Chapter 9
36
1 Chapt 9 State Responsibility Content Pages 9.1 Nature of State Responsibility 2 9.1.1 The theory of state responsibility 2 9.1.2 Kinds of state responsibility 5 9.2 States Responsibility in respect of contractual 9 obligations expropriation 9.2.1 The Clave Clause 11 9.2.2 Debts 13 9.2.3 Expropriation 16 9.3 State Responsibility for wrongs unconnected 19 with contractual obligations 9.3.1 Protection of Citizen Abroad 20 9.3.2 Imputability 22 9.4 Treatment of Aliens 26 9.4.1 Denial of Justice 29
-
Upload
min-chan-moon -
Category
Documents
-
view
39 -
download
6
Transcript of Chapter 9
1
Chapt 9
State Responsibility
Content Pages
9.1 Nature of State Responsibility 2
9.1.1 The theory of state responsibility 2
9.1.2 Kinds of state responsibility 5
9.2 States Responsibility in respect of contractual 9
obligations expropriation
9.2.1 The Clave Clause 11
9.2.2 Debts 13
9.2.3 Expropriation 16
9.3 State Responsibility for wrongs unconnected 19
with contractual obligations
9.3.1 Protection of Citizen Abroad 20
9.3.2 Imputability 22
9.4 Treatment of Aliens 26
9.4.1 Denial of Justice 29
2
STATE RESPONSIBILITY
ααα αααα
9.1 Nature of State Responsibility
ααα ααααα α αα
In any legal system there must be liability for failure to observe obligations
imposed by its rules. Such liability is known in international law as "
responsibility". Since states are the principal international persons they are the ones
who are the subjects of liability under international law. Therefore the term "state
responsibility" is used to denote such liability of a state.
ααααα₯α αα αα αααα αααα αααα α α α₯α αα α α α
α α α ααααα α α α α ααα ααα ααααα‘ααα αααα
αα αα ααααα α αααααα‘ αα ααααα α₯α αα‘αα ααα αα α α α
ααα ααα ααα‘ αα ααααα αα αα αα ααα ααα α ααα‘
αα ααααα α₯α αα‘αα ααααα αα αααα α α αααααααα α
ααα αααα αα α α ααααα α αα α αα α‘α α ααα
9.1. 1 The theory of state responsibility
ααα ααααα α αα
It is often maintained that a state, as a sovereign person, can have no legal
responsibility whatever. This is only correct with reference to certain acts of a state
3
towards its subjects. The position is different with regard to the external
responsibility of a state. Responsibility in that sphere attaches to every state as an
international person.
α‘α αα‘ α α‘ α ααα‘ α α‘ααα α αα‘ αα α ααα α α
ααα αααααααααα αα α₯α α α α α αααααα α αα α α α
ααααα α α α ααααααα ααααα ααα α α‘ α α α α ααα
α αα‘α α ααα α αααααα αααα α αα αααα ααα αααααα
ααα αα αα αα α α α ααα ααααα ααααααα ααααααα‘
αα ααααα αα α αα α αααα α α αααα αα ααα ααα
State responsibility concerning international duties is therefore a legal
responsibility. Every neglect of an international legal duty constitutes an
international responsibility. The injured state can, subjects to its obligations of
pacific settlement, through reprisals on even war compel the dilinquent state to
fulfill its international duties.State responsibility is in a general way recognized in
time of war by Article 3 of the Hague Convention of 1907 concerning the Laws and
Customs of War on Land.
α α αα‘ αα ααααα αααα ααααα α ααα ααααα
αα₯α α α α α αα αα αααα‘ αα ααααα α ααααα α αααα
ααα αααααα αα‘ αα ααααα α αααααααααααααααα α
α± ααααα ααα ααα α ααα‘ αα αα ααααα α αααα
α α α αααα αααα ααα α αα (α)α α αααα αα αα α α
α αα αααα ααα α‘ αα ααα ααααα α αααααααα α α
4
α αα α α α₯α αα α αααα α ααα‘ αα ααααα α α α
αααα α α α α‘αα α α‘αα‘ααα α α α ααα
The theory of state responsibility is not very well developed. As an
attempt to codify the rules in this field, the International Law Commission has
adopted "Draft Articles on state responsibility".
ααα ααααα α αα αα α α α αα α α αααα αα
ααααα α α α₯α αα αα α α αα α αα αα α‘ ααα‘ αα ααααα
α₯α α α α ααααα ααα αααα ααααα α α‘ααα αα αα αααα
ααα
The general rule is that "every internationally wrongful act of a state
entails the international responsibility of that state. This is one of the principles most
strongly upheld by state practice and judicial decisions and most deeply rooted in
the doctrine of international law.
ααα α α α α α αααα αααα‘ αα ααααα α
αα α α‘ α ααα ααα αααα‘ αα ααααα α αααα ααα α α
ααααα αα ααα αα αα αα αα α‘ ααα αα α α‘ααα α α
α α αα α ααα α αα αα‘ αα ααααα αα α αα α αααααα
α α α‘ααα‘α α‘ ααα α αα ααα α αα ααα‘ αααα α αα α
ααα α ααα ααα α αα α α αα ααα αα ααα
All states are responsible in law for their illegal acts; there are no
exceptions based upon lack of capacity. In particular, there is no exception for new
states. States establish themselves as equal members of the international community
5
as soon as they achieve an independent and sovereign existence. If it is the
prerogative of sovereignty to be able to assert its rights, the counterpart of that
prerogative is the duty to discharge its obligations.
ααα‘ α αααα α αα₯α α ααα α α αα‘ α α‘αα α‘
ααα₯α αα‘αα αααα ααααα α αα‘ααα‘α α αα αα α ααα‘ αα
α± α α α αα αα αα ααα αααααααααααα αα‘α αα‘ α α‘ α
ααααααα‘ αα ααααα α‘α α‘α α ααα αα‘αααα‘ αα αα α αα
αααααα ααααα‘ααα αααα αααααα α αα‘ααα‘ α αα‘αα
α‘α α α αααααααα‘ααα‘ α αα ααα α αααααα‘ααα‘ α
αα αα αα α αα ααα α α ααααα α αααααα
9. 1.2 Kinds of state responsibility
ααα ααααα‘α α‘α α
State responsibility arises for the breach of any obligation owed under
international law. A state is responsible for example, if it fails to honor a treaty, if it
does not perform contractual obligations, if it violates the territorial sovereignty of
another state, if it damages the territory or property of another state, if it employs
armed force against another state, if it injures the diplomatic representatives of
another state, or if it mistreats the nationals of another state. The term "international
delinquency" is often used for thest wrongful acts of states.
ααα ααααααα‘ αα ααααα α₯α αα‘αααααα ααααα
6
α αα α ααα‘αα α α αα αα αα αααα₯αα α‘ αα αααα αα
ααα α ααα ααα‘ α αα‘αα α α αααααα ααααα α α
αα α α αα α αα α ααααα α αα α αααα α α αα α α
α‘ α ααααα αα‘α αα‘ α α‘ α αα α αα α α αα α α αα
α αα α ααααα α αα α αααα α α αα α α αα‘ α ααα
ααααααααααα α ααα α α αα α α αα‘ α ααααααα
α α ααα ααα αααααα α α α α α αα α α (α ααα)α‘
α ααα ααα α αα ααα αα α α α αα α α αααα αααα
α αααααα
In municipal law, a division is made between civil and criminal liability
and within the former, between liability in contract and in tort. Some of these
divisions exist in international law.
α‘ αα ααααα α ααα α αα α ααα ααα αα αα α
α α α ααααα α‘ααα α ααα‘α α αα αααα α₯α ααααα α
α αααα α αα αααα α αααα α αααα α αα α ααα α α αααα
ααα ααα ααα α α α αααα α ααααααα α α α ααααα
αα α αα‘α ααα‘ αα ααααα α₯α ααα αα αααα ααα
The following is the classification of state responsibility in ILC. Draft
Articles:
α‘ αα ααααα α₯α α α α ααααα‘ααα α αα αα ααα
7
αααα α‘α α‘α α α αα α‘ αα α‘αα α αα α αα-
"An internationally wrongful act which results from the breach by a
state of an international obligation so essential for the protection of fundamental
interests of the international community that its breach is recognized as a crime by
that community as a whole, constitutes an international crime".
Any international wrongful act which is not an international crime
constitutes an "international delict".
It is clear from above that there may be both civil and criminal liability
on the part of states in international law. As far as civil or delictual liability is
concerned international law does not distinguish between contractual and tortuous
liability. Thus the breach of a treaty obligation is subject to the same rules on
reparation as a violation of a customary rule of international law.
The question whether states may be criminally liable has long been the
subject of debate. In recent years, the view that the state bear criminal responsibility
for violations of international law has gained much support.
α‘ αα ααααα₯α ααα ααα α‘ α αα α α αααα α
αα αααα α αααα(α)α αα ααααα‘αααααα αα α ααα
α‘ αα ααααα α₯α α ααααα α αα αα αααα(α α
αα)αα α₯α αα α α αα α‘ααα αααααααα ααα α αααα
α αααα αααααααα ααα α αααα α αααα α ααα αα α
α α ααα ααα α αα α‘αααααααααα‘ αα ααααα α αα
8
αα α₯α αα αα α αααα ααα α α α ααααα α αα
α α α α α α αα α αααα α αααααα αα ααα ααα αα
αα αααα α αααααα α ααΏα αααα‘α α α α α α ααα
αα α α α α α αα αααα ααααα‘ αα ααααα α₯α αα α ααα‘
αα αα αααα α αααααα α α‘ ααα α αααα α αααα ααα
The International Law Commission commented on state practice as follows:
"Contemporary international law has reached the point of condemning
outright the practice of certain states in forcibly imposing internal regimes based on
discrimination and the most absolute racial segregation or in acting to endanger the
preservation and conservation of the human environment ......The international
community as a whole now considers that international crime implies the
commission of acts which violate principles formally embodied in the Charter and
principles which are so deeply rooted in the conscience of mankind.
α‘ αα ααααα α₯α α α α ααααα ααα αα α α αα αα
ααααα α‘ αα α‘αα ααααα ααα
βα α α α ααα‘ αα ααααα α₯α ααααα α αααααα
αα α αααα αα α α α ααα αααα‘ αα‘ ααα αα αα α α
α αααα‘ α α αα α αα α α α αααααα‘α α αα α (α ααα)αα
α± α α α αα α ααααα α α ααα‘ αα α αααα α‘αα ααα αα
α α‘αα α‘α α α α α αα ααα‘α ααα αα α α αα αα
9
ααα αα αα α α ααα α αα ααα α α‘α αα α αααααα‘
αα ααααα αα ααααα αα α ααα α ααα αααααα αα
α αα‘ ααα α αα α αα α ααααααααα α αα αα
αααα α αα α αα α αα α αα α α α αα αα αα
ααα‘ α α αα αααααα‘α ααα‘ αα ααααα α α‘α α‘α α αα αα α
ααααα α αααβ
9.2 States Responsibility in respect of contractual obligations
expropriation
ααα ααα α ααααα α α ααααα ααα αααα
State responsibility for breach of a treaty obligation depends upon the precise
terms of the treaty provision alleged to have been infringed. This raises purely a
question of construction of the words used. If the treaty provision broken,
responsibility follows.
α α αα α ααααα α αα α αα α‘αα αααα ααα αααα
ααα α ααααα αα α α α α αααα αα α α α α αα αα
α α α α ααα α ααααααααα‘αααα α αα α α α αα α
α α ααα αα ααααα α α ααα α α α αα αα αα ααα
According to the P.C.I.J. in the
"Chorzow Factory (Indemnity) Case"
10
It is a principle of international law that any breach of an engagement
involves an obligation to make reparation.
Somewhat different considerations apply to the case of contracts
entered between a state and alien citizens or corporations. A breach by a state of
such a contract will not necessarily engage its responsibility under international law.
And such responsibility will not, when it exists, be identical in kind with the
liability under the contract. Here, the responsibility under international law arises
only if the state breaks some duty extraneous to the contract for example, if it is
guilty of a "denial of justice" to the other contracting person.
α‘ αα ααααα α‘ ααα αα α Chorzow Factory (Indemnity)
(αααα)α‘αααα αααααα α α ααα ααα ααα α α α αα
ααα α αα αα α α α α ααααααααα α α‘ αα ααααα
αα α αα αα α αα ααα
αααα αα α αα α α α (α ααα) αα α αααα α‘ α
α αα α ααα α α αα ααααααα α α‘α α‘α α‘α α α
α ααααααααα α αα αααα ααα αααα α α αα ααα‘
αα ααααα α₯α αα‘αα ααα α α αααααααα‘α αααα αααα
α ααααααα α‘ ααα α ααααα α ααααααααα ααα ααα
α α ααααα α‘α αα α ααα α α αα α α α αααα αα
ααααα ααα αα α α‘ α α α ααα‘ αα α αααα α‘ αα α αα
α αα ααα α αα‘ αα ααααα α₯α αα‘ααα ααααα αααα α
ααα
11
A state may, however, impliedly contract with another state that it will
observe the terms of arrangement with a citizen of the latter state. But it would seem
from the decision of the I.C.J in the "Anglo-lranian oil company Case
(Jurisdiction)" that weighty proof is required of such an implied treaty.
α α ααααα‘ α αααα αα ααααα α α‘ ααααα α
α αα α αααα α ααα ααα αα ααααα α αααααα
α ααα ααα α αα‘αααα α αα ααα αααα α αααα
αααα α αα αI.C.J α Anglo-lranianoil company Caseαααααα
α α αα α αααα α ααα αααα‘ α α α αα ααα αα
α‘ααααα ααα α ααα
9.2.1 The Calvo Clause
α αα α αα αα
It is convenient at this point to discuss the clauses of the known as the
"Calvo Clause;" named after the Argentinean jurist Carlos Calvo. These clauses are
frequently used in contracts between Central and South American Governments and
foreign companies or persons to whom concessions or other rights are granted under
the contracts.
α€α‘αα αα α‘ α αα α α₯α ααα αα Carlos Calvo α
α αααααα α Calvo Clauseα α α α α αα α αα α α αα
αα α ααααα α α αα α αα ααα‘αααα α α αα‘ ααααααα‘
α αα α αα α ααα(α ααα) αα α α α α‘ α α αα α αα
12
α α α αα ααα α αααααα α αα αααααα α α αα‘ααα α
α‘ α‘α α‘αα α α α α‘ α α‘ααα‘ α α α α α ααα
Under such a clause the foreign concessionaire renounces the
protection or assistance of his government in any mattes arising out of the contract.
The object of such a clause is that legal disputes arising out of the contract shall be
referred to the municipal courts of the state granting the concession and to oust the
jurisdiction of international arbitral tribunals or to prevent any appeal for diplomatic
action to the national state of the company or individual enjoying the concession.
αα α α αα α αα‘α αα α α αααααααα α α
α αα α αααααα αααααααα ααα‘α ααα‘αα(α )α αα
α α α ααααααα α ααααα αα ααααα α α αα ααααα αααα
ααα αα α€α αα αααααα αα α ααα‘ αα α α α α αα α αα α
α αααα ααα α α ααααα αααα α α αα ααα αα ααα
α‘ αα ααααα αα α α α α αα ααααααααααααα(α ααα)
ααααα ααα (α ααα) ααα α α ααα ααααααααα α‘α
αα α α α ααα αα αα α αα αα ααα
There have been several conflicting decisions by international arbitral
tribunals on the legality of the Calvo Clause. In a number of cases it has been null
and void on the ground that an individual cannot contract away the right of his
government to protect him. In other cases the arbitrators have treated it as valid.
α αα α αα α ααα αα αα ααααααα‘ αα ααααα
αα α αα α αα‘α α α α α α ααα αα αα ααααααα‘α
α‘α α‘ α αααα α α αα α ααααα ααααα α αααααα ααα
13
ααααα‘ α α α‘αα α‘α ααα ααα α¦ α α ααααα‘ α αααααα
αααα αα α α α α αααα‘αα α αααα α α αα‘ααα α αα
ααα αα α αααα‘α α‘αα ααα α αα ααα α α αα α αααα
ααααα α αααα ααα
9.2.2 Debts
α α α
Claims asserting the responsibility of a state for debt more frequently
arise in cases of states succession where an annexing or successor state seeks to
evade the financial obligations of its predecessor. Such claims also occur in many
other cases, for example the failure of governments in the service of loans or default
of governments in contributions to international of which they are members.
ααααα ααααααα αααα α α ααα α αααα
α αα α α‘α α αα ααα αα α α αααα ααα ααααα‘αα
α α ααα α αααααααα ααα αααα α αα αααα₯αα α‘ αα
αααα αααααα α‘ααα αα α α‘ ααα‘ ααααα α‘α α α α α α‘α
ααα‘α αα ααααα α α ααα αααα α ααα α α (α ααα)
α ααα α αααααα α ααα‘α ααα ααααα α α α α ααα
α αααα
14
There have been three theories as to the right of a state to protect
subjects creditors of another state.
(1) Lord Palmerston's theory that the former state is entitled to intervene
diplomatically, and even to military intervention as against a defaulting
debtor state.
(2) "The Drago Doctrine" that states are bound no to use against a defaulting
debtor state compulsory measures such as armed military action. This
doctrine is intended to apply in favour of Central and SouthAmericanStates
as a corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. Drago's objections were principally
confined to the use of armed force in the collection of public debts; he was
not directly opposed to diplomatic intervention or to claims before
international tribunals.
αααα ααααα‘ α ααα ααα α ααα αα αααα αα
αα αααα‘ααα‘ α α‘ α αααα‘αα α αα (α) ααα ααα
(α) Lord Palmerston α α‘ααα ααα αααα
α α αα α α ααα α ααααααα α αα αααααα α‘α
αα α αα ααααα α‘ααα‘ α αα α α α α α‘α αα α αα α
αα αα α α αααα α αα α‘ααα‘ α αα ααα
(α) Dragoα α αα α‘α ααα αα α α αα α α
αααα ααααα ααα α ααα α α α‘αα‘ α α α ααα αα α
α αα α αα‘α α αα α α ααα αααα ααααα αα α αα
αα‘α αααα αα‘ α αααα α α αα ααα‘ ααα
15
ααα‘αααα α α ααα α‘ αααα ααα αα¦ α α α αα αα
ααααααα Drago α αα αααα α α‘α αααα α
α α α αα α α α αα α α α‘αα‘ αα‘α α αα α‘ααα‘ αα
αα ααα α αααα‘ αα ααααα αα α α α α α α αα
α α ααα (α ααα) αααααα α‘α αα α αα ααα αα
αααα α ααααααα αα α ααα α α αα
Consequently, the "Hague Convention of 1907 for Limiting the
Employment of Force for the Recovery of Contract Debts" provided that the
states parties to the Convention would not resort to armed force in order to
recover contract debts due to their nationals by another state except where the
state refused to accept arbitration or to submit to an arbitral award.
(3) According to the most generally accepted theory the obligation of a debtor
state is similar in all repects to obligation under international agreements in
general. Therefore no special rules nor special methods of redress are
applicable.
α‘α ααα‘ ααααα ααα α α α αααααα α α‘αα
α‘αα‘ α α ααααααα ααααα‘αα αααα α α ααα‘ αα
ααααα α α ααα α α α α ααααα α α αααα α αααα ααα αα
α α ααα ααα α ααα αααα ααα(α ααα)αα αα ααα αα
α αα αα αααααα αααα αα αα α α α‘α ααα α‘ α αααα α
16
αα‘ α αααα ααα α α‘αα α αααα αααα α α α α αααα
ααααα‘α α α α ααα‘α α‘ α‘αα α α ααα α αα α αα
(α) ααα α‘ αααααα αα α αα α αα α‘α α α‘α
α α αα α α αααα ααααα‘ααααα‘ αα ααααα α α
ααα αα α‘α α α ααα αααα αα αααα ααα
α α α αααα α αααααα‘α α α α α₯α αα (α ααα)α‘α
αα αα α αααααα αα
9.2.3 Expropriation
αααααααααα
Expropriation or the compulsory taking of private property by the
state, is a phenomenon that has become especially important in international law
with the spread of socialism and the emergence of the post-colonial state.
The responsibility of a state for expropriating private property is a distinct one quite
different from other matters mentioned above. We have to note that the arbitrary
confiscation of property belonging of foreign citizens is clearly contrary to
international law. Therefore, an expropriation of foreign property would be justified
only if this were in accordance with a declared domestic policy applied without
discrimination to the citizens of the expropriating state and to foreigners alike.
17
αααα ααααααααααα α α α ααααααα α αα (α ααα)
α‘αα α‘ αααα α αα ααα α ααα α αα ααααα αα α ααααα
ααα αααα α αα αα αα α α ααααα α α αα‘α αα αααα
α α₯α αααα α α α α‘ α α α ααααααααααα α α ααααα
αα ααα‘αα ααα ααααααα‘αααα α αα α αα ααα α
α‘ α α‘ααα α α αα αααα α αα ααα αα α α αααα α αα α
αα‘αα α‘ αα αα α α α‘ αα αα ααααα‘ αα ααααα α₯α αα
αα α α αααα ααα α αααα α αα‘ααα αα α ααα ααα
αααα α ααααα ααα α αααα α α αααα ααα ααα α α
α αα αα‘αα αα α ααααα α αα α α αααα α α ααααααα
α αα αααα α ααααα αα ααα
In 1939, bitter controversy on this very subject arose when Mexico
expropriated the oil properties of seventeen British, American, and Dutch
companies. Similar controversy was occasioned in 1956 over Egypt's
nationalization of the Suez Canal Company's concession.
ααααα α ααααα α ααααααα αααα αα‘ αααα α α
αα αααα αααα α ααα α ααααααα αα α α‘α αα αα αα
α ααα α α α‘ αα α α α α αααααα‘α αααα αα α ααα
α‘αα α α ααα αα αα‘α α α ααααααα α αα α‘ α ααα α‘
αα α α αα α αααα
18
An expropriation law will be deemed purely confiscator and therefore
contrary to international law if it does not provide just compensation for the foreign
citizen or corporations suffering expropriation of their property. Compensation of a
nominal value only, or which is indefinitely postponed, or is below the rate of
compensation awarded to nationals of the expropriation state, is to be regarded as
unjust.
ααααααα α₯α αα αα α α αα ααααα αα α αααα
ααα αα αααα α αα‘αααααα₯α ααααα α α α ααααααα α
αα αα α α α α αααα α (α) αα α α α α‘αα α α αα
α α α αα ααα ααα α₯α αααα‘ αα ααααα α₯α αααα α ααα
ααααααα αα ααα α α ααα α α αα α α α α αα α α‘
αα‘α α α α α αα α α α αα α α(α ααα)αα α α ααα
α αα ααααααα α ααα αα ααα α α αα α α
α α αααα α‘ αααα αα α α αα α α αα α α αα
αα α ααααααααα αααα
In 1962, The General Assembly adopted a resolution on "Permanent
Sovereignty over Natural Resources". The Assembly declares, inter alia, that:
"Nationalization, expropriation or requisitioning shall be based on
grounds or reasons of public utility, security or the national interest......In Such
cases the owner shall be paid appropriate compensation in accordance with the rules
in force in the state taking such measures in the exercise of its sovereignty and in
accordance with international law.
19
ααααα α αααααααα‘ α ααα αααα αααα αα‘αα α‘
αα α α ααα‘ ααα α‘α αα‘ α α‘ α α αα αα ααααα α α
ααα ααα αααα ααααα ααα α‘ αα α‘αα α α αα ααα
αααα α αα αα ααααααα α αα (α ααα)αα‘αα α α α
αα α αα α αα αα α α‘α α α (α ααα)α α α αα‘α ααα
α‘α α ααααα‘ α α αα αα α ααα‘ αααααααα αα ααα
ααα‘α αα‘ α α‘ α αα αα α αααα ααα αα α α αααα α
α α α ααα αααα₯α αα αα‘ααα α α α α αααα
ααα α ααααα ααα‘ αα ααααα α₯α α αα‘αααααααα α α
α α α α ααα αα ααα
9.3 State Responsibility for wrongs unconnected with contractual
obligations.
ααα ααα α ααααα α αααααα α α αα α
α α‘αα ααα αα αα
In practice most cases of state responsibility arise out of wrongs
committed by the state concerned. By wrong in this connection is means breach of
some duty which rests on state under international law and which is not a breach of
a purely contractual obligation. To such wrongs,the term "international
delinquency" is more frequently applied.
20
Most of the cases which come under this head concern injuries
suffered by citizens abroad.
αααα αααα αααα ααααα α αα ααα α αα α ααα
α αααααα αααα αα α α αα αα α α αααααα α αα α
ααα‘ αα ααααα α₯α αα‘α αα α ααα α α α α ααα‘α αα
α α αα αα α ααα ααα α ααααα α α α α αα ααα αα
αα α αα αα α‘ααα‘ αα ααααα α ααα α αα α α α αααα
α ααα‘α α ααα
α‘α αα α‘α α αα αα α α α αα α α αα α αα ααααα
α α α α α‘α α α αα ααα
9.3.1 Protection of Citizen Abroad
αα α ααα α αα ααα αα αα α α α ααα
Every state has the right to protect its citizens abroad. Injuries suffered
by citizens abroad may be of different kinds, for example:
- injuries to property in the course of riots,
- personal injuries,
- improper arrests by the local authorities,
21
- the refusal of local judicial tribunals to accord justice or due redress,
and so on must submit to its law; but that is not to say that certain duties under
international law in respect to the treatment of that person do not bind the state.
αααα αα αα α ααα α αα ααα αα ααααα‘αα α αα
ααα αα α ααα α α αα ααα α αα α α ααααα α‘α α‘α
α‘α α α α αα ααα
α₯αα α‘ αα -α‘αα α α αα α α α ααα α α ααααα
- ααα αααααα
- ααααα α‘ α ααα α ααα αα α α α ααα
- αα α αααααα (α ααα) α αααα αααααα
αααα αα α αα α ααα α α α αα αααα ααα
α αα αααααααααα₯α ααα αααααα α αα α
ααα α α ααα α αα αααααα αα ααααα
α α‘ αα ααααα α₯α αα‘α α‘α αααααα α αα
α αα α αα α α α ααα αα
Examples are:
- the duty on the state to provide proper judicial remedies for damage
suffered,
- the duty to protect alien citizens from personal injury by its officials or
subjects and
- the duty to apprehend and try those who have inflicted criminal
damage on alien citizens.
22
It may be said that according to international law, aliens resident in a state
have a certain minimum of rights necessary to the enjoyment of life, liberty and
property. But these are most difficult to define.
α₯αα α α -αα α α αα α‘αααα α α αα α αα
α ααα αα αα α α α α αα ααα αα αα
-αα αααααα α α ααα α αα α α αα α¦
αααα ααα ααα α (α ααα)α‘α α
α‘α αα α α αα α α ααα ααααα α α
α α α ααααα ααα
- αα α α α α αα αα αααα ααααα αα
α α αα ααα α ααα α αα ααα α αα
αα α ααα
α‘ αα ααααα α₯α αα‘α αααα αααααα α α ααα α αα
α α α αααα α α₯α αααααααα α ααα α‘αααα αααα α‘αα
αα‘α α α‘ααα α‘ααα‘ α α‘α αααα α αα ααα
9.3.2 Imputability
α‘αα αααααα
In this subject, the notion of imputability is important. Imputability
depends on the satisfaction of two conditions:
23
(a) conduct of a state organ or official in breach of an obligation defined in a rule
of international law:
(b) the attribution to the state, in conformity with international law, of this
breach of international obligations.
It is only if the breach is imputable that the state becomes internationally
responsible for the delinquency. Responsibility begins where imputability ends. As
Professor Brierly has pointed out " the state is liable only for its own delinquencies,
which means, since the state itself is an abstration, for such injurious acts of
authorities of the state, as international law attributes to the state itself".
α€αα αααα α‘ αα αααα αα α‘αα‘ααα α‘ α α α ααα αα
α‘ α α‘ αα αααα αα α‘α α (α) α α α αα αααα ααα
(α)α‘α αα‘α α‘α α(α)α‘α αα‘α ααα α¦ α¦ α α α α αααααα‘ αα
ααααα α₯α ααα α αα αα αααααααααα α αα α α αααα
ααααα α α α αα α
(α)α‘ αα ααααα α₯α αα‘αααα α‘ αα ααααα α ααααα α α
α α α ααα ααααα ααα α αααααα αα α α αα α α
α α αααα ααααα αααα αα α α αααα
α ααα α αα α‘ααα‘ αα ααααα α αααα αα ααααα αααα
α α ααα‘α α ααααα αααααProfessor Brierly α αα αα
α αααααα αααααα α‘α α‘α α αα αααα αααα α α αααα
α ααααααααααα αααα‘α αα‘α α α α αααααα α α α α
α‘ α α‘αα α‘αααα αααααααα‘ α αααα αααααα αα‘ αα
ααααα α₯α αα‘αα αααα α αααααα ααα αααα
24
General rule as to imputability
ααα‘ α‘αα αααααα α αααα α α‘ααααα α α
The Conduct of any state organ shall be considered as an act of the
state concerned under international law, provided that organ was acting in that
capacity in the case in question.
α‘ αα ααααα α₯α αα‘α αααααααα‘α αα‘α α‘α α αα‘ α α‘α
α αααα α α αα α ααααα ααα α αααα‘ αα ααααα
αα α‘α αα‘α α‘α α αα αααα αα αα ααα α αααα αα α α
αα ααα α ααα ααα
To be more precise, the conduct of an organ of the state shall be
considered as an act of that state under international law, whether that organ belongs
to the constituent legislative, executive, judicial or other power, whether its
functions are of an international or an internal character and whether it holds a
superior or a subordinate position in the organization of the state.
α‘α α αααα ααα α‘α αα‘α αααα α αα α αα‘αα α α αα₯α
α α α α‘α αα‘αα αα α(α ααα)α‘ α α‘ α α αααααα αα αα
α (α ααα)αα α‘α α α αααα αα ααα‘ αα ααααα (α ααα)
αααα α αααα α α αααα αα αα αα α (α)αα αα αααα‘
25
α αα‘α α‘α α ααα‘ ααα (α)αα αααα α αα αα αα ααα αα α α‘
αα ααααα α₯ α αα‘αα ααα α α α ααααα‘ αα αααααααα αα
ααα
The conduct of an organ of a territorial governmental entity within a
state shall also be considered as an act of that state under international law provided
that organ was acting in that capacity in the case in question.
ααα‘αα α ααααα α‘α α ααααα α α‘α αα‘α ααα α¦
α α α α αααααααα α‘ αα ααααα α₯α αα‘αα αααα‘ α α‘αα‘
αα αααα αααα
Liability for ultra vires acts
ααα αααα α α‘ α αα α αα α α‘α αα α‘αα
α αααα
The conduct of an organ of a state, of a territorial governmental entity
empowered to exercise elements of the governmental authority, such organ having
acted in that capacity shall be considered as an act of the state under international
law even if in the particular case, the organ exceeded its competence according to
internal law of contravened instructions concerning its activity.
The International Law Commission, in its commentary, gives the
following reason for the above rule.
26
α‘αααα‘α αα ααα ααα‘α αα‘α αααα ααα α αα αα
αα αα α α αααα α₯α ααααα ααα α α α α α αα α‘ααα
αααααααα α ααα α ααααα α α αα αααα‘αα ααα‘ α α
α αα ααα‘ α α α‘αα α αααα‘α αα‘α αα αααα αααα α
α‘ αα ααααα α₯α αα‘α ααα α α α ααααα‘ αα αααααααα‘αα
αα‘α αα ααα αα αααα α₯α αα‘αα‘ αα ααααα α₯α α α α‘α αα
αα ααα αα α αααα‘αα α αα α α α α α αα α αα α‘ αα
α‘ α α α α αα α α αα α ααα
9.4 Treatment of Aliens
αα α α α αα ααααα
When an alien enters a foreign state the latter owes him a duty of
protection. This means that it must have a system of law designed to secure his
freedom and safety under ordinary conditions, and to permit him to obtain redress
when his security has been infringed by the acts of another individual, or by those
of the state itself. Suppose that the alien is physically injured by the deliberate
assault of an individual in circumstances quite beyond the control of the state's
officials. The state's duty is discharged if the alien is permitted redress through the
minicipal law sytem. If he is not permitted redress, either because munipipal law
does not regard acts of this character as illegal, or because of a culpable failure of
the judicial process, then the state incur direct responsibility.
27
αα α α αα α ααα αααα ααααα α αα ααα‘α αα
α ααα ααα αα αα α ααα αα ααααα αα α α α‘ αα α
αααααα αα α ααα αα α α α ααα α αα α α₯α αα αα αα
ααααα αα αααα αα α α αα α α αα‘ α ααα ααα α¦ αα
α ααα‘ α α‘αα α α αα α (α ααα)α ααααααα α αα α α
αα α αααα αα α α α αααααα ααααααα ααα α‘ αα α α ααα‘
αα α α α α α₯α αα αα αααα αα ααα αααα‘α αα αα‘αα αα
α α αα α α α‘ αα‘ αα αααα α αα α α α ααααααα
α αα ααα α α αα α α αα ααα ααα αααα αα α ααα
ααααα α‘ααα αα α α α‘ αααα α₯α αα αα α ααα
αα ααααα α αα α αααα αααα ααααααααα α αααα‘ααα
αααα α₯α αααα α‘ α α‘αα ααα ααα α α‘ α α‘αα α‘ αα ααα
ααα α α αα α α (α ααα) αα α αα α ααα αααα α α
α ααα α α ααααα α α α αα α α α αα α α αααα
ααααα αα αααααα αα αααααααααα αα ααα
The treatment of aliens or more accurately the treatment of the nationals of
other states is a controversial subject in international law. The controversy stems
from a difference of approach between those states that consider that there is an "
International minimum standard" of treatment and those that argue that aliens my
only insist upon "national treatment".
28
αα α α α α‘ α ααααα(α ααα)α‘ α ααα α ααα
α α α αααααααα‘ αα ααααα α₯α αααα‘ αα α ααα α α
αα ααα αα αα α α α α α ααααα αα αα αα‘ αα αααα
α α‘ααα α α αα αααααα α αα α αα αα α α α α ααα
α α α α α‘αα α α ααα α‘ααα‘α α α αααα αα ααααα
International minimum standard of treatment is the one which must be
accorded to aliens by all states irrespective of how they treat their own nationals.
National treatment is the treatment equal to that given by the state concerned to its
own national.
αα α α α α α ααααα αα αα αα‘ αα ααααα α‘ααα
α α αα ααα αααα ααα α αααααα α ααααααααα
αα αα αα ααα αα ααα ααα‘ α ααα ααα‘αα αα α α ααα α
αα α α α ααα α αα α ααααααα αα ααα ααα α α
αα α α ααααααααα ααααα ααααα ααα α α α α α‘
ααα‘ α α αα α α ααααα αα ααα
Generally speaking the older and economically developed states
follow the "international minimum standard" approach while the newer and
developing states favour national treatment. At the turn of the century, the latter
states consisted mainly of Latin American states; recently they have been joined by
most of the postcolonial Afro-Asian states. Exceptionally, the U.S.S.R and other
developed communist states rejected the "international minimum standard"
29
approach also. The considerable support for both points of view makes it difficult to
determine many of the rules of international law in this area.
ααα ααα α α α α ααα αα α α α α α ααα αα
α‘ αα ααααα α‘ααα α α αα αα αααα α ααααα‘αα αα α
α α ααα αα α α ααα αα ααα α ααα αα‘ααα‘ α
α α α αα αα‘ α αααα α α α α ααααα‘ααα‘ αα α α
αα αα α α α ααα ααααααα‘ ααα ααα α αααααα α α α
α‘ αα α αα‘ α α α α αα α αα ααα ααα‘ αα ααααα α α
αα αα α ααα ααα αααα αααα αα α‘ αα (α) α α‘αα
α‘ α α α α ααα ααααα α‘ α€α‘ αα ααααα ααααααα α
α α‘ αα ααααα α α αα α αα αααα α‘ααα αα α α ααα
9.4.1 Denial of Justice
αα ααααα αα
The term 'denial of Justice' is commonly used in the decisions of international
tribunals and elsewhere'. In a broad sense, the term covers all injuries inflicted on
foreigners in violation of international justice, whether by judicial, Legislative or
administrative organs, for example, arbitrary confiscation of property or mal-
treatment in goal. But in its narrow and more technical sense it denotes misconduct
or inaction on the part of the judicial agencies of the respondent state, denying to the
citizens of the claimant state the benefits of due process of law.
30
α α αα‘ αααα α αααα αα αααα α ααααα‘ αα αααα
α α α αα ααα αα αα‘α αα α ααα‘α α αααα α αα α
α‘ ααα‘ααα α α αααααα α αα α αα‘α αα α α α₯α α α α α‘α αα α
(α ααα)α ααα α α α‘α α α αα α α‘ αα ααααα αα α ααα α α
αα αα α α α αααα α α αα α α αα‘ α α ααα αααα₯αα
α‘ αααα α α α αα α α α‘ αα ααα αα α αα α αα αααα
α ααα‘ α α αα α α‘ ααα‘ααα α αααα αα αααα αα αα α
α αα α α ααα α ααααα α αα α ααα α‘α α‘α α α α α α
ααααααα ααα αααααα α αααααα αα (α ααα)α αα α α
α α ααα αα α αα ααα
To constitute a "denial of justice" in this narrow sense there must be
some abuse of the judicial process or an improper administration or justice, for
example, obstructing access to the courts, unwarranted delays in procedure, a
manifestly unjust judgment of the court, a refusal to hear the defendant or a grossly
unfair trial.
α α α α α‘ αααααα α αααα αα αααααααααα α
α α ααα αα(α ααα)αα α ααα(α ααα)αααααα α αα α αα α
ααα αααα α α‘α αα ααααα₯αα α‘ αααα α α α αααα α
αα αααα αααα α α αα α αα ααα ααα α α α αα
α αα ααα αα α α α α α αα αα α αα αα αα α α α α αα αα α
αα ααα
31
Professor O'Connell emphasizes on the distinction between
substantive denial of justice and procedural denial of justice. According to his view,
where the state fails to provide a remedy for the wrong where international law
requires that it should, it is guilty of a substantive denial of justice which renders it
amenable to international claim. When its courts in the ordinary course of litigation
work injustice to the alien a different sort of wrong, referred to as "procedural denial
of justice", has been committed. Just as in the case of any other wrong, this one
must be remedied municipally, and hence the alien litigant who has been denied
justice must pursue his remedy to appeal in the higher courts. Only when his pursuit
is exhausted or is vain is the state responsible.
Professor O'Connellαααα αααα α‘ααα α αααα αα α
α‘ααααααα α αααα αα α αα α α α α ααα‘ α α αα
αααα€α‘ ααα‘α ααααα αα αα‘αααα αα α αα α ααα ααα
αα α α αα α α αα‘ αα ααααα α₯α αααα αα ααααα‘ αα
ααααα α α ααα α α ααα α αααααα‘ αα ααααα α₯α α
ααα‘αα ααα ααααα‘ααααααα α αααα αα αα αα αα αα
αααα ααααα ααα α ααα α ααααα ααα ααα α α
α αα αα‘α α‘α αα α α α αα α αα α α α‘ α αααααα
α ααα α αααα αααα αααα α‘ααα α αααα αα α‘ αα α ααα
αααα‘ α ααααα αα αααα ααα α α‘ααα αααα α₯α αα‘α
αα αααααα αα αααα α ααα α αα α αα α α ααα
α α αααα α ααα ααα ααα αα‘αααααα ααα‘αα αα α
α‘ ααα αα α ααα‘αααααααα α αααααα ααα α αααα α
32
αα α α αα α α(α ααα)αα α ααααα‘α α αα α α α‘α αα
α α ααα αααα αα ααα
Therefore, until the injured party has sought redress under municipal law he
has not been denied justice, and a state does not incur international responsibility
until it has denied justice. The rule then, that local remedies must be exhausted
before an international claim may be presented, is part of the substantive law as to
international, i.e.state to state, responsibility.
α α αααααα α ααα αααα α₯α αα‘ααα ααα
αααα‘αααα α ααααα α ααα αα αααα αα ααα αα
αα α ααα αα αααααααα α‘ α αααα ααααα‘ αα
ααααα α αααα α α α α αα
33
KEY TERMS
International delinquency - α‘ αα ααααα α ααα α α
International delict - α‘ αα ααααα αα α
Calvo Clause - α αα α αα α α
Drago Doctrine - Dragoα α αα
Expropriation - ααααα α ααα
Contractual obligation -ααα ααα α ααααα α
Non-Contractual
Obligation - ααα αααααα α
ααα α
Imputability - ααααα αααα
Ultra vires - αααα‘ α αα α
αα α α‘ α αα
Denial of Justice - αα α αααα αα
34
International minimum
Standard - α‘ αα ααααα α‘ααα α α
National
treatment - ααα α α α α α‘ααα‘ α
35
EXERCISE QUESTIONS
Assignment questions
1 "Every internationally wrongful act of a state entails the international
responsibility of that state". Discuss.
2. Discuss the validity of the Calvo Clause.
3. How far is a state responsible for expropriating private property? Discuss.
4. Explain about the denial of justice.
Short questions
1. Write a note on kinds of state responsibility.
2. Elaborate briefly the doctrine of imputability.
3. What is the international minimum standard?
36
