), Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC), laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, last amended 12 December 2014 (EU Staff Regulations).

  58. 58.

    Article 24 EU Staff Regulations.

  59. 59.

    Article 70 EU Staff Regulations.

  60. 60.

    EU Civil Service Tribunal, Livio Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v. European Commission, 12 May 2011, Case F-50/09 (see Annex II, Case 7).

  61. 61.

    Ibid., para 106.

  62. 62.

    Ibid., paras 192–193.

  63. 63.

    Ibid., paras 84–86.

  64. 64.

    General Court of the EU (Appeal Chamber), Livio Missir Mamachi di Lusignano and Others v. Commission, 7 December 2017, Case T-401/11 P RENV-RX, paras 114–119 (see Annex II, Case 10).

  65. 65.

    Ibid., paras 204–205.

  66. 66.

    Ibid., para 194. See Chap. 4 by Gasbarri in this volume.

  67. 67.

    NATO Civilian Personnel Regulations, last amended 25 June 2016.

  68. 68.

    Ibid., Article 14(4). Disputes concerning the decision can be brought before the NATO Administrative Tribunal.

  69. 69.

    See for example NATO AT, JF Appellant v. NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control Force (Geilenkirchen Respondent), 2 September 2016, Case No. 2016/1070, para 48.

  70. 70.

    Staff Regulations of the Council of Europe, amended version in force since 1 January 2017.

  71. 71.

    Ibid., Article 60(7).

  72. 72.

    CoE Administrative Tribunal, Nelly Rougie-Eichler v. Secretary General, 17 March 2015, Appeal No. 529/2012.

  73. 73.

    Article IX of the Statute of the OAS Administrative Tribunal, 16 July 1971, Resolution CP/RES. 48 (I-O/71) (emphasis added).

  74. 74.

    Amerasinghe 2005, p. 487.

  75. 75.

    See Chap. 4 by Gasbarri in this volume.

  76. 76.

    Fifth report on diplomatic protection, by Mr. John Dugard, Special Rapporteur, 4 March 2004, A/CN.4/538, p. 49.

  77. 77.

    Grant and Barker 2009, p. 230.

  78. 78.

    Crawford 2014, p. 567.

  79. 79.

    Conforti 2005, p. 113.

  80. 80.

    Conforti and Focarelli 2016, p. 132.

  81. 81.

    Hardy 1961, p. 517.

  82. 82.

    Conforti and Focarelli 2016, p. 141.

  83. 83.

    Ibid., p. 143.

  84. 84.

    Ibid., p. 144.

  85. 85.

    Conforti 2005, p. 115.

  86. 86.

    Conforti and Focarelli 2016, p. 142.

  87. 87.

    Hardy 1961, p. 525.

  88. 88.

    A more comprehensive definition is enshrined in Article 1 of the ILC Articles on Diplomatic Protection, which reads: ‘For the purposes of the present draft articles, diplomatic protection consists of the invocation by a State, through diplomatic action or other means of peaceful settlement, of the responsibility of another State for an injury caused by an internationally wrongful act of that State to a natural or legal person that is a national of the former State with a view to the implementation of such responsibility.’ Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-first Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/61/10) (Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection).

  89. 89.

    McGregor 2007, pp. 908–911; Vermeer-Künzli 2007, p. 580.

  90. 90.

    Dugard, First Report, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2000, vol. II, Part One, pp. 220–226.

  91. 91.

    Crawford 2014, p. 571; Dugard 2005, p. 80.

  92. 92.

    PCIJ, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Greece v. Britain, Preliminary Objections, 30 August 1924, PCIJ Ser. A No. 2, p. 4.

  93. 93.

    Crawford 2014, p. 580; see Article 44 ARSIWA.

  94. 94.

    ICJ, Interhandel Case, Switzerland v. U.S., Preliminary Objections, 21 March 1959, I.C.J. Rep. 6, p. 27.

  95. 95.

    Amerasinghe 2010, p. 371.

  96. 96.

    Ritter 1962, pp. 454–455.

  97. 97.

    Gautier 2000, pp. 334–337.

  98. 98.

    ICJ, Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, 11 April 1949, I.C.J. Rep. 174, p. 179 (Reparations case).

  99. 99.

    Amerasinghe 2010, p. 374; Crawford 2012, p. 714; Cançado Trindade 1979.

  100. 100.

    Institut de Droit International, Session of Zagreb, 1971, Article 8: 54 AIDI (1971-II), pp. 469–70.

  101. 101.

    Amerasinghe 2010, p. 374.

  102. 102.

    Ibid., p. 376.

  103. 103.

    Ibid.

  104. 104.

    Amerasinghe 2005, p. 505.

  105. 105.

    Reparations case, p. 183 (emphasis added).

  106. 106.

    As already stressed above, the resort to functional protection remains a faculty of the international organization and not an obligation. A significant example is provided by the Alrayes case, discussed in Chap. 14 by Viterbo in this volume. When the US G4 visa of Mr. Alrayes, a Saudi Arabian national who worked as International Finance Corporation (IFC) Senior Officer on a Term contract, was cancelled for alleged terrorist activities the IFC provided assistance, also offering Mr. Alrayes new terms of appointment, but refused to take legal action against the US. WBAT, US. Alrayes v. IFC, Preliminary Objection, 13 November 2015, Decision No. 520; WBAT, US. Alrayes v. IFC, Merits, 8 April 2016, Decision No. 529 (see Annex II, Case 43).

  107. 107.

    Reparations case, p. 64 (emphasis added).

  108. 108.

    Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, opened for signature 13 February 1946, UNTS 33, vol. 90, p. 327, entered into force 17 September 1946.

  109. 109.

    Reparations case, p. 183. See WBAT, Abadian v. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), 19 May 1995, Decision No. 141; in which the IBRD contended that the applicant was not performing official functions and that therefore the Bank was not in the position to pursue claims involving personal assets with a member country.

  110. 110.

    ICJ, Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion, 29 April 1999, I.C.J. Rep. 62, p. 85, para 52.

  111. 111.

    For example Regulation 2.07 of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Staff Regulations and Staff Rules, according to which: ‘OSCE officials shall be entitled to the (functional) protection of the OSCE in the performance of their duties within the limits specified in the Staff Rules.’ See Chap. 10 by Russo in this volume. See also Article 40(1) of the Council of Europe Staff Regulations, which states that: ‘[s]taff members may seek the assistance of the Secretary General to protect their material or non-material interests and those of their family where these interests have been harmed without fault or negligence on their part by actions directed against them by reason of their being a staff member of the Council.’ See Chap. 11 by Magi in this volume. See also Article 14(1) of the NATO CPRs. See Chap. 9 by Vierucci and Korotkikh in this volume.

  112. 112.

    Hardy 1961, p. 523.

  113. 113.

    Eagleton 1925, p. 304. See Chap. 4 by Gasbarri in this volume.

  114. 114.

    League of Nations Official Journal 1924, No 4, 524; quoted in Przetacznik 1983, p. 202 (emphasis added).

  115. 115.

    Amerasinghe 2005, p. 392.

  116. 116.

    Przetacznik 1983, p. 39.

  117. 117.

    Reparations case, p. 187.

  118. 118.

    Conforti 2005, p. 116.

  119. 119.

    Amerasinghe 2005, p. 393; Crawford 2014, p. 596.

  120. 120.

    On this point see Chap. 16, Sect. 16.6 by Poli in this volume.

  121. 121.

    Reparations case, p. 186.

  122. 122.

    Ibid.

  123. 123.

    ICJ, Effect of Awards of Compensation Made by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion, 13 July 1954, I.C.J. Rep. 47, p. 57.

  124. 124.

    There have been (so far fruitless) proposals for merging UNAT and ILOAT, in order to provide a strong and authoritative appeal tribunal for the resolution of all disputes involving staff employed by the UN or associated International Organisations. Robertson et al. 2006, p. 21.

  125. 125.

    de Vuyst 1981, p. 82.

  126. 126.

    This does not exclude the fact that international organizations still have the duty to take steps to alleviate the predicament in which the staff member finds himself/herself following a wrongful act or omission by the host State; as emerged from the Hassouna case, which concerned a UN staff member placed on persona non grata (PNG) status by the government of Sudan. UNDT, Hassouna v. Secretary General of the United Nations, 10 July 2014, Judgment No. UNDT/2014/094, para 51 (see Annex II, Case 40).

  127. 127.

    EU Civil Service Tribunal, Livio Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, para 30.

List of References

  • Amerasinghe C F (1996) Principles of the Institutional Law of International Organizations, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Amerasinghe C F (2005) Principles of the Institutional Law of International Organizations, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Amerasinghe C F (2010) Local Remedies in International Law, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Blay S et al (2005) Torts Law in Principle. Sweet and Maxwell, Andover

    Google Scholar 

  • Buyse A (2008) Lost and Regained? Restitution as a Remedy for Human Rights Violations in the Context of International Law. ZaöRV 68:129–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Cançado Trindade A A (1979) Exhaustion of Local Remedies and the Law of International Organizations. International Law Review 57:81–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Capone F (2012) Remedies. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Capone F (2017) Reparations for Child Victims of Armed Conflict: State of the Field and Current Challenges. Intersentia, Antwerp/Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Conforti B (2005) The Law and Practice of the United Nations, 3rd edn. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Conforti B, Focarelli C (2016) The Law and Practice of the United Nations, 5th revised edn. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford J (2002) The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford J (2012) Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law, 8th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford J (2014) State Responsibility. The General Part. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford J, Peel J, Olleson S (2001) The ILC’s Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts: Completion of the Second Reading. EJIL 12:963–991

    Google Scholar 

  • Daugirdas K (2015) Reputation and the Responsibility of International Organizations. EJIL 25:991–1018

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vuyst (1981) The World Bank Administrative Tribunal. Revue Belge de Droit International 1:81–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Dugard J (2005) Diplomatic Protection and Human Rights: The Draft Articles of the International Law Commission. Australian Year Book of International Law 24:75–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagleton C (1925) The Responsibility of the State for the Protection of Foreign Officials. AJIL 19:293–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans C (2012) The Right to Reparation in International Law for Victims of Armed Conflict. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Francioni F (2007) Access to Justice as a Human Rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaillard E, Pingel-Lenuzza I (2008) International Organisations and Immunity from Jurisdiction: to Restrict or to Bypass. ICLQ 51:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Gautier P (2000) The Reparation for Injuries Case Revisited: The Personality of the European Union. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 4:331–361

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillard EC (2003) Reparation for Violations of International Humanitarian Law. IRRC 85:529–553

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant JP, Craig Barker J (2009) Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray C (1987) Judicial Remedies in International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy M J L (1961) Claims by International Organizations in Respect of Injuries to their Agents. British Yearbook of International Law 37:516–526

    Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers J (2015) An Introduction to International Organizations Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb R (2017) The International Law of State Responsibility. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulesza J (2016) Due Diligence in International Law. Brill-Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis R (2012) The Effectiveness of International Administrative Law Compared to Some National Legal Systems. In: Elias O (ed) The Development and Effectiveness of International Administrative Law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston, pp 333–348

    Google Scholar 

  • McGregor L (2007) Torture and State Immunity: Deflecting Impunity, Distorting Sovereignty. EJIL 18:903–919

    Google Scholar 

  • Nissel A (2006) The ILC Articles on State Responsibility: Between Self-Help and Solidarity. International Law and Politics 38:355–371

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisillo Mazzeschi (1992) The Due Diligence Rule and the Nature of the International Responsibility of States. German Yearbook of International Law 35:9–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Plakokefalos I (2015) Causation in the Law of State Responsibility and the Problem of Overdetermination: In Search of Clarity. EJIL 26:471–492

    Google Scholar 

  • Przetacznik F (1983) Protection of Officials of Foreign States. Martinus Nijhoff/Brill, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinisch A, Knahr C (2008) From the United Nations Administrative Tribunals to the United Nations Appeals Tribunals - Reform of the Administration of Justice System within the United Nations? Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 12:447–483

    Google Scholar 

  • Riddell A (2010) Administrative Boards, Commissions and Tribunals in International Organizations. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritter JP (1962) La Protection Diplomatique à l’égard d’une Organisation Internationale. Annuaire français de droit international 8:427–456

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson G, Clark R, Kane O (2006) Report of the Commission of Experts on Reforming Internal Justice at the United Nations. United Nations Staff Union, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelton D (2002) Righting Wrongs: Reparations in the Articles on State Responsibility. AJIL 96:833–856

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelton D (2015) Remedies in International Human Rights Law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmonds R (1968) Legal Problems Arising from the United Nations Military Operations in the Congo. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C (2002) Reparation for Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations. Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law 10:157–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C (2005) Darfur – Compensation for the Victims. JICJ 3:579–589

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C (2007) Reparation in Cases of Genocide. JICJ 5:905–912

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeer-Künzli A (2007) A Matter of Interest: Diplomatic Protection and State Responsibility Erga Omnes. ICLQ 56:553–581

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb P (2016) The Immunity of States, Diplomats and International Organizations in Employment Disputes: The New Human Rights Dilemma? EJIL 27:745–767

    Google Scholar 

List of Cases

  • CoE Administrative Tribunal, Nelly Rougie-Eichler v. Secretary General, 17 March 2015, Appeal No. 529/2012

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR (GC), Waite and Kennedy v. Germany, 18 February 1999, Application No. 26083/94

    Google Scholar 

  • EU Civil Service Tribunal, Livio Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v. European Commission, 12 May 2011, Case F-50/09 (see Annex II, Case 7)

    Google Scholar 

  • General Court of the EU (Appeal Chamber), Missir Mamachi di Lusignano and Others v Commission, 7 December 2017, Case T-401/11 P RENV-RX (see Annex II, Case 10)

    Google Scholar 

  • ICJ, Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, 11 April 1949, I.C.J. Rep. 174

    Google Scholar 

  • ICJ, Effect of Awards of Compensation Made by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion, 13 July 1954, I.C.J. Rep. 47

    Google Scholar 

  • ICJ, Interhandel Case, Switzerland v. U.S., 21 March 1959, I.C.J. Rep. 6

    Google Scholar 

  • ICJ, Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt, Advisory Opinion, 20 December 1980, I.C.J. Rep. 73

    Google Scholar 

  • ICJ, Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion, 29 April 1999, I.C.J. Rep. 62

    Google Scholar 

  • ILOAT, In re Grasshoff v. World Health Organization (WHO), 24 April 1980, Judgment No. 402 (see Annex II, Case 19)

    Google Scholar 

  • ILOAT, Rubio v. Universal Postal Union, 10 July 1997, Judgment No. 1644

    Google Scholar 

  • ILOAT, Mr. F. M. against the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, 17 February 2005, Judgment No. 2403 (see Annex II, Case 14)

    Google Scholar 

  • ILOAT, Mr. A. P. against the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), 6 July 2011, Judgment No. 3025 (see Annex II, Case 11)

    Google Scholar 

  • ILOAT, J. T. B. (No. 4) v. WHO, 6 July 2016, Judgment No. 3689 (see Annex II, Case 21)

    Google Scholar 

  • NATO AT, JF Appellant v. NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control Force (Geilenkirchen Respondent), 2 September 2016, Case No. 2016/1070

    Google Scholar 

  • PCIJ, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Greece v. Britain, 30 August 1924, PCIJ Ser. A No. 2

    Google Scholar 

  • Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (ord. Re f.), UNESCO v. Boulois, 20 October 1997, Rev. Arb. 575

    Google Scholar 

  • UNDT, Hassouna v. Secretary General of the United Nations, 10 July 2014, Judgment No. UNDT/2014/094 (see Annex II, Case 40)

    Google Scholar 

  • WBAT, US. Alrayes v. IFC, 13 November 2015, Decision No. 520

    Google Scholar 

  • WBAT, US. Alrayes v. IFC, 8 April 2016, Decision No. 529 (see Annex II, Case 43)

    Google Scholar 

  • WBAT, Abadian v. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), 19 May 1995, Decision No. 141

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Piazza Martiri della Libertà 33, 56127, Pisa, Italy

    Francesca Capone

Authors
  1. Francesca Capone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesca Capone .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. DIRPOLIS Institute, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy

    Andrea de Guttry

  2. Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridiche (DSG), University of Florence, Florence, Italy

    Micaela Frulli

  3. Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza, Campus Luigi Einaud, University of Turin, Torino, Italy

    Edoardo Greppi

  4. DIRPOLIS Institute, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy

    Chiara Macchi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 T.M.C. Asser press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Capone, F. (2018). Victims’ Right to Reparation and the Residual Application of Diplomatic and/or Functional Protection. In: de Guttry, A., Frulli, M., Greppi, E., Macchi, C. (eds) The Duty of Care of International Organizations Towards Their Civilian Personnel. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-258-3_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-258-3_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-257-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-258-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation