LEGAL NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL PERSONALITY OF UN SPECIALIZED AGENCIES IN THE FIELD OF HEALTH CARE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47390/SPR1342V5I8Y2025N36Keywords:
international legal personality, specialized agencies, WHO, immunities, privileges, FENSA, UNICEF, functional autonomy.Abstract
The article is devoted to a comprehensive study of the international legal personality of the United Nations specialized agencies in the field of health care — primarily the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). The author conducts a comparative analysis of doctrinal positions in Russian, Uzbek, and Western international legal scholarship, with particular attention to the functional nature of legal personality, which is grounded not so much in founding documents as in international practice. Based on the analysis of international treaties, decisions of the International Court of Justice (especially the 1949 Advisory Opinion on Reparation for Injuries), multilateral agreements (such as the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control), and judicial precedents, the author concludes that these institutions possess a limited but genuine sui generis legal personality. The author proposes the following solutions: 1) enshrine a universal formula for defining the legal personality of specialized agencies at the level of international treaty law; 2)develop a mechanism of external legal accountability while preserving functional immunity; 3)strengthen institutional guarantees of independence from political and commercial pressure by expanding the application of the FENSA policy; 4)promote the harmonization of national approaches to the status of international organizations.
These proposals aim to foster a deeper understanding of the legal nature of international health organizations and enhance their capacity to address global challenges.
References
1. Lukashuk I.I. Mezhdunarodnoe pravo. Obshchaja chast'. 3-e izd., pererab. i dop. Moscow, Volters Kluver Publ., 2005. P.313
2. Krivchikova E.S. Osnovy teorii prava mezhdunarodnykh organizatsij. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1977.
3. Kolosov Ju.M., Krivchikova E.S., eds. Mezhdunarodnoe pravo. Moscow, Mezhdunarodnye otnoshenija Publ., 2000.
4. Talalaev A.N. Pravo mezhdunarodnykh dogovorov. V 3 t. Moscow, Zercalo Publ., 2011.
5. Durdenevskij V.N., ed. Mezhdunarodnaja pravosub"ektnost': nekotorye voprosy teorii. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1971.
6. Zamudio-González, L., & Arellano-Gault, D. International organizational anarchy: International organizations as full actors in the global arena. Palgrave Macmillan, 2025, p.189-227. doi:org/10.1007/978-3-031-82392-3
7. Mezhdunarodnyj sud OON. Konsul'tativnoe zakljuchenie po delu o reparacijakh za ushherb, ponesjennyj na sluzhbe Organizacii Ob"edinjonnykh Nacij. 11 aprelja 1949 g. URL: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/4
8. Klabbers Ja. Vvedenie v pravo mezhdunarodnykh organizatsij. 3-e izd. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Publ., 2015. (per. s angl. zaglavija: Introduction to International Organizations Law)
9. Murphy S.D. Public international law in a nutshell. 7th ed. St. Paul, West Academic Publishing, 2025.
10. Komissija mezhdunarodnogo prava OON. Godovoj doklad Komissii mezhdunarodnogo prava za 1950 god. Dokument A/1316. URL: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/704679
11. Brajerli Dzh.L. Tretij doklad po pravu mezhdunarodnykh dogovorov. Dokument A/CN.4/54. Komissija mezhdunarodnogo prava OON. URL: https://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_54.pdf
12. Krivchikova E.S. Osnovy teorii prava mezhdunarodnykh organizatsij. Moscow, Mezhdunarodnye otnoshenija Publ., 1978.
13. Vsemirnaja organizacija zdravookhranenija. Mezhdunarodnye mediko-sanitarnye pravila (2005). 3-e izd. Geneva, WHO Publ., 2005. URL: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241580496
14. Matter of Hunter v. United Nations, No. 106014/03, 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 51751(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 15, 2004). URL: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2004/2004-51751.html
15. Jam v. International Finance Corp., 586 U.S. ___ (2019). URL: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1011_mkhn.pdf
16. Mezhdunarodnyj sud OON. Konsul'tativnoe zakljuchenie po delu o reparacijakh za ushherb, ponesjennyj na sluzhbe Organizacii Ob"edinjonnykh Nacij. 11 aprelja 1949 g. URL: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/4
17. Vsemirnaja organizacija zdravookhranenija. Ramochnaja politika vzaimodejstvija s negosudarstvennymi aktorami (FENSA). Prinjata na 69-j sessii Vsemirnoj assamblei zdravookhranenija, rezoljucija WHA69.10. URL: https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/PDF/Framework_Engagement_non-State_Actors.pdf
18. International Court of Justice. Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt, Advisory Opinion. 1980. URL: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/65
19. Mezhdunarodnyj sud OON. Zakonnost' primenenija jadernogo oruzhija gosudarstvom v uslovijakh vooruzhennogo konflikta. Konsul'tativnoe zakljuchenie ot 8 ijulja 1996 g. URL: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/93
20. Barkin, J. S. International organization: Theories and institutions (3rd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan, 2023, p.69-83, doi:org/10.1007/978-3-031-22559-8
