The United Nations is the world’s most vocal champion of the rule of law, yet it increasingly operates within a legal vacuum of its own making. As the humanitarian crisis in Gaza intensifies, the role of agencies like UNRWA has come under intense scrutiny, highlighting a systemic failure: the UN’s persistent inability—or refusal—to implement its own rules regarding judicial accountability.
At the heart of this issue lies a flagrant disregard for the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. Section 29 of this convention legally obligates the UN to make provisions for “appropriate modes of settlement” for disputes arising out of contracts or other private law matters. However, legal scholars note an “apparent deficiency” in these mechanisms. In practice, the UN has become largely “judgment-proof,” shielding itself behind a wall of “absolute immunity” that prevents non-staff members—such as civilians harmed during UN operations—from ever having their day in a neutral court.
The irony is stark when viewed through the lens of the landmark 1949 “Reparation for Injuries” opinion. In that case, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the UN has the legal personality to bring international claims against states for injuries suffered by its agents. This grants the UN the power to demand justice for itself, yet it provides no reciprocal mechanism for when it is the one causing the injury.
We have seen the human cost of this vacuum before. In Haiti, the UN was accused of introducing a cholera outbreak that killed thousands; yet, there was no formal judicial review of the organization’s actions. Instead, the UN analyzed the situation internally and decided unilaterally whether to offer compensation—a process that lacks the transparency and fairness the UN demands of its member states.
In the Gaza , this failure has historically extended even to the UN’s own workforce. Before major reforms in 2009, local staff were often “deprived of any recourse” and “truly denied justice” when their contractual rights were violated. While the UN eventually established a two-tier internal justice system for employees—the UN Dispute Tribunal and the UN Appeals Tribunal—these mechanisms remain closed to the civilians the organization serves.
This “absolute immunity” is an anachronistic doctrine that frequently clashes with the fundamental human right of access to a court, as guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As the European Commission of Human Rights has noted, removing the jurisdiction of courts to determine civil claims can create a “danger of arbitrary power”.
To restore its global credibility, the UN must move beyond ad hoc discretionary justice. The organization cannot continue to promote the rule of law abroad while operating at the “periphery of international law” at home.
A viable path forward exists: the international community should empower the ICJ to issue “binding advisory opinions” for all disputes involving the international responsibility of the UN. This would ensure that the UN is held to the same standard of accountability it expects from the rest of the world. The institutions created in 1945 were never intended to be above the law; it is time for the United Nations to live up to the rules it wrote for itself.