INTRODUCTION

Responsibility is the term used by international lawyers to denote the idea that some entity can be blamed for undesirable behaviour. The main form, relatively well settled, is the responsibility of states. It was confirmed by the PCIJ in the 1920s, in the Chorzów Factory case, that the possibility of being held responsible was the price to pay for being able to participate in international law. Consequently, it would seem that, in principle, all subjects of international law can be held responsible for their behaviour, not just states, but also international organizations, liberation movements and even NGOs. That said though, specific responsibility regimes have only been developed with respect to states, international organizations and individuals, and even then much of the law is rather sketchy and incipient. To some extent, the gap is being filled by speaking of accountability (as opposed to responsibility) of companies and NGOs, in addition to corporate social responsibility. It is worth pointing out though that on these topics hard and fast legal rules are few and far between. The only firmly established set of rules in existence relates to the responsibility of states, and these rules will be central to this chapter. In addition, some attention will be paid to the responsibility or accountability of other actors.

As a terminological matter, responsibility is usually (but not always) distinguished from liability and accountability. Liability usually denotes the existence of a financial obligation; someone is liable to pay compensation. Hence, a finding of responsibility may come with a finding of liability; X is responsible for wrongdoing, and thus liable to pay compensation. Accountability is the broadest of the terms, and in its more sophisticated versions may signify the existence of a relationship whereby someone is held to explain and justify their behaviour to someone else. This may involve the law of responsibility, but need not: one can also meaningfully speak of democratic accountability, e.g. where a person is expected to justify her behaviour to a parliament rather than before a court. In international law generally, the link between responsibility and courts is best taken lightly; while many courts exist, compulsory jurisdiction is rare; hence, responsibility is often also discussed in diplomatic practice, and not just before a court or tribunal.