Примеры использования Rules of state responsibility на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Secondary" rules of State responsibility 220 112.
Distinction between"primary" and"secondary" rules of State responsibility.
Under the rules of State responsibility, Israel is responsible for any violations of international law attributable to it.
They are not defined a priori by the secondary rules of State responsibility.
The rules of State responsibility could not be applied, because the State had not breached its obligation of due diligence.
They were not part of the secondary rules of State responsibility.
They related to the traditional rules of State responsibility concerning the implementation of treaties, and particularly multilateral treaties with a so-called humanitarian dimension.
Any illegal activity would trigger the rules of State responsibility.
If a narrow view was taken,the scope of the rules of State responsibility might dwindle almost to nothing, leaving only the question of reparation and restitution.
One of those issues concerned the distinction between primary and secondary rules of State responsibility.
It would also safeguard the relevant rules of State responsibility and not duplicate or be in conflict with the operation of civil liability regimes within national jurisdictions.
Therefore, it would not be possible simply to apply the rules of State responsibility mutatis mutandis.
Under the rules of State responsibility, as restated in article 10 of the draft on State responsibility as provisionally adopted by the International Law Commission, a State is internationally accountable for ultra vires acts or transactions of its organs.
It would not be possible simply to apply the rules of State responsibility mutatis mutandis.
The draft principles offered a legal regime that was general and residual in character andwithout prejudice to the relevant rules of State responsibility.
Such intervention on the part of the State is known under the rules of State responsibility as"diplomatic protection of nationals abroad.
Thus,“on the scale of harm, what lies on the far side of the point of wrongfulness is prohibited; anddisobedience of that prohibition engages the rules of State responsibility.
States affected by such a breach are entitled to insist on the implementation of such rules of State responsibility, including cessation of the unlawful conduct, restitution and reparation.
Whatever institutional and other reforms may help to address these questions,they are not matters which can be resolved by way of the general secondary rules of State responsibility.
We have come such a long way in the struggle for codified rules of State responsibility that it would be extremely unfortunate to let the work of almost half a century be cast in a non-binding instrument.
Other Governments andcommentators doubt the wisdom of attempting to codify the general rules of State responsibility in treaty form.
The rules applicable to State succession, on the one hand, and the rules of State responsibility, on which the question of war damages depends, on the other, fall within two distinct areas of international law.
It should be borne in mind that the work of the Commission on allocation of loss suffered by innocent victims involved a fine balance between loss allocation to the victim of transboundary harm andthe right of the State to claim reparation under rules of State responsibility.
It agreed that the notion was constantly used in the narrower sense(i.e. special secondary rules of State responsibility) and a broader sense i.e. special primary and secondary rules on a specific problem.
Under the rules of State responsibility, where one State is in"serious breach" of its obligations under peremptory norms of international law as would be the case if a State were to be torturing detainees other States have a duty to cooperate to bring such a serious breach of the prohibition against torture to an end, and are required not to give any aid or assistance to its continuation.
There is no doubt, in the opinion of the Committee,such acts may be attributed to Israel in accordance with the rules of state responsibility expounded by the International Law Commission.
Mr. DE SARAM(Sri Lanka) said it was important to bear in mind that the rules of State responsibility were secondary rules to be brought into operation only when a primary obligation between States was breached, and as such should be kept entirely separate from the area of primary obligations.
In dealing with the first question, the view was expressed that vague references to points of principle alone,namely that rules of State responsibility would or should not be prejudiced, might not be enough to address the real questions of overlap.
He did not agree with those who believed that under the rules of State responsibility, the only criterion that applied in international law in a case of transboundary harm was the criterion of due diligence, or that what was involved was an obligation of conduct and not an obligation of result.
There was, however, a need to exclude, for example,ultra vires acts, which, under the rules of State responsibility, might be attributable to the State in question, but should not serve as evidence of custom.