CYIL 2014

MARTIN FAIX CYIL 5 ȍ2014Ȏ of States’ own treaty obligations should be rather enforced through mechanisms of the responsibility of Member States. Also the above mentioned judgment of the Strasbourg court as well as the Human Rights Committee statement seem merely to back up this position, instead of insisting on international organisations succeeding into its Member States human rights obligations. Hence human rights agreements to which Member States of an international organisation are party cannot be considered as a source of an organisations’ own obligations. The most important treaty for international organisations is their constituent document, which may contain obligations imposed on the organisation by its Member States. 74 For example, Article 6 stipulates for the European Union obligations regarding the respect of fundamental rights. But such obligations may also result from documents related to the founding treaty. For example, for the European Union the most important source of human rights obligations, besides the constitutional treaties, is the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 75 There also might be other related documents, such as agreements concerning the privileges and immunities of the organisation; but those are due to their material scope, generally rather unlikely to contain obligations in the area of human rights. Much more problematic and more intensively debated than in the context of the EU was the issue of human rights commitments resulting from the constituent treaty (and related documents) with regard to the United Nations. In literature there is a lengthy debate about whether the UN is bound by human rights under the UN Charter, especially under the Articles 1(3) and 55(c) UN Charter. Currently the prevailing view seems to confirm (especially on the basis of travaux préparatoires ) such an intention of the UN Charter fathers. 76 3.2 Human rights obligations under customary international law A brief answer to the question of whether international organisations have obligations under customary human rights law would be “yes”. Nevertheless, there are two issues which in my opinion need to be addressed. The first one is well debated in international law and concerns the issue of whether (and, if yes, then which) human rights have gained the status of customary international law. The second issue is largely settled in the international literature, 77 but arguably not so in Czech 74 Such obligations may result from related documents as well, for example from agreements concerning privileges and immunities of the organisation; but these are generally unlikely to contain obligations in the area of human rights. Documents produced by Member States and devoted specifically to human rights protection, such as is the case with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, are truly exceptional. 75 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, O.J. C 83, 30 March 2010, 839. Another important source is the ECHR. The EU is not a party to ECHR yet, but the convention already became part of EU law as one of the sources (together with the constitutional traditions common to the member states) of human rights forming part of general principles on the basis of Article 6 para. 3 TEU. 76 Cf. REINISCH, August. Developing human rights and humanitarian law accountability of the Security Council for the imposition of economic sanctions. American journal of international law . 2001, vol. 95, no. 4, p. 857. 77 SCHERMERS, Henry G. The Legal Basis of International Organization Action. Supra note 74, p. 402.

284