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 Tools annual

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 Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

There is a well-established principle of international law according to which whenever an insurrectional movement succeeds in creating a new state, the new state should be held responsible for obligations arising from internationally wrongful acts committed by the insurrectional movement against third states during the armed struggle for independence. The principle is clearly stated in Article 10(2) of the International Law Commission's Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. The issue has, surprisingly, not been the object of great attention by legal scholars. This article examines the different possible theoretical foundations in support of this principle. It is submitted that the new state should remain responsible for acts which took place before its independence because there is a 'structural' and 'organic' continuity of the legal personality of the organization of the rebels with that of the new state. There is, however, only limited state practice in support of this principle. The analysis of the concrete application of this principle for different types of succession of states leads the author to conclude that it should find application in all cases because of its fair and equitable consequences.

New State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts by an Insurrectional Movement