CEVAP:

The relevance of fault in deciding the breach of an international obligation by a state is a debatable issue. According to the supporters of ‘objective responsibility’ doctrine, there should be a casual connection between the act and the breach by the state or its organs. The state is responsible for the acts of its officials or organs, which may devolve upon it despite the absence of any fault on its part. To make the state responsible for acts committed by its officials or organs outside their competence, it is necessary to establish that they have acted as authorized officials or organs. There is no clear rule that responsibility is always based on fault or it is independent of it. However, where responsibility is essentially based on acts or omission such as in the Corfu Channel case, fault becomes a vital consideration. If the act is carried out deliberately, consideration of fault has an insignificant role. Hence, everything depends on the context and the interpretation of the obligation breached. As clarified by the Draft Articles, international law does not require fault as a pre-requisite before an act or omission has been characterized as an international wrong. Nevertheless, the case law points to the conclusion that fault is a necessary condition for responsibility.