DOCSLIB.ORG

The Impact of the Ilc's Articles on Responsibility

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Impact of the Ilc's Articles on Responsibility THE IMPACT OF THE ILC’S ARTICLES ON RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES FOR INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACTS — PRELIMINARY DRAFT — SIMON OLLESON THE IMPACT OF THE ILC’S ARTICLES ON RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES FOR INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACTS — PRELIMINARY DRAFT — TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents i Foreword iv PART ONE THE INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACT OF A STATE CHAPTER I – GENERAL PRINCIPLES 1 Article 1 – Responsibility of a State for its internationally wrongful acts 2 Article 2 – Elements of an internationally wrongful act of a State 6 Article 3 – Characterization of an act of a State as internationally wrongful 11 CHAPTER II – ATTRIBUTION OF CONDUCT TO A STATE 17 Article 4 – Conduct of organs of a State 20 Article 5 – Conduct of persons or entities exercising elements of governmental 61 authority Article 6 – Conduct of organs placed at the disposal of a State by another State 73 Article 7 – Excess of authority or contravention of instructions 76 Article 8 – Conduct directed or controlled by a State 82 Article 9 – Conduct carried out in the absence or default of the official authorities 94 Article 10 – Conduct of an insurrectional or other movement 95 Article 11 – Conduct acknowledged and adopted by a State as its own 96 CHAPTER III – BREACH OF AN INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATION 100 Article 12 – Existence of a breach of an international obligation 101 Article 13 – International obligation in force for a State 103 Article 14 – Extension in time of the breach of an international obligation 115 Article 15 – Breach consisting of a composite act 127 CHAPTER IV – RESPONSIBILITY OF A STATE IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACT OF ANOTHER STATE 135 Article 16 – Aid or assistance in the commission of an internationally wrongful act 136 Article 17 – Direction and control exercised over the commission of an internationally wrongful i act 139 Article 18 – Coercion of another State 140 Article 19 – Effect of this Chapter 141 CHAPTER V – CIRCUMSTANCES PRECLUDING WRONGFULNESS 142 Article 20 – Consent 144 Article 21 – Self-defence 149 Article 22 – Countermeasures in respect of an internationally wrongful act 153 Article 23 – Force majeure 154 Article 24 – Distress 158 Article 25 – Necessity 159 Article 26 – Compliance with peremptory norms 183 Article 27 – Consequences of invoking a circumstance precluding wrongfulness 184 PART TWO CONTENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF A STATE CHAPTER I – GENERAL PRINCIPLES 190 Article 28 – Legal consequences of an internationally wrongful act 191 Article 29 – Continued duty of performance 193 Article 30 – Cessation and non-repetition 195 Article 31 – Reparation 201 Article 32 – Irrelevance of internal law 210 Article 33 – Scope of international obligations set out in this Part 211 CHAPTER II – REPARATION FOR INJURY 212 Article 34 – Forms of reparation 213 Article 35 – Restitution 215 Article 36 – Compensation 222 Article 37 – Satisfaction 229 Article 38 – Interest 232 Article 39 – Contribution to the injury 235 CHAPTER III – SERIOUS BREACHES OF OBLIGATIONS UNDER PEREMPTORY NORMS OF GENERAL INTERNATIONAL LAW 237 Article 40 – Application of this Chapter 237 Article 41 – Particular consequences of a serious breach of an obligation under this Chapter 237 PART THREE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF A STATE CHAPTER I – INVOCATION OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF A STATE 248 Article 42 – Invocation of responsibility by an injured State 249 Article 43 – Notice of claim by an injured State 250 Article 44 – Admissibility of claims 252 Article 45 – Loss of the right to invoke responsibility 254 Article 46 – Plurality of injured States 256 Article 47 – Plurality of responsible States 257 Article 48 – Invocation of responsibility by a State other than an injured State 263 CHAPTER II – COUNTERMEASURES 267 Article 49 – Object and limits of countermeasures 269 Article 50 – Obligations not affected by countermeasures 272 Article 51 – Proportionality 275 Article 52 – Conditions relating to resort to countermeasures 278 Article 53 – Termination of countermeasures 279 Article 54 – Measures taken by States other than an injured State 280 PART FOUR GENERAL PROVISIONS Article 55 – Lex specialis 281 Article 56 – Questions of State responsibility not regulated by these articles 286 Article 57 – Responsibility of an international organization 287 Article 58 – Individual responsibility 288 Article 59 – Charter of the United Nations 289 THE IMPACT OF THE ILC’S ARTICLES ON RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES FOR INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACTS — PRELIMINARY DRAFT — Foreword This is the preliminary draft of the outcome of a study carried out for the British Institute of International and Comparative Law. The study is aimed at providing a portrayal of the impact and influence of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (‘the Articles’), since their adoption on second reading by the International Law Commission in 2001. This preliminary draft is being circulated for information in advance of the debate to take place during the 62nd session of the General Assembly as to whether any further action should be taken in relation to the Articles,1 and in particular as to whether a diplomatic conference should be convened in order to transform the Articles into a multilateral convention on State responsibility. As mandated by the terms of General Assembly Resolution 59/35, the UN Secretariat produced a compilation of express references to the Articles and their Commentaries in international judicial practice.2 Although there is inevitably some overlap with the Secretariat compilation, the present study has a scope which is materially wider:3 first, it includes references to the Articles made in the separate or dissenting opinions of judges of both the International Court of Justice and other bodies; second, it aims to provide a greater amount of context to instances of express reference, so as to provide a better understanding of the circumstances in which reference has been made to the Articles; third, it aims to provide some comment upon, and where appropriate, criticism of, the way in which the Articles have been applied in specific instances; fourth, it includes the most important instances of reliance on the Articles by domestic courts. However, most importantly, the study aims to provide a survey not only of express references to the Articles, but also to the most important judicial pronouncements (in particular those of the International Court of Justice) which, although made without express reference to the Articles, are relevant to matters falling within their subject matter and which are therefore relevant to an assessment of the impact of the Articles since their adoption. The present study therefore aims to catalogue the major instances of relevant judicial and arbitral practice in relation to the international law of State responsibility between 9 August 2001, the date of completion of the ILC’s work on the topic of State responsibility, and 10 October 2007, and in 1 For the General Assembly’s previous action in this regard, see General Assembly Resolution 56/83 (2001) and General Assembly Resolution 59/35 (2004). 2 See ‘Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts; Compilation of decisions of international courts, tribunals and other bodies; Report of the Secretary-General’, UN doc. A/62/62 and Add.1. 3 Although in one respect it is narrower, as only practice postdating the adoption of the Articles by the International Law Commission is included. iv Foreword the process enable an assessment of the extent to which the Articles have both been expressly relied upon, and the extent to which they are consistent with the prevailing practice in relation to the law of State responsibility. In doing so, the study includes a number of instances of express reliance on the Articles by international courts and tribunals which are not included in the Secretariat compilation; the majority of these instances have only been made publicly available since the completion of the Secretariat compilation. Finally, it should be emphasised that the present study does not attempt to express a view as to whether the Articles as a whole, or any particular provision of them, represent customary international law. Nevertheless, where appropriate, attention is drawn to the views of courts and tribunals which have expressed an opinion in this regard. * * * Support for this project has been generously provided by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom and Lovells LLP. The author wishes to express his deep gratitude to Professor Gillian Triggs, the outgoing Director of the British Institute, as well as to Daniel Bethlehem, Sir Michael Wood, and Dr Federico Ortino for their advice, support and encouragement at various stages of the work on this project. Special thanks are due to Professor James Crawford for reading an initial draft and for always being available to discuss obscure points of the law of State responsibility. Finally, the author owes an enormous debt to Silvia Borelli, who patiently read a number of earlier drafts and provided numerous and invaluable comments. All views expressed (as well as all errors) are solely those of the author. 10 October 2007 PART ONE THE INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACT OF A STATE CHAPTER I GENERAL PRINCIPLES The provisions contained in Chapter I of Part One of the Articles embody principles which are to a large extent axiomatic, reflecting fundamental conceptions of the international law of State responsibility. Article 1 sets out the basic proposition that every wrongful
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Guiding Principles on Shared Responsibility in International Law
    The European Journal of International Law Vol. 31 no. 1 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of EJIL Ltd. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: [email protected] Guiding Principles on Shared Responsibility in International Law André Nollkaemper,1, Jean d’Aspremont,2, Christiane Ahlborn,3 Berenice Boutin,4 Nataša Nedeski5 and Ilias Plakokefalos,6 with the collaboration of Dov Jacobs7 Abstract It is common in international practice that several states and/or international organizations contribute together to the indivisible injury of a third party. Examples thereof are aplenty in relation to climate change and other environmental disasters, joint military activities and cooperative actions aimed at stemming migration. Such situations are hardly captured by the existing rules of the law of international responsibility. In particular, the work of the International Law Commission, which is widely considered to provide authoritative guidance for legal questions of international responsibility, has little to offer. As a result, it is often very difficult, according to the existing rules of the law of international responsibility, to share re- sponsibility and apportion reparation between the states and/or international organizations that contribute together to the indivisible injury of a third party. The Guiding Principles on Shared Responsibility in International Law seek to provide guidance to judges, practitioners and researchers when confronted with legal questions of shared responsibility of states and international organizations for their contribution to an indivisible injury of third parties. The Guiding Principles identify the conditions of shared responsibility (including questions 1 Amsterdam Center for International Law, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
    [Show full text]
  • Ch 2. Reparations
    220 Chapter II REPARATION FOR INJURY Commentary Chapter II deals with the forms of reparation for injury, spelling out in further detail the general principle stated in article 31, and in particular seeking to establish more clearly the relations between the different forms of reparation, viz restitution, compensation and satisfaction, as well as the role of interest and the question of taking into account any con- tribution to the injury which may have been made by the victim 221 Article 34. Forms of reparation Full reparation for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act shall take the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction, either singly or in combination, in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Commentary (1) Article 34 introduces chapter II by setting out the forms of reparation which separately or in combination will discharge the obligation to make full reparation for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act Since the notion of “injury” and the necessary causal link between the wrongful act and the injury are defined in the statement of the general obligation to make full reparation in article 31,[692] 485 article 34 need do no more than refer to “[f]ull reparation for the injury caused” (2) In the Factory at Chorzów case, the injury was a material one and PCIJ dealt only with two forms of reparation, restitution and compensation [693] 486 In certain cases, satisfac- tion may be called for as an additional form of reparation Thus, full reparation may take the form of restitution, compensation
    [Show full text]
  • Invoking State Responsibility in the Twenty-First Century
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2002 Invoking State Responsibility in the Twenty-First Century Edith Brown Weiss Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/335 96 Am. J. Int'l L. 798-816 (2002) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the International Law Commons GEORGETOWN LAW Faculty Publications April 2010 Invoking State Responsibility in the Twenty-First Century 96 Am. J. Int’l L. 798-816 (2002) Edith Brown Weiss Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center [email protected] This paper can be downloaded without charge from: Scholarly Commons: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/335/ Posted with permission of the author INVOKING STATE RESPONSIBILIlY IN THE TwENlY-FIRST CENTURY By Edith Brown Weiss· At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the international community is globalizing, integrating, and fragmenting, all at the same time. States continue to be central, but many other actors have also become important: international organizations, nongovernmental organizations, corporations, ad hoc transnational groups both legitimate and illicit, and in­ dividuals. For the year 2000, the Yearbook ofInternational Organizations reports that there were 922 international intergovernmental organizations and 9988 international nongovernmen­ tal organizations.! If organizations associated with multilateral treaty agreements, bilateral government organizations, other international bodies (including religious and secular insti­ tutes), and internationally oriented national organizations are included, the number ofinter­ national organizations reaches nearly thirty thousand.2 Another twenty-four thousand are listed as inactive or unconfirmed.3 Corporations that produce globally are similarly numer­ ous.
    [Show full text]
  • State Responsibility and the Duty of the Shipmaster to Render Assistance at Sea
    Chapter 6 State Responsibility and the Duty of the Shipmaster to Render Assistance at Sea 6.1 Introduction This chapter examines the extent to which, if any, violations of international obligations committed by the shipmaster in rescue operations attract interna- tional State responsibility. The first part of the chapter reviews the doctrine of State responsibility. This is followed by an analysis of the principles governing the attribution of State responsibility, with a focus on the doctrine of due dili- gence as a legal mechanism applied to gauge State responsibility. The results of this analysis are applied to acts or omissions of the shipmaster in rescue operations. 6.2 Doctrine of State Responsibility under International Law unclos does not provide any specific rules on the issue of the shipmaster engaging State responsibility in rescue operations. It is therefore necessary to examine the rules of general international law, which are reflected in the ilc’s Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts.1 Although the arsiwa does not constitute a legally binding instru- ment, it is considered an authoritative statement on the law of international responsibility,2 as recognised in international judgments.3 Under the arsiwa , 1 ilc, ‘Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts’, UN Doc.A/56/10, Ch iv.E.1. (arsiwa). 2 Berglind Halldórsdóttir Birkland, ‘Reining in Non-State Actors: State Responsibility and At- tribution in Cases of Genocide’ (2009) 84 NYULRev 1623, 1627; Fernando Lusa Bordin, ‘Reflec- tions of Customary Law: The Authority of Codification Conventions and ilc Draft Articles in International Law’ (2014) 63 iclq 535, 536, 538.
    [Show full text]
  • The International Law of State Responsibility: Revolution Or Evolution?
    Michigan Journal of International Law Volume 11 Issue 1 1989 The International Law of State Responsibility: Revolution or Evolution? Pierre-Marie Dupuy Universitè de Droit d'Economie et de Science Sociale de Paris Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil Part of the Conflict of Laws Commons, International Law Commons, and the Public Law and Legal Theory Commons Recommended Citation Pierre-Marie Dupuy, The International Law of State Responsibility: Revolution or Evolution?, 11 MICH. J. INT'L L. 105 (1989). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol11/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Journal of International Law at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF STATE RESPONSIBILITY: REVOLUTION OR EVOLUTION? Pierre-MarieDupuy * The time seems to have come to reassess the international law of state responsibility. Several questions are presented by current devel- opments in the theory and practice of attributing international legal responsibility to a sovereign state. What are the legal basis and the legal consequences of state responsibility? Which states have a legal interest in attributing state responsibility? Finally, has the structural function of international responsibility inside the international legal system evolved during the last decade?1 Until a few years ago, asking such questions would have only re- vealed very deep gaps in the legal knowledge of the questioner.
    [Show full text]
  • State Responsibility for Wrongful Conduct
    chapter 10 State Responsibility for Wrongful Conduct 10.1 For Whose Conduct does the State Bear Responsibility? The identification of State actors for the purposes of State responsibility are well developed in articles four to ten of the ilc Articles on State Responsibility, widely accepted as constituting customary international law.1 It is by now well established that States do not bear general responsibility for every individual entity under their jurisdiction but only for the conduct of limited types of enti- ties. Indeed, this principle can be traced through centuries of legal thought.2 The entities for which States bear responsibility are: • organs of the State, almost always defined as such under municipal law and only otherwise in ‘exceptional circumstances’ based on a test of complete dependence3; • non-State entities exercising elements of governmental authority4; • organs of one State at the disposal of (the organ of) another State5; • agents of the State: persons or entities acting on the instructions of or under the effective control of a State organ6; 1 Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001 in Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Fifty-third Session, un gaor, un Doc A/56/10 (2001) (ilc Articles on State Responsibility); Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro) (Merits) [2007] icj Rep 43, paras 173, 385 and 398 (recognising articles 4 and 8 as customary law). 2 Olivier de Frouville, ‘Attribution of Conduct to the State: Private Individuals’ in James Crawford, Alain Pellet and Simon Olleson (eds); Kate Parlett (asst ed), The Law of International Responsibility (Oxford University Press 2010) 257–261 (citing, inter alia, Grotius and Vattel).
    [Show full text]
  • Responsibility in International Law
    Responsibility in International Law Volker Roeben A. von Bogdandy and R. Wolfrum, (eds.), Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Volume 16, 2012, p. 99-158. © 2012 Koninklijke Brill N.V. 100 Max Planck UNYB 16 (2012) I. Introduction II. Responsibility as an Institution of International Law 1. The Idea of International Responsibility 2. Guaranteeing International Responsibility Law III. Responsibility for Sustainable Development 1. Responsibility in the Rio Declaration 2. The Climate Change Regime a. The Common Responsibility of Each State Party: Reflective Responsibility b. Differentiated Responsibilities of States Parties: Standards for Outcomes 3. The Rio Declaration and the Law of the Sea 4. Conclusions IV. Responsibility for the Global Economy 1. Responsibility in the G20 Washington Declaration 2. Designing an Oversight Regime for the Global Financial Mar- kets 3. The G20 and the Responsibility of Third States 4. Conclusions V. Responsibility for Peace and Stability within States 1. Responsibility in the 2005 World Summit Outcome 2. Post-conflict Peace-Building a. Primary Responsibility of Each State Emerging from Con- flict b. The United Nations as Addressee of Accountability of States 3. The “Responsibility to Protect” a. Primary Responsibility of Each State to Protect Civilians from Genocide, War Crimes, Ethnic Cleansing and Crimes against Humanity b. The Responsibility of the United Nations to Guarantee and to Act c. Responsibility of Each State Represented on the Govern- ance of United Nations Organs 4. Conclusions VI. Responsibility as an Institution of International Law: Concluding Reflections Roeben, Responsibility in International Law 101 Abstract International legal materials refer to “common but differentiated re- sponsibility”, the “responsibility to protect”, or the “responsibility for the global economy”.
    [Show full text]
  • Invoking State Responsibility for Aiding the Commission Of
    INVOKING STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR AIDING THE COMMISSION OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMES — AUSTRALIA, THE UNITED STATES AND THE QUESTION OF EAST TIMOR Invoking State Responsibility JESSICA HOWARD* [This paper discusses the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on State Responsibility (‘Draft Articles’), focusing in particular on the International Law Commission’s recent adoption of a compromise position, which abandons the international crimes–delicts distinction. The concept of international crimes can be seen as relatively immature; thus its informing legal principles — norms of jus cogens and obligatio erga omnes — are analysed in order to establish a legal framework for the consideration and classification of wrongful acts. The legal conditions imposing responsibility for assisting in the commission of an internationally wrongful act, provided for in art 16 of the Draft Articles are then considered. The paper then applies the legal framework of responsibility to two case studies, both involving East Timor as the injured State and Indonesia as the state directly responsible. Firstly, Australia’s complicity in the denial of the East Timorese peoples’ right to self-determination through the provision of political assistance to Indonesia is considered. Secondly, an assessment is made of the international responsibility of the United States for the provision of military assistance facilitating Indonesia’s act of aggression against the territory of East Timor. The case studies highlight the deficiencies in the formulation of the Draft Articles through an analysis of their operation in practice, rather than at a purely theoretical level. The paper concludes that while the Draft Articles have the potential to make a valuable contribution to the international legal system, its deficiencies must be addressed.
    [Show full text]
  • The Doctrine of State Responsibility As a Potential Means of Holding Private Actors Accountable for Human Rights
    THE DOCTRINE OF STATE RESPONSIBILITY AS A POTENTIAL MEANS OF HOLDING PRIVATE ACTORS ACCOUNTABLE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS State Responsibility, Private Actors and Human Rights DANWOOD MZIKENGE CHIRWA* [The past few decades have witnessed an increase in the influence of private actors on domestic and international policies concerning the economy, welfare programs, taxation, trade, legislation, labour issues, education, development and other important aspects of life. This period has not only highlighted that the state alone is incapable of guaranteeing the protection of human rights, but also that human rights are prone to violations by many actors other than the state. These revelations have heightened the challenge to the conventional view that human rights obligations bind only the state but not private actors. This article argues that the doctrine of state responsibility represents an under-utilised device for ensuring that private actors respect human rights including economic, social and cultural rights. International, regional and domestic human rights jurisprudence is investigated in order to define the precise circumstances in which state responsibility might be incurred for violations of human rights committed by non-state actors. It is also argued, considering the potential obstacles to its efficacy, that recourse to the doctrine of state responsibility should be considered as a complementary mechanism to other methods of holding non-state actors responsible for human rights violations.] CONTENTS I Introduction II The General Rules of
    [Show full text]
  • Sixth Committee 74Th Session of the General Assembly Agenda Item N
    PERMANENT MISSION OF ITALY TO THE UNITED NATIONS Sixth Committee 74th Session of the General Assembly Agenda item n. 79 Report of the International Law Commission (2019) Third Cluster Statement of Italy Delivered by Mr. Enrico Milano Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Chairman of the International Law Commission for his presentation of the third part of the ILC Report. In our intervention today, we will briefly address the two topics: “Succession of States in respect of State Responsibility”; and “General Principles of Law”. Mr Chairman, I will first address the topic of the “Succession of States in respect of State Responsibility”. Italy wishes to congratulate the ILC, its Drafting Committee and the Special Rapporteur, Ms. Pavel Sturma, for the progress made during the latest session of work. Italy shares the view already expressed by other delegations that the subject- matter is characterized by the paucity and sparsity of State practice and that, to that extent, it may be not ready yet for codification. At the same time, an exercise of progressive development may be useful in indicating to States normative parameters for context-based, mutually agreed www.italyun.esteri.it @ItalyUN_NY solutions, which are the only realistic solutions to matters of State succession, including in respect of State responsibility. Italy is of the view that in this exercise, as in all exercises undertaken by the ILC, the distinction between those provisions representing existing general international law and those provisions, which seek to progressively develop international law, should be clearly signaled. Italy shares the approach adopted by the Special Rapporteur and by the ILC to consider State practice in different categories of State succession, in order to identify emerging rules regulating State succession in matters of State responsibility, and to fully take into account the views expressed by States within the Sixth Committee.
    [Show full text]
  • Cuba Statement (Cluster III) -- Report of the ILC on the Work of Its Seventy
    PERMANENT MISSION OF CUBA TO THE UNITED NATIONS 315 Lexington Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10016(212) 689-7215, FAX (212)689-9073 STATEMENT BY THE DELEGATION OF CUBA UNDER ITEM "THE SUCCESSION OF STATES IN RESPECT OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE" AND "GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW"- CLUSTER III New York, November 2019 Mr. Chairman, The question of the succession of States in respect of State responsibiiity is of utmost importance for the continuity of the work on the progressive codification of International Law. In this regard, we appreciate the preparation of the Reports of the Special Rapporteur on the topic and commend the work carried out by the international Law Commission in submitting a draft articles on the Succession of States in respect of State responsibility". Cuba considers that the problems of State responsibility in cases of succession should be assessed in the light of the articles already codified by the International Law Commission relating to the State responsibility for internationally wrongful acts. We understand that there is a scantiness of State practice on the succession of States in respect of State responsibility. In this connection, it would seem that the available practice of States is heterogeneous, context-dependent and marked by political interests: all of which makes it difficult to establish a position from the legal perspective. We emphasize that neither would it seem that there are rulings of national and international courts and tribunals that contribute decisively to the development of the topic. Mr. Chairman, Cuba attaches great importance to the establishment of a general underlying rule applicable to the succession of States in respect of the State responsibility, according to which the latter is not automatically transferred to the successor State, except in certain circumstances.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries 2001
    Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries 2001 Text adopted by the International Law Commission at its fifty-third session, in 2001, and submitted to the General Assembly as a part of the Commission’s report covering the work of that session (A/56/10). The report, which also contains commentaries on the draft articles, appears in the Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, vol. II, Part Two, as corrected. Copyright © United Nations 2008 State responsibility 31 RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES FOR another State, and the circumstances in which the right to INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACTS invoke responsibility may be lost; (h) Laying down the conditions under which a State General commentary may be entitled to respond to a breach of an international obligation by taking countermeasures designed to ensure (1) These articles seek to formulate, by way of codifi- the fulfilment of the obligations of the responsible State cation and progressive development, the basic rules of under these articles. international law concerning the responsibility of States for their internationally wrongful acts. The emphasis is This is the province of the secondary rules of State on the secondary rules of State responsibility: that is to responsibility. say, the general conditions under international law for the State to be considered responsible for wrongful actions or (4) A number of matters do not fall within the scope of omissions, and the legal consequences which flow there- State responsibility as dealt with in the present articles: from. The articles do not attempt to define the content of the international obligations, the breach of which gives (a) As already noted, it is not the function of the arti- rise to responsibility.
    [Show full text]