The brutal massacre of October 7 has underscored the urgency of addressing a long-familiar but long-suppressed problem: the terrorist takeover of international organizations. Organizations such as the United Nations, the Red Cross, or the World Health Organization, under the guise of neutral bodies working to promote peaceful conflict resolution and human rights, have at best turned a blind eye, or at worst actively aided and abetted this infiltration.
This paper posits that the immunity granted by international and Israeli law to international organizations was never meant to apply to cases of systematic abuse of power and violation of law. The immunity was intended to allow these organizations to fulfil their purposes without the fear of legal burdens and frivolous lawsuits. Both committing acts of terrorism and financing terrorism are severe violations of international law, so much so that in some states, these form an exception to sovereign immunity. Therefore, even under the current legal situation, immunity should not constitute a barrier to lawsuits against international organizations.
To remove any legal ambiguity, this paper recommends it be codified in law that international organizations are not immune from liability for terrorist offenses. The paper will review what the sources in international and Israeli law for international organizations’ immunity are, in particular the United Nations; will examine the gravity of the crime of aiding and abetting terrorism in international law, and will outline a case study of how the United Nations and its agencies, including UNRWA, can be sued even now, prior to removing their immunity.
Read the full paper:
