Topic: 2025 – Responsibility of International Organizations
Country: Republic of Korea
Delegate Name: Esther Kim
As international organizations (IOs) continue to grow and play crucial roles in fostering global cooperation, the question of international accountability has become increasingly prominent. This has long been a subject of discussion in the UN, and bore some fruit, most recognizably the Draft Articles on the Responsibilities of International Organizations (DARIO) in 2011. However, while the General Assembly took note of this document, it was not passed as a legally binding convention. Thus, there are still debates over who incurs responsibility and how punishments or reparations will be enforced. South Korea believes that nations must cooperate to create multifaceted solutions that will hold IOs accountable for international wrongdoing without hindering their functionality.
As a firm supporter of multilateral cooperation, South Korea is deeply involved in countless IOs, participating in the treaty-making process of many. Throughout its diplomatic efforts, South Korea reaffirms its commitment to the rule of law, which lays the foundation for equitable relations among states and international organizations.
Even as South Korea affirms the need to rely on IOs in emergency situations (as detailed through the Responsibility to Protect), it emphasizes that IOs have a derivative nature and thus should not be placed above international law. IOs should be held legally accountable for internationally wrongful acts, particularly those that breach human rights regulations. South Korea believes that this will not deviate from international law as it is, as there has been a discernible trend in the integration of human rights considerations into IO mandates, as seen in the World Trade Organization’s decision to protect public health in the Doha Declaration.
Nonetheless, IOs are independent, separate legal entities, and should be treated accordingly. In general, South Korea agrees with the DARIO that IOs’ responsibilities should parallel those of a state’s. However, as IOs have different functional/operational necessities, regulations should also be tailored to each IO’s specialized function. South Korea concurs with the concept of responsibility in the DARIO, where the entity with primary responsibility, determined by an agent’s knowledge of the circumstances and level of contribution, should bear the legal consequences. Yet, South Korea diverges from the DARIO in believing that states should not be required to provide for and lead IOs in fulfilling their obligations. Instead, when found responsible for internationally wrongful acts that fall beyond the scope of their immunity, IOs should independently incur responsibility and work to fulfill their obligations.
Further, South Korea finds that there is a need to strengthen the process of prosecution and reparation. South Korea recommends the use of regional courts to settle disputes that occur in local areas, whereas for larger-scale disputes, an international claims commission should be established. To ensure the fairness and transparency of the prosecution process, the responsibilities of IOs should be further codified. South Korea urges the implementation of the DARIO as the legal guideline for IOs, albeit with amendments to refine the focus on IOs’ independence and specific functions.
Ultimately, South Korea believes that through more effective prosecution and clearer legal standards that strengthen norms of accountability, the international community can benefit from a system where IOs remain responsible actors in global cooperation.
