International organization (international law)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An international organization in the sense of international law is an amalgamation of at least two states or other entities under international law that is designed to be permanent, usually operates across national borders and fulfills supranational tasks. An essential feature of such an organization is that it has at least one body through which it acts. There are currently around 38,000 organizations operating worldwide, with around 1,200 new ones being added every year. Prominent examples are the United Nations and the European Union .


The concept of international organizations in their present form developed particularly after the end of the Second World War . With the rapid progress of civilization in the following years, the imperative need of states for ever closer and more complex cooperation in almost all areas of human activity increased. International organizations take on fundamental and varied tasks.

The beginnings of this collaboration go back to the Congress of Vienna in 1815. The restorative efforts of the participating states found their expression also and especially in the realization that common interests can only be effectively implemented through joint action. One of the most important results of the congress in this regard was the establishment of the Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine , which - albeit with several changes in its legal basis - is still working today. It is not only the first, but also the oldest international organization in history.

International organizations experienced their first heyday in the second half of the 19th century with the establishment of numerous administrative unions. The most important of these so-called international offices include the International Telecommunication Union from 1865 and the Universal Postal Union from 1874. These two organizations also continue to exist largely unchanged to this day.

Up until the First World War , the international organizations generally limited themselves to monitoring the contractual obligations of their member states and coordinating the cooperation between the respective national administrations. With the League of Nations , founded in 1919, states went a decisive step further by creating an organization with powers that were far more extensive than any other institution of the time. These were not limited to simple administrative tasks of the states, but included in particular mechanisms for peacekeeping and conflict resolution. Even if these mechanisms were comparatively weak by today's standards and even then there were organizations that dealt with individual aspects of peacekeeping - such as the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) of 1899 - the accumulation of responsibilities in a single organization was one Novelty.

The United Nations (UN), founded in 1945, continued the idea of ​​the League of Nations. Its founding states claimed to have taken into account the weaknesses of the League of Nations in terms of structure and powers - which, according to many views, were not suitable for preventing the Second World War. It will hardly ever be possible to conclusively assess whether this assessment is correct. Today the United Nations is the prototype of any international organization.


International organizations are brought into being by at least two subjects of international law . These are mostly states, but can also be z. B. be other organizations.

The USA declares its accession to the International Coffee Organization and thereby binds itself to the founding treaty even without a signature.

They are regularly based on international treaties . These founding treaties - often referred to as charter or statutes - are drawn up in the majority of cases at international conferences in which specially appointed state representatives take part. In particular, they specify the names and headquarters of the organizations, their tasks, the competencies to which they are entitled to perform their tasks, their internal organ structures, the working methods, the financing, the privileges and immunities of their employees, the entry into force of the founding contracts and the possibility of the members leaving the Change of contracts and the dissolution of the organizations.

In addition to the conclusion of a contract, there are other forms of establishing an international organization. In this way they can also develop out of a state practice. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) should be mentioned as an example. And the European Union (EU) was recognized by some of the literature as an international organization even before the Treaty of Lisbon came into force .

Another variant of the start-up options is Interpol . This organization was founded in 1956 by amending the statutes of its predecessor organization - the International Criminal Police Commission. The decision-making members were the police departments of their home countries. Finally, reference should be made to the Nordic Council , which was created in 1952 by resolutions of the parliaments of its member states.

The common element of all founding acts is the unanimous expression of will by subjects of international law, in particular by states. Which state organ exerts this will is irrelevant as long as the will can be traced back to an organ authorized to represent under international law. Special state representatives as well as parliaments and police departments are suitable to act as appropriately authorized bodies.

As subjects of international law are always involved in the creation of international organizations, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is not such an organization. The ICRC was founded by private individuals as an association under Swiss law. However, it is considered a non-state subject under international law; in this respect it is at least similar to most international organizations, although its status in this regard is very exceptionally original and not chosen. The situation is similar with the Order of Malta , which is also considered a subject of international law without having been founded by subjects of international law; its status in this regard is solely historical.

Tasks, sphere of activity and powers

In international law, three classifications of international organizations have prevailed: according to tasks, according to sphere of activity and according to their powers.

Classification according to tasks

Classification according to sphere of activity

  • Organizations with a spatially unlimited sphere of activity potentially act worldwide. Such universal organizations are open to all states. These are in particular the United Nations and all of its specialized agencies .
  • As a rule, however, the memberships of the organizations are regionally limited. As in the case of the African Union and the Organization of American States, they are often tailored to continents, but are also limited to smaller areas, e.g. B. the European Free Trade Association . Organizations that operate solely within national borders are also conceivable, e.g. B. as administrative organizations for a territory enclosed by a border, a river or canal or a harbor basin. The large number of regional fisheries organizations also operate outside of the national territories.

Classification according to powers

Furthermore, the international organizations can be distinguished according to the type of powers they are entitled to vis-à-vis their member states:

  • The vast majority of the organizations exercise a solely coordinating function between the members. Such organizations are ultimately only an institutionalized form of intergovernmental cooperation that could also be managed by conference channels.
  • Some organizations are entitled to oblige their members to them and to one another. B. the United Nations because of the duty of its member states to implement Security Council resolutions.
  • However, a few organizations are also able to produce law directly in their member states. Such subordinate organizations are also known as supranational organizations. The most prominent example here is the European Union , but other organizations such as the West African Economic Community , the European Economic Area and the Andean Community are authorized to take such measures - albeit to a much lesser extent.

In addition, the term international non-governmental organization implies a distinction between state and civil society international organizations.

organization structure

As diverse as the areas of responsibility of the international organizations may be, they have a largely comparable structure. The structure is structured by the division into organs. A single body is legally sufficient, but at least two bodies are regularly provided: an assembly in which the members of the organization are represented, and a secretariat to take care of administrative activities.

The assembly acts as the main decision-making body and determines the measures to implement the organizational goals; the secretariat then carries out these measures. The secretariat is usually headed by a director or general secretary who has the highest authority internally and who represents the organization externally. In order to relieve the assembly and to enable specialization, certain topics are often dealt with by special bodies. Either these are already established by the founding contracts or later assigned by the main organs of the organization as subsidiary organs to a certain organizational area. Many international organizations also have a judicial body that decides in service law matters or in disputes between members or bodies on the interpretation or application of the founding contract.

The North Atlantic Pact Organization is a special international organization in structural terms . The North Atlantic Treaty provides in Article 9 the establishment of a North Atlantic Council before, so far as an organization called NATO does not exist. But from the very beginning of the work of the council there was generous talk of an organization with the council at its head. Over the years the Council has established a number of sub-organs and a secretariat attached to it, which has given rise to the current organizational structure of NATO.

Legal status

Legal capacity

International organizations are corporate entities and as such are different from their founding subjects and legally independent from them. They are bearers of their own rights and obligations and thus legal subjects . Simple cooperation between the states - such as in the form of the G7 or the G 77 - does not meet this requirement, although they are often also referred to as international organizations, since they too can have an institutional framework.

The legal subjectivity of the international organizations is not inherently liable to them either in national law or in international law . The prerequisite is the granting of legal subjectivity by the members. This award takes place either explicitly through status clauses in the founding contract or implicitly through the recognition of corresponding implied powers , which are read into the contract.

The majority of the founding treaties oblige the member states to grant the respective organization the national legal personality necessary for the performance of its tasks. For example, Article 104 of the Charter of the United Nations reads : "The organization enjoys the legal capacity in the territory of each member that is necessary for the performance of its tasks and for the attainment of its objectives". Due to the restriction of legal personality to the functions of the organizations, one speaks of a functional legal personality. Occasionally, international organizations are also granted unrestricted absolute legal personality. In their member states, the organizations are regularly treated as corporations under public law or with a comparable status.

What differs from the national legal personality of the organizations is their legal capacity at the international level, i.e. their subjectivity under international law . Whether this is a constitutive element of the international organizations, whether there can be international organizations under international law without subjectivity under international law, is controversial. The respective founding contracts sometimes explicitly grant the organizations - such as B. in the case of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization - the personality under international law, but mostly make no statement on this. From this, e contrario, the conclusion that the organization does not have such a legal personality is inadmissible; rather, a corresponding assessment of the totality of the organizational tasks is required. The UN Charter, for example, does not contain a statement about the international legal capacity of the United Nations , and yet the International Court of Justice, in its reparation report of April 11, 1949, regarded this as a necessary prerequisite for the effective performance of the United Nations' tasks. International organizations are predominantly subject to international law. But sometimes it is also denied. So should z. In the former Benelux Economic Union , for example, national legal capacity is sufficient to achieve the organizational goals.

Recognition by non-members

The national and international legal personality is initially only effective in and against the member states. For non-members, status clauses and implied powers are ineffective and therefore irrelevant third-party agreements ( res inter alios acta ). In this respect, no non-member can be obliged, e.g. B. to recognize the transfer of trade competences to an organization and no longer to turn to the member states on trade issues or B. to allow an organization to acquire land in their own country.

The legal personality of the international organizations will only take effect vis-à-vis non-members if they legally recognize the organization. Here again a distinction must be made between the national and international legal personality of the organizations. Recognition under international law - unlike the recognition of states - has a constitutive effect. Particularly for states that are neutral towards an organization, recognition offers the opportunity to enter into certain relationships with the organization without, however, having to be bound by its internal rules. Recognition as a legal subject of a foreign national legal system usually takes place in accordance with the respective national regulations on international private law . The act of recognition can take place expressly (e.g. by means of a corresponding note) or implicitly (e.g. by concluding a contract).

According to an opinion that is in progress, not only the United Nations, but also numerous other - if not all - international organizations have an objective legal personality without the need for separate recognition by non-members.

Special privileges

International organizations typically enjoy a variety of privileges and immunities in their member states, in particular exemption from taxes and duties, exemption from jurisdiction and exemption from any form of enforcement on their property. This concerns both the organization itself and its employees and mostly also its experts. Privileges and immunities are regularly only briefly mentioned in the founding contracts of the organizations and then regulated in detail in separate agreements. Sometimes, however, there is also no reference to these special rights. The contract on the Energy Charter, for example, only gives the conference of the contracting parties the mandate to make provisions on the privileges and immunities of the secretariat, without going into these itself. So far there have not been such regulations for the Energy Charter Secretariat, so that there is no explicit treatment of the matter. Corresponding customary international law applies , even if it is difficult to determine .

Jurisdiction immunity is largely limited to those immunities that are necessary to enable the organization to perform its functions. They are functional immunities. Actions by employees are therefore only protected if they are of an official nature. However, for the top of the organizations, e.g. B. the director or general secretary and the top management, often provide for more extensive immunities that include not only official acts but also private acts of the persons concerned and their immediate family members; These immunities then correspond to the immunities which diplomats receive in international relations.


As legal subjects, international organizations are fundamentally subject to the respective legal systems in which they operate. This concerns on the one hand the national law of the states and on the other hand international law. If they are bound by these legal systems, they have to comply with these obligations - like all other legal entities - in substantive law.

The international organizations' liability under international law is based on a corresponding offense. This can e.g. B. be a non-fulfillment of their international treaty obligations. At the level of national legal systems, however, reasons for liability can arise in particular from the private law activities of the organizations, e.g. B. from renting premises, buying office supplies, causing a traffic accident, etc. In this respect, there are no special liability problems in connection with international organizations.

Whether a liability obligation of the organizations can actually be enforced is a question that is independent of the justification for liability and therefore needs to be answered separately. At the level of international law there is generally no possibility of making international organizations legally liable, as they usually lack the capacity to be a party to international courts. So it is e.g. B. Only states are able to appear as a party before the International Court of Justice .

At the level of the national legal systems, liability usually fails because of the immunities enjoyed by the international organizations. This z. B. private creditors of the organizations are denied access to the court, since the immunities represent an ex officio procedural obstacle to be observed. Although the organizations can waive their immunity, this option is only used very restrictively. If they maintain their immunity, however, they are obliged to help their creditors to obtain their rights through other means than proceedings before a national court. The most important instruments here are negotiations with the creditor and submission to arbitration tribunals, which predominantly apply the UNCITRAL rules.

The fact that creditors cannot appeal to national courts is sometimes seen as a violation of the legal guarantee under international law. Numerous national courts have therefore now switched to not applying the immunity rules if the organization does not provide any other form of legal protection that meets elementary requirements for fairness, transparency and effectiveness.

One of the most controversial questions of the law of international organizations is whether and to what extent the member states of the organizations are responsible for their obligations. This question becomes particularly relevant when an international organization does not have sufficient financial resources to meet its financial obligations. The collapse of the International Tin Council (ITC) on October 24, 1985 had a decisive influence on the scientific discourse. In the absence of a sufficient number of relevant precedents and due to the sometimes considerably contradicting judgments of national courts, this problem still awaits a solution.

Legation Law

As subjects of international law, international organizations enjoy the active and passive right of embassy - unless their founding treaties stipulate otherwise - that is, they can send representatives to other subjects of international law and also accredit their representatives. The European Union (EU) maintains diplomatic relations with all states and numerous other international organizations. The duties and powers of representatives from and at international organizations correspond largely to those developed for diplomatic relations between states. As a rule, they also enjoy the same protocol honors.


International organizations are mostly dissolved by a resolution of their members. The organizational tasks can be continued immediately in a new organization, as z. This took place, for example, with the dissolution of the European Community (EC) following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and the transfer of its powers to its successor organization, the European Union (EU). In contrast, the gradual transfer of tasks allows both organizations to exist in parallel for a time. For example, the League of Nations dissolved in April 1946, but when the Charter came into force in October 1945 , the UN began its work six months earlier. As part of the transition from the Organization for African Unity (OAU) to the African Union (AU), the AU's founding treaty provided for the parallel existence of both organizations for one year in order to give the OAU sufficient time to transfer its affairs to the AU. The elimination of the organization and its tasks without replacement is also conceivable. After the dissolution of the organization in 1991, the powers transferred to the Warsaw Pact reverted completely to its members.

The possibility of dissolution by way of a resolution does not necessarily have to be mentioned in the founding contract. For example, formally speaking, the EC was designed to last forever, but it was dissolved when the Lisbon Treaty entered into force .

Organizations are also terminated by a corresponding automatism in their founding treaties or additional agreements between the member states. These can e.g. B. set the reaching of a certain date as a termination fact. An example of this is the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), which ceased to exist on July 23, 2002 - exactly fifty years after its founding treaty came into force. Furthermore, the contracts can provide for the termination of the organization if the number of members falls below a minimum. Accordingly, the European Space Agency (ESA) will dissolve if there are fewer than five members, although it will remain in place for the duration of the liquidation process.

Furthermore, an international organization can disintegrate through long-term inactivity. This requires the will of the member states not to be bound by the relevant founding treaty any longer. The loss of all members through resignation, exclusion or demise ends the organization they founded, but this fact has not yet found practical application.

Political dimension

To draw a political balance of the international organizations is as impossible as their range of tasks is diverse. In this respect, definitive statements require an examination of each individual organization for itself. Nevertheless, two divergent currents can be identified within the overall phenomenon of international organizations. For this, it is important to distinguish between the technical-administrative and the political-economic tasks of the organizations, even if the border sometimes goes right through the middle of individual organizations.

Technical-administrative organizations hardly play a significant role on the world political stage. Although their activities are closely interlinked with the relevant national authorities, they can usually cope with their tasks without ideology. In contrast to this are the political-economic organizations. They have always been the scene of diplomatic skirmishes . The states often see these organizations as a means of enforcing national interests and do not shy away from disregarding the multilateral character of the organizations.

The work of political organizations in particular is often perceived as slow and ineffective. They are also increasingly being accused of restricting the states' freedom of action in an unacceptable manner, of interfering in internal affairs and of placing an excessive burden on national budgets through the contributions that arise .

The mostly formal equality of the member states in the organs of the organizations reflects on the one hand the equality of states under international law and thus means a huge step away from the traditional law of the strongest, but at the same time makes the organizations vulnerable to national abuses. In this way, resolutions that require unanimity can be prevented at will, which means that the organizations offer a target for allegations of lack of a quorum . Economically strong states can also buy or even blackmail the votes of weak states and thus bring about a decision in their favor. Tactical changes in state representatives make it difficult to build up a basis of trust that is indispensable for a smooth workflow. Seat states often exert targeted influence on the secretarial staff, who are solely responsible for the organization, by threatening to tax salaries, limiting the protection of diplomatic courier items or through advanced security measures.

Such behavior undermines the effectiveness and authority of the organizations and thwarts their goals. Ultimately, however, this is not a weakness of the international organizations as such, but of the international system as a whole. Striving for power and a desire for recognition are characteristics of states as long as people rule states. Especially in the two regions of the world that have produced the highest density of organizational connections, namely Europe and North America , an increasing reorientation towards state instruments of action as a means of international politics has been observed since the end of the East-West conflict . This does not necessarily have to mean a withdrawal from international organizations. This can be manifested, for example, in structural changes in the organizations, through which the national interests are again given greater weight. The reasons for this are varied, but the realization seems to be gaining ground that at the current state of state interaction, a steadily increasing attitude towards political and economic organizations overloads them and ultimately condemns them to failure. Only the balanced distribution of tasks and responsibilities between states and international organizations is a long-term satisfactory solution for the international community.


Almost all international organizations identify with symbols. These are regularly flags and logos , but also hymns; so is z. B. an instrumental version of the main theme of the last movement from Beethoven's 9th Symphony the hymn of the Council of Europe and the European Union (EU).

Only very rarely do the founding documents of the organizations specify their symbols. An example of this is the ASEAN Charter, which defines the organization's identity, motto, flag, emblem, holiday and anthem. Most of the time, however, the secretariat or an executive body decides on the acceptance and design of the symbols. The authorization for this follows either from a contractual provision or from the recognition of corresponding implied powers .

Differentiation from international non-governmental organizations

The international non-governmental organizations are also referred to as international organizations. In order to avoid confusion, their status as INGOs ( International Nongovernmental Organizations ) is regularly pointed out. The corresponding abbreviation IGOs ​​( Intergovernmental Organizations ) for the state international organizations has not been established to the same extent and is mostly only used to distinguish it from the INGOs.

In contrast to the state international organizations, the international non-state organizations are private associations that are subject solely to the national law of their home state. Their legal form is usually that of an association under private law. They do not enjoy any privileges or immunities in their home states, and the treaties they make with subjects of international law are not subject to international treaty law. INGOs mainly pursue humanitarian and other non-economic goals. Numerous state-run international organizations grant national and international NGOs consultant status and thus grant them access to their committees in order to make use of their often highly specialized and current knowledge.

So far it has been almost unanimous that it is fundamentally not possible for non-governmental international organizations to acquire the status of a subject under international law. In the recent development of international law, however, tendencies can be observed which could mean a softening of this classic distinction to the state international organizations. In its LaGrand ruling of June 27, 2001 , the ICJ expressly granted individuals partial international law subjectivity. In the opinion of the Special Rapporteur of the International Law Commission (ILC), Giorgio Gaja , there are no objective reasons against a comparable status of the INGOs. Resistance to this is to be expected primarily from the states, which fear that an international legal status of the INGOs goes hand in hand with a loss of control over them.

See also


  • Union of International Associations (Ed.): Yearbook of International Organizations. .
    (also covers non-governmental international organizations)
Vol. 1A and 1B: Organization Descriptions and Cross-References , 2 vol., ISBN 978-90-04-25513-5 .
Vol. 2: Geographical Index - A Country Directory of Secretariats and Memberships , ISBN 978-90-04-25514-2 .
Vol. 3: Global Action Networks - A Subject Directory and Index , ISBN 978-90-04-25515-9 .
Vol. 4: International Organization Bibliography and Resources , ISBN 978-90-04-25516-6 .
Vol. 5: Statistics, Visualizations and Patterns , ISBN 978-90-04-25517-3 .
Vol. 6: Who's Who in International Organizations , ISBN 978-90-04-25518-0 .

Legal literature

  • Chittharanjan Felix Amerasinghe: Principles of the Institutional Law of International Organizations . 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2005, ISBN 0-521-83714-6 .
  • C. Wilfred Jenks: The proper law of international organizations . Stevens / Oceana, London / New York 1962.
  • Jan Klabbers: An Introduction to International Institutional Law . 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2009, ISBN 978-0-521-81774-5 .
  • Matthias Ruffert , Christian Walter : Institutionalized international law . CH Beck, Munich 2009, ISBN 978-3-406-59530-1 .
  • Henry G. Schermers, Niels M. Blokker: International Institutional Law - Unity Within Diversity . 5th edition, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden / Boston 2011, ISBN 978-90-04-18798-6 .
  • Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern , Gerhard Loibl: The law of the international organizations including the supranational communities . 7th edition, Carl Heymanns, Cologne / Berlin / Bonn / Munich 2000, ISBN 3-452-24650-7 .
  • Robin van der Hout: The international legal position of the international organizations with special consideration of the European Union . Nomos, Baden-Baden 2006, ISBN 3-8329-2248-2 .
  • Nigel D. White: The Law of International Organizations . 2nd edition, Manchester University Press, Manchester 2005, ISBN 0-7190-5953-4 .

Political science literature

  • A. LeRoy Bennett, James K. Oliver: International Organizations: Principles and Issues . 7th edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River 2002, ISBN 0-13-032185-0 .
  • Katja Freistein, Julia Leininger: Handbook for international organizations: Theoretical foundations and actors . Oldenbourg, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-486-58310-6 .
  • Margaret P. Karns, Karen A. Mingst: International Organizations: The Politics and Processes of Global Governance . 2nd edition, Lynne Rienner, Boulder / London 2010, ISBN 978-1-588-26698-9 .
  • Volker Rittberger , Bernhard Zangl, Andreas Kruck: International Organizations . 4th edition, Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2013, ISBN 978-3-531-19513-1 .

Historical literature

Work of the International Law Commission

  • UN Doc. A / CN.4 / 532 of March 26, 2003 ( First report on responsibility of international organizations ; PDF )
  • UN Doc. A / CN.4 / 541 of April 2, 2004 ( Second report on responsibility of international organizations ; PDF )
  • UN Doc. A / CN.4 / 553 of May 13, 2005 ( Third report on responsibility of international organizations ; PDF )
  • UN Doc. A / CN.4 / 564 of February 28, 2006 ( Fourth report on responsibility of international organizations ; PDF )
  • UN Doc. A / CN.4 / 564 / Add.1 of April 12, 2006 ( Fourth report on responsibility of international organizations, Add. 1 ; PDF )
  • UN Doc. A / CN.4 / 564 / Add.2 of April 20, 2006 ( Fourth report on responsibility of international organizations, Add. 2 ; PDF )
  • UN Doc. A / CN.4 / 583 of May 2, 2007 ( Fifth report on responsibility of international organizations ; PDF )
  • UN Doc. A / CN.4 / 597 of April 1, 2008 ( Sixth report on responsibility of international organizations ; PDF )
  • UN Doc. A / CN.4 / L.725 of May 30, 2008 ( Responsibility of international organizations: Draft Articles ; PDF )
  • UN Doc. A / CN.4 / L.725 / Add.1 of July 16, 2008 ( Responsibility of international organizations: Draft Articles, Add. 1 ; PDF )
  • UN Doc. A / CN.4 / 610 of March 27, 2009 ( Seventh report on responsibility of international organizations ; PDF )
  • UN Doc. A / CN.4 / 640 of March 14, 2011 ( Eighth report on responsibility of international organizations ; PDF )

Series and magazines

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. Terminus technicus ; The term is capitalized in almost all German-language textbooks.
  2. Union of International Associations (Ed.): Yearbook of International Organizations. Vol. 5, 43rd edition, Munich 2006, p. 33.
  3. James Hawdon: Emerging Organizational Forms. Westport / London 1996, p. 3.
  4. ^ Dale S. Collinson: The Rhine Regime in Transition: Relations between the European Communities and the Central Commission for Rhine Navigation. In: Columbia Law Review 72 (1972), p. 485.
  5. An outline of the most important historical development steps can be found in Christian Tietje , Internationalized Verwaltungshandeln , Berlin 2001, p. 124 ff.
  6. See also UN Doc. A / CN.4 / 532 Paragraph 14 ( PDF ).
  7. See Aurel Sari, The Conclusion of International Agreements by the European Union in the Context of the ESDP , in: International and Comparative Law Quarterly 57 (2008) p. 53 ff. ( Link ); Daniel Thym , The international law treaties of the European Union , in: Journal for foreign public law and international law 66 (2006) p. 863 ff. ( PDF ); Gilles de Kerchove and Stephan Marquardt, Les accords internationaux conclus par l'Union européenne , in: Annuaire Français de Droit International 50 (2004) p. 803 ff. ( Link ).
  8. See Albrecht Randelzhofer : Legal protection against measures by INTERPOL before German courts? In: Ingo von Münch (ed.): Constitutional law - international law - European law: Festschrift for Hans-Jürgen Schlochauer. Berlin 1981, p. 531 ff.
  9. The international law subjectivity of the ICRC follows from provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocol I of 1977.
  10. E.g. the Asian Development Bank ( ADB ) and the Central American Bank for Economic Integration ( BCIE ).
  11. E.g. the International Sugar Organization ( ISO ), the International Cocoa Organization ( ICCO ), the International Olive Council ( IOC ), the International Cotton Advisory Committee ( ICAC ) and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries ( OPEC ).
  12. E.g. the organizations for the rivers Rhine and Danube as well as the Mekong River Commission ( MRC ), the Organization pour la mise en valeur du fleuve Sénégal ( OMVS ), the Niger Basin Authority, the Comisión Mixta Argentino-Paraguaya del Río Paraná ( COMIP ) and the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization ( OTCA ).
  13. E.g. the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization ( NAFO ), the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission ( IOTC ) and the International Pacific Halibut Commission ( IPHC ).
  14. Federal Agency for Civic Education: NGOs - non-governmental organizations | bpb. Retrieved May 23, 2020 .
  15. Volker Epping, in: Knut Ipsen (Ed.): Völkerrecht. 5th edition. Munich 2004, § 6 marginal no. 13.
  16. See also C. Löser, Democratic Legitimation of the Activity of International Organizations , 2008, pp. 20 ff. With further references ( PDF ).
  17. E.g. the administrative courts of the United Nations ( UN Dispute Tribunal and UN Appeals Tribunal ), the ILO , the OAS , the World Bank , the IMF or the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD Appeals Board) and the European Union ( EUCST ).
  18. E.g. the International Court of Justice of the United Nations ( ICJ ) and the Central American Court of Justice of the System of Central American Integration ( CCJ ) as well as the non-permanent dispute settlement commission of the Gulf Cooperation Council, which is convened when necessary.
  19. ^ Final Communiqué of the First Session of the North Atlantic Council (Terms of Reference and Organization) of September 17, 1949 ( Link ).
  20. ^ Sieglinde Gstöhl , Governance through government networks: The G8 and international organizations , in: Review of International Organizations 2 (2007) p. 2.
  21. See Manuel Rama-Montaldo, International Legal Personality and Implied Powers of International Organizations , in: British Year Book of International Law 44 (1970) p. 111 ff.
  22. See Matthias Pechstein / Christian Koenig, Die Europäische Union , 3rd ed., Tübingen 2000, marginal no. 62 f .; Kirsten Schmalenbach, The Liability of International Organizations , Frankfurt am Main 2004, p. 55 ff.
  23. Hermann Mosler , The expansion of the circle of subjects of international law , in: Journal for foreign public law and international law 22 (1962) p. 35 f. ( PDF ).
  24. ICJ Reports 1949, p. 174 (179) ( PDF ( Memento of May 22, 2015 in the Internet Archive )).
  25. ^ Stephan Hobe / Otto Kimminich, Introduction to Völkerrecht , 8th edition, Tübingen / Basel 2004, p. 123.
  26. ^ Albert Bleckmann , Die Benelux-Wirtschaftsunion , in: Journal for foreign public law and international law 22 (1962) p. 293 f. (PDF; 5.35 MB). On January 1, 2012, the agreement of June 17, 2008 amending the founding agreement of February 3, 1958 ( Memento of March 23, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 291 kB) entered into force; Since then, the organization, renamed the Benelux Union , has had an express personality under international law.
  27. Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern / Gerhard Loibl, The Law of International Organizations including the Supranational Communities , 7th edition, Cologne / Berlin / Bonn / Munich 2000, No. 0721.
  28. Chittharanjan Felix Amerasinghe, International Legal Personality Revisited , in: Austrian Journal of Public and International Law 47 (1994/1995) p. 144 f .; Georg Dahm / Jost Delbrück / Rüdiger Wolfrum , Völkerrecht , Vol. I / 2, 2nd edition, Berlin 2002, § 106 III 2; Manfred Wenckstern, The liability of the member states for international organizations , in: Rabel's magazine for foreign and international private law 61 (1997) p. 95; Robin van der Hout, The position of international organizations under international law with special consideration of the European Union , Baden-Baden 2006, p. 80 ff.
  29. See e.g. B. Art. 104 and 105 of the UN Charter and the corresponding Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations of February 13, 1946 ( Link ).
  30. Art. 34 Para. 3 lit. f of the Energy Charter Treaty of December 17, 1994 ( PDF ( Memento of the original of October 24, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove them Note. ). @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot /
  31. See on the whole topic Kirsten Schmalenbach, Die Liability of International Organizations , Frankfurt am Main 2004.
  32. An important exception is the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ISGH) in Hamburg, which according to Art. 1 Para. 2 No. 2 in conjunction with Art. 305 Para. 2 lit. f of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is also open to international organizations.
  33. Art. 34 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice of June 26, 1945 ( Link ( Memento of the original of June 29, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to instructions and then remove this notice. ). @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot /
  34. On the civil liability of the United Nations see Henning Blatt, Rechtsschutz gegen die United Nations: International Immunities and Dispute Settlement According to Section 29 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations , in: Archiv des Völkerrechts 45 (2007), pp. 84– 114.
  35. Presentation of numerous corresponding judgments in August Reinisch / Ulf A. Weber, In the Shadow of Waite and Kennedy , in: International Organizations Law Review 1 (2004) p. 72 ff.
  36. See on this Thomas Heller, Der Haftungsdurchgriff im Völkerrecht , Mainz 1993 (diss.); Ulrich Haltern, The liability of member states for the liabilities of international organizations , in: Journal for Comparative Law 93 (1994), pp. 221–267.
  37. Overview at .
  38. ^ Karl Doehring , Völkerrecht , 2nd ed., Heidelberg 2004, marginal no. 497.
  39. Article 33, Paragraph 1 of the Constitutive Act of July 11, 2000 ( Link ( Memento of the original of May 26, 2008 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. ). @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot /
  40. Art. 97 of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community of April 18, 1951 ( Link ).
  41. Art. XXV of the ESA Convention of May 30, 1975 ( PDF ( Memento of the original of July 6, 2009) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice . ). @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot /
  42. ^ Stephan Hobe / Otto Kimminich, Introduction to Völkerrecht , 8th edition, Tübingen / Basel 2004, p. 124.
  43. This applies in particular to the exercise of the veto right of the permanent members of the UN Security Council .
  44. Art. 35–40 i. V. m. the respective annexes of the ASEAN Charter of November 20, 2007 ( PDF ).
  45. However, Theodor Schweisfurth uses the abbreviation IGO in his textbook on international law without further explanation, see Theodor Schweisfurth, Völkerrecht , Tübingen 2006, Chapter 10.
  46. Margaret P. Karns / Karen A. Mingst, International Organizations: The Politics and Processes of Global Governance , Boulder / London 2004, p. 10.
  47. See, however, Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on the Recognition of the Legal Personality of International Non-Governmental Organizations of the Council of Europe .
  48. E.g. Greenpeace International , Amnesty International (ai), Transparency International (TI), the International Law Association (ILA), Oxfam , Médecins Sans Frontières , the World Council of Churches , the World Football Association (FIFA) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
  49. Margaret P. Karns / Karen A. Mingst, International Organizations: The Politics and Processes of Global Governance , Boulder / London 2004, p. 230 ff. An overview of the NGOs with advisory status in the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations can be found in UN Doc. E / 2010 / INF / 4 of September 1, 2010.
  50. Volker Epping, in: Knut Ipsen (Ed.), Völkerrecht , 5th edition, Munich 2004, § 6 marginal no. 19th
  51. See for the whole Emanuele Rebasti / Luisa Vierucci, A Legal Status for NGOs in Contemporary International Law? , Paper presented at the ESIL Research Forum on International Law, Geneva, May 26th to 28th, 2005 ( PDF ( Memento of the original of September 2nd, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check Original and archive link according to instructions and then remove this note. ); Michael Hempel, The subjectivity of international non-governmental organizations , Berlin 1999; Marcel Merle, International Non-Governmental Organizations and their Legal Status , in: Union of International Associations (Hrsg.), International Associations Statutes Series , Vol. 1, Munich 1988, Appendix 3.5 ( Link ). @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot /
  52. ICJ Reports 2001, p. 494 ( PDF ( Memento of the original from February 1, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. ) . @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot /
  53. UN Doc. A / CN.4 / 532 Paragraph 17 ( PDF ).
This article was added to the list of excellent articles on September 3, 2006 in this version .