在国际组织的广泛问责范围内重新考虑诉诸司法

Q4 Social Sciences
Norihito Samata
{"title":"在国际组织的广泛问责范围内重新考虑诉诸司法","authors":"Norihito Samata","doi":"10.1163/18754112-02303003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThis article reconsiders the generally accepted view around UN peacekeeping, and focuses on ways to enable access to judicial remedies for victims as a solution to fill the prevailing “accountability gap.” This article shows that the concept is not necessarily synonymous with access to justice. Providing access to justice for the victims can be an essential factor in holding UN peacekeeping legally accountable. However, judicial review is not everything in terms of accountability. This article also analyzes the possibilities and limitations of quasi-judicial mechanisms, namely the Independent Accountability Mechanisms of International Financial Institutions and the Human Rights Advisory Panel of the UN Interim Mission in Kosovo, from the perspective of legal accountability. It shows that these mechanisms have contributed to holding the organizations concerned legally accountable.","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reconsidering Access to Justice within the Broad Range of Accountability of International Organizations\",\"authors\":\"Norihito Samata\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/18754112-02303003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThis article reconsiders the generally accepted view around UN peacekeeping, and focuses on ways to enable access to judicial remedies for victims as a solution to fill the prevailing “accountability gap.” This article shows that the concept is not necessarily synonymous with access to justice. Providing access to justice for the victims can be an essential factor in holding UN peacekeeping legally accountable. However, judicial review is not everything in terms of accountability. This article also analyzes the possibilities and limitations of quasi-judicial mechanisms, namely the Independent Accountability Mechanisms of International Financial Institutions and the Human Rights Advisory Panel of the UN Interim Mission in Kosovo, from the perspective of legal accountability. It shows that these mechanisms have contributed to holding the organizations concerned legally accountable.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38927,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Peacekeeping\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International Peacekeeping\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-02303003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-02303003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文重新考虑了人们对联合国维和行动普遍接受的看法,并着重讨论了如何使受害者能够获得司法救济,以填补普遍存在的“问责差距”。本文表明,这一概念不一定等同于诉诸司法。为受害者提供诉诸司法的机会,是使联合国维和行动承担法律责任的一个重要因素。然而,就问责制而言,司法审查并不是一切。本文还从法律问责的角度分析了准司法机制的可能性和局限性,即国际金融机构独立问责机制和联合国科索沃临时特派团人权咨询小组。报告显示,这些机制有助于使有关组织承担法律责任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reconsidering Access to Justice within the Broad Range of Accountability of International Organizations
This article reconsiders the generally accepted view around UN peacekeeping, and focuses on ways to enable access to judicial remedies for victims as a solution to fill the prevailing “accountability gap.” This article shows that the concept is not necessarily synonymous with access to justice. Providing access to justice for the victims can be an essential factor in holding UN peacekeeping legally accountable. However, judicial review is not everything in terms of accountability. This article also analyzes the possibilities and limitations of quasi-judicial mechanisms, namely the Independent Accountability Mechanisms of International Financial Institutions and the Human Rights Advisory Panel of the UN Interim Mission in Kosovo, from the perspective of legal accountability. It shows that these mechanisms have contributed to holding the organizations concerned legally accountable.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of International Peacekeeping
Journal of International Peacekeeping Medicine-Infectious Diseases
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
×
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