In recent developments, the Department of Justice under the Biden administration has taken a surprising stance by supporting the United Nations Relief and Works Agency’s claim to immunity in a federal court filing. This move has raised eyebrows as the DOJ has been actively pursuing legal action against President Trump.
The case in question revolves around a lawsuit filed by 101 victims of the October 7 massacre, seeking justice and accountability for the atrocities committed by Hamas. The plaintiffs are demanding a billion dollars in damages from UNRWA and its leaders, including the current commissioner-general, Philippe Lazarrini.
The victims argue that UNRWA is complicit in aiding and abetting Hamas’ crimes against humanity, including genocide and torture. Shockingly, UNRWA’s own investigation found that nine of its employees may have been involved in the October 7 attacks, further implicating the organization in these heinous acts.
One of the plaintiffs, Gadi Kedem, shared the heart-wrenching pain of losing his daughter, son-in-law, and three grandchildren in the October 7 massacre. His emotional testimony underscores the devastating impact of terrorism on innocent lives and the urgent need for justice.
The United Nations, however, claims immunity under the 1946 treaty “Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.” This treaty shields the organization from legal proceedings, but it also allows for the Secretary-General to waive immunity in specific cases. Despite this provision, Secretary-General Guterres has refused to waive immunity in the October 7 case, sparking controversy and legal debate.
The DOJ’s argument in support of UNRWA’s immunity is based on the premise that the United Nations and its affiliates, like UNRWA, enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities under international law. The DOJ contends that the lawsuit against UNRWA should be dismissed as the organization has not waived its immunity in this particular case.
However, the victims’ lawyers challenge this position, asserting that UNRWA cannot shield itself from accountability for gross human rights violations. They argue that immunity should apply only to the United Nations itself, not its subsidiaries like UNRWA, whose employees have allegedly committed heinous acts under the guise of the UN’s protection.
Furthermore, the concept of jus cogens, or peremptory norms, comes into play, highlighting the fundamental principles of international law that must be upheld without exception. The plaintiffs argue that Hamas’ crimes represent a clear violation of these norms and should not be shielded by claims of immunity.
As the legal battle unfolds, both sides have yet to respond to inquiries for comments on this contentious issue. The conflicting perspectives on immunity, accountability, and justice underscore the complex nature of international law and the pursuit of truth and reparation for victims of terrorism.
