Two days ago, victims of a cholera outbreak in Haiti filed a class action in the Southern District of New York against the United Nations, the UN Secretary-General, and the former head of the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti (“MINUSTAH”). The complaint alleges that the defendants were negligent in deploying cholera-stricken Nepalese troops to Haiti and in constructing and maintaining their sanitation facilities. Additional claims include gross negligence, wrongful death, negligent supervision, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, private and public nuisance, and breach of contract. The lawsuit is compelling in many respects, but I think the court will dismiss the complaint on the basis of the defendants’ immunity. In this post, I’ll explain why.

First some background: In 2004, the Security Council passed a resolution creating MINUSTAH for the purpose of enhancing security and promoting democracy and the rule of law in Haiti. In implementing that resolution, dozens of countries have deployed military and police forces to Haiti over the last decade. One of those countries, however, was Nepal, where cholera is apparently endemic. In 2011, within a couple of months after the arrival of approximately 1000 Nepalese troops, Haitians living downstream from the troops contracted cholera, and from there the number of cases shot up dramatically. The latest CDC figures are that the disease has infected over 650,000 Haitians, 8300 of whom have died. This is tragic. What’s worse is that, even in the face of pretty clear evidence of the source, the UN has refused even to acknowledge its role, much less offer compensation. 

The United States is the largest receiver of intercountry adoptees, and has historically always been so. However international adoptions to American “forever families” have been on the decline since 2004, in line with the global trend. The decline is broadly attributable to tighter adoption controls and regulation, often implemented in response to controversies about baby-selling scandals and shifts in sending country sentiments about the propriety of sending orphans abroad. More recently, Russia’s controversial, politically-motivated decision in January to pass a country-specific ban halting adoptions of Russian children to American parents is likely to further impact the declining rate of foreign-born orphans received into American families.

In this context, and given the broader academic and policy debate on the merits and costs of international adoption generally, it is interesting to point out one figure that is reportedly rising – the number of African-American children being adopted from the US to foreign parents.