Interpretation of Article VIII, Section 29 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN: Legal Basis and Limits of a Human Rights-based Approach to the Haiti Cholera Case
Interpretation of Article VIII, Section 29 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN: Legal Basis and Limits of a Human Rights-based Approach to the Haiti Cholera Case
复制标题
《联合国特权和豁免公约》第八条第29节解读：海地霍乱案件基于人权的方法的法律依据和局限性
DOI：
10.1163/15723747-01501003
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
0.7
通讯作者：
Yohei Okada
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
岡田陽平;高田陽奈子;阿部紀恵;橋本彩;橋本彩;Yohei Okada
2013年，联合国向纽约美国地方法院提起诉讼，要求联合国对海地霍乱爆发负责。这次疫情的爆发是一场悲剧，不仅因为它造成了灾难性后果，而且因为它是由联合国维和行动造成的。然而，迄今为止，由于联合国豁免，这些主张的实质尚未得到审查。虽然《联合国宪章》以模棱两可的方式规定了这种豁免权，但 CPIUN 的规范允许直接确定其内容和范围。相比之下，CPIUN 第 29 条规定联合国有义务提供替代性争端解决方式，作为其豁免权的对应部分，这是一个解释性难题。由于对该条款的解释存在分歧，海地霍乱案陷入僵局。在此背景下，本研究旨在明确该义务的内容和范围。
In 2013, a suit was lodged before theUSDistrict Court inNY, invokingUNresponsibility for the outbreak of cholera in Haiti. The outbreak is a tragedy not only because of its catastrophic consequences but because it was caused by theUNpeacekeeping operation. To date, however, the merits of the claims have never been examined due toUNimmunity. While theUNCharterprovides for this immunity in an equivocal manner, the specification by theCPIUNallows for a straightforward determination of its content and scope. In contrast, section 29 of theCPIUN, which stipulates theUN’s obligation to provide alternative means for dispute settlement as a counterpart of its immunity, is an interpretative puzzle. Due to discrepancies over the interpretation of the provision, the Haiti cholera case has resulted in a stalemate. Against this backdrop, the present study aims to clarify the content and scope of the obligation.