The grant of immunities to officials of foreign nations and international organizations

1789 Words4 Pages

WHAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR THE GRANT OF IMMUNITIES TO UN CIVILIAN PERSONAL AND HOW, IF AT ALL, DOES IT PREVENT ACCOUNTABILITY FOR MISCONDUCT BY CIVILIAN PEACEKEEPERS? INTRODUCTION The grant of immunities to officials of foreign nations and international organizations is a widespread and accepted practice in international relations and not without good reason. These immunities and privileges play a crucial role in enabling such persons to carry out their duties effectively without the interference of political or coercive influences. However as the well known saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Granting absolute immunities is also hence, problematic as it leaves in its wake a very wide scope for abuse. Time and again the international community has been outraged at gross violations of IHRL committed by personnel deployed to maintain peace in a manner counterintuitive to their purpose. In recent times the number of civilians employed on such missions has also increased thereby exacerbating the already existent problem of immunity. The type of immunity that should be granted to such individuals has been a matter of contention at the international level. Countries such as the US have demanded absolute immunity for such personnel akin to that of military forces and immunity from the jurisdiction of the ICC as well. On the other hand scholars have argued that lack of cogent laws defining the role and immunities of such persons THE RATIONALE AND PROVISIONS REGARDING IMMUNITY The principle granting of immunities to UN officials can be traced back to traditional ideas of ‘diplomatic immunity’ for foreign representatives based on the principle of reciprocity which is indispensable to international... ... middle of paper ... ...ary legal authority to take direct punitive measures against such persons such as civilian police, it at best may dismiss them and repatriate them to their countries along with recommendations to the authorities to initiate action. In practice, however it is often observed that the home states neglect to hold such personnel accountable for their actions even in domestic courts. A famous instance of such a situation was of a Finnish It is also important to note that the traditional view of ‘Diplomatic’ immunities under international law were never intended to cover tens of thousands of ‘representatives/employees’ in a single deployment but were meant to cover persons in significant positions of authority. However the practical interpretation of such immunities has led to them being applied to several types of officials which again, leaves scope for abuse.

Open Document