Invocation of State Responsibility for Violation of Obligations Owed to the International Community as a Whole
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21564/2414-990X.154.238587Keywords:
actio popularis, international legal responsibility of states, invocation of the international legal responsibility, obligations owed to the international community as a whole, international community, jus cogens norms, erga omnes normsAbstract
The article discusses the features of the application of paragraph 1 (b) of Art. 48 of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility, developed by the UN International Law Commission and taken into consideration by the UN General Assembly by its resolution 56/83 of December 12, 2001. The norm of this article enshrines the right of any state that is not a victim to call to international legal responsibility state that has committed a breach of an obligation owed to the international community as a whole. This rule contributes to the establishment in modern international law of the ancient Roman theory of actio popularis, according to which any citizen could file a claim in the public interest.
The UN International Law Commission is considering paragraph 1 (b) of Art. 48 of the 2001 Draft Articles on State Responsibility as a result of the progressive development of International Law. This is manifested primarily in a new approach to the interpretation of concepts such as “the international community as a whole” and “obligation owed to the international community as a whole”. The article notes that the concept of "the international community as a whole" should no longer be considered as a community of sovereign states, since it already presupposes a more active participation in maintaining international legitimacy of all participants of international relations – subjects of international law.
In addition, attention is drawn to the fact that the concept of “obligation owed to the international community as a whole” is a new category proposed by the International Law Commission as a part of the progressive development of the theory of erga omnes and jus cogens norms. The author compares these types of obligations and points out a number of problems that may arise while interpreting this concept in order to apply this rule in practice.
References
Anufrieva, L.P. (2021). Principy v sovremennom mezhdunarodnom prave (nekotoryie voprosy poniatija, prirody, genezisa, sushchnosti I soderzhanija). Moskovskij zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava, 1, 6–27. doi: https:// doi.org/10.24833/0869-0049-2021-1-6-27 [in Russian].
Venskaja konvenztija o prave mezhdunaridnykh dogovorov, 23 Maja 1969 hoda. URL: https://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/law_treaties.shtml [in Russian].
Ezhegodnik Komissii mezhdunarodnogo prava 1998. (2005). Tom. II. Chast 2: Doklad Komissii Generalnoi Assamblei o rabote jejio 50 sessii. A/CN.4/SER.A/1998/Add.1 (Part 2). UN, New-York, Geneva [in Russian].
Ezhegodnik Komissii mezhdunarodnogo prava 2001. (2007). Tom. II. Chast 2: Doklad Komissii Generalnoi Assamblei o rabote jejio 53 sessii. A/CN.4/SER.A/2001/Add.1 (Part 2). UN, New-York, Geneva [in Russian].
Kuris, P.M. (1973). Mezhdunarodnyje pravonarushenija i otvetstvennost gosudarstv. Vilnjus: Mintis [in Russian].
Otvetstvennost gosudarstv: kommentarii i zamechanija, poluchennyjie ot pravitelstv. UN Doc. A/CN.4/515 (19 March 2001). Russian. URL: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/437502?ln=ru [in Russian].
Rezoljutztija Generalnoi Assamblei OON 56/83(A/RES/56/83) ot 12 dekabrja 2001 h. URL: https://undocs.org/ru/A/RES/56/83 [in Russian].
Chernichenko, S.V. (2012). Vzaimosviaz imperativnykh norm mezhdunarodnogo prava i obiazatelstv erga omnes. Moskovskij zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava, 3, 3–17 [in Russian].
Aceves, W.J. (2003). Actio Popularis – The Class Action in International Law. University of Chicago Legal Forum, vol. 2003, issue 1, art. 9, 353–402.
Bird, A. (2010). Third State Responsibility for Human Rights Violations. European Journal of International Law. vol. 21, 4, 883–900.
Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited: Judgment of 5 February. (1970). I.C.J. Reports, 32.
Chubrikj, S., Dimovska, N.C. (2016). Use of Actio Popularis to Cases of Discrimination. Skopje: Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in the Republic in Macedonia.
Diss. Opinion of President Winiarski. (1962). South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 21 December 1962. I.C.J. Reports, 452.
Kawasaki, K. (2000). The ‘Injured State’ in the International Law of State Responsibility. Hitotsubashi Journal of Law and Politics, vol. 28, 17–31.
Krivenkova, M. (2018). Legal Entities Entitled to Invoke International Responsibility. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 7(4), 146–152. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7596/taksad.v7i4.1825
Schwelb, E. (1972). The Actio Popularis and International Law. Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, vol. 2, 46–56.
Scobbie, I. (2002). The Invocation of Responsibility for the Breach of ‘Obligations under Peremptory Norms of General International Law’. European Journal of International Law, vol. 13, 5, 1201–1220.
Separate Opinion of Judge Jessup. (1962). South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 21 December 1962. I.C.J. Reports, 425.
South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Second Phase, Judgment of 18 July 1966. (1966). I.C.J. Reports, 6.
S.S. Wimbledon (U.K., France, Italy & Japan v. Germany). (1923). P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 1 (Aug. 17). Publications of the Permanent Court of International Justice, Series A – No. 1; Collection of Judgments and Orders, A.W. Sijthoff’s Publishing Company, Leyden, 15–34.
Weiss, E.B. (2002). Invoking State Responsibility in the Twenty-First Century. The American Journal of International Law, vol. 96, 798–816.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Shchokin Yu. V.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
