This chapter concerns state responsibility. Responsibility is based upon the existence of an international legal obligation in force between the states in question and a violation of that obligation imputable to the state responsible, with consequential loss or damage. The nature of the fault is discussed, as are issues as to the identity of offending persons or organs, as well as the existence of direction or control by the state. A variety of circumstances may preclude wrongfulness and thus responsibility. For example, consent or the existence of a lawful act causing the damage, such as the exercise of self-defence, or where the act constitutes a lawful countermeasure where the other state has committed a prior unlawful act. Force majeure constitutes a further example. The consequences of internationally wrongful acts include cessation or reparation. The question of serious breaches of peremptory norms (jus cogens) is also noted and the nationality of claims is analysed. The need for exhaustion of local remedies is discussed, as is the treatment of aliens and foreign property in this context.

This chapter concerns international environmental law. It commences with a consideration of an argued human right to a clean environment and the increasing case law on this issue. The relationship between economic development and environmental protection is also addressed, before the key question of state responsibility is surveyed. The appropriate standard, whether or not actual damage is caused, the question of transboundary harm arising from hazardous activities, environmental impact assessments, the precautionary and polluter-pays principles are examined before turning to the range of international treaties on this topic. The question of atmospheric pollution is addressed before the chapter turns to a consideration of climate change and the various international instruments concerning this, including the important Paris Agreement of 2015. Environmental issues and outer space are then discussed, followed by a section on international watercourses and one on ultra-hazardous activities. Questions as to the requirements for the provision of information and assistance are covered.

This chapter explores the golden era of the classical doctrine of civil war, which lasted until the middle of the nineteenth century. Its focus is on the Spanish American revolutions and the emergence of the law of neutrality in the context of civil wars. The several case examples illustrate how the familiar questions and disputes from the previous chapters persisted and developed in state practice throughout the period. In addition to the Spanish American revolutions, the chapter also discusses the impact of European and American revolutionary ideologies on international movements and illustrates the significant practical limitations of the classical doctrine: while it stemmed from the practice of the transatlantic world, elsewhere in the world it often seemed absent or selectively applied to deny the legal standing of indigenous and colonial insurgents, or to legitimise local rebellions within Oriental empires.

The rules of state responsibility are set out in the International Law Commission’s (ILC) Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. This chapter introduces the basic features of the ILC’s Articles on State Responsibility, beginning with an explanation of what constitutes an internationally wrongful act. It then discusses the circumstances precluding wrongfulness that may be invoked by states seeking to avoid responsibility for an internationally wrongful act. The chapter then covers the aftermath of an internationally wrongful act, which can involve legal consequences, such as reparations, as well as countermeasures. This chapter focuses specifically on the responsibility of states, rather than the responsibility of international organizations or individuals.

A framing case study examines Russia’s 2007 cyberattacks on Estonia. Then the chapter examines how states break international law. The chapter first discusses the law of state responsibility, including: (1) determining responsibility by assessing attribution and wrongfulness; and (2) the consequences of state responsibility, such as cessation, prevention, and reparation. The chapter then examines various theoretical accounts of why states break international law, including the enforcement, managerial, and flexibility perspectives.

Chapter 11 examines issues of private liability and state responsibility for environmental harms inflicted on third-party states due to a hazardous activity undertaken by a state or by its nationals. We analyze the liability of private enterprises for oil spills, hazardous waste transfers, and nuclear accidents. We scrutinize how the strict but limited liability regime has come under fire, owing to environmental damage that exceeds the liability limits provided for by international conventions. States have tried to address the limitations of private liability regimes by establishing international funds put together by industry associations or the states themselves to supplement the compensation made available by the operators of hazardous activities. This chapter further explains how states can be held internationally liable for hazardous activities that take place within their territory because of their failure to meet the standard of due diligence; and how they can be held responsible for wrongful activities.

Chapter 19 looks at two landmark decisions that were issued after the submission of the full manuscript of this book for publication: the Advisory Opinion of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea on climate change and marine protection, and the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland. The authors situate these decisions within the broader context of climate litigation, examining their implications for future cases and drawing connections to the themes explored in other chapters. They demonstrate how these decisions both reflect and advance emerging best practice in climate jurisprudence, potentially inspiring further innovation based on science and rigorous legal reasoning.

International environmental law provides a useful example of a rapidly developing field of international law, and demonstrates some of the difficulties involved in resolving modern global problems within the traditional legal framework. The environment did not feature in the Charter of the United Nations and none of the constituent bodies of the United Nations was expressly given an environmental mandate. Since the 1960s, however, and reflecting a similar trend in Australian domestic law, we can trace a steady growth in international law concerned with environmental issues. Early developments primarily focussed on particular instances of harm, resulting in international agreements that deal with a single issue such as the prevention of one type of pollution or protection of a particular wildlife species. As truly global problems became apparent - for example, depletion of the ozone layer, and global warming - the international community has developed agreements that are broader and more strategic in their approach.

A number of factors must be considered when reflecting on State responsibility and they are assessed in this chapter. First, what constitutes an internationally wrongful act for which a State may be responsible? Second, what conduct may be attributed to the State? Third, what reparation must a State make in the event it is held responsible for a wrongful act? Fourth, what defences might be available to a State that would preclude a finding of wrongfulness? Related issues such as diplomatic protection, nationality of claims, and the exhaustion of local remedies are also considered in this chapter.

Chapter 15 on State Responsibility provides an in-depth exploration of the circumstances under which States can be held responsible for climate change. The author starts by outlining the fundamental principles and conditions for State responsibility under international law. Her analysis bridges the gap between international and domestic law, shedding light on how each legal sphere influences the shape and contours of State responsibility in relation to climate change. Further, she enriches her analysis with insights drawn from key climate cases that have tested the limits of State responsibility. These cases reveal how courts and quasi-judicial bodies are grappling with the challenges of attributing climate harms to State actions and omissions, and the implications of holding States accountable for these harms. In distilling emerging best practice, the author identifies innovative judicial interpretations and legal strategies that have expanded the ambit of State responsibility in climate litigation.

If, at the beginning of the twentieth century, thanks also to the influential works of Triepel and Anzilotti, the law of state responsibility came to be regarded as a distinct field, it was only in the period between the two world wars that this area of international law became the object of an intense scientific debate. The present contribution aims to assess the development of the law of state responsibility until 1945 by focusing on the events that provided a major impulse for this development, on the attempt at codification, on the case law of international courts and tribunals, and on the new general theories developed by authors such as Strupp, Kelsen, Lauterpacht, Eagleton and Ago. While the contribution aims to deal comprehensively with the law of state responsibility and its development in the period under consideration, particular emphasis will be placed on three issues: the problems associated with attribution of wrongful conduct; the consequences of international responsibility, and in particular the debate over the role of sanctions against wrongful conduct – the early signs of the emergence of a multilateral dimension of state responsibility.

This chapter covers the right to personal integrity under international human rights law. It examines the normative foundations, interpretation, scope, and international obligations related to the right to integrity, including protection against torture and inhumane treatment. The chapter discusses the legal standards for protecting personal integrity, the mechanisms for monitoring and enforcing these standards, and the role of international bodies in addressing violations. It also highlights the importance of preventive measures, victim support, and accountability mechanisms in ensuring the protection of personal integrity.

The perpetration of torture in peacetime almost inevitably involves the responsibility of a State. Indeed, State responsibility is at the heart of the international human rights law prohibition of torture, which also applies in a situation of armed conflict. In the case of torture as a war crime, a crime against humanity, or genocide, however, an entity other than a State may be directly responsible for acts of torture. Nevertheless, as a matter of general international law, given the seriousness of the violation of a jus cogens norm, in all situations the victims and survivors of torture are entitled to a remedy to help compensate for the harm they have suffered. The same principle should pertain to other forms of ill-treatment even though their prohibition is not also a peremptory rule of international law. The consequences of being tortured for the individual and his or her family can be both devastating and lifelong. Rehabilitation may help to turn a victim into a survivor, but it will never fully dispel the harm that has been inflicted. Some of the techniques developed by dedicated experts and non-governmental organizations to promote physical and psycho-social rehabilitation are referred to in this chapter.