Abstract
In Article 41 of its Draft Articles on State Responsibility, the International Law Commission gave expression to community interests in relation to serious breaches of peremptory norms, without giving in to the pitfalls of an over-progressive development of the subject. However, when it came to the rules on invocation of responsibility, the ILC fell back into a stale, bilateralistic response. This imbalance, more than being a symptom of schizophrenia or a sign of disingenuousness, is probably the undesired result of a dichotomy in the ILC Draft between 'serious breaches of peremptory norms' and 'violations of obligations owed to the international community as a whole'. Yet, overall, the ILC's choices accurately reflect the current transitional state of international law.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
