European Union @ United Nations, Partnership in Action
 
 
Actos dedicados a la UE en Nueva York y sus cercanías: detalles de los programas académicos y los encuentros, festivales artísticos y actividades culturales.

 
EU in the USA - delegation to Washington, DCAbout the EU

< Vuelta a la pagina anterior

European Community Statement - United Nations 6th Committee: Report of International Law Commission

Sumario: 27 October 2009, New York - Statement on behalf of the European Community by Mr. Patrick Hetsch, Director, European Commission Legal Service, at the 64th Session of the United Nations General Assembly 6th Committee on Agenda Item 81: Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its 61st Session, Responsibility of International Organizations

Mr Chairman,

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Community.

The European Community commends the Special Rapporteur Mr Gaja for the thoroughness with which he has pursued the topic of the Responsibility of international organizations. The Community also congratulates the International Law Commission with the adoption on first reading of the set of 66 draft articles, together with commentaries thereto, at this year's session, following the discussion of the Special Rapporteur's seventh report on the subject.

The European Community has followed this project for a number of years now and has actively contributed with comments and suggestions throughout the International Law Commission's work, as this topic continues to carry special interest for this organization. The purpose of its contribution is to ensure that the draft articles allow sufficient room for the specificities of a regional integration organization which is, internally, in an advanced stage of transfer of competences by its Member States to the organization, and externally, a participant in a large number of international treaties alongside States. One of the themes that the European Community has continued to raise is the need to allow for special rules of attribution and responsibility in cases where the Member State is in fact only implementing a binding rule of the international organization.1

In this regard, the European Community notes that the Special Rapporteur has in this year's report taken the unusual step of re-examining certain issues of his previous reports in order take into account comments which were received earlier as well as in response to jurisprudential developments. This is a very welcome step indeed.

With these general comments in mind the European Community wishes to provide at this stage some reflections on a few of the draft articles and commentaries as they stand now.

The European Community would note that the newest articles, contained in parts V and VI carry special weight for the European Community and its Member States. Part V deals with the Responsibility of a State in connection with the act of an international organization. Part VI deals with general provisions.

In regard to part V the European Community has provided comments on the previous version of an article (28) dealing with "International responsibility in case of provision of competence to an international organization". The Community notes with satisfaction that the new version of this article, which has now become article 60, has been renamed "Responsibility of a member State seeking to avoid compliance". This is a good improvement. The new draft article uses the expressions "seeks to avoid" compliance and "taking advantage of", which clarifies the objective of the article better than the reference to "circumvention".2 In similar vein, the title of the new article no longer uses the expression "provision of competence".

There may however be the need for some further clarifications to take account of, at the very least in the commentaries. The current commentary in relation to article 60 states that an assessment of a specific intention is not required, that 'unwitting' consequences3 are not intended to be covered by the article and that the specific intention can be inferred from the circumstances. Therefore, in the Community's view it would be necessary to clarify that some basic or general level of intent, i.e., intentional act or conduct, on the part of the Member State, is required.4

Given the very diverse nature of international organizations it is clear that there is a need for a lex specialis provision along the lines adopted in Article 63. This provides that the draft articles do not apply "where and to the extent that" there are special rules of the organization, including those applicable between the organization and its members. In the Community's view the International Law Commission is right to include such a provision. Firstly, a provision on lex specialis also forms part of the draft articles 2001 on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful acts (article 55). There is no reason of principle for not including a similar clause in the current draft for international organizations. Secondly, this rule is necessary because the draft articles are meant to have a general character. It would be impossible for the International Law Commission to identify all special rules or take account of the specificities of all or even certain international organizations. Thirdly, the rule is necessary because for the time being, some of the proposed draft articles are based on limited practice and authority. The draft articles and the commentaries which the International Law Commission will adopt should not stunt the development of further international rules on the subject.

Mr Chairman, I come to my conclusions.

The European Community has been in the past been supportive of the work of the ILC on the subject of responsibility of international organizations and continues to be so. The draft articles and the commentaries as they stand, now, are greatly improved.

Furthermore, the European Community takes good note of the fact that final comments and observations by States and international organizations must be submitted to the UN Secretary-General by 1 January 2011. The Community will also examine the three additional specific questions on which input is sought, pursuant to paragraph 27 of the Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 61st session.


1 In this regard the Community does not believe that the parallel drawn in paragraph 32 of the SR's Seventh Report, is entirely appropriate. In its judgement of 3 September 2008 in the joined cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P of Kadi, Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, the European Court of Justice of the European Communities did not accept that this was a case of an implementation of a binding act that 'left no discretion'. On the contrary, in paragraph 298 the judgement the European Court of Justice states as follows: "It must however be noted that the Charter of the United Nations does not impose the choice of a particular model for the implementation of resolutions adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter, since they are to be given effect in accordance with the procedure applicable in that respect in the domestic legal order of each Member of the United Nations. The Charter of the United Nations leaves the Members of the United Nations a free choice among the various possible models for transposition of those resolutions into their domestic legal order."

2 Nevertheless the term 'circumvention' is still used in the commentaries to article 16. It would be preferable to align the commentaries of article 16 with the language used in the new version of the companion article (60) and to avoid the use of the term 'circumvention' altogether.

3 Also the term 'circumvention' (referred to in the commentaries to article 16), suggests intentional acts or conduct.

4 The concepts of 'general' or basic intent and 'specific' intent are very well known in criminal law. The former requires no more than the intentional or reckless commission of an act. Specific intent, on the other hand, requires the showing of additional specific elements over and above the conventional mens rea of intention or recklessness.


  • Ref: SP09-407EN
  • Fuente UE: Comisión Europea
  • Foro NU: Sexta Comisión (Asuntos Jurídicos)
  • Fecha: 28/10/2009


< Vuelta a la pagina anterior

Ver también
 

Estados Miembros de la Union Europea