Haiti Cholera Case: New Briefs Filed on Privileges and Immunities
New briefs have been filed in the Haiti Cholera case against the UN, now pending in the SDNY. Plaintiffs filed a response to the US Government’s Statement of Interest, in which the US defended the UN’s absolute immunity. The important treaty law argument the Plaintiffs advance in response is that:
Both international law and U.S. law provide that a material breach of a treaty or contract by one party excuses performance by other parties. Defendants’ failure to establish a standing claims commission, or any other mechanism for relief, should deny Defendants the benefits of immunity and the right to shield themselves from responsibility in the instant case.
In other words, they argue that the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the UN has been suspended because the UN failed to set up a standing claims commission as required under Article 29.
In addition, two amicus briefs have been filed. The first is by a group of International Law Scholars who argue that the the UN has an obligation to respond to claims of a private law nature, and that the Haiti cholera case does not involve operational necessity.
The second is by a group of European Law Scholars, who provide information to the Court on how cases on Privileges and Immunities have been addressed in European jurisdictions. In particular, they analyze the important precedent of Waite and Kennedy, in which a “reasonable alternative means” test was adopted. They also distinguish the Mothers of Srebrenica case in which the Dutch Supreme Court and later the ECtHR upheld the UN’s absolute immunity, because the Security Council was considered to be fulfilling its core function and the core of the case involved operational necessity.
Each of these briefs raises important international law arguments and ultimately invites the SDNY to decide whether the UN’s immunity is conditioned on the requirement to provide a forum for the settlement of private disputes.