Public International Law

Introduction: International Law as a legal system

IL and domestic law do not work the same way. IL is valid under domestic law.

 History

How IL raised? How it makes it an effective system? What are the main features?

Whenever you have society, you have law = which means regulation. Law is a mean of
regulation; principles, morals, religion, education and violence also can be part of regulation
because it dictates the behaviour of people. For those reasons, we created laws. Violence is
the basic means of regulation. Then comes the idea that it wasn’t sustainable because killing
the weak one wasn’t good.

We set rules to find a balance b/n moral, religion and violence. Law is one of them with
public order. Law is like privilege in the balance. Law is here to regulate subjects in the
society and to give a frame to violence, to balance violence in order to not be the only mean
of regulation. For long time, the relation b/n states were trade and violence. War was for
people to have power, extension of territory to get the resources. The first type of regulation
was through treaties.

The first treaties were mostly peace treaties.

The Middle East was the first to put limit to violence with customs. Codification came later.
The ME added immunity during the war for women, children. They raised the idea that some
individuals cannot be targeted during the war  this is the basic of international humanity
war.

The most important stage for the creation of IL is  Westphalie = beside of settling peace, its
important because the basic principle of international law is the sovereignty of the states.
Equal sovereignty of the state = the treaty Westphalie puts this principle to balance the power
with violence. Whatever the state (powerful, republic, democratic etc), they all have the same
legal rights.

17th to 19th = Great powers  invade the world and there was no rules at that time. The more
powerful you are, the more territory you will have, if there was population no matter. The use
of violence was completely legal. The great power considered that even if there was
population, it wasn’t big enough to consider them as a state. It was their argument. It was the
European point of view.

2 doctrines: Calvo and Drago  America was completely colonized by the great power.
There were a lot of investors came to America making business and they were exploiting the
resources. If the national gvrmt has debt, the state of the investors can recover debts with
debts  can be a subject to war. Calvo and drago said that foreign investors should rely on
the protection of the national state if there is litigation and they should submit to the domestic
law of the territory on which they are  investors’ protection (immunity and protection).
Nobody subscribes to those clause.
19th: important step  codification of humanitarian law = this is custom law, custom law of
war  what weapon you can use, who you can target for war, who can a prisoner of war etc

Resort to force = why we use force (“just war”)  Georges Bush said I know its not legal,
there is no legal security council resolution, but its “just war” because it keeps the national
security. Its completely political.

Is war legal or not? It’s framed by the law, but if states don’t want to follow it, they can
because of sovereignty. When you choose war, its framed on what you can use, what kind of
weapon etc.

The 19th is market by international conflict and the idea is to put rules to regulate those
conflict. Violence not go beyond the law. Regulate violence. Force b/n international relation
should be forbidden.

20th: International system is not only a regulation system, its becoming a legal system. During
times, they switch from regulation to legal. Because you have states institution that are
international organization. The states are gathering in those IO to negotiate and find solution
together for international pb.

International law was for a peaceful coexistence of the sates. It was a system to put states
together and make them coexist in a peaceful way. We ask the state to coordinate b/n them.
It supposed to be a co-operation system  finds solutions together to big pb that they cannot
solve by themselves. Globalization of the pb like human development, climate change,
terrorism etc.

20th: international law is only competent for peace and security, out of this, they are not
competent. But you can put many things in it.

How a rule can be legal and mandatory? What makes a rule to be valid? What makes a treaty
valid?

Recognition of the state  States willingness  linked to sovereignty. A state is completely

free to ratify a treaty or not. The question is to see if there is something above the state. The
only thing that we need to consider is the reality, which is the willing of the state and the
sovereignty. There is nothing above state that can oblige them to ratify a treaty or to adopt a
law if they are not bind to a treaty. Law is not the moral, it is linked to moral.

All states are equal. If there is a rule more important than another one means that a willing of
a state is more important than another state. You need to find balance b/n geopolitical, politics
etc and the law.

International law applies the UN charter but not more.

Natural law theory  There is a supreme norm, something above all and above the willing of
the state, that pre exist the willing of the state to discover the norm in a form of sources of
international law which is treaties/convention etc. Yes why not Human dignity can be one of
this rule. But who decide what is human dignity? The most powerful state. There are
obligations imposed to the states by a superior force whether they want or not. For the
positive theory there is not.
Positive theory  tried to make it more objective  the law is what it said to be a law. Its
mandatory. States have no obligation, that’s the difference b/n natural theory. They are free to
be bound or not. If they choose to be bound, they have to respect the rules. States cannot do
whatever they want.

International law is both: natural and positive. Its complicated to adopt rules above states
willing.

Summary = IL was for solving violence. Natural and positive side came together to a mixed.
Set of rules based on states willingness.

PIL as a legal system: New challenges

System on co cooperation/coordination based on negotiation. This negotiation is supposed to

answer big issues. Many criticisms to IL that says that its not a legal set of rules. Whenever
the states accept the norm, it will be applied. Set of rules can be morals, religion, but criticism
challenge the legality of those set of rules, saying that its not legal. Agreement is not part of
the legal system. The validity of the rules is the state willingness. The validity in domestic
rules come to the state willingness. But in IL there is no such thing.

Punishment under international law: its responsibility. There is a response to illegal behaviour
like the responsibility of the state it it doesn’t respect the agreement. Also it can be economic
sanctions or wars (use of violence even if its not supposed to be used but under certain
conditions). There are sanctions. The pb is not the sanction.

Ex: I don’t pay my rent  the judge says if I don’t I will go to state.
 obligation  how can they oblige a state? Police authority that uses force to give judicial
decision. If a state violates a rule, went to an arbitral judgment or ICJ judgment, it has to be
implemented. But if the state doesn’t want to do it, no one can force it. The only way is to use
the force  it is supposed to be illegal but if its for punishing an illegal act, its permitted.

Criticism was about sanction and punishment and its not a coherent set of rules. Many
branches and it makes it not coherent. There is no international law; there is international
criminal law, international human rights law etc. but not IL.
It’s a legal system but it’s different than domestic law. There are rules that are valid bcs of the
process of creation that needs to be implemented.

Sovereignty equality of the states:

The state is independent and free to be part of an international organization or treaty. If he

does, we consider that he is bound. Self-limitation of state sovereignty. He has to respect the
rules. In IL, the obligation is: the states will create the norms and it will be obliged to respect
it if they agree to them.
Pacta sunt serranda = if you agree you are engaged. Principle of Bona fide  good faith,
which means that they cannot adopt a rule and not implement it.
You cannot use force against another state bcs the main objective of treaty is to prevent wars.
A state cannot intervene in the internal affairs of other states. Because when you make
economic concession that collapse the whole government eco system it’s a political
interference.
States are in the middle of the whole system  they will create the system because they are
the origin of the rules and they will apply the rules, they will interpret the rules. Ex: if they
have a misunderstanding the treaty, if nobody complains, they will continue. Sanctions go
under states power; if there is a judge, he needs to be appointed.

For the ICJ= the judge is competent when the states recognize its competence. Its not because
its under the UN that it will have de facto competence. It has to be recognized by the states.

Sovereignty is less effective than before: the UN created a big system around the states to
submit them to the UN charter and human rights protection system. And in this legal system
 multilateral legal system  that’s why we are talking about corporate governance bcs they
are more powerful than the states.

 Theoritical approach : what is the subject, what are the normes, how it was created,
how it is effective and how it is mandatory

There are different doctrinal approaches.

 Definition of international law

Set of rules created by the states that regulate conduct of states b/n them and in external
relations.

I – Elements of International Law

A. Subjects - States: International Organizations

Main subject/actors: The states

Individuals cannot be fully considered as subject of IL.

What entity can be considered as a legal subject?

The subject has to participate to international law. It needs legal personality (capacity) to be
fully participating. Capacity to have rights and obligations (responsible) and the most
important one is the capacity to bring international claims in case of violation of obligation.
States are the first most important subject of international law.
Nowadays, states are not the only one  since the creation of UN, states share their position
with other entities: international organization.

What is a state?

 Territory; needs a contuinity

 Population:
 Government: organized power that exercise on the population within the territory of
the state.

 If you have these 3 elements, you have sovereignty

At international level, states and government are not the same. Government will represent the
state at IL level  to sign, ratify a treat, and negotiate.
Internationally, we will take into consideration the 3 criteria.
The pb with territory is the continuity. Because if it looks like a gruyere, your power cannot
be applied to your whole territory.

Population: same people but different places. People on a territory and they want to create a
state.

Territory + people without government = principle of auto determination  its problematic

bcs any ethnic groupment that is based on a territory can claim to be a state.

Because IL makes a distinction b/n government and state, there is a principle of continuity of
the state. If the government changes, France is still France. Principle of continuity of the state.
IL doesn’t care at all if your government is democratic or not. It wants power on people
within the territory. Raising an issue of the recognition of the state.
When you have those 3 elements, legally the state exists.

The consequences = what is the first attribute for the state? Sovereignty. Which means that
other states cannot interfere, and respect the territory and sovereignty of the state. But, for the
recognition, they cannot recognize the state and therefore will not have kind of relation. The
recognition is a political discretionary act.

States are primary and main subjects of IL:

Recognition: 2 kinds

 Declarative  they accept to consider the state at the same level as me (state). Based
on freedom of the states.
 Constitution  doctrine: without any other states recognition, there is no state.

Kosovo example: I have sovereignty but nobody recognize it as a state. It will exist, but it will
participate to nothing. Although recognition is not a criteria for the creation of a state bcs if
not, the state will only be a fiction and cannot enter into relation with other states so it won’t
exist. It’s a way to not make the qualification of a state based on political consideration.

At certain point, the changing of government can have consequences on the sates. Its the
question of coup d’état, question liberalization movement. It means that the people will take
the 4 “states”.
State’s jurisdiction:

States competences/jurisdiction: to act at international level

 Personal one: the power exercised on the people whether they are out of the territory
or not. If a French commits a crime in the US, he still has a link to France because of
his nationality  extradition mechanism and diplomatic protection  France will
have jurisdiction. Investment or trade agreement, it will have an impact on this.
 Territorial one: if the crime happened within the territory by a national of another state

Universal competence = whether you don’t have competence because no nationality or the
crime was not within the territory  you can judge it because the crime is so bad that you
cannot let go (like genocide). To avoid impunity, they created the universal competence.
Whether you have no competence because it’s not your national or because the crime was not
within your territory, you can have competence to judge the crime because it was a big crime
that it cannot stay without punishment.

Another subject IL: of International organization: dernier audio du premier jour

Not at the same level as the state, it’s. They are called derivative subjects of IL.
More and more active in the participation IL, but they don’t have the same privilege as the
state. No sovereignty. Outside of the IL structure, they don’t create rules. There are other
subjects of IL but states remain the only one sovereign  only them can create rules out of a
treaty, because IO can’t have the legal personality, EU has legal personality, it can ratify the
convention of human rights for example bcs of its legal personality but cannot create general
rules. Only states can be part of IL, its only state MS bcs IO are created by treaty and only
states can ratify a treaty. These IO have specific status and its independent of the states
willing. This is in theory, but in practice, in the decision making process, it will be a vote
from the states and for budget; it will be contribution of the states. IO have independent
organs that is supposed to implement the objective permission of the organization. This
objective is always précised in the constitutive treaty. And this treaty draws the competence of
the IO: ex  cannot interfere with human rights question, or peace or security. Can interfere
with HR but it has to be related to trade. All IO have got specialized competence, as the states
have general one. Out of treaties, IL have no competence.
They have some bodies: council, assembly, general secretary etc. These bodies represent the
willing of IO but still to make decision, they rely on the states. Its not relying on just one
state. Its relying on all states members’ cooperation and negotiation. You have a consensus.
In most IO, one state = one voice.

Legal regime of IO: its independence and limited to specific status as a subject of law.
Different organization: You have, governmental organization (UN, WTO, WIPO etc) non
governmental IO, to be a subject of law is the ICRC, its not an NGO  competence relying
on treaty. It’s really neutral because its not states. The other NGO are not subject of law, they
are just private entities. They have an active part in international law. They are more
integrated in the UN system, but not subject of IL.

You have regional ones: African union, EU, Arabic organization. All have an action in a
specific field  judicial cooperation, economic cooperation etc.
The United Nations = universal IO because you have almost the whole states in it. Universal
bcs the objective of the UN is very large to keep peace and security. In fact its for keeping the
international relations.

UN like any other IO has its constitution, which is the charter.

Article 2 and chapter 7: 2 most important part in the charter.

Article 2: recalling states sovereignty, which means that the UN is under international law ,
which means that states can have other international relations out of the UN system,

Article 103: created for the military interference of one state on the territory of another one
whenever there is a conflict b/n the charter (security council resolution) and any engagement
of the state, the article 103, will prevails. This is impacting sovereignty. Meaning that the
charter is above other sources and we said that there is equivalence of the sources. The UN
tried to impose as a global dominant system for international governance.
In the UN system, there are branches.
If state 1 and state 2 have an international conflict, if they are both under UN charter,
international law and UN charter will apply, if one is not part of UN charter, only
international law will apply and chapter VII is very important.

UN does not control the whole international system but it plays a very important role because
peace and security can be subject to many things.

The UN system:

Its complicated for a lot of states to be able to come to the same decision and to all be agree.
So the UN will still represents the states.
General secretary = its like a coordinator
General assembly = like the parliament  one state has one vote. They can agree with one
another for one resolution. The GA is not mandatory, they accept it. GA resolution is soft law,
its not mandatory for the states, but it shows the international position on a question.
Security council= like the executive  it’s the only body responsible for peace and security;
if the SC says that this situation is a breach or a treat to peace and to security, it can vote a
resolution to use military force.

Any states can resort to force when its necessary;

2 exceptions to resort to force:

 If a state attacks you  allowing the right to defense.
 SC resolution: mandatory for the state, it has to be implemented. If its contradictory to
any other one, the charter will prevails.

The question of resort to force is framed by the principle of prohibition with these 2
exceptions. It was ok at the beginning of the UN but now with international relation, its not.
The difference is that today Is that its internal conflict whatever happened, its not the
business of other states or UN. For the SC to look at a state territory, like gilet jaune, its
domestic law. If the states want to target manifestations, it can  public order. But when the
response of the state reach an intensity of violence, it became a conflict but under the states,
so its still under this protection. The state sovereignty makes things very complicated.
Last subject of law: individuals

They have an international existence level because of the states. They give existence to
individual through diplomatic protection= protects the state not the individual. In the domestic
protection, we consider that the prejudice of the individual has an impact on the state.

The development of the human rights theories bring the individual to the top of the system.
Saying that human dignity is a natural right. It’s a value above all states’ interest  this is
thanks to the UN system because it helped the development the presence of individual at
international law and raise the level of human rights in international law. Because each states
that ratify give rights to individual. This treaty opens remedies if there are violations to their
rights. But in the prof’s opinion, the individuals are more like objects to IL than subjects.
Because without the states willing to ratify treaties to give them rights and to open remedies,
they don’t have any rights. But there is human rights that can make us consider individuals to
be in between. Because torture is universally considered as a breach of human dignity. We
don’t need to specify it in a treaty.

The individual is not considered as below everything in these days.

Conclusion: main principle is the equality of sovereignty.

B. Sources: Treaty/convention - Custom

Distinction b/n sources and the rules (it’s a formal sources, we don’t focus on the rules) 
how the rules are created. Sources in IL are former sources, we don’t focus on the content of
the rules. The question of the content of the rules, IL doesn’t care about the content of the
rules except nowadays. The evolution of the international legal system  new actors in
international relation like IO and other subjects that are part of the international legal system
like individuals.
With this evolution there are new kind of sources: soft law and jus cogens  take into
account the content of the sources. More concentrate on values.
IL sources:
 Formal sources = the process of the sources, the creation of the laws
 Material sources = content, value
IL used to care only about the formal one but with evolution, it started to focus also to
material since the human rights  jus cogens.

Basic principle: in IL all the sources are equal  same legal value. Not like in domestic law,
where the constitution is above all. Equivalence of sources: there is no hierarchy in the IL
system.

Those sources are numerated in the article 38 ICJ:

 Treaty/convention
 Customs
 General principle of IL
 Case law
 Subsidiary sources
 1. Customs

First source in IL, there was no codification. The codification work started in the 19th, because
there were a lot of rules, and it became too complicated and also for the development of IL.
This massive work of codification led to the disparition of the customs. The more you codify
the law, the less there is customs.
It was also question of legal security  in the treaty is clear; the disposition of the law is
written and clear. Customs is a behaviour that makes it complicated and also it was very
vague.

2 elements in custom:
 Practice and behaviour: objective  material one
 Accepted as binding: psychological  subjective one

At the beginning, custom is a reflexion of practice. For this practice to become a rule, it needs
an authority to reveal this practice as a rule by the judge/arbitrator. State also can recognize
this rule in the treaty.

The practice needs to be repeated and it needs continuity. Its not the question of a lot of
repetition of the practice, but through time you observe a certain regularity and it could be just
3 times. It will be more complicated to observe the second element bcs it’s a psychological
element because how can you determine the state willing  this behaviour is a state willing
to be bind. Most of the time, judges link the 2 elements  the practice is the evidence of the
state willing to be bound. In the customs, you have a long process. The starting point was the
state willing: state consent. There is an express manifestation in the treaty and implicit
manifestation in the custom.
The custom is the beginning of a practice and the practice repeats at a certain point that they
decided it would be a custom. Custom is a mandatory rule for every one who accepted it.
Once someone reveals a custom, it becomes a rule for the states that will accept the custom.
If you don’t have the state consent, the custom will not be applied to them  any
manifestation at the beginning of the practice from a state, it’s a persistent objector. But this
manifestation has to be at the beginning of the practice, not when it comes a custom.

Any behaviour by the state is not considered as a legal rule. It will be a legal rule, and the
state will be bound, when an authority will reveal this rule as a custom.
Advantage= its flexible bcs its not written and we can add many behaviour following the
evolution of the state.

2. Treaty/conventions

It’s a very formal positive rule  written law. In France law, we recognize a rule if its
written. That’s the difference b/n common law. French law doesn’t recognize customs.
This is the most current manifestation of the state willing  basic source of IL. Because its
very clear that its based on a consent of the state. Treaty = consent. so to be valid, treaty must
fill 2 conditions.
 Formal: related to the authority that negotiates and sign and ratify the treaty. 2 stages
of authentication: negotiation and they agree on each disposition, which it takes a lot
of times because of the language and they have to agree on the international
translation. The starting point is the negotiation. They are completely free. When they
agree on the dispositions, they sign. They agree on the first step  they all agree on
 the negotiation. This step is not binding, the signature is not binding, it just means that
the state agree to consider those disposition to be an obligation for them. That’s the
difference b/n contract and treaty. The 2nd step that will mark the authenticity and the
validity of the treaty, is the ratification of the treaty. Once the states ratify the treaty,
they recognize that the dispositions in the treaty will be imposed to them and they
recognize it as legal rule  they will have to implement them into domestic law,
because the domestic law cannot go against the treaty that the state itself signed. UN
has got a big service just to register all the treaty. Any treaty you want to find, you go
to the UN treaties system.

 Material: the idea is to see that there is full consent of the state with no mistake or
misrule. Therefore there will be 3 situations/conditions that can be considered as a
breach into the consent of the state and then consequence of the breach  treaty will
not be applied: nullity. Situation where the consent of the state has been altered. The
state cannot use civil law against international engagement.

 Willful misrepresentation: a state tells to another state a wrong information

and this info was decisive in the conclusion of the treaty

 Misjudgment: there is an error but it comes of the wrong misunderstanding of

the situation. Nobody gave wrong information.

 Misleading: one state telling another, if you sign the treaty with X I will be
part of this but after the state will say that it cannot be part of it. the other state
will be blocked bcs it was relying on its capital, for example. Ex: If you don’t
sign the treaty, I will put economic sanction on your state  forbidden because
resort to force. Pressure is allowed tho, so states can argue on that. At which
point you can consider the pressure in negotiation being a threat  to be a
threat and to be consider as unlawful, is to prove the involvement of military
force. Therefore, economic sanction can be consider as lawful under IL. If I
make pressure with economical sanction, the treaty is still valid, it is lawful.
But ICJ stated that the threat in the negotiation is not limited to military force
but economical sanction can also be a threat.

For the material condition you need the object of the treaty to be valid. It must comply
with IL. Any treaty that its not complying with jus cogens rule, has nullity.
 Basic IL rules.

With the evolution of IL legal system, a new kind of rule has been created  Jus cogens.
Article 53 vienna convention 69: jus cogens it applies to any states, whether they give the
consent or not. Which is a complete revolution in IL. Jus cogens is still related to the consent.
the judge in international level will say that this principle is jus cogens it means that it applies
to everyone because this is a very strong practice. You can’t have jus cogens without the
consent with the evolution of IL, but when you raise to jus cogens, it doesn’t matter, it will be
applied. The judge will raise a custom to a principle of jus cogens because its so important
that it needs to have a higher value in IL. The legal consequence of this: this becomes
imperative and it applies to any state whether they gave the consent or not. When a judge does
this, its because it relies on the majority of states’ practice.
The judge will rely on the majority of the consent of the states. For custom  needs all the
consent of the states.
Hierarchy: Any disposition or treaty that doesn’t comply with Jus Cogens, is not valid. Jus
cogens can be a custom or a disposition in a treaty.
In the evolution in IL, prof believes that the consent of the states is still important. Because
she cannot see anything that can be valid without the consent of the states.

Soft law can become a custom, can become a rule.

For example, there is a resolution from the general assembly, but its not binding. Then states
can apply this resolution and more and more states will apply it. And then it becomes a
custom and with times it can become a rule by the judge.

Soft law, is not binding, but it can become a rule and therefore becomes binding. Indeed, if
there is a resolution about climate, and a lot of states become to adopt this resolution. With
times, the judge can states that this resolution becomes a custom through the practice. And it
can become an obligation.

 They are both related to the authenticity, validity of the treaty.

Audio 3eme partie du matin

States create the rule and give interpretation of the rule and the state will decide if there is a
violation. So its complicated to implement the rules.

IL had this basic principle: sovereignty of the states

So IL developed other mechanisms: principle of puncta serta, if you ratify the treaty, you are
bound to implement the rule, the principle of reciprocity (if one of the party doesn’t comply
with its obligation, the other one has no obligation to comply with its obligation);
Mean of regulation: resort of force was considered as lawful to recover an obligation from
another state up to the military force. With the UN charter, this could not be anymore a lawful
mean. UN charter puts the principle of the peaceful dispute settlement  general obligation
of IL. Ex: negotiation: mediation – arbitration – conciliation. But the basic one, is the
diplomatic negotiation. If it fails, if the case is really big  arbitration or court. The decision
of the arbitrator has to be executed like the court.
Sometimes, the case is so serious, that the dispute can be settle diplomatically bcs usually
states don’t want to go to court bcs its public.

If you are not part of UN charter, you are not bound, but if the judge declares that this
principle has been raised at customary law, therefore every state is bound by those principles.
If the state decides to resort to force, what are the options?
 Diplomatic pressure: to break the relation
 Self defense
 If the state is not in those 2 cases, it will be complicated.

II – Application and implementation of International Law

A. Litigation
- international obligation
- International responsibility of the State

Audio 1ere partie aprem

This mechanism used to be a customary one and then a lot of codification took place by the
international law commission. The most accurate issue on this question is the aggravated
responsibility on the state.

Is it possible to talk about aggravated responsibility?

The idea in IL is to separate 2 things: delectual and criminal. Some obligations can be
considered more important than other obligations and engage therefore the aggravate
responsibility. But no states wanted this because they didn’t want to go in front of the criminal
law. In IL, the states have no criminal responsibility. They have international law (like civil
responsibility).
In case of genocide, the state will not be responsible, but it will be an individual responsibility
(the president for example). In terms of human rights protection, it’s a big issue. The state has
to respond when such crimes are committed.

In international law, state’s responsibility, relies on the non-respect on obligation. You cannot
talk about mistakes.

ICT and ICC are not the same. What is a crime? War – crime against humanity – crime of
genocide – aggression. Its individual in front of the court. Even if they represent the state,
they are judged as a person and diplomatic immunity cannot be applied if you commit these
kind of crimes. The difference b/n those 2 courts: ICT  security council chap 7 and ICC

The ICJ is part of the UN charter and each states have to recognize the ICJ as a body of the
UN but when it comes to the competence of the court towards the state, it has to agree to raise
the case in front of the ICJ, to recognize the ICJ competence.

The court can have 2 competences: consultative (when someone ask a question on a legal
situation)

To engage the state responsibility, you need a wrongful act. Wrongful act: no respect of a
principle, engagement, any international obligation etc. you need a link b/n the subject and the
wrongful act = causal link. Exceptions:
 Force majeure: couldn’t avoid
 Mistress
 Necessity

But the states cannot argue saying: I didn’t know it was an obligation or it wasn’t in line with
domestic law etc. the classical mechanism for responsibility, is the starting point: violation of
obligation. But sometimes there is no wrongful act, the state respected the primer obligation
but the consequences led to a prejudice. This prejudice cannot be considered as a wrongful
act. Because the action was not wrongful. Wrongful act + damages  states will have to
repair the damage. You have to seize the wrongful act, to put back things like they were
before the prejudice: restitutio in integrum

Individuals cannot seize the ICC, they are in front of the ICC as responsible; only states can
seize ICC or the ICC itself or the security council. If the SC seize the ICC, its competence is
universal, whether the states ratify or not, whether the authors… its on everyone.

fwady@univ-catholyon.fr