Introduction
The United Nations is an organization that handles various aspects of the world. Some of the aspects that the organization addresses include peacekeeping, child and women welfare, as well as the issues of the environment. In the course of service delivery, the human resources working for the United Nations can sustain injuries. Reparation Policy of 1949 minimises the scale of effects suffered by the United Nations organization and its human resources, who sustain injuries in the course of duty.
Conceptualisation of the United Nations as a legal person, which can handle its legal affairs, amplified the importance of reparations awarded to employees, who sustain injuries in the line of duty. As such, the organization can sue countries or states that fail to honour and provide due reparations to its employees injured, while working in the respective countries. Therefore, this essay discusses the importance of reparations for injuries suffered in the United Nations service in the conceptualisation of its legal personality before international law and assesses whether the international community comprises state and non-state actors.
Background of the Reparation and Scope
International Court Of Justice and the Context of Legal Persons
Established in 1945, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been in operation for over 50 years. In effect, the cases handled by the Court comprise those that concern genocide, civil unrest, and violation of human rights. The court has its headquarters in the Hague Netherlands, and 15 judges give the ruling on different cases presented before them by states and governments. While some countries are members or signatories to the ICJ, others are not, and thus, the ruling of judges usually revolve around the membership aspect of a respective country. In the assertion provided by International Organization 2009, the International Court of Justice is a legal entity that helps nations and oppressed individuals acquire justice and redress in relation to their grievances. As such, the roles played by the ICJ are tremendous and significant.
Conversely, while some countries view the roles played by the court as significant and important, others think that cases focus on certain direction and demean other regions of the world. In the elucidation provided by Vanfraechem, Pemberton, and Ndahinda (2014), several leaders from the African continent have complained that the court demeans its leaders and leaves leaders from other regions of the world. The argument concerning whether the International Court of Justice administers its ruling in an inclined manner has continued and may project into the future given the fact that several leaders from various parts of the world have charges to answer regarding issues of violence and mass murders.
Conceptualisation of the United Nations as a Legal Person
Conceptualisation of the United Nations as a legal person that can handle legal affairs before courts like the International Court of Justice (ICJ) promoted the importance of reparations for the injuries suffered while serving the organization. After its conceptualisation as a legal person or entity, the United Nations can successfully sue countries that do not provide the requisite reparations for its employees, who sustain injuries in the respective countries. Since international law identifies the legal personality of the organization, the United Nations can effectively advocate for the rightful reparations of its employees (Edwards & Ferstman 2010). Additionally, the United Nations can claim correct systems of redress that cater for the lost time, opportunity, and financial losses suffered by the victims. Identification and conceptualisation of the United Nations as a legal person enabled it to sign treaties and promote initiatives that protect the rights of its workers globally.
Events that Pushed for Development of Reparations
Mass killings, genocides, and maltreatment of employees working for the United Nations are some of the factors that compelled the ICJ to devise the reparations. Leaders and other parties associated with the International Court of Justice started pushing for the reparations in an attempt to minimise the effects advanced by the violations and provide a satisfying system of redress for the victims. According to Vanfraechem, Pemberton, and Ndahinda (2014), cases such as that of Uganda and Congo where the court ruled in favour of the diplomats mistreated at the region of Kinshasa are examples of the cases handled by the ICJ. In addition, cases like the one concerning the United States and Nicaragua handled by the court in 1986 comprise the specific cases that explain the essence of the reparations in the ICJ. These cases, alongside the increasing instances of mass killings and violations of human rights, are among the factors that pushed for the development of reparations in the international court of justice.
Legal part
Public international law champions for liberty and fair treatment of legal persons whether they represent physical persons or organizations incorporated as persons by law. As such, these persons need working environments, which are free from any kind of harm or risk. According to Thomas and Segal (2006), when a person becomes a subject of harm or injury, the effects are evident in both the organization as well as the respective human resource. The effects include lost opportunities, lost earnings, expenses incurred in treatment, and emotional trauma subjected to the person.
Fundamentally, the policy of reparation aims at reducing the pains and afflictions suffered by victims, who sustain injuries in the course of delivering services of the United Nations. The reparation policy seeks to ensure that the victims receive fair and just treatment irrespective of their race, gender, and place of origin. Since the United Nations endeavours to deliver its services in a fair manner, its employees need to receive equal treatment. As such, the policy emphasizes on factors that reduce the scale of injuries and restore the confidence of the victims. United Nations (2007) notes that it strives to minimize the extent of afflictions and injuries that its employees suffer in the course of duty by instituting efficient reparation policies. Development of the reparation policy is a tremendous step, which addresses various problems that the victims injured during the course of duty experience as they undertake their daily activities.
The scope of the reparation policy encompasses two aspects, which include the organization and human resources. Imperatively, the policy seeks to address the injuries in the context of their effect on the organization and the effect on the subject employee. As a result, the policy cushions the affected individual, while addressing the effect that the injury advances on the United Nations as an organization. In the assertion of Edwards and Ferstman (2010), the reparation policy expands its scope to include the close relations of the subject agents such as spouses, children, and brothers, who become secondary victims in the event of an injury. The implication of the expanded scope is an increased importance of the policy in its quest to address the injuries sustained by the victims.
Types of Reparations
Restitution and Rehabilitation
Restitution is a type of reparation that tries to address the problems by restoring the initial state of affairs. Principally, restitution tries to restore the original state and ensure that the situation remains as if the act did not take place. As such, restitution focuses on aspects such as the reinstatement of legal rights, employment, and social statuses of the affected individuals (Eggli 2002; O’Rourke 2013; Guerin & England 2015). Consequently, rehabilitation is a type of reparation that addresses the problems suffered by the agent of the United Nations in the event of an injury by advocating for care and advancement of social and legal services. The reparation type comprises activities such as medical care that the United Nations, the mother country of the agents, and the perpetrators of the act administer on the agent. Moreover, the reparation champions for the advancement of legal and social rights of the affected agent.
Compensation and Guarantee of Non-Occurrence
Compensation is one of the widely known types of reparations that are useful in addressing injuries that affect agents of the United Nations as well as other individuals working in different organizations. According to Vanfraechem, Pemberton, and Ndahinda (2014), the chief focus of compensation is the delivery of quantifiable provisions that are equivalent to the lost opportunities, earnings, potential to earn, as well as a medical expense incurred because of the injury. Consequently, the other type of reparation that is useful in amending the problems experienced in the event of an injury that agents of the United Nations sustain in their line of duty is the guarantee of non-occurrence. In effect, guarantee of non-occurrence entails an assurance that the heinous act, which led to the injury, will not take place or reoccur.
Importance of Reparations for Injuries Sustained in the Services of the United Nations Advisory Opinion
Practically, the reparations for injuries sustained in the services of the United Nations have a range of benefits. The fact that the reparations revolve around amendment, compensation, rehabilitation, and restoration of individual and organizational worth means that they are indeed very significant for individuals and organization in the case of incidents such as injuries. As such, stakeholders and parties subject to the United Nations need to embrace the concept and ensure that it is fully on course so that the victims enjoy the benefits accrued by the policy (De 2006; Oswald, Durham, and Bates 2010). Some of the benefits that the reparation advances include minimized extent of damage, restored self-esteem, improved security, and discipline in countries, as well as improved state of the victims.
Minimized Extent of Damage and Restored Self Esteem
Reparations are very instrumental in minimizing the scale or extent of damage that the victims suffer in the advent of an injury. Evidently, several types of reparations focus on minimizing the effects that transpire after an incident like an injury and restoring the initial state of the victim. In essence, reparations play an integral role in reducing the scale and magnitude of effects that an injury can advance on the victims, which include the agents and organizations. Perez (2012), Suchkova (2011), and Corlett (2003) elaborate that types of reparations like compensation, rehabilitation, and guarantee are concerned with reducing the problems that the victims experience during and after the injury. Fundamentally, the harm inflicted on the agents working for the United Nations affect their physical, mental, and psychological well-being. Therefore, by employing the various types of reparations, the magnitude of damage that transpires after the incident becomes minimal.
Restored self-esteem and confidence is another important benefit associated with reparations presented by the 1949 United Nations’ reparation policy. Apparently, the reparations follow a design that promotes restoration of self-confidence and esteem of the victims subjected to the injuries. In the elucidation of Torpey (2006) and De (2005), reparations are essential since they ensure that the affected organizations and individuals receive a fair and just treatment, which enhances their self-confidence. Notably, after an incident such as an injury, the self-worth and esteem of the victims decrease in a manner that is simultaneous with their performances. By employing the reparations effectively, the concerned parties enhance the self-esteem and worth of the affected agent. The reparations also instil a feeling of significance in the minds of the victims because they realize the organization value and appreciate their efforts.
Improved Security and Discipline
Imminently, reparations are vital in improving the level of security and discipline among countries and states. When agents of the United Nations or other organizations become subjects of injuries and the reparations take toll on the country or state, the country improves its security to avert a reoccurrence of a similar incident. As such, the security measures in the country improve because it works hard to prevent a reoccurrence of another incident that attracts implementation of reparations.
The fact that reparations such as guarantee of non-occurrence compel concerned countries to provide a substantial assurance to the victims explains that the role played by reparations in improving state security is considerable (Sullivan 2006; Moffett 2014). Consequently, reparations instil discipline among countries because they compel them to work hard and minimize incidences that affect agents of United Nations and other international organizations. The discipline that these countries practice can include ethical procedures administered to the agents, protection of the agents as they undertake their activities, and creation of an environment that is free from any harm or injury.
Improved State of the Victims
Improved state of victims is also a benefit that accrues from effective application of reparations. In essence, when reparations take toll on states or governments that subject agents of the United Nations to injuries and harm, the countries engage in activities that eventually improve the well-being of the victims. Reparations like compensation, rehabilitation, and restoration have components that champion for improvement of the victim’s well being. Evans (2012) asserts that when the victims receive an equivalent compensation for the lost opportunity, time, and medical expenses, their well-being improves. Therefore, these reparations are important for the United Nations, and thus, scholars and concerned stakeholders cannot underscore them in their quest to address problems that organizations and employees encounter in various workstations.
Existence of State and Non-State Actors in the International Community
Liberalism and Realism
The theories of liberalism and realism are very evident in the development of state and non-state actors that are integral in the international community. While liberalism advocates for freedom of press, speech, and expression, realism expects individuals to visualise affairs in their factual nature. Essentially, these theories are very critical in human life and enable individuals face challenges that life presents as they undertake their daily endeavours. According to Sullivan (2006), liberalism is a theory that enhances the self-esteem and confidence of a person. Therefore, the incorporation of the values espoused by the theories into the principles of state and non-state actors is significant.
State and non-state actors have incorporated several principles that are part of the policies contained in liberal and realism theories. The fact that several non-state actors such as IGOs, UN, and the Red Cross champion for freedom and improved conditions of living clarifies the essence of principles of the liberal theory (Chen 2015). Moreover, because state and non-state actors encourage individuals to execute their activities in a factual and realistic manner, the actors are indeed utilising the policies and concepts of the realism theory. As such, the theories are practical and their application is crucial in advancing and implementing the roles of state and non-state actors.
State and Non-State Actors
The existence of state and non-state actors in the international community is evident in contemporary society. Apparently, the International community is a composition of state and non-state actors that have diverse perspectives. While state actors represent governments and countries, which are sovereign and autonomous, non-state actors imply organizations that do not have any inclination towards governments or states. According to Ben-Ari (2012), non-state actors comprise organizations such as the Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs), Multinational Companies (MNCs), and Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs). State and non-state actors are the major players that characterize the present international community. The roles that the actors play in the international community have increased overtime. Some non-state actors can at times employ the powers vested on dominant states such as the United States in their quest to persuade countries to implement certain policies that they deem are in accordance with the common good of the society.
The roles played by state and non-state actors substantiate the fact that they characterize the international community. IGOs such as the United Nations, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and NGOs like the Red Cross are among the dominant players that represent non-state actors. The ability of some non-state actors to persuade and convince governments to implement their policies implies that that their presence in the international community is noticeable and pronounced. In the explanation advanced by Kinsella, Russett, and Starr (2013), IGOs and NGOs advocate for several policies that champion for the common good of human beings and environmental conservation. The explanation compounds and clarifies the presence of cooperation between state and non-state actors in the international community. Therefore, scholars and stakeholders in the field of international law need to understand that the current international community is a composition of state and non-state actors, which perform a set of interrelated initiatives.
Conclusion
The United Nations is a legal organization recognized by international laws. Principally, the organization performs several roles that focus on improving the welfare of humanity and the environment. Conceptualisation of the United Nations organization as a legal person before the international law improved its global state. Moreover, recognition of its legal personality by international courts enabled the organization to sign treaties, advocate for issues that promote human and environmental welfare, and sue states or countries that do not honour its policies. The implication of conceptualisation and identification of the United Nations as a legal person means that it can compel countries to implement due reparations in the event that its employees sustain injuries in the subject nations. As such, the organization drafted a reparation policy of 1949 that looks into systems of redress in the advent of injuries. The role played by state and non-state actors is one that explains the presence of cooperation between the actors and their interdependence in achievement of objectives that advocate for common good of the society and human welfare.
Reference list
Ben-Ari, R 2012, The normative position of international non-governmental organizations under international law: An analytical framework, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden.
Chen, L 2015, An introduction to contemporary international law: A policy-oriented perspective, Oxford University Press, New York.
Corlett, J 2003, Race, racism, and reparations, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
De, G 2006, The handbook of reparations, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
De, F 2005, Out of the ashes: Reparation for victims of gross and systematic human rights violations, Intersentia, Antwerpen.
Edwards, A & Ferstman, C 2010, Human security and non-citizens: Law, policy and international affairs, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Eggli, A 2002, Mass refugee influx and the limits of public international law, Martinus Nijhoff Publ, The Hague.
Evans, C 2012, The right to reparation in international law for victims of armed conflict, Cambridge University Press, London.
Guerin, L & England, D 2015, The essential guide to family & medical leave, Nolo Publishers, Berkeley.
International Organization 2009, ‘Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice Concerning Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations’, International Organization, vol.3, issue. 3 , pp. 569 – 579.
Kinsella, D., Russett, B & Starr 2013, World politics: The menu for choice, Cengage Learning, Boston.
Moffett, L 2014,Justice for Victims Before the International Criminal Court, Routledge, New York.
O’Rourke, C 2013, Gender Politics in Transitional Justice, Routledge, London.
Oswald, B., Durham, H & Bates, A 2010, Documents on the law of UN peace operations, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Perez, N 2012, Freedom from past injustices: A critical evaluation of claims for intergenerational reparations, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Suchkova, M 2011, ‘The Importance of a Participatory Reparations Process and its Relationship to the Principles of Reparation’, Reparations Unit, Briefing Paper, vol.1, no.5, pp. 1-19.
Sullivan, V 2006, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and the Formation of a Liberal Republicanism in England, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Thomas, J & Segal, D 2006, Comprehensive Handbook of Personality and Psychopathology Volume 1, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.
Torpey, J 2006, Making whole what has been smashed: On reparation politics, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
United Nations 2007, United Nations juridical yearbook: 1999, United Nations, New York.
Vanfraechem, I., Pemberton, A & Ndahinda, F 2014, Justice for Victims: Perspectives on Rights, Transition and Reconciliation, Routledge, New York.