This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Notes Public International Law Notes

State Responsibility Notes

Updated State Responsibility Notes

Public International Law Notes

Public International Law

Approximately 460 pages

Public International Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all the major LLB aspects and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Canada, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London). See if you like them by referring to the samples below. We've also included our previous years' authors free of charge, to give you some extra materials to refer to for the tricky topi...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Public International Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

  • Definition: circumstances where state will incur legal responsibility for violating a primary obligation of international law + consequences flowing from the breach

  • i.e. breach of primary obligation of IL giving rise to secondary obligations of state resp.

  • Sources of primary obligations

  1. Customary IL

  2. Treaties, incl. SC Res under Chapter VII UN Charter

  3. General principles of IL

ILC Draft Articles 2001 (60 Arts in 3 Parts)

  • Validitycodification of customary IL + progressive development

  • Passed following lengthy negotiations b/w states, largely accepted as common practice (contrast with ILC Draft Arts on Diplomatic Protection)

  • Crawford Commentaries – distinguished writings of jurists under Art 38(1)(d) ICJ Statute also possibly a source of law

  • 4 requirements

  1. Internationally wrongful act

  2. Breach

  3. Attribution

  4. Circumstances precluding wrongfulness

  5. Consequences

Internationally wrongful act + breach

  • Art 1every internationally wrongful act of state entails international resp. of that state

  • NB: UN (Reparations for Injuries Case) + liability of UN for actions of its organs (for other int. org. - Art 58)

  • Art 2int. wrongful act or omission = attributable to the state under IL & constitutes breach of int. obl.

  • Internationally wrongful act/omission – characterisation of act as int. wrongful is governed by IL (Art 3) so domestic provisions can’t be invoked to deny wrongfulness

  • Act or omission (US Hostages Case)

  • Breach = objective theory (strict liability – most widely used) or subjective (requires fault) – not pronounced on in Arts. – only requirement of causality. Dixon suggests applying strict liability for jus cogens& fault approach for other obligations.

  • Caire Claim – court confirmed no fault on the part of Mexico was required

  • Corfu Channel – fault is required

Attribution

  • Art 4conduct of any state organ as determined by IL is attributable to that state

  • Responsibility attaches to the office/position

  • Can’t invoke provisions of domestic constitutional order/law to escape liability

  • Person or entity – in broad sense, includes any natural or legal person, incl. individual office holder, department, commission, other body exercising public authority

  • Irrelevant whether person/entity acting in that capacity had improper motives/was abusing power (Caire Claim – Mexican soldiers acted under colour of authority; i.e. in uniform)

  • Art 5conducts of persons or entities exercising elements of govt. authority is attributable, as long as it acts in that capacity

  • E.g. airline controlling immigration; privately run prisons in UK

  • Art 6conducts of organs placed at disposal of a state by another state

  • Not very rare! E.g. Switzerland acting on behalf of Lichtenstein;

  • Art 7conduct of organ of state/person or entity empowered to exercise elements of govt. authority will be attributable to it if they act in that capacity, even if exceeds govt. authority or contravenes it

  • Caire Claim–murder of French nat.’l by 2 Mexican officers who, after failing to extort money, took Caire to barracks & shot him. Held: even though acted outside their competence/superiors countermanded the order, it involve state resp. b/c acted under cover of their status using means placed @ their disposal on acc of that status

  • Art 8 - conduct directed or controlled by the state

  • 2 types of cases

  1. where states supplement their own action by recruiting/instigating private persons or groups who act as “auxiliaries” while remaining outside official structure of the state - e.g. persons sent as “volunteers” to neighbouring countries/instructed to carry out certain missions abroad

  2. under direction & control of state – organised/non organised groups in another state’s territory

  • state directed/controlled specific operation & conduct complained of was an integral part of it

  • Degree of Control required

  • Nicaragua Case (effective control) – US assisted contras in overthrowing the Communist govt. in Nicaragua (supporting neighbouring El Salvador) (NB: CIA selling arms to Iran covertly & using funds to support the contras!). Held: US resp. for planning, direction & support given to contras but not all conduct was attributable – need actual evidence of instructions/direction by the state over specific acts – general situation of dependence & support insufficient.

  • Talmon: ICJ uses 2 tests:

  1. Strict control – v. high threshold (requires proof of complete dependence of entity + particularly high degree of control (state must have actually exercised it – mere potential for control isn’t enough). Essentially, secessionist movement can’t function w/out the state.

  2. Effective control – more frequently used but subsidiary (ICJ only uses it where a) can’t be satisfied) – used to determine partial dependency. Burden of proof lower than for a), yet very hard to establish

  • Prosecutor v Tadic (overall control) (ICTY) – whether accused could be guilty of breaches of Geneva Conv. during armed conflict in Bosnia after formal withdrawal of FRY’s forces – depended on whether acts of armed forces of RepublikaSprska could be attributed to FRY. ICTY framed the quest. as one of int. resp. & hold acts of Bosnian Serb forces could be attributed to FRY on the basis that, as a whole, they were under overall control of the state.

  • Problematic case – internationalised the conflict to apply the law of state resp. + other problems

  • Loizidou v Turkey (effective overall control) – w/out ref to tests applied by ICJ & ICTY, ECtHR developed own test applicable to ‘subordinate local administration’; a secessionist entity which is under effective authority or at least decisive influence of an outside power & survives by virtue of military, economic, financial, political support given to it by the outside state.

  • Talmon: context is key – ECtHR used the test to avoid what it called a regrettable vacuum in the system of HR protection in the territory

  • Art 9 - conduct carried out in...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Public International Law Notes.