No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Judicial Review at the Asian Development Bank Administrative Tribunal
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 July 2022
Abstract
International organizations create independent administrative tribunals to decide employment disputes that jurisdictional immunities place beyond the reach of national courts. The Asian Development Bank Administrative Tribunal's express mandate is to enforce the terms of employment of staff members but, in discharging that function, it has not hesitated to review the validity of those terms and strike down those that contravene the Bank's basic legal documents and “general principles of law”. This paper reviews how this power of judicial review emerged in the case law of the Tribunal, and what it has meant for both the institutional autonomy of international organizations and the fair treatment of staff members.
- Type
- Notes and Comments
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Asian Society of International Law
References
1 Lindsey, [1992] ADBAT Decision No. 1, 1 ADBAT Rep. 1 at para. 4.
2 Statute of the Administrative Tribunal of the Asian Development Bank, 1 April 1991 [ADB Tribunal Statute], as amended 1 January 1995, in [1998] 1 ADBAT Rep. 99 and [1998] 2 ADBAT Rep. 191 [ADB AT Statute] at Article II(1).
3 Christine, GRIFFITHS, “The ADB Administrative Tribunal — 30 Years of Operations” in Asian Development Bank, Reflections on 30 Years of the Asian Development Bank Administrative Tribunal (Philippines: Asian Development Bank, 2021), 25Google Scholar.
4 See e.g. Agreement Establishing the Asian Development Bank, December 1965 [ADB Charter] at Article 50 (Immunity from Judicial Proceedings) and Article 55 (Immunities and Privileges of Bank Personnel), and Agreement between the Asian Development Bank and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines Regarding the Headquarters of the Asian Development Bank, December 1966 [Headquarters Agreement] at Article III (Immunity from Judicial Proceeding) and Article XII (Privileges and Immunities of Governors and Other Representatives of Members, Directors, President, Vice-President and Others).
5 Gulati, R., Access to Justice and International Organisation: Coordinating Jurisdiction between the National and Institutional Legal Orders 25 (2022)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 ADB Charter, ibid, at Article 56.2.
7 Mesch and Siy, [1994] ADBAT Decision No. 2, 1 ADBAT Rep. 21.
8 Mesch and Siy (No. 2), [1995] ADBAT Decision No. 6, 1 ADBAT Rep. 67 at para. 9.
9 Mesch and Siy (No. 3), [1996] ADBAT Decision No. 18, 2 ADBAT Rep. 117.
10 Ibid, at para. 16.
11 Ibid, at para. 18, citing the ADB AT Statute, supra note 2 at Article XIII.
12 ADB AT Statute, supra note 2 at Article II(1).
13 Mesch and Siy (No. 3), supra note 8 at para. 21 (citing the World Bank Administrative Tribunal in de Merode et al., [1981] WBAT Decision No. 1).
14 Ibid, at para. 22.
15 Ibid, at para. 23.
16 Ibid, at para. 22.
17 Ibid, at para. 23.
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid, at para. 24.
20 Mesch and Siy (No. 4), [1997] ADBAT Decision No. 35, 3 ADBAT Rep. 71 at para. 23.
21 Ibid, at para. 10.
22 Breckner, [1997] ADBAT Decision No. 25, 3 ADBAT Rep. 25.
23 Perrin et al., [2017] ADBAT Decision No. 109.
24 Ibid, at para. 48.
25 Ibid, at para. 55.
26 Ibid, at para. 50.
27 Perrin et al. (No. 3), [2019] ADBAT Decision No. 113.
28 Griffiths, supra note 3.
29 Mesch and Siy (No. 4), supra note 20 at para. 23.
30 Damien EASTMAN, “Celebrating the Tribunal's 30-Year Anniversary through a Reflection on Key Decisions” in Asian Development Bank, Reflections on 30 Years of the Asian Development Bank Administrative Tribunal (Manila: ADB, 2021), 16.
31 Lindsey, supra note 1 at para. 4.
32 Ibid, at para. 8.
33 Ibid.
34 Ms. D., [1995] ADBAT Decision No. 5, 1 ADBAT Rep. 53.
35 Ibid, at para. 12
36 Ibid, at para. 17.
37 Ibid, at para. 47.
38 Ibid, at paras. 10–1.
39 Ibid, at para. 11, citing the ADB AT Statute, supra note 2 at Article II(1).
40 Ibid, at para. 12.
41 Amora v. ADB, [1997] ADBAT Decision No. 24, 3 ADBAT Rep. 1 at para. 22.
42 Ibid, at para. 23.
43 Ibid, at para. 42.
44 Ibid, at para. 25, citing In re Burt, [1995] ILOAT Judgment No. 1385.
45 Ibid, at para. 27.
46 Ibid, at para. 43.
47 Haider (No. 2), [2000] ADBAT Decision No. 48, 5 ADBAT Rep. 45.
48 Yamagishi, [2004] ADBAT Decision No. 65, 6 ADBAT Rep. 107.
49 Kalyanaraman (No. 2), [2012] ADBAT Decision No. 98.
50 Mesch and Siy (No. 4), supra note 20 at para. 23.
51 Ibid, at para. 20.
52 Ibid, at para. 21 (citing Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour (ILOAT) decision, Los Cobos and Wenger, [1980] ILOAT Judgment No. 391.
53 Ibid, at para. 20.
54 Ibid, at para. 21 (citing de Merode, supra note 13).
55 Ibid, at para. 17.
56 Ibid, at para. 18.
57 Ibid, at para. 24.
58 Ibid, at para. 29.
59 Ibid, at para. 16.
60 Ibid, at para. 19.
61 Ibid, at para. 30.
62 Ibid, at paras. 36–40.
63 Ibid, at para. 42.
64 Ibid, Dissenting Opinion of Judge B. Stern, joined by Judge T. Sawada, concurring in specific portions.
65 Ibid, at para. 3.
66 Ibid, at para. 24.
67 Ibid, at para. 25.
68 Ibid, at para. 43 et seq.
69 De Armas, [1998] ADBAT Decision No. 39, 4 ADBAT Rep. 9.
70 Ibid, at para. 40.
71 Perrin et al., (No. 3), supra note 27.
72 Suzuki et al., [2008] ADBAT Decision No. 82, 8 ADBAT Rep. 59.
73 Perrin et al. (No. 3), supra note 27 at para. 51.
74 Ibid.
75 Suzuki et al., supra note 72 at para. 27.
76 C.F. Amerasinghe, The Law of the International Civil Service, As Applied by International Administrative Tribunals 56.
77 Perrin et al. (No. 3), supra note 27.
78 Mesch and Siy, supra notes 7, 8, 9, and 20.