J

SUBJECT: PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

Project- State Responsibility

SUBMITTED BY: NEHAL SINGH SUBMITTED TO: DR. ABDULLAH NASIR

ENROLLMENT NUMBER: 200101079 ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (LAW)
B.A. LL.B. (HONS.) RMLNLU, LUCKNOW
SECTION: A
SEMESTER: IV

pg. 1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I have taken a lot of effort into this project. However, this would have not been possible
without the kind support and help of many individuals. I would like to express my sincere
thanks to all of them.
I express my deep gratitude to my teacher Dr. Abdullah Nasir for the subject for giving me
his exemplary guidance, monitoring, and constant encouragement throughout the project.
I would like to express my gratitude towards my parents and members of RMLNLU for their
kind support and encouragement which helped me in the completion of this project.
My thanks and appreciation also go to my fellow batchmates in developing the project and
people who willingly helped me out with their abilities.

-NEHAL SINGH

pg. 2
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this project “State Responsibility” is submitted by Me to DR. Ram
Manohar Lohia National Law University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh in partial fulfillment of the
award of the degree of BA.LLB(Hons.) is a record of Bonafede project work carried out by
me under the guidance of DR.Abdullah Nasir
I further declare that this work reported in this project has not been submitted and will not be
submitted either in part or in full, for the award of any other degree or diploma in this
institute or any other university.

Nehal Singh
Enrolment No.- 200101093
BA.LLB(Hons.)4th Semester

pg. 3
 INTRODUCTION
In International law, State responsibility refers to the liability of one state to another for the
non-observance of the obligations imposed by the international legal systems.
It is based on the doctrine of equality of states and State sovereignty. If one state commits an
internationally unlawful act against the other state then international responsibility is
established between the two.
The draft articles on the Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful Acts were
adopted by the international law commission in 2001. The Draft is divided into 4 parts with
59 Articles:
• Article 1 to 27: The International Wrongful Act of a State
• Article 28 to 41: Content of the International Responsibility of a State
• Article 42 to 54: The Implementation of the International Responsibility of a state
• Article 55 to 59: General provisions relating to Articles as a whole
“A state is held responsible for an act if it fails to honour its obligations under a treat if it
violates the territorial sovereignty of another state, if it injures the diplomatic representatives
of another state, or if it mistreats the nationals of another state.”

Basis and nature of State responsibility

In order to prove a state liable for the inaction or breach of international law that they
committed there are firstly three major factors to prove:
• The State must be under a legal duty not to commit the act.
• The State must commit the act.
• The act must cause injury (loss or damage) to another entity. If these factors are
satisfied, the State is bound to make reparation to the injured parties.

However, a State is considered responsible only for the wrongful acts which constitute
international delicts. State responsibility for international crimes is not clear.
One arguable facet of international law has been the suggestion, made by the international
law Commission in its 1996 draft on State Responsibility, that states may be held
answerable for “international crimes” (comprising internationally wrongful acts ensuing
from the breach by a state of a global obligation thus essential for the protection of the
international community’s basic interests that its breach is recognized as against the law by
that community). Examples given enclosed aggression, colonial domination, and genocide.
additionally, to the argument that states (as distinct from individuals) couldn't be guilty of
crimes as such, serious definitional issues arose, and there was concern over the implications
of such crimes for states.

pg. 4
 Accordingly, in its draft articles finally adopted in 2001, the International law Commission
distributed with this politically dissentious approach however maintained the concept of an
additional serious kind of international wrong.
The commission stressed the concept of significant breaches of obligations arising below a
peremptory norm of international law (i.e., the principles of jus cogens, or those deemed
essential for the protection of basic international interests). In such circumstances, all states
are under an obligation to not acknowledge such a scenario and to cooperate in ending it.
States might take up the claims of people injured as a result of the acts or omissions of
another state.
In such circumstances, the injured persons should have exhausted all domestic remedies to
hold the state accountable unless these are ineffective. Further, the injured person must be a
national of the state adopting the claim. though states alone possess the right to grant
nationality, if the claim is pleaded against another state, the grant of nationality must adapt to
the necessities of law and, in particular, demonstrate the existence of a real link between the
individual and also the state concerned.

IMPUTABILITY

• Direct Responsibility

The government, which includes the executive, the legislature, judiciary, and the
central authorities and local authorities, is what represents the State. Therefore, if any
of these authorities commit breach of the laws laid down by the International Law
Commission, the state shall be liable directly for the committed action.

• Indirect Responsibility
• In this case, the State has vicarious responsibility for the acts. it's additionally an
obligation that the state must stop its own subjects and also foreign subjects living in
its territory to from committing an act which will cause injury to the opposite states. If
a subject as an individual or as a group causes an injury, then the state as a whole has
to take responsibility for the same. In fact, the State becomes vicariously liable. The
responsibility of State arises only if one in every of the organs of the State fails to or
doesn't abide by or carry out its functions rigorously and within the manner it's
supposed to. One example of this is United States v. Iran (1980)

pg. 5
 • United States v. Iran (1980)
On November 4, 1979, a group of Iranian rebels invaded the US embassy in Tehran. They
damaged the embassy and destroyed embassy documents. The invasion lasted for hours, but
despite repeated requests, Iranian military forces did not arrive until later. More than sixty
American diplomats and citizens were held hostage until January 20, 1981. Some of the
hostages were released earlier, but 52 hostages were held hostage until the end. Once on
scene, the Iranian military did not attempt to free the hostages. On November 29, 1979, the
U.S. filed a claim against Iran in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ found the
rebels to be ‘agents’ of the Iranian Government, because the latter had approved and
perpetuated their actions, translating occupation of the embassy and detention of the hostages
into official acts of the State, of which the perpetrators, while initially acting in private
capacities, were rendered agents of the Iranian State.

THEORIES IN STATE RESPONSIBILITY

There are 2 basic theories that are associated with State Responsibility. They are FAULT
theory and RISK theory
• FAULT THEORY
The ‘fault’ theory takes the element of ‘intention’ into account and says that a State shall be
responsible only if the act is committed intentionally or negligently. Also known as the
Subjective Theory of State Responsibility. It was propounded by Hugo Grotius.
He stated that, “if anyone be bound to make reparation for what his minister or servant does
without fault, it is not according to the Law of Nation but according to Civil Law, and even
that rule of Civil Law is not general.”
He also tried to explain the same through the responsibility of private individuals for their
own acts in their own community, and how the State is not bound by the Acts of an
individual. This theory lost its relevance because of the difficulty that was faced in proving
the fault on the part of the States.

• RISK THEORY
This is also known as the Objective Theory of State Responsibility.
It was propounded by Dionisio Anzilotti as a rejection of fault theory

According to this theory, the State is to blame for the damage caused not due to the
direct or indirect damage and also not because of the malicious intent of the
individual, however because of the unsuccessful obligation imposed on the State by
the international law. Therefore, it's the actual fact that's contrary to international law
that creates the State liable and not the fault according to this theory. Therefore, the

pg. 6
 idea solely demands a wrongful act, that is violation of an international law only to
carry the State responsible, regardless of presence of a ‘fault’. Therefore, a mere
breach of an obligation attracts responsibility of the State.

CONSEQUENCES OF STATE RESPONSIBILITY

When any state commits breach of international laws or commit delict or crime
against other state or group of states, then it involves legal consequences. This legal
consequence consists of 2 main stages, the first ceases to aim the wrongful conduct
and second stage is to make full reparation for injury caused. The draft articles of
International Law Commission codify obligations of a responsible state.

1) CEASATION AND NON REPITITION

Article 30 provides that the state responsible for the internationally wrongful act is
under an obligation to cease the activity and to offer an appropriate guarantee of
non-repetition.
The state that committed the breach first have to guarantee or provide assurance of
the non-repetition of the said breach or crime they committed to the wronged
party

2) REPARATION
Article 31 provides that the responsible state is under an obligation to make full
reparation for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act. Injury
includes any damage caused by the internationally wrongful act of a state.
The defendant state or party shall be responsible to make amends or reparation to
the wronged party. The accused party is liable to make restitution i.e., materially
revert the original party back to the same status before the wrongful act. If
restitution is not possible, the accused party shall be liable to make compensation.
Compensation involves the making of monetary reparation, with an aim of
reverting the injured party to its State prior to the occurring of the act.

Another form of reparation is satisfaction. Satisfaction is considered a more

appropriate remedy than compensation, in cases of moral damage. It may include
any reasonable act demanded by the injured State, such as the acknowledgement
of the wrongful character of the act, the punishment of guilty officials, nominal
damage, an official apology, etc.

Countermeasures
International law does not hold the usage of force unlawful at all times. Since there is
no concept of a ‘higher sovereign body’ in international law, States may sometimes

pg. 7
 not abide by their legal obligations. For instance, if a State, in spite of being ordered
to cease the wrongful act, continues it, the injured State may lawfully use force
against it. Such acts have been termed as ‘reprisals’. Reprisals refer to acts that are
illegal if taken alone but become legal when adopted by one State in retaliation for the
commission of an earlier illegal act by another State. They are a type of ‘self-help’
employed by the injured State to induce the wrongdoing State to discontinue the
wrongful acts, or make reparation.
However, countermeasures are subject to legal restrictions. Article 2(4) of the UN
Charter prohibits the use of force. The countermeasures must strictly be proportionate
to the wrongful act.

The Corfu Channel case

A few weeks before the explosions on October 22, 1946, the north Corfu strait had been
swept clear of mines. Shortly after the explosions, the United Kingdom government sent a
note to the Albanian government declaring its intention to organize a sweeping operation of
the mines. The Albanian government sent its reply to the United Kingdom government
stating that unless the operation in question took place outside Albanian territorial waters, it
would not consent to this operation. However, the United Kingdom government went forward
with the operation, and a sweep of the mines was made on November 13.
While the Albanian government accused the United Kingdom government of violating its
sovereignty, the United Kingdom government justified the operation as a means of self-
protection or self-help. The Court was of the view that the operation was a manifestation of a
policy of force that cannot find a place in international law. It declared that “respect for
territorial sovereignty is an essential foundation of international relations”, and thereby held
the United Kingdom government liable to make reparation.

CONCLUSION
In international law, it is the State’s responsibility which commits a wrongful act against
another state to ensure reparation of the damage done, either by restitution or compensation,
or both. Any wrongful act committed by an organ or an agency of the State leads to breach of
an obligation which leads to the State’s responsibility regarding the same. The scope of the
same has broadened, as the International Court of Justice gives priority to the interest of the
community at large now more than ever.

pg. 8