The laws of state responsibility are the principles governing when and how astate is

held responsible for a breach of an international obligation.

REPARATIONS

 The legal concept of reparation has two components: the right of the victim of an injury to receive
reparation, and the duty of the party responsible for the injury to provide redress. [7] Reparations
can be sought by individuals through judicial systems, or they can be policies introduced by the
state to address the concerns or needs of a wider populace. While the first strategy is
instrumental in creating legal precedent, the second is a more efficient way to recognize the
concerns of more people

The United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Rights to a Remedy and Reparation for Gross Violations
of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Lawdescribes five formal
categories of reparations: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition.
1. Restitution – measures which serve to "restore the victim to the original situation before the gross
violations occurred". This can include: restoration of liberty, enjoyment of human rights, identity, family
life and citizenship, return of one's place of residence, restoration of employment, and return of property.
2. Damages Compensation – the provision of compensation "for any economically assessable damage, as
appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the violation and the circumstances of each case". Such
damage includes: physical or mental harm, lost opportunities, material damages and loss of earnings,
moral damage, cost of legal, medical, psychological, and social services.
3. Rehabilitation – medical, psychological, social services, and legal assistance
4. Satisfaction – various measures which include the cessation of human rights violations and abuses, truth-
seeking, searches for the disappeared, recovery and reburial of remains, judicial and administrative
sanctions, public apologies, commemoration, and memorialization.
5. Guarantees of non-repetition – reforms ensuring the prevention of future abuses, including: civilian
control of the military and security forces, strengthening an independent judiciary, protection of civil
service and human rights workers, the overall promotion of human rights standards, and the
establishment of mechanisms to prevent and monitor social conflict and conflict resolution
INVOCATION

The injured State from an internationally wrongful act can invoke to the international responsibility of the State
that committed it. Even State other than an injured State may invoke to the international responsibility of the
State which breached obligation in cases where the nature of the breached obligation is erga omnes.

According to Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001, an invocation is an
act with a relatively formal character and distinctive than concepts such as protest or criticism and the origin
and nature of the breached obligation don't affect on the possibility of invocation. Any deadline is not
determined for the invocation to international responsibility, but the defendant State can prove non-invocation as
the basis for waiver. The injured State must declare to responsible State its claim and when invoking State is
acting on the basis of diplomatic protection, it must respect the rule of the nationality of claims and rule of
exhaustion of local remedies.

COUNTERMEASURES

In the field of International Law a reference to countermeasures would mean, “A concept within the general area
of state responsibility for internationally wrongful acts, referring to proportional and unilateral non-forcible
measures which an injured state may take in response to another state's wrongful act so as to induce that state to
cease its conduct, to make reparation and - where appropriate- to offer assurances and guarantees of non-
repetition.”
51. Another instance can be envisaged, which, although more complicated, is not unrealistic in States facing
extraordinary circumstances such as war or the aftermath of war. Following the issue of a binding order to such a
State for the production of documents necessary for trial, a State official, who holds that evidence in his official
capacity, having been requested by his authorities to surrender it to the International Tribunal may refuse to do so,
and the central authorities may not have the legal or factual means available to enforce the International
Tribunal’s request. In this scenario, the State official is no longer behaving as an instrumentality of his State
apparatus. For the limited purposes of criminal proceedings, it is sound practice to "downgrade", as it were, the
State official to the rank of an individual acting in a private capacity and apply to him all the remedies and
sanctions available against non-complying individuals referred to below (paragraphs 57-59): he may be
subpoenaed and, if he does not appear in court, proceedings for contempt of the International Tribunal could be
instituted against him. Indeed, in this scenario, the State official, in spite of the instructions received from his
Government, is deliberately obstructing international criminal proceedings, thus jeopardising the essential
function of the International Tribunal: dispensation of justice. It will then be for the Trial Chamber to determine
whether or not also to call to account the State; the Trial Chamber will have to decide whether or not to make a
judicial finding of the State’s failure to comply with Article 29 (on the basis of Article 11 of the International Law
Commission's Draft Articles on State Responsibility69) and ask the President of the International Tribunal to
forward it to the Security Council.