{"title":"多边开发银行的问责机制与国际责任法","authors":"J. A. Lorenzo","doi":"10.1017/S0020589323000556","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Multilateral development banks (MDBs) are international organizations subject to the law of international responsibility. Yet, the relationship between their accountability mechanisms and the International Law Commission (ILC) Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (ARIO) remains unclear. Understanding this relationship is essential in fully realizing the right to remedy in the development finance context. A comparative analysis of these legal frameworks clarifies that notwithstanding their different rationale, scope and functions, the two are not normatively conflicting and both serve to control public power. While the accountability mechanisms correct the ARIO's State-centric orientation by granting legal standing to project-affected people, they have their own deficiency concerning the actions they can prescribe to MDBs upon a finding of noncompliance. Highlighting that the MDBs’ mandate to ‘do no harm’ and pursue sustainable development is left unfulfilled by the accountability mechanisms’ deficient remedial function, this article identifies specific ARIO provisions to complement rather than undermine the MDBs’ accountability system. The ARIO's residual character, combined with the proposition that remedies arise not only from wrongful conduct but also from harm suffered by one party due to another's risky activities, justify this complementarity.","PeriodicalId":509582,"journal":{"name":"International and Comparative Law Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS OF MULTILATERAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS AND THE LAW OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY\",\"authors\":\"J. A. Lorenzo\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0020589323000556\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Multilateral development banks (MDBs) are international organizations subject to the law of international responsibility. Yet, the relationship between their accountability mechanisms and the International Law Commission (ILC) Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (ARIO) remains unclear. Understanding this relationship is essential in fully realizing the right to remedy in the development finance context. A comparative analysis of these legal frameworks clarifies that notwithstanding their different rationale, scope and functions, the two are not normatively conflicting and both serve to control public power. While the accountability mechanisms correct the ARIO's State-centric orientation by granting legal standing to project-affected people, they have their own deficiency concerning the actions they can prescribe to MDBs upon a finding of noncompliance. Highlighting that the MDBs’ mandate to ‘do no harm’ and pursue sustainable development is left unfulfilled by the accountability mechanisms’ deficient remedial function, this article identifies specific ARIO provisions to complement rather than undermine the MDBs’ accountability system. The ARIO's residual character, combined with the proposition that remedies arise not only from wrongful conduct but also from harm suffered by one party due to another's risky activities, justify this complementarity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":509582,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International and Comparative Law Quarterly\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International and Comparative Law Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589323000556\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International and Comparative Law Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589323000556","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
Abstract Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) are international organizations subject to the law of international responsibility.然而,它们的问责机制与国际法委员会(ILC)《国际组织责任条款》(ARIO)之间的关系仍不明确。理解这种关系对于在发展融资背景下充分实现补救权至关重要。对这些法律框架的比较分析表明,尽管二者的依据、范围和职能不同,但在规范上并不冲突,都是为了控制公共权力。虽然问责机制通过赋予受项目影响的人以法律地位,纠正了 ARIO 以国家为中心的取 向,但它们在发现多边开发银行有违规行为时可以对其规定的行动方面也有自身的不足。本文强调多边开发银行 "不造成危害 "和追求可持续发展的任务由于问责机制补救功能的不足而无法实现,并确定了《非洲区域经济一体化组织协定》的具体条款,以补充而不是削弱多边开发银行的问责制度。ARIO 的剩余性质,加上补救措施不仅产生于不法行为,也产生于一方因另一方的风险活动而遭受的损害这一主张,证明了这种互补性的合理性。
ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS OF MULTILATERAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS AND THE LAW OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Abstract Multilateral development banks (MDBs) are international organizations subject to the law of international responsibility. Yet, the relationship between their accountability mechanisms and the International Law Commission (ILC) Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (ARIO) remains unclear. Understanding this relationship is essential in fully realizing the right to remedy in the development finance context. A comparative analysis of these legal frameworks clarifies that notwithstanding their different rationale, scope and functions, the two are not normatively conflicting and both serve to control public power. While the accountability mechanisms correct the ARIO's State-centric orientation by granting legal standing to project-affected people, they have their own deficiency concerning the actions they can prescribe to MDBs upon a finding of noncompliance. Highlighting that the MDBs’ mandate to ‘do no harm’ and pursue sustainable development is left unfulfilled by the accountability mechanisms’ deficient remedial function, this article identifies specific ARIO provisions to complement rather than undermine the MDBs’ accountability system. The ARIO's residual character, combined with the proposition that remedies arise not only from wrongful conduct but also from harm suffered by one party due to another's risky activities, justify this complementarity.