International Law Commission: Draft Articles on State Responsibility

1998 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 440-467 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Kaye
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Early History ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Special Rapporteur ◽  
History Of ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

State responsibility has been on the agenda of the International Law Commission since its earliest days. Nearly fifty years ago, in 1949, the Commission identified state responsibility as one of fourteen topics in international law ready for codification. Only in 1956, however, did the Commission, with F.V. Garcia Amador as special rapporteur, begin in earnest its state responsibility codification project. Garcia Amador, whose work focused on the responsibility of states toward aliens on their territory, submitted a number of reports through 1961, but limited discussion was devoted to the topic. A review of the early history of the Commission's state responsibility project, as well as other efforts at codification of this area of law, may be found in the ILC's 1969 Yearbook

On the Road to Vienna

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kai Bruns
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Law ◽  
The Road ◽  
Progressive Development ◽  
History Of ◽  
On The Road ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

This chapter focuses on the negotiations that preceded the 1961 Vienna Conference (which led to the conclusion of the VCDR). The author challenges the view that the successful codification was an obvious step and refers in this regard to a history of intense negotiation which spanned fifteen years. With particular reference to the International Law Commission (ILC), the chapter explores the difficult task faced by ILC members to strike a balance between the codification of existing practice and progressive development of diplomatic law. It reaches the finding that the ILC negotiations were crucial for the success of the Conference, but notes also that certain States supported a less-binding form of codification. The chapter also underlines the fact that many issues that had caused friction between the Cold War parties were settled during the preparatory meetings and remained largely untouched during the 1961 negotiations.

scholarly journals Diplomatic protection in international law and the United Nations

2013 ◽  
pp. 667-681
Author(s):  
Bojan Milisavljevic
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Diplomatic Protection ◽  
History Of ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Law Commission

The paper deals with the issue of the diplomatic protection in international law and its development through the history of the international community. In this sense, the author investigates the practice of states regarding the application of diplomatic protection and the steps taken by the International Law Commission of the United Nations on the codification of this area. In 2004 International Law Commission adopted at first reading a full set of draft articles. In this paper is presented judicial practice, especially of the International Court of Justice, in the field of diplomatic protection in order to evaluate whether the approach of the Court to diplomatic protection has become more human-rights oriented in the last few years. Author presents the development of customary law rules relating to diplomatic protection and its transition into a whole system of rules through the work of the International Law Commission. In this sense, these are the basic stages in the codification of rules on diplomatic protection and the United Nations contribution to the protection of the rights of foreign nationals. This article points the development of universal and regional mechanisms to protect human rights and highlights the impact of those mechanisms on traditional measures of diplomatic protection.

5 Rules of Attribution

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hobér Kaj
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Final Version ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Form Part ◽  
Energy Charter Treaty ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

This chapter focuses on the rules of attribution. The State is not responsible for all acts and omissions of its nationals, but only for those which can be attributed to the State. It is thus necessary to establish this link between the State and the person, or persons, committing an unlawful act or omission. The legal principles used to establish this link are usually referred to as rules of attribution. The rules of attribution form part of the law of state responsibility, which, to a large part, is reflected in the work of the International Law Commission (ILC) of the United Nations. At its fifty-third session in 2001, the ILC adopted its final version of the ILC Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. The ILC Articles are intended to cover all aspects of state responsibility under international law. The rules of attribution are laid down in Chapter II of the ILC Articles. From an Energy Charter Treaty perspective, Articles 4—8 are the most relevant ones. The central provision with respect to attribution is Article 4, which confirms the well-established principle of international law that the State is responsible for the acts of its own organs acting in the capacity of the State.

Debating the Ouroboros of International Law: The Drafting History of Article 31(3)(c)

2007 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Panos Merkouris
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Present Status ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Law ◽  
Droit International ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

AbstractThe Diversification and expansion of International Law has sparked a series of debates on the present status and future of International Law; even more so, since the ILC decided to tackle the issue of fragmentation. One of the areas of research and controversy has been Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which, arguably, enshrines the principle of systemic integration. The aim of this article is to explore the evolution of Article 31(3)(c) from its first inception by the forefathers of international law up to the finalization of the text of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. By mapping the critical arguments in the three main fora of debate (i.e the Institut de Droit International, the International Law Commission and the Vienna Conference on the Law of treaties) what arises is a series of conclusions with respect to certain aspects of Article 31(3)(c) as well as certain recurring themes in the nature and progress of the discussions. All of the above will show that the drafting history of Article 31(3)(c) seems to suggest that the relevant provision was meant to serve a purpose expressed more concisely by the symbol of Ouroboros rather than of a mere "master-key" to the house of International Law.

The Fortieth Session of the International Law Commission

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen C. Mccaffrey
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Draft Code ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The Status ◽  
International Liability ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

The International Law Commission of the United Nations held its 40th session from May 9 to July 29, 1988, under the Chairmanship of Ambassador Leonardo Díaz-González. The Commission adopted 6 articles of the Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind and 14 articles on the law of non-navigational uses of international watercourses. Substantial time was devoted to both international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law and the status of the diplomatic courier and the diplomatic bag not accompanied by diplomatic courier. Reports on jurisdictional immunities of states and their property and state responsibility were introduced by the special rapporteurs for those topics but were not discussed by the Commission owing to lack of time. The remaining substantive item on the Commission’s agenda, relations between states and international organizations (second part of the topic), was not considered at this session. Finally, the Commission once again devoted substantial time to reviewing its procedures and methods of work.

Part I Conclusion of Treaties, 4 Legal Consequences of an Impermissible Reservation to a Human Rights Treaty: Where Do We Stand?

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simma Bruno ◽  
Hernández Gleider I
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
The Body ◽  
Special Rapporteur ◽  
Central Question ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Legal Consequences ◽  
Law Commission

The Vienna Convention's regime on reservations is particularly unfit to cope with the specific characteristics of human rights treaties due to the very limited and particular role played by reciprocity and the ‘inward-targeted’ nature of the obligations stipulated in such instruments. Regional human rights courts and UN human rights treaty bodies have developed certain methods of monitoring the reservations practice of states parties to the respective instruments, but a central question has hitherto remained very controversial, namely that of the legal consequences of a reservation to a human rights treaty which is considered incompatible with that treaty's object and purpose and therefore impermissible. After many years of dealing with the topic of reservations, the UN International Law Commission has finally addressed this issue: Special Rapporteur Alain Pellet has proposed a solution which finds itself essentially in accord with the ‘severability’ doctrine advocated by the human rights community, reconciling this approach and the principle of treaty consent through the introduction of a presumption of severability of an invalid reservation from the body of a human rights treaty, to which the State making such a reservation will then remain bound in full. This chapter supports the Special Rapporteur's proposal, traces its development, and discusses both the advantages and the specific challenges posed by a presumption of severability.

The Due Diligence Principle Under International Law

2006 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Barnidge
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
State Actors ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

AbstractThis article explores the interface of state responsibility, non-state actors, and the due diligence principle. It begins by examining the various principles of responsibility under international law. After doing so, it closely considers the deliberations of the International Law Commission on the topic of state responsibility. In light of these developments, attention is then paid to exactly what has been expected of states with regard to the activities of non-state actors during the last century. This overview focuses on the due diligence principle, a principle which, it is argued, can be restrictively or expansively interpreted, as the particular facts and circumstances require, to hold states responsible for their actions or omissions related to non-state actors.

scholarly journals The Requisite Rigour in the Identification of Customary International Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noora Arajärvi
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Special Rapporteur ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
United Nations General Assembly ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

Over the last few decades, the methodology for the identification of customary international law (cil) has been changing. Both elements of cil – practice and opinio juris – have assumed novel and broader forms, as noted in the Reports of the Special Rapporteur of the International Law Commission (2013, 2014, 2015, 2016). This contribution discusses these Reports and the draft conclusions, and reaction by States in the Sixth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (unga), highlighting the areas of consensus and contestation. This ties to the analysis of the main doctrinal positions, with special attention being given to the two elements of cil, and the role of the unga resolutions. The underlying motivation is to assess the real or perceived crisis of cil, and the author develops the broader argument maintaining that in order to retain unity within international law, the internal limits of cil must be carefully asserted.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document