English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The invocation of responsibility for the breach of an international obligation is a matter involving numerous substantive issues. This paper examines only two - the law of diplomatic protection and the process of international adjudication. Both these issues raise particular problems where the obligation in question is a peremptory norm of international law. All states have a legal interest in ensuring compliance with peremptory norms, whether or not they or their nationals are materially injured by any given breach. That this entails a multilateral, as opposed to a bilateral, delictual relationship was recognized by the International Law Commission when it drafted the 2001 Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. Although Articles 42 and 48 of these Articles recognize that states not directly injured by the breach of a peremptory obligation are entitled to invoke the responsibility of the delinquent state, these two Articles are not self-contained. In particular, they are expressly subject to Articles 44 and 45. These preclude the invocation of responsibility unless the nationality of claims rule is satisfied (Article 44) or if the injured state has validly waived or acquiesced in the lapse of the claim (Article 45). These conditions restrict, if not negate, the practical utility of Articles 42 and 48.

The Invocation of Responsibility for the Breach of 'Obligations under Peremptory Norms of General International Law'