Counterintuiting Countermeasures

Abstract

The adoption in August 2001 by the International Law Commission (ILC) of its articles on responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts well and truly brings to a close the twentieth century’s engagement with international law as (in Martti Koskenniemi’s memorable refashioning of George Kennan’s savage critique) a “gentle civilizer of nations.” Including the entry into force of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the seven pillars of international legal codification have been completed with some form of assistance by the ILC: diplomatic immunities, the law of the sea, a comprehensive law of treaties, the Nuremberg Principles, andjurisdictional immunities of states. Indeed, the articles on state responsibility may represent an even greater methodological challenge for international law codification because they pose fundamental questions regarding the identity and nature of states. Like the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States and the ILC’s own somewhat obtuse efforts on the international law of state succession, the articles on state responsibility go to the intellectual core of public international law by delimiting the character of states and the nature of their obligations when they interact with other international actors. Perhaps, then, it is no surprise that the ILC’s journey into that doctrinal realm took over half a century, and consumed the attention of five special rapporteurs and countless Commission members.