Context

• International cooperation among states has led to the proliferation of intergovernmental organisations (IOs) tasked with administering treaties, promoting development, and managing global or regional issues.
• These entities, such as the United Nations (UN) or the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), occupy a central position in global governance.
• Yet, their increasing influence has raised a complex legal question: to what extent are IOs subject to the jurisdiction of the domestic courts of the host state, and when should they be immune?
• This issue, though often overlooked, is of particular importance for countries like India, which host several international organisations within their territories.

The Basis of IO Immunity

• The immunity of IOs is not uniform but rather determined by the interplay of three key legal instruments: the founding treaty of the organisation, the headquarters agreement between the IO and the host state, and any relevant domestic legislation.
• The theoretical justification for such immunity is grounded in the doctrine of functional necessity.
• According to this principle, immunity is essential for IOs to perform their functions effectively and without undue interference from national jurisdictions.
• However, as legal scholars such as Jan Klabbers argue, the functional necessity thesis is not without its challenges.
• While immunity is intended to protect organisational independence, it can also shield IOs from accountability when they act arbitrarily or in violation of individual rights.
• This tension between functionality and justice lies at the heart of the modern debate on IO immunity.

Judicial Practice and Emerging Trends

• Courts around the world have frequently grappled with the question of IO immunity, particularly in employment disputes between staff members and their organisations.
• Traditionally, national courts have upheld IO immunity, emphasizing the need to preserve institutional autonomy.
• Yet, this position has evolved. Increasingly, courts now assess the human rights impact of their immunity decisions, a shift highlighted by international lawyer August Reinisch.
• The turning point lies in whether denying a domestic court’s jurisdiction leaves the aggrieved individual without any remedy.
• If immunity results in a denial of justice, courts have begun to reconsider its application.
• This marks a significant shift from a purely functionalist approach toward one grounded in access to justice and human rights protection.

The Role of Alternative Remedies

• A consistent theme in comparative jurisprudence is that IO immunity is contingent upon the availability of adequate alternative remedies.
• If an organisation provides an independent and impartial mechanism for dispute resolution, such as an administrative tribunal or arbitration, the domestic court should, in principle, respect its immunity.
• However, the mere theoretical existence of such a mechanism is insufficient.
• The Italian Supreme Court’s decision in Drago v. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute exemplifies this standard: only an independent and impartial judicial remedy qualifies as a valid alternative.
• Similarly, the Belgian court in Siedler v. Western European Union rejected an IO’s immunity where the alternative forum did not guarantee a fair trial.
• Likewise, the French case of Banque Africaine de Développement v. Degboe demonstrated that immunity cannot be upheld if the IO establishes an alternative remedy after the fact or one inaccessible to the complainant.
• These cases collectively underline a growing international consensus: IOs must ensure that their internal dispute mechanisms are not merely nominal but substantively just, accessible, and effective.

Assessing the Effectiveness of Alternative Mechanisms

• Determining whether an IO’s alternative mechanism is effective requires examining several practical considerations.
• Key questions include:
  • Has the IO established a clear and functional arbitration process for employment disputes?
  • Does it maintain a panel of independent and impartial arbitrators?
  • Has it affiliated with any recognised arbitral institution or adopted credible procedural rules?
  • Crucially, has the organisation waived its immunity with respect to the supervisory role of domestic courts in such arbitrations?
• If these safeguards are absent, arbitration, or any other internal process, cannot be considered a genuine alternative.
• In such cases, the IO’s invocation of immunity risks becoming a tool of impunity rather than a mechanism of functionality.

Conclusion

• The immunity of international organisations remains a cornerstone of international institutional law, protecting their independence and enabling them to function across borders.
• Yet, this immunity cannot be absolute; as judicial practice increasingly reflects, immunity must be balanced with accountability.
• IOs cannot operate in a legal vacuum that denies justice to individuals affected by their actions.
• The emerging global trend toward conditional immunity, based on the adequacy of alternative remedies, represents a crucial step in reconciling the principles of international functionality with those of fairness and human rights.