This chapter outlines to what extent which kinds of remedies are available to the successful applicant. Albeit the differences in the wording of the various IAT statutes, it argues that it is possible to map out guiding principles for the assessment of the remedies to be granted, including remedies inherent in IATs’ powers. Moreover, it offers a critical analysis of the legal framework and its implementation by IATs in relation to the right to an effective remedy.

This chapter explores the limits of discretion exercised by international organizations, providing a detailed analysis of substantive grounds of review applied by international administrative tribunals. It examines various forms of legal error, including wrongful legal qualifications, and considers the diverging criteria used by these tribunals to safeguard legitimate expectations and binding promises as constraints on discretion. Addressing errors of fact, the chapter notes that tribunals often defer to specialized bodies, intervening only when decisions rely on obviously flawed premises. The concept of abuse of discretion is discussed by reference to three categories, namely bad faith, reasonableness, and abuse of discretion stricto sensu, highlighting administrative purpose as a core element of judicial review. Finally, the chapter scrutinizes key moments in the disciplinary process, highlighting both common aspects of the jurisprudence and sources of divergence, such as the definition of standards of proof and review, and the form of proportionality analysis applied.

This chapter addresses the concept of ’receivability’ of complaints to international administrative tribunals, encompassing requirements of both jurisdiction and admissibility. The analysis distinguishes between jurisdiction ratione personae (who can bring claims) and ratione materiae (subject matter), as well as procedural issues like exhaustion of remedies and time limits. By comparing statutory provisions and case law, the chapter identifies common practices across IATs, such as conditions under which non-staff personnel or former staff members may have standing. The chapter underscores how similar approaches have evolved among IATs despite varying statutory constraints.

This chapter examines the sources of law IATs are applying, grouping these sources into two substantially different categories: ‘self-contained’ and ‘universalizing’ sources. The self-contained sources of international administrative law are those which are specific to a given organization, including the contract of employment; the staff regulations and staff rules; the bulletins, circulars, manuals, and issuances of the organization; the constituent instrument of the organization; decisions and resolutions of the plenary organ of the organization or other decision-making body; and the practice of the organization. The chapter then examines the ‘universalizing’ sources of international administrative law, which are those sources, referred to with increasing frequency, which are ‘outward-looking’ and thus may be applied in common by multiple IATs. These include general principles of law, international law, and decisions of other international administrative tribunals, the latter to be referred to herein as ‘cross-fertilization’. As a result of these ‘universalizing’ sources, this chapter concludes that a universal law of internal justice has begun to crystalize.

This chapter explores the growing prevalence of non-staff personnel within the UN system and the legal challenges they face in accessing justice. As non-staff personnel increasingly take on roles traditionally held by staff, they remain largely excluded from the jurisdiction of IATs and often may only avail themselves of arbitration clauses that can be prohibitive in practice. The chapter examines potential legal implications of this situation, such as functional immunity before domestic courts, as well as proposed solutions, such as alternative dispute mechanisms and expedited arbitration. It reviews current UN pilot projects aimed at providing non-staff personnel with informal dispute resolution avenues and discusses potential reforms to bridge the access-to-justice gap.

This chapter provides an overview of the evolution and current dynamics in international administrative law, emphasizing the unprecedented growth in international administrative tribunals (IATs) over the past three decades. The introduction outlines the structural, quantitative, and qualitative changes reshaping this field, including the expansion in the use of non-staff personnel and the increase in the importance of human rights within international administrative law. The chapter highlights IATs’ convergence on common issues across diverse institutions, and explains the study’s approach and methodology, focussing on jurisprudential commonalities and the emergence of shared procedural standards across tribunals.

This chapter provides an overview of the evolution and current dynamics in international administrative law, emphasizing the unprecedented growth in international administrative tribunals (IATs) over the past three decades. The introduction outlines the structural, quantitative, and qualitative changes reshaping this field, including the expansion in the use of non-staff personnel and the increase in the importance of human rights within international administrative law. The chapter highlights IATs’ convergence on common issues across diverse institutions, and explains the study’s approach and methodology, focussing on jurisprudential commonalities and the emergence of shared procedural standards across tribunals.

This chapter addresses the principle of non-discrimination within international administrative law. It examines how international administrative tribunals distinguish between types of discrimination—direct, indirect, positive, and negative—and outlines the allocation of the burden of proof in these cases. The chapter reviews grounds of discrimination, such as race, gender, nationality and place of residence, age, and disability. The jurisprudence spans a variety of contexts, including recruitment, salaries and financial entitlements, career progression, pension rights, and contract termination. The chapter also analyses the principle of equal pay for equal work, a cornerstone of the prohibition of discrimination, discussing its scope and limits. While many rulings reflect a high standard of scrutiny, some structural forms of discrimination persist within employer organisations, particularly concerning gender. The chapter concludes that, despite advancements, international administrative tribunals continue to play a crucial role in addressing and reducing discrimination through judicial oversight.

This chapter canvasses more than 400 decisions across some twenty IATs where references to international human rights instruments have appeared. Interestingly, it emerges that the vast majority of cases in which such instruments are cited concern three substantive areas: non-discrimination, due process rights and economic rights. The chapter therefore focusses on these three areas. It then reviews citations to human rights instruments in a variety of other substantive areas, including privacy rights, expression related rights, the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of nationality, and the right to just and favourable conditions of work. The chapter concludes that while IATs now regularly refer to international human rights instruments, their treatment of this body of law is inconsistent, ranging from some judgments refusing to acknowledge its direct applicability at all to other judgments considering it hierarchically superior to other sources of law.

This chapter analyses the different procedural grounds of review and to what extent they may lead to annulment of an administrative decision by an international administrative tribunal. It shows that principles initially developed for court proceedings now play a crucial role also in administrative procedures. Although terminology and application may vary among IATs due to differences in administrative practices, there is mutual influence in their approaches.

This chapter examines unilateral amendments to terms and conditions of employment by employer organizations, with particular reference to the principle of protection of acquired rights. It considers the jurisprudence of three tribunals—ILOAT, WBAT, and UNAT—highlighting both the divergent criteria used to define the scope of permissible amendments and the commonalities in their approaches. The chapter then analyses the jurisprudence on unilateral amendments in three employment areas: salary adjustments, allowances and financial benefits, and pension rights and contributions. Successful claims in these areas are rare, as tribunals generally take a cautious approach when reviewing amendments, although they carefully weigh the justifications provided by employer organizations and their impact on staff. The chapter concludes with a call for a more refined proportionality analysis in evaluating the effects of unilateral amendments, especially in cases involving major changes.