This article examines the extent to which international law protects international organizations (IOs) from hacking operations committed by States. First, it analyzes whether hacking operations undertaken by member States and host States breach the privileges and immunities granted to IOs by their constitutive treaties, headquarters agreements, and conventions on privileges and immunities concerning the inviolability of their premises, property, assets, archives, documents and correspondence. The article also explores the question of whether hacking operations carried out by non-member States breach these provisions on the basis that they have passed into customary international law or because they attach to the international legal personality of IOs. Second, the article considers the question of whether hacking operations breach the principle of good faith. In this regard, it discusses the applicability of the principle of good faith to the relations between IOs, member States, host States and non-member States, and then considers how hacking operations impinge on a number of postulates emanating from good faith such as the pacta sunt servanda rule, the duty to respect the legal personality of IOs, the duties of loyalty, due regard and cooperation, and the duty not to abuse rights. Finally, the article examines the question of whether the principle of State sovereignty offers IOs indirect protection insofar as hacking can breach the sovereignty of the host State or the sovereignty of the State on whose cyber infrastructure the targeted data is resident.

International organisations are endowed with privileges and immunities to safeguard their independence, including, in particular, vis-à-vis their host state. This article first briefly considers the sources of privileges and immunities applicable to international organisations in the Netherlands, which is the host state of many international organizations. The article then focuses on the immunity of international organisations from the jurisdiction of the Dutch courts. The article reviews the relevant national case law in which there have been important developments in recent years against the backdrop of the relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights. In respect of international organisations that enjoy immunity formulated in ‘functional’ (as opposed to ‘absolute’) terms, the article develops some general guidance to determine when that immunity applies. The article then considers the clash between an international organisation's entitlement to jurisdictional immunity and the rights of claimants to have access to the courts under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The article suggests that whether the right to immunity prevails depends on the extent to which the particular organisation's functionality is at issue. In this light, the article critically examines the recent judgements in the incidental proceedings in the Srebrenica case against the United Nations. Finally, in terms of the procedural position of international organisations before the Dutch courts, the article suggests that to enjoy jurisdictional immunity, organisations would be well-advised to actively challenge the jurisdiction of the courts.

Privileges and Immunities — Immunity from Jurisdiction — Military Mission of Foreign State — Mission Accredited to Allied Control Authority in Berlin — Waiver of Immunity — By Institution of Proceedings — Whether Institution of Proceedings before Courts of Occupied Country Constitutes Waiver of Immunity from Jurisdiction of Courts of Occupant

Privileges and Immunities — Immunity from Jurisdiction — Military Mission of Foreign State — Mission Accredited to Allied Control Authority in Berlin — Waiver of Immunity — By Institution of Proceedings — Whether Institution of Proceedings before Courts of Occupied Country Constitutes Waiver of Immunity from Jurisdiction of Courts of Occupant.

Jurisdiction — Exemptions from — Foreign Military Mission — Mission Accredited to Allied Control Authority in Berlin.