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:

BASIC CONCEPTS

ARSIWA is a codification of customary international law (eg Art 23 Necessity) and progressive development (eg Art 41 Peremptory Norms) -> THEY ARE NOT BINDING

Applicable to ALL obligations (customary, treaty etc) – Art 12 ARSIWA

BREACH OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

State responsibility provides that a breach of an international obligation gives rise to a requirement for reparation.

In theory every breach of international law, whether treaty or customary international law, involves state responsibility. The arbitral tribunal in Rainbow Warrior (New Zealand v France) noted that international law did not distinguish between contractual and tortious responsibility, so that any violation by a state of any obligation gives rise to state responsibility and consequently to the duty of reparation. This is also reflected in Art 12 ARSIWA.

ILC Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Act (ARSIWA)

Article l Responsibility of a State for its internationally wrongful acts

Every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State.

Article 2 Elements of an internationally wrongful act of a State

There is an internationally wrongful act of a State when conduct consisting of an action or omission: (a) is attributable to the State under international law; and (b) constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State.

Article 3 Characterization of an act of a State as internationally wrongful

The characterization of an act of a State as internationally wrongful is governed by international law. Such characterization is not affected by the characterization of the same act as lawful by internal law.

Article 12 Existence of a breach of an international obligation

There is a breach of an international obligation by a State when an act of that State is not in conformity with what is required of it by that obligation, regardless of its origin or character.

Article 13 International obligation in force for a State

An act of a State does not constitute a breach of an international obligation unless the State is bound by the obligation in question at the time the act occurs.

Article 14 Extension in time of the breach of an international obligation

1. The breach of an international obligation by an act of a State not having a continuing character occurs at the moment when the act is performed, even if its effects continue.

2. The breach of an international obligation by an act of a State having a continuing character extends over the entire period during which the act continues and remains not in conformity with the international obligation.

3. The breach of an international obligation requiring a State to prevent a given event occurs when the event occurs and extends over the entire period during which the event continues and remains not in conformity with that obligation.

Article 15 Breach consisting of a composite act

1. The breach of an international obligation by a State through a series of actions or omissions defined in aggregate as wrongful occurs when the action or omission occurs which, taken with the other actions or omissions, is sufficient to constitute the wrongful act.

2. In such a case, the breach extends over the entire period starting with the first of the actions or omissions of the series and lasts for as long as these actions or omissions are repeated and remain not in conformity with the international obligation.

Article 16 Aid or assistance in the commission of an internationally wrongful act

A State which aids or assists another State in the commission of an internationally wrongful act by the latter is internationally responsible for doing so if: (a) that State does so with knowledge of the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act; and (b) the act would be internationally wrongful if committed by that State.

Article 17 Direction and control exercised over the commission of an internationally wrongful act

A State which directs and controls another State in the commission of an internationally wrongful act by the latter is internationally responsible for that act if: (a) that State does so with knowledge of the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act; and (b) the act would be internationally wrongful if committed by that State.

Article 18 Coercion of another State

A State which coerces another State to commit an act is internationally responsible for that act if: (a) the act would, but for the coercion, be an internationally wrongful act of the coerced State; and (b) the coercing State does so with knowledge of the circumstances of the act.

THE RELEVANCE OF INTENTION/FAULT

There are contending theories as to whether responsibility of the state for unlawful acts or omissions is strict or whether it is necessary to show some fault or intention on the part of the officials concerned.

The principle of objective responsibility maintains that the liability of the state is strict and based on the premise of creating a risk. Once an unlawful act has taken place, which has caused injury and which has been committed by an agent of the state, that state will be responsible in international law to the state suffering the damage irrespective of whether or not negligence, recklessness, intent or bad faith were involved.

  • In the Caire Claim (France v Mexico), the French-Mexican Claims Commission held that Mexico was responsible for the injury caused to France by the shooting of a French citizen by Mexican soldiers in accordance with the objective responsibility doctrine. Responsibility for the acts of the officials or organs may devolve upon the State even in the absence of any intentional or negligent conduct on the part of its agents.

The principle of subjective responsibility emphasises that an element of intentional (dolus) or negligent (culpa) conduct on the part of the person concerned is necessary before his state can be rendered liable for any injury caused.

  • In the Home...

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