Lecture 1 (28/1/19) . Historically an area that lacked substantial codification . Now can use the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Act (ASRIWA) ? Concerns state responsibility o ARIO used ASRIWA as a template · Distinction between primary rules and secondary rules- primary are the prohibitions/permissions that are binding through treaty or IL (e.g. illegality of torture); secondary are what is to happen when a primary rule is breached, are procedural . Direct/direct victims- if the victim is a state itself it is the direct victim of that wrong, if the victim is a citizen . The role of fault o Objective approach- fault/intention is irrelevant, just needs to be attributable to the state; Caire Claim- france v mexico, o Subjective approach- fault/intention required; Corfu Channel- albania's failure to warn UK about sea mines was attributable so they were responsible . Article 12 ASRIWA- breach occurs when an act is not in conformity with what is required of it by an obligation · Wrongful act- criminal wrong or civil wrong · Article 41 ASRIWA- consequences of a serious breach of an obligation · Israeli Wall- advisory opinion on legal consequences of israeli wall, ICJ concluded it was illegal (using article 41 without citing 41) right to self-determination is a jus cogens norm and breaching that is illegal · Attribution- what types of conduct are attributable (allows to establish acts of a state); private acts are not generally attributable to a state o Noyes claim- there must be special circumstances when there is an act of a private individual for it to be attributable to the state Acts of state organs are generally seen as acts of a state o Youmans Claim- americans in mexico attacked by a mob, soldiers sent by the state join in the mob, Mexico held responsible for ultra vires acts of its state organs o Mallen- mexican living in texas, american assaults mexican, has his put in jail, US was responsible for putting him in jail because american was acting in his character as a state organ, assault was not attributable because was not acting in his capacity Lecture 2 (4/2/19) . Non state actors: Article 5 ASRIWA- conduct can be attributable to the state when they are exercising elements of governmental authority, states can't contract out of their obligations, when a state empowers the entities to act in a state-like way they are responsible for their actions which are within their capacity . Article 8- when the conduct isnt contracted out; conduct needs to be under the direction or control of the state to be attributable; what degree of control is necessary:
o US Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran- mobs controlled by organs that became the government o Military and Paramilitary Activities Nicaragua- rebel group (contras) in opposition to the government, US supported contras, could acts of contras be attributable to the US, ICJ adopts 'effective control' test where EC is needed over the day-to-day operations of the group for the