Litigating the Immunities of International Organizations in Europe: The ‘Alternative-Remedy’ Approach and its ‘Humanizing’ Function

IF 0.3 Q4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Luca Pasquet
{"title":"Litigating the Immunities of International Organizations in Europe: The ‘Alternative-Remedy’ Approach and its ‘Humanizing’ Function","authors":"Luca Pasquet","doi":"10.5334/ujiel.551","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is a clear normative tension between the immunities of international organizations and the human rights to a court and to a remedy. Most national jurisdictions around the world have so far failed to recognize such a normative conflict and applied immunities irrespective of their consequences on individual claimants. However, following the Waite and Kennedy jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, a number of European national jurisdictions have accepted the idea that applying international organizations’ immunities may lead to breach the right to a court in case the claimants do not have access to an alternative remedy. This contribution focuses on the latter approach, which will be called ‘alternative-remedy approach’. Drawing upon Gunther Teubner conceptualization of fundamental rights, it stresses the violence of the today’s prevalent approach toward immunities, and maintains that, by refocusing the decision-making process on the situation of individual claimants, the alternative-remedy approach ‘humanizes’ a decision-making process otherwise blind to the fate of human beings in flesh and blood. The ambiguity of the European Court of Human Rights’ jurisprudence as to the relevance of the alternative-remedy standard is also discussed, together with the consequences it had on the case-law of European national courts.","PeriodicalId":30606,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/ujiel.551","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is a clear normative tension between the immunities of international organizations and the human rights to a court and to a remedy. Most national jurisdictions around the world have so far failed to recognize such a normative conflict and applied immunities irrespective of their consequences on individual claimants. However, following the Waite and Kennedy jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, a number of European national jurisdictions have accepted the idea that applying international organizations’ immunities may lead to breach the right to a court in case the claimants do not have access to an alternative remedy. This contribution focuses on the latter approach, which will be called ‘alternative-remedy approach’. Drawing upon Gunther Teubner conceptualization of fundamental rights, it stresses the violence of the today’s prevalent approach toward immunities, and maintains that, by refocusing the decision-making process on the situation of individual claimants, the alternative-remedy approach ‘humanizes’ a decision-making process otherwise blind to the fate of human beings in flesh and blood. The ambiguity of the European Court of Human Rights’ jurisprudence as to the relevance of the alternative-remedy standard is also discussed, together with the consequences it had on the case-law of European national courts.
欧洲国际组织豁免之诉:“替代救济”途径及其“人性化”功能
在国际组织的豁免与诉诸法院和获得补救的人权之间存在着明显的规范紧张关系。迄今为止,世界上大多数国家的司法管辖区都未能承认这种规范性冲突,并适用豁免,而不管其对个别索赔人的后果如何。然而,继欧洲人权法院的Waite和Kennedy判例之后,一些欧洲国家司法管辖区接受了这样一种观点,即在索赔人无法获得替代补救的情况下,适用国际组织的豁免可能导致侵犯向法院提起诉讼的权利。这篇文章的重点是后一种方法,这将被称为“替代补救方法”。借鉴Gunther Teubner关于基本权利的概念,它强调了当今对豁免的普遍做法的暴力,并坚持认为,通过将决策过程重新集中在个人索赔人的情况上,替代补救方法使决策过程“人性化”,否则对有血有肉的人的命运视而不见。还讨论了欧洲人权法院关于替代补救标准的相关性的判例的模糊性,以及它对欧洲国家法院判例法的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信