State Responsibility
International Responsibility

The UN International Law Commission-----started to
discuss on “state responsibility” in 1975-----this took
26 years and in 2001-----Draft Articles on State
Responsibility were finally adopted----now it is
waiting the accession of states to this convention.


These Draft Articles includes-----both “codification” and
“progressive development of int. law”
Art. 1 of the ILC Convention-----“every international wrongful
act of a state entails the international responsibility of that
state”
Responsibility



Not only “states”---but also int. organizations---because they can conclude treaties----it goes without
saying.
Position of individuals + corporations and nongovernmental organization-------to the extent they act
as subject of int. law.
Individuals----int. responsibility only developed in
criminal field----recently-----crimes against peace +
humanity so on.----Draft articles include all---but so
far there has been no development in practice of civil
responsibility of individuals and corporations for
breaches of int. law.
Responsibility

International obligations of states vary from
one state to the other-------because there are
few treaties to which every state is a party.—
like UN Charter.
–
Even under customary int. law----different states may
have different responsibilities----like “upstream states”
“downstream states”.
– National legal systems distinguish types or degrees of
liability----according to the source of obligation breached---crime + contract + tort (haksız fiil)------BUT in int. law
there is no general distinction of this kind.
Elements of State Responsibility
1- There has to be an act or omission violating a rule of
international law-----unlawful act-----or we call it
“internationally wrongful act” OR an act-omission consistent
with the rules of international law-------in which a responsibility
can be attributed to its consequences.
2- This act must cause a damage or loss
3- This act must be attributable or imputable to a person of
international law.
4- There should not be a reason terminating responsibility or
deleting the consequences of that act.--------we call them as
“circumstances precluding responsibility.”
1- An Unlawful Act or Omission--Internationally wrongful act

There are opposing approaches to the nature of this “act
or omission”------– “Principle of objective responsibility” (the risk
theory)----maintains that “once an unlawful act has
taken place and has cause damage-----that state will
be responsible irrespective of “good or bad faith”.
This approach does not ask the existence of a
“culpability---fault”.
– “Subjective responsibility” (the fault theory)---element of “intentional” or “negligent” (ihmal)
conduct is necessary for int. responsibility.
2- The Issue of Injury or Damage




In fact----there is debate in int. law about “the role of harm or
damage”—in the law of state responsibility.
Some claimed that----the state must have suffered some form
of actual harm or damage before responsibility can be
attributed.
BUT---the ILC Draft-------there is no general requirement of
harm or damage-----in some circumstances---mere breach of
an obligation -----will be sufficient to give rise to responsibility.--like minor infringement of the inviolability of an embassy or
consular building.
In such cases of breach----with no damage---the aim of
asserting responsibility may be to avoid repetition of the
problem rather than to obtain compensation.
Harm/Damage

There are some basic principles regarding
damage:


1- This harm must occur against a “protected right” instead of
“a benefit”-----------EXP----termination of a foreigner’s
privileged tax status in another country would not create
international responsibility.
2- There may be a distinction between “direct damage” and
“indirect damage”-------------direct damage means----“the
unavoidable consequences of an internationally wrongful act”.----but indirect one is “the damage that occurs as a result of a
direct damage”.-------EXP: 19th century-----UK’s selling of the
armed ship “Alabama” to the South America (confederate--north--union)-----The Arbitration took into consideration the
casualty created by this ship but not the “rise of ship insurance
prices” and “rise in the prices of ship transportation”.
Harm/Damage
3- Material Damage (Maddi zarar) + Mental sufferings
(manevi zarar)---------since 1920’s not only the material
one but also the “mental sufferings of relatives of the
person killed are taken into consideration”.

4- Internationally wrongful act may damage the
“international legal person” directly or through its
citizens.-------like inhuman treatment to the
diplomatic agent may be deemed as damage to
state.-----------the institution or the concept of
“diplomatic protection” developed as a result of this
connection.
3- The Question of Imputability
(attribution)

Another important point-------EVEN if any organ or official of a
state acts “ultra vires” (acts beyond their legal capacity---excess of authority----contravening instructions)------ acts or
omissions of that organ may be attributable to the state.


In 1920’s a French national was shot and killed by the members of the
Mexican Army without any official instruction to them to do so.----BUT
the tribunal held Mexico responsible for these “ultra vires” acts and
attributable to the state of Mexico.
Organs, officials or agents of states-----when they act in their capacity
as organs of the state---their acts and omissions shall be regarded as
those of the state---even when they contravene the internal law or
directives------------therefore one must pay attention to the employment
of agents carefully.
3- The Question of Imputability
(attribution)

Normally-----a state is not responsible for the acts of
mass or of private individuals----their conduct will
only be attributable to the state---------
a- if they were in fact acting “under the authority or control of”
the state.-----


Exp: During the case of Nicaragua----the ICJ searched
“effective control” of the USA over the conducts of the contra
rebels---in order to attribute the responsibility to the USA.
Please also remember the Case of Loizidou.
Under the ILC’s Draft Articles----special concepts were
used-----“if the persons or group of persons is in fact acting
on the instructions of + or under the direction of + or under
the control of----------that state in carrying out of that
conduct…
3- The Question of Imputability
(attribution

b- or if the state adopts their acts as its own.---
Exp: in the Tehran Hostages Case---the ICJ hold that “although initially the
students who took the control of the US
embassy in Tehran were not acting as
agents of Iran----BUT a subsequent
decree of Ayatollah Khomeini endorsing
this occupation “translated these acts
into acts of Iran””.
3- The Question of Imputability
(attribution)



c- or if they “empowered to exercise elements of
governmental authority”.
 Exp: Acts of “private security firms authorized to
act as prison guards.-------or when privatized or
state-owned airlines exercise certain
immigration controls.
d- or if the state failed to prevent the conduct
Exp: Special duty to protect embassy or consulate
buildings.-----In the Tehran Case the ICJ held Iran
responsible for not to protect the Embassy of USA
3- The Question of Imputability
(attribution)

Another point is related with the “time factor”


Basic principle----A state can only be responsible for
breach of an obligation----if the obligation is in force for
that state----at the time of the alleged breach + violation.
This principle is also reflected in the ILC’s Draft Articles--An act of a state does not constitute a breach of an int.
obligation----unless the state is bound by the obligation
in question at the time of the violation.
3- The Question of Imputability
(attribution)
 Certain
wrongful acts may be “instantaneous”--while some of them can continue over a
period of time.
 Exp: convention “entered into force for
that state” is an important point-----in the
Loizidou Case---the ECHR said---continuing exclusion of Mrs. Loizidou
from access to her property in TRNC---continued after the 1974 military
operation of Turkey
4- “Circumstances Precluding
Responsibility-Wrongfulness”



These are the excuses------which transform a
wrongful act that would otherwise constitute
an unlawful act.
But please note that-----under the ILC’s Draft
Articles------non of these circumstances can
operate to excuse a conduct which violates a
peremptory norm of international law.
Exp: for the preclusion of responsibility about
“torture” + “crimes against humanity”.
4- “Circumstances Precluding
Responsibility-Wrongfulness”


Consent
A valid consent may preclude the wrongfulness of
that action



Exp: a state may consent to military action on its territory---which would otherwise be unlawful under the UN Charter.---take “Treaty of Guarantee”-------prior consent.
Again----a state may consent to foreign agents to arrest of
suspects on its territory.----------Exp----There was a treaty
between Turkey and Iraq on trans-boundary military
operations in case of terrorist or rebel fighting.
BUT----A state cannot consent to legitimize “genocide”.
4- “Circumstances Precluding
Responsibility-Wrongfulness”



Self-defence
it is so clear----take Art. 51 of the UN Charter---“armed attack”.
Force Majeure (Zorlayıcı Neden)---Mücbir Sebep
–
–
If non-performance of an obligation-----is due to the
circumstances outside the control of the state---and if the
reason was an unexpected + unforeseen + irresistible
event “beyond the control of the state”----there shall be no
responsibility.
BUT---this force majeure will not apply----if the situation is
“due to the conduct of the state invoking it”.