This article examines the developments on future action concerning the 2001 ILC Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly. It reviews the past 20 years, from the presentation of the final draft at the 56th session in 2001, to the most recent debate at the 74th session in 2019. In scrutinising the procedural actions taken over the relevant period, it argues that the ARSIWA have ossified in the Sixth Committee even as they have continued to gain authority through application in practice. This ossification is due not only to divisions amongst delegations on future action but also to disagreements on a select number of provisions. Whilst these substantive issues have narrowed, debate is made fruitless by entrenched positions that do not take account of the application of the ARSIWA in practice.

This article first examines the entire range of agency relationships between an international organisation, acting as a principal, and one or more states, acting as its agent(s). It is here argued that an agency relationship between an international organisation and one or more state(s) can be established by the constitutive treaty of the organisation, or ad hoc. In particular, an ad hoc agency relationship results from a state placing one of its organs at the disposal of an international organisation and under its effective control, with the purpose of carrying out functions of that organisation.

The article then examines the consequences for the responsibility of the organisation and the relevant state(s) of an agency relationship between an international organisation acting as a principal and one or more states acting as its agent(s). It is demonstrated that an international organisation may be responsible for damage caused by the conduct of the state. Furthermore, it is argued that the state itself may bear responsibility for having established or for not having terminated the agency relationship if it commits wrongful conduct on behalf of the international organisation.

Responsibility of States — In the Absence of Contractual Obligations — Goods Deposited at Customs Warehouse.

Requisitions — Legal Nature of — Unilateral and Not Contractual.

Treaties — Interpretation of — Preparatory Work — Consideration of Historical Circumstances — Requisitions — Legal Character of Requisitions — Responsibility of States — Requisition of Goods Deposited at Customs House.

International Law — Sources — Filling of Gaps — Novelty of Action — Application of General Principles

Responsibility of States — Executive Action — Payment of Compensation for Acts Done in Legitimate Self-Defence.

Responsibility of States — In General — Compensation for Legitimate Acts Done in Self-Defence — Cutting of Submarine Cables by Belligerent.

Aliens — Treatment of — Non-Discrimination — Ex gratia Payment of Compensation to Subjects and Some Neutrals — Refusal of Payment to Others — Legality of.

Aliens — Respect for Property — Neutral Subjects — Military Operation — Cutting of Submarine Cables — Compensation.

Arbitration — Law Applicable — Authorisation to Decide in Accordance with International Law and Equity — Whether Implying Award of Compensation Unwarranted by a Rule of International Law.

Arbitration — Law Applicable — Filling of Gaps — Novelty of Action — Application of General Principles.

Arbitration — Award — Recommendation of ex gratia Payments.

High Seas — Freedom of — Restriction in Favour of Belligerents — Submarine Cables.

War — Neutral Property — Compensation for Destruction — Submarine Cables — War of United States with Spain in 1898 — Convention for the Protection of Submarine Cables of 1884 — Novelty of Action in International Law — Filling of Gaps — Belligerent Rights in Sea Warfare — Compensation in Case of Exercise of Legitimate Rights — Right of Self-Defence — Discrimination as against Subjects and Other Neutrals — Equity — Power to Award Compensation on the Ground of — Recommendations for ex gratia Payments.

Dependent States — Relation of Suzerainty — International Liability of the Suzerain.

Responsibility of States — In General — Responsibility of the Suzerain — Responsibility of Great Britain for the Liabilities of the South African Republic.

Denial of Justice — Denial of Incomplete Rights — Executive Decrees Contrary to the Constitution.

Exhaustion of Legal Remedies — When Unnecessary — Absence of Prospect of Redress.

State Succession — Liabilities for Wrongs — Duty to Take Affirmative Measures to Redress Wrongs — Denial of Justice — When Principle not Applicable — Denial of Incomplete Rights — Exhaustion of Legal Remedies — Liabilities of the Suzerain — Liabilities of Great Britain as Suzerain for Delinquencies of the South African Republic.

International Law — Sources — Treaties in Force between Parties to the Dispute — How far Applicable as an Element of Interpretation.

Responsibility of States — In General — Matters of Domestic Jurisdiction — Prima facie Ascertainment of Responsibility.

Claims — In General — Character of — International Character of Claims Arising out of Injuries to Individuals.

Interpretation of Treaties — Preparatory Work — Interpretation of Arbitration Agreements.

Arbitration — In General — Arbitrability of Claims — Conception of Arbitrability — Article 13 of the Covenant — Article 36 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice — International Character of Claims Arising out of Injuries to Individuals — Matters of Domestic Jurisdiction — “Abstract and Formal” Arbitrability as Distinguished from “Positive” Arbitrability — “Examination 44 and Report” as Distinguished from Arbitration — Preparatory Work in the Interpretation of Treaties — Treaties between the Disputant Parties as a Source of Interpretation

Responsibility of States — Quasi-Contractual Obligations.

Responsibility of States — Denial of Justice — Failure on the Part of the Claimants to Inform the Authorities.

Responsibility of States — De facto Governments — Responsibility for Obligations Contracted and Concessions Granted by — Transactions Extraneous to the Purpose of Government — Concessions Granted in Disregard of Constitutional Provisions.

Responsibility of States — Executive Inaction — Failure to Prosecute Offenders for Crimes Committed Outside the Territory — The International and Spanish Zones of Morocco — Duty of Mutual Judicial Assistance in the Prosecution of Crimes.

Interest — As an Element of Damages — Loss of Profits.

Responsibility of States — Executive Action — Military Operations — Acts not Necessitated by Military Operations — Responsibility for.

Responsibility of States — Executive Action — Liability of Government to Foreign Subject for Negligent Act of police — Foreign Subjects in Egypt — Jurisdiction of Mixed Courts over Administrative Acts of Government.

Responsibility of States—Duty to Prevent Dispatch of Hostile Expedition Intended to Promote Revolution in Friendly State—Seizure of Ship—British Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870.

Responsibility of States — Responsibility for Damage in the Course of Riots Directed against Foreigners as Such — Riots against Greek Subjects in Bulgaria in 1906.

Responsibility of States — Contracts made by Officials outside the Scope of their Competence — Contracts Conditional upon the Acceptance of the Next Administration

Responsibility of States — Claims — Espousal of Claims of Fugitives from Justice — Denial of Justice — Faulty Judicial Procedure — Disregard of International Standards — Maltreatment in Prison.

Responsibility of States — State as Carrier — Responsibility for Damage done during Revolutionary Disturbances

Responsibility of States — Executive Action — Denial of Justice through the Granting of an Amnesty.

Responsibility of States — Executive Inaction — Failure to Apprehend Criminals — Denial of Justice.