State Responsibility and Succession in International Law

The rules on liability address issues such as the nature of the breach, whether the breach of an international obligation owed by a state can be attributed to the state concerned, whether another state can be responsible for the breach, whether there is a circumstance that can preclude the wrongfulness, the legal consequences of the breach for the state concerned and third states, how the damage will be repaired, which state or states can invoke responsibility, and what kind of countermeasures can be taken against the state that has breached an international obligation. The rules on liability therefore do not deal with changes of government or regimes.

The rules on the determination of state responsibility and its consequences, some of which have already become customary, have been codified in the International Law Commission’s Draft on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, completed in 2001, and the rules to be discussed in this chapter will be analyzed on the basis of this draft.

Answer is e, failure to take the necessary administrative measures, failure to warn of dangers, failure to enact or properly enforce a law, deficiencies in judicial procedures are the conducts which are giving rise to responsibility as an omission.

Answer a, The general rule is objective responsibility, and it is not a condition of fault to require that the state knew or should have known of the circumstances in the event of a breach of a rule involving a duty of care, see, ICJ, 1949 Corfu Channel case;. however, some obligations may include a fault element, such as the requirement of specific intent for the breach in the Genocide Convention.

The first one. 

The origin of the obligation in question (e.g., treaty, custom, general principles, unilateral act, international court decision) is not important for the breach of an international obligation, which is the first condition for the emergence of State responsibility.

Answer is all. 

The conduct of a state organ, or a person or entity empowered to exercise state authority under the law of the state concerned, may be attributable to that state if they acted within the scope of the authority vested in them, even if such conduct is deemed to be in excess of authority or contrary to instructions. The Draft also recognizes that the act of a private person or entity that is not an organ of the state but is authorized by the law of that state to exercise state authority (e.g., private security companies assigned to ensure the security of a certain area) shall be deemed to be an act of that state as long as it acts within the scope of that authority in the particular incident.

The first one. 

The second element that must be sought in addition to a breach in terms of state responsibility is that the act or omission constituting the breach in question must be attributable to the state under international law. Although the organizational structures of States differ among themselves, Article 4 of the 2001 Draft provides that, regardless of their position and character in the internal organization of the state (federal, autonomous, etc.), the acts of any state organ or official exercising a legislative, executive, judicial, or other public function under the domestic law of the state concerned, in connection with his or her official functions (in respect of matters such as iure imperii or iure gestionis), shall be deemed to be acts of that state.

Answer is 5th. 

What is important here is that the event that precludes the wrongfulness must have occurred in such a way that the state could not avoid or resist (e.g., emergencies such as earthquakes, storms, riots, etc.), and in practice, economic pressures that put the state in a difficult situation or circumstances that only make the performance of the obligation in question more burdensome were not considered force majeure (PCIJ, 1929 Serbian Loanss case; 1990 Rainbow Warrior arbitration).

Despite the fulfillment of the conditions that lead to the responsibility of a state, it is not possible to hold that state responsible if there are certain circumstances that eliminate the illegality. The first of these circumstances is the consent of the other state to the unlawful act of another state. One of the circumstances that can be considered a circumstance that precludes wrongfulness is when a State’s action is taken within the scope of force majeure. Article 24 of the Draft Law provides on distress that the wrongfulness will cease to exist. Another circumstance that can be used to preclude wrongfulness is the state of necessity under Article 25 of the Draft Law. But economic pressures that put the state in a difficult situation or circumstances that only make the performance of the obligation in question more burdensome were not considered force majeure.

Answer e, The last of the circumstances that preclude wrongfulness in the Draft Law is that the act giving rise to responsibility constitutes a countermeasure against an act of another State that is contrary to international law. These measures, which once included the use of force and were called retaliation, are now called countermeasures and do not include the use of force.

Answer is 3rd, The countermeasures should be terminated as soon as the responsible state performs its obligation or after the matter has been brought before a court.

The answer is second. 

If the obligation breached is an obligation undertaken to protect a common interest vis-à-vis a group of states, responsibility may be invoked by the state that is specially affected by the breach (e.g., whose national human rights have been violated or whose coastline has been damaged by a pollution incident on the high seas).

The answer is 5th. 

the purpose of restitution, which is to be applied primarily, is to return the situation to the state of affairs prior to the commission of the unlawful act. (e.g., termination of occupation, return of persons or property, return of persons or property, administrative, or judicial act, etc.). The final remedy, satisfaction, is used for injury that cannot be remedied by restitution and compensation.

The answer is 5th. 

In respect of jus cogens/erga omnes obligations undertaken towards a group of states or the international community as a whole (e.g. prohibition of aggression, prohibition of genocide, prohibition of slavery, fundamental rules of humanitarian law, right to self-determination, etc.), other states, other than the state specially affected by the breach in question, may also request the responsible state to cease the wrongful act and to fulfill its obligation of reparation to the injured state or to those who are beneficiaries of the obligation.

The answer is 4th. Where restitution is not possible or where such restitution fails to compensate for the damage, compensation may be sought from the state responsible for the wrongful act.

The answer is 4th. 

Satisfaction, is used for injury that cannot be remedied by restitution and compensation (e.g., moral or legal injury, such as insult to the flag, interference with internal affairs or sovereignty, or mistreatment of diplomats).

The last one. 

Pursuant to the relevant articles of the Draft, which set out the legal consequences of a state’s responsibility, the state in question must first cease the wrongful act and, if necessary, provide appropriate assurances and guarantees of nonrepetition (ICJ, 2001 La Grand case).

Article 34 deals with the scope of the responsible state’s obligation to make reparation and divides it into three categories: restitution, compensation, and satisfaction.

The two treaties regulating the international rules on the succession of States are the 1978 Convention on the Succession of States in respect of Treaties and the 1983 Convention on the Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts.

The first one. In cases of unification of States and secession from a State, the continuity of treaties (except those of a political nature, such as the granting of military bases, alliances, defense, and neutrality) is primary, and the successor State or the State established by the seceding part shall be bound by the treaties concluded by the predecessor, unless this is contrary to the object and purpose of the relevant treaty.