Academic literature on the topic 'Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Journal articles on the topic "Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts"
1
Abdullah, Dawan Mohammed Jaza. "The Nature of International Responsibility of States in the Contemporary World Arena." Journal of University of Human Development 5, no. 4 (October 17, 2019): 50. http://dx.doi.org/10.21928/juhd.v5n4y2019.pp50-59.
Full textAbstract:
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.
2
Hafner, Gerhard. "THE DRAFT ARTICLES ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES FOR INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACTS." Austrian Review of International and European Law Online 5, no. 1 (2002): 189–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157365100x00066.
Full text
3
Reinisch, August. "Aid or Assistance and Direction and Control between states and International Organizations in the Commission of Internationally Wrongful Acts." International Organizations Law Review 7, no. 1 (2010): 63–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157237310x523821.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractQuestions concerning the international responsibility of international organizations and/or their member States for internationally wrongful acts primarily raise important issues of attribution. In addition, a concurrent responsibility may arise from situations where international organizations aid or assist or direct and control the acts of States or other international organizations. This contribution intends to highlight some problems that stem from the fact that the current formulations of Articles 13 and 14 of the ILC Draft Articles on responsibility of international organizations are largely based on the corresponding provisions of the 2001 ILC Articles on State responsibility.
4
Bodansky, Daniel, and John R. Crook. "Introduction and Overview." American Journal of International Law 96, no. 4 (October 2002): 773–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3070677.
Full textAbstract:
In August 2001, the International Law Commission (ILC) adopted its “Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts,” bringing to completion one of the Commission’s longest running and most controversial studies. On December 12, 2001, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 56/83, which “commend [ed the articles] to the attention of Governments without prejudice to the question of their future adoption or other appropriate action.”
5
Omerović, Enis. "Damage in International Law: Precondition For State and International Organization Responsibility?" Društvene i humanističke studije (Online) 6, no. 3(16) (July 27, 2021): 381–408. http://dx.doi.org/10.51558/2490-3647.2021.6.3.381.
Full textAbstract:
The first chapter of the paper elaborates the question of whether one of the constitutive elements of the internationally wrongful act and a precondition for responsibility could be embodied in an existence of damage that has to be inflicted upon participants with international legal personality. In this regards legal doctrine, the arbitral awards, international judgments as well as the works of the UN International Law Commission will be examined, particularly the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts and the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organisations from 2001 and 2011, respectively. An interesting question could be raised concerning the terms used in Law on Responsibility and that is whether there is a difference between damage, injury, and unlawful consequence. Punitive or penal damage and its application in Law on Responsibility will be further assessed. The author will begin its research with the definition of punitive damage, and will further take into consideration international legal doctrine, international arbitral awards, judicial decisions of international courts, decisions of various claims commissions as well as norms of general international law in supporting his hypothesis that international law does not entail reparations for punitive damages. One of the aims of this paper is to indicate the question of whether the existence of punitive damages in international law, if any, be linked to a legal nature of State and international organization responsibility, in the sense that application of punitive damages in international law would support the thesis on the very existence of criminal responsibility of the named subjects of international law? It is interesting to note that the criminal responsibility of states has been abandoned by the removal of Article 19 in the final Draft Articles on Responsibility of States.
6
Ryngaert, Cedric. "THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ APPROACH TO THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MEMBER STATES IN CONNECTION WITH ACTS OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS." International and Comparative Law Quarterly 60, no. 4 (October 2011): 997–1016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0020589311000467.
Full textAbstract:
It is generally considered that an international organization (‘IO’) has an international legal personality which is distinct from that of its Member States, as a result of which the IO itself, rather than the Member States, is to be held responsible for the IO's internationally wrongful acts.1 It appears to be an accepted principle that Member States cannot generally be held liable for the acts of IOs by virtue of their membership of an IO alone. This view can be found in a 1996 resolution of the Institut de Droit International, which provides that ‘there is no general rule of international law whereby States members are, due solely to their membership, liable, concurrently or subsidiarily, for the obligations of an international organization of which they are members.’2 This is echoed in the International Law Commission's (‘ILC’) Commentary to article 62 of the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (‘ILC DARIO’): ‘It is clear that … membership does not as such entail for member States international responsibility when the organization commits an internationally wrongful act’.3 The ILC holds the view that only in the case of an intervening act by a Member State that influences the commission of a wrongful act by the IO (aid and assistance, direction and control, coercion, avoidance of compliance, acceptance) could the Member State be held responsible.4
7
Wittich, Stephan. "The International Law Commission's Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts Adopted on Second Reading." Leiden Journal of International Law 15, no. 4 (December 2002): 891–919. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0922156502000390.
Full textAbstract:
In 2001 the International Law Commission finally adopted on second reading the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts and the commentaries thereto, thereby successfully concluding almost half a century of work on the topic by the ILC. Subsequent to the adoption, the General Assembly welcomed the conclusion of the work of the ILC. This article highlights the main changes made during the second reading 1998–2001, among them the issue of international crimes, the concept of injured state and countermeasures. While the 59 articles are the result of compromise, they undoubtedly are a major achievement in one of the most important and most sensitive areas of international law. Ultimately they may be a useful tool to promote the enforcement of community interests in the international legal system.
8
Капустин, Анатолий, and Anatoliy Kapustin. "CONTENT OF INTERNATIONAL LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY IN WTO LAW: THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND APPROACHES." Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law 1, no. 6 (February 7, 2016): 0. http://dx.doi.org/10.12737/17173.
Full textAbstract:
The present article discusses the main features of the content of international legal responsibility of the law of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Analysis of the concept of “content” of international legal responsibility is based on the Draft articles on responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts, prepared by the UN International Law Commission in 2001, as well as the differences in the conceptual underpinnings of the responsibility, which is held on the various speakers’ issue. The author shares the view that the specificity of the institute of responsibility in WTO law in comparison with the general international law (Draft of UN International Law Commission), can be explained in terms of the fact that WTO law serves a lex specialis in relation to general international law. Review and comparison of the provisions of the Draft of UN International Law Commission and the Dispute Settlement Understanding of the WTO has allowed to conclude that the philosophy of the basic principles of the content of the international responsibility in these documents are very close to or even in the ground is the same. The article investigated the basic concept of a “violation of obligations” in WTO law and obligations of the members of the organization to terminate the offense. It is concluded that in spite of the individual features of the implementation requirements to provide “assurances and guarantees” prohibiting further violations of the WTO agreements, in general, WTO law ensures compliance with the obligation to cease the wrongful conduct.
9
Keshner, M. V. "Development of the concept of state responsibility in succession situations in the light of draft articles of the UN international law commission." Moscow Journal of International Law, no. 4 (March 23, 2020): 114–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.24833/0869-0049-2019-4-114-132.
Full textAbstract:
INTRODUCTION. The article considers the concept of a succession of states with regard to the responsibility of states, which has become the subject of discussion by the UN International Law Commission and the preparation of the relevant draft articles. The author studies the methodology of considering the topic with a view to substantiating the idea of transferability of rights and obligations in the context of the responsibility of states, which is to a certain extent contradictory, due to the limited practice of states in this area. In this regard, questions are raised as to whether the new project can solve the problem of fill ing the gap between the regimes of state succession and state responsibility.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The author made a theoretical and empirical analysis of the main sources of international law, the materials of the work of the UN International Law Commission: reports of the special reporter on the succession of states regarding state responsibility, comments and observations of states, state practice, and the practice of international courts on the subject matter. Methodological foundation of research is composed by general scientific (analysis method, synthesis method, systems approach) and private-law methods of obtaining knowledge (formal legal, comparative legal).RESEARCH RESULTS. Based on the study, it is argued that the key ILC approach – the general rule of the lack of succession in respect of international responsibility is not absolute in nature, also contains potentially conflicting aspects. The author comes to the conclusion that the concept of transferability of rights and obligations in the context of state responsibility is to a certain extent contradictory, due to the limited practice of states in this area.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. This article highlights a number of problematic aspects of the draft articles provisionally adopted by the Drafting Committee of the United Nations International Law Commission, as well as the proposed new draft articles in the regulation of specific categories of succession of States in respect of the obligations arising from responsibility. The author concludes that the norms formulated under the theme should take into account the complex legal regime of state responsibility for internationally wrongful acts, which differs from other regimes of succession.
10
Sarvarian, Arman. "THE OSSIFIED DEBATE ON A UN CONVENTION ON STATE RESPONSIBILITY." International and Comparative Law Quarterly 70, no. 3 (June 30, 2021): 769–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s002058932100018x.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis article examines the developments on future action concerning the 2001 ILC Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly. It reviews the past 20 years, from the presentation of the final draft at the 56th session in 2001, to the most recent debate at the 74th session in 2019. In scrutinising the procedural actions taken over the relevant period, it argues that the ARSIWA have ossified in the Sixth Committee even as they have continued to gain authority through application in practice. This ossification is due not only to divisions amongst delegations on future action but also to disagreements on a select number of provisions. Whilst these substantive issues have narrowed, debate is made fruitless by entrenched positions that do not take account of the application of the ARSIWA in practice.
Dissertations / Theses on the topic "Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts"
1
Olovson, Natali. "Hacking for the State? : The Use of Private Persons in Cyber Attacks and State Responsibility." Thesis, Försvarshögskolan, 2020. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:fhs:diva-10218.
Full textAbstract:
While there are many examples to turn to regarding the thriving phenomenon of private persons being exploited to launch cyber attacks on behalf of states, this thesis will direct it’s attention onto two special cases. Russia has been accused of being the state actor behind the cyber attacks on Estonia in 2007 and Georgia in 2008. The cases are chosen as Estonia have been recognised as the first coordinated cyber attack on a foreign country, and Georgia being the first case were cyber attacks have been utilised in synchronisation with military action. The purpose of the thesis is to analyse the facts of each case in relation to the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (DARSIWA). The analysis will work through article 4, article 5, article 8 and article 11. The main question is how Russia may be hold as legally responsible under international law for the private conduct of ’patriotic’ hackers, the Nashi Youth Group and the Russian Business Network. The thesis concludes that while the circumstances of each case highly indicate state-involvement, this cannot be proven under the respective criterias of the articles and Russia does therefore not bear legal responsibility.
2
Cruz, Edneyse Coelho do Nascimento da. "O projeto de artigos da CDI sobre a responsabilidade internacional dos estados por factos ilícitos: mero projeto?" Master's thesis, 2020. http://hdl.handle.net/10316/92715.
Full textAbstract:
Dissertação de Mestrado em Direito apresentada à Faculdade de DireitoEm toda a sociedade politicamente organizada vigoram dois tipos de regras jurídicas – aquelas que orientam a conduta dos seus sujeitos e aquelas que preveem as consequências das condutas desviantes, por assim dizer, normas primárias e secundárias. A comunidade internacional também se desenvolveu a partir desta lógica, com a particularidade de o Direito Internacional submeter aos seus destinatários a criação e implementação dessas regras. Perante tal cenário, seria difícil conceber que entidades, que se pretendem acima de tudo soberanas, a gozar por esta via dos direitos de independência, igualdade, exclusividade e plenitude, pudessem submeter-se ao Direito e ver a sua liberdade de ação por ele limitada. Mas a prática internacional tem demonstrado precisamente o contrário, isto é, tem caminhado no sentido de conceber a relação de responsabilidade internacional como o meio necessário de promoção do estatuto igualitário dos membros da comunidade internacional. A presente dissertação propõe a análise do Projeto de Artigos da Comissão de Direito Internacional sobre a Responsabilidade Internacional do Estado por factos ilícitos, aprovado em 2001 pela Assembleia Geral da Organização das Nações Unidas. Neste âmbito, o objetivo primordial será indagar se o referido projeto tem sido capaz de dar resposta às necessidades da comunidade internacional hodierna, tendo em conta a sua natureza jurídica. O exercício reflexivo partirá da análise doutrinal e jurisprudencial de aspetos prementes do Direito Internacional, mormente as condições que sindicam o chamamento dos Estados soberanos à responsabilidade civil internacional pelos demais Estados.Palavras-chave: ; ; ; .
Every political society has two types of legal rules – those that provide guidance for the conduct of their subjects and those that predict the consequences of the deviating conducts, so to speak, primary and secondary rules. The international community has also developed from this logic, except that the international law submits the creation and implementation of those rules to its addressees. Faced with such a scenario, it would be difficult to conceive that entities, which claim to be sovereign above all, in full enjoyment of the rights of independence, equality, exclusivity and plenitude, could submit themselves to the Law and see their freedom of action limited by it. But international practice has shown precisely the opposite, in other words, it has moved towards conceiving the relationship of international responsibility as the necessary means of promoting the equal status of the members of the international community. The present dissertation proposes the analysis of the International Law Commission Draft Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts approved in 2001 by the United Nations General Assembly. In this context, the main goal is to inquire if the Draft Articles has been able to respond to today’s international community needs considering its legal form. It starts with a doctrinal and case law analysis of pressing aspects of international law such as the conditions from which international responsibility of States. Keywords: international responsibility; wrongful acts of states; draft articles, codification.
Books on the topic "Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts"
1
Otto, Spijkers. 6 Responsibility, 6.9 Nuhanović v Netherlands , Judgment, BZ9225, and Mustafić v Netherlands , Judgment, BZ9228, Supreme Court of The Netherlands, 6 September 2013. Oxford University Press, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/law/9780198743620.003.0037.
Full textAbstract:
The Nuhanović and Mustafić cases deal with the legal responsibility of the Netherlands for acts committed by a battalion of Dutch soldiers, placed at the disposal of the United Nations (UN) to take part in a peacekeeping mission. In its judgment, the Dutch Supreme Court made extensive use of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARS), and the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (DARIO) of the International Law Commission (ILC). While the question of attribution is decided on the basis of international law, the wrongfulness of the conduct of the Dutch peacekeepers is assessed mainly on the basis of local domestic (Bosnia-Herzegovina) private law. Nonetheless, as an obiter dictum, the Supreme Court also had something interesting to say about the extraterritorial application of international human rights law in a case such as this one.
2
Jeswald W, Salacuse. 16 The Consequences of Treaty Violations. Oxford University Press, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/law/9780198703976.003.0016.
Full textAbstract:
This chapter examines the consequences of treaty violations for states and the remedies available to an investment when a host state fails to provide the treatment it has promised. It first considers the fact that most investment treaties do not specifically state the consequences of a state’s breach of treaty provisions. However, on issues not specifically covered by treaty, all investment treaties authorize tribunals to apply customary international law in making decisions, including determining compensation for investments affected by the breach of treaty provisions. The chapter then discusses the application of customary international law on state responsibility and investment treaty remedies in general, citing the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in particular. Finally there is a discussion of valuation techniques used to determine the amount of damages.due to injured investors.
3
Cedric, Ryngaert. 6 Responsibility, 6.8 Mukeshimana - Nguilinzira and ors. v Belgium and ors. , Brussels Court of First Instance, ILDC 1604 (BE 2010), 8 December 2010. Oxford University Press, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/law/9780198743620.003.0036.
Full textAbstract:
In Mukeshimana, the Brussels Court of First Instance held that a decision to evacuate a compound in Rwanda, occupied by the Belgian military in the framework of an UN peace operation, was attributable to Belgium, and could engage Belgium’s responsibility. After the evacuation, Interahamwe militia killed most persons who had sought refuge on the compound. The Court fails to provide proper conceptual arguments for such attribution, limiting itself to stating that the case should be distinguished from the Behrami decision of the European Court of Human Rights. Arguably, Mukeshimana should have been based on the effective control standard as laid down in art. 7 of the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations for Internationally Wrongful Acts, and as applied by Dutch courts in the Srebrenica litigation against the Dutch State.
4
Borzu, Sabahi. 3 Modern Reparation Doctrine in International Law and Investment Treaty Arbitration. Oxford University Press, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199601189.003.0003.
Full textAbstract:
This chapter traces the doctrine of reparation in contemporary international law and, in particular, in investment treaty arbitration. It discusses in detail the two significant developments which mark the evolution of the doctrine of reparation during the 20th century: the decision of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Factory at Chorzów case, and the work of the International Law Commission (ILC) on the law governing the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, which culminated in draft articles adopted by the UN General Assembly and recommended to States. It examines the application in investment arbitration of the principles of reparation found in these two sources, and discusses certain fundamental concepts relating to reparation and their pertinence to the particular nature of investment treaty arbitration, particularly the concept of the ‘hypothetical position’.
5
de Stefano, Carlo. Attribution in International Law and Arbitration. Oxford University Press, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198844648.001.0001.
Full textAbstract:
This book aims to clarify, critically discuss, and propose solutions for the application of international rules of attribution of conduct to States under public international law and international investment law. In a nutshell, the issue is that of the applicability of the principles of ‘attribution’ to States of acts that are in breach of their obligations under international custom or international treaties, with a focus on their commitments pertaining to the treatment of foreign investors under international investment agreements (IIAs), mostly bilateral investment treaties (BITs), and their application by arbitral tribunals. Of special interest and the object of extensive debate within this context is the responsibility of States when the alleged breach has been committed not by the State itself through its organs, but by entities which have separate legal personality under domestic law, which, nevertheless, may engage the responsibility of the State under international law, such as State-owned enterprises (SOEs). The book addresses the relevant issues in a systematic way, approaching them first in general terms on the basis of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) on attribution, finalized by the International Law Commission (ILC) in 2001, and proceeding thereafter to the specifics of international investment law, based on an accurate examination of the law, practice, and case law, with full knowledge and consideration of the academic debate. To this extent, the book submits that the general principles on attribution are fully applicable within international investment law, which is not a closed system governed by different principles, and that tribunals have to apply them as they generally do.
6
Ferstman, Carla. The Direct Responsibility of Organization Employees, Contractors, and Troop Contingents. Oxford University Press, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198808442.003.0008.
Full textAbstract:
Organization employees, experts on mission, contractors, and troop contingents may have direct responsibility for wrongful acts. This is stressed in the commentary to Article 66 of the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations, which underscores that if the conduct of an individual is attributed to an international organization or a State, this does not exempt that person from the individual criminal responsibility that he or she may incur for his or her conduct. The chapter explores the challenges to pursue civil and criminal remedies against individuals and the role played by international organizations to help secure that responsibility.
7
Ferstman, Carla. International Organizations and the Fight for Accountability. Oxford University Press, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198808442.001.0001.
Full textAbstract:
This book is concerned with reparation for human rights and international humanitarian law breaches committed by or attributed to international organizations. These breaches constitute internationally wrongful acts which, according to the International Law Commission’s Draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations, give rise to an obligation on the offending organization to afford reparation. However, in practice, the obligation to afford reparation is unimplemented. The book explores why this is. It considers how the law of responsibility intersects with the specialized regimes of human rights and international humanitarian law and, particularly, their application to remedies and reparation owed to individuals. It reviews the various gaps in the law and the limitations of existing redress mechanisms. The book analyses the cogency of the arguments and rationales that have been used by international organizations to limit their liability and the scope and functioning of redress mechanisms, included by the resort to lex specialis principles. It is postulated that the standards of reparation must be drawn from the nature of the breach and the resulting harms and not by who is responsible for the breach. In this respect the book is an exercise in the progressive development of the law. Having determined that existing redress mechanisms cannot afford adequate or effective remedies and reparation, the book explores how to move towards a model that achieves greater compliance.
Book chapters on the topic "Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts"
1
Walter, Christian, Silja Vöneky, Volker Röben, and Frank Schorkopf. "Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001)." In Terrorism as a Challenge for National and International Law: Security versus Liberty?, 1465–82. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18896-1_61.
Full text
2
de Stefano, Carlo. "The Meaning of Attribution." In Attribution in International Law and Arbitration, 5–26. Oxford University Press, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198844648.003.0002.
Full textAbstract:
Chapter I offers a reconstruction of the definition of attribution for the purposes of State responsibility for internationally wrongful acts, drawing from the history and travaux of the process of codification of the international law of State responsibility that resulted in the adoption by the International Law Commission in 2001 of the text of the ARSIWA (Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts). This part emphasizes the preliminary operation and role of rules of attributability in comparison to the other ‘secondary’ rules of international law. In addition, it discusses the threshold principle of the supremacy of international law in order to convey the autonomous dimension of attributability issues in international law vis-à-vis municipal law. Last, it illustrates the distinction between issues of attribution, on the one hand, and issues of jurisdiction and of State immunity, on the other.
3
Patrizia, Vigni. "Part III General International Law, Ch.26 Cultural Heritage and State Responsibility." In The Oxford Handbook of International Cultural Heritage Law. Oxford University Press, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/law/9780198859871.003.0026.
Full textAbstract:
This chapter determines to what extent international norms on State responsibility may be applied in cases of the violation of international obligations concerning cultural heritage. It determines to which State wrongful behaviour may be attributed; second, which breaches of law consist in wrongful acts; third, whether such responsibility may be precluded; fourth, what consequences arise from the recognition of State responsibility including which persons are entitled to invoke such responsibility. Although cultural heritage treaties do not provide for a distinctive responsibility regime, the Draft Articles on State Responsibility are applicable to wrongful acts arising from the breach of the obligations established by these treaties. Moreover, the breach of the norms relating to cultural heritage, which have been recognized as part of customary international law, entails the application of general principles on State responsibility, including those contained in the Draft Articles. The chapter then considers the principle of ‘responsibility to protect’.
4
"Text of the articles." In Materials on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 353–64. United Nations, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.18356/8f02282f-en.
Full text
5
Crawford, James. "25. The conditions for international responsibility." In Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law, 523–51. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198737445.003.0025.
Full textAbstract:
This chapter discusses the basis and character of state responsibility, attribution to the state, breach of an international obligation, and circumstances precluding wrongfulness. This chapter focuses on the articulation of the law of responsibility through the ILC’s Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts.
6
Henriksen, Anders. "7. State responsibility." In International Law. Oxford University Press, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198753018.003.0007.
Full textAbstract:
This chapter discusses the international law of responsibility as primarily reflected in the 2001 International Law Commission's (ILC) Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. It opens in Section 7.2 with an overview of some of the core principles and elements of state responsibility for wrongful acts. Section 7.3 discusses the issue of state attribution before Section 7.4 examines the various circumstances that may preclude the wrongfulness of conduct otherwise in violation of a (primary) legal obligation. Section 7.5 looks into the consequences of state responsibility while Section 7.6 discusses who may be entitled to invoke state responsibility. Section 7.7 provides a brief overview of the responsibility of international organizations.
7
Henriksen, Anders. "7. State responsibility." In International Law, 120–42. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198828723.003.0007.
Full textAbstract:
This chapter discusses the international law of responsibility as primarily reflected in the 2001 International Law Commission’s Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. It opens in Section 7.2 with an overview of some of the core principles and elements of state responsibility for wrongful acts. Section 7.3 discusses the issue of state attribution before Section 7.4 examines joint and collective responsibility. Section 7.5 discusses the various circumstances that may preclude the wrongfulness of conduct otherwise in violation of a (primary) legal obligation. Section 7.6 looks into the consequences of state responsibility while Section 7.7 discusses who may be entitled to invoke state responsibility. Section 7.8 examines the rules on diplomatic protection and Section 7.9 provides a brief overview of the responsibility of international organizations.
8
Henriksen, Anders. "7. State responsibility." In International Law, 116–38. Oxford University Press, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198869399.003.0007.
Full textAbstract:
This chapter discusses the international law of responsibility as primarily reflected in the 2001 International Law Commission’s Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. It opens in Section 7.2 with an overview of some of the core principles and elements of state responsibility for wrongful acts. Section 7.3 discusses the issue of state attribution before Section 7.4 examines joint and collective responsibility. Section 7.5 discusses the various circumstances that may preclude the wrongfulness of conduct otherwise in violation of a (primary) legal obligation. Section 7.6 looks into the consequences of state responsibility while Section 7.7 discusses who may be entitled to invoke state responsibility. Section 7.8 examines the rules on diplomatic protection and Section 7.9 provides a brief overview of the responsibility of international organizations.
9
Hernández, Gleider. "13. Enforcement short of force." In International Law, 323–45. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198748830.003.0013.
Full textAbstract:
This chapter focuses on enforcement short of force in international law, particularly studying countermeasures, the primary measures available to States in order to induce compliance of wrongdoers with their international obligations. In the last decades, there has been the codification and attempted development by the ILC, in the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) of an international regime regulating countermeasures. To characterize an act as a ‘countermeasure’ is to concede its illegality in normal circumstances: by definition, countermeasures are acts which are ‘intrinsically unlawful, but are justified by the alleged initial failing to which they were a response’. Countermeasures may not in any case involve the use of armed force. The chapter also discusses the category of reprisals, the so-called ‘acts of retorsion’, and sanctions.
10
Kaj, Hobér. "5 Rules of Attribution." In The Energy Charter Treaty. Oxford University Press, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/law/9780199660995.003.0005.
Full textAbstract:
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.