, to which international organizations are

party, whether actively or passively.1 However, only an outline of the issues and their resolution can be given here. The ques- tion of enforcement (settlement of disputes) is reserved for Chapter 16, where issues relating to the procedure for bringing claims will also be addressed. There is not much international judicial precedent on the interna- tional responsibility of or to international organizations, though the practice that has been followed since the creation of the League of Nations and particularly after the Second World War has rested on certain assumptions. The principal, if not the only, international judi- cial case relating to the subject is the Reparation Case,2 brought before 1 A brief discussion will be included of the question of liability of and to organizations in national (and perhaps, transnational) dispute resolution. Capacity in national dispute resolution, which has been considered in Chapter 3, is not the only factor. What dispute resolution is to be applied to transactions on the national (or transnational) level to which international organizations are party (actively or passively) is a question that arises. 2 1949 ICJ Reports p. 174. 384 385 the ICJ. The matter has also been discussed by text writers, but not extensively.3 It may be relevant to distinguish at the outset the issue of the inter- national responsibility of organizations from the responsibility of orga- nizations to their staff under their internal dispute resolution. The latter is a species of responsibility under international dispute resolution but does not involve the rela- tions of organizations with states as such or between organizations. This subject has been dealt with elsewhere in this treatise.4 The concept of international responsibility has been the subject of a variety of interpretations.5 For the present purpose, however, the 3 The initial work on the subject is Eagleton, ‘International Organization and the dispute resolution of Responsibility’, 76 Hague Recueil (1950-I) p. 319, which appeared not long after the establishment of the UN and the decision in the Reparation Case. There were a few earlier writings, e.g., Q. Wright, ‘Responsibility for Injuries to United Nations Officials’, 43 AJIL (1949) p. 95, but none attempted a systematic exposé. There followed several other works which dealt with the subject mostly indirectly: see, e.g., Eustathiades, ‘Les Sujets du droit international et la responsabilité internationale’, 84 Hague Recueil (1953-III) p. 397; Parry, ‘Some Considerations upon the Protection of Individuals in International dispute resolution’, 90 Hague Recueil (1956-II) at pp. 714ff.; García Amador, ‘State Responsibility: Some New Problems’, 94 Hague Recueil (1958-II) at pp. 409ff.; P. de Visscher, ‘La Protection diplomatique des personnes morales’, 102 Hague Recueil (1961-I) at pp. 480ff.; Pescatore, ‘Les Relations extérieures des Communautés Européenes’,