In 2013, a suit was lodged before the US District Court in NY , invoking UN responsibility for the outbreak of cholera in Haiti. The outbreak is a tragedy not only because of its catastrophic consequences but because it was caused by the UN peacekeeping operation. To date, however, the merits of the claims have never been examined due to UN immunity. While the UN Charter provides for this immunity in an equivocal manner, the specification by the CPIUN allows for a straightforward determination of its content and scope. In contrast, section 29 of the CPIUN , which stipulates the UN ’s obligation to provide alternative means for dispute settlement as a counterpart of its immunity, is an interpretative puzzle. Due to discrepancies over the interpretation of the provision, the Haiti cholera case has resulted in a stalemate. Against this backdrop, the present study aims to clarify the content and scope of the obligation.

中文翻译：

---

《联合国特权和豁免公约》第八条第 29 节的解释

2013 年，纽约美国地方法院提起诉讼，援引联合国对海地爆发霍乱的责任。这次疫情是一场悲剧，不仅因为其灾难性后果，还因为它是由联合国维和行动造成的。然而，迄今为止，由于联合国豁免权，从未审查过索赔的案情。虽然联合国宪章以模棱两可的方式规定了这种豁免，但 CPIUN 的规范允许直接确定其内容和范围。相比之下，CPIUN 第 29 条规定了联合国作为其豁免的对应物有义务提供解决争端的替代手段，这是一个解释性难题。由于对该条款的解释存在分歧，海地霍乱案一度陷入僵局。在这样的背景下，