Unit 8 State Responsibility.pptx

8/17/2019 Unit 8 State Responsibility.pptx

1/61

Unit 8: StateResponsibility

Miss E. Siang’andu


2/61

State Responsibility (SR) - General rules of I

!"i#" deter$ine !"et"er a state is in brea#"

of its international obligation. %ro&ides t"at !"en one state #o$$its an

internationally unla!ful a#t against anot"erstate

International responsibility is establis"edbet!een t"e t!o

SR #on#erns t"e liability of one state toanot"er.

Introdu#tion


3/61

Chorzow Factory Case %'I. Ser. . no *+:

It is a principle of international lawand an even greater conception oflaw that any breach of anengagement involves an obligation

to make reparations

General %rin#iple


4/61

rt * , rongful a#ts by a state

entails responsibility rt , 'o$$ission of Internationally

!rongful a#ts (any state)

rt / , '"ara#terisation of an a#t asan internationally !rongful a#t0

go&erned by international la!.

1"e 22* International a! 'o$$ission 3raft (I')rti#les on Responsibility of States for Internationally

rongful #ts


5/61

3ebate about responsibility of states for

unla!ful a#ts or o$issions

3oes it re4uire an ele$ent of fault 5r !"et"er liability is stri#t6

7ault


6/61

I' 3raft arti#les pro&ide no assistan#e in t"e

$atter

t"ere are a nu$ber of #on9i#tingaut"orities.

ro!nlie argues t"at t"e nature of liability !illdepend on t"e pre#ise nature of t"e parti#ular

obligation 1"ere is ob;e#ti&e and sub;e#ti&e responsibility

&ie!s


7/61

$ost popular &ie!

n ob;e#ti&e test s"ould be applied toa#tions of state.

%ro&ided t"at t"e a#ts #o$plained of #anbe attributed to t"e state t"en it !ill beliable ,

If t"ose a#ts #onstitute a brea#" of Iregardless of any 4uestions of fault orintention.

5b;e#ti&e Responsibility


8/61

Most #ited e


9/61

Cuestions t"at #o$$ission "ad to #onsider

!as !"et"er Mei;i relied on t"e 5b;e#ti&e Responsibility of

t"e state !"i#" pro&ides A state is responsible for acts of its

ocials & organs even in the absence ofany fault of its own.

French- Mexican

Claims Commission


10/61

For all acts committed by its ocials or organs

which constitute oences from the point of

view of the law of nations, whether the ocialor organ in question has acted within oreceeded the limits of his competence!!""#provided that$ they must have acted at least

to all appearances as competent ocials ororgans, or they must have the powers ofmethods appropriate to their ocial capacity"

Me


11/61

Most I la!yers argue t"at

responsibility of states depend onso$e ele$ent of fault.

7ault , intention to "ar$ (dolus)

5r negligen#e (calpa)

Sub;e#ti&e Responsibility

E l f b; ti i


12/61

Uprising in t"e ritis" prote#torate of

Sierra eone.

3uring t"e #ourse of t"e uprisingproperty belonging to t"e @o$eMissionary so#iety !as destroyed

a nu$ber of $issionaries !ere ?illed. US broug"t a #lai$ on be"alf of t"e

$issionary so#iety against UF

E


13/61

'lai$ !as dis$issed by tribunal

It is a well established principle of I(that no government can be heldresponsible for the acts of rebelliousbodies of men committed in violation of

its authority, where it is itself guilty ofno breach of good faith, or of nonegligence in suppressing insurrection"


14/61

'ase arose as a result of t"e sin?ing of t"e

$ine of a ritis" !ars"ip in lbanian territorial

!aters. UF broug"t a #lai$ against lbania

Ist argu$ent lbania itself "ad laid t"e $ines.

@o!e&er !as little e&iden#e to support #lai$

nd argu$ent !as t"at $ines #ould not "a&ebeen laid !it"out t"e ?no!ledge of t"elbanian aut"orities.

Corfu Channel Case *AHAJ I'

Rep H


15/61

I' found laying of $ines #ould not "a&e

been a#"ie&ed !it"out t"e ?no!ledgeof t"e lbanian go&ern$ent.

lbania’s failure to !arn ritis" na&al&essels of t"e ris? of $ines ga&e rise to

inter’l responsibility. 1"ere !as a duty on lbania to pay

#o$pensation to UF.

Corfu Channel Case


16/61

I is #on#erned !it" t"e responsibility of inter’l persons

Ma;or inter’l persons in I , states

States are aggregates of indi&iduals I$pli#ation a state #an only a#t t"roug" indi&iduals

Indi&iduals $ay a#t for reasons of t"eir o!n distin#tfro$ intentions of t"e state

@o!e&er it is ne#essary to ?no! !"i#" a#tions of

!"i#" persons $ay be attributed or i$puted to t"estate0

The state is not liable for all private actions ofits citiens.

I$putability


17/61

%rin#iple of responsibility establis"ed t"at

state !ill not be liable to t"e a#ts of pri&ate

indi&iduals !"i#" #annot be attributed to it. 1"is is #onKr$ed by rti#le **3raft rti#les

(supra)

@o!e&er responsibility $ay arise if it #an beestablis"ed t"at t"ere !as a duty to e


18/61

state is liable for a#tions of its agents

ser&ants !"ate&er t"eir parti#ular status.

1"us Rainbo! arrior , uly *A8B 7ren#" se#ret agent san? t"e Greenpea#e s"ip

Rainbo! arrior

7ran#e be#a$e internationally liable

Issue of !"et"er t"is a#t !as ordered at a "ig"or lo! le&el !it"in t"e 7ren#" go&ern$ent !asirrele&ant.

Rainbo! arrior In#ident +HIR H*


19/61

1"e I' 3raft on State Responsibility state t"e

follo!ing prin#iples

rt. H , Responsibility of state organs (*) t"e status of organ of t"e state in internal

#onstitutional la! irrele&ant.

() t"e organ of a state "a&ing t"at status

under internal la! presu$ed to be #apable ofa#ting on be"alf of t"e state.

7urt"er prin#iples of

responsibility


20/61


21/61

Cuestion !"et"er a state !ould be

"eld responsible for a#tion t"at is ultra

&ires

1"us a#ting outside aut"ority.

General rule in I

ust be#ause a state a#ts outside itsaut"ority it does not $ean t"at it !illnot be "eld liable for its a#tions.

iability for ultra &ires a#ts- I


22/61


23/61

Me


24/61

1ribunal re#ognised , a state $ig"t not be

responsible for t"e $ali#ious a#ts of oD#ials

a#ting in a personal #apa#ity ut state !ould be responsible for !rongful

a#ts

'o$$itted by soldiers under t"e #o$$and of

an oD#er Soldiers !ere under i$$ediate super&ision

in presen#e of t"eir #o$$anding oD#er.


25/61

I' #onsidered t"e status of t"e students !"o

initially too? possession of t"e US E$bassy in

1e"ran. I' ist #onsidered

their conduct might be considered as itselfdirectly imputable to the Iranian state only if itwere established that, in fact, on the occasion in

question the militants acted on behalf of the state,having been charged by some competent organ ofthe Iranian state to carry out a speci*c operation"

.ehran /mbassy %ostages Case(US & Iran) *A82J I' /


26/61

@o!e&er *+t" Lo& *A+A yatolla" F"o$eini

issued a de#ree !"i#" de#lared pre$ises of

t"e E$bassy "ostages !ould re$ain as t"ey!ere until US "anded o&er t"e S"a" for trial:

%ostages Case


27/61

.he approval given to these facts by

0yatollah 1homeini 2 other organs of the

Iranian state!""translated continuingoccupation of the /mbassy 2 detention byinto acts of that state" .he militants, authorsof the invasions 2 3ailers of the hostages, had

now become agents of the Iranian state forwhose act the state itself was internationallyresponsible"

Iran supported it t"erefore !as "eld liable

I' #o$$ented:


28/61

#ts of rebels or insurre#tionaries

are not nor$ally attributed to t"estate (see %ome &issionary 'ociety'ase supra)

Insurre#tion or ot"er

$o&e$ent


29/61

3efen#es are a&ailable

urden of establis"ingdefen#es is pla#ed upon t"edefen#e t"e fa#t of t"e brea#"

of obligation is establis"ed.

3efen#es


30/61

1"e defen#es are:

'onsent

Self-defen#e %er$issible #ounter$easures

7or#e $a;eure , see 4anube 4am Case

3istress ,

Le#essity- see 4anube 4am Case0 5alestinian 6all 0dvisory opinion0 I' Reports 22H

'o$plian#e !it" pere$ptory nor$s (3raft rti#le2-+).

3efen#es ;ustiK#ations ,'ir#u$stan#es pre#luding

!rongfulness


31/61

Self defen#e need to be in a##ordan#e art B*

UL '"arter

rt / , for#e $a;eure 1"ere $ust be irresistible for#e !"i#" !as

foreseen e&ent0 beyond #ontrol of t"e state0$a?ing it $aterially i$possible in t"e

#ir#u$stan#es to perfor$ obligations. 7ew )ealand v France 8&afart and 5rieur9

8supra9


32/61

E&ery brea#" of an inter’l obligation #arries

!it" it t"e duty to $a?e reparations:

Chorzow Factory Case %'I Ser Lo *+ I’$ lone + IR A+

'o$pensation !as a!arded for non-$aterialda$age

S"ip registered in 'anada !as sun? by US'oastguards

1ribunal found t"at s"ip !as !"olly o!ned byUS

Reparations - I


33/61

Lationals t"ere no #o$pensation oug"t to be

paid to 'anada in respe#t to loss of s"ip.

@o!e&er US !as ordered to for$ally apologiseto 'anada

%ay NB0222 #o$pensation asa#?no!ledg$ent of t"e !rong done to

'anada.

Reparations- II


34/61

General Rule: E&ery state is under an

international obligation not to ill treat

foreign nationals present in its territory. If state &iolates t"is obligation it $ay

in#ur inter’l responsibility to state of

!"o$ person is a national ( see&avrommatis 5alestine ConcessionsCase 8 *AH) %'I

State responsibility for

treat$ent of aliens


35/61

SR arises fro$ ill treat$ent of foreign

nationals or #orporations

E


36/61

Mistreat$ent of foreign

nationals in #ustody ( :obertClaim, 5araguay v '09

7ailure to punis" indi&iduals

responsible for t"e atta#?s onforeign nationals ( ;anes 2&assey Claim (*A+).

E


37/61

3ire#t in;ury of foreign

nationals by state oD#ials(+oumans Claim)

3enial of ;usti#e to a foreign

national , Chattin Claim (*A+)


38/61

state #an only ad&o#ate #lai$ of its o!n

national.

SR #an arise in relation of ill treat$ent ofindi&iduals or #orporations.

Leed for #lai$ing state to rig"t to #lai$ onbe"alf of indi&iduals or #orporation t"at’s

suOered in;ury. !ssue right of a state to bring claim.

Lationality of 'lai$s


39/61

efore a state #an #lai$

#o$pensationPreparations arising fro$ in;uries

of indi&iduals or da$age to property. Leed to pro&e t"at indi&iduals are in fa#t its

nationals.

asi# rule , =i#ti$ $ust be a national of t"e

plaintiO state at t"e ti$e t"e da$age !as#ause re$ain so until t"e #lai$ is de#ided(see 5anevezys


40/61

Leed for eOe#ti&e lin? bet!een t"e state

indi&idual

'ase bet!een ie#"tenstein Guate$ala 'lai$ by ie#"tenstein against Guate$ala

asis t"at Guate$ala "ad a#ted unla!fullyto!ards t"e person property of Lottebo"$

a #iti>en of ie#"tenstein.

7ottebohm Case *AABJ

I' Rep H


41/61

Guate$ala disputed ie#"tenstein Qs rig"t to bring a

#lai$.

Lottebo"$ born in Ger$any *88* *A2B be#o$e a resident in Guate$ala but retained

"is Ger$an nationality.

@e $ade fe! &isits to ie#"tenstein !"ere "isbrot"er li&ed

In *A/A "e applied obtained ie#"tensteinnationality.

5btained a Guate$ala &isa for "is ie#"tensteinpassport returned to Guate$ala.


42/61

"et"er nationality #onferred in Lottebo"$ in

*A/A #ould be relied upon against Guate$ala

in ;ustiK#ation of t"e #o$$en#e$ent ofpro#eedings.

'rt a#?no!ledged granting nationality !as a$atter of do$esti# la!

ut a rig"t to e


43/61

Lottebo"$ "ad little #onne#tion !it"

ie#"tenstein

@ad settled in Guate$ala for /H years @ad an intention to re$ain t"ere.

@is #onne#tion !it" Guate$ala !as strongert"an #onne#tion !it" ie#"tenstein

5n t"at basis ie#"tenstein !as not allo!ed toe


44/61

Leed for a genuine lin? bet!een state

indi&idual in;ured.

Rules establis"ed in #ase- There must be an e"ective lin# between

the person & state in or$er for the stateto be able to exercise its right of

$iplomatic protection on behalf of thein%ure$ person.

Lottebo"$ Rule


45/61

'orporation "as nationality of state !"ere it is

in#orporated.

%roble$ arises !"ere #o$panies arein#orporated !"i#" "a&e &ery little#onne#tion.

Rig"t of states to bring #lai$s on be"alf of

s"are"olders - -arcelona .raction Case *A+2JI' Rep /

'orporations t"eir

s"are"olders

-arcelona .raction Case


46/61

-arcelona .raction, light 2 power Company

!as "olding #o$pany in#orporated in 'anada

in *A** 1o de&elop establis" an ele#tri#ity #o$pany

in Spain

1"ree subsidiary #o$pany !ere #reated in

'anada $ost s"ares by o!ned by it. 1"ey !ere also a nu$ber of #o$panies in

Spain

-arcelona .raction Case*A+2J I' Rep /


47/61

'ase arose follo!ing a#tion by Spain !"i#"

resulted in #o$pany being de#lared ban?rupt

elgiu$ #lai$ed $ost ar#elona 1 s"areso!ned by elgian nationals #o$panies.

Spain #lai$ed in;ury "ad been done to#o$pany rat"er t"an s"are"olders

1"erefore elgiu$ la#?ed (ocus standi


48/61


49/61

rt H @ague 'on&ention on 'ertain Cuestions

Relating to t"e 'on9i#t of Lationality a!

*A/2

state $ay not aOord diplo$ati# prote#tion toone of its nationals against a state !"ose

nationality su#" person also possesses.

Multiple Lationalities


50/61

Is t"ere an International $ini$u$ standard of

treat$ent or is e4uality of treat$ent !it"

nationals enoug"6 1"ere is a dispute bet!een de&eloped

de&eloping states o&er t"is.

3e&eloped states ad&o#ate t"e IMS

3e&eloping states ad&o#ate e4uality oftreat$ent.

1"e International Mini$u$

Standard (IMS)


51/61

Lo agree$ent as to t"e #ontent of IMS

Lo dis#ri$ination against foreign nationals

rt A Monte&ideo 'on&ention on t"e Rig"ts 3uties of States *A// , foreigners #annot#lai$ $ore rig"ts t"an t"ose aOorded tonationals.

See also 7eer Claim H RI 2

:oberts / IR +

Chattin Claim

1est of IMS !as

applied


52/61

'hould amount to an outrage, to badfaith, to wilful neglect of duty, or toan insuciency of governmentalaction so far short of internationalstandards that every reasonable and

impartial man would readilyrecognise it insuciency"

'ondu#t of "ost

state


53/61

Certain =erman Interests in 5olish pper

'ilesia #ase %'I0 Series 0 Lo. *A0 / IR

+. Gar#ia 'ase H RI **A (*A).

'"attin 'ase H IR H8.

;ones Claim / IR *8.

>uintanilla Claim / IR H.

See also in relation

IMS


54/61

-oolo Case *2 RI B8.

rt */ I''%R *A

rt / E'E *AB rti#le H 7ourt" %roto#ol (*A/) E'@R.

E


55/61

1"e 'al&o 'lause , agree$ent bet!een

foreign national state

'ertain atin $eri#an States re4uired foreign#ontra#tors to agree to #lauses pro&iding t"ey!ould not resort to t"eir o!n states forprote#tion in t"e e&ent of disagree$ent or!rongful treat$ent by "ost state.

7orth 0merican 4redging Company Case HRI

'lause !as en#losed insisting on lo#alre$edies.

ai&er


56/61

Indire#t in;ury to states , #lai$ !ill not be

ad$issible on t"e international plane

Unless indi&idual or #orporation "as e


57/61

Inter’l tribunal only #on#erned !it" eOe#ti&e

lo#al re$edies.

0mbatielos 0rbitration 8=reece v" 19 / IR/2

'o$$ission "eld lo#al re$edies in#lude notonly referen#e to #ourts tribunals but also

use of fa#ilities !"i#" $uni#ipal la! $a?esa&ailable to litigants before su#"#ourtsPtribunals.

&ailability of egal prote#tion.

E


58/61

An in$ivi$ual or corporation $oes not nee$ to

exhaust all appeal mechanisms if such appealsare clearly going to prove pointless.

UF ob;e#ted to 7innis" #lai$ on t"e basis t"at

7innis" nationals failed to appeal against UF’s de#isions

rbitrator ruled in fa&our of 7innis" argu$ent t"at 'rtof appeal !ould "a&e been unable to o&erturn t"eKndings $ade by rbitration board

1"us an appeal $ade no diOeren#e

7inland !as !it"in its rig"ts in pursuing t"e #lai$ oninter’l plane.

7innis" S"ips rbitration + IR/*

5t"er e


59/61

Interhandel Case 8'witzerland v '9 *AABJ I'

Rep

Robert E ro!n 'ase (*A/) RI &i0 *2 Ellettroni#a Si#ula Sp 'ase (US & Italy) I'

Rep *8

5t"er e


60/61

En&iro'o is a $anufa#turer of !eed?iller. lt"oug" it #arries out its

$anufa#turing a#ti&ities in t"e de&eloping state of %o&ertia it is registered int"e de&eloped state of u#ra#ia. 1"e $a;ority of its s"are"olders are nationalsof @ege$onia. In une 22* !or?ers in t"e En&iro'o plant in %o&ertia !ere

dire#ted to stri?e for "ig"er !ages by t"eir go&ern$ent- #ontrolled trade union. ob t"e $anager of t"e plant a national of 1e#"nolia0 !ere atte$pting to

?eep t"e plant operating0 a##identally released a "ig"ly to


61/61

Intro:

Rainbo! !arrior 'ase

1!o types of fault , Sub;e#ti&e 5b;e#ti&es

"o are t"e a#tors in&ol&ed6

"at are t"eir nationalities6

"o !ill be able to bring a #lai$6

"at are t"e a#ts or o$issions t"at "a&e o##urred6

'onsider t"e 3raft rti#le #ase a! 1reat$ent of aliensP foreign nationals

Leed to e

Documents

Unit 8 State Responsibility.pptx