CYIL 2015

VICTIMS’ RIGHT TO REPARATION UNDER INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW… Nevertheless, the studies focus mainly on two issues: first, lack of clear institutional mechanisms available to individuals against acts of international organisations (remedy gap) and, second, shortcomings of or hindrances in access to currently existing mechanisms 14 (such as jurisdictional immunities of international organisations) affecting effective implementation of individuals’ right to remedy. The approach of this contribution is different, as it will not focus on specific shortcomings or gaps arising out of the relevant practice, but it will search for a feasible theoretical construction connecting general principles of responsibility, effective human rights protection and victims’ perspective in the context of international organisations. In other words, I attempt to delineate possible parameters for transferring the Chorzów Factory reparation principle from the inter-state level to the relation between the wrongdoing international organisation and the individual victim. I will proceed in two steps. The first issue to be addressed is the individual’s right to reparation under international law. Here it will be argued that the existence of an individual right to reparation under international human rights conventions is largely accepted, confirming individuals as possible beneficiaries of the respective States’ obligation under international law. It is, however, questionable whether such a right also exists outside of human rights treaties, i.e. under general international law. In this regard a broad variety of positions and arguments can be identified, making the existence of such a right, its contours and parameters rather ambiguous. Consequently, these various positions will be explored. I shall argue that, based on the basic principles of international responsibility, a general individual secondary right to reparation exists, as under international human rights law it is corollary to substantial, primary rights. In the second part, I will explore the possible extension of such a conclusion to the context of international organisations, focusing on the options available under international law on which a right to reparation against international organisations can be based. In the first, preliminary step, the role of international conventions and unilateral acts will be explored. In the second step the transferability of conclusions FREEDMAN, Rosa. UN Immunity or Impunity? A Human Rights Based Challenge . European Journal of International Law , 2014, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 239-254; SCHMALENBACH, Kirsten. Die Haftung Internationaler Organisationen im Rahmen von Militäreinsätzen und Territorialverwaltungen, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2004; SCHMALENBACH, Kirsten. Third Party Liability of International Organizations: A Study on Claim Settlement in the Course of Military Operations and International Administrations. International Peacekeeping: The Yearbook of International Peace Operations , 2006, Vol. 10, pp. 33-51; On the question of accountability of international organisations towards third parties in general: HIRSCH, Mosche. The Responsibility of International Organizations Toward Third Parties: Some Basic Principles. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1995. 14 For an overall analysis of remedies available against international organisations, see for example: WELLENS, Karel. Remedies against international organisations , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2002, 316 p.; SAROOSHI, Dan. Remedies and Responsibility for the Actions of International Organizations , Brill – Nijhoff, 2014, 752 p.

165