Second Report on State Responsibility

Second Report on State Responsibility





In accordance with the plan of work set forth in the preliminary report,[2] the present report deals with the substantive consequences of an internationally unlawful act, other than cessation and restitution in kind.[3]

The first consequence thus to be considered is reparation by equivalent. For the reasons explained in the preliminary report, reparation by equivalent, or pecuniary compensation, is the main and central remedy resorted to following an internationally wrongful act.[4]. Read more (txt)  >>

This report deals with moral injury to the State and with the distinction between satisfaction and compensation. It also addresses reparation by equivalent and satisfaction (as well as the issue of punitive damages) and guarantees of non–repetition. It includes proposals on draft Articles 8, 9 and 10, respectively on reparation by equivalent, interest, and  satisfaction and guarantees of non–repetition.

An important part of the Second Report covers the problem of fault and the question of attribution. Regarding, in particular, attribution, the Author indicates the reasons for his rejection of the so-called “normative theory of attribution of conduct to the State for the purposes of international responsibility”. The parts of this report related to fault and attribution of conduct have been regrettably ignored by the International Law Commission as a whole. The Author refers here to the last of his writings that deals specifically with a critical analysis of the normative theory of attribution of conduct. Attribution is seen as a part of the questio facti, not to be confused with the juridical attribution of liability.