CYIL 2014

PAVEL ŠTURMA CYIL 5 ȍ2014Ȏ other kinds of agreements and arrangements between IOs. Chapter 6 then provides an illustration and analysis of the implementation of inter se obligations of the IOs. Last but not the least, Chapter 7 addresses the issues of breach of obligations and the settlement of disputes between the IOs. Here the main problem is that most cooperation agreements of the IOs lack provisions on dispute settlement, because the IOs assume that their legal relations will be free of any disputes. The non-applicability of the advisory opinion procedure between IOs makes recourse to the International Court of Justice without practical significance. Arbitration clauses are possible but remain exceptional in agreements between IOs. However, as the author concludes, there is an implied obligation to consult or negotiate in order to settle any difference. The book ends with very detailed conclusions (Chapter 8, pp. 325-354). They include, in particular, the proposal of a code of conduct or model rules which IOs should adhere to when they enter into relations with other IOs. As suggested by B.N. Patel, the rules should be adopted by the UN General Assembly or highest decision-making organs of the IOs in the form of a resolution (p. 350). The monograph also includes standard annexes, such as a table of cases, abbreviations, bibliography, subject index, as well as Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations. From the formal point of view, I would point out that the reference to articles of the Treaty on EC is outdated and should be replaced, in the context of the Lisbon Treaty, by the respective provisions of the Treaty on Functioning of the EU. To evaluate the substantive aspects of the book, I would like to commend Bimal Patel for his empirical and analytical approach to the responsibility of international organizations. His work stems from an in-depth, inside examination into the agreements and practice of the IOs, namely the selected four organizations. At the same time, the book is a stimulating and, through its questions, thought provoking piece of work. On the one hand, the conclusions stress the importance of adoption of the coherent body of rules of the responsibility of IOs. On the other hand, they show that the breaches of obligations between IOs do not qualify “the need for evoking a legal framework such as one exists for the State responsibility”. Another statement which entails questions is that “the spread of IOs and the growing awareness of the potential risks arising from their activities will probably generate a trend towards the codification of existing responsibility rules and the formulation of new ones in international treaties.” The author hopes that the 1972 Liability Treaty and 1982 Law of the Sea Convention provisions will ensue the trend. However, Article 304 of the UNCLOS is just a pactum de contrahendo . Article XXII of the 1972 Outer Space Liability Treaty only transposes the principles of liability of launching States to an international organization. This special treaty regime of international liability differs significantly from general secondary rules on responsibility of States and that of IOs.

484