Interim Conclusions

Abstract

This chapter summarizes the previous findings and exposes the false dichotomies that led to the proliferation of the different conceptualizations. It shows how the four conceptualizations can be applied to a legal dispute concerning the responsibility of an international organization. In particular, it discusses the Al-Dulimi case before the European Court of Human Rights. The circumstances of the case prompt the adoption of one or the other conceptualization on the basis of the argumentative strategy. The analysis highlights the difficulties in providing a general legal framework to establish the responsibility of international organizations and/or of their member states. The chapter is divided into two subsections, focusing on the admissibility and the merits of the Al-Dulimi case. It concludes that the adoption of an international legal framework applicable to all international organizations is subject to the possibility to rebut limited perspectives and to adopt an ‘absolute point of view’.