To Join or Not to Join: A Comparative Analysis of Joining or Creating an International Administrative Tribunal

Abstract

How well an international organization functions and upholds its privileges and immunities is closely intertwined with the existence of an internal justice system to settle disputes between the institution and its staff. At the apex of such system is the administrative tribunal, mandated to provide final, binding decisions on internal, employment-related issues, taking into account the needs of both the international organization and its staff. Some of such international organizations have opted to join and submit to a multi-jurisdictional tribunal, while others have established their own, independent tribunals (arbitration may also be an option, but due to its substantially different nature and procedures, it falls outside the scope of this chapter). This chapter appraises two different scenarios for international organizations: joining a multi-jurisdictional tribunal that receives appeals from various international organizations or establishing a stand-alone tribunal, either independently or in conjunction with other intergovernmental institutions. This assessment provides a brief retrospective of international administrative tribunals, whilst highlighting governance consideration, jurisprudential issues, as well as other operational points that may arise under each option. Although informed by legal advice and other institutional considerations, the final decision is ultimately a political one made by, and in appropriate consultation with, the relevant stakeholders of the international organization (including the membership, the host State, the mandate beneficiaries, and the staff and management of the international organization). So, to join or not to join? There is no right or wrong answer to this ques-tion; instead this chapter strives to inform stakeholders when evaluating their options.