## Report on the IMF Administrative Tribunal 30th Anniversary Conference — Opening Speeches

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [Report on the IMF Administrative Tribunal 30th Anniversary Conference — Opening Speeches](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/imfat-conf/imfat-30-conf-report-intro.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/imfat-conf/imfat-30-conf-report-intro.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/imfat-conf/imfat-30-conf-report-intro.pdf.json)

---

### Conference purpose and context
- Conference commemorated the 30th anniversary of the IMF Administrative Tribunal (IMFAT).
- Global series of celebrations held in 2025 in London, Strasbourg, Washington, DC, and culminating at this conference, intended to foster dialogue and cooperation among international administrative tribunals.
- Conference theme: “International Administrative Law in Changing and Challenging Times.”

### Judge Nassib G. Ziadé — framing and tribunal role
- Value of cross-fertilization:
  - Conferences bring together representatives from various tribunals and experts in international administrative law to encourage cross-fertilization of ideas and shared principles.
  - Practitioners benefit from temporarily setting aside adversarial roles to engage collaboratively and candidly.
- Observations on proliferation and consistency:
  - Earlier concerns about jurisprudential divergence have not materialized.
  - Factors nurturing consistency include experienced judges (some serving across multiple tribunals), strict adherence to foundational precedents, rarity of dissenting opinions, and prudent referencing of other tribunals’ decisions.
- Role and limits of tribunals:
  - Tribunals enhance international organizations’ effectiveness by supporting consistent regulatory implementation and fostering positive working environments.
  - Caution that tribunals must not exceed their mandate by acting as policymakers or managers; legitimacy depends on maintaining a judicial posture that guarantees fair, consistent, and responsive justice.
- Historical and institutional acknowledgements:
  - Past presidents include Stephen M. Schwebel and Catherine O’Regan; bench has included Edith Brown Weiss.
  - Noted continuity and increasing diversity in gender, geography, and legal background among current IMFAT judges.
  - Special appreciation to prior IMFAT registrars: Philine Lachman (established the role), Celia Goldman (became the Tribunal’s public face for 25 years; currently serves on another administrative tribunal), and Paul Jean Le Cannu (current registrar who organized the event).
  - Acknowledged support from the Fund’s general counsels beginning with François Gianviti and from the Staff Association, including chair Kathryn Nelson-Indre.
- Caseload and transparency data:
  - IMFAT has issued 85 judgments and 22 orders since its inception.
  - Noted an increase in cases over the past five years.
  - Caseload lighter than some tribunals; focus remains on quality adjudication.
  - Ongoing improvements to transparency include an enhanced website with advanced research tools and procedural overviews and plans to create more opportunities for rigorous scholarship in international administrative law.
- Affirmation:
  - IMFAT contributes to the Fund’s mission and to development of international administrative law by facilitating peaceful dispute resolution, upholding institutional standards, protecting individual rights, and ensuring due process.

### Mélida Hodgson (ASIL) — institutional support for international law and tribunals
- ASIL background and mission:
  - Represented the American Society of International Law (ASIL), a nonpartisan organization founded in 1906 by U.S. Secretary of State Elihu Root.
  - ASIL membership approximately 4,000 practitioners, academics, judges, and students, with 40% outside the United States.
  - ASIL approaching its 120th year; activities include convening meetings and symposia and supporting scholarship, dialogue, and community-building.
  - ASIL has historically engaged with international organizations and international administrative law, including co-sponsorship of the IMFAT’s 20th anniversary and participation in the 30th anniversary.
- Educational concern and tribunal features:
  - Concern that administrative tribunals often receive scant attention in teaching and scholarship despite being integral to the architecture of the international rule of law.
  - Key features of the IMFAT:
    - Acts as both court of first and last instance and renders binding judgments.
    - Operates in panels of three with the president sitting in every case to ensure coherence.
    - Known for rigor, independence, and careful reasoning; procedural flexibility to find facts and administer due process; renders remedies that must be respected.
- Contribution to accountability and law:
  - Tribunal reinforces the IMF’s accountability and contributes to a shared body of international law by incorporating general principles of international administrative law and universal human rights, including non-discrimination.
  - Noted participation of ASIL figures in the celebrations, including past presidents Judges Stephen M. Schwebel and Edith Brown Weiss, and ASIL’s International Law Fellow Salim S. Sleiman serving as Rapporteur for the Conference.
  - Warned of contemporary pushback against international law and underscored the importance for organizations promoting international law and the rule of law “to stay the course.”

### Nicola Bonucci (SFDI) — historical perspective and contemporary challenges
- Congratulations and historical links:
  - Congratulated IMFAT on its 30th anniversary and noted SFDI’s long-standing interest in international organizations and international administrative law.
  - Recalled early link between the IMFAT and international law through its first president, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel.
  - Shared personal experience representing administrations before the Administrative Tribunals of the ILO and the OECD, attesting to their professionalism and expertise.
- Three contemporary points of relevance:
  1. Historical protection of staff independence:
     - Recalled Dag Hammarskjöld’s 1961 speech “The International Civil Servant in Law and Fact” and the early UN struggle to maintain staff independence against proposals to subject appointments to member state consent.
     - Referenced the 1949 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on “Reparation for injuries suffered in the service of the United Nations” as helping to cement international organizations as independent entities.
  2. Balancing organizational immunity and individual legal rights:
     - Highlighted an ongoing case before the French Cour de Cassation involving the European Space Agency as an illustration of the continuing struggle.
     - Advocated open, multi-stakeholder dialogue among national courts, civil society, and staff members to manage the balance and avoid risking organizational immunities.
  3. Role of tribunals in upholding organizational integrity in disciplinary cases:
     - Emphasized tribunals are not criminal courts; some misconduct cases may involve criminal elements requiring a high standard of evidence.
     - Stressed that due process and integrity in tribunal adjudications support the independence of international organizations.
- Legal foundation and principle:
  - Cited the 1956 ICJ advisory opinion on “Judgments of the Administrative Tribunal of the I.L.O. upon complaints made against the U.N.E.S.C.O.” as recognizing administrative tribunals as international tribunals with limited yet crucial jurisdiction.
  - Quoted the opinion’s holding on the role of tribunals: “to ensure to the Organization the services of a personnel possessing the necessary qualifications of competence and integrity and effectively protected by guarantees in the matter of observance of the terms of employment and of the provisions of the Staff Regulations.”
  - Invoked Lord Chief Justice Howard’s 1924 maxim: “Justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done,” highlighting transparency and fairness.

### Dr. Olufemi Elias — ties between tribunals and development of international administrative law
- Congratulations and ties:
  - Extended congratulations on the IMFAT’s 30th anniversary.
  - Emphasized close historical and operational ties between the IMFAT and the World Bank Administrative Tribunal, noting physical proximity of their offices and fruitful exchange of judicial expertise.
  - Acknowledged contributions of eminent international law figures including Professor Francisco Orrego Vicuña, Professor Jan Paulsson, and Judge Stephen M. Schwebel.
- Analytical focus:
  - Addressed the complex relationship between international administrative law and public international law in the context of the IMFAT anniversary, highlighting ongoing development in the field.

### Debated nature of international administrative law (Section 2)
- Spectrum of academic and judicial views:
  - international administrative law as pure public international law;
  - denial of its status as international law altogether;
  - status as international law but not public international law;
  - essentially as the internal law of international organizations.
- Dr. Elias’s proposed middle ground:
  - International administrative law constitutes a specialized branch of public international law, being both the “internal law” of international organizations and a species of international law.

### Treaty basis and ICJ jurisprudence
- ICJ and treaty basis:
  - The treaty basis of international administrative law was affirmed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its 1954 advisory opinion on the “Effects of awards made by the U.N. Administrative Tribunal.”
  - The UN Charter does not explicitly mention dispute resolution bodies; the ICJ inferred the legality and necessity of establishing such tribunals to fulfill the UN’s duties.
- Charter provisions and ICJ materials cited:
  - Charter provisions cited as underpinning dispute-resolution mechanisms: Chapter 15 on the Secretariat; Article 101 on the civil service’s principles; Article 2 establishing the UN’s purposes and principles.
  - Dr. Elias cited multiple ICJ advisory opinions (1954, 1956, 1973, 1982, 2012) to illustrate the Court’s consistent engagement in clarifying and supporting international administrative law norms.
  - Articles of the ICJ Statute and the UN Charter evidencing the treaty basis: Articles 38, 65, and 68 of the ICJ Statute; Article 96.1 of the UN Charter establishing the Court’s broad competence to apply “international law” (Article 38) and to address “any legal question” via advisory opinions (Article 65).

### Inseparability and operational relationship with international law
- Core proposition:
  - International administrative law is “inseparable” from and operationally closely related to international law.
- Sources relied upon by tribunals:
  - International administrative tribunals frequently interpret, apply, and rely on international law sources, including general principles of international law, treaties, customary international law, and rules of treaty interpretation.

### Case examples illustrating interaction with international law
- NATO Administrative Tribunal, Case No. 2013/1007 (2014):
  - Ruling on the right to collective bargaining found no uniform practice of States, informed by a sense of legal obligation, sufficient to indicate a rule of customary international law relevant to international organizations like NATO.
- UN Appeals Tribunal, Judgment No. 2019-UNAT-921:
  - Acknowledged that access to justice is a norm of customary international law, but the UN Dispute Tribunal’s jurisdiction is defined by the UN General Assembly and cannot be extended beyond its statutory limits; situations outside that jurisdiction resulting in a violation of international customary law are matters for the General Assembly to rectify.
- Administrative Tribunal of the Asian Development Bank (AsDBAT):
  - Cases focusing on tax reimbursement claims based on international law and on the absence of a customary international law requirement for legal representation in internal administrative reviews, illustrating frequent invocation of “custom.”
- Empirical usage of instruments:
  - Human rights instruments referenced in over 400 decisions according to a recent study.
  - International humanitarian law instruments used in cases of the NATO Administrative Tribunal.
- Administrative Tribunal of the Organization of American States (1990):
  - Ruling about “equal pay for equal work,” asserting that in public international law, what is not explicitly permitted, whether written or unwritten, is prohibited.

### Human rights jurisprudence and recent developments
- Increasing regularization:
  - International human rights law has become increasingly regularized within international administrative law discourse and tribunal rulings.
- 2024 United Nations Human Rights Committee decision (AsDB-related communication):
  - The applicant challenged alleged improper termination after exhausting internal administrative process and an AsDBAT decision upholding the termination.
  - The Committee applied decisions from the European Court of Human Rights (the Waite and Kennedy cases) verbatim, effectively globalizing regional human rights jurisprudence on the right to a fair trial.
  - Dr. Elias viewed the 2024 Committee decision as illustrating the expansion and entrenchment of fair trial rights within international administrative law, reinforcing legal standards and institutional mechanisms globally.

### Conclusions from Dr. Elias
- Practical impact despite doctrinal debate:
  - Debates about whether international administrative law and public international law are distinct regimes have not hindered adjudication by international administrative tribunals.
- Significance of the anniversary:
  - The 30th anniversary of the IMFAT marks a significant milestone in the continuing development of the relationship between international administrative law and public international law.

*Report on the IMF Administrative Tribunal 30th Anniversary Conference — Opening Speeches*

### Section 1

### Report on the IMF Administrative Tribunal 30th Anniversary Conference — Opening Speeches

### Conference purpose and context
- Conference commemorated the 30th anniversary of the IMF Administrative Tribunal (IMFAT).
- Global series of celebrations held in 2025 in London, Strasbourg, Washington, DC, and culminating at this conference, intended to foster dialogue and cooperation among international administrative tribunals.
- Conference theme: “International Administrative Law in Changing and Challenging Times.”

### Judge Nassib G. Ziadé — framing and tribunal role
- Emphasized value of conferences that bring together representatives from various tribunals and experts in international administrative law to encourage cross-fertilization of ideas and shared principles.
- Noted benefits of practitioners temporarily setting aside adversarial roles to engage collaboratively and candidly.
- Observations on proliferation of international administrative tribunals:
  - Earlier concerns about jurisprudential divergence have not materialized.
  - Factors nurturing consistency include experienced judges (some serving across multiple tribunals), strict adherence to foundational precedents, rarity of dissenting opinions, and prudent referencing of other tribunals’ decisions.
- Stated tribunals enhance international organizations’ effectiveness by supporting consistent regulatory implementation and fostering positive working environments.
- Cautioned against tribunals exceeding their mandate by acting as policymakers or managers; legitimacy depends on maintaining a judicial posture that guarantees fair, consistent, and responsive justice.
- Historical and institutional acknowledgements:
  - Past presidents include Stephen M. Schwebel and Catherine O’Regan; bench has included Edith Brown Weiss.
  - Noted continuity and increasing diversity in gender, geography, and legal background among current IMFAT judges.
  - Special appreciation to prior IMFAT registrars: Philine Lachman (established the role), Celia Goldman (became the Tribunal’s public face for 25 years; currently serves on another administrative tribunal), and Paul Jean Le Cannu (current registrar who organized the event).
  - Acknowledged support from the Fund’s general counsels beginning with François Gianviti and from the Staff Association, including chair Kathryn Nelson-Indre.
- Caseload and transparency data:
  - IMFAT has issued 85 judgments and 22 orders since its inception.
  - Noted an increase in cases over the past five years.
  - Caseload lighter than some tribunals; focus remains on quality adjudication.
  - Ongoing improvements to transparency include an enhanced website with advanced research tools and procedural overviews and plans to create more opportunities for rigorous scholarship in international administrative law.
- Affirmed IMFAT’s contribution to the Fund’s mission and to development of international administrative law by facilitating peaceful dispute resolution, upholding institutional standards, protecting individual rights, and ensuring due process.

### Mélida Hodgson (ASIL) — institutional support for international law and tribunals
- Represented the American Society of International Law (ASIL), a nonpartisan organization founded in 1906 by U.S. Secretary of State Elihu Root.
- ASIL membership approximately 4,000 practitioners, academics, judges, and students, with 40% outside the United States.
- ASIL approaching its 120th year; activities include convening meetings and symposia and supporting scholarship, dialogue, and community-building.
- Highlighted ASIL’s historical and ongoing engagement with international organizations and international administrative law, including co-sponsorship of the IMFAT’s 20th anniversary and participation in the 30th anniversary.
- Emphasized educational mission and concern that administrative tribunals often receive scant attention in teaching and scholarship despite being integral to the architecture of the international rule of law.
- Described key features of the IMFAT:
  - Acts as both court of first and last instance and renders binding judgments.
  - Operates in panels of three with the president sitting in every case to ensure coherence.
  - Known for rigor, independence, and careful reasoning; procedural flexibility to find facts and administer due process; renders remedies that must be respected.
- Argued the Tribunal reinforces the IMF’s accountability and contributes to a shared body of international law by incorporating general principles of international administrative law and universal human rights, including non-discrimination.
- Noted participation of ASIL figures in the celebrations, including past presidents Judges Stephen M. Schwebel and Edith Brown Weiss, and ASIL’s International Law Fellow Salim S. Sleiman serving as Rapporteur for the Conference.
- Warned of contemporary pushback against international law and underscored the importance for organizations promoting international law and the rule of law “to stay the course.”

### Nicola Bonucci (SFDI) — historical perspective and contemporary challenges
- Congratulated IMFAT on its 30th anniversary and noted SFDI’s long-standing interest in international organizations and international administrative law.
- Recalled early link between the IMFAT and international law through its first president, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel.
- Shared personal experience representing administrations before the Administrative Tribunals of the ILO and the OECD, attesting to their professionalism and expertise.
- Identified three points of contemporary relevance:
  1. Historical protection of staff independence:
     - Recalled Dag Hammarskjöld’s landmark 1961 speech “The International Civil Servant in Law and Fact” and the early UN struggle to maintain staff independence against proposals to subject appointments to member state consent.
     - Referenced the 1949 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on “Reparation for injuries suffered in the service of the United Nations” as helping to cement international organizations as independent entities.
  2. Balancing organizational immunity and individual legal rights:
     - Highlighted an ongoing case before the French Cour de Cassation involving the European Space Agency as an illustration of the continuing struggle.
     - Advocated open, multi-stakeholder dialogue among national courts, civil society, and staff members to manage the balance and avoid risking organizational immunities.
  3. Role of tribunals in upholding organizational integrity in disciplinary cases:
     - Emphasized tribunals are not criminal courts; some misconduct cases may involve criminal elements requiring a high standard of evidence.
     - Stressed that due process and integrity in tribunal adjudications support the independence of international organizations.
- Cited the 1956 ICJ advisory opinion on “Judgments of the Administrative Tribunal of the I.L.O. upon complaints made against the U.N.E.S.C.O.” as recognizing administrative tribunals as international tribunals with limited yet crucial jurisdiction.
- Quoted the opinion’s holding on the role of tribunals: “to ensure to the Organization the services of a personnel possessing the necessary qualifications of competence and integrity and effectively protected by guarantees in the matter of observance of the terms of employment and of the provisions of the Staff Regulations.”
- Closed by invoking Lord Chief Justice Howard’s 1924 maxim: “Justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done,” highlighting transparency and fairness.

### Dr. Olufemi Elias — ties between tribunals and development of international administrative law
- Extended congratulations on the IMFAT’s 30th anniversary.
- Emphasized close historical and operational ties between the IMFAT and the World Bank Administrative Tribunal, noting physical proximity of their offices and fruitful exchange of judicial expertise.
- Acknowledged contributions of eminent international law figures including Professor Francisco Orrego Vicuña, Professor Jan Paulsson, and Judge Stephen M. Schwebel.
- Addressed the complex relationship between international administrative law and public international law in the context of the IMFAT anniversary, highlighting ongoing development in the field.

*Report on the IMF Administrative Tribunal 30th Anniversary Conference — Opening Speeches*

### Section 2

### imfat-30-conf-report-intro - Section 2

### Debated nature of international administrative law
- Academic and judicial discourse presents diverse views:
  - international administrative law as pure public international law;
  - denial of its status as international law altogether;
  - status as international law but not public international law;
  - essentially as the internal law of international organizations.
- Dr. Elias proposed a middle ground: international administrative law constitutes a specialized branch of public international law, being both the “internal law” of international organizations and a species of international law.

### Treaty basis and ICJ jurisprudence
- The treaty basis of international administrative law was affirmed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its 1954 advisory opinion on the “Effects of awards made by the U.N. Administrative Tribunal.”
- The UN Charter does not explicitly mention dispute resolution bodies; the ICJ inferred the legality and necessity of establishing such tribunals to fulfill the UN’s duties.
- Charter provisions cited as underpinning dispute-resolution mechanisms:
  - Chapter 15 on the Secretariat;
  - Article 101 on the civil service’s principles;
  - Article 2 establishing the UN’s purposes and principles.
- Dr. Elias cited multiple ICJ advisory opinions (1954, 1956, 1973, 1982, 2012) to illustrate the Court’s consistent engagement in clarifying and supporting international administrative law norms.
- Articles of the ICJ Statute and the UN Charter evidencing the treaty basis:
  - Articles 38, 65, and 68 of the ICJ Statute;
  - Article 96.1 of the UN Charter establishing the Court’s broad competence to apply “international law” (Article 38) and to address “any legal question” via advisory opinions (Article 65).

### Inseparability and operational relationship with international law
- Dr. Elias emphasized the “inseparability” and close operational relationship between international law and international administrative law.
- International administrative tribunals frequently interpret, apply, and rely on international law sources, including:
  - general principles of international law;
  - treaties;
  - customary international law;
  - rules of treaty interpretation.

### Case examples illustrating interaction with international law
- NATO Administrative Tribunal, Case No. 2013/1007 (2014): ruling on the right to collective bargaining found no uniform practice of States, informed by a sense of legal obligation, sufficient to indicate a rule of customary international law relevant to international organizations like NATO.
- UN Appeals Tribunal, Judgment No. 2019-UNAT-921: acknowledged that access to justice is a norm of customary international law, but the UN Dispute Tribunal’s jurisdiction is defined by the UN General Assembly and cannot be extended beyond its statutory limits; situations outside that jurisdiction resulting in a violation of international customary law are matters for the General Assembly to rectify.
- Administrative Tribunal of the Asian Development Bank (AsDBAT): cases focusing on tax reimbursement claims based on international law and on the absence of a customary international law requirement for legal representation in internal administrative reviews, illustrating frequent invocation of “custom.”
- Extensive use of international legal instruments by international administrative tribunals:
  - human rights instruments referenced in over 400 decisions according to a recent study;
  - international humanitarian law instruments used in cases of the NATO Administrative Tribunal.
- Administrative Tribunal of the Organization of American States (1990): ruling about “equal pay for equal work,” asserting that in public international law, what is not explicitly permitted, whether written or unwritten, is prohibited.

### Human rights jurisprudence and recent developments
- International human rights law has become increasingly regularized within international administrative law discourse and tribunal rulings.
- 2024 United Nations Human Rights Committee views on a communication by a former AsDB staff member:
  - the applicant challenged alleged improper termination after exhausting internal administrative process and an AsDBAT decision upholding the termination;
  - the Committee applied decisions from the European Court of Human Rights (theWaite andKennedy cases) verbatim, effectively globalizing regional human rights jurisprudence on the right to a fair trial.
- Dr. Elias viewed the 2024 Committee decision as illustrating the expansion and entrenchment of fair trial rights within international administrative law, reinforcing legal standards and institutional mechanisms globally.

### Conclusions from Dr. Elias
- Debates about whether international administrative law and public international law are distinct regimes have not hindered adjudication by international administrative tribunals.
- The 30th anniversary of the IMFAT marks a significant milestone in the continuing development of the relationship between international administrative law and public international law.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/imfat-conf/imfat-30-conf-report-intro.pdf_