Topic: 2025 – Responsibility of International Organizations
Country: Bolivia
Delegate Name: Mithil Joshi
The Responsibility of International Organizations through the Lens of Bolivia
International Organizations such as the UN, NATO, the World Bank, and the European Union increasingly have influence over peacekeeping operations, humanitarian aid, and development. When these very IOs cause harm, a question of liability arises, as seen in the cholera outbreak in Haiti connected to UN peacekeepers, NATO military operations causing the deaths of civilians, and controversial IFIs’ lending practices. Bolivia holds that international organizations must be held accountable for their actions while simultaneously not undermining their independence. Clear, predictable frameworks are essential to corroborate justice for affected populations while allowing IOs to continue their essential operations.
Bolivia participates in multiple IOs, including the UN, CELAC, and BRICS, and relies on those organizations for development support, technical assistance, and response to disasters. Bolivia has advocated in the UN Sixth Committee for accountability procedures that protect smaller states from disproportionate responsibility. Bolivia aligns with internal oversight offices like the UN’s Office of Internal Oversight Services and aligns with regional partners like Peru and Ecuador in promoting transparent reporting. Bolivia’s experiences show that it is imperative for accountability structures to balance justice for victims while supporting the operational needs of international organizations.
Bolivia proposes a standardized definition of “effective control” which would entail the authority to direct or intervene in actions of an IO or a member state, to prevent or remedy harm, ensuring that integrity is balanced with operational independence. Based on this definition, Bolivia proposes a transparent institutional liability framework that standardizes responsibility definitions to figure out when IOs or member states can be held accountable. Second, the creation of a joint responsibility mechanism that divides accountability between IOs and member states for missions they jointly authorize. Third, the expansion of transparency obligations means an annual public reporting of harm, investigations, and compensation requests. Finally, strengthening victim-access channels, which would ensure affected individuals can seek justice while preserving the autonomy of the IO. These mechanisms allow IOs to remain effective partners while consequently taking responsibility for harm caused during their operations or deciding how the responsibility is shared between the state and the IO.
