© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten
© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten © Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten
‘Darüber hinaus kann gefragt werden, ob die Vereinten Nationen in einem derartigen Fallnicht verpflichtet sind, auf ihre Immunität zu verzichten, was im Rahmen der Regelungenmöglich ist. Es entspricht nicht dem auf Menschenrechtsschutz angelegten System derVereinten Nationen, wenn für einen Völkermord insoweit kein Ersatz geleistet werdenkann. Dafür spricht auch die Resolution der Generalversammlung vom 16.12.2005 (Res.60/147) “Basic principles and guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation for victimsof gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of internationalhumanitarian law.” In Art. 2 empfehlen die Vereinten Nationen den Mitgliedstaaten, diesePrinzipien anzuwenden und in derartigen Fällen für das Individuum Ersatzansprüche zubegründen. Es kann bezweifelt werden, ob diese Grundsätze bereits geltendes Völkerrechtsind, aber jedenfalls legen sie eine wesentliche Tendenz fest. Unbestritten ist, dassinternationale Organisationen wie die Vereinten Nationen völkerrechtlich für Deliktehaften. Dass in Srebrenica ein völkerrechtliches Delikt auch der Vereinten Nationenvorliegt, wird in der Klageschrift eingehend begründet und dürfte weitgehend unbestrittensein. Daraus folgt, dass jedenfalls gegenüber dem Heimatstaat betroffenerStaatsangehöriger eine Verpflichtung der Vereinten Nationen besteht. Es spricht aber vielesdafür, in derartigen Fällen bei Untätigkeit des Heimatstaates auch dem Individuum gegendie Organisation Ansprüche zuzugestehen.’(“In addition it may be asked why the United Nations are not obliged in such a case to waivetheir immunity, which is possible under the rules. It is not consistent with the system of theUnited Nations, which is designed to protect human rights, that no compensation should bepaid for genocide. This point of view is also supported by the resolution of the GeneralAssembly of 16 December 2005 (Res. 60/147) “Basic principles and guidelines on the right toa remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of international human rights law andserious violations of international humanitarian law.” In Article 2, the United Nationsrecommend that the member states apply these principles and allow compensation claimsfor individuals in such cases. It is doubtful whether these principles already constituteapplicable law of nations, but they do reflect an important trend. It is undisputed thatinternational organisations such as the United Nations are liable for tort under the law ofnations. That a tort under international law was also committed by the United Nations inSrebrenica was shown in detail in the writ of summons and should be largely undisputed. Itfollows from this that there is an obligation on the part of the United Nations at least vis-àvisthe home state of the citizens concerned. But there is much that speaks for also givingindividual claims against the organization in such cases if the home state remains inactive.”translation by lawyers)© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten page 32 of 99
It follows from this quotation also that the District Court’s understanding of internationallaw and international legal practice is incorrect.Basis of the immunity of the UN under international law76. The Association et al. will now deal in greater depth with Article 105 of the UN Charter,with Article II, § 2 of the Convention and the interpretation of those Articles on the basis ofthe Vienna Convention on Treaties. The framework introduced by the District Court on thispoint is incomplete and legally erroneous.77. Article 105 of the UN Charter must be interpreted in the light of Article 1 of the UN Charter.Article 1 of the UN Charter reads:‘The Purposes of the United Nations are:(…)3. (…) and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamentalfreedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and4.To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these commonends.’Article 105 paragraph 1 of the UN Charter states:‘The Organisation shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members such privileges andimmunities as are necessary for the fulfilment of its purposes.’The UN consequently has immunity to the extent that it is necessary for the fulfilment ofthe purposes of the UN. This does not relate exclusively to the general purposes of the UNbut also to the purposes that arise from a specific mandate, such as the mandate to ensureprotection of the Srebrenica Safe Area and its population. The Association et al. expresslypoints out in advance that upholding human rights, including hereunder the right of accessto an independent court, is one of the purposes of the United Nations.The immunity of the UN must be instrumental in furthering that purpose and it must not beso that such immunity obstructs the realisation of that purpose. The District Court showedno interest in such a notion of the relationship between objective and immunity, to whichthe latter must be instrumental. If the judgment of the District Court were to be followed,© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten page 33 of 99
- Page 2: Against:1. The State of the Netherl
- Page 6 and 7: - the motion by the State of the Ne
- Page 8: options exist side by side and do n
- Page 11 and 12: 22. The Public Prosecutions Departm
- Page 13 and 14: Explanation of ground of appeal 427
- Page 15 and 16: eferred to the fact that the proces
- Page 17 and 18: No legal relevant interest of the S
- Page 19 and 20: The Article envisages a situation i
- Page 21 and 22: The Hague District Public Prosecuto
- Page 23: 54. The District Court is evidently
- Page 26 and 27: functional necessity. In that conte
- Page 28 and 29: only in Germany. It was not dispute
- Page 30 and 31: immunity of the UN has no absolute
- Page 34 and 35: the purpose would become subservien
- Page 36 and 37: exercise of their functions in conn
- Page 38 and 39: ) leads to a result which is manife
- Page 40 and 41: 90. The ICJ gave an Advisory Opinio
- Page 42 and 43: of functional necessity for immunit
- Page 44 and 45: 100. Even where the District Court
- Page 46 and 47: 105. The District Court referred un
- Page 48 and 49: necessary that change is there effe
- Page 50 and 51: 115. It is also incomprehensible th
- Page 52 and 53: consideration 3.3.6). Under legal c
- Page 54 and 55: desirable that national courts do n
- Page 56 and 57: evidence of the necessity of conduc
- Page 58 and 59: The whole point of the Genocide Con
- Page 60 and 61: prevent the genocide. Worse still,
- Page 62 and 63: 137. It was known at the UN - and b
- Page 64 and 65: 144. It is established as a result
- Page 66 and 67: 151. The Basic Principles provide t
- Page 68 and 69: Convention and the Geneva Conventio
- Page 70 and 71: uling of the European Court of Huma
- Page 72 and 73: torture must be accountable is not
- Page 74 and 75: is in that connection incorrect. Th
- Page 76 and 77: Ground of appeal 14178. The Distric
- Page 78 and 79: human rights treaties, ECHR and ICC
- Page 80 and 81: they rely for their effectiveness o
It follows from this quotation also that the District Court’s un<strong>der</strong>standing of internationallaw and international legal practice is incorrect.Basis of the immunity of the UN un<strong>der</strong> international law76. The Association et al. will now deal in greater depth with Article 105 of the UN Charter,with Article II, § 2 of the Convention and the interpretation of those Articles on the basis ofthe Vienna Convention on Treaties. The framework introduced by the District Court on thispoint is incomplete and legally erroneous.77. Article 105 of the UN Charter must be interpreted in the light of Article 1 of the UN Charter.Article 1 of the UN Charter reads:‘The Purposes of the United Nations are:(…)3. (…) and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamentalfreedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and4.To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these commonends.’Article 105 paragraph 1 of the UN Charter states:‘The Organisation shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members such privileges andimmunities as are necessary for the fulfilment of its purposes.’The UN consequently has immunity to the extent that it is necessary for the fulfilment ofthe purposes of the UN. This does not relate exclusively to the general purposes of the UNbut also to the purposes that arise from a specific mandate, such as the mandate to ensureprotection of the Srebrenica Safe Area and its population. The Association et al. expresslypoints out in advance that upholding human rights, including hereun<strong>der</strong> the right of accessto an independent court, is one of the purposes of the United Nations.The immunity of the UN must be instrumental in furthering that purpose and it must not beso that such immunity obstructs the realisation of that purpose. The District Court showedno interest in such a notion of the relationship between objective and immunity, to whichthe latter must be instrumental. If the judgment of the District Court were to be followed,<strong>©</strong> <strong>Van</strong> <strong>Diepen</strong> <strong>Van</strong> <strong>der</strong> <strong>Kroef</strong> <strong>Advocaten</strong> page 33 of 99
Change language