Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T09:47:37.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Once and Future Law of State Responsibility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2020

Martins Paparinskis
Martins Paparinskis*
Affiliation:
Reader in Public International Law, University College London. Email:m.paparinskis@ucl.ac.uk. I am grateful to Christiane Ahlborn, Roger O'Keefe, and Meagan Wong for their insightful comments.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The current (once) international law of state responsibility is shaped by the International Law Commission's Articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, generally endorsed in state and judicial practice as consonant with custom. This Essay makes the case that the global pandemic and associated practice may affect foundational elements of the (future) law of state responsibility. It outlines the contours of systemic grain of possible developments by reference to the tension between bilateralism and community interests in international law.

Type
The International Legal Order and the Global Pandemic
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 114 , Issue 4 , October 2020 , pp. 618 - 626
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 by The American Society of International Law

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 An early writer on reprisals may have been a victim himself. Schork, R. Joseph & McCall, John P., A Lament on the Death of John of Legnano, 19 Studies Renaissance 180 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Hugo Grotius, The Rights of War and Peace in Three Books: Wherein Are Explained, the Law of Nature and Nations, and the Principal Points Relating to Government 287, 298, 409, 499 (1738).

3 Emmerich De Vattel, The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns 180 (1872) (“if [a vessel in distress] is infected with the plague, the owner of the port [that it seeks to enter] may fire upon it and beat it off”).

4 Crawford, James, The Current Political Discourse Concerning International Law, 81 Mod. L. Rev. 1, 2–6, 21–22 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Daudet, Yves, 1919–2019, le flux du multilatéralisme, 403 Recueil des Cours 17 (2017)Google Scholar.

6 Lowe, Vaughan, The Politics of Law-Making, in The Role of Law in International Politics: Essays in International Relations and International Law 207, 211–12 (Byers, Michael ed., 2001)Google Scholar.

7 Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, 1949 ICJ Rep. 174, 178–79 (Apr. 11); Reservations to the Convention on Genocide, Advisory Opinion, 1951 ICJ Rep. 15, 23 (May 28).

8 Matthew Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007).

9 Bruno Simma, From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law, 250 R.C.A.D.I. 217, ch. I (1994).

10 James Crawford, Multilateral Rights and Obligations in International Law, 319 R.C.A.D.I. 329, chs. IV–V (2006).

11 Charlesworth, Hilary, International Law: A Discipline of Crisis, 65 Mod. L. Rev. 377 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 E.g. Simma, supra note 9; Santiago Villalpando, L’émergence de la Communauté Internationale dans la Responsabilité des Etats (2005); Crawford, Multilateral Rights, supra note 10; Villalpando, Santiago, The Legal Dimension of the International Community: How Community Interests Are Protected in International Law, 21 Eur. J. Int'l L. 387 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Giorgio Gaja, The Protection of General Interests in the International Community, 364 R.C.AD.I. 15 (2011); Dupuy, Pierre-Marie, Back to the Future of a Multilateral Dimension of the Law of State Responsibility for Breaches of “Obligations Owed to International Community as a Whole,” 23 Eur. J. Int'l L. 387 1059 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Int'l L. Comm'n, Articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, 2 Y.B. Int'l L. Comm'n, pt. 2 (2001), UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/2001/Add. 1 (Part 2) 26. E.g. Robert Sloane, On the Use and Abuse of Necessity in the Law of State Responsibility, 106 AJIL 447 (2012); Miles Jackson, Complicity in International Law (2015); Federica Paddeu, Justification and Excuse in International Law (2018).

14 Symposium: State Responsibility, 10 Eur. J. Int'l L. 339 (1999); Symposium: Assessing the Work of the International Law Commission on State Responsibility, 13 Eur. J. Int'l L. 1053 (2002); Symposium: The ILC's State Responsibility Articles, 96 AJIL 773 (2002).

15 Cf. Theodor Meron, International Law in the Age of Human Rights, 301 R.C.A.D.I. 10 (2003), with Martti Koskenniemi, International Law and the Far Right: Reflections on Law and Cynicism (2019); Tom Ginsburg, Authoritarian International Law?, 114 AJIL 221 (2020).

16 GA Res. 74/180, paras. 1, 4 (Dec. 18, 2019).

17 UNSG, Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts: Compilation of decisions of international courts, tribunals and other bodies, paras. 5–6, UN Doc. 71/80/Add.1 (June 20, 2017).

18 UNSG, Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts: Compilation of decisions of international courts, tribunals and other bodies, para. 5, UN Doc. 74/83 (Apr. 23, 2019).

19 E.g. Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russia), para. 29 (Int'l Ct. Just. Nov. 8, 2019); The Duzgit Integrity Arbitration (Malta v. São Tomé and Príncipe), PCA Case No. 2014-07, paras. 204, 212 (Dec. 18, 2019) [hereinafter Duzgit Integrity]; Panel Report, Saudi Arabia—Measures Concerning the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights, paras. 7.50, 7.51, 7.161, WTO Doc. WT/DS567/R (circulated June 16, 2020) [hereinafter Saudi Arabia—IP Rights].

20 Paddeu, Federica, To Convene or Not to Convene? The Future Status of the Articles on State Responsibility: Recent Developments, 21 Max Planck Y.B. Int'l L. 83, 101–07 (2017)Google Scholar. For polite caution, see Sixth Committee, Summary Record of 13th Meeting (Oct. 15, 2019), paras. 20 (UK), 56 (Israel), UN Doc. A./C.6/74/SR.13 (Feb. 28, 2020).

21 Id., paras. 17, 58.

22 Id., para. 66.

23 Supra notes 17–18. On erga omnes, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Gam. v. Myan.), para. 41, (Int'l Ct. Just. Jan. 23, 2020) [hereinafter Myanmar Genocide].

24 Cf. David D. Caron, The ILC Articles on State Responsibility: The Paradoxical Relationship Between Form and Authority, 96 AJIL 857 (2002); Cargill, Incorporated v. Mexico, ICSID Additional Facility Case No. ARB(AF)/05/2, paras. 381–82, 420 (Sept. 18, 2009).

25 Cf. Sloane, supra note 13; Compilation 2019, supra note 18, at 25–27.

26 Int'l L. Comm'n, Conclusions on identification of customary international law, Conclusion 8(1), UN Doc. A/73/10 (2018) 119. Cf. the plausible expectation of consistency with tension between investment-importing and exporting, or coastal and flag states. Id., Commentary 4.

27 EDF International SA and Ors v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/23, para. 319 (Feb. 5, 2016).

28 Compilation 2019, supra note 18.

29 Sixth Committee, Summary Record of 34th Meeting (Nov. 11, 2019), paras. 13–21, UN Doc. A./C.6/74/SR.34 (Nov. 29, 2019).

30 Paddeu, To Convene or Not to Convene?, supra note 20, at 120–23.

31 Pauwelyn, Joost, Wessel, Ramses A. & Wouters, Jan, When Structures Become Shackles: Stagnation and Dynamics in International Lawmaking, 25 Eur. J. Int'l L. 733 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 GA Res. 74/180, supra note 16, para. 9.

33 Cf. Simma, supra note 9, at 233–36; Crawford, Multilateral Rights, supra note 10; Hernández, Gleider I., A Reluctant Guardian: The International Court of Justice and the Concept of “International Community,” 83 Brit. Y.B. Int'l L. 13 (2013)Google Scholar.

34 Gaja, supra note 12, at 21.

35 Villalpando, The Legal Dimension, supra note 12, at 395.

36 See Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belg. v. Spain), 1970 ICJ Rep. 3, para. 33 (Feb. 5) (obligations erga omnes elaborated by contrast with bilateralist investment protection).

37 Gardner, John, What Is Tort Law for? Part 1. The Place of Corrective Justice, 30 L. & Phil. 1 (2011)Google Scholar.

38 ILC Articles, supra note 13, Art. 2, pt. 1, chs. II–III; Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelagos from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion, 2019 ICJ Rep. 95, para. 77 (Feb. 25).

39 Nolte, Georg, From Dionisio Anzilotti to Roberto Ago: The Classical International Law of State Responsibility and the Traditional Primacy of a Bilateral Conception of Inter-state Relations, 13 Eur. J. Int'l L. 1083 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 James Crawford, State Responsibility: The General Part 54–60 (2013).

41 Pellet, Alain, Remarques sur une révolution inachevée—Le projet de la C.D.I. sur la responsabilité des États, 42 Annuaire Français de Droit International 7, 10–13 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Wyler, Eric, From “State Crime” to Responsibility for “Serious Breaches of Obligations Under Peremptory Norms of General International Law,” 13 Eur. J. Int'l L. 1147, 1153 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 ILC Articles, supra note 13, Arts. 11, 48. Governmental tweets are attributable as conduct of organs, thus retweets may count as acknowledgment, Saudi Arabia—IP Rights, supra note 19, para. 7.161.

44 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosn. & Herz. v. Serb. and Montenegro), 2007 ICJ Rep. 43, para. 420 (Feb. 26) [hereinafter Bosnia Genocide].

45 Int'l L. Comm'n, Articles on responsibility of international organizations, II Y.B. Int'l L. Comm'n, pt. 2 (2011), Art. 14, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/2011/Add. 1 (Part 2) 40 [hereinafter 2011 ILC Articles].

46 Vladyslav Lanovoy, Complicity in an Internationally Wrongful Act, in Principles of Shared Responsibility in International Law 134, 150–56 (André Nollkaemper & Ilias Plakokefalos eds., 2014); Jackson, supra note 13, at 159–61.

47 Jackson, supra note 13, at 162–71.

48 Bosnia Genocide, supra note 44, paras. 420, 432.

49 van Aaken, Anna, Shared Responsibility in International Law: A Political Economy Analysis, in Distribution of Responsibility in International Law 153, 160 (Nollkaemper, André & Jacobs, Dov eds., 2015)Google Scholar.

50 ILC Articles, supra note 13, Art. 34, Commentary 5; also Art. 31(1); followed regarding international organizations, 2011 ILC Articles, supra note 45, Art. 31, Commentary 4, Art. 34, Commentary 1, Art. 40, Commentary 4.

51 James Crawford, Third Report on State Responsibility, II Y.B. Int'l L. Comm'n, pt. 1, paras. 41–42, 162–64 (2000), UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/2000/Add. 13.

52 II Y.B. Int'l L. Comm'n, pt. 1, 95, para. 74 (2011), UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/2011/Add. 1 (Part 1) (“[The World Health Organization] . . . criticised the principle [of full compensation because it] ‘could lead to excessive exposure taking into account that international organizations in general do not generate their own financial resources.’”); Duzgit Integrity, supra note 19, para. 26 (diss. op., Kateka, J.) (“The main concern [of some members of the ILC] was the potentially crippling effect of compensation payments [on the developing countries].”).

53 ConoccoPhillips Petrozuata BV and Ors v. Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/30 (Mar. 8, 2019); Tethyan Copper Company Pty Limited v. Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/1 (July 12, 2019).

54 Martins Paparinskis, A Case Against Crippling Compensation in International Law of State Responsibility, 83 Mod. L. Rev. (2020), available at https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12562.

55 ILC Articles, supra note 13, pt. 2, ch. III.

56 E.g., right of self-determination, Int'l L. Commission, Draft conclusions on peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens), Annex (h), Commentary 12, UN Doc. A/74/10 142 (2019) [hereinafter 2019 ILC Draft Conclusions].

57 ILC Articles, supra note 13, Art. 41; 2019 ILC Draft Conclusions, supra note 56, Conclusion 19, Commentaries 3–8; cf. Dire David Tladi, Third report on peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens) (Feb. 12, 2018), paras. 86–102, 160 (Draft Conclusions 20–21), UN Doc. A/CN.4/714.

58 Dupuy, supra note 12.

59 Obligations Concerning Negotiations Relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marsh. Is. v. UK), 2016 ICJ Rep. 833, paras. 44–58 (Oct. 5) [hereinafter Obligations].

60 ILC Articles, supra note 13, Art. 42(b)(i); Obligations, supra note 59, para. 44.

61 Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belg. v. Sen.), 2012 ICJ Rep. 449, para. 68 [hereinafter Questions]; Myanmar Genocide, supra note 23, para. 41. But note the skepticism of judges with a professional background in the foreign service of certain states. Questions, at 481, paras. 10–22 (sep. op., Skotnikov, J.); Questions, at 571, paras. 2–23 (diss. op., Xue, J.); Questions, at 584, para. 11 (dec., Donoghue, J.); Obligations, supra note 60, at 1029, para. 8 (dec., Xue, J.); Myanmar Genocide, supra note 23, para. 8 (sep. op., Xue, V-P.).

62 Cf. 2019 ILC Draft Conclusions, supra note 56, Conclusion 17(2) (“Any State is entitled to invoke the responsibility of another State for a breach of … jus cogens.”), with the only two examples of application in the International Court of Justice, to a particular criminal cooperation procedure: Questions, supra note 60, and perhaps the most-endorsed contemporary peremptory rule, Myanmar Genocide, supra note 23, Annex (b), Commentary 6.

63 The ILC left the question open, ILC Articles, supra note 13, Art. 54; 2019 ILC Draft Conclusions, supra note 56, Conclusion 19(1), and while legal writings support such a right, Martin Dawidowicz, Third-Party Countermeasures in International Law (2017), there is resistance in state practice, The Declaration of the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China on the Promotion of International Law, para. 6 (June 25, 2016), available at https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/position_word_order/-/asset_publisher/6S4RuXfeYlKr/content/id/2331698; Declaration of the Russian Federation and Islamic Republic of Iran on the Promotion of International Law, UN Doc. A/74/930–S/2020/588, para. 9 (June 25, 2020).

64 Supra note 20, para. 17, also para. 37 (Russia); id.

65 ILC Articles, supra note 13, Arts. 23–25.

66 See generally Paddeu, Justification, supra note 13, ch. 8.

67 Compilation 2019, supra note 18, at 25–27.

68 Paparinskis, Martins, Circumstances Precluding Wrongfulness in International Investment Law, 31 ICSID Rev. 484, 497–99 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 ILC Articles, supra note 13, Art. 25.

70 Allot, Philip, State Responsibility and the Unmaking of International Law, 29 Harv. J. Int'l L. 1, 17–21(1988)Google Scholar.

71 Pey Casado v. Chile (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/98/2, para. 232 (Sept. 13, 2016).

72 ILC Articles, supra note 13, Art. 31, Commentaries 9–10.

73 Factory at Chorzów (Ger. v. Pol.), 1928 PCIJ, Ser. A, No. 17, 29, 47 (Sept. 13). Cf. Arthur Ripstein, As if It Never Happened, 48 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1957 (2007); Gardner, supra note 37.

74 ILC Articles, supra note 13, Art. 31, Commentary 10.

75 Id., Commentary 11; Iran v. U.S., Award No. 604-A15 (II:A)/A26 (IV)/B43-FT, paras. 1796–99 (Full Tribunal Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal Mar. 10, 2020).

76 Id., Commentaries 12–13; Molla Sali v. Greece, App. No. 20452/14, Joint Partly Dissenting Opinion, paras. 47–49 (Eur. Ct. Hum. Rts. June 18, 2020, Lemmens, Koskelo, and Eicke, JJ.).

77 Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicar.), 2018 ICJ Rep. 15, para. 31 (Feb. 20).

78 It is less obvious that contribution to injury is particularly relevant to claims regarding the spread of the Pandemic. ILC Articles, supra note 13, Art. 39; Duzgit Integrity, supra note 19, paras. 197–99.

79 Allot, supra note 70, at 22–24.

80 Brian Egan, Remarks on International Law and Stability in Cyberspace (Nov. 10, 2016), in Digest of United States Practice in International Law 2016, at 815, 822 (CarrieLyn D. Guymon ed., 2017).

81 Cf. Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council Under Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Bahr. and Ors v. Qatar), para. 49, (Int'l Ct. Justice July 14, 2020); id. (sep. op., Cançado Trindade, J.).

82 Cf. Egan, supra note 80; ILC Articles, supra note 13, Arts. 49–53, particularly 50, 52(1)(b), (3)(b).

83 Simma, Bruno & Pulkowski, Dirk, Of Planets and the Universe: Self-Contained Regimes in International Law, 17 Eur. J. Int'l L. 483 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

84 Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark (1876) (“for the Snark was a Boojum, you see”) (emphasis in the original).

85 Mendelson, Maurice, International Law in the Past Half-Century – And the Next?, 50 Current L. Probs. 421, 438 (1997)Google Scholar.

86 UN Press Release, COVID-19 Fast Becoming Protection Crisis, Guterres Warns Security Council (July 2, 2020), at https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/07/1067632.

87 Cf. Koskenniemi, Martti, Solidarity Measures: State Responsibility as the New International Order?, 72 Brit. Y.B. Int'l L. 337 (2001)Google Scholar; James Crawford, Chance, Order, Change: The Course of International Law, 365 R.C.A.D.I. 19, ch. 8 (2013).

88 Crawford, supra note 87, at 21–22.

89 GA Res. 74/180, supra note 16, para. 9.