Source: https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law/9780199296972.001.0001/law-9780199296972-chapter-19?prd=ORIL
Timestamp: 2019-09-16 20:40:28
Document Index: 430277107

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art.10', 'Art.4', 'Art.5', 'Art.4', 'Art.6', 'Art.4']

Oxford Reports on International Law: Part III The Sources of International Responsibility, Ch.19.1 Attribution of Conduct to the State: State Organs and Entities Empowered to Exercise Elements of Governmental Authority in: The Law of International Responsibility
Page Id: 238ReferencesDraft Articles on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property adopted by the Commission at its forty-third session in 1991 (Final Outcome) (International Law Commission [ILC]) UN Doc A/46/10, 13, (1991) II(2) UNYBILC 13, UN Doc A/CN.4/L.457Part III Proceedings in which State Immunity cannot be Invoked, Art.10Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, adopted by the Commission at its fifty-third session in 2001 (Final Outcome) (International Law Commission [ILC]) UN Doc A/56/10, 43, UN Doc A/RES/56/83, Annex, UN Doc A/CN.4/L.602/Rev.1, GAOR 56th Session Supp 10, 43Pt.1 The Internationally Wrongful Act of a State, Ch.II Attribution of Conduct to a State, Art.4(2)Pt.1 The Internationally Wrongful Act of a State, Ch.II Attribution of Conduct to a State, Art.5(p. 239) 1 State organs
In the same manner, whatever the position of the organ in the framework of the State organization may be, this is of no consequence in attributing a wrongful act to the State. According to a school of thought favoured by American States in the 19th century, it was only the conduct of superior organs that was attributable to the State in international law. The State would therefore not be accountable for the act of a subordinate organ unless its behaviour was explicitly or implicitly endorsed by superior organs.24 According to Ago, this theory was largely based on a confusion with the rule of exhaustion of local remedies. According to this rule there would be no violation of an international obligation as long as there is an organ on the local level that is capable of correcting the defect. If it is true Page Id: 240ReferencesCertain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, Germany v Poland, Judgment, merits, Judgment No 7, PCIJ Series A No 7, ICGJ 241 (PCIJ 1926), 25th May 1926, League of Nations (historical) [LoN]; Permanent Court of International Justice (historical) [PCIJ] ICGJDifference relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, Advisory opinion, ICJ GL No 100, [1999] ICJ Rep 62, ICGJ 204 (ICJ 1999), (1999) 93 AJIL 913, Times, May 19, 1999, 29th April 1999, United Nations [UN]; International Court of Justice [ICJ] ICGJDraft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, adopted by the Commission at its fifty-third session in 2001 (Final Outcome) (International Law Commission [ILC]) UN Doc A/56/10, 43, UN Doc A/RES/56/83, Annex, UN Doc A/CN.4/L.602/Rev.1, GAOR 56th Session Supp 10, 43Pt.1 The Internationally Wrongful Act of a State, Ch.II Attribution of Conduct to a State, Art.4(1)Pt.1 The Internationally Wrongful Act of a State, Ch.II Attribution of Conduct to a State, Art.6(p. 241) that an internationally wrongful act cannot be classified as such before local remedies have been exhausted, it is nevertheless the case that the act may be classified as an act of the State as soon as it has been committed.25
Page Id: 243ReferencesApplication of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro, Judgment, merits, ICJ GL No 91, [2007] ICJ Rep 43, ICGJ 70 (ICJ 2007), 26th February 2007, United Nations [UN]; International Court of Justice [ICJ] ICGJDraft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, adopted by the Commission at its fifty-third session in 2001 (Final Outcome) (International Law Commission [ILC]) UN Doc A/56/10, 43, UN Doc A/RES/56/83, Annex, UN Doc A/CN.4/L.602/Rev.1, GAOR 56th Session Supp 10, 43Pt.1 The Internationally Wrongful Act of a State, Ch.II Attribution of Conduct to a State, Art.4(2)Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua, Nicaragua v United States, Merits, ICJ GL No 70, [1986] ICJ Rep 14, ICGJ 112 (ICJ 1986), OXIO 88, 27th June 1986, United Nations [UN]; International Court of Justice [ICJ] ICGJ OXIO(p. 244) 2 Entities empowered to exercise elements of governmental authority
In Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua,55 it was the International Court that was concerned with entities empowered to exercise elements of the governmental authority. The case dealt with so-called ‘Unilaterally Controlled Latino Assets’ in the language of the CIA, persons paid by the United States and acting under the direct instructions of military personnel or intelligence services of the United States. The Court took into account the fact that this State participated in the preparation, command, Page Id: 245ReferencesDifférend Dame Mossé, France v Italy, Decision No 144, (1964) XIII RIAA 486, 17th January 1953, Conciliation Commission (Franco-Italian)Hyatt International Corporation v Iran, Interlocutory award, Award No ITL 54-134-1, (1985) 9 Iran-US CTR 72, 17th September 1985, Iran-United States Claims TribunalMilitary and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua, Nicaragua v United States, Merits, ICJ GL No 70, [1986] ICJ Rep 14, ICGJ 112 (ICJ 1986), OXIO 88, 27th June 1986, United Nations [UN]; International Court of Justice [ICJ] ICGJ OXIO(p. 246) and support of attacks carried out by these persons and concluded that their behaviour could be attributed to the United States.56