Niels Blokker

International institutional law : unity within diversity

Participants rules for international organs policy-making and administrative organs advisory and supervisory organs decision-making process financing legal order interpretation and settlement of disputes supervision and sanctions legal status external relations concluding remarks annex - selected bibliography on individual and international organizations.

The Crime of Aggression and the United Nations Security Council

This contribution is dedicated to Professor John Dugard. It discusses the most difficult issue to be resolved in the negotiations on the crime of aggression: the role of the Security Council in the exercise of jurisdiction over this crime by the International Criminal Court. The International Law Commission suggested a solution in the 1990s, but failing the required support and in the absence of subsequent agreement the 1998 Rome Conference could only prospectively give the Court jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. The post-Rome negotiations are characterized by, on the one hand, support from the five permanent members of the Security Council for the thesis that it should be exclusively for the Security Council to determine whether or not an act of aggression has been committed (as a precondition for the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC) and, on the other hand, a rejection of this thesis combined with a search for alternatives by many other states. According to the analysis below, in relation to cases involving the crime of aggression the preferred way for the ICC to proceed is to exercise jurisdiction over this crime after a determination of state aggression has been made by the Security Council. Nevertheless, the view according to which such a determination could exclusively be made by the Council is rejected, on the basis of the rules of the Charter, the practice of the Security Council and the General Assembly, and decisions of the International Court of Justice. Finally, an alternative arrangement is suggested for the cases in which the Security Council is prevented from acting because of the use of the veto or because of lack of support from its members.

International Organizations: the Untouchables?

Immunity rules belong to the traditional standard rules of international organizations. It has long been accepted that international organizations and their staff need to enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of national courts. This understanding is generally founded on the principle of functional necessity: international organizations need immunity in order to be able to perform their functions. However, the principle of the immunity of international organizations is increasingly criticized: if national courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over international organizations, who can? After outlining the intentions behind convening this Forum, this paper will discuss the origin of the immunity rules of international organizations. Next, it will give a brief overview of the codification of such rules, both in the 1940s and in recent years. Finally, it will present some observations on the question of whether there is a need to ‘update’ or revise the current immunity rules of international organizations.

A Consensus Agreement on the Crime of Aggression: Impressions from Kampala

The authors participated in the ICC Review Conference held in Kampala in June 2010, which adopted by consensus a package agreement on the crime of aggression. This contribution presents some impressions from these negotiations. It was rather unexpected that consensus agreement could be reached, and the authors offer some explanations why this was possible. They also analyse the key elements of the agreement. After the international criminalization of aggression has been debated for decades, a decisive step has now been taken towards bringing this crime within the effective jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

International Organizations and Customary International Law

Customary international law is relevant for international organizations, at times even essential. International organizations may derive both rights and obligations from this source of international law. Early this year, a Dutch court recognized that North Atlantic Treaty Organization (‘nato’) entities enjoy immunity from jurisdiction on the basis of customary international law, in a case involving a private claim of hundreds of millions of us dollars.1 It is

Member State Responsibility for Wrongdoings of International Organizations: Beacon of Hope or Delusion?

It is the aim of this contribution to demonstrate why it is necessary that international organizations are themselves responsible for their own wrongful acts and why there is and should be only a secondary, rather limited role for member state responsibility, as reflected in the 2011 ILC Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations. Two examples from practice are discussed in this context: judgments by Dutch courts relating to the 1995 Srebrenica genocide, and the ICAO principle of ‘ultimate State responsibility’ in the light of the attribution of powers to Regional Safety Oversight Organizations. In addition, it is argued that it is in the long-term interest of both international organizations and their member States to create and develop appropriate, tailor-made accountability mechanisms where necessary. A proposal is made to use the Permanent Court of Arbitration as a general forum for claims against international organizations.

Member State Responsibility for Wrongdoings of International Organizations

It is the aim of this contribution to demonstrate why it is necessary that international organizations are themselves responsible for their own wrongful acts and why there is and should be only a secondary, rather limited role for member state responsibility, as reflected in the 2011 ILC Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations. Two examples from practice are discussed in this context: judgments by Dutch courts relating to the 1995 Srebrenica genocide, and the ICAO principle of ‘ultimate State responsibility’ in the light of the attribution of powers to Regional Safety Oversight Organizations. In addition, it is argued that it is in the long-term interest of both international organizations and their member States to create and develop appropriate, tailor-made accountability mechanisms where necessary. A proposal is made to use the Permanent Court of Arbitration as a general forum for claims against international organizations.

On the Nature and Future of Partnerships in the Practice of International Organizations

This contribution offers a brief analysis of partnerships among international institutions. It shows that there is a wide variety of forms of cooperation between international organizations and external entities in the current practice of international organizations. No single concept or term has emerged for such forms of cooperation. Some of these are called partnerships, others carry different names. It is argued that the need for international organizations to cooperate with external entities is likely to stay, that it may be expected that more partnerships—or whatever other name is used—will be established in the future, and that this is in principle a positive development.

IOLR Forum ARIO (2012); introduction: first views at the articles on the responsibility of international organizations

In 2011 the International Law Commission (ILC) adopted the Articles on Responsibility of International Organizations (ARIO).1 Subsequently, on 9 December 2011, the UN General Assembly adopted by consensus Resolution 66/100 in which it “takes note” of these articles.2 This is therefore an appropriate moment for stocktaking, as the text of the ARIO has now been finalized, after a decade of discussions within the ILC, in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, in academic conferences and doctrine. In previous issues, IOLR has already paid attention to a number of specific topics relating to the ARIO.3 In addition, an earlier

The Netherlands in Court

This work provides insight into the role of the international legal practitioners working for the government of the Netherlands and should be of particular interest to their colleagues in other foreign ministries and other lawyers interested in a reflection on the law in action.