CYIL Vol. 6, 2015

MARTIN FAIX CYIL 6 ȍ2015Ȏ a claims commission as envisaged by the applicable SOFA), how shall the respective practice be developed? Traditional mechanisms are insufficient. For example, action against an international organisation by way of diplomatic protection depends solely on the decision of the national state. Another option, namely bringing claims before domestic courts, is hampered by that fact that international organisations enjoy wide immunity. 86 There is currently no international judicial or quasi-judicial body having general jurisdiction over international organisations. The current practice may arguably be considered as not sufficient to confirm the existence of a general right to reparation applicable also against international organisations, especially from the background that practice is a constitutive element of customary international rules; however I am convinced that the arguments presented are persuasive enough to substantiate that the development towards its application also against international organizations constitutes an irreversible trend. Any other option would constitute a bar, if not a peripeteia , to efforts to ensure effective human rights protection, legitimacy of international organisations as international actors and consequently the rule of law in the international community.

86 Admittedly, in recent years, in decisions of international and national courts the idea of waiving immunity appeared in cases where no other mechanisms for challenging acts of international organisations exist. However, claims before domestic or foreign courts are problematic, as immunity does not constitute the only obstacle in procedures before them. Cf. REINISCH, August, International Organizations Before National Courts, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

184