1.

Mangaya
 Read ARSIWA and other materials about state responsibility.
 Extract from that convention and those materials relevant info, which will help the
oralist, build up his argument that Alimar is responsible for the death of Iggams.
 Search for the factors, which will indicate that the state indeed has responsibility,
threshold of threat and harm before a state may become liable, etc.
 Read everything.
 Cite your sources.

Research materials:

 Invoking State Responsibility in the Twenty-First Century

Edith Brown Weiss Georgetown University Law Center, weiss@law.georgetown.edu
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1334&context=facpub

 The ILC’s Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts

James Crawford, Jacqueline Peel, Simon Olleson
http://ejil.org/pdfs/12/5/1557.pdf

 https://quizlet.com/9171608/state-responsibility-and-diplomatic-protection-flash-cards/

 Invoking State Responsibility for Aiding the Commission of International Crimes —

Australia, the United States and the question of East Timor invoking State
Responsibility, Jessica Howard,
http://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/1680000/Howard.pdf

Draft Articles (Arsiwa):

Internationally wrongful acts

According to the Draft Articles, an internationally wrongful act must: be attributable to the state
under international law; and constitute a breach of an international obligation of the state.
International Crimes
Earlier drafts of the Articles on State Responsibility contained Article 19, which provided for
"state crimes". Article 19 included the following provisions:

 An internationally wrongful act, which results from the breach by a State of an

international obligation so essential for the protection of fundamental interests of the
international community that that community as a whole recognizes its breach as a
crime, constitutes an international crime.
 Subject to Paragraph 2, and on the basis of the rules of international law in force, an
international crime may result, inter alia, from:
(a) a serious breach of an international obligation of essential importance for the
maintenance of international peace and security, such as that prohibiting aggression;
(b) a serious breach of an international obligation of essential importance for
safeguarding the right of self-determination of peoples, such as that prohibiting the
establishment or maintenance by force of colonial domination;
(c) a serious breach on a widespread scale of an international obligation of
essential importance for safeguarding the human being, such as those prohibiting slavery,
genocide and apartheid;
(d) a serious breach of an international obligation of essential importance for the
safeguarding and preservation of the human environment, such as those prohibiting
massive pollution of the atmosphere or of the seas.

 Any internationally wrongful act, which is not an international crime in accordance

with paragraph 2, constitutes an international delict.
Article 19 was deleted from the final Draft Articles.
Attribution
Before a state can be held responsible for any action, it is necessary to prove a causal
connection between the injury and an official act or omission attributable to the state alleged
to be in breach of its obligations. This has become an increasingly significant contemporary
issue, as non-state actors such as Al Qaeda, multinational corporations, and non-
governmental organizations play greater international roles, and as
governments privatize some traditional functions.

The state is responsible for all actions of its officials and organs, even if the organ or official is
formally independent and even if the organ or official is acting ultra vires. Persons or entities
not classified as organs of the State may still be imputable, when they are otherwise
empowered to exercise elements of governmental authority, and act in that capacity in the
particular instance. Persons or entities not performing public functions may equally be
imputable, if they in fact acted under the direction or control of the State. Where there is a
breakdown of normal governmental authority and control, such as in so-called "failed states",
the actions of those acting as the "government" in a de facto sense will be acts of the state.
The acts of an "insurrectional or other movement that becomes the new government of an
existing state or succeeds in establishing a new state" can also be attributed to the state. This
is also the case where a state acknowledges and adopts the conduct of private persons as its
own.

Despite their apparent concreteness, the standards stated in some rules involve important
ambiguities, and their application will often require significant fact-finding and judgment. Most
rules state responsibility involving private acts already arise under primary rules. For example,
environmental and human rights agreements require states to prevent abuses by private
parties.

Defenses
If the general elements to establish state responsibility are established, the question arises as
to whether any defenses may be available to the respondent state. These include force
majeure (Article 23), distress (Article 24), state of necessity (Article 25) and counter measures
(Articles 49-52), self-defense (article 21) and consent (article 20).

Consequences of breach
The breach of an international obligation entails two types of legal consequences. Firstly, it
creates new obligations for the breaching state, principally, duties of cessation and non-
repetition (Article 30), and a duty to make full reparation (Article 31). Article 33(1)
characterizes these secondary obligations as being owed to other states or to
the international community as a whole. Articles indirectly acknowledge in a savings
clause also that states may owe secondary obligations to non-state actors such as individuals
or international organizations.

Second, the articles create new rights for injured states, principally, the right to invoke
responsibility (Articles 42 and 48) and a limited right to take countermeasures (Articles 49-53).
These rights, however, are heavily state-centered and do not deal with how state
responsibility is to be implemented if the holder of the right is an individual or an organization.
The principal element of progressive development in this area is Article 48, which provides
that certain violations of international obligations can affect the international community as a
whole such that state responsibility can be invoked by states on behalf of the larger
community. This provision picks up on the ICJ's celebrated suggestion in Barcelona
Traction that some obligations are owed erga omnes, toward the international community as a
whole.
Reparations
If illegal actions are continuing, the state has a duty to cease. The state also has duties to
make reparation, which could involve restitution, compensation, or satisfaction. Remedies will
be dependent on the particular forum, such as the United Nations, International Court of
Justice, World Trade Organization, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, International
Criminal Court, and on the purpose of reparation.