Search Results

This chapter first describes the legal framework regulating the immunities of international organizations in US courts. Turning to case-law, it then examines jurisprudence relating to the United Nations Organization, which, firstly, largely emanates from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; secondly, emphasizes the application of treaty provisions; and, thirdly, recognizes an almost absolute immunity not tempered by concerns for the individual rights of plaintiffs to a judicial determination of their claims. This is followed by discussions of jurisprudence involving the Organization of American States, international financial institutions, and the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit; landmark case-law in other US federal courts; international immunities in state courts; and transnational judicial dialogue and the role of US courts.

This chapter reviews Dutch case-law on the privileges and immunities of international organizations and their officials. The goal is to identify whether and to what extent the courts in this case-law have engaged in transnational judicial dialogue. It first sketches the context of the case-law of the Dutch courts on matters of immunity. It then discusses the principal tenets of the case-law on immunities of international organizations, and examines the cases involving a dialogue with (or, rather, references to) foreign and international decisions.

This chapter considers Russian case-law on the privileges and immunities of international organizations. It discusses the legal basis for the consideration of cases involving international organizations; the peculiarities of the Russian court system; the legal personality of international organizations in Russian courts; the role of immunities of international organizations in litigation; and the interaction of Russian courts with other legal systems and foreign and international courts.

This chapter describes the relevant aspects of the Austrian judicial system. It then discusses cases that illustrate the types of legal problems related to the domestic legal personality and the privileges and immunities of international organizations that have come before Austrian courts. It also considers the elements of transnational judicial dialogue.

This chapter examines the influence of transnational dialogue on the development of the Canadian law to date, and in particular the prospects and possible pitfalls with regard to its further application in the future. It first summarizes the principles which govern the application of international law in Canadian courts, including the manner in which courts have employed transnational dialogues in the process. Second, it outlines the statutory instruments under which international organization immunity in Canada is primarily structured, and provides an overview of current practice. This is followed by a review of the jurisprudence dealing with the personality, privileges, and immunities of international organizations in Canada. Finally, some suggestions are offered as to the relevance and appropriateness of transnational judicial dialogue and its likely future impact.

This chapter first considers Belgian courts' apparent lack of interest in foreign tribunals' case-law. It explains how Belgian courts only recognize an international organization's immunity insofar as this immunity is based on a treaty to which Belgium is a party. An international organization's treaty-based immunity is in principle a functional one: the international organization enjoys immunity insofar as the claim relates to an activity that is necessary for the fulfilment of its purposes. Belgian courts, however, do not normally apply this functional necessity test. The chapter then discusses three seminal judgments of the Court of Cassation rendered in 2009 (in cases involving the Western European Union and the ACP Group), and a subsequent judgment of the Brussels Court of Appeals in 2011 (in a case involving the European Space Agency). This case-law is compared with European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) cases on the responsibility of member states for deficient procedural protection in international organization dispute-settlement mechanisms.

This chapter examines German case-law dealing with problems of domestic legal personality and the privileges and immunities of international organizations. It discusses the jurisdictional immunity of international organizations as traditionally conceded by German courts; the jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court regarding the constitutionality of supranational acts of international organizations; and German courts' failure to engage in any substantial open judicial dialogue with courts and tribunals of other jurisdictions about issues of domestic legal personality, or the privileges and immunities, of international organizations.