Are International Rules on State Responsibility Justified?

I. Introduction

International Law has granted Rights and
Duties to the States, in which they can exercise power and control. However,
Rights and Duties should work in tandem. Right of one State is a duty of
another. State needs to be just while exercising their rights. If a State fails
to comply by the duties as stated by Draft Articles of International Law
Commission, then it is to be held responsible. And this law applies to all
states big or small, irrespective of whether they are old or new. The extension
of State Duties and Rights has given rise to State Responsibilities.

To put things in perspective, there are
certain judgments by Permanent Court of International Justice that highlights
the nature of State Responsibilities. In a judgment of Chorzow Factory case[1] the Court explicitly stated
that “breach of engagement involves an obligation” which means if there is a
breach of law by a State  then it should
be dealt by holding it accountable against the State it has erred and it needs
to make repairs if any, which might have affected the state in particular.

In a similar case involving Albania and UK which is
known to be as Corfu Channel case, the Court held Albania responsible for mine
laying in the territorial waters. Infact Albania had to compensate for the loss
of human lives and even had to pay money to United Kingdom[2].

So, to address the question whether or not
International Rules on State Responsibility are complete and justified, one
needs to have a deep look at broader aspects of State Responsibilities and see
how and when it finally came in the form we know today.

II. History of State Responsibility

For the first time in 1928, it was decided to
formally write down the State Responsibilities but unfortunately it could not
be done due to time constraints in Conference for Codification of International
Law. No progress on this front was made until 1949. International Law
Commission while preparing a tentative list of 14 topics in 1949 considered it
proper to classify propositions which it found suitable for codification of the
principles of State Responsibility. Subsequently, the UN General Assembly in 1953
requested the Commission to complete the work of codifying the principles of State
Responsibility[3] and
the laws governing them. It was not until 1995 that many amendments and
rectifications were made in the Draft. After several changes to improve the existing
draft in the subsequent years the ‘Responsibility of States for Internationally
Wrongful Acts (draft articles) was finally adopted by the Commission in 2001.
On December 12, 2001, the General Assembly highlighted the articles in the
draft law and brought the same to the attention of the governments for its adherence
where it was rendered fit for adoption. Draft articles are even cited by the
International Court of Justice hence are very important.

III. State Responsibility Classification

It is not always the Government of a State that is
responsible for breach of International Law but the individuals of a State can
also be held responsible. Apparently, there is no fundamental difference
between these two classifications but on the ground their consequences are
different. Based on whether the government is responsible or any other element
of the state, responsibilities can broadly be classified in two categories

a) Original Responsibility

b) Vicarious Responsibility

State is originally held responsible when any breach
of code is committed by the Government of that particular state or by any
person who is authorized by the Government. In this classification Government
is directly involved in breach of International Law. However, there is another
category in which the elements external to the Government are involved in
wrongful acts, like people living in the territory or unauthorized agents. This
classification and responsibility associated with it is termed as ‘vicarious’
responsibility.[4]

There are more specific classifications regarding the
State Responsibilities in which government’s role is assessed as direct and
indirect. In direct State Responsibility the Acts of Government are directly
involved in breach of international Law whereas in Indirect State
Responsibility, the actions of the Government are not directly in the line of
fire.

III.(a) Direct State Responsibility

The State is an abstract entity therefore act of
state must be dealt with more precision. Since State acts through different
agencies and organizations, therefore to attribute Direct State Responsibility
it was specified that State would be held responsible directly if any wrongful
act or breach of International Law is done by any of its agency or organ. To
add to this, the conduct of government officials is also under the ambit of
Direct State Responsibility[5]. Hence persons who act under
the control of government in various positions[6] and do wrongful acts fall in
the category of Direct State Responsibility. Such organs and entities include
the following: –

(i) 
Executive and Administrative Organs

If a Head of a State or a person who is
by the command of the Head of the State commits a crime or a breach of
International Law, then the actions of individual are attributed to the State.
These acts are international delinquency. International delinquency does not
differentiate between high end personnel or low-end personnel. For example,
aggression or violence by police personnel and inability to act against the
personnel will constitute a State Responsibility[7]

There is a significant difference between
International Delinquency and International Crime. An International Delinquency
is called an International Crime if the breach of code was carried out for the
greater good of the community at large. To put things in order, at times it
become essential to use force and harsh actions   to curb violence or genocide for
safeguarding human lives. This specific act, which may be considered as a
breach of international law ,is considered to be essential for maintaining
peace and security .Similar cases 
such  as  prohibiting slavery and fighting against
apartheid are also to  be treated  as instances 
of international crime. However, any internationally wrongful act which an
international crime is not constitutes an international delict.[8]

International delinquency may or may not
involve the breach of treaty. To explain International delinquency involving
treaty, let’s take the example of Chorzow Factory Case again, in which
International Court of Justice acknowledged that “breach of engagement involves
obligation to take reparation”.[9] However this does not mean
that delinquency always will involve breach of treaty. In-fact a State can be
affected by wrong doings such as intervention or through attack on its persons
abroad. It is to be noted that damage is not a pre-condition of State
Responsibility which is also reiterated by International Law Commission.

In the nineteenth century properties
belonging to foreigners were confiscated in the name of nationalization of
property in various nations. It was clearly a breach of law because this
practice of land consolidation was biased and targeted. However, in
contemporary world same practice when applied in accordance with declared
policy and without discrimination is not illegal to say the least[10]. Having said that however in
case if confiscation is unlawful, the State is obliged to pay damages for any
loss that may have occurred to the injured party.[11]

Wrongful acts committed by a state in self-defense
is not considered International delinquency although it may have caused severe
damages

(ii) Acts of Diplomatic Envoys

The State is responsible for the
injurious actions of its diplomatic envoys in another state. It is believed
that the Diplomatic personnel’s’ injurious action is performed at the command
or in consultation with the Home State. Therefore, the diplomatic envoys are
not directly responsible, but the State is held responsible for such malicious
actions.[12]

It is noteworthy that all breach of
international code by the envoys of a State are directly attributed to the home
state.

(iii) 
Armed Forces Actions

State is always held responsible for the
actions of its armed forces which are authorized by the Government[13]. However, for every other
wrong doing which is not authorized by the State, the State is not held responsible.
A reckless or mistake or a casual conduct by the armed force officer which
results in violation of international coded law is a Direct State
Responsibility whether or not it was authorized by the State. A Korean
Commercial aircraft was shot down in 1983 due to a mistake, otherwise to be
treated as culpable action, is an example of direct responsibility.

(iv) 
Judicial Actions

Any judgment by any court which breaches
International Law results in State Responsibility. All other merits of case
become irrelevant. For instance, if a court issues an order that denies the
immunity cover to ambassador of other state, then such a judgment is a breach
of International Law and the State is directly held responsible. Irrespective
of the fact that Government and Judiciary work independently in most federal
systems. Another relevant example of this case that if an extradition treaty is
overlooked by the judiciary dealing with an offender, in such a case too, the
State is to be held responsible for the action of the Judiciary. Further that
if a Court is unable to comprehend or interpret a treaty or commits error with
regards to a treaty, then for such a judgment rendered by court the State is
responsible directly.

(v) Territorial and sub Units of Federal
State

There is always a debate whether or not
the wrongful doings of territorial units of Federal State be attributed to
State. However, in International Law it is generally the case. Whether or not a
federal state can exercise control over territorial units, it is accepted that
it is the responsibility of State. International Law
Commission has explicitly stated in its report of 1974 that the State is
responsible for acts and omissions of organs of territorial governmental
entities[14]

In some cases, it is not evidently clear
which agency or organ of the state has breached international law. However, the
State is still held responsible if the act is committed in its territory. Corfu
Channel case is a perfect example for illustrating this point. In Corfu Channel
case, Albania was held responsible for the consequences of mine-laying in its
territorial waters owing to the reason that Albanian authorities knew of the
presence of the mines. In fact, no evidence was found to prove which agency or
organization was responsible and it cannot be ruled out that a third state may
have been present.[15]Similarly armed expeditions
may be carried out by a neutral state using its territory against another State.[16]

III.(b) Indirect State Responsibility

In indirect State Responsibility, it
is obligatory on the part of the state to check control and prevent its
subjects and foreign nationals who live within the territory of the state from
doing any such act which may result in causing injury to other states. If any
criminal activity is committed by any one individual or group, the state will
have to own the responsibility. This kind of responsibility by the state is
known as “indirect” responsibility. The state is responsible for any criminal
activity committed by its organs and for the wrongful acts of its individuals.
The state is blamed for not having control and not being able to prevent the
unlawful activity of its organs. According to Oppenheim “if a state has not
exercised due to diligence it can be made responsible and held liable to pay
damages”[17]

The responsibility falls on the state
when its organs fail to prevent the damage and give redressal to the foreign
state which is injured by it. Failure on the part of the state to prevent
wrongful activity amounts to breach of international obligation. There are
certain activities committed by the individuals, for example, wrongful activity
against foreign diplomats or ambassadors, disrespectful to the flag of the
foreign nation, injury propaganda against a foreign state or to head or damage
to property or person of foreign nationals.

The state is also held responsible
for mob violence causing damage to public and private property of foreign
nationals. It is the duty of the state to provide safety and security to the
life and property of foreigners. If the state fails to do so and it is proved
that proper care and due diligence is not taken to prevent violence- aggressive
and criminal activity, it will be held responsible. The state will also be held
responsible if it is proved that the state and its organs had connivance in spreading
or supporting the violence.

In case of attack by armed militants
to the foreign public property the state will be held responsible for not
providing enough security or for not being able to prevent it e.g. in case of
militant attack to the embassy of USA in Tehran. The state was held responsible
by the International Court of Justice. The international court of justice
nailed out that the state was under obligation to protect the U.S. embassy if
it failed in its duty. The militants became the agents of the state as the
Iranian authority had approval for the act. The court gave the decision that
Iran is under obligation to make reparation to the government of USA for the
injury caused by the militants[18]

In case of violence in insurrection
and civil wars the state will be responsible if injury is caused to foreign
nationals. Here again due diligence is required by the state to prevent riots
and revolutionary activity by the state for otherwise the state will be held
responsible for the damage and injury caused to the foreign subjects.

In general, however, broad formulae
on State Responsibility are unhelpful and may not be analogous to municipal law.
To Brownlie, responsibility only arises when the act or omission complain is
imputable to a state.”[19]

In the same argument one can refer to
the Youman’s case in which the mayor of the town in Mexico ordered the lieutenant
of the town to curb the riot like situation and to prevent the attack against
certain American citizens. The troops on the contrary attacked the house where
the Americans had taken shelter for their safety.[20]

One American citizen was killed, two more
citizens were killed by rioters. In the firing incident the Mexican troop had
disobeyed the orders of the Mayor and the Mexican State was held liable for the
wrongful act controlled by the troops.

(i)
State Responsibility for the acts of corporation

Corporations are attributed as a nationality. They are treated as nationals. Responsibility may be put on states for any wrongful activity committed by the corporation according to their nationality

A Canadian company which started Smelting lead and Zinc at Trail on the Colombian river near the border of Canada and USA within the Canadian territory. During 1920s to 1930s the company emitted (daily) over 300 tons of Sulphur containing Sulphur dioxide. The fumes resulted in impacting adversary in the Colombian river valley and caused damage to land and environment in the state of Washington. After negotiation between the two countries the case was referred to International Joint Commission, a body having jurisdiction over water boundaries. The commission assessed the damage to the tune of $350,000, Canada agreed to pay the amount, but the Smelter at Trail continued to operate. The issue as leading from compensation to dispute was subsequently referred to arbitration. The tribunal as per prevalent law and law of United States observed that no state has the right to use its territory in such a way so as to cause injury or damage to another territory. The tribunal gave the decision against Canada and held it responsible for the conduct of Trail Smelter[21].

(ii)
State Responsibility in case of injury suffered by UN personnel

 It is responsibility of the state to protect
the persons serving under International organizations. The international court
of Justice in case of the Court Bernadottee or in case of Reparations for Injuries
suffered in service of the UN declared that international organization is a
subject of international law and is entitled to claim reparation. In this case,
Court Bernadottee and a French observer were appointed by UNSC to act as
mediator for the peace talks between Arabs and Jews in Palestine. Both were
murdered in Jerusalem which was under the occupation of Israel. The UN Secretary
General claimed compensation from the Government of Israel for the death of the
Count and French observer. Although, the govt. of Israel paid the money in the
form of compensation but refused to accept any obligation under law in this
regard. Similarly subjects of international law can also move against the state,
if they feel not properly treated by the state. A state is liable for the
citizens and other states whose rights are denied. 

IV. Calvo clause

The Calvo principle ,also associated with
the Argentine publicist Calvo who pronounced 
the doctrine in 1868.[22] According to him, “States
were not to be embarrassed by international claims based on vicarious
responsibility for acts of their officials, riots and insurrections which had
resulted in damage to property belonging to aliens provided that the damage or the
failure to repair it was not due to measures of a discriminatory character”.
Thus, according to him a State may not be held responsible for the damages
suffered by foreigners as the result of civil strife, or during conflicts,
since that would amount to injustice with regard to its own citizens suffering
losses in the similar situations.

The Calvo principle is in practice in
certain Latin American countries since the last quarter of nineteenth century.
The Calvo clause is part of the constitution of Mexico and the provision is specifically
included under Article 27 of the Constitution.

V. Consequences
of the State Responsibility

If there is a breach of an international obligation,
then two types of legal consequences arise-

1.      Duty
of cessation

2.      Duty
of full reparation

In International law, responsibility is discharged
through reparation. As cited in the Chorzow Factory Case, Permanent Court of
International Justice held that if there is a breach of an engagement then the
principle of International Law says that after the breach of engagement
reparation has to be done in an adequate form. It was also held by the court
that this principle is established by international practice and decisions of
arbitral tribunal must wipe out all the illegal acts and try to establish the
situation which should have existed if not have been committed[23].

The term reparation is a wide term and includes all
the measures which a State should take to do away which such a responsibility.
Whether it may be restitution, indemnity or satisfaction.

V.(a) Restitution

In
restitution, one can perform the obligation which the State was supposed to
discharge. Or it can be done through revocating the unlawful act, or by
abstaining from the further wrongful act. It depends from case to case that
what types of duties the State will perform.

V.(b) Indemnity

Indemnity
occurs when restitution is not possible. In the Chorzow Factory case it was
held by the Permanent Court of International Justice that it is a principle of
International Law that the reparation of a wrong may consist of an indemnity. This
is the most usual form of reparation. How much indemnity should be done it
depends from case to case. In the case of Military and Paramilitary activities
in and against Nicaragua[24], The government of
Nicaragua demanded an amount to the tune of $370,200,000 from  the court as the minimum value for direct
damages done. The Court however, held that the amount of reparation will be
settled by the Court itself on merit.

Responsibility for the Destruction of Pan Am Airliner

In
Lockerbie, in 1988 there was an explosion on a Pan Am Flight causing the death
of 270 civilians.[25]Libyans were held
responsible for this destruction. But, Libya didn’t cooperate in giving
punishments to its nationals for this act. However, it agreed to send two of
its suspected nationals for the trial by the Scottish judges in the
Netherlands. In 2001 for the same case the court convicted one of the people
i.e., Abdel Basset Ali al-Meghrahi. In 2003 the Libyan government accepted its
responsibility and agreed to pay the compensation to the bereaved families.
Reacting over the incidence the than Libyan Foreign Minister Mr. Abdelrehmane Chalgham
stated, “We have taken the responsibility for the case on the basis of the
International Law which states that the State takes on responsibility for what
its employees do”. The Libyan government had to pay $2.70 billion in
compensation to the families of all the 270 people who died in the explosion of
the plane.

V.(c) Satisfaction

Any measure which the author of a breach of duty is
bound to take under the International Law or in an agreement between parties in
dispute which is different from restitution or compensation is known as
satisfaction[26].
Satisfaction as a part of reparation is considered in those cases where a harm
has been caused to the dignity and personality of a State. In these types of
cases material damage is not given but the State does such activities which
satisfies the injured State.

VI. Conclusions

The State Responsibilities are complete and justified and under its legal obligation states are solely responsible for its own conduct or for the actions of its officials under its authority and command. One however needs to understand, that responsibility of the state for internationally wrongful acts are formulated by way of codification and progressive development and therefore also constitute as an inseparable part of the State Responsibilities.

According to Marko
Milanovic, “It is one thing to define a rule and the content of the obligation
it imposes, and another to determine whether that obligation has been violated
and what should be the obligation of the violation” [27] The Articles drafted under state
responsibilities emphasize on secondary rules of State Responsibilities and
give little or no weightage to the primary rules of International Law. Neither these
articles touch on the content of obligation, nor do they have  any scope for their interpretation. 

Therefore, it is
for primary international law to decide upon whether a state is involved in a
treaty, whether or not the treaty is in place and how the treaty needs to be
interpreted in the given circumstances. The Secondary Law or what we call as
Articles on State Responsibility can decide the framework for determining the
legal obligations that the state at fault needs to fulfill.

Another aspect
which is not clearly elaborated in the State Responsibility articles is the
fact that it does not give the provision to injured State to abandon or suspend
the treaty. It may happen that a state is unjust to another state for a binding
period of a treaty or for that matter, a treaty itself is unjust to a
particular state. The State Responsibility Articles do not consider this
clause, although this clause is a part of Article 60 of Vienna Convention[28]. One may suggest, therefore
that there should be a provision in Customary Secondary International Law
regarding opting out of treaty if the Treaty or Obligation is unjust, the
details of such a provision can be worked out by inviting the opinions of all
States.

The Articles also
do not cover the consequences that may arise as response of various
International Organizations for the wrongful conduct. Thus, a stand needs to be
taken against a breach of code by an international organization. However, this
clause is not covered by the Articles of State Responsibilities. The breach of
Conduct that may occur and its legal consequences are also not covered under State
Responsibilities Articles.

It may be
concluded that the term ‘internationally wrong’ is not well defined in the afore
mentioned articles. There could be cases as wherein State has to compensate for
behavior or conduct which is not prohibited by any means in international law
let’s say for example compensating for land or property which is taken in for the
wellbeing of people. Thus for some cases international responsibility will act
contrary to International Law.

As the name
suggests- the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful
Acts cover the wrongful acts committed by the State and does not have its
jurisdiction or draft articles for wrongful acts committed by the International
Organizations and the Non-State Actors[29] which may potentially injure
a state and the injured state has no scope within these articles to seek
compensation.

But the fact, one
may appreciate about the State Responsibilities Articles is that; they cover an
entire gamut of issues involving states and do not necessarily get restricted
to bilateral treaties. The articles not only cover single state or group of
States but the international community as a whole. Even though it was mentioned
earlier that the Articles are quite general in nature and do not give any
interpretation of treaties, it may mean that States have the freedom to engage
in treaties and obligations with their choice and will and can decide upon the
nuances of the obligation. [30]

To conclude the argument
whether or not Articles on State Responsibility are complete and satisfactory, one
may say that they cover most aspects of internationally wrongful acts committed
by State/States against other States. However, some amendments can be made in
aspects such as dealing with primary international law. It would mean that
primary and secondary international law can complement each other. This could
be accomplished by inviting suggestions from the international community and
forming committees that can deliberate on this issue so as how to make
customary State Responsibilities more relevant and stronger.

To sum up the
argument, one may refer to one of the judgments that was made by International
Arbitral Tribunal in a case regarding Archer Daniels and others v. the United
Mexican States. In the given case the court observed and penned its assessment
on the Articles of the State Responsibilities. It acknowledged that ILC
articles are a result of over five decades of work and represent to a large
extent a restatement of customary international law regarding secondary
principles of State Responsibility[31].

It is however
submitted that conclusions as drawn are limited and on the basis of facts and
literature consulted for conducting the present study.

Bibliography

1. Factory at Chorzow (Germ. v. Pol.), 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 9 (July 26)
2. (United Kingdom v. Albania) 1948 I.C.J. Rep. 15; 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 4.
3. Crawford, James.State Responsibility: The General Part. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2013
4. Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. 1, Ninth Edition
5. Article 5.Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (“Draft Articles“) by the International Law Commission (ILC)
6. Article 8.Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (“Draft Articles“) by the International Law Commission (ILC)
7. Margaret Roper (U.S.A.) v. United Mexican States. 4 April 1927. IV R.I.A.A
8. Article 2.Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (“Draft Articles“) by the International Law Commission (ILC)
9. Factory at Chorzow (Germ. v. Pol.), 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A)
10. Responsibility for injury to aliens? <https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/international-law/codification-international-law-state-responsibility-injury-aliens-international-law-essay.php>
11. Factory at Chorzow (Germ. v. Pol.), 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A)
12. Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. 1, Ninth Edition p542
13. Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. 1, Ninth Edition p545
14. Report of International Law commission, 1974 pp. 3-4.
15. Brownlie Ian, Principles of Public International Law 7^thEd  p. 447
16. Brownlie Ian, Principles of Public International Law 7^thEd  p. 447-48
17. Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. 1, Ninth Edition
18. United States of America v. Iran, Order, 12 V 81, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 12 May 1981
19. Brownlie, Ian,  Principles of Public International Law 7^th Ed
20. Kapoor, S.K., International Law and Human Rights, 1998
21. Trail smelter case (United States v. Canada), 3 UNRIAA, 1941
22. Calvo, Carlos, International Law of Europe and American in Theory and Practice (1868).
23. ‘Legal Consequences on Construction of wall in the occupied Palestinian territory’ https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/131
24. Nicaragua v. United States of America, Merits, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 27 June 1986
25. Johnson, David, Lockerbie, the real story. Bloomsbury Publishing Ltd, 1989
26. Brownlie, Ian Principles of Public International Law 7^th Ed
27. Milanović, Marko, State Responsibility for Genocide, European Journal of International Law, Volume 17, Issue 3, 1 June 2006
28. Corten, Oliverand Klein, Pierre, The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary, Oxford University Press,2011
29. Article 57-58, Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (“Draft Articles“) by the International Law Commission (ILC)
30. Article 55, Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (“Draft Articles“) by the International Law Commission (ILC)
31. Archer Daniels and others v. the United Mexican State, Case No. ARB(AF)/04/05, 21 Nov 2007

[1] Factory at Chorzow (Germ. v. Pol.), 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 9 (July 26)

[2] (United Kingdom v. Albania) 1948 I.C.J. Rep. 15; 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 4.

[3] James Crawford,State Responsibility: The General Part. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

[4] Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. 1, Ninth Edition

[5]
Article 5.Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for
Internationally Wrongful Acts (“Draft Articles“) by the International Law Commission (ILC)

[6] Article 8.Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (“Draft Articles“) by the International Law Commission (ILC)

[7] Margaret Roper (U.S.A.) v. United Mexican States. 4 April 1927. IV R.I.A.A.

[8]
Article 2.Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts
(“Draft
Articles“) by the International Law Commission (ILC)

[9] Factory at Chorzow (Germ. v. Pol.), 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A)

[10] Responsibility for injury to aliens? <https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/international-law/codification-international-law-state-responsibility-injury-aliens-international-law-essay.php>

[11] Factory at Chorzow (Germ. v. Pol.), 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A)

[12] Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. 1, Ninth Edition p542

[13] Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. 1, Ninth Edition p545

[14] Report of International Law commission, 1974 pp. 3-4.

[15] Ian Brownlie,
Principles of Public International Law 7^thEd  p. 447.

[16] Ian
Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law 7^thEd  p. 447-48

[17] Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. 1, Ninth Edition

[18] United States of America v. Iran, Order, 12 V 81, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 12 May 1981

[19] Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law 7^th Ed

[20] SK Kapoor, International Law and Human Rights, 1998

[21] Trail smelter case (United States v. Canada), 3 UNRIAA, 1941

[22] Carlos
Calvo, International Law of Europe and American in Theory and Practice (1868).

[23] ‘Legal
Consequences on Construction of wall in the occupied Palestinian territory’
<https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/131>

[24] Nicaragua v. United States of America, Merits, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 27 June 1986

[25] David Johnson, Lockerbie, the real story. Bloomsbury Publishing Ltd, 1989

[26] Ian
Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law 7^th Ed

[27] Marko Milanović, State Responsibility for Genocide, European Journal of International Law, Volume 17, Issue 3, 1 June 2006

[28]Olivier Cortenand Pierre
Klein, The Vienna
Conventions on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary Oxford University
Press,2011

[29]
Article 57-58, Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for
Internationally Wrongful Acts (“Draft Articles“) by the International Law Commission (ILC)

[30]
Article 55, Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for
Internationally Wrongful Acts (“Draft Articles“) by the International Law Commission (ILC)

[31] Archer
Daniels and others v. the United Mexican State, Case No. ARB(AF)/04/05, 21 Nov
2007