17 / 350
THE ILC ARTICLES ON STATE RESPONSIBILITY: A REFLECTION YEARS LATER
THE ILC ARTICLES ON STATE RESPONSIBILITY:
A REFLECTION YEARS LATER
Čestmír Čepelka
Abstract:
The draft articles on Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful
acts, elaborated by the International Law Commission (ILC), has been facing
a dilemma concerning its future for more than ten years and still is. The UN
General Assembly has already three times
assessed the question of the final form
of these draft articles. Although the Commission hoped that, at a later stage and
in light of the importance of the topic, the draft articles would be incorporated in
a codifying international convention, there is no chance that this can be performed.
The rationale for this lies, inter alia, in the concept of countermeasures which
deal with circumstances precluding wrongfulness. This was undeniable only in
the past, but not today. If the said articles on State Responsibility remain a simple
declaration of the UN General Assembly, as they have been since 2001, they
could hardly develop a new customary law of State responsibility; this because,
apart from countermeasures, the notion of self-defence as well is inconsistent with
legal thinking. The concept of self-defence is, according to the Commission, an
“undisputed” exception to the prohibited use of force; this rule being a primary one
and therefore outside the scope of State responsibility. But, it is generally recognized
that self-defence serves as a law-enforcement device, and hence a secondary rule.
There is only one way to escape this dilemma.
Although the existing draft articles on Responsibility are considered as an
indivisible whole which should not be reopened for negotiation, it contains proposed
rules of two different domains: those of proper State responsibility, and those of law-
enforcement of the unfulfilled responsibility obligations by the wrongdoing State.
Whilst the first one has large support in the international community and could
therefore easily be codified
in a convention, the concept of countermeasures and self-
defence must be presently excluded as measures not yet stabilized for codification.
Resumé:
Návrh článků o odpovědnosti států za mezinárodně protiprávní čin, vy-
pracovaný Komisí pro mezinárodní právo (KMP), je stále a více jak deset let před
otázkou své budoucnosti. Valné shromáždění OSN se už třikrát zabývalo problé-
mem konečné podoby řečených článků. Ačkoli KMP doufala, že někdy později
a také s ohledem na důležitost dané tématiky, dojde k jejímu uplatnění v kodifi-
kační úmluvě, není vyhlídky, že by se tak mohlo státi. Důvodem je mj. i zařazení
protiopatření (represálií) do okolností vylučujících protiprávnost. To se nepochyb-
ně hodilo pro represálie v minulosti, dnes ale už nikoliv. Pokud by řečený Návrh
článků zůstal jen pouhou deklarací Valného shromáždění (což je od r. 2001), pak
ovšem nepřispěje k utváření nového obyčejového práva, neboť je inter alia i pojetí