Identities of States in International Organizations
In: International Organizations Law ReviewSearch for other papers by Ramses A. Wessel in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Ige F. Dekker in
Current site
Google Scholar
In academic debates on the responsibility of international organizations and their member States the different identities of States play a crucial role. However, apart from the difficulty to clearly separate ‘State’ and ‘member State’ identities, it is even more complex to distinguish between the different roles ‘member States’ may have in the framework of international organizations. As a general introduction to this special forum, this essay aims to clarify the different identities and roles States may have in relation to international organizations, especially in the context of the responsibility of international organizations. As the subsequent contributions reveal, the law on the international responsibility of international organizations takes account of the possible responsibility of their members. By mapping the different identities States may have in different settings, this contribution argues that such differentiations may be crucial for the further development of adequate international rules on the responsibility of international organizations and their members.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
11
Wouters and De Man, supra note 8, at p. 205, have argued that in these cases international organizations “merely act as agents, since they only propose draft conventions through gathering information and offering their expertise, which then may or may not be entered into by the member States”.
-
15
Wouters and De Man, supra note 9, pp. 207–208. Once consensus has been reached within an international organization, it will be difficult for States to deny their acceptance of a norm and to be recognised as a ‘persistent objector’.
-
17
Collins and White, supra note 8.
-
19
Schermers and Blokker, supra note 16, p. 293.
-
20
Jan Klabbers, ‘Two Concepts of International Organization’, and ‘Contending Approaches to International Organizations’, supra note 10.
-
29
Cf. Schermers and Blokker, supra note 16, p. 37.
-
38
Schermers and Blokker, supra note 16, p. 118. As these authors rightly mention, Art. 3 of the un Charter makes this duty explicit.
-
42
Barros and Ryngaert, supra note 39; cf. also Jan Klabbers, ‘Autonomy, Constitutionalism and Virtue in International Institutional Law’, in R. Collins and N. White (eds.), supra note 8, p. 121: “there is always an element of artificiality in making a distinction between organizations and their members”. See also Niels Blokker, ‘International Organizations and their Members’ (2004) 1 International Organizations Law Review pp. 139–161.
-
53
Cf. Schermers and Blokker, supra note 16, pp. 822–832; Amerasinghe, supra note 47, pp. 172–175; Nigel D. White, The Law of International Organizations (2nd ed.) (Manchester up, Manchester, 2005) pp. 161–168.
-
62
Klabbers, supra note 22, p. 229.
-
74
Since 1945, the Court has delivered a total of 26 advisory opinions, of which 11 were delivered in the first 15 years.
-
75
Klabbers, supra note 20, p. 186.
-
77
Barros and Ryngaert, supra note 39. Cf also Jan Klabbers, ‘Autonomy, Constitutionalism and Virtue in International Institutional Law’, in R. Collins and N. White (eds.), supra note 8, p. 121: “there is always an element of artificiality in making a distinction between organizations and their members”.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 420 | 112 | 11 |
| Full Text Views | 459 | 18 | 2 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 155 | 43 | 6 |
Identities of States in International Organizations
In: International Organizations Law ReviewSearch for other papers by Ramses A. Wessel in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ige F. Dekker in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
In academic debates on the responsibility of international organizations and their member States the different identities of States play a crucial role. However, apart from the difficulty to clearly separate ‘State’ and ‘member State’ identities, it is even more complex to distinguish between the different roles ‘member States’ may have in the framework of international organizations. As a general introduction to this special forum, this essay aims to clarify the different identities and roles States may have in relation to international organizations, especially in the context of the responsibility of international organizations. As the subsequent contributions reveal, the law on the international responsibility of international organizations takes account of the possible responsibility of their members. By mapping the different identities States may have in different settings, this contribution argues that such differentiations may be crucial for the further development of adequate international rules on the responsibility of international organizations and their members.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 420 | 112 | 11 |
| Full Text Views | 459 | 18 | 2 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 155 | 43 | 6 |