25. The conditions for international responsibility

2019 ◽  
pp. 523-551
Author(s):  
James Crawford
Keyword(s):  
The State ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Responsibility Attribution ◽  
International Obligation ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
The Law

This chapter discusses the basis and character of state responsibility, attribution to the state, breach of an international obligation, and circumstances precluding wrongfulness. This chapter focuses on the articulation of the law of responsibility through the ILC’s Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts.

11. State Responsibility

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Dixon ◽  
Robert McCorquodale ◽  
Sarah Williams
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Person ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Responsibility Attribution ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Obligation

State responsibility arises from the violation by a State (or other international legal person) of an international obligation that can be one of customary international law or arising from a treaty. The violation must be due to conduct attributable to a State. This chapter discusses the nature of State responsibility; attribution; breach of an international obligation of the State; circumstances precluding wrongfulness (defences); consequences of a breach; enforcement of a claim; and treatment of aliens.

14. The Character and Forms of International Responsibility

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Crawford ◽  
Simon Olleson
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
General Character ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
The Third ◽  
International Obligation ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
The Law ◽  
Constituent Elements

This chapter begins with an overview of the different forms of responsibility/liability in international law, and then focuses on the general character of State responsibility. The law of State responsibility deals with three general questions: (1) has there been a breach by a State of an international obligation; (2) what are the consequences of the breach in terms of cessation and reparation; and (3) who may seek reparation or otherwise respond to the breach as such, and in what ways? As to the first question, the chapter discusses the constituent elements of attribution and breach, as well as the possible justifications or excuses that may preclude responsibility. The second question concerns the various secondary obligations that arise upon the commission of an internationally wrongful act by a State, and in particular the forms of reparation. The third question concerns issues of invocation of responsibility, including the taking of countermeasures.

United States: Comments on the Draft Articles on State Responsibility

1998 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 468-487
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
The Law

The United States agrees with the Commission that a statement of the law of state responsibility must provide guidance to states with respect to the following questions:When does an act of a state entail international responsibility? What actions are attributable to the state? What consequences flow from a state'sviolation of its international responsibility? Customary international law provides answers to these questions, but the Commission has in many instances not codified such norms but rather proposed new substantive rules. In particular, the sections on countermeasures, crimes, dispute settlement, and state injury contain provisions that are not supported by customary international law.

Deutsche Bank AG v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

ICSID Reports ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 446-484
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
The State ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Responsibility Attribution ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Host State ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Municipal Law ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
Debt Recovery

446Jurisdiction — Investment — Derivative transactions — Interpretation — Claims to money used to create an economic value — Claims to money associated with an investment — Whether a hedging agreement constituted an investment under the BITJurisdiction — Investment — Territorial requirement — Derivative transactions — Whether a hedging agreement satisfied the condition of territorial nexus to the host StateJurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Interpretation — Derivative transactions — Salini test — Contribution to economic development — Regularity of profit and return — Whether a hedging agreement constituted an investment — Whether all five elements of the Salini test were legal criteria for an investment under ICSID jurisdictionJurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Interpretation — Derivative transactions — Ordinary commercial transaction — Contingent liability — Whether a hedging agreement was an ordinary commercial transaction or a contingent liabilityJurisdiction — Contract — State-owned entity — Municipal law — Whether a hedging agreement was void because the transaction was outside a State-owned entity’s statutory authorityState responsibility — Attribution — Judicial acts — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 — Whether a superior court was an organ of the host StateState responsibility — Attribution — Central bank — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 — Whether a central bank was an organ of the host StateState responsibility — Attribution — State-owned entity — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 5 — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 8 — Whether a State-owned entity was an organ of the State — Whether actions of a State-owned entity were attributable to the State as an exercise of governmental authority — Whether a State-owned entity was acting under instructions or the direction and control of the StateFair and equitable treatment — Judicial acts — Due process — Interim order — Political motive — Whether court orders violated the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether public statements of a senior judge evidenced the political motive of court ordersFair and equitable treatment — Autonomous standard — Interpretation — Minimum standard of treatment — Whether the standard of fair and equitable treatment was materially different from customary international law447Fair and equitable treatment — Government investigation — Due process — Bad faith — Transparency — Whether a central bank’s investigation violated the standard of fair and equitable treatmentExpropriation — Indirect expropriation — Contract — Derivative transaction — Substantial deprivation — Debt recovery — Municipal law — Whether the subsistence of a contractual debt and the possibility to claim under the chosen law of a third State prevented a finding of expropriation — Whether the possibility of recovery in a third State was to be assessed as a prerequisite in the cause of action of expropriation or as a matter of causation and quantumExpropriation — Indirect expropriation — Contract — Substantial deprivation — Legitimate regulatory authority — Proportionality — Whether an interference with contractual rights was an exercise of the host State’s legitimate regulatory authority — Whether the regulatory measures were proportionateRemedies — Damages — Causation — Contract — Debt recovery — Whether the claimant suffered damages if it had the possibility to recover a contractual debt in the courts of a third StateCosts — Indemnity — Egregious breach — Bad faith — Whether the egregious nature of the host State’s breaches of its international obligations meant the claimant was entitled to full recovery of its costs, legal fees and expenses

Conclusion

2020 ◽  
pp. 175-186
Author(s):  
Sean Fleming
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Thomas Hobbes ◽  
The State ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
The Future ◽  
International Responsibility

This concluding chapter summarizes the implications of the Hobbesian theory of state responsibility and then looks to the future. There are three ongoing trends that are likely to alter both the nature and the scope of state responsibility: the development of international criminal law, the proliferation of treaties, and the replacement of human representatives with machines and algorithms. Although the practice of holding individuals responsible for acts of state might seem to render state responsibility redundant, the rise of international criminal law will not lead to the decline of state responsibility. The two forms of international responsibility are complementary rather than competitive. If anything, the domain of state responsibility will continue to expand in the coming decades because of the proliferation of treaties. New technologies pose the greatest challenge to current understandings of state responsibility. Thomas Hobbes' theory of the state, which is mechanistic to begin with, is well suited to the emerging world of mechanized states.

scholarly journals covid-19 Claims and the Law of International Responsibility

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 311-330
Author(s):  
Martins Paparinskis
Keyword(s):  
International Organizations ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Evolutionary Potential ◽  
Legal Process ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
The Law

Abstract This paper considers the role that the law of international responsibility, both State responsibility and responsibility of international organizations, plays in claims and disputes about covid-19. It proceeds by examining in turn the rubrics of the internationally wrongful act, content of responsibility, and implementation of responsibility. On most points, blackletter law is perfectly capable of answering the questions raised by claims related to covid-19. But evolutionary potential inherent in the normal international legal process should also be recognised, whether it manifests itself by further strengthening current rules, elaborating vague rules by application, filling gaps in current law by generating new practice or even, exceptionally, revisiting rules currently in force.

scholarly journals АТРИБУЦІЯ ДЕРЖАВІ ПРОТИПРАВНОЇ ПОВЕДІНКИ СУДОВИХ ОРГАНІВ З МЕТОЮ ВСТАНОВЛЕННЯ МІЖНАРОДНОЇ ВІДПОВІДАЛЬНОСТІ

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 257-268
Author(s):  
С. С. Андрейченко
Keyword(s):  
Case Finding ◽  
The State ◽  
International Standards ◽  
National Courts ◽  
International Obligation ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
International Responsibility

Діями чи бездіяльністю національних судів можуть бути порушені міжнародні зобов'я­зання держави, тобто вчинене міжнародне протиправне діяння. Стаття присвячена до­слідженню питання щодо присвоєння державі поведінки судових органів влади з метою встановлення міжнародної відповідальності цієї держави. Держава несе міжнародну відпо­відальність за таку поведінку своїх судових органів: діяння, що визначаються як «відмова у правосудді» (dfeii de justice), під якою варто розуміти, по-перше, відмову судів розглядати справу або виносити рішення, по-друге, затягування винесення рішення по справі; при­йняття несправедливого рішення, яким порушуються міжнародні зобов'язання держави щодо дотримання міжнародних стандартів належного правосуддя.   International obligations of the state can be breached by actions or omissions of national courts, that is committed internationally wrongful act. The article investigates the question of attribution of conduct of judiciary to the state to establish the international responsibility of the State. The State is internationally responsible for the following conduct of the judiciary: an act defined as «denial of justice» (dfoni de justice), under which it should be understood: first, courts refuse to hear the case and render a decision, secondly, delaying a decision in the case; finding unfair decision, which violates international obligation of the State in complying with international standards of proper justice.

State Responsibility for State Organized Crime

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henri Decoeur
Keyword(s):  
Organized Crime ◽  
The State ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
International Obligation

Chapter 2 discusses whether the involvement of senior public officials in organized crime may amount to an internationally wrongful act of the state. It shows that the conduct of state officials using the resources of the state to commit of facilitate the commission of organized criminal activities may in most cases be considered attributable to the state, discusses the situations in which the participation of the organs or agents of a state in organized crime may constitute a breach of an international obligation of the state, and outlines the conditions under which other states may be entitled to invoke the responsibility of a state involved in state organized crime where that state may be considered to have committed an internationally wrongful act.

9. State responsibility

2021 ◽  
pp. 117-132
Author(s):  
Ilias Bantekas ◽  
Efthymios Papastavridis
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
The Law ◽  
Legal Consequences

The law of international responsibility sets out the legal consequences arising from a breach by a State of its international obligations. It should be distinguished from ‘primary rules’ of international law, which lay down international obligations. International responsibility arises when a certain act or omission is wrongful, ie it is attributed to a State and it amounts to a violation of its ‘primary’ obligations. The international responsibility may be excused under certain strict circumstances, such as consent or necessity. Otherwise, the responsible State should cease the wrongful conduct and, in case of damage, it should provide reparation to the injured State, in the form of restitution, compensation, and satisfaction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document