State Responsibility for Acts of Agents and Private Individuals

Extract

[...] Thus, the State is responsible for a legislative or regulatory act contrary to its international commitments and this, only after the promulgation of the law. It is also responsible for the judgments adopted and which are in contradiction with international law despite the independence of the executive, legislative and judicial powers. This principle has been stated many times by international bodies such as the Court of Justice of the European Union (see CJCE March 1996, aff. C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur S.A). [...]

[...] On the other hand, the State has an obligation of prevention and repression in the context of the actions of private individuals on its territory. In the arbitral award Island of Palmas, this idea was clearly expressed: sovereignty territorial « a for corollary a duty: the obligation to protectger within the territory the rights of other States, in particular their right to integrity and at theinviolabilityis in times of peace and in times of war, as well as the rights that each state can claim for its nationals residing in a foreign country » (Arbitral Sentence April 1928, United States v. [...]

[...] The United Kingdom was therefore condemned for these acts of shipbuilding companies located on its territorySeptember United States v. United Kingdom). [...]

[...] More broadly, theindivisibilityis of the State refers to the criterion of all entities here exercise public powers thus enabling the condition of state imputability to be applied. The second paragraph of Article 7 of the CDI project states on this subject « is also considered as a fact of the State according to international law the behavior ofan organ of'an entity that is not part of the very structure of the State or a public territorial community, but which is authorized by the internal law of that State to exercise public powers, provided that, in this case, the organ has acted in this capacity » (§2, article CDI Project). [...]

[...] A flexible condition of imputability in relation to the concept of State It goes so to reason of its agents and organsA) that of the indivisible character of the StateB). A. The principle of imputability linked to the acts of the agents and organs of the State A traditional customary rule provides that the State can be held responsible for all acts emanating from its agents and state organs, that is, those that enter into an organic relationship with the structure of the State. [...]