国际法Chapter 7.ppt

CHAPTER 7STATE RESPONSIBILITY 7.1 THE WORK OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION Distinction between primary and secondary obligations. - primary = actual or substantive obligations - secondary = consequence of breach of primary obligatioins Structure of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 7.2 GENERAL THEORY OF RESPONSIBILITY General Principles A. Core principles of the law of State B. Older versions of Articles included a distinction between crimes and delicts. Basis of Responsibility A. A distinction is sometimes drawn between subjective and objective responsibility. B. This distinction is not reflected in the Articles. Attribution of conduct to a State 1. Acts of the State 2. Acts of Private Persons 3. Acts of Insurgents 4. Acts of International Organizations Adoption of conduct by a State Circumstances Precluding Wrongfulness A. In certain narrowly defined circumstances, a State alleged to have breached an international obligation can raise certain defences or justifications . B. Article 26 implies (though it doesn’t specifically state) that these justifications/defences could not be invoked with regard to an obligation arising out of a jus cogens norm (a peremptory norm of general international law). C. The fact that a State can invoke a circumstance precluding wrongfulness does not affect: a. The obligation to comply with the obligation if and to the extent that the circumstance precluding wrongfulness no longer exists. [27(a)] b. The possibility of providing compensation for any material loss caused by the act in question. Consequences of International Responsibility A. Consequences of a breach of an international obligation 1. Responsible State must cease conduct that constitutes breach if it is continuing, and offer assurances and guarantees of non-repetition. [30] 2. Responsible State is under an obligation to make full reparation for injury caused by the internationally wrongful act. [31] - c