When Angels Misbehaved: Justiciability of the United Nations for the Cholera Outbreak in Hait
Muhammet Celal KulThe justiciability of international organizations has recently sparked considerable debate and interest. Among these comes the debate whether the United Nations (UN) was acting within its rights when hiding behind its immunity in the Cholera Outbreak in Haiti. Another point of contention is whether immunity is necessary vel non for the independence of the UN from member states, even in extreme cases where human rights are violated. In this paper, the justiciability of the UN is discussed over the concepts of immunity, autonomy, and responsibility of international organizations along with the moral obligations of the UN and the effective use of the alternative systems to compensate victims.
The UN’s role resembles that of God, as He bears no responsibility for His actions besides being above law. Similarly, troops or personnel participating in UN operations are expected to work for the good of humanity, such as angels. Nevertheless, the UN angels sometimes commit violations or cause damage, which stimulates further discussion of the matter.
To put these theoretical questions and metaphors into practice, the Cholera Outbreak in Haiti is chosen as it provides a contemporary example that is a developing story paving the way for understanding the immunity, responsibility, and justiciability of the UN. In this article, the immunity of the UN has been analyzed along with that of other international organizations to demonstrate the special position of the UN. Finally, a waiver of immunity was tested with some extreme examples in which violations of human rights and jus cogens norms were involved.
Melekler Hata Yapınca: Birleşmiş Milletler’in Haiti’deki Kolera Salgını Sebebiyle Yargılanabilirliği
Muhammet Celal KulBirleşmiş Milletler Teşkilatı da dahil olmak üzere, uluslararası örgütlerin yargılanabilirliği önemli miktarda akademik tartışmayı beraberinde getirmiştir. Bunlar arasında, Birleşmiş Milletler’in Haiti’deki kolera salgınındaki tutumu ve karşılaştığı iddialar da mevcuttur. Acaba Birleşmiş Milletler yargı bağışıklığından feragat etmemekle hukuka uygun mu davranmıştır? Bir başka nokta-i nazar ise bağışıklığın Birleşmiş Milletler’in üye devletlerden bağımsız olabilmesini temin ettiği ve gerekli olduğu yönündedir. Buna göre, Birleşmiş Milletler’in yargı bağışıklığı Haiti kolera salgınında ve başka uç örneklerde olduğu gibi daima gereklidir ve feragat edilemez niteliktedir.
Bu çalışmada Birleşmiş Milletler’in yargılanabilirliği, feragat ve işlevsellik açısından bağışıklık, hukuki sorumluluk, bağımsızlık gibi kavramlar üzerinden çok yönlü olarak ele alınmak suretiyle uluslararası hukuk bakımından incelenmiş ve BM’nin alternatif zarar giderim yollarını etkin kullanması ve gerektiği takdirde yargı bağışıklığından feragat etmesi gereği değerlendirilmiştir. Bağışıklık zırhının ardına sığınan ve böylece hukuki sorumluluğu bertaraf eden Birleşmiş Milletler’in bu durumu layüsel ve hukukun üstünde bulunması bakımından Tanrı’ya ve insanlığın yararına çalıştıkları ön kabulünden hareketle Birleşmiş Milletler operasyonlarına katılan kişilerin durumu da meleklere benzetilmiştir. Bu çalışmada Birleşmiş Milletler adına çalışırken ihlalleri gerçekleştirenler Melek metaforuyla karşılandığı için çalışmanın adında bu metafor tercih edilmiştir.
Bu teorik benzetmeler ve sorulara uygulamada işaret edebilmek için bu makalede Birleşmiş Milletler’in bağışıklık, sorumluluk ve yargılanabilirliği konularına benzer durum ve davalar bakımından dair duruşuna ışık tutan ve gelişmekte olan güncel bir mesele olarak Haiti örneği tercih edilmiştir. Makalede Milletlerin bağışıklığı diğer uluslararası örgütlerin bağışıklığı karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmiş olup Birleşmiş Milletler’in bu konudaki özel konumu ortaya konmaya çalışılmıştır. Ayrıca, bağışıklıktan feragat meselesi insan haklarının ve ius cogens normların ihlal edildiği örneklerle ele alınmıştır.
The justiciability of international organizations has been a topic of debate, particularly regarding the United Nations’ role in the cholera outbreak in Haiti. The UN’s role is often compared to that of a god who bears no responsibility for actions beyond being above the law. This article discusses the concepts of immunity, autonomy, and responsibility of international organizations, including the effective use of alternative systems to repair the damage caused. The role of personnel working for the UN is compared to that of angels, who are expected to work for the good of humanity. The Haiti Cholera Outbreak serves as a contemporary example through which to understand the UN’s stance towards immunity, responsibility, and justiciability in similar situations or cases. This article analyzes the immunity of the UN and compares it with other international organizations to demonstrate the special position of the UN. Waiver of immunity is tested with extreme examples in which human rights were involved.
When the UN was created, there was no legal framework to hold international organizations responsible for damage they could cause. The law developed later through several court decisions and other legal instruments when the personality of international organizations became clear. The law of international responsibility was shaped to hold states to account as the primary actors of international relations. However, this led to some discrepancies in the responsibility of international organizations. To be more specific, jurisdiction of international courts was already developed to hear the cases between states, not covering international organizations.
According to section 29 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, immunity is waivable (by the UN Secretary General). However, waiver of immunity by the UN is uncommon. What would really happen if the UN did not hide behind its veil of immunity and face liability? Would this lead to more actions against the UN all over the world and render the UN’s functions disrupted? Considering the fact that UN peacekeepers have been involved in sexual abuse of local people in many host states, including Haiti, one can conclude that the UN might have ended up in great trouble if it had no immunity at all.
It can be argued that the UN is a vulnerable organization as evidenced by Congo peacekeeping operations. Therefore, the UN needs a shield of immunity to operate properly. In a similar vein, immunity is necessary to ensure that the troop-contributing nations send their contingents more willingly; otherwise, the UN mission might dysfunction and even end up failure. Yet, the UN has expressed its “deep regret” and “moral responsibility” over the cholera outbreak and the subsequent human loss on a number of occasions and finally recognized moral obligation in a Security Council resolution in 2016. However, this has not reached the level of waiver of immunity, acceptance of legal responsibility, and compensation of any damages caused by the UN angels. By failing to undertake legal responsibility as such, the UN will undermine its own legality and sustainability
It was also argued that even in extreme circumstances, the UN should preserve its immunity for the sake of ensuring the UN’s independence from the member states. This argument provokes the question of to what extent the UN is independent of the member states? Independence, or, in other words, autonomy is a natural consequence of international personality. Today, it is undisputedly agreed that the UN has international legal personality, as first evidenced by Reparation for Injuries Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice. As such, the UN has the right to operate at the same level as states at the international forum, with similar but not identical rights with those of the states. Thus, the UN is able to enjoy rights and bear responsibilities as a result of its personality. These rights and obligations include the capacity to bring claims before international tribunals, immunity from national jurisdictions as well as the burden to face responsibility for the wrongful acts of its agents.
One can argue for the limits of immunity that the UN should have. It follows that should the UN have immunity even when its agents have violated a norm of jus cogens character? Is it necessary for the UN to stick to its immunity even in such extreme circumstances? The question seems to have been answered positively by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Stichting Mothers, where the UN has been found to have the shield of immunity even in the face of a breach of a norm of jus cogens character. The ECtHR relied on the argument that since the UN was acting under chapter VII, it would be an interference to deny its immunity. Since its establishment the UN as an international organization, in shaping the world order, was trying to reach the goal of peace and security. However, it was hard for the UN to create a balance between peace and justice, which remained an unsolved dilemma. This decision of the ECtHR reaffirms the dichotomy between peace and justice.
In conclusion, not waiving its immunity and sticking to its God role the UN, might be said to have staged a non-existent God role by not making any visible alterations to the world to hold those who might be responsible to account. To avoid this image of a non-existent God, the UN should recalculate well when and where to resort to a waiver of immunity, considering its moral obligations and values that it was established to protect.
