HI - Week XIII - State Responsibility II
State Responsibility
General Course of Public International
Law
Theories of state
responsibility
Subjective responsibility (the fault theory) :
Emphasis an element of intentional or negligent conduct
on the part of the person concerned is necessary before his
state can be rendered liable for any injury caused.
Objective responsibility (the risk theory) :
The liability of the state is strict
An unlawful act has taken place, which has caused injury
and committed by an agent of the state, that state will be
responsible in international law to the state suffering the
damage irrespective of good or bad faith
Corfu channel case 1949
The court, “it cannot be concluded from the mere
fact of the control exercised by a state over its
territory and waters that that state necessarily knew,
or ought to have known, of any unlawful act
perpetrated therein, nor yet that it necessarily
knew, or should have known, the authors. This fact,
by itself and apart from other circumstances, neither
involves prima facie responsibility nor shifts the
burden of proof”
However, The court concerned with Albania’s
knowledge of the laying of mines
Caire Claims 1929
France v. Mexico
French citizen was shot by Mexican soldiers
for failing to supply them with 5,000 Mexican
dollars.
Mexico was responsible for the injury caused
The responsibility for the acts of the officials
or organs of a state, which may devolve upon
it even in the absence of any “fault” of its own
The Treatment of Aliens
To protect the investment and nationals
abroad and provide for the security of their
property
Nationality of Claims
Link between the individual and his state
rights and obligations
Link between the individual and the benefits
of the International Law
Only through the medium of the state that the
individual may obtain the full range of
benefits available under international law
Nationality of Claims
State duty to protect its nationals and
may take up their claims against other states
No obligation to provide diplomatic protection
Limited only to intervention on behalf of its
own nationals
The scope of a state to extend its nationality
to whomever it wishes is unlimited, except in
so far as it affects other states.
Nottebohm case
Friedrich Nottebohm Case
1955
Liechtenstein v. Guatemala
Germany by birth (1881) and still possessed German nationality
when applied for naturalization in Liechtenstein in 1939
In 1905 he went to Guatemala and had been permanently
resident in ever since and carried on his business there
After 1905 continued to have business relations with Germany
and paid a few visits to his brother who had lived in Liechtenstein
since 1931
The Guatemala govt. “had acted towards the person and
property of Mr. Nottebohm”
Liechtenstein claimed restitution and compensation under
diplomatic protection
Friedrich Nottebohm Case
1955
The court emphasized that according to
international law, nationality was a legal
manifestation of the link between the person and the
state granting nationality and the recognition that the
person was more closely connected with that state
than with any other
Nottebohm had only spent only a very short period
of time in Liechtenstein
No other link but the naturalization process
The court Liechtenstein was not able to extend its
diplomatic protection to Nottebohm as regards
Guatemala the rejection of genuine connection
Nationality must exist at the date of the
injury and should continue until at least the
date of the award settling the claim
Barcelona Traction Case
1970
Belgium v. Spain
the company was established under Canadian Law
in 1911 in Canada
regarding to electricity supplies in Spain
The majority of shareholders were Belgian nationals
In 1948, declared bankrupt by Spanish court
Belgium claimed in respect of its nationals
Spain rejected arguing the injury was to the
company not to shareholders
In 1964, the court decided that Belgium lacked of
locus standi to bring the claim.
General Course of Public International
Law
Theories of state
responsibility
Subjective responsibility (the fault theory) :
Emphasis an element of intentional or negligent conduct
on the part of the person concerned is necessary before his
state can be rendered liable for any injury caused.
Objective responsibility (the risk theory) :
The liability of the state is strict
An unlawful act has taken place, which has caused injury
and committed by an agent of the state, that state will be
responsible in international law to the state suffering the
damage irrespective of good or bad faith
Corfu channel case 1949
The court, “it cannot be concluded from the mere
fact of the control exercised by a state over its
territory and waters that that state necessarily knew,
or ought to have known, of any unlawful act
perpetrated therein, nor yet that it necessarily
knew, or should have known, the authors. This fact,
by itself and apart from other circumstances, neither
involves prima facie responsibility nor shifts the
burden of proof”
However, The court concerned with Albania’s
knowledge of the laying of mines
Caire Claims 1929
France v. Mexico
French citizen was shot by Mexican soldiers
for failing to supply them with 5,000 Mexican
dollars.
Mexico was responsible for the injury caused
The responsibility for the acts of the officials
or organs of a state, which may devolve upon
it even in the absence of any “fault” of its own
The Treatment of Aliens
To protect the investment and nationals
abroad and provide for the security of their
property
Nationality of Claims
Link between the individual and his state
rights and obligations
Link between the individual and the benefits
of the International Law
Only through the medium of the state that the
individual may obtain the full range of
benefits available under international law
Nationality of Claims
State duty to protect its nationals and
may take up their claims against other states
No obligation to provide diplomatic protection
Limited only to intervention on behalf of its
own nationals
The scope of a state to extend its nationality
to whomever it wishes is unlimited, except in
so far as it affects other states.
Nottebohm case
Friedrich Nottebohm Case
1955
Liechtenstein v. Guatemala
Germany by birth (1881) and still possessed German nationality
when applied for naturalization in Liechtenstein in 1939
In 1905 he went to Guatemala and had been permanently
resident in ever since and carried on his business there
After 1905 continued to have business relations with Germany
and paid a few visits to his brother who had lived in Liechtenstein
since 1931
The Guatemala govt. “had acted towards the person and
property of Mr. Nottebohm”
Liechtenstein claimed restitution and compensation under
diplomatic protection
Friedrich Nottebohm Case
1955
The court emphasized that according to
international law, nationality was a legal
manifestation of the link between the person and the
state granting nationality and the recognition that the
person was more closely connected with that state
than with any other
Nottebohm had only spent only a very short period
of time in Liechtenstein
No other link but the naturalization process
The court Liechtenstein was not able to extend its
diplomatic protection to Nottebohm as regards
Guatemala the rejection of genuine connection
Nationality must exist at the date of the
injury and should continue until at least the
date of the award settling the claim
Barcelona Traction Case
1970
Belgium v. Spain
the company was established under Canadian Law
in 1911 in Canada
regarding to electricity supplies in Spain
The majority of shareholders were Belgian nationals
In 1948, declared bankrupt by Spanish court
Belgium claimed in respect of its nationals
Spain rejected arguing the injury was to the
company not to shareholders
In 1964, the court decided that Belgium lacked of
locus standi to bring the claim.