In each and every situation that entails the risk, or actual occurrence, of human rights violations, effective accountability mechanisms must be available. These mechanisms have to provide victims or possible victims of such violations with effective judicial or non-judicial means of testing the legality, and practical consequences, of IFI policies, programmes and projects, including the role of IFI Member States, and to have consequences attached to these if so required from a human rights perspective.

This chapter discusses a number of (selected) issues within this domain relevant to further specify what accountability and redress mean for IFIs. The focus is on measuring standards for effective accountability and redress (subsection 5.1); human rights impact assessments (subsection 5.2); existing IFI accountability mechanisms (subsection 5.3); and mediation, arbitration and related dialogue-based ways of conflict resolution (subsection 5.4).

SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL STANDARDS

One can find a range of international instruments reflecting upon accountability and redress in the case of violations of international law, no matter which actor (States, international organisations, companies). In the following, I take the words used in the DARS, DARIO, Maastricht ETO Principles, and UNGPs as inspiration, not because they are legally binding in each and every situation discussed in this chapter, but because they reflect common sense views on the need to provide reparation in the case of internationally wrongful acts, as well as how that could and should be done in practice. The words chosen are presented here in a descriptive, non-problematised way (italics added for emphasis).

The DARS provide that States are responsible for internationally wrongful acts and that they are ‘under an obligation: (a) to cease that act, if it is continuing; (b) to offer appropriate assurances and guarantees of non-repetition, if circumstances so require’ (Article 30). Further to that, responsible States are under an obligation ‘to make full reparation for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act’, while’ [i]njury includes any damage, whether material or moral, caused by the internationally wrongful act of a State’ (Article 31). Further to this, it is stated that the responsible States ‘may not rely on the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to comply with its obligations under this part’ (Article 32).