Yearly journal of scientific articles “Pravova derzhava”
Volume 34 (2023), 611-626 p.
DOI: 10.33663/1563-3349-2023-34-611-626
Bazov Viktor, Loza Dmytro. Some Aspects of the Concept of State Responsibility for Internationally Illegal Acts
The article examines some topical issues of the theory and practice of state responsibility for internationally illegal acts, which is of great importance in the doctrine of modern international law. Doctrinal approaches to defining the concept of internationally illegal action of the state are analyzed. The importance of codification and further development of international law in the field of responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts is noted. It is noted that due to the systematization of doctrine and judicial practice in 2001 it was possible to substantiate the latest doctrinal definition of responsibility in international law for international illegal actions of the state, which found its implementation and enshrined in the Articles of UN Resolution56/83 of 12 December 2001. The Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts stipulate that every State that has committed an internationally wrongful act is liable for it. The Articles define the elements of internationally illegal actions of the state. It is noted that an internationally wrongful act of a state occurs when any conduct constituting an act or omission is a) appropriated to a state under international law; and(b) constitutes a violation of that State’s international legal obligation.
Thus, the illegal behavior of the state can be both active and in action of the state. An important role in the preparation of the Articles belongs to the Commission on International Law. The scientific views of the members of the UN International Law Commission on international legal activities of states are analyzed. Thus, the modern doctrine of the state’s responsibility in international law for international illegal acts is based on the recognition of the state’s illegal behavior inviolation of the international legal obligations of this state under international law. Therefore, the issues of international legal responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts need to be enshrined in the Universal International Convention on the Liability of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, which will contribute to the progressive development of the law of international responsibility.
Key words: international law, state, responsibility, international wrongful act, doctrine.
References
1. Statut Orghanizaciji Ob'jednanykh Nacij / Predstavnyctvo OON v Ukrajini. URL:https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter
2. Grotius, H. (2005). The right of war andpeace. Indiana: Liberty Fund, Inc., 1021.
3. I.C.J. Reports. 1974. P. 452.
4. UN. General Assembly. Fifty-sixth session. Resolution 56/83. Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts. 2001. UN Doc. A/RES/56/83. URL: https://documents-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/477/97/PDF/N0147797.pdf?OpenElement
5. Cyt. po: Dopovidj Komisiji mizhnarodnogho prava. LIII sesija. Njju-Jork, 2001, s. 53.
6. Rezoljucija RC/Res.6«Zlochyn aghresiji» vid 11 chervnja 2010 roku ta Dodatok do neji. Ofi cijnyj sajt Mizhnarodnogho kryminaljnogho sudu. URL: https://asp.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/Resolutions/RC-Res.6-en.pdf
7. Konvencija pro poperedzhennja zlochynu ghenocydu ipokarannja za njogho, 9 ghrudnja 1948 r. À/RES/260 À (III). URL: https://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_155
8. I.C.J. Reports. 1980. P. 3.
9. Dodatkovyj protokol do Zhenevsjkykh konvencij vid 12 serpnja 1949 roku, shho stosujetjsja zakhystu zhertv mizhnarodnykh zbrojnykh konfl iktiv (Protokol I), vid 8 chervnja 1977 roku. Ofi cijnyj sajt Verkhovnoji Rady Ukrajiny. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua. Dokument 995_199
10. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America). Merits, Iudgment. I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14, 109, 115.
11. Procecutor v. Tadic, ICTY (Appeals Chamber), Case No. IT-94-1 «Prijedor», Judgement of 15 July 1999.
12. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia andHerzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 405–406.
13. Cassese A. The Nicaragua and Tadic Tests Revisited in Light of the ICJ Judgment onGenocide in Bosnia. The European Journal of International Law. 2007. Vol. 18. No. 4.P. 649–668; Moir I. The Law of Armed Conflict. Cambridge University Press, 2004. XIX,306 ð., ð. 49; Stewart J. G. Towards a single definition of armed conflict in international humanitarian law: A eritigue of internationalized armed conflict. International Review of the Red Cross. Volume 85. Issue 850, June 2003. P. 327.
14. Market West Africa. Enlarge yousales. URL: www.westafrica.com.ua
15. European Court of Human Rights. Samsonov v.Russia. 16 September 2014. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-147336
16. ICSID. The Rompetrol Group N.V. v. Romania. Case No. ARB/06/3. Award. 6 May 2013.
17. UN. General Assembly. Seventy-fi rst session. Report of the Secretary-General. UN Doc.A/71/80. URL: http://www.un.org/ga/search/ view_doc.asp?symbol=A/71/80
<< Back
