This chapter reflects on Chilean extracontractual liability between commercial competitors for pure economic loss from an English viewpoint. It shows that while the principles and rules contained in the Chilean Civil Code (1855) were not developed by litigation in this area, there were hundreds of cases and court decisions in the years following the enactment of the Unfair Competition Act 2007. Although the case law under the Unfair Competition Act 2007 lacks the degree of originality and depth peculiar to the common law, the specific construction of the 2007 Unfair Competition Act by the Chilean courts is illuminated by a comparison with the English approach to this topic.

The chapter considers the ICJ’s contribution to the law of State responsibility, looking back to the Court’s contribution to the codification of that law by the ILC: looking at the Court’s current attitude to the ILC’s Articles on State Responsibility; and looking to the future, addressing one of the main challenges facing the Court in this field, that of multilateral disputes. The author concludes that the Court has been an important player in this field of international law, and it has made a significant contribution to vesting the ILC Articles with the authority they have today. According to this chapter, the Court has an important role to play going forwards in the growth and development of community interest litigation for the enforcement of erga omnes obligations.

The chapter addresses problems with the general rules of state responsibility from the perspective of functionality. The analysis follows the structure of the Articles on State Responsibility, which means that the critique is organized according to the elements of an international wrongful act, the content of responsibility, as well as its implementation. It is argued that the general rules of state responsibility struggle to respond to the heterogeneity of actors, subject-matters, and norms implicated in the governance of international affairs. It is further contended that state responsibility is marginalized in some situations; in situations of serious wrongs international criminal law has appeared as an alternative remedy, and significant harm is dealt with through rules on international liability. Thus, other forms and regimes of responsibility have appeared, making it necessary to understand responsibility in broader and more versatile terms than what is offered by the state responsibility doctrine.

Chapter III explores the terms in which international human rights law governs the conduct of Executive Directors as member State representatives in international financial institutions and how their responsibility may ultimately be engaged in case of human rights violations. Inspired by rule of law requirements of legality, and the constitutional values of representation and responsiveness, the first part of the chapter examines how these elements have been incorporated in the human rights regime. The notion that member States have a due diligence duty to ensure that human rights are respected and protected throughout institutional operations is analysed in two particular instances, notably, in their role as participants in institutional decision-making, as well as creators of the organisation’s structure and operational framework. The final part of the Chapter examines how member States’ failure to act diligently brings about their international responsibility. It thus analyses the various elements that define the determination of wrongfulness, as well as the provision of remedies to victims. In so doing, it addresses questions such as that of standing, of causality, and the division of reparation duties among multiple member States and the international financial institution.