Public Law Studies Quarterly

Critical Reflections on the Responsibility of States and International ‎Organizations for the Wrongful Acts of Other States or International ‎Organizations

Document Type : Article

Authors

Jamal Seifi 1
Nasim Zargarinejad 2

1 Associate Professor, Department of International Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, ‎Tehran, Iran‎

2 Student in International Law, Department of International Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti ‎University, Tehran, Iran‎

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2023.355884.3275
Abstract
The International Law Commission (ILC), in its draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations, has developed the exceptional rule of "responsibility in relation to the acts of another legal entity" by introducing new articles. As a result of this development, the number of situations in which a state or international organization can be held responsible for the wrongful acts of another, has expanded. This paper seeks to answer the question of what will be the implications of expanding various realizable situations under "responsibility in relation to the wrongful acts of another"? The hypothesis of this research is that the increase in situations will impact the overall theory of "responsibility in relation to the wrongful acts of another," but it will not facilitate the practical possibility of holding organizations and states accountable for the actions of others. The findings of this paper will demonstrate that, in theoretical terms, the coherence that existed in the draft regarding the responsibility of states for various situations of responsibility in relation to the wrongful acts of another has been lost with the formulation of new articles in the ILC’s 2011 draft articles. Additionally, in practical terms, despite dedicating nine articles to this type of responsibility in the said draft, the likelihood of utilizing the articles developed by the Commission does not seem very high, and their formulation has not made a difference in practice.

Keywords

International Law ‎Commission
international ‎responsibility
‎responsibility in ‎connection with the act of ‎States
responsibility in ‎connection with the ‎conduct of international ‎organizations
wrongful ‎act.‎
Subjects

  1. Enlgish

    1. A) Books
    2. Crawford, J. (2013). State Responsibility: The General Part. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    3. Lanovoy, V. (2016). Complicity and Its Limits in the Law of International Responsibility. Studies in International Law, Oxford: Hart Publishing.
    4. Voulgaris, N. (2019). Allocating International Responsibility between Member States and International Organisations. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. d’Aspremont, J. (2012). The Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations: Magnifying the Fissures in the Law of International Responsibility, International Organizations Law Review, 9(1), 25-113.
    3. d’Aspremont, J. (2017). International Responsibility and the Constitution of Power: International Organizations Bolstered. In International Organizations and Member State Responsibility, edited by Ana Sofia Barros, Cedric Ryngaert, and Jan Wouters: Leiden, Brill/Nijhoff, 95-113.
    4. Dominicé, C. (2010). Attribution of Conduct to Multiple States and the Implication of a State in the Act of another State. In The Law of International Responsibility, edited by James Crawford, Alain Pellet, Simon Olleson, and Kate Parlett: Oxford, Oxford University Press, 281-291.
    5. Fry J. (2014). Attribution of Responsibility. In Principles of Shared Responsibility in International Law: An Appraisal of the State of the Art, edited by André Nollkaemper and Ilias Plakokefalos, Cambridge University Press, 98 – 133.
    6. Klein, P. (2010). The Attribution of Acts to International Organizations. In The Law of International Responsibility, edited by James Crawford, Alain Pellet, Simon Olleson, and Kate Parlett: Oxford, Oxford University Press, 297-317.
    7. Kuijper, P. J. (2010). Amsterdam Center for International Law Introduction to the Symposium on Responsibility of International Organizations and of (Member) States: Attributed or Direct Responsibility or Both. International Organizations Law Review, 7 (1), 9–33.
    8. Nolte, G. 2002. From Dioniso Anzilotti to Roberto Ago: The Classical International Law of State Responsibility and the Traditional Primacy of a Bilateral Conception of Inter-State Relations, European Journal of International Law, 13(5), 1083-1098.
    9. Palchetti, P. (2017). Litigating Member State Responsibility: The Monetary Gold Principle and the Protection of Absent Organizations. In The Law of International Responsibility, edited by James Crawford, Alain Pellet, Simon Olleson, and Kate Parlett: Oxford, Oxford University Press, 178–192.
    10. Pomson O. (2019). Does the Monetary Gold Principle Apply to International Courts and Tribunals Generally? Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 10(1), 88–125.
    11. Simma, (1994). From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International, 250, 295-430.
    12. Voulgaris, N. (2014). Rethinking Indirect Responsibility, International Organizations Law Review, 11(1), 5-52.

     

    1. C) Documents
    2. ILC (2011). Draft Articles on Responsibility of International Organizations with commentaries, A/66/10.
    3. ILC, ILC Draft Articles on International Responsibility of States with commentaries. A/56/10.

     

    1. D) Case law
    2. Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ. Reports 1992
    3. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), Judgment, ICJ. Reports 2015.
    4. Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995 (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia v. Greece), Judgment of 5 December 2011, ICJ. Reports 2011
    5. Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland, Application no. 45036/98,30, ECTHR, June 2005
    6. Gasparini v Italy and Belgium, No. 10750/03, Admissibility Decision, ECTHR, 12 May 2009
    7. Waite and Kennedy v Germany, App No 26083/94, ECTHR, 18 February 1999

     

    1. E) Website
    2. European Commission (2022). Statement by Executive Vice-President Dombrovskis on EU Decision to Stop Treating Russia as a Most-Favoured-Nation at the WTO, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2019-2024/dombrovskis/announcements/statement-executive-vice-president-dombrovskis-eu-decision-0_en.

     

    References In Persian:

    1. A) Books
    2. Katouzian, N. (2009). Judicial Facts, Tort Liability, 6th edition, Tehran: Enteshar Coperation (In Persian).
    3. Seifi, S. J. (2022). The Laws of International Responsibility: Reflections on the Law of State Responsibility, Tehran, ShareDanesh Publications. (In Persian)

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Jamal S., Zargarinejad, N. (2022). Critical Considerations on the Identical Constitutive Elements of International Responsibility of States and International Organizations, Legal Research Quarterly, 25(98), 69-94 (In Persian).
    3. Momenirad A., Setayeshpur M. (2018). Conceptual Framework of Derivative Responsibility of International Organizations in International Law, Public Law Studies Quartery, 49(3) 635-644. (In Persian)
    4. Qadirli, N., & Hosseini, H. (2021). The Doctrine of “Equivalent Protection”: Uncertainty on the Principle of Separation in the System of International Responsibility of Organizations. Public Law Research, 22 (70), 346-373 (In Persian)
    5. Setayeshpur M., & Haddady, M. (2017). Scrutinizing the Necessity of ‘Derivative Responsibility’ In Light of ILC Works, Public Law Studies Quartery, 47(3), 771-795. (In Persian)
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 55, Issue 2 - Serial Number 42
Summer 2025
Summer 2025
Pages 859-883

  • Receive Date 26 February 2023
  • Revise Date 10 April 2023
  • Accept Date 26 June 2023

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us