International Responsibility in Public International Law

Introduction

International Responsibility is the wider legal doctrine that explains how public international law connects obligations with consequences. It includes State responsibility, but it is not confined to it. The doctrine also reaches international organizations, individuals accused of international crimes, diplomatic protection, shared responsibility among several actors, and special liability regimes for activities that cause harm without necessarily being unlawful. This article examines that broader framework. State responsibility is treated as one important branch, not as the whole subject.

The practical question is simple, but the law behind it is complex: when an international obligation is breached, who must answer, what legal consequences arise, and who may invoke them? A border attack, an unlawful detention, a peacekeeping failure, a cyber operation, an environmental disaster, or an international crime may involve several legal actors at once. Public international law needs a method for sorting those facts into legal categories: conduct, attribution, breach, causation, reparation, invocation, and compliance (Crawford, 2013; ILC, 2001).

The classic starting point remains the Chorzów Factory judgment, where the Permanent Court of International Justice stated that breach of an international engagement involves an obligation to make reparation (PCIJ, 1928). That principle still anchors the law of responsibility. A legal duty has limited force if the law cannot identify the consequences of violating it. Rules against genocide, aggression, torture, unlawful expropriation, diplomatic interference, or serious environmental harm require more than moral condemnation. They require a legal structure capable of identifying the wrong and determining the response.

The doctrine is usually explained through the distinction between primary and secondary rules. Primary rules say what international law requires: do not use force unlawfully, respect treaty obligations, protect diplomatic premises, prevent genocide, safeguard civilians during armed conflict, or exercise due diligence in relation to transboundary harm. Secondary rules explain what follows after breach: whose conduct counts in law, when breach occurs, what forms of reparation are due, and who may raise the claim (Crawford, 2013; ILC, 2001). The distinction is useful, but real disputes are rarely tidy. Courts and tribunals often deal with attribution, jurisdiction, breach, evidence, and remedy as connected questions rather than isolated steps (Jorritsma, 2021).

International Responsibility should also be separated from punishment. Most responsibility in public international law is not criminal in nature. Its ordinary consequences are cessation, restitution, compensation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition. Individual criminal responsibility follows a different logic, focused on personal culpability for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. The same events may still generate both tracks. A military operation may create responsibility for a State, criminal liability for commanders, and possible responsibility for an international organization if its organs or agents played a legally relevant role (Cassese, 2008; ILC, 2011).

Modern disputes show why the broader doctrine matters. Harm is often produced through cooperation, delegation, financing, logistical support, institutional decision-making, or private actors operating with public authority. A detention programme may involve intelligence agencies, foreign bases, transit States, contractors, and international bodies. A cyber operation may involve State organs, private infrastructure, proxy groups, and uncertain chains of control. A climate-related claim may raise questions of historical emissions, prevention, due diligence, causation, and allocation of loss. These problems cannot be explained fully by repeating the rules of State responsibility alone (Nollkaemper and Plakokefalos, 2017).

The law is also uneven. Responsibility can be clear as a matter of doctrine and weak as a matter of enforcement. A judgment may identify breach and award reparation, yet compliance may depend on political pressure, domestic implementation, negotiations, institutional supervision, or future litigation. Powerful actors may avoid accountability through jurisdictional objections, secrecy, immunity, fragmented procedures, or institutional vetoes. This does not make the doctrine irrelevant. It shows why the doctrine is central: it provides the legal language through which wrongful conduct is identified, recorded, contested, and repaired (Klabbers, 2024).

This article argues that International Responsibility is one of the organizing concepts of public international law. It is broader than State responsibility, more precise than political blame, and different from moral accountability. Its function is to explain how international law moves after a breach or legally significant harm: who acted, whose conduct is legally attributable, which obligation was affected, what consequences follow, and which actor may demand a remedy. Understanding this framework is essential for understanding how international law operates in real disputes.

1. The Meaning of International Responsibility

International Responsibility is the legal idea that an international legal order must be able to identify consequences when an obligation is breached, a duty is neglected, or a legally relevant harm occurs. The term is broader than the responsibility of States. It includes the responsibility of international organizations, individual criminal responsibility, diplomatic protection, shared responsibility, and certain liability regimes created for dangerous activities. The common thread is not punishment. The common thread is answerability under international law.

The difficulty is that “responsibility” is used in more than one way. Sometimes it means a strict legal consequence after a breach. Sometimes it refers to institutional accountability, such as review by a human rights body or internal oversight mechanism. Sometimes it describes a primary duty, such as a duty to prevent genocide, protect civilians, cooperate with other States, or regulate private actors. A serious article on International Responsibility must keep these meanings separate. If they are mixed together, the doctrine becomes vague and loses legal force.

1.1 Responsibility as a legal consequence

In its strict legal meaning, responsibility arises when international law connects a breach to a consequence. This is the central function of the doctrine. A State that violates a treaty, an international organization that acts outside its obligations, or an individual who commits an international crime may be required to answer under different legal regimes. The form of responsibility depends on the actor, the source of the obligation, and the forum dealing with the claim.

The classic formulation comes from the Chorzów Factory judgment. The Permanent Court of International Justice stated that breach of an international engagement involves an obligation to make reparation (PCIJ, 1928). That statement remains important because it captures the basic legal movement: obligation, breach, consequence. A legal duty is not complete if international law has no method for responding to its violation.

This does not mean that every breach produces the same result. A violation of a boundary treaty, an unlawful expropriation, a failure to protect an embassy, a breach of the prohibition of torture, and a failure to prevent transboundary environmental harm raise different questions. The legal consequences may include cessation, restitution, compensation, satisfaction, guarantees of non-repetition, or other forms of compliance. In some regimes, the response may also involve institutional supervision, reporting duties, or individual remedies.

Responsibility should not be reduced to compensation. Compensation is only one possible consequence. If a State unlawfully occupies territory, the first question is not merely how much money must be paid. The immediate legal demand may be cessation of the wrongful conduct. If a court finds that a State has violated a human rights obligation, the remedy may include reopening proceedings, changing domestic law, investigating officials, or paying just satisfaction to victims. If an international organization breaches an obligation, the remedy may depend on its constituent instrument, internal rules, applicable treaty obligations, and the availability of external review.

Responsibility should also not be equated with punishment. Most International Responsibility is reparative or corrective, not penal. The responsible actor may be required to stop the conduct, repair the injury, acknowledge the breach, or provide assurances that it will not happen again. Punishment belongs mainly to individual criminal responsibility. The difference matters because States and international organizations are usually not “punished” in the same way individuals are punished before criminal courts. Their responsibility is ordinarily expressed through legal consequences attached to the breach of an international obligation (Crawford, 2013; Pellet, 2010).

1.2 Responsibility as accountability

International Responsibility also has a broader accountability dimension. Accountability is not always identical to legal liability. It may involve explanation, justification, review, monitoring, reporting, investigation, or political scrutiny. These mechanisms may not produce the same consequences as a judgment of the International Court of Justice, but they still shape how international law responds to misconduct.

Human rights law offers a clear example. Treaty bodies, regional courts, special rapporteurs, commissions of inquiry, and monitoring mechanisms may require a State to explain its conduct, justify its policies, disclose information, or change institutional practices. Some decisions are legally binding; others are recommendations or findings. Yet even non-judicial mechanisms can influence the interpretation of obligations, record violations, support victims, and create pressure for compliance (Shelton, 2015).

International organizations also raise accountability questions. They may exercise authority over peacekeeping operations, sanctions regimes, refugee processing, development financing, administrative territories, or public health measures. If harm occurs, legal liability may be difficult to establish because of immunity, limited jurisdiction, or unclear attribution. Accountability mechanisms may still exist through internal review, ombudsperson procedures, inspection panels, independent inquiries, audit bodies, or reporting duties. These mechanisms do not replace legal responsibility, but they help expose decisions that would otherwise remain insulated from scrutiny (Klabbers, 2017; ILC, 2011).

This wider meaning is useful, but it must be handled carefully. Accountability is not always responsibility in the strict legal sense. A United Nations inquiry may identify institutional failure, but that does not automatically create a judicially enforceable obligation to compensate victims. A human rights treaty body may find a violation, but the domestic effect of that finding may depend on the treaty system and the State’s legal order. A public report may establish facts and moral blame, but legal responsibility still requires a rule, a breach, a responsible actor, and a legal basis for consequences.

The value of accountability is that it fills part of the gap between law and enforcement. International law often lacks centralized coercion. Many legal consequences depend on claims, negotiations, litigation, reputational pressure, or institutional processes. Accountability mechanisms can preserve evidence, clarify standards, identify patterns of abuse, and generate pressure for reform. They also allow victims, affected communities, and other States to contest official narratives.

Still, there is a risk of dilution. If every form of criticism is called International Responsibility, the term loses precision. A strong article must keep the line clear: accountability concerns answerability and review; legal responsibility concerns consequences attached to breach or legally regulated harm.

1.3 Responsibility as primary duty

The word responsibility is also used to describe primary duties. These are obligations that exist before any breach occurs. They tell legal actors what they must do or avoid doing. Examples include the duty to prevent genocide, the duty to respect and ensure human rights, the duty to protect diplomatic premises, the duty to cooperate in good faith, and the duty to exercise due diligence over activities within a State’s jurisdiction or control.

This use of responsibility is common in public debate. A State may be said to have a responsibility to protect populations, regulate private companies, prevent environmental harm, or cooperate with international institutions. These statements may be legal, political, or ethical, depending on the source and content of the duty. The legal question is always the same: is there a binding obligation, who owes it, to whom it is owed, and what standard of conduct does it require?

The duty to prevent genocide illustrates the point. In the Bosnian Genocide case, the International Court of Justice treated prevention as a distinct legal obligation under the Genocide Convention. The Court did not require proof that the State itself committed genocide in order to examine whether it failed to prevent genocide. The obligation was one of conduct, assessed by capacity to influence, knowledge of serious risk, and the means reasonably available to the State (ICJ, 2007).

Environmental law offers another example. In Pulp Mills, the International Court of Justice treated environmental impact assessment and cooperation as legally relevant to due diligence where there is a risk of significant transboundary harm (ICJ, 2010). The duty is not simply to avoid causing proven damage. It may include prevention, notification, consultation, assessment, and monitoring. These obligations operate before the harm fully materializes.

Duties to regulate private actors also belong here. A State is not automatically responsible for every act committed by private individuals or corporations within its territory. Yet it may breach international law if it fails to take reasonable measures to prevent, investigate, punish, or remedy conduct that violates protected rights or causes legally relevant harm. Human rights law has developed this logic through positive obligations and due diligence standards. The State is not responsible because the private actor becomes a State organ. It is responsible because the State failed to comply with its own duty of prevention or protection.

This distinction is essential. A primary duty sets the standard of conduct. Responsibility for breach arises only if that standard is violated. The existence of a “responsibility to prevent” does not automatically mean legal liability for every harm. It requires analysis of the obligation, the actor’s capacity, the foreseeability of risk, the measures reasonably available, and the causal connection between omission and harm.

1.4 Liability and reparation

In the strictest doctrinal sense, International Responsibility concerns secondary obligations triggered by a breach. Once an internationally wrongful act is established, the responsible actor must face the consequences required by international law. The most familiar consequences are cessation, restitution, compensation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition (ILC, 2001).

Cessation is the first requirement where the wrongful conduct continues. A State that unlawfully detains individuals, occupies territory, restricts diplomatic premises, or maintains legislation inconsistent with its obligations may be required to stop the conduct. Cessation is not a remedy in the narrow financial sense. It is the legal demand that the breach end.

Restitution seeks to restore the situation that existed before the wrongful act, as far as possible. It may involve returning property, releasing detained persons, restoring legal status, or reversing unlawful administrative measures. Restitution can be unavailable or disproportionate where restoration is materially impossible or would impose an excessive burden compared with the benefit obtained. Even then, other forms of reparation may remain available.

Compensation applies to financially assessable damage. It may cover property loss, economic injury, loss of profits, personal injury, moral damage, or environmental harm when valuation is possible. Its central problem is evidence. Large-scale violations often produce dispersed injury, incomplete records, contested causation, and uncertain valuation. The reparation phase in Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo showed how difficult it can be to quantify harm arising out of armed conflict, occupation, loss of life, displacement, and natural resource exploitation (ICJ, 2022).

Satisfaction addresses non-material injury. It may include acknowledgment of breach, formal apology, judicial declaration, disciplinary action, criminal investigation, memorialization, or other measures appropriate to the injury. Satisfaction matters because some breaches damage dignity, sovereignty, institutional integrity, or legal order in ways that money cannot fully repair.

Guarantees of non-repetition aim at future compliance. They may require training, legislative reform, institutional restructuring, monitoring, or safeguards against recurrence. Their value depends on the type of breach. A single diplomatic incident may require assurances. A pattern of torture, enforced disappearance, discrimination, or unlawful detention may require bigger institutional change.

Liability regimes for lawful but harmful activities must be kept apart from responsibility for wrongful acts. Some treaty systems impose liability because an activity is dangerous, not because the conduct was unlawful. Space law is the leading example. The international regime on damage caused by space objects creates special rules of liability linked to risk and damage. This is not the same as responsibility for breach of an international obligation, although both belong to the wider architecture of International Responsibility (von der Dunk, 2015).

The key point is precision. Legal responsibility for wrongdoing is not the same as general accountability, primary duties, or risk-based liability. They are connected, but each performs a different function.

2. The Place of Responsibility in International Law

International law needs responsibility because rules alone do not settle disputes. A treaty may prohibit conduct. Custom may impose a duty. A court may identify a norm. None of those answers the next set of questions: who breached the obligation, whose conduct counts, what legal consequences follow, and who may invoke them. International Responsibility gives the legal order a method for moving beyond the existence of rules toward consequences after breach.

This is why the doctrine appears across public international law. It is not a self-contained topic reserved for one chapter of a textbook. It sits behind disputes on force, territory, diplomatic protection, human rights, investment, the environment, armed conflict, the law of the sea, cyber operations, and institutional conduct. It is one of the mechanisms that allows international law to function as law rather than as an aspiration.

2.1 Obligation, breach, consequence

Every legal system must explain what happens after a rule is violated. Public international law faces a harder version of that problem because it lacks a single legislature, a centralized police force, and a universal court with compulsory jurisdiction over every dispute. Responsibility partly compensates for that institutional structure. It supplies a common legal grammar for breach and consequence.

Take genocide. The Genocide Convention does not merely prohibit genocide as an abstract wrong. It creates duties to prevent and punish, and the International Court of Justice has treated those duties as legally enforceable between States (ICJ, 2007). If the law stopped at the prohibition, it would not answer how responsibility arises when a State fails to prevent genocide, aids genocide, or fails to punish it. Responsibility doctrine provides the legal route for that analysis.

The prohibition of unlawful force works similarly. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, subject to narrow exceptions such as self-defence and Security Council authorization. When force is used unlawfully, legal analysis must address attribution, breach, possible circumstances precluding wrongfulness, cessation, assurances, reparation, and the relationship between State responsibility and individual criminal responsibility for aggression. The prohibition itself is only the starting point.

Torture also shows why consequences matter. A treaty prohibition requires States to prevent, investigate, prosecute, and provide redress. If a person is tortured by State officials, responsibility may arise directly through attribution to the State. If torture is committed by private actors, responsibility may still arise if the State fails to exercise due diligence. If officials responsible for torture are not investigated, a separate breach may occur. The legal consequences may include compensation, rehabilitation, criminal proceedings, and institutional reform.

Environmental harm adds another layer. Harm may be diffuse, delayed, scientifically complex, and caused by several actors over time. International law may impose duties to prevent significant transboundary harm, conduct environmental impact assessment, notify affected States, cooperate, and monitor risks. Responsibility analysis must identify the obligation, assess the standard of due diligence, examine causation, and decide what form of reparation or compliance is legally appropriate (Sands and Peel, 2018).

The sequence “obligation, breach, consequence” is useful because it prevents empty moralizing. Not every harmful act is an internationally wrongful act. Not every legal breach produces compensation. Not every injury gives every State standing. Responsibility doctrine disciplines the analysis. It asks for the source of the obligation, the actor bound by it, the conduct attributed to that actor, the breach, the legal consequences, and the party entitled to invoke them.

2.2 Primary and secondary rules

The distinction between primary and secondary rules is one of the organizing tools of the law of responsibility. Primary rules define the content of international obligations. They answer questions such as: may a State use force? Must a State protect diplomatic agents? Is a government required to prevent genocide? Must an organization respect human rights when exercising public authority? Must a State conduct an environmental impact assessment before authorizing a risky project?

Secondary rules operate after the primary rule is engaged. They determine how responsibility is established and implemented. They address attribution, breach, circumstances precluding wrongfulness, cessation, reparation, invocation, countermeasures, and consequences for serious breaches of peremptory norms (ILC, 2001).

This distinction explains why the law of responsibility is general. The ILC Articles on State responsibility do not define genocide, torture, aggression, expropriation, environmental due diligence, or fair and equitable treatment. Those are primary obligations found elsewhere. The Articles explain what follows when an obligation binding on a State is breached. They give the legal order a set of general rules that can operate across many fields.

The distinction also protects the broader article from becoming only an article about State responsibility. The same legal architecture can be seen, with modifications, in the responsibility of international organizations. The ILC’s 2011 Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations use a similar structure: attribution, breach, circumstances precluding wrongfulness, content of responsibility, invocation, and special issues relating to member States and organizations (ILC, 2011). The parallel structure does not mean the two regimes are identical. International organizations differ from States in powers, membership, functions, immunities, funding, and institutional design.

There is one danger: the primary-secondary distinction can look cleaner than reality. Some obligations already contain their own standards of attribution, causation, due diligence, or remedy. Human rights courts often ask whether a person was within a State’s jurisdiction before dealing with a breach. International humanitarian law may require classification of an armed conflict before responsibility can be assessed. Investment tribunals often treat attribution, treaty standards, and damages through the language of the specific investment treaty. The general law remains important, but it does not always control the whole analysis mechanically.

A good example is due diligence. Due diligence is usually part of the primary obligation. It asks what conduct was reasonably expected of the State or organization in light of risk, knowledge, capacity, and available measures. If the actor fails to meet that standard, responsibility may follow. The breach is not the private harm itself; the breach is the failure to take legally required preventive or protective measures. This is especially important in human rights, environmental law, terrorism prevention, cyber governance, and transboundary harm.

The same caution applies to attribution. Under the general law, the conduct of State organs is attributable to the State. Conduct of private actors is not automatically attributable unless specific conditions are met, such as direction, control, delegation of governmental authority, or adoption of the conduct. Yet some primary rules impose obligations to prevent or respond to private conduct. In those cases, responsibility does not require treating the private actor as the State. The State may be responsible for its own omission.

The primary-secondary framework remains indispensable. It keeps the legal analysis disciplined. It prevents the false assumption that every harm is automatically attributable, every breach produces the same remedy, or every actor is bound in the same way.

2.3 A general doctrine, not one field

International Responsibility is not a closed branch of law operating separately from other fields. It is a general doctrine that moves through the whole structure of public international law. Its rules and concepts appear wherever legal obligations can be breached and consequences must be determined.

In treaty law, responsibility explains what happens when a State fails to perform treaty obligations in good faith. Treaty breach may trigger cessation, reparation, dispute settlement, suspension, termination, or special consequences under the treaty itself. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties regulates treaty validity, interpretation, termination, and suspension, but responsibility rules remain necessary when a breach generates a claim for reparation or other consequences.

In customary international law, responsibility helps enforce obligations that do not depend on treaty consent in the same direct way. Duties relating to diplomatic protection, immunities, the prohibition of aggression, prevention of transboundary harm, and basic humanitarian norms may arise through custom. Once a breach is alleged, the responsibility doctrine becomes the method for linking conduct to consequence.

Human rights law gives International Responsibility a victim-centred dimension. Individuals may bring claims before regional courts or treaty bodies where jurisdiction exists. Remedies may include compensation, legislative reform, reopening of proceedings, investigation, release, or guarantees of non-repetition. The legal structure is still tied to breach and consequence, but access and remedy are shaped by the specific human rights system (Shelton, 2015).

International humanitarian law raises responsibility during armed conflict. A State may be responsible for violations committed by its armed forces. Individuals may face criminal responsibility for war crimes. An occupying power may incur responsibility for failure to protect the occupied population. International organizations may face difficult attribution questions in multinational operations. The same facts can activate several legal regimes at once.

Environmental law shows the preventive side of the doctrine. Responsibility may arise not only after pollution or ecological damage, but also after failure to assess risk, notify affected States, cooperate, regulate hazardous activities, or monitor environmental consequences. Climate-related responsibility is even more difficult because causation, contribution, differentiation, historical emissions, and global harm complicate traditional bilateral models of responsibility (Sands and Peel, 2018).

Investment law uses responsibility in a more specialized setting. A foreign investor may claim that a host State breached treaty standards such as fair and equitable treatment, protection against unlawful expropriation, full protection and security, or non-discrimination. The applicable treaty and arbitral practice shape the remedy, but attribution, breach, causation, and compensation remain central legal questions (Dolzer, Kriebaum and Schreuer, 2022).

The law of the sea includes duties on navigation, marine protection, fisheries, seabed activities, and environmental cooperation. Responsibility may arise through breach of treaty duties under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, failure to protect the marine environment, or unlawful conduct affecting another State’s maritime rights. Special procedures may influence how responsibility is invoked and remedied.

Cyber operations expose the evidentiary problem more sharply. A cyber operation may be technically traceable to infrastructure located in a State, but that does not automatically prove legal attribution. International Responsibility requires evidence of State organs, control, instructions, adoption, or breach of due diligence duties. The legal debate is not only about technology. It is about how traditional concepts of attribution, knowledge, prevention, and proof apply to concealed or deniable operations (Schmitt, 2017).

International organizations confirm that the doctrine is not limited to States. Organizations may conclude treaties, administer territories, impose sanctions, deploy personnel, operate missions, and influence domestic legal systems. Their responsibility depends on legal personality, applicable obligations, attribution of conduct, and available remedies. The law is less settled than State responsibility, but the need for responsibility is unavoidable where organizations exercise real authority (Klabbers, 2017; ILC, 2011).

The general character of International Responsibility is its strength. It allows different fields of public international law to communicate through shared concepts: obligation, attribution, breach, causation, reparation, invocation, and compliance. At the same time, each field modifies those concepts through its own primary rules, institutions, procedures, and remedies. That balance between general doctrine and special regime is what makes the subject central to modern international law.

3. State Responsibility as the Core Model

State responsibility remains the clearest model for understanding International Responsibility because States are still the primary legal actors in public international law. They make treaties, participate in custom formation, control territory, exercise public authority, maintain armed forces, regulate private actors, and appear most often before international courts. For that reason, the most developed rules of responsibility were built around State conduct before they were adapted, with difficulty, to other actors.

This does not mean that International Responsibility is only State responsibility. It means that State responsibility supplies the basic grammar. Concepts such as attribution, breach, cessation, reparation, invocation, and circumstances precluding wrongfulness were most fully elaborated in relation to States. Later debates on international organizations, shared responsibility, peacekeeping, sanctions, cyber operations, corporate conduct, and individual accountability often begin by asking how far that State-centred model can be used, modified, or rejected (Crawford, 2013; Nollkaemper and Plakokefalos, 2017).

3.1 Why State responsibility dominates

State responsibility dominates because public international law developed around sovereign equality, territorial authority, and reciprocal legal obligation. A State can conclude treaties, violate treaties, invoke rights, bring claims, incur duties, and appear as a party before the International Court of Justice. No other actor has enjoyed the same general legal position across the international legal order.

The centrality of States is also institutional. The United Nations Charter is built around States as members. The International Court of Justice mainly decides disputes between States. Most treaty regimes impose obligations primarily on States. Even where individuals, corporations, armed groups, or international organizations are relevant, their conduct is often legally assessed through State duties: the duty to prevent, regulate, investigate, punish, cooperate, or provide remedies.

A simple example shows the point. If police officers torture a detainee, international law normally treats their conduct as conduct of the State. If a private militia abuses civilians, the legal route is more complex. The State may be responsible if the militia acted under its control, if the State adopted the conduct, or if the State failed to exercise due diligence. The first case is direct. The second requires a more careful inquiry. This is why State conduct became the natural starting point for the law of responsibility.

State responsibility is also better developed because international practice is deeper. Courts, arbitral tribunals, diplomatic claims, treaty bodies, and State practice have repeatedly dealt with State breaches. Cases such as Chorzów Factory, Corfu Channel, United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, Nicaragua, Bosnian Genocide, and Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo shaped the modern doctrine across different fields of law (PCIJ, 1928; ICJ, 1949; ICJ, 1980; ICJ, 1986; ICJ, 2007; ICJ, 2022).

Still, dominance should not be confused with completeness. State responsibility is the core model, not the whole framework. International organizations may act independently. Individuals may commit international crimes. Several actors may contribute to one harm. Special regimes may impose liability without requiring the same proof of wrongfulness. A serious account of International Responsibility must begin with State responsibility, then move beyond it.

3.2 ARSIWA as the reference point

The International Law Commission’s Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts are the main reference point for State responsibility. Adopted by the ILC in 2001 and commended to States by the United Nations General Assembly, the Articles are not a treaty. Their authority comes instead through codification, customary law, judicial use, and their influence on legal argument (ILC, 2001; Crawford, 2013).

ARSIWA provides a general structure. It explains when an internationally wrongful act of a State exists, how conduct is attributed to a State, how breach is established, which circumstances may preclude wrongfulness, what consequences follow, and how responsibility may be invoked. It also addresses countermeasures and serious breaches of obligations arising under peremptory norms.

For this article, ARSIWA should be treated as the leading model, not as the whole subject. The detailed analysis of State organs, ultra vires conduct, control over non-State actors, necessity, countermeasures, and serious breaches belongs to the dedicated article on State Responsibility. Here, the point is different: ARSIWA shows how international law organizes the consequences of breach in its most mature form. It supplies the conceptual framework later tested against international organizations, individuals, shared operations, and special regimes.

The Articles also reveal a methodological feature of International Responsibility. They are mainly secondary rules. They do not define the content of obligations such as the prohibition of aggression, the duty to prevent genocide, the protection of diplomatic premises, or the standard of fair and equitable treatment. Those duties come from primary rules. ARSIWA explains what follows if a State breaches an obligation that binds it (ILC, 2001).

This separation is useful, but it must be used carefully. Some fields contain special rules on remedies, standing, causation, or attribution. Human rights courts, investment tribunals, and environmental regimes may apply general responsibility rules while also relying on their own treaty-based procedures. ARSIWA is the reference point, but not always the final answer.

3.3 The basic test

The basic test is compact: there must be conduct attributable to the State, and that conduct must breach an international obligation binding on the State at the relevant time. Attribution connects the act or omission to the State as a legal person. Breach compares that conduct with the obligation imposed by international law.

Attribution does not ask only who physically acted. It asks whose conduct counts in law. Conduct of State organs is normally attributable to the State. The conduct of private actors is different. It may be relevant if they exercise governmental authority, act under State control or instruction, or if the State later acknowledges and adopts the conduct. In many cases, however, the better route is not attribution of private conduct, but breach by omission: the State failed to prevent, investigate, punish, or remedy harm when international law required it to act.

Breach requires a binding international obligation. A politically hostile act is not enough. A moral failure is not enough. The claimant must identify a treaty rule, customary rule, general principle, binding institutional decision, or other legal source. The content of that rule determines the standard. Some obligations require a specific result. Others require due diligence, meaning reasonable measures in light of risk, knowledge, capacity, and available means.

The test is simple only at the surface. Hard cases arise when facts are hidden, decision-making is shared, conduct occurs outside national territory, private actors are involved, or the obligation is preventive rather than result-based. Cyber operations, intelligence cooperation, detention abroad, migration outsourcing, and military assistance to partner forces all expose the limits of a narrow attribution-and-breach formula.

Readers who need a full treatment of attribution, breach, circumstances precluding wrongfulness, countermeasures, and reparation under ARSIWA should read the dedicated article State Responsibility in International Law. The present article keeps State responsibility in its proper place: the core model within the broader doctrine of International Responsibility.

4. Responsibility of International Organizations

International organizations are no longer marginal actors. They administer funds, impose sanctions, conduct peace operations, coordinate public health responses, supervise territories, finance development projects, manage refugee programmes, and adopt decisions that affect individuals and States. If international law recognizes that they can exercise legal powers, it must also explain how they can incur legal responsibility.

The responsibility of international organizations is harder to state with confidence than State responsibility. The law is younger, practice is thinner, and remedies are often obstructed by immunity or institutional design. Yet the basic premise is clear: an organization with separate international legal personality may hold rights and duties distinct from its member States. If it breaches an international obligation binding on it, responsibility may arise (ICJ, 1949; ILC, 2011; Klabbers, 2017).

4.1 Separate legal personality

The starting point is a separate legal personality. In the Reparation for Injuries advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice recognized that the United Nations had international legal personality and could bring claims for injury caused to its agents. The Court did not say that the UN was a State. It recognized that the organization possessed the legal capacities necessary for the performance of its functions (ICJ, 1949).

That reasoning matters for responsibility. If an organization can hold rights, conclude agreements, enjoy privileges and immunities, and exercise functions on the international plane, it may also bear obligations. Legal personality cannot operate only as a shield. It must also support answerability when the organization’s own conduct breaches an applicable rule.

A separate personality also prevents the automatic transfer of responsibility to member States. An act of an international organization is not simply an act of all its members. A Security Council decision, a peacekeeping operation, a development project, or an administrative act by an international secretariat may have its own institutional character. Responsibility must be assessed by looking at the organization’s organs, agents, powers, applicable obligations, and degree of control.

This distinction is essential in practice. If a United Nations peacekeeping mission causes harm, the legal question is not automatically one of responsibility of every contributing State. If a development bank finances a project linked to displacement or environmental injury, responsibility cannot be assessed only by examining the territorial State. If a sanctions committee imposes restrictions affecting individuals, the organization’s institutional conduct may require review even when member States implement the measures domestically.

A separate personality does not remove member States from the picture. It only means that the organization may be a responsible actor in its own right. The harder question is how to distribute responsibility when both the organization and one or more States contribute to the same conduct.

4.2 DARIO and its limits

The International Law Commission adopted the Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations in 2011. These Articles, usually called DARIO, follow a structure similar to ARSIWA. They address attribution of conduct to an international organization, breach of an international obligation, circumstances precluding wrongfulness, legal consequences, invocation, and responsibility of States in connection with the conduct of an organization (ILC, 2011).

DARIO is valuable because it rejects institutional impunity. It confirms that international organizations may commit internationally wrongful acts. It also recognizes that States may incur responsibility when they aid or assist, direct and control, coerce, or circumvent obligations through an organization. This is important because States sometimes act collectively through institutions in ways that would be unlawful if done individually.

The difficulty is authority. ARSIWA has been cited repeatedly by the International Court of Justice, arbitral tribunals, regional courts, and States. Large parts of it are widely treated as reflecting customary international law. DARIO does not have the same weight. Practice is less extensive, international case law is thinner, and States and organizations have been more cautious in accepting its formulations (Klabbers, 2017; d’Aspremont, 2012).

There are structural reasons for this caution. International organizations vary widely. The United Nations, the European Union, the World Health Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the African Union, and specialized technical bodies do not exercise the same powers. Some adopt binding decisions. Others coordinate, finance, advise, supervise, or recommend. A single responsibility framework must be flexible enough to cover these differences without pretending that all organizations resemble States.

Another problem is the source of obligations. States are bound by a broad range of customary and treaty obligations. International organizations are bound by their constituent instruments, internal rules, treaties to which they are parties, general international law where applicable, and obligations implied by their functions. The scope of those obligations is often contested. If the primary obligation is uncertain, responsibility is harder to establish.

Immunity also weakens practical accountability. Many organizations enjoy broad immunity before domestic courts. Immunity may protect institutional independence, but it can leave victims without an effective forum. The result is a visible gap: the law says organizations may be responsible, yet procedures for enforcing that responsibility are often inadequate. This is one of the main unresolved problems in modern International Responsibility.

4.3 Conduct of organs and agents

Attribution to an international organization depends on whether the relevant conduct was performed by its organs or agents in the exercise of functions. The term “agent” is broad. It may include officials, experts on mission, military contingents placed under institutional command, administrative personnel, special representatives, and others acting for the organization (ILC, 2011).

The core issue is functional control. An organization is not responsible for every act committed by persons connected to it. The conduct must be linked to the organization through its institutional structure, authority, or effective control. In peacekeeping, this is often difficult because military contingents are provided by States but operate under an international mandate. Command may be divided. Operational control, disciplinary authority, criminal jurisdiction, and logistical control may sit with different actors.

Peacekeeping illustrates the problem better than any abstract formula. A troop-contributing State may retain disciplinary and criminal authority over its soldiers. The United Nations may exercise operational control over the mission. The host State may control the territory. If harm occurs, responsibility may depend on which actor had effective control over the specific conduct at the relevant time. General participation in the mission is not enough. The legal inquiry must focus on the concrete act or omission.

Administrative bodies of organizations may also create responsibility. A sanctions committee, claims commission, staff tribunal, procurement office, or development-finance body may act in ways that affect rights and obligations. If the conduct breaches a binding legal duty of the organization, attribution is usually less difficult than in multinational military operations because the organ is institutionally embedded in the organization.

Delegated functions raise a different issue. An organization may delegate tasks to private contractors, partner institutions, implementing agencies, or local authorities. Delegation should not automatically erase responsibility. If the organization retains control, designs the policy, funds the programme, or knowingly relies on actors that create legally relevant harm, the responsibility analysis must examine both attribution and breach of due diligence obligations.

Attribution is only one part of the inquiry. An organization may avoid attribution of a contractor’s direct conduct but still breach its own duty if it failed to supervise, prevent foreseeable harm, or provide safeguards required by applicable law. This distinction is important because institutional responsibility often turns less on direct command than on failure to regulate risks created by the organization’s activities.

4.4 Member State responsibility

The relationship between organizations and member States is one of the most difficult parts of International Responsibility. States create organizations, fund them, vote within them, implement their decisions, and sometimes use them to pursue collective policies. Yet the organization remains legally distinct. Responsibility cannot be imposed on member States merely because they belong to the organization.

At the same time, a separate personality must not become a device for evasion. If States could avoid their obligations simply by acting through an international organization, the law of responsibility would be weakened. DARIO addresses this risk by recognizing situations where States may incur responsibility in connection with the conduct of an organization, including aid or assistance, direction and control, coercion, and circumvention of obligations (ILC, 2011).

Voting inside an organization is especially sensitive. A State may support a decision that later causes harm. Does the vote itself create responsibility? The answer depends on the obligation breached, the legal effect of the vote, the State’s knowledge, and the degree of contribution. A vote in favour of an unlawful measure may be legally relevant, but responsibility should not be assumed automatically. International organizations act through collective procedures, and member States may have different levels of influence over the final decision.

Implementation creates clearer risks. If a State implements an organizational decision through domestic law, detention, asset freezing, military operations, or border control, its own conduct may be assessed under its international obligations. The State cannot always defend itself by saying it was only carrying out an institutional decision. Human rights litigation on targeted sanctions shows how domestic and regional courts may require States or regional organizations to provide procedural protection even when the measure originates in the United Nations system (ECJ, 2008; ECtHR, 2012).

There are also cases of circumvention. A State may be bound by an obligation and then seek to avoid it by acting through an organization that is not bound in the same way, or that has weaker review mechanisms. International law is alert to this problem. The key question is not merely formal membership. The inquiry asks whether the State used the organization to achieve a result that would have been unlawful for the State if done directly.

Shared responsibility is often the better analytical model. The organization may be responsible for its own act. One or more member States may also be responsible for their own conduct. An injury of this nature may encompass decisions made by institutions, execution by the State, funding, directives, omissions, and private sector involvement. The legal task is not just to identify a single responsible party, but to distribute responsibility in a way that prevents any party from concealing itself behind others.

The law remains underdeveloped here. Practice is fragmented, institutions are diverse, and courts often avoid direct findings against international organizations because of jurisdictional limits or immunity. Even so, the principle is unavoidable: international organizations and member States may each incur responsibility when their own legally relevant conduct contributes to a breach. Separate personality protects institutional autonomy; it should not create a zone without responsibility.

5. Individual Responsibility

International law no longer treats individuals only as objects of State action. Modern international law may impose duties directly on individuals and may attach legal consequences to their conduct. This is most visible in international criminal law, where political leaders, military commanders, public officials, militia leaders, and other persons may be prosecuted for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression.

This development changed the structure of International Responsibility. Traditional responsibility focused mainly on States: a State breached an international obligation and owed reparation to another State or to the injured party. Individual responsibility follows a different path. It asks whether a natural person committed, ordered, aided, abetted, planned, instigated, contributed to, or failed to prevent crimes under international law. The inquiry is personal, not merely institutional (Cassese, 2008; Werle and Jessberger, 2020).

The distinction matters. A State can act only through human beings, but not every wrongful act of a State creates criminal responsibility for the persons involved. Equally, the conviction of an individual does not automatically settle every question of State responsibility. The two regimes may arise from the same facts, but they answer different legal questions.

5.1 Individuals as responsible subjects

The idea that individuals may bear direct responsibility under international law became legally visible after the Second World War. The Nuremberg Tribunal rejected the argument that international crimes were committed only by abstract State entities. Crimes are committed by persons, and individuals who commit such crimes may be punished under international law (IMT, 1946). That proposition remains one of the foundations of international criminal law.

The later ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda developed the doctrine in more detail. They dealt with individual responsibility for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, command responsibility, joint criminal enterprise, aiding and abetting, and superior responsibility. Their case law showed that mass violence is rarely the work of one physical perpetrator alone. It may involve planners, commanders, political authorities, security services, local administrators, financiers, propagandists, and armed units (ICTY, 1999; ICTR, 1998).

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court consolidated much of this development. It gives the ICC jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression, subject to the limits of the Statute. It also sets out modes of individual criminal responsibility, including direct commission, ordering, soliciting, inducing, aiding and abetting, contribution to group crimes, command responsibility, and superior responsibility (ICC, 1998).

This makes individuals responsible subjects, but only within defined legal limits. International criminal law does not punish every breach of international law. A minister who approves an unlawful expropriation, a border official who applies a discriminatory visa rule, or a regulator who fails to supervise a dangerous industry may contribute to an internationally wrongful act of a State without necessarily committing an international crime. Criminal responsibility requires a crime, a mode of liability, and the required mental element.

Individual responsibility is also narrower than moral blame. A person may be politically responsible, ethically blameworthy, or administratively negligent without satisfying the threshold for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, or aggression. This is why international criminal law should not be treated as the whole answer to mass harm. It is a powerful tool, but it covers only the gravest categories of conduct.

At the same time, individual responsibility strengthens the broader structure of International Responsibility. It prevents officials from hiding completely behind the State. Head of State status, official rank, or governmental function does not automatically erase criminal responsibility before international criminal tribunals where jurisdiction exists. The law addresses the person because some wrongs are so serious that the international legal order treats personal accountability as necessary (Bassiouni, 2011; Cryer et al., 2019).

5.2 Crimes and civil responsibility

Individual responsibility in international law is mainly criminal, but not all personal responsibility is criminal. This distinction is often blurred in public debate. Genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression belong to the criminal category. They require proof of prohibited conduct, contextual elements, and mental elements. The consequences may include conviction, imprisonment, reparations orders in some systems, and a formal record of guilt.

Genocide requires specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group as such. Crimes against humanity require certain prohibited acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population, with knowledge of the attack. War crimes require a nexus with armed conflict and breach of rules protecting persons, property, or methods and means of warfare. Aggression concerns leadership responsibility for the planning, preparation, initiation, or execution of an act of aggression meeting the required threshold (ICC, 1998; Werle and Jessberger, 2020).

Civil responsibility has a different function. It is not primarily concerned with punishment, stigma, or imprisonment. It may involve compensation, restitution, damages, or other remedies for injury. Domestic courts sometimes hear civil claims linked to international wrongs, including torture, forced labour, environmental damage, corporate complicity, or abuses committed abroad. These claims depend heavily on domestic jurisdiction, immunity rules, statutory causes of action, limitation periods, evidence, and enforcement.

Administrative responsibility is different again. Public officials, international civil servants, military personnel, police officers, or staff of international organizations may face disciplinary action, dismissal, loss of rank, internal sanctions, or professional consequences. Such measures can matter for accountability, but they are not the same as an international criminal conviction or State responsibility. Their legal basis is often domestic law, internal institutional law, military regulations, or employment rules.

The International Criminal Court introduces a further nuance through reparations. The Rome Statute allows the Court to order reparations against a convicted person and to involve the Trust Fund for Victims. These reparations are connected to individual criminal conviction, not to a general civil liability regime for all harms caused by a conflict. They are victim-centred, but their scope depends on the charges, conviction, causal link, and evidentiary findings in the criminal case (ICC, 1998; McCarthy, 2012).

Corporate conduct creates a difficult boundary. Corporations may contribute to forced labour, environmental harm, surveillance abuses, arms transfers, land dispossession, or conflict financing. International criminal courts generally prosecute natural persons, not companies as such, although domestic systems may impose corporate civil, administrative, or criminal liability. International law has developed important standards on business and human rights, especially through the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, but these principles do not create a general international criminal court for corporations (UN Human Rights Council, 2011; Clapham, 2006).

The point is not to minimize non-criminal responsibility. Civil and administrative mechanisms can provide remedies where criminal law is unavailable or unsuitable. A victim may need compensation, disclosure, rehabilitation, or institutional reform more urgently than a criminal conviction. But criminal, civil, and administrative responsibility must remain legally distinct. Each has its own threshold, forum, standard of proof, remedy, and purpose.

5.3 State and individual responsibility

Individual responsibility does not exclude the responsibility of a State. The same factual pattern may generate both. If members of a State’s armed forces commit war crimes during an international armed conflict, the individuals may face criminal responsibility, while the State may incur responsibility for internationally wrongful acts attributable to it. The individual is prosecuted for personal culpability. The State is responsible for breach of its international obligations.

The Genocide Convention illustrates the point clearly. In the Bosnian Genocide case, the International Court of Justice examined State responsibility under the Convention. The Court’s task was not to convict individuals, but to decide whether Serbia had breached obligations to prevent and punish genocide and whether genocide was attributable to the State. The analysis differed from the work of international criminal tribunals, even though the factual background overlapped with criminal proceedings arising from the conflict in the former Yugoslavia (ICJ, 2007).

The distinction also appears in torture cases. A police officer may be personally criminally liable under domestic or international criminal law. The State may separately breach obligations under the Convention against Torture or human rights treaties if the conduct is attributable to its organs, if it failed to prevent abuse, if it refused to investigate, or if it denied effective remedies. Punishing one officer may not be enough if the violation reflects a broader institutional pattern.

The same logic applies to aggression. The crime of aggression concerns individual leadership responsibility. State responsibility for unlawful use of force concerns the international responsibility of the State. A finding that a State violated the prohibition on the use of force is not the same as a criminal conviction of a leader for aggression. The first concerns inter-State legality and consequences. The second concerns personal culpability under a criminal statute.

There is also no rule that criminal proceedings must occur before State responsibility can be addressed. A State may be held responsible even if no individual has been convicted. Conversely, individuals may be convicted even where no international court has issued a separate judgment on State responsibility. The regimes interact, but neither is merely a substitute for the other.

This separation protects legal clarity. State responsibility should not become a way to punish individuals without criminal safeguards. Individual criminal responsibility should not become a way to avoid reparation owed by States or institutions. A mature account of International Responsibility must keep both tracks visible and explain how they may operate at the same time.

6. Shared and Multiple Responsibility

Many contemporary international disputes do not fit the image of one actor committing one breach against one injured party. Harm is often produced by several actors operating through alliances, institutions, markets, security partnerships, private contractors, armed groups, or technological infrastructure. International Responsibility must deal with that complexity without losing legal discipline.

Shared and multiple responsibility describe situations where more than one legal actor may contribute to the same wrongful outcome. The actors may be States, international organizations, individuals, corporations, armed groups, or private entities exercising public functions. The central difficulty is not only identifying a breach. It is deciding how law should allocate responsibility among actors whose contributions differ in type, timing, knowledge, and control (Nollkaemper and Plakokefalos, 2017; Nollkaemper and Jacobs, 2013).

International law has rules that address part of this problem. Aid or assistance, direction and control, coercion, complicity, due diligence, and joint conduct all provide possible routes. Yet the law remains fragmented. It can often identify that several actors contributed to harm, but it struggles to distribute responsibility in a precise and fair way.

6.1 One harm, several actors

A single injury may result from several legally relevant contributions. A civilian casualty incident may involve one State providing weapons, another supplying intelligence, a third allowing use of its territory, a coalition command approving the target, and local forces carrying out the strike. A migration operation may involve an international organization designing policy, a funding State supporting implementation, a transit State detaining migrants, and private contractors operating facilities. A sanctions regime may involve Security Council listing, regional implementation, domestic enforcement, and private banks over-complying to avoid penalties.

The legal problem is that contribution is not the same as responsibility. International law cannot impose responsibility merely because an actor is politically connected to an outcome. It must identify a legal basis: attribution, breach of a direct obligation, aid or assistance in another actor’s wrongful act, failure of due diligence, direction and control, or participation in a special regime.

Shared responsibility also differs from collective guilt. If several actors contribute to one harm, each actor’s responsibility must be assessed through its own conduct and obligations. A State that funds a detention facility, a State that operates the facility, and an international organization that monitors it may not owe the same duties or control the same risks. Legal analysis must avoid both extremes: letting each actor blame the others, or treating all actors as equally responsible without examining their actual roles.

Peace operations are a recurring example. Conduct may involve the United Nations, troop-contributing States, host States, regional organizations, and local security forces. A failure to protect civilians or prevent abuse may be connected to mandate design, operational control, training, logistics, rules of engagement, intelligence, command decisions, or local implementation. Responsibility may be shared, but not necessarily identical.

Environmental and climate-related claims raise another version of the same problem. Harm may be cumulative, long-term, and caused by many actors. Affected States or communities may suffer damage that cannot be traced easily to one emitter, one project, or one decision. Responsibility analysis must address contribution, causation, prevention, cooperation, and differentiated capacities. Traditional bilateral models are often too narrow for these disputes (Sands and Peel, 2018).

Cyber operations add secrecy and technical uncertainty. A harmful operation may involve infrastructure in several States, private software developers, criminal groups, State intelligence agencies, and plausible deniability. The victim State may know that harm occurred, but lack public evidence proving which actor controlled or directed the operation. Shared responsibility becomes difficult when the chain of conduct is intentionally hidden.

The practical aim is not to collapse every contribution into one legal category. The aim is to identify the legally relevant role of each actor. Some actors may be directly responsible. Some may have aided or assisted. Some may have failed to prevent foreseeable harm. Some may be politically involved but not legally responsible. International law needs that distinction to remain credible.

6.2 Aid, assistance, and control

Aid or assistance is one of the most important routes to responsibility in multi-actor situations. Under the ILC framework, a State may incur responsibility if it aids or assists another State in the commission of an internationally wrongful act, with knowledge of the circumstances, and if the act would be wrongful if committed by the assisting State itself (ILC, 2001). DARIO contains a parallel rule for international organizations (ILC, 2011).

Arms transfers show the issue sharply. A State supplying weapons to another State involved in serious violations may face legal questions if it knows the weapons are likely to be used unlawfully. The responsibility analysis will depend on the applicable primary rules, the level of knowledge, the connection between the assistance and the wrongful act, and any treaty obligations regulating the transfer. The Arms Trade Treaty, human rights law, humanitarian law, and the law of State responsibility may all become relevant (Akande and Moynihan, 2020).

Intelligence sharing raises similar concerns. If one State provides targeting intelligence to another State, and that intelligence is used for unlawful attacks, detention, torture, or extrajudicial killing, the assisting State may not be able to treat itself as legally remote. The central questions are knowledge, foreseeability, contribution, and the degree to which the assistance facilitated the wrongful act. A vague political association is insufficient. Operationally significant assistance with knowledge of unlawful use is more serious.

Detention cooperation has produced some of the hardest examples. Rendition, extraterritorial detention, interrogation support, transfer of detainees, and use of foreign facilities may involve several States and agencies. One State may capture, another may host, another may question, another may supply information, and another may receive intelligence extracted through abuse. Responsibility may arise through direct participation, aid or assistance, complicity in torture, breach of non-refoulement obligations, or failure to investigate (Milanovic, 2011; Jackson, 2015).

Sanctions regimes complicate the picture because international organizations and States interact closely. A Security Council sanctions committee may list a person or entity. States then implement asset freezes, travel bans, or other restrictions. Regional organizations may adopt implementing rules. Domestic authorities and private financial institutions may apply the measures. If procedural rights are violated, the question becomes: which actor had the duty to provide review, reasons, access to evidence, or remedy? The answer may differ across legal systems.

Migration control is another field where responsibility is often distributed across several actors. States may fund border control outside their territory, train foreign authorities, support detention centres, coordinate returns, or rely on international organizations for processing and assistance. If migrants face arbitrary detention, refoulement, violence, or inhuman conditions, responsibility may turn on jurisdiction, effective control, aid or assistance, due diligence, and knowledge of foreseeable risk (Gammeltoft-Hansen, 2011).

Proxy forces bring attribution and assistance into direct tension. If an armed group acts under a State’s instructions, direction, or control, its conduct may be attributable to the State. If the threshold for attribution is not met, the supporting State may still be responsible for aiding or assisting wrongful acts, failing to prevent violations, or breaching arms-transfer obligations. The legal route matters because attribution treats the conduct as the State’s own, while aid or assistance treats the State as responsible for its contribution to another actor’s wrongful act.

Control is harder to prove than influence. Political support, funding, training, or ideological alignment may be relevant, but they do not automatically establish attribution. International courts have been cautious about attributing the conduct of non-State armed groups to States. That caution protects legal certainty, but it can also create accountability gaps where States operate through partners while avoiding formal control.

6.3 Allocation of responsibility

International law often identifies responsibility more easily than it allocates it. A court may find that an actor breached an obligation, but the legal system may struggle to determine how much responsibility belongs to each participant in a multi-actor chain. This is especially difficult where actors contribute in different ways: one funds, one plans, one authorizes, one implements, one fails to supervise, and one profits.

Domestic legal systems often have doctrines for apportionment, contribution, joint and several liability, indemnity, or comparative fault. International law is less developed. The ILC Articles recognize that the responsibility of one State does not exclude the responsibility of another State for the same act. That is important, but it does not fully solve allocation (ILC, 2001). The law can say that several actors are responsible; it is less precise about how responsibility should be divided between them.

One approach is independent responsibility. Each actor is responsible for its own breach and its own contribution to the injury. This works well where obligations and conduct are separable. If one State unlawfully detains a person and another State later fails to investigate torture connected to the detention, each breach can be identified separately.

Another approach is shared responsibility for a single injury. This is harder. If several actors contribute to one indivisible harm, separating causal shares may be impossible. Mass atrocities, environmental damage, forced displacement, and coalition military operations often create this problem. The injury may be real and legally serious, but the evidentiary record may not allow mathematical division.

A third possibility is complementary responsibility through different regimes. A State may owe reparations under general international law. Individuals may face criminal conviction. An international organization may be subject to internal claims procedures. Corporations may face domestic civil liability. These tracks may partially overlap, but they do not always coordinate. Victims may receive some remedy in one forum while other responsible actors remain beyond reach.

Allocation is also affected by institutional power. A small State implementing a decision shaped by powerful States inside an organization may carry formal legal responsibility, while the actors that designed the policy avoid direct review. A contractor may be sued domestically, while the international organization that designed the project remains immune. A local force may be blamed for abuses, while the foreign State that trained, financed, and directed operations denies control.

This is why shared responsibility is not only a technical issue. It affects the fairness and credibility of international law. If the law recognizes only the final actor in the chain, it may punish the weakest participant and miss the strategic decision-makers. If it treats every participant as equally responsible, it risks legal overreach. A credible framework must examine knowledge, control, contribution, foreseeability, benefit, and capacity to prevent harm.

Reparation also raises allocation problems. If several actors cause one injury, should each owe full reparation? Should compensation be divided according to contribution? What if one actor cannot pay? What if an international organization has immunity or limited funds? What if a State’s contribution was indispensable but indirect? International law has no fully settled answer across all fields. Special regimes may provide better guidance, but the general law remains incomplete.

6.4 Evidentiary problems

Shared responsibility claims are often lost or weakened because of evidence. The legal categories may exist, but proof is hard to obtain. Multi-actor harm often involves classified intelligence, military secrecy, confidential institutional documents, private contracts, encrypted communications, diplomatic assurances, and fragmented chains of command.

Causation is a recurring obstacle. The claimant must show a sufficient connection between the conduct and the injury. In simple cases, this may be straightforward. In coalition warfare, climate harm, cyber operations, sanctions, migration control, and development finance, causal chains may be indirect or cumulative. A contribution may be legally significant even if it is not the sole cause, but the required threshold depends on the claim, forum, and primary obligation.

Knowledge is equally difficult. Aid or assistance responsibility usually requires knowledge of the circumstances of the wrongful act. But knowledge can be contested. A State may say that it did not know weapons would be used unlawfully, that intelligence was supplied for lawful purposes, that detention conditions were covered by assurances, or that it relied on partner compliance. The claimant may need internal documents, warnings, reports, operational records, or public patterns of abuse to show that the risk was known or should have been known.

Control is harder still. States rarely write down that they direct a proxy force, control a cyber unit, or instruct a partner to commit unlawful acts. Control may need to be inferred from financing, command structures, communications, training, logistics, operational dependence, target selection, or coordinated conduct. International courts tend to require careful evidence before attributing another actor’s conduct to a State or organization.

Institutional secrecy compounds the problem. International organizations may hold key documents but enjoy immunity. States may invoke national security. Military coalitions may divide information among members. Private contractors may claim confidentiality. Victims may lack access to the records needed to prove what happened. This creates an asymmetry: the actors most capable of proving the facts are often those accused of responsibility.

Cyber operations show this asymmetry in extreme form. Technical attribution may identify servers, malware, infrastructure, or coding similarities, but legal attribution requires a different inquiry. The legal question is not merely where the operation passed through or which tools were used. It is whether the conduct is attributable to a State or whether the State breached a duty, such as due diligence. Public evidence may be incomplete because intelligence agencies do not want to disclose sources and methods (Schmitt, 2017).

Courts and tribunals have sometimes responded with flexible evidentiary approaches, especially where the respondent controls relevant information. They may draw inferences, consider patterns of conduct, rely on reports by international bodies, or shift practical expectations about proof. Yet international law remains cautious. Lowering evidentiary standards too far risks politicized findings. Keeping them too high may make responsibility impossible to establish in precisely the cases where secrecy is part of the wrongful system.

The better approach is not to abandon proof, but to use a realistic evidentiary method. Public reports, satellite imagery, forensic evidence, chain-of-command analysis, financial records, procurement data, victim testimony, expert reports, and institutional documents may need to be assessed together. The legal standard should remain disciplined, but the method must reflect how modern operations are actually conducted.

Shared responsibility is likely to become more important, not less. International action is increasingly networked, delegated, privatized, and technologically mediated. The central challenge for International Responsibility is to prevent complexity from becoming impunity. The law must be able to identify each actor’s legally relevant contribution without pretending that all actors played the same role.

7. Diplomatic Protection and Claims

Diplomatic protection is one of the older mechanisms through which International Responsibility is invoked. It allows a State to bring an international claim when another State has injured one of its nationals through an internationally wrongful act. The claim is formally brought by the State, not by the injured person, even though the underlying injury was suffered by an individual or company.

The doctrine reflects the traditional structure of international law. Individuals once had limited direct access to international remedies. If a foreign State unlawfully detained, mistreated, expropriated, expelled, denied justice to, or otherwise injured a national, the injured person usually depended on their home State to act. Diplomatic protection filled that gap by converting an injury to the national into a claim between States (PCIJ, 1924; ILC, 2006).

This mechanism now operates alongside human rights courts, treaty bodies, investment arbitration, consular protection, and domestic remedies. It is no longer the only path available in many disputes, but it remains doctrinally important because it shows how international law links nationality, injury, State claims, and responsibility.

7.1 Injury to nationals

The classic formula comes from the Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions case. The Permanent Court of International Justice stated that when a State takes up the case of one of its nationals, it asserts its own right to ensure respect for international law in the person of that national (PCIJ, 1924). The statement is old, but its logic still matters. Diplomatic protection is not simply private representation at the international level. It is the State’s invocation of responsibility for a wrong committed against a person or entity connected to it by nationality.

The underlying injury may take many forms. It may involve denial of justice by domestic courts, unlawful detention, mistreatment by authorities, confiscation of property, discriminatory regulation, expulsion, failure to protect against serious violence, or injury to a company abroad. The central requirement is not merely that harm occurred. The harm must result from conduct that breaches an international obligation owed by the respondent State.

A tourist assaulted by a private criminal abroad does not automatically generate diplomatic protection. The territorial State may become responsible if it failed to exercise due diligence, ignored known risks, refused to investigate, discriminated in protection, or denied access to justice. The international wrong lies in the State’s breach of its own obligations, not in every private injury suffered on its territory.

Diplomatic protection also differs from consular assistance. A consulate may help a national contact lawyers, communicate with family, receive visits in detention, or understand local procedures. Diplomatic protection is more formal and legal. It involves the State asserting an international claim against another State for breach of international law. The two may overlap in practice, especially in detention and fair trial cases, but they remain legally distinct.

The Diallo litigation shows the modern use of the doctrine. Guinea brought claims against the Democratic Republic of the Congo for the detention and expulsion of Ahmadou Sadio Diallo, a Guinean national involved in business activities in the Congo. The International Court of Justice accepted aspects of diplomatic protection relating to his individual rights and later awarded compensation. The case illustrates how diplomatic protection can operate alongside human rights arguments and business-related injury without becoming investment arbitration (ICJ, 2010; ICJ, 2012).

7.2 Nationality and local remedies

Diplomatic protection depends on nationality. The claimant State must normally show that the injured person was its national at the relevant time. Nationality is the legal link that allows the State to invoke responsibility. Without that link, the claim usually fails.

Nationality is not always simple. In the Nottebohm case, the International Court of Justice refused to allow Liechtenstein to rely on a naturalization that lacked a genuine connection with the individual’s social and factual life. The decision is often discussed cautiously because its reach should not be overstated. Still, it remains important for the idea that nationality may require more than formal paperwork in some international claims (ICJ, 1955).

Continuous nationality is another key requirement. The person must generally be a national of the claimant State both at the date of injury and at the date of official presentation of the claim. The purpose is to prevent trafficking in claims and opportunistic changes of nationality after injury. The ILC’s Articles on Diplomatic Protection preserve this requirement while recognizing limited flexibility in cases such as succession of States or involuntary changes in nationality (ILC, 2006).

Local remedies must also normally be exhausted. The injured national must first use reasonably available and effective remedies in the respondent State before the home State brings an international claim. This rule respects the respondent State’s legal system and allows it to correct the wrong internally. It also prevents international claims from replacing domestic adjudication too quickly.

The rule is not absolute. Local remedies need not be exhausted if they are unavailable, ineffective, unduly prolonged, obviously futile, or incapable of providing redress. A victim should not be required to pursue a remedy that exists only on paper, is controlled by the alleged wrongdoers, or exposes the person to further abuse. The legal test is practical, not ceremonial.

Corporate nationality adds a further layer. Companies are legal persons, and diplomatic protection may be brought by the State of nationality of the corporation. In Barcelona Traction, the International Court of Justice held that Belgium could not exercise diplomatic protection for Belgian shareholders of a company incorporated in Canada against Spain. The Court treated the corporation’s nationality as the primary link and refused to allow shareholder nationality to replace it in ordinary circumstances (ICJ, 1970).

That rule protects stability in commercial relations, but it can create hard cases. Shareholders may suffer real economic loss when a foreign State injures a company. Yet international law usually distinguishes injury to the company from injury to shareholders. Exceptions may exist where shareholders’ direct rights are breached, or where the corporation’s State of nationality cannot act. The ILC Articles recognize limited circumstances where shareholder protection may be possible, but the main rule remains cautious (ILC, 2006).

The rise of investment treaties changed part of this landscape. Many foreign investors can now bring direct claims against host States through arbitration if the applicable treaty allows it. That route reduces the need for diplomatic protection in some economic disputes, but it does not abolish the doctrine. Not every investor has treaty protection. Not every injury is an investment dispute. Not every claim falls within an arbitration clause.

7.3 Diplomatic protection today

Diplomatic protection remains relevant because international remedies are uneven. Human rights courts exist only in some regions and under specific treaties. Treaty bodies may issue views or recommendations, but enforcement varies. Investment arbitration protects only certain investors and investments. International criminal law addresses serious crimes, not ordinary denial of justice, confiscation, expulsion, or mistreatment abroad.

The doctrine is also useful where individuals lack standing before the relevant international forum. A national harmed abroad may have no direct access to the International Court of Justice, no applicable human rights court, and no investment treaty claim. Diplomatic protection may then be the only way to bring the matter into an inter-State legal process.

It also matters in politically sensitive cases. Unlawful detention, hostage-taking, mass expulsions, discriminatory treatment of minorities abroad, and mistreatment of nationals during unrest may require State-to-State engagement. Diplomatic protection allows a State to transform individual injury into an international legal claim while also leaving room for negotiation, settlement, or judicial proceedings.

There is a weakness. Diplomatic protection is generally discretionary. A State may decide not to bring a claim for political, economic, evidentiary, or diplomatic reasons. The injured person usually cannot force the State to act unless domestic law creates such an entitlement. This makes the doctrine less victim-centred than modern human rights litigation.

Yet discretion also gives the mechanism practical flexibility. A State may raise the issue through diplomatic notes, negotiations, claims commissions, arbitration, judicial settlement, or public pressure. Not every case requires immediate litigation. Some disputes are resolved through compensation, apology, release, settlement, or administrative correction.

Diplomatic protection survives because it performs a function that newer regimes do not fully replace. It connects individuals and corporations to interstate responsibility where direct access is unavailable or inadequate. For International Responsibility, it remains a bridge between the traditional State-centred system and the modern recognition that individuals and companies may suffer legally relevant injury under international law.

8. Responsibility Without Wrongfulness

Not every international regime dealing with harm is based on wrongful conduct. Some rules address damage caused by activities that are permitted, regulated, or tolerated by international law but still carry serious risks. This area is sometimes described as liability for acts not prohibited by international law. It belongs near International Responsibility, but it must not be confused with responsibility for internationally wrongful acts.

The distinction is not a technical ornament. It determines what must be proved. Responsibility for a wrongful act requires breach of an international obligation. Liability for lawful activities may focus instead on risk, damage, causation, allocation of loss, insurance, compensation funds, or special treaty rules. The activity may be lawful, but the legal order may still require compensation if harm occurs.

This matters especially for space activities, hazardous industries, nuclear risk, environmental damage, and transboundary harm. Modern international law cannot deal only with illegality. Some lawful activities are socially useful but dangerous. Launching objects into outer space, operating nuclear facilities, transporting hazardous waste, or managing large industrial projects may be permitted under international law, yet still capable of causing serious damage beyond national borders.

8.1 Liability for lawful activities

Liability for lawful activities starts from a different premise than ordinary responsibility. The question is not always: did the actor breach a duty? The question may be: who should bear the cost of damage caused by an activity that international law allows but regulates because of its risk?

This logic appears in several treaty regimes. They do not necessarily say that the underlying activity is unlawful. Instead, they create rules on compensation, liability, prevention, or allocation of loss. The aim is to avoid leaving victims uncompensated merely because the activity was not prohibited.

Hazardous activities reveal the policy problem. A State may allow an industrial plant, dam, pipeline, waste facility, or energy project to operate within its territory. The activity may bring economic benefits and may comply with domestic permits. If it causes serious harm across the border, the affected State and victims may need a remedy. International law responds through prevention duties, due diligence, notification, consultation, environmental impact assessment, and, in some regimes, compensation for damage.

The ILC worked on this problem through two related projects. The Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities focus on prevention, cooperation, notification, consultation, and due diligence before harm occurs. The Draft Principles on the Allocation of Loss in the Case of Transboundary Harm Arising out of Hazardous Activities address compensation, prompt and adequate relief, and allocation of loss after damage occurs (ILC, 2001b; ILC, 2006b).

The prevention project is closer to ordinary responsibility because failure to exercise due diligence may constitute a breach. The allocation-of-loss project is different. It deals with what should happen when harm occurs, despite the activity not necessarily being unlawful. That is why the distinction between wrongful acts and lawful risk must remain visible.

International environmental law often moves between these two logics. In Trail Smelter, the arbitral tribunal held that no State has the right to use or permit use of its territory in a manner causing serious injury in or to the territory of another State. The case is frequently cited for transboundary harm, but modern practice has expanded the analysis through prevention, due diligence, environmental impact assessment, and cooperation (Trail Smelter Arbitration, 1941; ICJ, 2010).

The broader lesson is practical. Lawful activities may still generate legal duties. A State cannot simply say that an activity was permitted and stop the analysis there. It may need to regulate, supervise, notify, consult, assess risk, prevent harm, and ensure compensation mechanisms.

8.2 Space objects and hazardous activities

Space law is the clearest example of a responsibility-like regime based on special rules. The Outer Space Treaty provides that States bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including activities carried out by governmental and non-governmental entities. It also requires authorization and continuing supervision of non-governmental activities. The same treaty states that launching States are internationally liable for damage caused by their space objects (Outer Space Treaty, 1967).

The Liability Convention develops this regime. It imposes absolute liability on a launching State for damage caused by its space object on the surface of the Earth or to aircraft in flight. For damage elsewhere than on the surface of the Earth, liability is based on fault. This structure reflects the special risk created by space activities. A person or State harmed by falling debris should not have to prove that the launching State acted wrongfully before liability can arise (Liability Convention, 1972; von der Dunk, 2015).

The Cosmos 954 incident shows the practical importance of the regime. In 1978, a Soviet nuclear-powered satellite re-entered the atmosphere and scattered radioactive debris over Canadian territory. Canada claimed compensation from the Soviet Union. The matter was settled diplomatically, but it remains a leading example of how space-object damage can raise international liability even when the core issue is risk allocation rather than ordinary wrongful conduct (Canada, 1979; von der Dunk, 2015).

Space activities also show how States remain responsible for private actors. A satellite may be launched or operated by a company, but international law places duties on the State connected to the activity. The State must authorize and supervise non-governmental space activities. This links public responsibility to private technological activity, a pattern increasingly common in modern international law.

Hazardous activities on Earth raise similar questions, although the legal regimes are less uniform. Nuclear activities, industrial pollution, hazardous waste, offshore operations, and large infrastructure projects may be governed by special treaties, domestic compensation systems, insurance obligations, civil liability conventions, or regional agreements. The central concern is the allocation of loss when the activity is dangerous but not banned.

The ILC’s work on the prevention of transboundary harm is especially relevant here. It emphasizes that States must take all appropriate measures to prevent significant transboundary harm or at least minimize the risk. This is a due diligence obligation, not a guarantee that no harm will ever occur. The required measures depend on the risk, the capacity of the State, the nature of the activity, scientific knowledge, and available regulatory tools (ILC, 2001b).

Environmental impact assessment has become a key part of this preventive logic. In Pulp Mills, the International Court of Justice recognized that where there is a risk of significant adverse transboundary impact, conducting an environmental impact assessment may be required as part of due diligence under general international law (ICJ, 2010). That does not mean every project causing controversy is unlawful. It means that decision-making must include risk assessment where international harm is foreseeable.

The allocation of loss after hazardous harm is harder. If a lawful activity causes transboundary damage despite reasonable regulation, international law may still seek compensation through operator liability, State-backed funds, insurance, negotiated settlement, or treaty-based claims. This is not always the same as finding the State internationally responsible for a wrongful act. The legal basis may be special liability rather than breach.

8.3 Difference from wrongful acts

The difference between responsibility for wrongful acts and liability for lawful harm must be stated plainly. Responsibility for internationally wrongful acts requires breach. Liability for lawful but harmful activities may arise because a treaty, special rule, or risk-allocation regime attaches compensation to damage even without proving that the activity itself was unlawful.

Under the wrongful-act model, the legal analysis asks: what obligation bound the actor, what conduct is attributable to that actor, and how was the obligation breached? Once a breach is established, the ordinary consequences may include cessation, restitution, compensation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition. This is the structure reflected in ARSIWA and DARIO (ILC, 2001a; ILC, 2011).

Under a liability model, the analysis may ask different questions: did damage occur, was the activity covered by the treaty, who is the liable actor, what causal link is required, is liability absolute or fault-based, are there exceptions, and how should compensation be assessed? Wrongfulness may be irrelevant or secondary. The activity may be lawful, but the loss is still allocated to a designated actor.

This distinction protects analytical clarity. If a nuclear incident, satellite crash, or hazardous industrial accident occurs, the first question should not always be framed as “which State committed a wrongful act?” The better question may be whether a special liability regime applies. If no special regime applies, the next inquiry may be whether the State breached duties of prevention, due diligence, notification, consultation, or environmental assessment.

The two models can also overlap. A State may be liable under a special regime for damage caused by a lawful activity and separately responsible for wrongful conduct if it failed to regulate, supervise, warn, or cooperate as required by international law. For example, a hazardous activity may not be prohibited, but authorizing it without proper risk assessment may breach a due diligence obligation. In that situation, liability and responsibility may operate together.

The distinction also affects remedies. Wrongful conduct may require cessation because the conduct itself violates international law. Lawful hazardous activity may not need to stop if it is properly regulated, although compensation, prevention, and risk-reduction measures may be required. Stopping the activity is not always the legal answer. Safer regulation, monitoring, insurance, compensation funds, or technical cooperation may be more appropriate.

International Responsibility must accommodate both ideas without merging them. The wrongful-act model protects the integrity of legal obligations. The lawful-harm model addresses the unfairness of leaving victims without remedy when dangerous activities cause damage. Public international law needs both because modern harm does not always fit a simple unlawful-act pattern.

9. Responsibility in Special Regimes

International Responsibility does not operate in the same way in every field. General rules provide the basic structure, but special regimes modify access, standing, remedies, attribution, evidence, and institutional supervision. Human rights law, humanitarian law, environmental and climate law, and cyber operations show how the doctrine changes when different kinds of harm, actors, and procedures are involved.

The main point is not that general responsibility disappears. It remains the background framework. The difference is that each regime gives the doctrine a distinct legal shape. Human rights law focuses heavily on victims and positive obligations. Humanitarian law applies during armed conflict and often overlaps with individual criminal responsibility. Environmental and climate disputes turn on prevention, scientific evidence, and causation. Cyber operations test traditional rules of attribution and proof.

9.1 Human rights law

Human rights law transformed the traditional model of responsibility by giving individuals direct or semi-direct access to international procedures. In the older diplomatic protection model, the injured person depended largely on the national State. In modern human rights systems, victims may bring petitions before regional courts or treaty bodies where jurisdictional conditions are met. That shift matters because responsibility is no longer only a matter between States. It can also become a legal process centred on the person harmed.

Regional courts are central to this development. The European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the African human rights system have each developed forms of review that connect individual injury with State responsibility. The European system often grants just satisfaction, requires reopening of proceedings, or identifies general measures needed to prevent repetition. The Inter-American Court has been especially important in ordering broader reparations, including investigation, public acknowledgment, legislative change, memorial measures, and institutional reform (Shelton, 2015; Pasqualucci, 2013).

Human rights responsibility also depends heavily on positive obligations. A State may breach human rights law not only by directly violating rights through its agents, but also by failing to take reasonable measures to protect persons against foreseeable harm. This is visible in cases involving domestic violence, disappearances, deaths in custody, trafficking, environmental risks, and attacks by private actors. The legal issue is not always attribution of private conduct to the State. Often, the question is whether the State failed to prevent, investigate, punish, or remedy the harm when it had a duty to act (ECtHR, 1998; IACtHR, 1988).

This point is crucial for legal accuracy. If a private group attacks a journalist, the State is not automatically responsible for the attackers’ conduct. It may still be responsible if authorities knew or should have known of a real risk and failed to take reasonable protective measures. It may also be responsible if it later fails to investigate the attack effectively. The breach lies in the State’s own omission, not in a fictional conversion of every private act into State conduct.

Systemic remedies are another distinctive feature. Human rights courts do not always limit themselves to individual compensation. Where violations reveal a structural problem, such as prison overcrowding, discriminatory legislation, lack of judicial independence, ineffective investigations, or repeated unlawful detention, the remedy may require broader reform. The legal purpose is not only to repair one case, but to stop a pattern of violation.

Just satisfaction should be understood carefully. It is not identical to full reparation under the general law of State responsibility, although the ideas overlap. In the European system, just satisfaction is shaped by the European Convention and the Court’s practice. The Inter-American system often uses a richer reparative model, closer to restitution, compensation, satisfaction, rehabilitation, and guarantees of non-repetition. The remedy depends on the treaty system and the court’s remedial authority.

Human rights law also complicates jurisdiction. Many treaties require the victim to be within the jurisdiction of the respondent State. Extraterritorial military operations, occupation, detention abroad, border control, migration interdiction, and foreign surveillance raise difficult questions. A State may exercise effective control over territory, authority over persons, or decisive control over a particular operation. These jurisdictional tests affect when responsibility can be invoked (Milanovic, 2011).

The overall effect is clear. Human rights law makes International Responsibility more accessible to victims, more focused on prevention and investigation, and more open to structural remedies. It also shows that responsibility is not only about money. It is often about disclosure, recognition, institutional correction, and protection against recurrence.

9.2 Humanitarian law

Humanitarian law applies during armed conflict and imposes obligations on parties to the conflict. Its rules protect civilians, detainees, wounded and sick persons, prisoners of war, medical personnel, humanitarian relief, cultural property, and civilian objects. When these rules are violated, responsibility may arise for States, individuals, and sometimes international organizations involved in military operations.

State responsibility for humanitarian law violations follows the general structure: attributable conduct plus breach of an international obligation. If members of a State’s armed forces unlawfully attack civilians, torture detainees, destroy protected property, or carry out collective punishment, their conduct is normally attributable to the State. The State may owe cessation, investigation, reparation, and guarantees of non-repetition, depending on the circumstances and forum (ICRC, 2005; Dinstein, 2016).

Occupation is a major setting for responsibility. An occupying power exercises authority over territory without acquiring sovereignty. It must maintain public order and civil life, protect the population, respect property, administer detention lawfully, and comply with both humanitarian and applicable human rights obligations. Violations may include unlawful settlement activity, destruction of property not justified by military necessity, arbitrary detention, transfer of protected persons, denial of fair trial guarantees, or failure to protect civilians under occupation.

Detention during armed conflict also raises recurrent responsibility issues. Prisoners of war, security detainees, civilians, and persons held in non-international armed conflicts are protected by different rules. Mistreatment, enforced disappearance, denial of judicial guarantees, incommunicado detention, and transfer to a risk of torture may generate responsibility. Individual officials may also face criminal liability if the conduct amounts to war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Attacks on civilians and civilian objects are among the most visible violations. The core rules include distinction, proportionality, and precautions in attack. A State may be responsible if its forces deliberately target civilians, launch indiscriminate attacks, fail to take feasible precautions, or use methods and means of warfare prohibited by international law. The evidentiary assessment is fact-intensive: target selection, intelligence, expected civilian harm, military advantage, weapon choice, warnings, and post-strike review all matter (Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, 2005).

Unlawful reprisals require careful treatment. Humanitarian law sharply limits reprisals, especially against protected persons and objects. Belligerents may not justify attacks on civilians by pointing to violations committed by the enemy. Responsibility is not cancelled by reciprocity. The law of armed conflict rejects the idea that one party’s violations create a general licence for the other party to violate humanitarian rules.

International organizations may also be implicated in military operations. United Nations peacekeeping, NATO-led operations, African Union missions, and coalitions may involve complex command structures. Responsibility can depend on effective control over the specific conduct, the applicable mandate, operational command, troop-contributing State authority, and the organization’s own obligations. These cases expose the difficulty of applying State-centred responsibility rules to multinational operations (Larsen, 2008; ILC, 2011).

Humanitarian law also interacts with criminal law. War crimes may lead to individual prosecutions before domestic courts, hybrid tribunals, or the International Criminal Court. State responsibility remains separate. A commander’s conviction does not automatically provide full reparation to all victims. A State may be responsible even if no individual is prosecuted. The two tracks serve different functions: personal culpability on one side, breach and reparation on the other.

9.3 Environmental and climate law

Environmental law gives International Responsibility a preventive character. The law does not wait only for completed damage. It requires States to regulate risk, cooperate with affected States, assess environmental effects, notify of possible harm, and exercise due diligence over activities within their jurisdiction or control. This is necessary because environmental harm may be irreversible, scientifically complex, and difficult to repair after the fact.

Due diligence is the central standard. It does not require a State to guarantee that no harm will ever occur. It requires reasonable measures proportionate to the risk. The content of the duty depends on the activity, the likelihood and gravity of harm, available scientific knowledge, regulatory capacity, and international standards. A State that authorizes a dangerous project without proper assessment, monitoring, or consultation may breach international law even before major damage occurs (Sands and Peel, 2018).

The International Court of Justice has treated environmental impact assessment as part of due diligence where there is a risk of significant transboundary harm. In Pulp Mills, the Court stated that such an assessment may be required under general international law in appropriate circumstances. The point is practical: a State cannot make a responsible decision about risky activities if it has not properly studied their possible effects on other States or shared environments (ICJ, 2010).

Cooperation is also fundamental. Many environmental obligations are procedural: notify, consult, exchange information, monitor, assess, and negotiate in good faith. These duties matter because environmental harm often crosses borders and affects common resources. A State may breach international law by failing to cooperate even when the final extent of physical damage remains disputed.

Damage and causation are harder. Pollution, biodiversity loss, ocean degradation, and climate-related harm may result from multiple sources across long periods. Scientific evidence may show a general causal connection, but a legal claim often requires more: attribution of conduct, breach of a specific obligation, and a sufficient link between that breach and the injury claimed. The more diffuse the harm, the harder the responsibility claim becomes.

Climate change is the sharpest example. Greenhouse gas emissions are cumulative and global. Many States have contributed over time, with different levels of historical responsibility, capacity, development needs, and current emissions. A small island State may suffer sea-level rise, but proving that a particular State’s breach caused a specific loss is complex. International law is moving toward more precise duties of mitigation, adaptation, cooperation, and protection of vulnerable populations, but responsibility for climate damage remains legally demanding (Boyle, 2012; Peel and Osofsky, 2015).

Advisory proceedings and climate litigation are likely to shape the field. They may clarify the content of States’ obligations under climate treaties, the law of the sea, human rights law, customary due diligence, and the no-harm principle. Still, a declaration of obligation is different from a full reparation award. Courts may clarify duties before they can resolve causation, quantification, and allocation of loss.

Environmental and climate responsibility also has a remedial problem. Restitution may be impossible where ecosystems are destroyed, species are lost, or land becomes uninhabitable. Compensation may be difficult to quantify. Satisfaction may be inadequate for irreversible harm. Guarantees of non-repetition may require long-term regulatory reform, emissions reduction, monitoring, and international finance. Traditional remedies need adaptation to ecological realities.

The main legal lesson is that environmental responsibility is not only backward-looking. It is deeply preventive. The most important breach may be the failure to assess risk, regulate dangerous activity, cooperate with affected States, or reduce foreseeable harm while prevention remains possible.

9.4 Cyber operations

Cyber operations test some of the hardest parts of International Responsibility. The legal concepts are familiar: attribution, breach, due diligence, evidence, and remedies. The factual setting is different. Operations may be remote, anonymous, routed through several States, carried out by private actors, masked through false indicators, and supported by infrastructure that does not reveal the real controller.

Attribution is the main challenge. Technical attribution and legal attribution are not the same. Technical evidence may identify malware, servers, coding patterns, infrastructure, or operational signatures. Legal attribution asks whether the conduct is attributable to a State under international law. The operation may be carried out by State organs, persons acting under State instructions, groups under State control, or private actors whose conduct is later acknowledged and adopted by the State (Schmitt, 2017).

State control over private cyber actors is difficult to prove. A State may tolerate patriotic hackers, criminal ransomware groups, private surveillance firms, or contractors operating from its territory. Tolerance alone may not establish attribution of their conduct. Yet the State may still breach a due diligence obligation if it knows or should know that its territory or infrastructure is being used for operations causing serious harm to other States and fails to take reasonable measures available to it.

Due diligence in cyberspace remains debated, but it is increasingly important. The basic idea is that States should not knowingly allow their territory or cyber infrastructure to be used for acts that harm the rights of other States. The content of the duty depends on knowledge, capacity, feasibility, and the seriousness of the harm. A weak State with limited technical capacity is not in the same position as a State with advanced cyber capabilities and strong control over domestic networks.

Evidence is a major obstacle. Victim States may possess intelligence proving attribution, but may be unwilling to disclose it publicly. Disclosure may reveal sources, methods, vulnerabilities, or ongoing investigations. Accused States may deny involvement and demand proof. Courts and public bodies may lack access to classified material. The result is a gap between what intelligence agencies may know and what can be proved in a legal forum.

Plausible deniability is part of the problem. Cyber operations allow States to act through proxies, compromised infrastructure, private contractors, or criminal groups while denying control. This weakens deterrence and complicates responsibility. Legal doctrine must avoid two mistakes: accepting unsupported accusations or demanding such a high evidentiary threshold that covert cyber operations become functionally immune.

The applicable primary rule also matters. A cyber operation may violate sovereignty, constitute prohibited intervention, breach a treaty, violate human rights, damage critical infrastructure, or even amount to a use of force in extreme cases. Different legal classifications produce different consequences. A data theft operation, an election interference campaign, a hospital ransomware attack, and a cyber operation disabling military systems during armed conflict do not raise identical legal questions.

Remedies are still developing. Injured States may respond through diplomatic protest, public attribution, sanctions, criminal indictments, countermeasures, litigation where available, or collective cyber assistance. The law of countermeasures may apply, but it requires careful limits: the response must be directed at inducing compliance, must be proportionate, and must not violate obligations excluded from countermeasures. Cyber countermeasures add extra risk because effects may spread unpredictably.

Cyber responsibility is a field where old rules are under pressure. The core concepts remain usable, but their application requires more sophisticated treatment of evidence, infrastructure, private actors, control, and technological uncertainty. International law does not need an entirely new law of responsibility for cyberspace, but it does need sharper methods for applying existing rules to hidden and distributed operations.

Also Read

• State Responsibility in International Law

• Corfu Channel Case Analysis: Sovereignty, Evidence, and Law

• US v. Iran Hostage Case: Diplomacy, State Responsibility

• Nicaragua v United States of America: ICJ Case Guide

• Difference between ICJ and ICC: Jurisdiction, Power, and Limits

• Immunity of State Officials in International Law

• The Responsibility to Protect: Law, Practice, and Limits

• Customary International Law: How It Forms and Works

10. The Limits of International Responsibility

International Responsibility is essential, but it is not omnipotent. It can identify breaches, structure claims, define consequences, and record legal wrongs. It does not automatically produce compliance, compensation, arrest, institutional reform, or political accountability. The gap between legal responsibility and effective enforcement is one of the oldest weaknesses of public international law.

That weakness should not lead to cynicism. Legal responsibility still matters. It clarifies obligations, delegitimizes unlawful conduct, supports victims, shapes diplomacy, creates records, influences domestic courts, and provides standards for future disputes. Yet a serious analysis must not pretend that doctrine alone overcomes power, secrecy, immunity, jurisdictional limits, or weak institutions.

10.1 Enforcement gaps

A finding of responsibility is not the same as enforcement. A court may declare that a State breached international law and must make reparation. The responsible State may delay, contest, negotiate, partially comply, or refuse. International law often lacks direct coercive machinery to enforce judgments in the way domestic systems enforce court orders.

The International Court of Justice illustrates both authority and limitation. Its judgments are binding between the parties, but enforcement depends heavily on compliance by States. The United Nations Charter allows recourse to the Security Council if a party fails to perform obligations under an ICJ judgment, but Council politics may block effective action. The law provides a route; politics may narrow it sharply.

Human rights systems face a different enforcement problem. Regional courts may order compensation, release, legislative reform, investigation, or changes in practice. Compliance may require action by domestic courts, parliaments, ministries, police, prisons, or military authorities. Some States comply in good faith. Others pay compensation but ignore structural reform. Others resist the judgment altogether.

Reparation is also difficult when the harm is large-scale. Armed conflict, mass displacement, environmental destruction, and systematic discrimination may involve thousands or millions of victims. Establishing individual loss, causation, documentation, valuation, and distribution of compensation may take years. A legal finding may be only the beginning of a long remedial process.

International organizations add another barrier. Immunity may prevent claims before domestic courts. Internal claims procedures may be limited, discretionary, or unavailable. Victims of institutional conduct may find that the organization has legal personality and immunity, but no effective external forum. This is a serious accountability deficit, especially when organizations exercise public authority or operational control (Klabbers, 2017).

Countermeasures provide a decentralized enforcement tool, but they are limited and risky. They must respond to a prior wrongful act, aim at inducing compliance, remain proportionate, and respect excluded obligations. They can escalate disputes, harm third parties, or be abused by powerful States. Countermeasures are not a general substitute for adjudication or institutional enforcement.

The enforcement gap is not a reason to dismiss International Responsibility. It is a reason to distinguish legal determination from practical compliance. The first identifies what the law requires. The second depends on institutions, politics, evidence, resources, domestic implementation, and pressure over time.

10.2 Non-State actor gaps

Non-State actors create some of the most difficult responsibility problems. Corporations, armed groups, NGOs, private military and security companies, financial institutions, technology firms, and transnational networks may cause or contribute to serious harm. International law has developed tools to address some of this conduct, but the framework remains fragmented.

Corporations are the clearest example. They may be involved in labour abuses, land dispossession, surveillance, environmental damage, forced displacement, conflict financing, or supply chains linked to serious violations. International law has important business and human rights standards, especially the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. These principles establish a corporate responsibility to respect human rights and a State duty to protect against business-related abuse. They are highly influential, but they are not the same as a general treaty imposing direct international liability on all corporations (UN Human Rights Council, 2011; Deva and Bilchitz, 2013).

Domestic law often carries the main burden. Corporate accountability may depend on tort claims, criminal law, parent-company duty of care, mandatory due diligence legislation, sanctions, import restrictions, procurement rules, or reporting duties. International law shapes these developments, but many remedies remain national or regional. This creates uneven protection because outcomes depend on where the company is incorporated, where harm occurred, where evidence is located, and which courts accept jurisdiction.

Armed groups raise another challenge. Non-State armed groups may control territory, collect taxes, run detention facilities, attack civilians, recruit children, or commit atrocities. International humanitarian law binds organized armed groups in non-international armed conflicts. Individuals within those groups may face criminal responsibility. Yet the group as such often lacks a clear forum for responsibility, especially outside peace agreements, sanctions regimes, or domestic prosecution.

NGOs may also exercise influence, especially in humanitarian assistance, development, monitoring, rescue operations, or service delivery. Most NGOs are not international legal persons in the same way as States or intergovernmental organizations. Their accountability is usually governed by domestic law, contracts, donor rules, internal governance, professional standards, or host-State regulation. It would be inaccurate to treat them as fully subject to the same international responsibility regime as States.

Private military and security companies sit between public and private power. They may guard facilities, train forces, support detention, provide intelligence, operate weapons systems, or assist military logistics. Their conduct may trigger responsibility for the hiring State, the territorial State, the home State, or individual employees. Direct corporate responsibility may depend on domestic law or special contractual mechanisms. International law has not yet produced a complete global regime for their responsibility (Cameron and Chetail, 2013).

The main danger is overstatement. It is tempting to say that all-powerful private actors are directly responsible under international law for all serious harms. That is not the current law. The better position is more precise: international law increasingly recognizes duties to regulate private actors, direct individual criminal responsibility for some crimes, binding rules for armed groups under humanitarian law, and soft-law or treaty-based accountability for business conduct. But many mechanisms remain indirect, domestic, fragmented, or dependent on State action.

This gap affects victims directly. A person harmed by a corporation, armed group, or contractor may face jurisdictional barriers, a lack of evidence, insolvency, immunity, weak domestic courts, or the absence of an international forum. International Responsibility has advanced, but it still struggles when harm is caused by actors outside the traditional State model.

10.3 Power and selectivity

Responsibility operates in a legal order marked by unequal power. Powerful States, influential organizations, major corporations, and dominant military actors are often harder to hold to account than weaker actors. This is not because the law formally exempts them. The difficulty lies in jurisdiction, evidence, enforcement, institutional politics, and the capacity to resist legal pressure.

Jurisdiction is the first barrier. International courts usually require consent, treaty jurisdiction, Security Council referral, or a specific legal basis. A powerful State may avoid compulsory jurisdiction, attach reservations, refuse treaty membership, or challenge admissibility. Without jurisdiction, even a strong legal claim may have no forum.

Evidence is another barrier. Powerful actors often control the documents, intelligence, satellite data, operational records, communications, and witnesses needed to prove responsibility. They may classify information, invoke national security, restrict access to territory, or shape public narratives. Victims and weaker States may struggle to meet evidentiary burdens.

Security Council politics can block accountability. The Council has the authority to impose sanctions, refer situations to the International Criminal Court, authorize enforcement action, and respond to threats to peace. Yet permanent members have veto power. When a permanent member or close ally is involved, collective enforcement may be paralyzed. The legal rules remain, but institutional action may be blocked.

Immunity creates further limits. State immunity, diplomatic immunity, head-of-State immunity, and organizational immunity protect important functions, but they may also prevent claims. The law tries to balance accountability with sovereign equality, diplomatic stability, and institutional independence. In practice, that balance can leave victims without a forum.

Selectivity also affects legitimacy. International Responsibility loses credibility if it appears to discipline only weak States, defeated leaders, or politically isolated actors. The same standards must be applied to allies and adversaries, powerful and weak States, international organizations, and member States. Perfect equality may be unrealistic, but open double standards damage the authority of the law.

This problem is visible in armed conflict, sanctions, occupation, counterterrorism, migration control, and global economic governance. The actors most capable of shaping legal narratives may also be the actors most able to avoid adjudication. A serious article should not ignore this. Responsibility doctrine is legally structured, but its implementation is politically uneven.

Yet selectivity does not make the law meaningless. Legal findings can shape historical record, diplomatic pressure, domestic litigation, reparations negotiations, sanctions, treaty interpretation, and future cases. Law can constrain over time even when it does not immediately coerce. The problem is not that International Responsibility has no force. The problem is that its force is uneven.

10.4 The future of the doctrine

The future of International Responsibility depends on whether the doctrine can address modern forms of power without losing legal precision. The classic State-centred model remains essential, but it does not fully capture institutional decision-making, proxy operations, private authority, climate harm, cyber activity, and complex supply chains.

Shared responsibility needs clearer development. Many harmful outcomes now involve several actors. International law must improve its treatment of aid or assistance, common operations, joint decision-making, indirect support, knowledge, control, and contribution. The aim should not be to impose collective guilt. The aim should be to prevent actors from escaping responsibility by dividing conduct across institutions, contractors, partners, and proxies.

Institutional responsibility also needs stronger procedures. International organizations exercise real authority, yet remedies against them remain weak. Immunity should protect independent functions, not create practical impunity. Claims mechanisms, independent review, transparent decision-making, and accessible remedies are necessary where organizations cause or contribute to harm.

Evidentiary standards must adapt to secrecy and technical complexity. Courts and tribunals should maintain rigorous proof, but they also need realistic methods for assessing circumstantial evidence, patterns of conduct, classified information, satellite imagery, open-source intelligence, forensic reports, financial records, and institutional control. The law cannot require impossible proof while allowing secrecy to defeat every claim.

Victim access remains a central challenge. Human rights law has made progress, but many injured persons still lack an effective remedy. Victims of military operations, sanctions, development projects, cyber harm, corporate abuse, or organizational misconduct may face fragmented procedures. A stronger doctrine should connect responsibility with practical access to claims, evidence, participation, and reparation.

The doctrine must also handle prevention better. Many modern harms are difficult or impossible to repair after they occur. Climate damage, biodiversity loss, mass atrocities, forced displacement, and cyber disruption all show the limits of backward-looking responsibility. Duties of due diligence, cooperation, risk assessment, supervision, and early warning will become more important.

The future of International Responsibility is not likely to be a single grand code. It will probably develop through courts, treaty bodies, domestic litigation, institutional reforms, advisory opinions, special regimes, and State practice. The central task is coherence: keeping the general structure of responsibility while adapting it to fields where actors, evidence, remedies, and harms differ.

A mature doctrine must do four things at once. It must preserve the classic rules for wrongful acts. It must clarify responsibility where several actors contribute to the same harm. It must prevent international organizations and private actors from occupying accountability gaps. It must give affected persons more realistic access to remedies. Without those developments, International Responsibility will remain legally important but practically incomplete.

Conclusion

State responsibility is only one branch of International Responsibility. It is the most developed branch, and it remains the core model because States continue to occupy the central position in public international law. Yet it does not exhaust the doctrine. Modern international law also has to deal with international organizations, individual criminal responsibility, diplomatic protection, shared conduct, risk-based liability, human rights remedies, environmental harm, cyber operations, and other special regimes.

The broader doctrine performs a basic function: it connects legal obligations to legal consequences. A rule prohibiting aggression, torture, genocide, arbitrary detention, unlawful expropriation, environmental harm, or attacks on civilians is incomplete unless international law can identify who acted, whose conduct counts in law, which obligation was breached, and what follows after that breach. Responsibility is the mechanism that gives practical legal effect to those questions (Crawford, 2013; ILC, 2001).

This wider perspective also prevents a narrow reading of the subject. Some cases concern direct State conduct, such as military action, judicial denial of justice, or unlawful detention by public authorities. Others involve institutional decisions by international organizations, criminal liability of individuals, private actors operating with public authority, or several actors contributing to one harmful outcome. In those situations, a purely State-centred analysis may identify part of the problem while missing the structure that made the harm possible.

International Responsibility also shows the limits of public international law. A finding of breach does not always produce compliance. Reparation may be difficult to quantify. Evidence may be hidden. Powerful actors may resist jurisdiction. International organizations may rely on immunity. Corporations and armed groups may fall into fragmented accountability frameworks. These weaknesses do not make the doctrine irrelevant. They show why its careful development is necessary.

The future of the field depends on sharper rules for shared responsibility, stronger procedures for institutional accountability, more realistic evidentiary methods, and better remedies for affected persons. The law must remain precise: accountability, liability, criminal responsibility, and responsibility for wrongful acts are connected, but they are not the same. Blurring those categories weakens legal analysis.

International Responsibility remains one of the most important doctrines in public international law because it determines not only who breached the law, but also who must answer, repair, justify, cooperate, or change conduct after the breach.

References

1. Bassiouni, M.C. (2013) Introduction to International Criminal Law. 2nd rev. edn. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

2. Boyle, A. (2012) ‘Human rights and the environment: where next?’, European Journal of International Law, 23(3), pp. 613–642. Available at: https://www.ejil.org/pdfs/23/3/2296.pdf (Accessed: 10 May 2024).

3. Cameron, L. and Chetail, V. (2013) Privatizing War: Private Military and Security Companies under Public International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

4. Canada (1979) ‘Claim against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for damage caused by Soviet Cosmos 954’, International Legal Materials, 18(4), pp. 899–930. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-legal-materials/article/canada-claim-against-the-union-of-soviet-socialist-republics-for-damage-caused-by-soviet-cosmos-954/08A62A6781574334D42F5A39BA5E1699 (Accessed: 10 May 2024).

5. Cassese, A. (2008) International Criminal Law. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

6. Clapham, A. (2006) Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

7. Crawford, J. (2013) State Responsibility: The General Part. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

8. Cryer, R., Robinson, D. and Vasiliev, S. (2019) An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure. 4th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

9. d’Aspremont, J. (2012) ‘The Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations: magnifying the fissures in the law of international responsibility’, International Organizations Law Review, 9(1), pp. 15–28.

10. Deva, S. and Bilchitz, D. (eds.) (2013) Human Rights Obligations of Business: Beyond the Corporate Responsibility to Respect? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

11. Dinstein, Y. (2016) The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict. 3rd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

12. Dolzer, R., Kriebaum, U. and Schreuer, C. (2022) Principles of International Investment Law. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

13. European Court of Human Rights (1998) Osman v United Kingdom, Application no. 23452/94, Judgment, 28 October 1998. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58257 (Accessed: 14 May 2024).

14. European Court of Human Rights (2012) Nada v Switzerland, Application no. 10593/08, Judgment, 12 September 2012. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-113118 (Accessed: 14 May 2024).

15. European Court of Justice (2008) Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Judgment, 3 September 2008. Available at: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-402/05 (Accessed: 14 May 2024).

16. Gammeltoft-Hansen, T. (2011) Access to Asylum: International Refugee Law and the Globalisation of Migration Control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

17. Henckaerts, J.M. and Doswald-Beck, L. (2005) Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume I: Rules. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

18. Inter-American Court of Human Rights (1988) Velásquez Rodríguez v Honduras, Judgment, 29 July 1988, Series C No. 4. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_04_ing.pdf (Accessed: 14 May 2024).

19. International Court of Justice (1949a) Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v Albania), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 4. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/1 (Accessed: 14 May 2024).

20. International Court of Justice (1949b) Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 174. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/4 (Accessed: 14 May 2024).

21. International Court of Justice (1955) Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v Guatemala), Second Phase, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1955, p. 4. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/18 (Accessed: 14 May 2024).

22. International Court of Justice (1970) Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v Spain), Second Phase, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1970, p. 3. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/50 (Accessed: 14 May 2024).

23. International Court of Justice (1980) United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v Iran), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1980, p. 3. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/64 (Accessed: 14 May 2024).

24. International Court of Justice (1986) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/70 (Accessed: 14 May 2024).

25. International Court of Justice (2007) Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/91 (Accessed: 14 May 2026).

26. International Court of Justice (2010a) Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v Democratic Republic of the Congo), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 639. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/103 (Accessed: 15 May 2024).

27. International Court of Justice (2010b) Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 14. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/135 (Accessed: 15 May 2024).

28. International Court of Justice (2012) Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v Democratic Republic of the Congo), Compensation, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012, p. 324. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/103 (Accessed: 15 May 2024).

29. International Court of Justice (2022) Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda), Reparations, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2022, p. 13. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/116 (Accessed: 15May 2024).

30. International Committee of the Red Cross (2005) Customary International Humanitarian Law Database [online]. Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl (Accessed: 17 May 2024).

31. International Criminal Court (1998) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Rome, 17 July 1998, 2187 UNTS 90. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/RS-Eng.pdf (Accessed: 17 May 2024).

32. International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (1998) Prosecutor v Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Judgment, 2 September 1998. Available at: https://unictr.irmct.org/en/cases/ictr-96-4 (Accessed: 17 May 2024).

33. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (1999) Prosecutor v Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeals Chamber Judgment, 15 July 1999. Available at: https://www.icty.org/x/cases/tadic/acjug/en/tad-aj990715e.pdf (Accessed: 18 May 2024).

34. International Law Commission (2001a) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf (Accessed: 18 May 2024).

35. International Law Commission (2001b) Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, with commentaries [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_7_2001.pdf (Accessed: 22 May 2024).

36. International Law Commission (2006a) Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, with commentaries [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_8_2006.pdf (Accessed: 22 May 2024).

37. International Law Commission (2006b) Draft Principles on the Allocation of Loss in the Case of Transboundary Harm Arising out of Hazardous Activities, with commentaries [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_10_2006.pdf (Accessed: 22 May 2024).

38. International Law Commission (2011) Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations, with commentaries [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_11_2011.pdf (Accessed: 22 May 2024).

39. International Military Tribunal (1946) Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals. Nuremberg, 1 October 1946. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_5.pdf (Accessed: 22 May 2024).

40. Jackson, M. (2015) Complicity in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

41. Jorritsma, R. (2021) International Responsibility and Attribution of Conduct: An Analysis of Case Law on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. Doctoral thesis. Maastricht: Maastricht University. Available at: https://doi.org/10.26481/dis.20210910rj (Accessed: 22 May 2024).

42. Klabbers, J. (2017) ‘The responsibility of international organizations for failing to act’, European Journal of International Law, 28(4), pp. 1133–1161.

43. Klabbers, J. (2024) International Law. 4th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

44. Larsen, K.M. (2008) ‘Attribution of conduct in peace operations: the “ultimate authority and control” test’, European Journal of International Law, 19(3), pp. 509–531.

45. Milanovic, M. (2011) Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties: Law, Principles, and Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

46. Moynihan, H. (2016) Aiding and Assisting: Challenges in Armed Conflict and Counterterrorism. London: Chatham House. Available at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/research/2016-11-11-aiding-assisting-challenges-armed-conflict-moynihan.pdf (Accessed: 25 May 2024).

47. Nollkaemper, A. and Jacobs, D. (2013) ‘Shared responsibility in international law: a conceptual framework’, Michigan Journal of International Law, 34(2), pp. 359–438. Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol34/iss2/3/ (Accessed: 25 May 2024).

48. Nollkaemper, A. and Plakokefalos, I. (eds.) (2017) The Practice of Shared Responsibility in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

49. Outer Space Treaty (1967) Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. London, Moscow and Washington, 27 January 1967, 610 UNTS 205. Available at: https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/outerspacetreaty.html (Accessed: 25 May 2024).

50. Pasqualucci, J.M. (2013) The Practice and Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

51. Peel, J. and Osofsky, H.M. (2015) Climate Change Litigation: Regulatory Pathways to Cleaner Energy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

52. Pellet, A. (2010) ‘The definition of responsibility in international law’, in Crawford, J., Pellet, A. and Olleson, S. (eds.) The Law of International Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–16.

53. Permanent Court of International Justice (1924) Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Greece v United Kingdom), Judgment, PCIJ Series A No. 2. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/pcij-series-a (Accessed: 25 May 2024).

54. Permanent Court of International Justice (1928) Factory at Chorzów (Germany v Poland), Merits, Judgment, PCIJ Series A No. 17. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/pcij-series-a (Accessed: 25 May 2024).

55. Sands, P. and Peel, J. (2018) Principles of International Environmental Law. 4th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

56. Schmitt, M.N. (ed.) (2017) Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

57. Shelton, D. (2015) Remedies in International Human Rights Law. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

58. Trail Smelter Arbitration (1941) United States v Canada, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. III, pp. 1905–1982. Available at: https://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_iii/1905-1982.pdf (Accessed: 25 May 2024).

59. United Nations (1972) Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects. London, Moscow and Washington, 29 March 1972, 961 UNTS 187. Available at: https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/liability-convention.html (Accessed: 25 May 2024).

60. United Nations (2013) Arms Trade Treaty. New York, 2 April 2013. Available at: https://treaties.unoda.org/t/att (Accessed: 25 May 2024).

61. United Nations Human Rights Council (2011) Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework. UN Doc. A/HRC/17/31. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf (Accessed: 25 May 2024).

62. von der Dunk, F.G. (ed.) (2015) Handbook of Space Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

63. Werle, G. and Jessberger, F. (2020) Principles of International Criminal Law. 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.