ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS OF MULTILATERAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS AND THE LAW OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

• Published in: The International and comparative law quarterly Vol. 73; no. 1; pp. 209 - 245
• Main Author: Lorenzo, Johanna Aleria P.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press 01.01.2024
• Subjects: Accountability; Banking; Comparative analysis; Complementarity; Development banks; Development finance; Financial institutions, International; Human rights; International finance; International law; International organization; International organizations; Liability (Law); Multilateralism; Noncompliance; Principles; Remedies (Law); Sustainable development; international financial institutions; lex specialis; public international law; due diligence; safeguard systems; right to remedy
• ISSN: 0020-5893; 1471-6895
• DOI: 10.1017/S0020589323000556

Multilateral development banks (MDBs) are international organizations subject to the law of international responsibility. Yet, the relationship between their accountability mechanisms and the International Law Commission (ILC) Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (ARIO) remains unclear. Understanding this relationship is essential in fully realizing the right to remedy in the development finance context. A comparative analysis of these legal frameworks clarifies that notwithstanding their different rationale, scope and functions, the two are not normatively conflicting and both serve to control public power. While the accountability mechanisms correct the ARIO's State-centric orientation by granting legal standing to project-affected people, they have their own deficiency concerning the actions they can prescribe to MDBs upon a finding of noncompliance. Highlighting that the MDBs’ mandate to ‘do no harm’ and pursue sustainable development is left unfulfilled by the accountability mechanisms’ deficient remedial function, this article identifies specific ARIO provisions to complement rather than undermine the MDBs’ accountability system. The ARIO's residual character, combined with the proposition that remedies arise not only from wrongful conduct but also from harm suffered by one party due to another's risky activities, justify this complementarity.