"....The staff is sick and tired of the impunity extended by the office of the Secretary-General to senior managers for their failings especially in situations where it has led to death and disability....."
- UN Staff Union
Friday, October 28, 2011
US courts chip away at the crumbling edifice of legal immunity*
One of the most intriguing fictions about legal immunities exercised by international organizations is the pretence that they benefit anyone. In a very small and select set of cases, legal immunities may have a genuine policy basis. But in the vast majority of instances in which they are asserted, their existence is positively harmful both for the organization itself and for those who work for it or with it.
This point has recently been emphasized in a new decision of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, a Federal Court sitting in Philadelphia, PA. InOSS Nokalva Inc v European State Agency [ESA], judgment handed down on August 16, 2010, an assertion of immunity by the ESA was rejected when it was sued by a commercial supplier of computer software. The ESA, it alleged, had distributed this software to third parties contrary to the terms of the software license.
This is one of just a handful of reported cases worldwide in which the immunity of an international organization has been refused. It is worth discussion, because it resolves a contentious point of US immunity law and may also suggests a range of legal arguments that may make it easier to challenge the immunity of international organizations in the future.
In its ruling the Court recognized the obvious point that if an international organization cannot be sued, that harms the organization itself.
Imagine the position of the proprietor of a window cleaning business. She receives a telephone call one day from the office manager of an international organization, which needs a contract to have its windows cleaned. She knows that no contract she enters into with the organization is worth the paper it is written on, because it cannot be enforced in court. Therefore she will not be prepared to extend the organization credit. Every piece of work will need to be paid for in advance, and she will not give a discount for an advance bulk commitment, because the organization can later resile from the commitment without consequences. Alternatively the business proprietor may add a risk premium to her contract price to take into account the fact that her debt may not be enforceable, just as a bank increases the interest rate for loans to people with poor credit history.
Economics highlights the importance of the ability to make credible commitments as a tool to realize the surpluses created by cooperation. Rule of law experts who work within international organizations emphasize this point around the world when arguing for legal reforms to include development of effective contract law. Yet the principle applies as much to international organizations themselves.
This analysis was acknowledged by the Third Circuit Court when it had to decide upon a provision of the International Organizations Immunities Act 1945. That statute provides that international organizations have the same immunities under US law as do foreign sovereign states. However, at the time the statute was enacted, the law of foreign sovereign immunity was in a state of flux. Under the 1952 “Tate doctrine”, where a foreign state was sued in a US court, the court would defer to the opinion of the State Department as to whether immunity ought to be upheld. This doctrine was unsatisfactory because it infringed upon the doctrine of separation of powers: a decision of the executive branch should not be relevant to how the court construes its jurisdiction. Thus in 1976 Congress enacted the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which set out general rules for when a state would be immune from suit and when it would not. The general rule in that legislation was a sensible one: states would be immune for acts performed in their capacity as sovereigns, but not for acts considered commercial in character.
This distinction is common sense. Some acts can be performed only by states in their capacity as states: for example, passing legislation, or making judicial decisions. It would make a mockery of the Westphalian system if the sovereign acts of one state, such as its legislative procedures, were subject to review in the courts of another. But there are other acts equally within the realm of states and private persons alike. Where a state runs a business, or enters into a commercial contract to have the windows of its government building cleaned, these are not acts unique to a sovereign; they are the sorts of things a private person can do too. Therefore legal immunity ought not to apply.
The question for the Third Circuit was whether the European State Agency benefits only from this qualified immunity – which would not cover the commercial contract under which it was sued – or whether it could profit from absolute immunity. The ESA’s argument was that in 1945, when the International Organizations Immunities Act became law, the doctrine of qualified immunity – embodied in the 1976 Act – did not exist. The 1945 Act referred to immunities of states existing then, which were absolute. That the law on sovereign immunity had developed since 1945 did not mean the law on international organizations’ immunities had done the same. The 1945 set a standard of absolute immunity in stone that could not be eroded by the passage of time or subsequent development of the law.
The Court rightly rejected this abstract analysis. The argument for qualified immunity, it noted, is to the benefit of international organizations themselves as much as it is for states, because it facilitates commercial transactions as much as a law on absolute immunity hinders them. Of course in any individual case, when sued, an international organization will want to assert immunity. But over the course of multiple transactions it will not benefit them, because it will subject them to the proverbial rip-off. In an indefinite repeat-play game, immunity is a convenient assertion in individual cases but a poor rule. Good policy suggests that the 1976 Act should apply to international organizations as much as to sovereigns.
The Court’s decision is potentially subject to further appeal, perhaps as far as the US Supreme Court. But it reveals an exciting range of new legal arguments for people who want to sue international organizations. Most of the people who want to do so are aggrieved employees, subjected to egregious and unfair employment practices unfortunately common to international organizations. Nevertheless, employees feel that the internal justice procedures established by those organizations themselves seldom do justice to their complaints, because they serve as Star Chambers who act principally in the interests of the employers who fund them.
If immunity does not serve the best interests of international organizations in their commercial relationships, it is not clear that it serves the interests of those organizations in their employment relationships either. The lack of access to a genuine independent tribunal for either employer or employee leaves the employment relationship with international civil servants uncomfortably barren of legal regulation. Where employees can be treated arbitrarily, international organizations will acquire reputations as poor places to work, and will cease to attract the best staff. Employees may become unprofessional, knowing that neither they nor their employer are subject to legal accountability for the way they behave. Legal immunity in the employment relationship encourages an insidious lack of professionalism which it is incumbent on all responsible institutions and their employees to fight. The logic of the Court’s position on immunities for commercial contracts applies with even greater force to employment relationships, simply because there are far more employees than commercial contractors and thus the cumulative effect is all the greater.
Finally, the Court made the following point. If states individually do not benefit from absolute immunity, how can it be that collections of states by international treaty can create and act through organizations that do have absolute immunity? To allow that would render it trivially easy for states to evade their domestic and legal obligations, in an era in which we aspire to hold states ever more accountable to legal standards. Asserting the immunity of international organizations runs contrary to the prevailing winds of international law. It is pleasing to see judicial recognition of a logic that scholars have appreciated for some time. The days of absolute immunity for international organizations are surely numbered.
The author is an international lawyer based in Geneva. He formerly worked in the legal departments of the World Bank and the Office of the High Representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and clerked at the European Court of Justice. Matthew’s book on international law and international courts,Mirages of International Justice: The Elusive Pursuit of a Transnational Legal Order, will be published by Edward Elgar in early 2011.www.matthewparish.com
637 UNDP Staffers are Millionaires, and another 1041 UNDP staffers have enough salary (income) to justify million dollar homes in New York (or tri-state area NY/NJ/CT).
UN/UNDP's budgets are untransparent !
U.N. budget is “utterly opaque, untransparent and completely in the shadow” and would benefit from being consolidated and audited from the outside. MMB from NyTimes
JOSE RAMOS HORTA - PRESIDENT OF EAST TIMOR
‘‘You know how many layers of bureaucracy there are when the European Union wants to help East Timor? Well, they don’t provide the funds to us, the funds allocated are managed by world bank. And the world bank has its own layers of bureaucracy. And they charge for that. The project is then managed by UNDP. But UNDP is only good at doing studies, they don’t execute projects.’‘
Boutros Boutros-Ghali on UN:
"perhaps half of the UN work force does nothing useful"
Can Helen Clark be trusted on Climate Change ?
President Obama's answer to Helen Clark's appeal for US to do more on climate change was : "I think the American people right now have been so focused, and will continue to be focused, on our economy and jobs and growth that ... if the message is somehow, we're going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don't think anybody's gonna go for that," he said. "I won't go for that."
In 2011 Rami Makhlouf - a trusted development partner of UNDP in Syria
In 2008 U.S. Treasury designation: Rami Makhluf Designated for Benefiting from Syrian Corruption (Click on photo to see US Treasury page)
"Screwed" How Foreign Countries Are Ripping America Off
A full chapter (7) dedicated to UNDP and UN Secretariat. But it today at Amazon.com (click above picture)
There was an error in this gadget
Asma al-Assad is UNDP's champion of reform in Syria
UNDP's special relations with dictators and terror is well documented. Yet, they continue to operate covered by UN Immunity. Click on immage for story.
Aicha Gaddafi You are Fired !
UNDP continues to be in bed with other dictators. Will clean it one at a time.
Where is NETAID money David Morrison?
UNDP Transparency Censored
UNDP's moto is: - eliminate the uncomfortable, frighten those who disagree, "educate" the perplexed..
UNDP Chief Finance Officer
The UNDP is a secretive organization and so far has kept in the dark every information related to its Chief Finance Officer and Deputy Assistant Administrator, Mr. Darshak Shah. Click on the picture for more on Finance Office of UNDP.
UNDP Belarus - best breast corner
Should tax-payers dollars be used to photograph beautiful breasts - even when making a valid point?
Uncle Helen turning UNDP into a cove of corrupt NZ labour politicians
CLICK ON PICTURE TO SEE Chris Carter's latest Credit Card scandal - can he work at UNDP after that? It seems YES he is full tested!!
Helen Clark says: "No more cars"
Thinking about buying a new car this year? Why, you evil Westerner! You don’t need that. You are demanding your new car off the sweat, toil, and exploitation of the world’s poorest people in developing countries.
Eveline Herfkens belongs to Jail - she should return imemdiately Dutch Taxpayers money.
if anyone else would have done what Eveline Herfkens did, would have long been in jail. We denounce this impunity and demand justice.
Andrew Mitchell - says Helen Clark is up to no good!
1. UNDP’s partnership with the World Bank needs to be more effective, particularly in fragile and crisis-affected countries. 2. UNDP’s near universal mandate means its technical resources are spread very thinly. The Board does not provide strategic direction. HR management is weak. It has a weak results chain. 3. There is limited evidence of active senior management consideration of cost control. Country evidence points to mixed progress on demonstrating cost-efficiency. 4. The Executive Board is politicised and there is a lack of consensus on the key areas for reform. It is not clear that current plans for change will deliver the required depth and breadth of reform. 5. Evidence gathered at country level was highly critical of UNDP’s ability to deliver results. Its delivery can be undermined by staffing issues and bureaucratic processes. 6. Its performance in fragile states is mixed. It has reasonable training and a range of guidance and analytical tools but struggles to fill posts. 7. There is no evidence that the Climate Strategy was directly guiding resource allocation decisions
Mark Malloch Brown outraged over Aicha Gaddafi
“I hope she's not a UNDP Ambassador,” ...“I don't think it's UNDP. I was surprised when I saw that... she was an Ambassador to any part of the UN system.”
Travel Palestine - Rediscover Your Senses
Get ready to a sensual feast of ...sounds...scents of The Land of حماس Ḥamās Documentary sponsored by UNDP Funds (click on picture for video)
Helen Clark on UNDP's own corruption (Can she be trusted?)
“When funds intended for life-saving treatment and prevention are stolen, that theft is tantamount to murder.” CLICK ON PICTURE FOR MORE
Scandal in Rwanda with Human Development Report
Aurelien Agbenonci, UNDP's RR in Kigali accuses Khalid Malik of making up data without UNDP Rwanda's knowledge. Rwanda Government is unhappy !!!
H.E. Dirk Niebel - German Development Minister
"I take the accusations made in the media concerning corruption and breach of fiduciary duty at the Global Fund very seriously and I am sure that the Fund will clarify the matter without delay. Germany is one of the biggest donors to the Global Fund. I have therefore seen to it that a special review will be held. I have frozen all further disbursements to the Fund until matters have been fully clarified, and I will ask a representative of the Fund to come to the BMZ to discuss the matter."
US Amb. Joseph Torsella blows the whistle on UN budgets
U.N. Secretariat’s proposed $5.2 “regular” budget for 2012-2013, was “simply loosening our belt a little less than we originally planned.”
The U.N. Exposed
How the United Nations Sabotages America's Security and Fails the World (Click in picture to purchase the book)
Share now information about illegal dealings at United Nations
If you are in possession of UNDP or any other United Nations Agency' contracts, correspondence, financial records or databases, which you believe detail wrongdoing such as fraud, mismanagement and abuse of authority, and you have failed to have UN's internal control, oversight and justice systems respond and/or react to your claims, you can send them to UNDP-WATCH and we will make them public keeping your identity anonymous and confidential.
Send an email to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Helen Clark is watching you!
Gaddafi aint got nothing on UNDP - Click on the picture for more!
Malakia: A Turk advises Greece on Economy
Kemal Dervis (Turkish) and George Papandreou (Greek) share many late-night phone calls together (Click on picture to read story)
Where does Ban stand on Libya?
C'est vraiment ce que tu veux pour ta carriere?
United Nations Dispute Tribunal finds Ethics Office decisions Appealable
Because UNDT is the first level of the UN’s two-tiered justice system, there is a possibility that this decision may be appealed. Hopefully, the Secretary-General will not be “absurd” enough to do so. Click above to go to GAP page.
Andrew Mitchell Demands Transparency from United Nations
And I promise you as well that in future, when it comes to international development, we will want to see hard evidence of the impact your money makes. Not just dense and impenetrable budget lines but clear evidence of real effect
YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT UNITED NATIONS
Ban Ki Moon supports Ethics Decision on UNDP North Korea
Question: He recommends strongly that UNDP pays 14 months back pay to the whistleblower. Does the Secretary-General stand behind that recommendation? Should UNDP in fact pay that money, or are they free to rebuff that recommendation? Spokesperson: We will see what is going to happen. The Secretary-General of course is behind Mr. Benson on his report. There is no doubt about it. What UNDP will do, we will be seeing this; how they will implement that report.
UNDP Watch is a grouping of United Nations Staff committed to openness. We believe that everyone has the right to access information held by United Nations.
Despite a stated commitment to openness, UNDP remain a highly secretive agency.
Although a wealth of information is available on some UNDP websites, its Executive Board operate behind closed doors, much important programme and administrative information is never made available and, as a rule, information that is disclosed is provided only after relevant decisions have effectively been taken.
While UNDP has adopted “internal policies” on information disclosure, they in fact operate on precisely the opposite presumption. For the most part, they list which documents will be disclosed and when, and there is a presumption against the disclosure of all the other information they hold. They do not establish right of access, the lists of documents subject to disclosure is limited, they do not set out clear and narrow grounds for refusing access and they do not provide for independent oversight mechanisms to ensure proper implementation of the policy.
The UNDP WATCH is calling for the complete overhaul of these policies.
"...We believe that without accountability, there is impunity. We ask that you (Secretary General) not be complicit in cover-up of what happened prior to 11 Dec attack. The staff is sick and tired of the impunity extended by the office of the Secretary-General to senior managers for their failings especially in situations where it has led to death and disability."