Does the U.N. Believe in Rule of Law (for Its Employees)?

Interesting story in the NYT about the U.N.’s difficulty in creating a fair and effective system to resolve internal disputes, especially employee disputes.  Last July, the U.N. created a new Dispute Tribunal composed of independent judges to remedy a much despised previous system.  But the new Tribunal, and the U.N. bureaucracy’s unwillingness to cooperate with it, is getting some tough reviews.

Diplomats, lawyers and others tracking the cases describe the United Nations’ stance on the tribunal as contradictory, if not hypocritical, given the organization’s role in promoting the rule of law globally. “The organization has to decide from the S.G. on down whether this is an organization that respects the rule of law or not,” said George Irving, a former president of the staff union and a lawyer who has worked on administrative cases at the United Nations for more than 30 years. “What you are witnessing essentially is a power struggle. It is all about control, who is going to control the system.”

In several instances, the United Nations has ignored a judge’s orders to produce documents or have officials testify about how decisions were reached. In one case, the judge ordered the organization to pay $20,000 in compensation for the mistreatment of a translator who questioned why he was not promoted.

Part of the problem here is that the U.N. is not very good at policing itself, either as a matter of institutional design or institutional culture.  And because the U.N. refuses to accept interference from other legal systems, it creates a law-free zone, at least with respect to employment matters.