Revision Hub  /  Module · State Responsibility

State Responsibility (the ILC Articles 2001 — "ARSIWA")

Lecture L_StateResponsibility Dr Catriona Drew Reading: ARSIWA 2001 + ILC Commentary; Crawford (2002, 2013); Charlesworth & Chinkin (2000); Pellet; Cassese; Simma & Paulus

Snapshot

The provocation asks whether ARSIWA 2001 — annexed to GA Res 56/83, never opened for signature — succeeds as a codification of the secondary rules. Refuse the binary. The Articles are not a treaty, yet the ICJ treats them as largely declaratory of custom (Bosnia v Serbia 2007 paras 385, 396–407; Climate Change AO 2025 paras 428, 442). Article 1 fixes the principle, Article 2 the two elements (attribution + breach), Articles 4–11 imputation, Articles 30–37 consequences, Articles 42 and 48 standing. The architecture is elegant; the strain is structural — the Nicaragua/Tadić/Bosnia v Serbia trilogy lets states disclaim proxy violence, ARSIWA's silence on private violence drives feminist critique (Charlesworth & Chinkin), and Article 48 was under-used until Gambia v Myanmar 2022 and South Africa v Israel 2024. The first-class answer holds achievement and strain in tension, and takes a position.

1. FRAME — secondary rules and the ARSIWA project

State responsibility is the law of secondary rules — when a state is responsible for breach of a primary obligation, the consequences, and who may invoke them. Primary rules (use of force, genocide, transboundary harm) live elsewhere; ARSIWA says not what states must do but what follows when they fail. The ILC began work in 1949, completed it under Crawford in 2001, and the GA took note in Resolution 56/83 without prejudice to future status. ARSIWA is not a treaty; its authority depends on judicial uptake.

That uptake has been nearly total. The ICJ deployed proto-ARSIWA reasoning in Tehran Hostages 1980; post-2001 it routinely cites the Articles as custom (Bosnia v Serbia 2007 para 385 on Article 4 — "one of the cornerstones"; Armed Activities 2005 paras 213–214 on Article 7; Climate Change AO 2025 paras 428, 442). Examiners reward IRAC structure, specific authority for every claim (case + date, ARSIWA article, paragraph reference), and a sustained thesis; they penalise long historical narratives and the lazy claim that ARSIWA is "non-binding" without engaging with what custom does to that label.

The exam lives in the gap between the basic principle (responsibility crystallises automatically on attribution + breach, without damage or fault) and the secondary-rules limitation (ARSIWA does not specify the primary obligation). The first-class candidate runs proxy violence, private actors, climate harm and gendered violence through that machinery, names the pinch points, and takes a position.

2. EXPLAIN — the ARSIWA architecture

Five blocks of rules carry the doctrinal load. Examiners want all five named with article numbers attached.

Read against its interlocutors: Tehran Hostages 1980 shows the two-stage logic (Article 4 omission, then Article 11 adoption); Bosnia v Serbia 2007 paras 396–407 holds that for state responsibility Article 8 requires Nicaragua-style effective control, not Tadić-style overall control; Climate Change AO 2025 para 428 collapses the attribution question for private emissions into a due-diligence question about the state's own regulatory duty.

Per-article anchors examiners reward: Article 4 captures organs in every branch and at every level — Rainbow Warrior (1987) confirms intelligence services count, and LaGrand (1999/2001) confirms a federal state is responsible for sub-national conduct (Arizona on the VCCR). Article 5 reaches non-state actors empowered by law to exercise governmental functions. Article 7 attaches responsibility for ultra vires conduct under apparent authority (Caire 1929; Armed Activities 2005 paras 213–214). Article 8 — directed or controlled — is the contested one (the trilogy below). Article 9 catches private exercise of governmental authority in the absence of officials (Yeager v Iran 1987). Article 11 covers subsequent acknowledgement and adoption (Tehran Hostages para 74; the Eichmann capture 1960).

3. The starred cases & instruments

Six anchors do the heavy lifting. Cite article numbers, paragraph numbers, and dates; do not gesture vaguely at "the case law".

Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States) Merits, ICJ Reports 1986 p. 14, paras 86–93, 109, 115
Holding
Two tests. (i) Contras as US de facto organ required "complete dependence" (para 109) — not made out. (ii) For specific acts under what is now Article 8, the US needed "effective control of the military or paramilitary operations in the course of which the alleged violations were committed" (para 115). Funding, training and arming were insufficient.
Why it matters
Locus classicus of Article 8. The high threshold shields sponsoring states from proxy violence absent direct command — what critics call a charter for plausible deniability.
Prosecutor v Tadić ICTY Appeals Chamber, Case No IT-94-1-A, Judgment 15 July 1999, paras 117, 131
Holding
The Appeals Chamber rejected Nicaragua as too restrictive and held at para 131 that "in order to attribute the acts of a military or paramilitary group to a State, it must be proved that the State wields overall control over the group, not only by equipping and financing the group, but also by coordinating or helping in the general planning of its military activity". No instructions for the specific wrongful acts required.
Why it matters
The competing test. Cassese (then ICTY President) argued the IHL context demanded a more flexible standard. The two tests coexist (Tadić for IHL conflict classification; Nicaragua for state responsibility), but the line is contested.
Application of the Genocide Convention (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro) ICJ Reports 2007 p. 43, paras 385, 396–407
Holding on Article 4
Para 385 — Article 4 is "one of the cornerstones of the law of State responsibility" and reflects custom. ARSIWA endorsed as authoritative codification.
Holding on Article 8
The ICJ rejected Tadić "overall control" for state responsibility (paras 402–407). Para 406: the test "stretches too far, almost to breaking point, the connection which must exist between the conduct of a State's organs and its international responsibility". Article 8 retains Nicaragua's effective control of the specific operation.
Why it matters
Settles the trilogy: Tadić for IHL conflict-classification, Nicaragua for state responsibility. The ICJ's clearest endorsement of ARSIWA as custom.
United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States v Iran) ICJ Reports 1980 p. 3, paras 63, 67, 73–74
Stage one — failure to prevent
The militants who seized the embassy were not organs; their initial conduct was not attributable. But Iran was responsible for its own omission — failure to protect the premises under VCDR 1961/VCCR 1963 (paras 63, 67).
Stage two — Article 11 adoption
Once Khomeini endorsed the seizure, "the approval given to these facts … and the decision to perpetuate them, translated continuing occupation of the Embassy and detention of the hostages into acts of that State" (para 74). Textbook Article 11 acknowledgement and adoption, converting private conduct into state act ex post.
Velásquez Rodríguez v Honduras IACtHR, Series C No 4, Judgment 29 July 1988, paras 166, 172, 182
Holding
"Even had that fact not been proven, the failure of the State apparatus to act … is a failure on the part of Honduras to fulfil the duties it assumed under Article 1(1)" of the American Convention (para 182). Article 1(1) imposes a positive obligation to "prevent, investigate and punish" violations (para 166).
Why it matters
Leading authority for state responsibility through due diligence for private conduct. Codified for VAW in Istanbul Convention 2011 Art 5(2) — plugs the Charlesworth/Chinkin gap doctrinally.
Application of the Genocide Convention (The Gambia v Myanmar) Preliminary Objections, ICJ Reports 2022, paras 107–108, 112
Holding
The Gambia, though not specially affected, had standing to invoke Myanmar's responsibility under the Genocide Convention: all states parties have a "common interest" in compliance — obligations erga omnes partes within Article 48(1)(a). Followed in South Africa v Israel 2024 para 33.
Why it matters
With Barcelona Traction 1970 para 33 and East Timor 1995 para 29, operationalises Article 48 for the first time on a sustained basis. TWAIL scholars (Chimni, Anghie) read this as a partial answer to historic under-use.
The Caire Claim (France v Mexico) 5 RIAA 516 (1929)
Holding
Two Mexican officers shot a French national after he refused them money. Mexico responsible under what is now Article 7: the officers had "acted under cover of their status as officers and used means placed at their disposal on account of that status", even though they exceeded their authority.
Why it matters
Classic statement of the apparent authority rule on ultra vires conduct — confirmed for armed forces in Armed Activities 2005 paras 213–214.
Factory at Chorzów Jurisdiction, PCIJ Series A No 9 (1927) p. 21; Merits, PCIJ Series A No 17 (1928) p. 47
Holding
"It is a principle of international law that the breach of an engagement involves an obligation to make reparation in an adequate form. Reparation therefore is the indispensable complement of a failure to apply a convention and there is no necessity for this to be stated in the convention itself." On the merits, reparation must "as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed".
Why it matters
Textual ancestor of Articles 31 and 34. Every reparation question runs through it.

4. CRITIQUE — six pressure points

Cluster, do not list. Each of the six maps to a sentence you can deploy in the exam.

  1. Attribution and proxy violence. Bosnia v Serbia 2007 entrenched Nicaragua's "effective control of the specific operation". Financing, training and equipping is never enough alone — visible from Iran-backed actors to Sudan v UAE ICJ (Application 5 March 2025), where Sudan pleads RSF "complete dependence" on the UAE for Nicaragua para 109 de facto organ status. Cassese's worry that the ICJ undertests proxy connections has not gone away.
  2. Tadić/Nicaragua tension. The bifurcation is uncomfortable: conduct that internationalises a conflict for war-crimes prosecution may not attribute for state reparation. The result is a regime that punishes individuals and shields states.
  3. Silence on private violence. Private conduct is not attributable (Commentary Ch II para 3); the due-diligence route (Tehran Hostages; Velásquez) leaves domestic and intimate-partner violence as a residual category. Charlesworth and Chinkin (2000) treat this as the paradigm public/private divide.
  4. Article 48 under-use. Until Gambia v Myanmar 2022 and South Africa v Israel 2024, erga omnes partes jurisdiction was barely used by African and Asian states. TWAIL (Chimni, Anghie) reads this as cost, political risk and docket access — not a doctrinal defect. The shift is real but fragile.
  5. Non-binding form. The GA has repeatedly declined to convert ARSIWA into a treaty. Pellet defends the choice; critics note that customary status across articles is uneven, and countermeasures (Arts 49–54) and carve-outs (Arts 20–25) remain contested.
  6. Aggravated responsibility. Articles 40–41's duties of cooperation and non-recognition surface in Wall 2004 and Chagos 2019 but depend on collective political will rarely forthcoming. Simma/Paulus identify this norm-enforcement gap as the regime's soft spot.

5. EVALUATE — the position to take

Hold three anchor positions in tension. Crawford defends ARSIWA as a pragmatic compromise: secondary rules silent on primary obligations, secured broad acceptance, but uneven coverage on countermeasures, circumstances precluding wrongfulness, and aggravated responsibility.

Charlesworth and Chinkin push back: framing private conduct as residual reproduces the public/private split that has historically rendered VAW invisible. The Istanbul Convention 2011 is a primary-rules patch on a secondary-rules problem; the Articles' silence remains.

Pellet's defence of the non-binding form is structural: judicial uptake without the encumbrances of treaty negotiation is the source of authority. The position to take is not "treaty good / soft-law bad" but textured: ARSIWA is a successful codification of a contested middle — core (Arts 1, 2, 4, 31, 34) is custom, outer rules (8, 40–41, 48–54) contested, and the contested zones are exactly where the political work has yet to be done. Take the position; defend with the cases; acknowledge the cost.

6. Academic voices

ARSIWA was pragmatic codification: secondary rules silent on primary obligations to attract broad state acceptance. Authority is judicial uptake, not treaty form — uneven across countermeasures and aggravated responsibility. (Paraphrased.)

— James Crawford, State Responsibility: The General Part (Cambridge 2013).

Framing private conduct as residual — addressed only through due diligence — reproduces the public/private divide international law has historically internalised, leaving violence against women as a doctrinal patch rather than central to the architecture. (Paraphrased.)

— Hilary Charlesworth & Christine Chinkin, The Boundaries of International Law (MUP 2000) 148–151.

Not converting ARSIWA into a treaty is the structural reason for its success: courts can absorb it as custom without the encumbrances of diplomatic negotiation, with customary status built case by case. (Paraphrased.)

— Alain Pellet, "The Definition of Responsibility in International Law", in Crawford, Pellet & Olleson (eds), The Law of International Responsibility (Oxford 2010).

The bifurcation between "effective control" for state responsibility and "overall control" for conflict classification is uncomfortable: conduct that internationalises a conflict for war-crimes prosecution may not attribute for state reparation. (Paraphrased.)

— Antonio Cassese, "The Nicaragua and Tadić Tests Revisited" (2007) 18 EJIL 649.

Article 48 bridges the bilateralist architecture inherited from diplomatic protection and the community-interest claims of the modern multilateral order. Its under-use until Gambia v Myanmar 2022 was access and cost, not doctrine. (Paraphrased.)

— Bruno Simma & Andreas Paulus, "The 'International Community'" (1998) 9 EJIL 266.

7. Common pitfalls

Reciting Articles 1 and 2 as the whole answer. The marks are in attribution (Arts 4, 5, 7, 8, 11), standing (42 vs 48) and consequences (30, 31, 34). Anchor every claim in an article number.
Conflating Nicaragua, Tadić and Bosnia v Serbia. The trilogy: Nicaragua 1986 paras 86–93, 115 (effective control); Tadić 1999 para 131 (overall control, IHL); Bosnia v Serbia 2007 paras 396–407 (rejecting Tadić for state responsibility). Most-tested point in the topic.
Claiming ARSIWA is "non-binding" and stopping. Not a treaty; ICJ treats it as customary. Cite Bosnia v Serbia 2007 para 385 on Article 4, Armed Activities 2005 paras 213–214 on Article 7, Climate Change AO 2025 paras 428, 442. Soft-law form, hard-law content.
Forgetting due diligence. Private conduct unattributable does not end the analysis — the state can be responsible for its own omission (Tehran Hostages; Velásquez). Istanbul Convention 2011 Art 5(2) codifies for VAW.
Treating Article 48 as a curiosity. Gambia v Myanmar 2022 paras 107–108, 112 and South Africa v Israel 2024 para 33 moved 48(1)(a) from page to docket; Climate Change AO 2025 paras 440–443 confirms 48(1)(b).

8. Exam answer skeleton

  1. FRAME. Answer-line: ARSIWA is a successful codification whose ICJ uptake (Bosnia v Serbia 2007 para 385) converted soft-law form into custom; strain lies in Article 8, silence on private violence, Article 48 under-use until 2022–2024.
  2. EXPLAIN. Arts 1–2 (principle, two elements). Breach by omission (Tehran Hostages 1980 para 67; Climate Change AO 2025 para 428). Attribution: Arts 4 (organs); 5 (delegated); 7 (ultra vires — Caire 1929; Armed Activities 2005 paras 213–214); 8 (the trilogy); 11 (Tehran Hostages para 74). Due diligence (Velázquez 1988; Istanbul 2011 Art 5(2)).
  3. STANDING. Art 42 vs Art 48. 48(1)(a) — Gambia v Myanmar 2022; South Africa v Israel 2024. 48(1)(b) — Barcelona Traction 1970 para 33; Climate Change AO 2025 paras 442–443.
  4. CONSEQUENCES. Art 30 cessation; Art 31 reparation (Chorzów 1928); Art 34 forms; Arts 40–41 aggravated responsibility.
  5. CRITIQUE & CONCLUDE. Crawford; Charlesworth & Chinkin; Pellet; Cassese; Simma/Paulus and TWAIL. Take a position. Defend it.

9. Checklist