scholarly journals The Nature of International Responsibility of States in the Contemporary World Arena

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 50
Author(s):  
Dawan Mohammed Jaza Abdullah
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Central Place ◽  
The State ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Convention ◽  
Contemporary World ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
International Law Commission

The subject of state responsibility occupies a central place in international law. Its basic principle, now well established, provides that every internationally wrongful act entails the responsibility of the state. One of the most controversial problems regarding the international responsibility of the state for wrongful acts concerns the nature of such responsibility.  The present paper examines the nature of state responsibility for international wrongful acts under existing international law. It takes the view that the International Law Commission (ILC), in its Draft Articles on State Responsibility can be applied in case of breach of any international obligations by states because there is no international convention regarding state responsibility on the international plane. Finally, the study concludes that the identification of the nature of the state responsibility seems to be much more complicated since ILC’s Articles do not explicitly address the issue of whether responsibility of state for wrongful act or omission is strict liability (objective theory) or there must be some fault (subjective theory) in the conduct of state in order to hold responsibility; customary international law to some extent does not help in filling the gap exists in ILC’s Draft Articles on state responsibility with regard to objective and subjective theories because  it supports both theories.

scholarly journals Hecho ilícito internacional = International Wrongful Act

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 271
Author(s):  
Pietro Sferrazza Taibi
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Constituent Elements ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Law Commission

Resumen: En este trabajo se abordará un análisis dogmático de la noción de hecho internacionalmente ilícito en el marco de la responsabilidad internacional del Estado. Sin duda, se trata de una noción clave, dado que su configuración en un caso concreto activa la funcionalidad del resto de los capítulos de la responsabilidad internacional del Estado. En este trabajo se explicará la incidencia que ha tenido la distinción entre normas primarias y normas secundarias para la construcción del concepto de hecho internacionalmente ilícito. Asimismo, se abordará un análisis de cada uno de los dos elementos constitutivos del hecho internacionalmente ilícito, a saber, la ilicitud y la imputabilidad.Palabras clave: Responsabilidad internacional del Estado, hecho internacionalmente ilícito, Comisión de Derecho Internacional, ilicitud, imputabilidad/atribución, normas primarias/normas secundariasAbstract: This paper will deal with a dogmatic analysis of the notion of internationally wrongful acts within the framework of the international responsibility of the State. Undoubtedly, this is a key notion, since its configuration in one case activates the functionality of the rest of the chapters of the State's international responsibility. The paper will explain the impact of the distinction between primary and secondary rules for the construction of the concept of internationally wrongful act. It will also address an analysis of each of the two constituent elements of the internationally wrongful act, namely, breach and attribution.Keywords: International State responsibility, internationally wrongful act, International Law Commission, breach, imputation/attribution, primary rules/secondary rules.

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.

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.

9. State responsibility

2019 ◽  
pp. 113-126
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, i.e. 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, like 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.

The Lack of Uniformity in the Terminology of the International Law of Remedies

1992 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Haasdijk
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
State Of Affairs ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

The terminology regarding remedies in the field of international responsibility is far from uniform, either in literature, as well as in case law, diplomatic practice etc.. This state of affairs is bound to have its impact on the codification of state responsibility by the International Law Commission. Was this ‘terminology-problem’ tackled by the International Law Commission and its Special Rapporteurs?

State Responsibility for COVID-19: Does International Contagion Constitute Transboundary Harm?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Sophie CAPICCHIANO YOUNG
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
International Community ◽  
The State ◽  
Direct Result ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Current Article ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Do So

Abstract As the damage caused by COVID-19 has increased exponentially, so too has the insistence that China bears some international responsibility for the unquantifiable damage sustained as a direct result of the state having failed to contain the virus, and to notify the international community of its existence. Some have suggested that the international contagion of the virus may be classified as transboundary harm. The current article analyses the law of transboundary harm, and proposes a set of criteria based on treaty and precedent that may be relied on to properly classify an event as such. It concludes that it is not only incorrect to classify international contagion as transboundary harm, but that to do so would pose a significant risk to the position and treatment of the individual in international law.

9. State responsibility

2017 ◽  
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, i.e. 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, like 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.

The ILC and State Responsibility

2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (4) ◽  
pp. 792-797 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Rosenstock
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
International Community ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Occam’S Razor ◽  
The Law ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Multilateral Treaty ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Law Commission

The handling by the International Law Commission (ILC) of state responsibility, hazardous activities, and strict liability reveals in many ways the Commission’s strengths and limitations. This work also tells much about the development of international law and the extent to which there is—or is not—an international community. The Commission’s work on state responsibility in particular also illustrates the validity of Holmes’s immortal statement about logic and the life of the law, the utility of Occam’s razor, and the value of William James’s pragmatism. Even if Philip Allott were close to the mark—as he often is—in calling the draft articles, as they then were, “bland gruel,” it is hard to ignore the need for the articles or their contribution to the unification of international law. Both are witnessed by tribunals’ eagerness to cite the Commission’s texts even before their formal adoption. While this practice has upset some as premature, it reflects the symbiotic process that has evolved over time as both the Commission and courts and tribunals labor to clarify existing law. Codification of lex lata may be no less effective if contained in a paragraph of a report rather than in an article of a multilateral treaty.

State Responsibility in International Law

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia Borelli
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Primary Source ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
International Obligation ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
Great Relevance ◽  
The Law ◽  
International Law Commission

State responsibility constitutes a central institution of the system of public international law. The law of state responsibility encompasses a variety of issues. First, it defines the circumstances in which a state will be held to have breached its international obligations, as well as the limited catalogue of justifications and defenses a state may rely upon in order to avoid responsibility for an otherwise wrongful act. Second, it covers the consequences of the breach of an international obligation, including in particular the central obligation to make full reparation, as well as the obligation to put an end to continuing wrongful acts. Finally, it deals with the way the responsibility arising from breach of an international obligation is implemented, in particular governing which states may invoke the responsibility of the wrongdoing state, as well as the means by which responsibility may be implemented, in particular through the adoption of countermeasures. The primary point of reference in relation to the law of state responsibility is the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (the ILC Articles), adopted by the International Law Commission (ILC) in 2001, which constitute the fruit of the ILC’s attempt to codify and progressively develop the law in this area. The work of the ILC on the topic has exerted a profound influence in setting the terms of the debate. Since 2001, discussion of particular issues of state responsibility has generally been framed by—or is avowedly a reaction to—the approach taken by the ILC. Even prior to 2001, and in particular since the early 1970s, much of the literature discussed questions of state responsibility primarily by reference to the state of the ILC’s work as it stood at the time. To the extent that the approach of the ILC on specific questions evolved over the course of its work, some caution is necessary in referring to older literature. That is not to say, however, that literature prior to the adoption of the ILC Articles has been entirely superseded. In relation to a number of issues, in particular questions of the theory of state responsibility, some of the older literature remains of great relevance. Similarly, to the extent that particular questions, for instance the notion of “state crimes” or the classification of obligations, were eventually not included in the final version of the ILC Articles, the older literature remains the primary source of reference.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document