The permanent legal framework governing international organisations vests organisations with a substantial degree of autonomy in determining their own liability with respect to private law claims. This level of autonomy is particularly pronounced in the case of the United Nations. Since 1946, the United Nations has enjoyed a standard of absolute immunity from the jurisdiction of domestic courts in order to protect the organisation’s proper functioning. Thus, when individuals have private law claims against the organisation, the UN is obliged to settle claims privately, and individuals have no further recourse to courts. This regime creates a startling accountability gap, most recently highlighted by the UN’s handling of 5000 private law claims which emerged in response to the allegedly negligent importation of cholera into Haiti by UN peacekeepers. To date, the UN has refused to settle these claims amicably. The UN’s jurisdictional immunity now operates as a critical barrier to redress for the cholera claimants. This remedial deficit represents a structural gap which is indefensible in light of a shifting paradigm in international law, which increasingly favours human rights and respect for the rule of law over the autonomy of international organisations. This article examines both permanent and temporary solutions to closing this accountability gap, which could potentially alleviate the intractable position faced by the cholera claimants and similar victims in the future.

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — United States Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 — Tort exception — Action for damages against a foreign State — Whether applicable only where act or omission occurs within the United States

Jurisdictional immunity — Waiver — Whether ratification of treaties constitutes waiver of immunity — Whether individual can rely on State’s ratification of treaties to bring action — United Nations Charter — Helsinki Accords — United States Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 — Individual seeking damages for foreign State’s refusal to allow spouse to leave country — Damages for mental and physical distress and violation of rights of consortium

Treaties — Application — Whether treaties creating private rights of action — Whether private rights dependent on whether treaty self-executing — United Nations Charter — Helsinki Accords — Whether ratification of treaties constitutes implicit waiver of State immunity — Action for damages by individual against foreign State — The law of the United States

Jurisdictional Immunity — Of Governments — In Respect of Actions Brought by the United Nations.

United Nations — Legal Position of — The Right to Sue — Claim for Damages Resulting from Breach of Contract — Contract Concluded between United Nations and a Member State — Capacity of United Nations to Institute Proceedings in Courts of a Member State — Proceedings against a Private Corporation — Proceedings against a Member State — Sovereign Immunity.

Jurisdictional Immunity — Foreign States — Set-Off.

Recognition of Governments — Retroactive Effect of — Confiscatory Decree by Government Subsequently Recognized — Effect of Decree on Assets Situate in Country According Recognition — Effect in Country Promulgating Confiscatory Decree — Right of Set-off — Sovereign Immunity.

Jurisdictional Immunity — Government-Owned Vessels Engaged in Trade — Effect of Possession by Foreign Government — The Law of Singapore.

Jurisdictional Immunity — Waiver of — Necessity for a Clear Unequivocal Act — Immunity in respect of Acts of Confiscation as Distinguished from Acts of a Commercial Nature.