INTRODUCTION

It might sound oxymoronic that the concept of denialism could be applied to, and discussed in, the context of international organisations and institutions. Denialism is understood as a behaviour (or behavioural pattern) which primarily concerns individuals or groups of people. Its content could be extended to additionally cover sovereign states. However, even in such cases it would principally be the population of a state exhibiting denialism as a form of personal conduct when dealing with a specific issue or when trying to avoid dealing with it. Indeed, it is in the nature of people, either individually or in unison, to refuse to accept facts, events or beliefs which are widely held by others, even when they are objectively regarded as being true, accurate and scientifically correct. In such instances denialism could be perceived as a means of self-preservation. To have done otherwise could have led to facing new realities contradicting what was understood as the absolute truth for many decades or even for centuries.

The above considerations also apply to states. Particularly so when to deny facts or events is used for domestic consumption promoting the agenda of the government of the day or when it has reached the stage of becoming official state policy. In the latter case denialism will influence foreign relations and dealings with third countries. Often the acceptance by one state of an event or historical situation vehemently denied by another state could lead to breakdown in diplomatic relations.

While individuals and states exhibit the attributes of denialism and could spend time, energy and money to promote and to defend their position, international organisations do not prima facie have the characteristics associated with denialism. Here lies the oxymoron: during the exercise of their mandate and the implementation of their goals, as laid down in the constitutive instrument and interpreted through their action (or inaction), international organisations may exhibit denialism in the sense of deliberately refusing to do one or both of the following, which fall within their legitimate powers and functions: (a) adopt specific measures; and (b) order Member States to follow a particular behaviour or to abstain from it.