Accessibility navigation

UN-Accountable? A response to Devika Hovell

Freedman, R. (2016) UN-Accountable? A response to Devika Hovell. AJIL Unbound, 110. 8.

[img] Text - Published Version
· Restricted to Repository staff only
· The Copyright of this document has not been checked yet. This may affect its availability.


It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.


Devika Hovell has provided an excellent call to arms for academics to move beyond the question of whether the United Nations has due process deficiencies: By now we all know that it does. She invites us to focus instead on making “the normative case for adopting due process safeguards in UN decision making,” insisting that until now scholars have failed to ask the important theoretical questions underpinning their policy research.1 Hovell uses two case studies to demonstrate why resort to judicial mechanisms ought not to be the answer when seeking to find ways to ensure due process. She first focuses on targeted sanctions and then turns attention to cholera in Haiti. While I agree with the normative conclusions in this article, and agree that there ought to be greater focus on theory, in this short piece I shall make several points that demonstrate that the Haiti case study is more complex than Hovell’s account suggests.

Item Type:Article
Divisions:Arts, Humanities and Social Science > School of Law
ID Code:66567
Publisher:American Society of International Law

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Page navigation