7. State responsibility

2021 ◽  
pp. 116-138
Author(s):  
Anders Henriksen
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Collective Responsibility ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Legal Obligation ◽  
The Core ◽  
Diplomatic Protection

This chapter discusses the international law of responsibility as primarily reflected in the 2001 International Law Commission’s Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. It opens in Section 7.2 with an overview of some of the core principles and elements of state responsibility for wrongful acts. Section 7.3 discusses the issue of state attribution before Section 7.4 examines joint and collective responsibility. Section 7.5 discusses the various circumstances that may preclude the wrongfulness of conduct otherwise in violation of a (primary) legal obligation. Section 7.6 looks into the consequences of state responsibility while Section 7.7 discusses who may be entitled to invoke state responsibility. Section 7.8 examines the rules on diplomatic protection and Section 7.9 provides a brief overview of the responsibility of international organizations.

7. State responsibility

2019 ◽  
pp. 120-142
Author(s):  
Anders Henriksen
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Collective Responsibility ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Legal Obligation ◽  
The Core ◽  
Diplomatic Protection

This chapter discusses the international law of responsibility as primarily reflected in the 2001 International Law Commission’s Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. It opens in Section 7.2 with an overview of some of the core principles and elements of state responsibility for wrongful acts. Section 7.3 discusses the issue of state attribution before Section 7.4 examines joint and collective responsibility. Section 7.5 discusses the various circumstances that may preclude the wrongfulness of conduct otherwise in violation of a (primary) legal obligation. Section 7.6 looks into the consequences of state responsibility while Section 7.7 discusses who may be entitled to invoke state responsibility. Section 7.8 examines the rules on diplomatic protection and Section 7.9 provides a brief overview of the responsibility of international organizations.

7. State responsibility

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anders Henriksen
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Legal Obligation ◽  
The Core

This chapter discusses the international law of responsibility as primarily reflected in the 2001 International Law Commission's (ILC) Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. It opens in Section 7.2 with an overview of some of the core principles and elements of state responsibility for wrongful acts. Section 7.3 discusses the issue of state attribution before Section 7.4 examines the various circumstances that may preclude the wrongfulness of conduct otherwise in violation of a (primary) legal obligation. Section 7.5 looks into the consequences of state responsibility while Section 7.6 discusses who may be entitled to invoke state responsibility. Section 7.7 provides a brief overview of the responsibility of international organizations.

The Fifty-Sixth Session of the International Law Commission

2005 ◽  
Vol 99 (1) ◽  
pp. 211-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Matheson
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Diplomatic Protection ◽  
Sixth Session ◽  
International Liability ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Fragmentation Of International Law ◽  
Law Commission

The International Law Commission held its fifty-sixdi session in Geneva from May 3 to June 4, and from July 5 to August 6, 2004, under the chairmanship of Teodor Melescanu of Romania. The Commission completed its first reading of draft principles on international liability for transboundary harm and draft articles on diplomatic protection, which have now been submitted for comment by states with a view to their completion in 2006. The Commission also continued its work on reservations to treaties, responsibility of international organizations, unilateral acts of states, fragmentation of international law, and shared natural resources. In addition, the Commission decided to start work next year on the effect of armed conflict on treaties and the expulsion of aliens, and to recommend adding a new topic—the obligation to prosecute or extradite—to its long-term program. The following is a summary of where each topic stands and what issues are likely to be most prominent at the Commission's 2005 session.

A Matter of Interest: Diplomatic Protection and State ResponsibilityErga Omnes

2007 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 553-581 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annemarieke Vermeer-Künzli
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Diplomatic Protection ◽  
Simultaneous Existence ◽  
Indirect Injury ◽  
Peremptory Norms

AbstractInternational law recognizes two mechanisms for the protection of individuals in case of violations of peremptory norms affecting individuals: invocation of State responsibilityerga omnesand diplomatic protection. While they share some fields of applications and are both based on some measure of indirect injury, there are important differences between these two mechanisms. This paper analyses and discusses these differences and similarities, and concludes by demonstrating that the essential distinction is to be found in the legal interest in the claim and the nature of the claim. The traditional conditions for the bringing of a claim based on indirect injury that are applicable to diplomatic protection (exhaustion of local remedies and nationality of claims) are not applicable to invocation of responsibilityerga omnes. This paper will argue that the latter is based on an obligation owed to the community as a whole, including the claimant State, and therefore constitutes a direct claim. In the interest of enhancing protection of individuals against violations of peremptory norms, the simultaneous existence of these two mechanisms should be welcomed.

Responsibility of the United Nations for the Activities of Private Military and Security Companies in Peacekeeping Operations: In Need of a New International Instrument

2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 152-187
Author(s):  
Jessica Pressler
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Legal Obligation ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
Legal Obligations ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
World Organization ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Security Companies

This chapter deals with the rising deployment of private military and security companies (pmscs) in peacekeeping operations of the United Nations and the demand for an increased willingness on part of the international organisation to take on responsibility for potential wrongdoings by its contracted personnel. It aims to demonstrate that the un is vested with a legal obligation to ensure that the conduct of private contractors under its command complies with obligations under international law and identifies possibilities to formulate a new regulatory framework in light of the recent Montreux Process and the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations. The chapter further outlines ways for remedial mechanisms for potential victims of pmsc peacekeeper wrongdoings and offers an insight into the general tension between the organization’s immunity and its accountability. While the un’s reliance on pmscs in peacekeeping operations is an efficient mean to secure troops, it must go hand in hand with the compliance of international legal obligations and institutional responsibility so as to ensure its legitimacy and credibility as a world organization mandated to maintain peace and security and to respect human rights.

Conceptual Toolkit

2019 ◽  
pp. 15-44
Author(s):  
Christina Eckes
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Core Potential ◽  
The Core ◽  
Different Dimensions ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Legal Mandate

Chapter 1 sets out the conceptual framework for the rest of the book. It first and foremost develops the meaning and relevance of structures of bonding that formally legally connect the Union and its citizens. One prominent example is the European Parliament’s legal mandate to represent EU citizens. The chapter further identifies the autonomy and effectiveness of the EU legal order as the unique features that set it apart from international organizations and international law. The potential of structures of bonding depends on these features. Chapter 1 also develops the mutually dependant relationships of autonomy, effectiveness, structures of bonding, and the legitimacy of the Union and its actions. It identifies different dimensions of legitimacy and emphasizes, drawing on Jürgen Habermas, justifiability or, even more precisely, worthiness of recognition (Annerkennungswürdigkeit) as the core of legitimacy. Justification to individuals, as EU citizens and national citizens, returns in all the following chapters as a necessary precondition for legitimacy and as the core potential of bonding structures.

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.

Responsibility of States and International Organizations

2019 ◽  
pp. 598-612
Author(s):  
Pierre Bodeau-Livinec
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Current Status ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Formal Status

Quite paradoxically given the importance of the topic in the system of international law, issues pertaining to responsibility of states and international organizations are not dealt with in treaties of universal character or “United Nations” treaties. So far, the General Assembly has merely taken note of the Articles on State Responsibility and the Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations—respectively adopted by the International Law Commission (ILC) in 2001 and 2011—and refrained from taking any decision as to the final status of these texts. Three options are available: keeping the formal status quo, adopting the Articles as a General Assembly declaration, or using the text as a basis for a United Nations Convention on Responsibility. While the latter option would bring the Articles on state responsibility outside the realm of soft law, it could also have a “decodifying effect,” insofar that it could threaten the balance carefully designed by the ILC. Even though the 2001 Articles will most likely retain their current status, drafting a treaty on state responsibility could however prove useful.

Sources of International Organizations’ Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Klabbers
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Legal Obligation ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Law

This chapter reflects on the uncertainties regarding the question of why international organizations would be bound by international law. It places these uncertainties in the broader framework of a vague and ill-defined ‘turn to accountability’. As the chapter shows, international organizations are often held to account for wrongdoing without it being clear whether they have also violated an international legal obligation resting upon them. The chapter then discusses in some detail the 1980 WHO–Egypt advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding whether the WHO could close their Alexandria office and move it to Jordan. Afterwards, the chapter reviews several recent attempts to overcome the ‘basis of obligation’ problem in the law of international organizations, such as the putative constitutionalization of international law or international organizations, the adoption of accountability models, and the emergence of Global Administrative Law.

2 A Concise History of the Law of State Responsibility and Reparation in International Law

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabahi Borzu
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Human Thought ◽  
Diplomatic Protection ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Law ◽  
Civil Codes

The modern doctrines of State responsibility and reparation are the result of more than 2,000 years of human thought. This chapter traces the history of some of the most important components of State responsibility and reparation. The origins of these concepts are found in the historical roots of the civil law doctrines of extra-contractual liability and the remedy of restitutio in integrum, from Roman times until their entry into European civil codes. It explains how the private law notions discussed entered into international law and how, from the fusion of these notions and concepts with those supplied through the evolving doctrines of reprisals, denial of justice, and diplomatic protection, the modern doctrines of State responsibility and reparation were born.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document