Topic: 2025 – Responsibility of International Organizations
Country: Finland
Delegate Name: Alayna Wigant
Position Paper: The Responsibility of International Organizations in the Context of Finland
I. Introduction
As a committed proponent of multilateralism, the rule of law, and effective international cooperation, Finland places strong emphasis on the accountability and responsibility of international organizations (IOs). While IOs play a vital role in addressing global challenges—ranging from security to environmental protection—their legal personality and functional immunities can create accountability gaps that affect both member states and individuals.
Finland’s position is that international organizations must uphold high standards of transparency, legality, and accountability in their operations, and that mechanisms must exist to ensure responsibility when harm is caused. This paper outlines Finland’s principles, expectations, and policy priorities related to the responsibility of IOs.
II. Legal and Normative Foundations for IO Responsibility
1. International Legal Personality and Obligations
Finland recognizes that IOs possess independent legal personality under international law and therefore:
Have rights and duties separate from those of their member states.
Can incur international responsibility for wrongful acts.
Must respect general principles of international law, including human rights obligations.
Finland supports the work of the International Law Commission (ILC) on the Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (ARIO) as an important normative guide.
2. Functional Immunities and Accountability
Finland acknowledges the need for IO immunities to allow independent functioning. However:
Immunity must be functional, not absolute.
Immunities should not prevent victims from accessing remedies.
The balance between operational effectiveness and accountability must be recalibrated when immunities impede justice.
Finland promotes innovative mechanisms—such as internal review boards, arbitration panels, and claims commissions—to ensure accountability even when immunity is preserved.
III. Finland’s Policy Priorities on IO Responsibility
1. Rule of Law and Good Governance
Finland emphasizes that IOs must operate according to:
Transparency
Due process
Good governance standards comparable to democratic member states
Finland encourages IOs to adopt:
Clear procurement rules
Anti-corruption safeguards
Internal audit and oversight structures
Accessible complaint mechanisms for stakeholders
2. Human Rights Obligations
Finland holds that all IOs should comply with fundamental human rights norms. This includes:
Protecting individuals affected by peacekeeping missions
Safeguarding labor rights of staff
Ensuring non-discrimination and gender equality
As a strong advocate of human rights, Finland expects IOs—especially those operating in crisis settings—to integrate human rights due diligence into their activities.
3. Responsibility in Peacekeeping and Crisis Response
Finland participates in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations, making accountability in these contexts especially relevant. Finland supports:
Clear command structures and mandate boundaries
Civilian protection standards
Mechanisms to investigate and respond to harm caused by IO missions
Finland also calls for improved accountability for:
Environmental damage
Misconduct by personnel
Failures in mandate implementation
IV. The Role of Member States, Including Finland
Finland recognizes that IO responsibility is interconnected with member state responsibility.
1. Duty to Ensure Organizations Act Lawfully
Member states must:
Provide adequate oversight
Ensure mandates reflect legal standards
Design governance structures that promote accountability
Finland actively supports reforms in IO governing bodies to enhance transparency and ethical behavior.
2. Shared and Derivative Responsibility
Finland acknowledges situations where both an IO and member states may bear responsibility, such as:
Joint missions
Delegated powers
Mixed financing structures
Finland supports clearer apportionment of responsibility to prevent “accountability gaps” in complex operations.
3. Domestic Implementation
Finland ensures that:
Domestic laws enabling cooperation with IOs incorporate accountability safeguards
National authorities can engage with IO oversight bodies
Finnish personnel serving under IO mandates uphold strict standards of conduct
V. Strengthening Accountability Mechanisms
Finland advocates for reforms that make the responsibility of IOs more effective and transparent.
1. Claims and Remedies for Individuals
Finland supports:
Establishing independent claims commissions for victims
Strengthening grievance mechanisms for staff and affected civilians
Ensuring remedies are timely, fair, and transparent
2. Waiver of Immunity When Necessary
Finland holds that immunities should be waived:
When misconduct falls outside official functions
When justice cannot be served without access to legal processes
Finland encourages IOs to adopt standardized criteria for waiving immunity.
3. Oversight and Auditing Reform
Finland supports:
Empowering independent oversight bodies
Improving whistleblower protections within IOs
Establishing consistent reporting guidelines across organizations
VI. Conclusion
Finland maintains that strong and accountable international organizations are essential to a functioning rules-based international order. To that end, Finland’s position is that:
IOs must uphold international law, including human rights norms.
Immunity should never amount to impunity.
Effective mechanisms must exist to ensure responsibility and provide remedies to those harmed by IO actions.
Member states, including Finland, share a duty to ensure responsible behavior through governance, oversight, and reform.
By championing these principles, Finland seeks to strengthen the legitimacy, effectiveness, and trustworthiness of international organizations and to reinforce global cooperation grounded in justice and accountability.
