Coining a New Jurisdiction: The Security Council as Economic Peacekeeper

Economic conditions are linked to international peace and security. Financial crises, mismanagement of natural resources, food shortages, and climate change can create transnational effects, including conflict. The Security Council is the executive organ of the United Nations, with primary jurisdiction over the maintenance of international peace and security. This Article explores the extent to which the Security Council can and should assert jurisdiction over economic and financial issues. In the past decade, the economic dimensions of conflict, including the economic causes of war, economic agendas of state and nonstate actors, and economic measures for reconstruction have become central to the Security Council\u27s work and to contemporary concepts of collective security. This Article argues that the Security Council\u27s increasing engagement with economic and financial issues is proper and permissible under Article 39, provided that certain thresholds are met. For example, purely internal disruptions such as bankruptcies would be unlikely to rise to the level of a threat to peace and security, whereas the manipulation of natural resources destined for, or regulated by, international markets may well create threats within the Council\u27s jurisdiction. The Security Council\u27s enforcement jurisdiction under Article 41 has similarly evolved, shifting from the wholesale restriction of economic opportunities via trade embargoes and sanctions to the promotion of prospective measures such as good economic governance. If the Council\u27s economic interventions continue, it will become a player of some significance in applying and developing international economic norms

The United Nations as Good Samaritan: Immunity and Responsibility

Since the U.N.’s founding, its need for immunity from the jurisdiction of member states courts has been understood as necessary to achieve its purposes. Immunities, however, conflict with an individual’s right to a remedy and the law’s ordinary principles of responsibility for causing harm. This inherent conflict at the center of the immunity doctrine has evolved into a very public rift in the Haiti Cholera, Kosovo Lead Poisoning, and Mothers of Srebrenica cases against the U.N. In these three cases alleging mass torts by the U.N., the independence of the organization is perceived by some to have trumped the dignity of affected individuals. Due to a combination of factors, including the U.N.’s broad immunities, the limited jurisdiction rationae personae of courts over international organizations (IOs), and the nascent state of the U.N.’s own internal review mechanisms, not to mention continuing debate over whether human rights obligations bind the U.N. directly under international law, these cases of human tragedy have resulted in neither compensation by the U.N. to the victims nor access to domestic courts. This article argues that the threshold problem with the position that the U.N. is absolutely immune is that it severs ordinary legal principles: an organization is responsible for the harm it causes by its negligence. Absolute immunity also stands in contrast to the U.N.’s programmatic promotion of the Rule of Law and to the standards expected of member states. While partial immunity is justified under certain circumstances, the categorical assertion of absolute U.N. immunity does not survive an assessment of accountability, distributive justice, or economics. U.N. Member States should join the conversation about what immunities mean to the U.N. today given its contemporary mandate and impact on individuals. If they do not, there may be consequences for the U.N. that are disadvantageous for its future work