This article is written by Sirin Sabana of 3rd Year of BALLB of Heritage Law College, an intern under Legal Vidhiya
Abstract
State responsibility for international wrongful acts is a core principle of international law, which establishes that a state is legally accountable to an international obligation when it breaches through an action or omission which is attributable to it. The foundational rule is stated in the United Nations International Law Commission’s Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001), which states that every internationally wrongful act of a state entails its international responsibility. Two conditions have to be satisfied to make the responsibility arise. Firstly, under international law, the conduct must be attributable to the state. Secondly, it must be owed a duty under international law, which may constitute a breach of the obligation that the state owes.
The law of State responsibility does not define what those primary obligations are; therefore, instead it provides the responsibility of when and how is triggered and what legal consequences it follows to determine via the secondary rules. These consequences may include the obligation to cease the wrongful act, assurances of non- repetition, and full reparation to the injured party. This doctrine is established to be accepted and applied by international courts and tribunals through customary international law.
Keywords
State Responsibility, Internationally Wrongful Act, Attribution of Conduct, Breach of International Obligation, International Law Commission (ILC), Act of Omission, UN Draft Articles (2001).
Introduction
International wrongful acts are a recognised principle of international law that states that committing an internationally wrongful act entails international responsibility. Although the principle in the justification differs in international law treaties, it has been upheld in numerous judicial decisions of the Permanent Court of International Justice and the International Court of Justice. A new international legal relationship is created by the commission of an internationally wrongful act characterised by legal attributes distinct from those which existed previously. This bond or relationship between the subject is established in which the act or omission is imputable and the subject whose rights have been affected. Thus, the rules relating to this new legal relationship are described as the international responsibilities that are complementary to the original legal obligation between those subjects.
State responsibility triggered a bilateral relationship between the delinquent state and the injured state, whereas the international rules provide only for collective responsibility. In the case of states, there is a lack of a dispute settlement mechanism, unless the parties agree to a particular one. However, in matters of international law, individuals are liable only in very limited circumstances. The law on state responsibility has been separated from the law on the treatment of foreigners. In today’s rules, State responsibility is clearer and more precise as to the standard of fault, the nature of damage required, and the circumstances precluding wrongfulness.
Theoretical Foundation of the Principle by the ILC:
According to Article 10(2), it lays down State Responsibility adopted by the ILC, the conduct of a movement, insurrectional or other, which establishes a new state in a territory under the administration shall be considered an act of the new state under international law. In 1961, Article 18(1) was adopted by a principle of the Harvard Draft Convention on International Responsibility. In the context of governmental changes, writers generally agree with the principle of the devolution of responsibility. Only a limited number of writers till now have made the distinction. Although the scholars seemed to be unanimous in supporting this principle. Consequently, the new state takes over the international wrongful acts and its obligation which it committed while still an insurrectional movement not yet structured as an independent state.
State Practice is Limited:
However, in contemporary international law, the necessary and justified principle is expressed in Article 10(2) on the State Responsibility, which may be only an analysis of state practice, leading to the conclusion that the ground on which the principles rest is not as solid as often indicated in doctrine. The principle seems to be contructional than the actual state practice. So, as a matter of fact, the ILC Commentary to the Draft Articles adopted on first reading by the Commission(1996) only mentions one single case in the state practice.
A French Municipal Court Decision for the Independence of Algeria:
Algeria became an independent state in July 1962 after a civil war lasting eight years. Article 18 states the principles of the Declaration on Economic and Financial Cooperation, which was entered into by Algeria and France on 19 March 1962, which indicated that Algeria took over the obligations of an internationally wrongful act arising from the act committed before the date of succession. These obligations under Article 18 were not implemented fully. Therefore, the authorities of Algeria faced numerous refusals, and France decided to compensate the French nationals who had suffered damage during the civil war. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of France issued an interpretation against Article 18, stating that Algeria is responsible for the measures taken by them. This principle has been consistently applied by French Municipal Courts.
The French Municipal courts have also consistently held that the new state of Algeria must provide compensation to the French national victims of internationally wrongful acts committed by insurgents of the FLN in their war effort to achieve independence.
The Case of Second Vacuum Oil Company before the US International Claims Commission is a great example of involving internationally wrongful acts. The act is committed by the rebels in the Vaccum Oil Company case before the United States International Claims Commission. It arose from the taking of property by the Nazi puppet claimant during the Second World War. The claimant requested payment of $US11,325 million from Yugoslavia on the ground that the latter must be held responsible for the internationally wrongful acts committed by the ‘independent’ state of Croatia. The Claims Commission viewed that the so-called ‘independent’ state of Croatia was an unsuccessful attempt by the insurrection group to secede from Yugoslavia, which as a state had never been ceased. The Claim Commission made reference to the succession of the United States from the British Crown in 1776 and indicated in such case the new state was responsible for the rebels committed during the revolution, hence it was rejected on the grounds of confiscation of property which took place under the authority of the ‘puppet’ state of Croatia which was not covered by 1948 by the bilateral agreement and entered into the United States and Yugoslavia, but the negotiators of the treaty had intended to include such claims.
The Application of the Principle Adopted by the International Law Commission:
In Article 10(2), the principle established seems to be perfectly applicable to cases of secession. In such a case, the state is held to be responsible for the obligations arising from internationally wrongful acts that are being committed by the rebels against third states. The wording used in Article 10(2) clearly states that it applies to newly independent states since it contains the expression under its administration. Specifically refers to the colonies that are not recognized as an independent state. The International Law Commission rejects the distinction between the national liberation movements and other movements. It is held that responsibility for the formulation of the rule of law governing the State, it is unnecessary and undesirable to exonerate a new government from the responsibility of conducting its personnel by reference to the consideration of legitimacy or illegitimacy of its origin.
With the ‘insurrectional movement’, the assimilation of the national liberation movement has been criticised in doctrine as well as by several members of the International Law Commission (ILC). It is held by some of the states that if the struggle of a national liberation movement results in the creation of a new state, that new entity should not be held accountable for the international wrongful acts that are committed by the movement against third states during the struggle for independence.
The ILC Commentaries to the 2001 Articles of State Responsibility indicate that this provision does not cover a situation where an insurrectional movement within a territory succeeds in its agitation for union with another State. As this apparently derives from the wording of Article 10(2), referring to the creation of a ‘new state’. Consequently, the work of ILC suggests that Article 10(2) states that the State Responsibility does not find application in cases of cession and transfer of territory where no other states are created as a result of the mechanism of succession of states.
Distinction Features Between Wrongful Acts and International Acts:
In terms of Compensation – Responsibility arising from wrongful acts involves full compensation, whereas within the framework of non-prohibited acts, the perpetrator of the damage is not required to eliminate the harmful effects of his act by paying the compensation.
Article 31 of the 2001 Draft Article of Responsibility for the state of internationally wrongful act referred to full reparation in terms of international wrongful acts. However, this type is not necessary in certain cases arising from liability from permissible acts, because this type arises from the lawful activities and not by completely erasing all effective activity of compensation. That’s why the view point both acts are completely different from each other.
The Second chapter of the 2001 Drafting Articles on International Law Commission attributes far-reaching consequences to an international breach. The injured state obliges the other state to (1) establish the wrongful act, (2) restore the previous situation, (3) implement the methods of domestic reparation, or otherwise pay appropriate guarantees and compensate against the repetition.
Therefore, the responsibility of the state for international wrongful acts requires full reparation, which should erase all the effects of the unlawful or illegal act. But the reparation for permissible acts in international law is in the form of some or the other limited reparation or compensation.
In Terms of Self-inflicted Damage – If we state this in terms of self-harm, the other issue is the unpleasant label of the wrongful act that it carries and also states that the international wrongful acts actually damage its prestige in the international arena. On that basis, if we look at the compensation for permissible acts is more easily accepted, as this does not imply any wrong or harmful doing. This is present in the permissible acts of international law, and does not cause significant damage to the perpetrator.
In Terms of Continuity and Non-Continuity – In this term, the obligation is violated through the continuous act; the rule of liability that arises from the unlawful acts implies that the said act must be stopped, while in the realm of liability arising from permissible acts, the continuity of the activity is not problematic, and only compensation is paid.
Regarding the Time of Liability Creation – The element of damage plays a significant role in each case. According to the draft proposal of the International Law Commission on the responsibility of states in the field of wrongful acts, where liability gets generated as soon as the obligations are violated (Article 1), while liability towards any acts that are not prohibited inherently requires the entry of damage.
In Terms of the Responsible Party – In this approach, the liability towards approach that is clearly visible towards any acts that are not prohibited is the approach of privatising liability. This means, according to the rule of international classical responsibility for international wrongful acts, liability is raised at the state level, but international responsibility arising from the acts is not prohibited. The privatisation of liability in acts that are not prohibited has been realised in two ways: by accepting the primary responsibility of the operator rather than the source state, and second by reducing responsibility from the inter-state level to the internal law of the source state of damage.
Conclusion
The doctrine of State responsibility for internationally wrongful acts is a fundamental principle of international law that ensures the legal accountability of States when they violate the obligations owed by other States or to the international community. As the United Nations International Law Commission’s Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001), is codified, a state incurs responsibility when it is conducted, whether by action or omission is attributable to it and constitutes a breach of an international legal obligation. Such responsibility gives rise to clear legal consequences, which include the duty to cease the wrongful act, refrain from future violations, and make full reparation for any of the harm caused. This framework, accepted as customary international law and applied by the international courts and tribunals, plays a crucial role in maintaining the rule of law and stability in international relations.
References
- Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts, https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/9_6_2001.pdf?utm_source (last visited Dec. 25, 2025).
- International Responsibility of States for Wrongful Acts and Non-Prohibited Acts, https://share.google/RAgG7A3OPdEyuhMmL (last visited Dec. 26, 2025).
- Oxford Public International Law: State Responsibility https://share.google/9czYhcY7tdNWGaLOn (last visited Dec. 26, 2025).
- International Law Commission, Articles on State Responsibility, https://share.google/G0dLOIPELxt32KNTR (last visited Dec. 27, 2025).
- When does a state violate international law? – International Humanitarian Law Centre https://share.google/Ty9Mz4mxdO7zdPeop (last visited Dec. 28, 2025).
- INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACTS, https://share.google/8dKhUSCXc1loEFten (last visited Dec. 28, 2025).
- All you need to know about State responsibility in International law https://share.google/4x1BN1XUviHugIBgA (last visited Dec. 28, 2025).
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.
0 Comments