w


Dr. Raju KD
Assistant Professor of Law
Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law

IIT Kharagpur

West Bengal

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008 1
w

 
Y The law of responsibility is concerned with the
incidence and consequences of illegal acts, and
particularly the payment of compensation for loss
caused Ȃ „



KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008 2
w
  

Y Ô. Huber:
Y ǮResponsibility is the necessary corollary of a right. All
rights of an international character involve
international responsibility. Responsibility results in
the duty to make reparation if the obligation in
question is not met.ǯ

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008 3
½ 
 ½

Y Ǯit is a principle of international law that the breach of
an engagement involves an obligation to make
reparation in an adequate form. Reparation therefore
is the indispensable complement of a failure to apply a
convention and there is no necessity for this to be
stated in the convention itself.ǯ

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008 4
½ 
 
Y It is a principle of international law, and even a general
conception of law, that any breach of an engagement
involves an obligation to make reparation.ǯ

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008 5
w

 
Y State responsibility for internationally wrongful acts.
Y State acts in breach of international law.
Y State cannot evade international obligation under
municipal law.
Y International criminal responsibility.
Y Crime of apartheid
Y Racial discrimination
Y State responsibility in nuclear experiments

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008 6
½ 

Y Responsibility of component state is imputed or
attributed to the federal state, in the same way as the
conduct of its federal organs,
Y Federal state is vicariously liable for the conduct of a
component state.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008 7
 ½
Y The principle that the state is responsible for acts and
omissions of organs of territorial governmental
entities, such as municipalities, provinces and regions,
has long been unequivocally recognised in
international judicial decisions and the practice of
States.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008 8
— 

 
Y Coercion by another state to commit a wrongful act.
Y Consent by the affected state.
Y Countermeasures recognised by international law.
Y Force majeure contributing to the unlawful act.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008 9
V
  

Y If any treaty provision is broken responsibility follows.
Y PCIÔ in Chorzow Factory (Indemnity), (1928) PCIÔ Ser
A, No.17, p.29.
Y Ǯany breach of an engagement involves an obligation to
make reparation.ǯ
Y The compensation or punishment may be in
accordance with the illegality and seriousness of the
act committed.
Y Rainbow Warrior case -

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008 10



 
Y On 10 Ôuly 1985 an undercover operation conducted by
the French military security service (DGSE) sank the
British-registered Greenpeace ship [ 


 berthed in Auckland Harbour.
Y The Greenpeace ship was planning to disrupt French
Nuclear tests on the islands of French Polynesia. New
Zealand subsequently caught and convicted several
members of the French secret forces.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008 11



 
Y France initially offered an official apology and
acknowledgement of breach of international law.
Y Additionally, the UN secretary-general awarded New
Zealand 7 million USD. This is in addition to
compensation which France paid to the family of the
only victim of the mission and to Greenpeace (settled
privately).

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008 12
½ 
 
Y Excluded from international law purview
Y Specifically provides international law as the
governing law?

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008 13


 !

Y Concessions regarding mining, manufacturing,
transportation, utilities and communications.
Y Anglo Iranian Oil Co Case ICÔ 1952. (UKThe Anglo
Iranian Oil company case.docx v. Iran)
Y The UN Resolution on Permanent Sovereignty over
Natural Resources, 1962.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008 14
u
  
  
   
! 

"  #

" 
   
Y Nationalization, expropriation or requisitioning shall be based on
grounds or reasons of public utility, security or the national interest
which are recognized as overriding purely individual or private
interests, both domestic and foreign.
Y 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.
Y In any case where the question of compensation gives rise to a
controversy, the national jurisdiction of the State taking such measures
shall be exhausted.
Y However, upon agreement by sovereign States and other parties
concerned, settlement of the dispute should be made through
arbitration or international adjudication.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008 15
[!
 " #
 
1. be for a public purpose in accordance with a declared
national policy.
2. Not discriminate between aliens and citizens, or
between different foreign nationalities.
3. Not involve the commission of an unjustified
irregularity.
4. Be accompanied by the payment of appropriate
compensation.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008 16
w
$
$


Y [  

  Ȃ monetary equivalent.
Y — 
 
 Ȃ market value of assets
Y á   
 Ȃ loss of expected profits

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008 17
½
# 
%
Y Argentinian jurist Calvo
Y Legal disputes arising out of the contract shall be
referred to the municipal courts of the state granting
the concession or grants.
Y Oust the jurisdiction of the international arbitral
tribunals.
Y North American Dredging Co Case

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008 18
ë%%

Y A number of developed countries endorsed the DzHull formuladz, first
articulated by the United States Secretary of State Cordell Hull in
response to Mexicoǯs nationalisation of American petroleum companies
in 1936.
Y Hull claimed that international law requires å    

  compensation for the expropriation of foreign
investments. Developing countries supported the Calvo
Y doctrine during the 1960s and 1970s as reflected in major United
Nations General Assembly resolutions. In 1962, the General Assembly
adopted its Resolution on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural
resources which affirmed the right to nationalise foreign owned
property and required only Dzappropriate compensationdz.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008 19
—

Y Lord Palmerstonǯs theory Ȃ 1848 Ȃ intervene
diplomatically and even resort to military intervention
against defaulting debtor state.
Y The —  
Ȃ Argentinian Minister Ȃ 1902 Ȃ
non use of military force
Y Included in the Hague Convention of 1907 Ȃ
Employment of Force for the Recovery of Contract
Debts Ȃ non use of force.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008 20
 
Y Immutability
Y 1. conduct of the state organ or official in breach of an
obligation defined in a rule of international law.
Y 2. That breach would be attributed to the state.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008 21
½$ 

 
Y 1. state organ r official is guilty of the relevant act with
state authority.
Y 2. state responsible at international law Ȃ if the person
exceeds authority Ȃ impute liability on the state.
Y Youmanǯs case Ȃ Mexican troops exceeded orders and
killed Americans.
Y 3. Under municipal law there is no authority Ȃ
imputation will fail.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008 22
   


$
Y Denial of justice
Y Chattin Claim (1927) Ȃ US-Mexico
Y Exhaustion of local remedies is a condition precedent.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008 23

%  
Y One state is not responsible to another state for
unlawful acts committed by its agents unless such acts
are committed willfully and maliciously or with
culpable negligence.
Y Ô Ȃ British American Claims Arbitral Tribunal in
1921.
Y Ǯany government is responsible to other governments
for errors in judgment of its officials purporting to act
within the scope of their duties and vested with power
to enforce their demands.ǯ
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008 24
½

Y Presence of malice or culpable negligence is not a
condition precedent of state responsibility.
Y A state can bring claims if one of its subjects has
sustained unlawful injury for which another state is
responsible.
Y     
 

  , 1924, PCIÔ Ȃ
Ǯonce a State has taken up a case on behalf of one of its
subjects before an international tribunal, in the eyes of
the latter the State is the sole claimant.ǯ

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008 25
½

Y Nationality of claims canon Ȃ nationality of the
company.
Y Barcelona Traction (Belgium v. Spain)
Y Only the national of the company (Canada) can
initiate any claim.
Y Belgium claim on behalf of its citizens fail.
Y Real and effective nationality is the criteria Ȃ Cf
Florence Strunsky Merge Case (1955).
Y Artificial personality in corporations - only nationality
is criteria.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008 26
—

"
Y Material damage or pecuniary loss.
Y Nicaragua Case

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008 27
› 
$


KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008 28