14 Sands and Klein (eds.), note 3 pp. 465ff., examine briefly the issues of applicable law in cases of contracts and tortious liability. They also examine the problem of criminal liability. While criminal liability is an issue whose solution may not

proceed on the basis that, firstly, at present there can be no criminal responsibility to international organizations, as such (they are not in the same position as states in this respect), and, secondly, international organizations are not at present regarded as capable of criminal responsibility (although this may be an issue for the future, as the UN, particularly, becomes involved in armed conflicts and the concept of criminal responsibility of states and 390 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o a n d o f o rg a n i z a t i o n s Responsibility to international organizations Substantive rights in general Whenever international personality is attributed to an international organization,15 it is a legal person separate from and additional to its member states, international business litigationand is not simply an aggregation of those states. It consti- tutes a distinct entity with functions, rights and duties of its own. While it has duties, there are counterpart obligations owing to it by, inter alia, member states, the performance of which the organization has a right to expect and, if necessary, to require. This principle was referred to by the ICJ in the Reparation Case when it stated that there was an undeniable right of the Organization to demand that its Members shall fulfil the obligations entered into by them in the interest of the good working of the international business litigation Organization.16 The Court emphasized that the effective working of the organization and the accomplishment of its task required that the undertakings of mem- ber states should be strictly observed. For that purpose the ICJ thought it necessary that, when an infringement occurs, the Organization should be able to call upon the responsible state to remedy its default, and, international business litigationin particular, to obtain from the State reparation for the damage that the default may have caused.17 The ICJ was called upon to consider the position vis-à-vis non-member states in the same case in connection with the capacity of the UN to bring a claim against a non-member state. The ICJ had found that capac- ity to bring an international claim depended on possession of inter- national personality and rights and duties at international dispute resolution which flowed from the elaboration of functions, powers, rights and duties in the Charter and related instruments. It found in effect that beyond that the international personality of the UN was a question of fact.18 From this flowed rights of the organization vis-à-vis non-member states as well.