Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:29:36.720Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consent Precluding State Responsibility: A Critical Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Ademola Abass
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Chapter V (Part 1) of the ILC&s1 Articles on State Responsibility2 contains sixcircumstances which, when invoked justify, or excuse,3 the commission of acts that are otherwise unlawful against another State.4 The circumstances attenuate or remove responsibility entirely. These circumstances are namely: consent (Article 20), selfdefence (Article 21), countermeasures (Article 22), force majeure (Article 23), distress (Article 24), and necessity (Article 25). Nonetheless, Article 26 of the ILCASR states that ‘[n]othing in this Chapter precludes the wrongfulness of a State which is not in conformity with anobligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law.’

Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , January 2004 , pp. 211 - 225
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The ILC was established in 1947 by the United Nations General Assembly. See GA Res. 174 (II), of 21 Nov, 1947. For an excellent chronicling of the formation of the ILC, see Watts, A, The International Law Commission, 1949–1998, vols I, II, III (1999), particularly vol I at 1–20;Google ScholarThe Work of the International Law Commission (UN Publication No E.95.V.6) (5th edn, 1996), at 121–41.Google Scholar

2 For the text of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility, see Crawford, J, The International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries (2001) (hereafter ILC's Commentary).Google Scholar

3 Lowe states that by categorizing these circumstances as precluding wrongfulness, the ILC ‘propose to characterize wrongful conduct in respect of which there exists exculpatory circumstances as “not wrongful”.’ Instead he suggested that the Commission could have ‘characterized them as wrongful but excused’. See Lowe, V, ‘Precluding Wrongfulness or Responsibility: A Plea for Excuses’, (1999) 10 (2) EJIL 405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarBut see Rosenstock, R, ‘The ILC and State Responsibility’, (2002) 96(4) AJIL 792, at 794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 The circumstances also featured in the ILC's Draft Articles on State Responsibility adopted in 1996. See ILC's Report, 1996, GAOR, 51st Sess, Supp 10,125.Google Scholar

5 Text in UNTS, vol 1155, 331, entered into force 27 Jan 1980.Google Scholar

6 See the Reservations to the Genocide Convention case (1951) ICJ Reports 15;Google ScholarThe Legality of the Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapon, ICJ Reports (1996) 226, at 257 para 79.Google ScholarHowever, it must be noted that the ICJ's dealing with the issue of jus cogens so far is no more than a rendition of an obita dictum and has yet to deal with the issue directly. In fact, in the Arrest Warrant case (Congo v Belgium) 41 International Legal Materials 536, the Court avoided pronouncing on the existence of peremptory norms.Google ScholarSee also Shelton, D, ‘Righting Wrongs: Reparations in the Articles on State Responsibility’, (2002) 96 AJIL 833, at 843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Art 5(3) of the General Assembly's Definition of Aggression Resolution 3314 (XXIX), 29(1) RGA 142 at 144 (1974).Google Scholar

8 The German Federal Constitutional Court in 1965 decided that certain elementary legal commands had to be considered as rules of customary international law from which no derogation is permitted. See (1965) 18 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts 449;Google Scholar(1966–1997) 13 Archiv des Völkerrechts, 122, at 126, cited by Jørgensen, N, The Responsibility of States for International Crimes (2000), 88;Google Scholarsee also the decision of a US court in Filartiga v Pena-Irala, (1984) 77 International Law Report 185;Google ScholarHouse of Lords decision in R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, exparte Pinochet Ugarte (No 3) [1999] 2 All ER 97, particularly at 108–9, and 114–15 (per LordBrowne-Wilkinson, );Google ScholarUS Court of Appeals, 2nd Ciruit, in Siderman de Blake v Argentina, 965 F 2d 699 (1992) International Legal Materials vol 103,455, at 471.Google Scholar

9 See the decision of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in Case IT-95-17/1-T, Prosecutor v Anto Furundzija, judgment 10 Dec 1998 1998;Google Scholar(1999), International Legal Materials vol 38, 317.Google Scholar

10 Adopted in 1948. See ST/HR/4/Rev 12,1995.Google Scholar

11 See for instance Security Council Resolution 569 (1985) 26 July 1985.Google Scholar

12 United Nations Treaty Series vol 1460, 112.Google Scholar

13 ILC's Commentary, 188.Google Scholar

14 Ibid.

15 See , Shelton, above, n 6 at 842.Google Scholar

16 See International Law Commission, Eighth Report on State Responsibility by Ago, 2YB Intl L Comm'n 1, 31–2 (1979), UN Doc A/CN.4/318 & Add 1–4 (1979).Google Scholar

17 ILC's Commentary, at 188.Google Scholar

18 Some of the few works on ‘consent’ within the context of circumstances precluding wrongfulness are to be found in Thirlway, H, ‘The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960–1989’ (1995) 56 BYIL 1, at 73;Google ScholarRonzitti, N, ‘Use of Force, Jus Cogens and State Consent’ in Cassese, A (ed.), The Current Legal Regulation of the Use of Force (1986), 147;Google ScholarVerosta, , ‘Zur Anwendung der Regel’ ‘volenti non fit injuria’ im Völkerrecht’, Jus Humanitatis, Festschrift zum 90. Geburstag von Alfred Verdross, 1980, 689;Google ScholarGaja, G, ‘Jus Cogens Beyond Vienna Convention’ (1981) 172 Hague Recueil, 293 et seq; Alaimo, ‘Nature del consens nell'illecito internazionale’ (1982) 65 Rivista di Diritto Internazionale 257 et seq.Google Scholar

19 Thirlway, , above n 18 at 73.Google Scholar

20 ILC's Commentary, 163.Google Scholar

21 Crawford, J, ‘The ILC's Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts: A Retrospect’ (2002) 96(4) AJIL 874, at 878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Ibid, at 842.

23 See US v Iran (Yaeger v Iran) (1987) 17 Iran-US CTR 92.Google Scholar

24 See US v Mexico (Massey case) 4 RIAA 155, at 157.Google Scholar

25 ICJ Reports (1994) 112.Google Scholar

26 Ibid.

27 Ibid, at 121; 102 International Law Reports 18.

28 See Collier, J and Lowe, V, The Settlement of Disputes in International Law: Institutions andProcedures (1999) 135.Google Scholar

29 See Shaw, M N, International Law (4th edn 2001), 756.Google Scholar

30 See Waldock, CHM, ‘Forum Prorogatum or acceptance of a unilateral summons to appear before the International Court’ (1948) 2 ICLQ 377;Google ScholarCollier, and Lowe, , above, n 28 at 136 et seq; 200 et seq.Google Scholar

31 PCIJ, Ser A, No 15 (1928).Google Scholar

32 ICJ Report, 1952,93.Google Scholar

33 Fleming, , The Law of Torts (8th edn 1993), 75;Google ScholarKodilinye, G, Commonwealth Caribbean: Tort Law (2nd edn 2000), 19–20.Google Scholar

34 US v Mexico (1927) RIAA 155.Google Scholar

35 Ibid at 157.

36 ILC's Commentary, 164.Google Scholar

37 (1984) 5 Iran-US CTR 361, at 370.Google Scholar

38 (1986) 12 Iran-US CTR 335.Google Scholar

39 (1986) 10 Iran-US CTR 228.Google Scholar

40 Application No 29785/96 (First Chamber) 4 Sept 1996.Google Scholar

41 Ibid.

42 Decision on 25 Apr 1996, at para 60.Google Scholar

43 See Arts 12–15, VCLT. See also the Restatement of Foreign Relations, para 203 comment b (1987) stating that ‘there is a duty to treat as the government a regime that is the government in fact’ and this includes ‘accepting its acts as creating international rights and obligations’.Google Scholar

44 Wippman, David, ‘Treaty-Based Intervention: Who Can Say No?’ (1995) 62 University of Chicago Law Review 607, at 624–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 See Franck, TM, ‘Postmodern Tribalism and the Right to Succession’, in Brolmann, C, Lefeber, R, and Zieck, M (eds), Peoples and Minorities in International Law (1993), at 3.Google Scholar

46 See the First Report of the Special Rapporteur submitted at the 21st session of the ILC in 1969, YrbklLC, 1969, vol II, document A/CN.4/ Add. 1, 125–56, where Chapter V has used the phrase prior consent. See also United Nations, The Work of the International Law Commission (5th edn 1996), 126.Google Scholar

47 ILC's Commentary, 163.Google Scholar

48 Jones, MA, Textbook on Torts (4th edn 1993), 390. See generally Smith v Charles Baker & Sons (1891) AC 325, at 355, Nettleship v Weston (1971) 2 QB 691, and Waldick v Malcolm (1991) 83DLR(4th) 114.Google Scholar

49 Wooldrige v Summer [1963] 2 QB 43, at 69.Google Scholar

50 The provision of Art 45 of the ILCASR is analogous to Art 45 of the VCLT governing the loss of the right to invoke a ground for invalidating or terminating a treaty. See also ILC's Commentary 266.Google Scholar

51 ILC's Commentary 266.Google Scholar

52 Ibid, at 266.

53 (1986-I) 6 Iran-US CTR 6.Google Scholar

54 Ibid, at 13.

55 8 Iran-US CTR 99, Interlocutory Award No ITL 49–55 18 Apr 1985.Google Scholar

56 Ibid, at 10.

57 Ibid.

58 (1986-II) 6 Iran-US CTR 33.Google Scholar

59 Ibid, at 34.

60 RIAA, XI, 421 (1912), at 446, ILC's Commentary, 266.Google Scholar

61 For instance, the limitations placed by Arts 41 and 48 of the VCLT and Arts 53 and 64 relating to the peremptory norm of general international law.Google Scholar

62 For a discussion of this doctrine see Re Sinclair [1984] 1 Weekly Law Reports 772.Google Scholar

63 See Curzon, L B, Dictionary of Law (4th edn 1994) 218.Google Scholar

64 ILC's Commentary 267.Google Scholar

65 Certain Phosphate in Nauru (Nauru v Australia), Preliminary Objections (1992) ICJ Reports 240.Google Scholar

66 Ibid, 253–4, para 32; see also ILC's Commentary 267.

67 (1986-II) 6 Iran-US CRT 43.Google Scholar

68 Ibid, at 50.

69 {Germany v United States of America) (1999) ICJ Reports 9.Google Scholar

70 Ibid, at 14.

71 Ibid, at 18 et seq.

72 Ibid, at 22.

73 ‘Hear the other side.’ The court did not hear the United States in granting the interim measures to Germany. For the tenets of the principle of natural justice, see Local Government Board v Arlidge [1915] AC 120; Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40.Google Scholar

74 Ibid, at 19.

75 Ibid, at 21.

76 ICJ Reports (1970), 3 at 32. See also In re Koch, 30 International Law Reports 496, at 503; Assessment of Aliens case, 43 ILR, 3 at 8; Tokyo Suikosha case 13 Japanese Ann of IL (1969) 113, at 115.Google Scholar

77 See ILC's Commentary 188.Google Scholar

78 See Pellet, Alain, ‘Can a State Commit a Crime? Definitely, Yes!’ (1999) 10 EJIL 1, at 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

79 Ibid.

80 Ibid.

81 These States include Poland, Sierra Leone, Cyprus, Italy, Ecuador, Czechoslovakia, Bielorussia, Nepal, and so on. See UN Conference on the Law of Treaties. First and Second Sessions, Vienna, 26 Mar-24 May 1968, Official Records, UN A/CONF 39/11, at 294, para 3.Google Scholar

82 See Ronzitti, , above n 18, at 150.Google Scholar

83 Ibid at 150.

84 Above, n 44 at 619.Google Scholar

85 See Abass, A, ‘The New Collective Security of ECOWAS: Innovations and Problems’, (2000) 5(2) JCSL 211;Google Scholarid, ‘The Implementation of ECOWAS’ New Protocol and Security Council Resolution 1270 in Sierra Leone: New Development in Regional Intervention’ (2002) 10 (Special Issue) University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review 177.Google Scholar

86 Council of Ministers Seventy-fourth Ordinary Session/Ninth Ordinary Session of the AEC, 2–7 July 2001. CM/2210 (LXXIV).Google Scholar

87 First Ordinary Session: Protocol relating to the Establishment of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union <http://www/au2002.gov.za/docs/summit_council/secropt.htm> (Assembly of the African Union).+(Assembly+of+the+African+Union).>Google Scholar

88 See Abass, A and Baderin, M, ‘Towards Effective Collective Security and Human Rights Protection in Africa: An Assessment of the Constitutive Act of the New African Union’ (2002) XLIX Netherlands International Law Review 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

89 Wippman, , above n 44 at 622.Google Scholar

90 Oscar Schachter argued that ‘in the absence of a civil war, recognized governments have a right to receive external military assistance and outside States are free to furnish such aid…[intervention] is allowable at the request of the government of a State’. See Schachter, O, ‘The right of States to Use Armed Force’ (1984) 82 MLR 1620, at 1645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

91 An instance of this is the dispatch of the UK troops to Muscat and Oman in 1957. See House of Common (HC) Debates, col 872.Google Scholar

92 A Thomas, Van Wynen and Thomas, AJ Jr, Non-Intervention: The Law and Its Import in the Americas (1956), at 92.Google Scholar

93 See Wippman, , above n 44, at 622.Google Scholar

94 ILC's Commentary 188.Google Scholar