The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has aligned with the United Nations in defending the immunity of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) and its employees after accusations that some UNRWA workers may have been involved in the October 7 terrorist attacks in Israel, carried out by Hamas. This defense has sparked controversy, particularly as it has implications for accountability and legal action against international organizations involved in acts of violence.
The issue arose after at least nine UNRWA employees were fired in August, with evidence suggesting their involvement in Hamas’s attack, which killed around 1,200 people, including more than 30 Americans. In response, victims and their families filed a lawsuit against UNRWA in a New York federal court, accusing the agency and individuals of aiding and abetting Hamas in “international torts.” However, the UN and DOJ have argued that the organization and its employees are protected from legal action due to diplomatic immunity.
The United Nations claims that under the Charter of the United Nations, UNRWA is entitled to “absolute immunity” unless explicitly waived by the UN itself. Citing the 1945 International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA), the UN maintains that its entities and employees cannot be prosecuted without such a waiver. The DOJ supports this stance, with U.S. Attorney Damian Williams of the Southern District of New York filing a brief in July, stating that “the United Nations is absolutely immune from suit and legal process absent an express waiver of immunity.”
The DOJ further argues that the immunity extends to individual UN employees, meaning those accused of involvement in the attack would also be protected from prosecution.
Some legal experts have questioned whether the IOIA’s provisions should apply to UNRWA, given that the organization receives most of its funding from outside the UN and is thus arguably not fully covered by the IOIA. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that the IOIA only provides international organizations with the same immunity as foreign governments under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The FSIA does not protect entities involved in supporting terrorism, which raises the argument that UNRWA, alleged to have connections with Hamas, should not enjoy absolute immunity.
Attorney Gaby Meron, representing the victims, argues that UNRWA’s involvement with Hamas constitutes complicity in crimes against humanity, thereby voiding any claim to immunity. This position reflects the broader debate over the limits of immunity for international organizations, especially in cases involving acts of terrorism or human rights violations.
Expanded Coverage:
