The European Court of Human Rights’ Approach to the Responsibility of Member States in Connection With Acts of International Organizations
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9928469 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Cedric Ryngaert (0000-0002-3060-9453, Utrecht University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2011 |
| Volume | 60 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 997-1016 |
| Publication date | 2011-10-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | International and Comparative Law Quarterly (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0020-5893 • E-ISSN: 1471-6895 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0020589311000467 |
| OpenAlex | W2023908835 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 8 |
It is generally considered that an international organization (‘IO’) has an international legal personality which is distinct from that of its Member States, as a result of which the IO itself, rather than the Member States, is to be held responsible for the IO's internationally wrongful acts. 1 It appears to be an accepted principle that Member States cannot generally be held liable for the acts of IOs by virtue of their membership of an IO alone. This view can be found in a 1996 resolution of the Institut de Droit International, which provides that ‘there is no general rule of international law whereby States members are, due solely to their membership, liable, concurrently or subsidiarily, for the obligations of an international organization of which they are members.’ 2 This is echoed in the International Law Commission's (‘ILC’) Commentary to article 62 of the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (‘ILC DARIO’): ‘It is clear that ... membership does not as such entail for member States international responsibility when the organization commits an internationally wrongful act’. 3 The ILC holds the view that only in the case of an intervening act by a Member State that influences the commission of a wrongful act by the IO (aid and assistance, direction and control, coercion, avoidance of compliance, acceptance) could the Member State be held responsible. 4
Business · Commission · European union · Human rights · International law · International trade · Member state · Member states · Political science · State (computer science · State responsibility · Virtue · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · International Law and Human Rights · Law · Ombudsman and Human Rights
| Citations per year | 0.25 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2014 - 2017 (4) |
| Highly cited | No |