Article 1 of the Draft Article on State Responsibility Which Was Adopted by the International Law Commission in 2001 Provides That: “Every International Wrongful Act of the State Entails the International Responsibility of that State': Discuss What is Considered a Wrongful Act and the Means of Reparation that are Available in International Law.

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nur Nadiah Hamdan
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Draft Article ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

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.

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?

scholarly journals Immunity Ratione Materiae of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction: Where is the State Practice in Support of Exceptions?

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 4-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean D. Murphy
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
The State ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Draft Article ◽  
Criminal Jurisdiction ◽  
State Practice ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

In the summer of 2017, the UN International Law Commission adopted Draft Article 7 and an associated draft annex for its project on immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. The draft article identifies six “crimes under international law in respect of which immunity ratione materiae shall not apply”: genocide; crimes against humanity; war crimes; crime of apartheid; torture; and enforced disappearance. Given the divergences within the Commission when considering and adopting Draft Article 7 (as evidenced by the plenary debate in 2016 and 2017, the unusual recorded vote on whether to refer the matter to the Commission's drafting committee, and the Commentary), it is difficult to conclude that the Commission is expressing a view that Draft Article 7 reflects lex lata.

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.

International Responsibility

2021 ◽  
pp. 176-207
Author(s):  
Lorenzo Gasbarri
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Final Consequence ◽  
Law Commission

The final consequence of the dual legal nature discussed in the book concerns the international responsibility of international organizations. In particular, this chapter describes how the absence of a common conceptualization affected the work of the International Law Commission, the International Law Institute, and the International Law Association. Afterwards, the chapter focuses on the dual attribution of conduct to an international organization and to its member states. It contends that dual attribution is extremely important in practice and it reviews the cases in which it was at issue. After providing a set of principles on how to apply the dual attribution, it distinguishes between three sets of circumstances: dual attribution via institutional links, dual attribution via factual links, and exclusion of dual attribution when the conduct is attributable to only the organization or its member states. Finally, it discusses the effects of dual attribution in terms of joint responsibility.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document