UN International Law Commission Research Articles

National legislation as a source of the obligation to extradite or prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare)

The article, based on the study of doctrinal developments and the practice of states, reveals the issue of national legislation as a source of the obligation to extradite or prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare). The article highlights the position of the UN International Law Commission on the role of national legislation and state practice in implementing the obligation to extradite or prosecute; the practice of certain states (Finland, Estonia, Macedonia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine) regarding the legal establishment of the obligation to extradite or prosecute is considered; the measures that states should follow at the national level in order to effectively implement the principle of aut dedere aut judicare are defined.
 The article establishes that the determination of the legal nature and scope of the obligation aut dedere aut judicare is possible through the study of various types of sources in which this obligation is established (treaties, customs, international and national court decisions, national legislation of states). The obligation to extradite or prosecute has traditionally been established by international treaties of various types, the number of which is constantly increasing. The participation of many states in such international treaties (of a universal, regional or bilateral nature) is a reflection of the existing national practice of the states regarding the implementation of the principle of aut dedere aut judicare.
 It is substantiated that, along with treaties and customary (at least for the most serious international crimes) enshrining the principle of aut dedere aut judicare, national criminal law is an important source of the obligation to extradite or prosecute. The effective implementation of the principle of aut dedere aut judicare in each specific case will depend on the state’s fulfillment of both its international obligations and the implementation of the necessary measures (in particular, regarding the establishment of jurisdiction over offenders and criminal offenses) defined in national legislation with regard to extradition and prosecution.

International legal protection of the environment from criminal acts during armed conflicts

The article is dedicated to revealing the state of legal provision for the international legal protection of the environment from criminal acts during armed conflicts. Attention is drawn to the fact that international legal obligations of states regarding environmental protection during armed conflict are only contained in a few environmental treaties, but simultaneously in special agreements that are applicable in the presence of armed conflict and are sources of international humanitarian law. It is noted that from the general principles of the impact of war on international treaties, it follows that the termination of an international treaty at the onset of war is an exception to the rules, not a mandatory act. According to Articles 61 and 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 regarding impossibility of performance and fundamental change of circumstances, it is established that war is not a basis for the automatic termination of treaty obligations, including environmental ones, by the parties to the conflict who have become parties in peacetime, which is also stated in the Draft Articles on the Impact of Armed Conflicts on Treaties of 2011 prepared by the UN International Law Commission, which includes a reference to a provisional list of treaties whose subject matter implies that they continue to apply during armed conflict, among them – treaties on international environmental protection.
 The standpoint regarding the necessity of developing a codified international instrument, which would consolidate the currently disparate provisions for regulating environmental protection issues in conditions of armed conflict, compensation for damage caused, etc., as a source of international environmental law, is supported. It would also address existing problems in legal application, such as the narrow and imprecise definition of the threshold level criteria required to prove environmental damage during armed conflict.

Violations of human environmental rights in Ukraine during the period of martial law (example of the Kaкhov disaster)

The article is devoted to the analysis of the violation of environmental human rights in Ukraine during the period of martial law from February 24, 2022 (using the example of the blowing up of the Kakhovska HPP (Kakhovska Hydro Power Plant) dam on June 6, 2023). Environmental rights include human rights to a safe ecological environment, that is, the right to a clean environment, fresh air, unpolluted land, good-quality water, high-quality, safe and harmless food products, unpolluted household items. In Ukraine, environmental rights are recognized and enshrined in the 1996 Constitution.
 It is noted that once a full-scale invasion begins, environmental hazards increase, and the damage done to Ukraine becomes much more obvious.
 It has been investigated that on June 6, 2023, around 02:50, a global environmental disaster occurred in Ukraine - the explosion of the Kakhovska HPP dam. The Kakhov reservoir began to lose water rapidly. Downstream of the Dnieper, settlements began to be flooded, including Kherson. The Kakhov disaster has all the signs of an ecological disaster.
 It has been proven that the consequences of the terrorist attack turned out to be worse than predicted. The undermining of the Kakhovska HPP dam caused serious environmental consequences, which have not fully manifested themselves yet. The rights to a safe ecological environment, guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine and the Principles of Environmental Protection during Armed Conflicts, developed by the UN International Law Commission in 2022, have been violated.
 It has been established that environmental disasters of this scale usually cannot be limited territorially, they negatively affect changes in ecosystems, which causes climate changes in the region. Therefore, the consequences of the Kakhov disaster are felt by themselves and with a high probability will be felt by other states in the future. The international community should join forces to ensure compensation for the damage caused to the environment, and take all permissible legal measures aimed at stopping the violation of environmental rights, as well as restoring the violated rights.
 The authors are of the opinion that the protection of environmental human rights in Ukraine will remain problematic for the next decades after the end of hostilities and the abolition of martial law.

Basic Conditions for Application of Necessity as a Circumstance that Precludes Bringing to International Legal Responsibility

The article examines a situation of necessity as a circumstance that precludes bringing to international legal responsibility. The relevance of the article is due, on the one hand, to the growing crises in modern international relations, and on the other hand, the lack of comprehensive studies of necessity in the Ukrainian science of international law. The purpose of the article is to determine the specifics of the international legal grounds for states and international intergovernmental organizations to apply to the state of necessity, as circumstance that precludes bringing to international legal responsibility. The article uses general philosophical, general scientific, special scientific and legal methods of research, in particular: dialectical, formal-logical, analysis and synthesis, comparative-legal, and logical-legal. The article analyzes Art. 25 of the draft articles on the responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts prepared by the UN International Law Commission and submitted to the UN General Assembly in 2001 (UNGA resolution 56/83 (A/RES/56/83) of December 12, 2001). The relevant practice of a number of international courts and arbitrations was analyzed, in particular: the International Court of Justice, the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The main conditions for the lawful use of necessity are identified, and a forecast of the areas of its further application is given.

BRICS Expanding in the Light of the Principles of International Law

Introduction. Starting from January 1, 2024, Argentina3, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates should acquire membership of the alliance with the former acronym “BRICS” due to the decision adopted by its XV Summit held on August 22–24, 2023. According to one of the official acts classified as a guide for Russian National Policy in International Affairs, namely the “Concept of Russia’s Participation in BRICS”, approved by the President of the Russian Federation back in 2013, BRICS is to be deemed as a valid tool for strengthening the interstate cooperation. Taking into account other dimensions, it is necessary to develop a comprehensive strategy for cooperation between the alliance countries and define mutually agreed principles of partnership. Theoretical Basis. Methods. The research provides the analysis of the doctrinal positions of the most qualified domestic and expatriate publicists in international law, effective international treaties and international legal acts of the United Nations, official documents (declarations) of the annual BRICS summits, materials of the UN International Law Commission regarding its papers on the topic “Peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens)”, outcome of the International Court of Justice practice as of the main judicial organ within the United Nations. In the course of performing the research, a number of general and particular scientific methods of cognition were used, including methods of systemic, structural and functional analysis, formal logic, deduction and induction, the method of comparative law, formal legal analysis and historical retrospective approach. The latter are especially productive in the study of the genesis and evolution of the concepts of “principle” in international law, “international organization”, integration, “paraorganization”, “multipolar world”, etc. Results. Both the BRICS emergence and expanding stand as direct challenge to such an international order, which proceeds from the inviolability of the existence of a single “decision-making center” (i. e., the United States and its satellites) as its core basis. In this aspect, resultant from the outcome of the XIV and XV summits held in 2022 and 2023, as well as of a new configuration of multilateralism previously initiated by China in Johannesburg (July 2018) for states that expressed ambition to cooperate with BRICS (PartNIR – “Partnership in the field of a new Industrial Revolution”), in the functioning of BRICS have been developed atypical models for involving third countries into partnership, including interaction with the countries of the region of the state chairing the group, which is carried out within the “BRICS-outreach” format. In light of the above, the study of such aspects pertaining to the theory and practice of international law as the application of the basic principles of international law and jus cogens norms to such cooperation in order to implement multilateralism, as well as the development of special principles of cooperation within the framework of BRICS should be raised to the rank of a specific subject of analysis. Discussion and Conclusion. In the course of the research, certain theses were formulated which relate to the analysis of current relationships of the “five” – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, accompanied by the assessment of the prospects for the forthcoming future in cooperation of the alliance under new formats. Thus, within the framework of BRICS, preference is given to multilateral or bilateral agreements, as opposed to the institutionalization (which involves coordinating the relationships of the involved parties by creating an international organization/institution). The identification of common features with universally widespread forms, on the one hand, and the distinctive properties of the international legal instruments used by the BRICS, on the other one, in no way deprives the analyzed segment of interstate cooperation of the “cementing” elements inherent to the entire system of international law, which include “basic principles”, “peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens)”, as well as sectoral and special principles of legal regulation of interstate (“inter-governmental”) public relationship.

FROM THE SECTORAL ANGLE TO THE GENERAL RULES OR HOW THE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY SPACE OBJECTS INFLUENCED THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF STATE RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY?

This article discusses the impact the 1972 Liability Convention exerted upon the further discussion on state responsibility and liability rules within the UN International Law Commission. The question it seeks to answer is the issue of how, and to what extent, its provisions influenced the development of international law on the responsibility of states and international organizations and the institution of international liability of states. Most notably, the present article demonstrates how the Liability Convention served as a reference point for the International Law Commission’s works struggling to codify the general rules of states’ liability. It also examines the factors that, from the mid- 1990s onward, have steadily diminished its role in the ongoing debate and how it finally informed the final shape of the 2006 Draft principles on the allocation of loss in the case of transboundary harm arising from hazardous activities. Furthermore, it analyses the 2001 Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) and the 2011 Articles on Responsibility of International Organizations (ARIO). With this in mind, it is put forward that the differences mandate strict differentiation between international responsibility and international liability at the theoretical level. Nonetheless, the Liability Convention could furnish patterns based on which, notably, the institution of joint and several responsibility of states and international organizations, respectively, have been modelled. Therefore, it is concluded that the lex specialis and the self-contained character of the regime established under this Convention effectively limit its impact on the development of international regimes of responsibility and liability of states and international organizations. However, they do not eliminate them altogether. Ironically, in practical terms, the Convention marked the 2001 ARSIWA and, indirectly, the 2011 ARIO more decisively than the 2006 Draft Principles, even though the Convention – similar to the DP 2006 – addresses states’ liability, not their responsibility.

Some Aspects of the Concept of State Responsibility for Internationally Illegal Acts

The article examines some topical issues of the theory and practice of state responsibility for internationally illegal acts, which is of great importance in the doctrine of modern international law. Doctrinal approaches to defining the concept of internationally illegal action of the state are analyzed. The importance of codification and further development of international law in the field of responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts is noted. It is noted that due to the systematization of doctrine and judicial practice in 2001 it was possible to substantiate the latest doctrinal definition of responsibility in international law for international illegal actions of the state, which found its implementation and enshrined in the Articles of UN Resolution56/83 of 12 December 2001. The Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts stipulate that every State that has committed an internationally wrongful act is liable for it. The Articles define the elements of internationally illegal actions of the state. It is noted that an internationally wrongful act of a state occurs when any conduct constituting an act or omission is a) appropriated to a state under international law; and(b) constitutes a violation of that State’s international legal obligation. Thus, the illegal behavior of the state can be both active and in action of the state. An important role in the preparation of the Articles belongs to the Commission on International Law. The scientific views of the members of the UN International Law Commission on international legal activities of states are analyzed. Thus, the modern doctrine of the state’s responsibility in international law for international illegal acts is based on the recognition of the state’s illegal behavior inviolation of the international legal obligations of this state under international law. Therefore, the issues of international legal responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts need to be enshrined in the Universal International Convention on the Liability of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, which will contribute to the progressive development of the law of international responsibility. Key words: international law, state, responsibility, international wrongful act, doctrine.

China's early contribution to international lawmaking with particular focus on the role of Dr. Liang Yuen-Li

ABSTRACT Dr. Liang Yuen-Li (1903–1979) was a diplomat and lawyer from China, who was one of the founders of the UN International Law Commission (ILC) in 1947, serving as its first Secretary from 1949 to 1964. Having participated in the Hague Codification Conference of 1930, he had great authority in the ILC, and by his leadership led to the success in producing a number of important codification conventions in 1950s and 60s. After he had left the ILC, however, its productivity substantially declined. It is hoped today that his legacy be revived in the efforts for progressive development and codification of international law and the ultimate revitalization of the ILC.

The importance of a doctrine in the contemporary international law codification

The article analyzes the key methods of legal acts systematization from the general law theory perspective and describes the peculiarities of the procedure for the arrangement, improvement and the update of normative legal acts in international law.It is noted that codification is the most important law-making method in the contemporary international law, and the UN International Law Commission is one of the key institutions that successfully carries out this work.It is pointed out that the Commission has invested a considerable amount of effort into clarification and systematization of main sources of international law such as an international treaty, an international custom, and general principles of law.
 It is emphasized that the interaction and linkage between the main sources of international law and the subsidiary means for the determination of international law rules, i.e. court decisions and the doctrines of the most qualified international lawyers, have largely remained vague, complicated and unregulated to date.It is indicated that a scientific doctrine is ambiguously applied in the practice of international courts which justify their rulings with regard to the judicial decisions and works of the UN International Law Commission. Similarly, the Special Rapporteurs of the Commission refer to the practice of international and national courts and the scientific doctrine.A special model of international legal norms codification during the third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea involving the application of innovative and unprecedented negotiation methods and procedures is also highlighted. It is underlined that the successful preparation of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is attributed to the fact that the text of the future treaty was gradually drafted during the conference itself, the proposals were submitted by individual states or the groups of states, legal experts and lawyers had a special influence on the formation of the treaty provisions.It is emphasized that a detailed study of the doctrine’s influence on the codification of international law will enable its subjects to better understand the main practical and theoretical approaches adopted by international courts and international organizations in the decision-making procedure.

2022년 제73차 회기 유엔 국제법위원회 작업현황과 제77차 유엔총회 산하 제6위원회 논의 결과

2022년 제73차 회기 유엔 국제법위원회 작업현황과 제77차 유엔총회 산하 제6위원회 논의 결과

Possible environmental solutions to oil spills in the Black Sea due to the Russian invasion (on the examples of the U.S. and international experience dealing with oil spills)

The Black Sea is an inland sea, that is basically isolated from the World Ocean. Even though it is connected only with the Mediterranean Sea through the Turkish Straits, the Black Sea is very environmentally vulnerable. Armed conflict invariably has a negative impact on nature. Oil spills that happened because of Russian invasion have radically changed the ecosystems of the Black Sea, and subsequently seriously threatened its biodiversity, and ecosystem as a whole. During the last 20-30 years, even before the full-scale Russian invasion, specialists of the Ukrainian Scientific Center for Marine Ecology, together with the EMBLAS project, were deeply worried about changes in the Black Sea [1].
             Even more rapid change in the Black Sea ecosystem happened in June 2022 when Russian forces used two anti-ship missiles to target an abandoned cargo tanker adrift in the northern Black Sea. The vessel was loaded with around 600 tons of diesel fuel. The abandoned tankers, with thousands of barrels of diesel fuel, constituted an “environmental time bomb [2].” 
             As to the existing framework, in 1992, six coastal countries (Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, the Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine) signed and ratified the Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea from Pollution. Since then, the Black Sea Pollution Protection Commission has been responsible for the sustainable management of the Black Sea. The real effectiveness of this Commission turned out to be very low considering the fact that not a single act was adopted for the preservation of the Black Sea in terms of Russian invasion since February 24th 2022.
             Indeed, there is some legal protection for nature under the laws of armed conflict too, although these laws are ambiguous and have strict limitations. For instance, there is a set of Draft Principles for environmental preservation in relation to armed conflict, which was just adopted by the UN International Law Commission. 
             Thus, in the absence of adequate international mechanisms to address oil spills immediately, it is worth to take into account well established US Response System as the federal government mechanism to respond to discharges of oil into navigable waters of the US. While this system functions through a cooperative network of federal, state, and local agencies, Ukraine lacks this coordinated cooperation, and cannot respond properly to the significant contamination of the Black Sea.
             Thus, we will reveal the existing international mechanisms to combat oil spills. Then, we will mainly focus on US Governing policies that deal with oil spills on the Exxon Valdez oil spill example, applying it to the existing policies in Ukraine. 

The relationship between general principles of international law and Article 38(1) of the ICJ statute: A law of the sea perspective

A central controversy relating to the UN International Law Commission’s ongoing project “General Principles of Law” is whether general principles of law “formed within the international legal system” could be regarded as part of Article 38(1)(c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which provides that the ICJ shall apply “the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations” in its decisions. This article examines the matter from a law of the sea perspective. Based on a comprehensive review of international judicial practice relating to law of the sea issues as well as the travaux préparatoires of the ICJ Statute, it is found that there is insufficient support for the inclusion of general principles of international law into the category of ‘general principles of law’ under Article 38(1)(c). From a lex ferenda perspective, however, instead of insisting on the two elements for the formation of customs which are rarely followed in judicial practice, it seems better to recognize that general principles of international law are part of general principles of law and endeavor to find consensus on the meaning of “recognition” under Article 38(1)(c).

In Memoriam: Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade (1947–2022)

1. I must apologize at the outset that this eulogy for Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade is very personal.1 I first met Antônio in the summer of 1974 at the Centre for Studies and Research of the Hague Academy of International Law. In the following summer in 1975, we both participated in the International Law Seminar organized by the UN International Law Commission (ILC). We had become very good friends ever since. I was a member of the Curatorium of the Hague Academy in 2004 to 2016, overlapping his membership during those years, when we met at least twice a year either in The Hague or in Paris. In recent years, it was my joy to meet him at the biannual meetings of the Institut de Droit International (IDI). In connection with this Journal, we served together as members of the Board of Honorary Editors for a long time. 2. When I first met him in 1974, he was telling me that he had been writing his PhD dissertation at Cambridge on Developments in the Rule of Exhaustion of Local Remedies in International Law, which was 1,700 pages. After this, I heard that the Faculty of Law of the University of Cambridge had to decide to change the regulations to limit the length of PhD dissertation to 100,000 words. He published the dissertation in 1977 in 2 volumes. This was the beginning of his career as a prolific writer who ultimately authored 30 books and 475 monographs and articles. His last major publication was International Law for Humankind: Towards a New Jus Gentium, the revised and adapted version of his General Course on Public International Law of the Hague Academy of International Law (Monograph 10, 3rd ed., 2020), an earlier edition of which was reviewed in this Journal (17 Chinese JIL (2018), 1155–1158).

The coastal state obligation not to impede the laying or maintenance of submarine pipelines on the continental shelf according to United Nations convention on the law of the sea

The exploitation of submarine cables and pipelines, notwithstanding its transboundary character, has become an inseparable element of the world economy over the last century. However, this maritime activity is associated with a high risk, and accidentally occurring events. Both may supervene as caused by human venture and natural factors, that may lead to damage to seabed pipelines or weaken their structure, which subsequently may threaten the safety of the marine environment. Suffice it to say that the intermission of the pipeline could lead to an environmental disaster comparable to the consequences of an oil spill in case of the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil rig fire. The 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), among the freedoms of the high seas mentioned in Article 87 refers to, inter alia, the freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines. In addition however, under article 112, UNCLOS states that this principle is fully applicable to those areas of the seas that extend beyond the outer limits of the continental shelf established by Coastal States. However, on the shelf itself this freedom is limited by the Coastal State's right under Article 79(2) of the UNCLOS to use reasonable measures to explore and exploit the shelf's natural resources and to prevent, reduce and control pipeline pollution. The next paragraph of the above mentioned article 79 also requires the consent of the Coastal state to route the pipeline whereas the last paragraph, requires the States concerned to pay due regard to the laying and maintenance of pipelines. This article is putting forward the analyzes of the scope of the indicated in UNCLOS regulations, based on the work of the UN International Law Commission, as well as documentation of the 1st and 3rd conferences on the law of the sea, in reference to the practice of states and the judgments of international tribunals. The article also refers to the theories presented in the contemporary doctrine on the subject. The core of the considerations contained in this article is a comprehensive approach to the concept of reasonable measures, and the way of interpreting Article 79 of UNCLOS. that comes along with it.

The works done by the UN International Law Commission during the 72nd session(2021) and the discussion done at the 6th Committee of the UN General Assembly(76th session, 2021)

Amid the Covid-19 pandemic, the 72nd session of the ILC was convened in Geneva in 2021 after a year-long suspension based on the UNGA Decision 74/566 (2020). During the 72nd session, the ILC concluded the second reading of two topics, namely “the Protection of the atmosphere” that consists of 12 draft guidelines together with commentaries and “Provisional application of treaties” comprising 12 draft guidelines and a draft annex, containing examples of provisions on provisional application of treaties, together with commentaries thereto. The ILC continued its deliberations on the other topics: the topic of “Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction”, the ILC adopted 6 draft articles on procedural aspects and safeguards. The ILC made also a progress on the topic of “Succession of States in relation to international law” and “General principles of law”. The ILC established a Study Group to deal with the topic of “Sea-level rise in relation to international law” that was included in the Commission’s programme in 2019. During the session, the Study Group focused on the subject of sea-level rise in relation to the law of the sea, based on the first issue paper. The Study Group next year will fous on issues related to statehood, as well as those related to the protection of persons affected by sea-level rise. The ILC decided to include the topic of “Subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law” in its long-term programme of work. During the 72nd session, the ILC took two memorial meetings for two former ILC members: Judge Alexander Yankov and Judge James Crawford.

The Work of the International Law Commission in Its Seventy-First and Seventy-Second Sessions: COVID, Cancellations and Much More

This contribution describes the work of the UN International Law Commission (ILC) during its seventy-first and seventy-second sessions. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the work of the Commission over the last three years has been severely hampered, yet the Commission was still able to produce significant work. In the seventy-first session, the Commission adopted, on first reading, the Articles on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity. It also adopted two instruments on first reading, namely the Draft Conclusions on Peremptory Norms of General International Law and the Draft Principles on the Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflict. In the seventy-second session, the ILC adopted two first-reading texts, namely the guidelines on the protection of the atmosphere and the Guide to Provisional Application of Treaties. The Commission was also active in the relation to new topics. In the seventy-first session it placed on its current agenda, the topic sea-level rise in relation to international law. On its long-term programme of work, it placed two topics, namely piracy and robbery at sea under international law and reparation to individuals for gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law. In the seventy-second session it placed on its agenda the topic subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law.

The effect of the principle of sovereign equality on the settlement of multiple nationality relations

Multiple (or plural) nationality is a phenomenon that can be considered both in domestic and international legal perspectives. It has been the subject of controversy for a long time, and no consensus has been developed on this problem. The purpose of this article is to identify the nature of the influence of the basic principle of international law – sovereign equality - on the international legal regulation of multiple and dual nationality relations by examining the effectiveness and compliance with this principle of the methods of resolving bi- and polypatrism cases, developed by science and judicial practice. The article analyzes the possibility of exercising state sovereignty in the diplomatic protection of one’s citizen from the state whose nationality he also possesses. By studying and analyzing the relevant provisions of international treaties, court practice, the Draft articles on diplomatic protection of the UN International Law Commission, the article concludes that the only, albeit imperfect, way to resolve such cases today is the principle of effective nationality.

Методологічне підґрунтя дослідження відповідальності держав за міжнародним правом

The complexity of modern political and legal relations that arise with the onset of international responsibility significantly increases the importance of developing a methodological basis for the concept of state responsibility under international law. The article highlights the methodological basis of the study of the sphere of international responsibility of states. The article reveals the content of civilizational, axiological, historical-legal and conceptual-comparative approaches, which contributes to a deeper understanding of the nature of international law and the essence of international responsibility, the patterns of functioning and the development of norms on the international responsibility of states. It has been established that the main principles of the civilizational approach contribute to considering the peculiarities of understanding and applying the main categories of international responsibility through the prism of the interaction of civilizations and their dialogue. From the standpoint of the axiological approach, the value of a number of categories significant for the sphere of international legal responsibility is revealed, in particular, the term "responsibility" itself, as well as such political and legal values as freedom, equality, justice, solidarity, tolerance, respect for all human rights. The application of the historical-legal approach allows, among others, to investigate of the development of international legal opinion regarding the concept of "responsibility" in international law from the earliest times; to analyze the stages of the UN International Law Commission's work on the codification of norms on the international responsibility of states; to trace the evolution of the concept of an internationally wrongful act of the state and highlight the issue of its normative consolidation, to investigate the development of the concept of the responsibility of states for lawful activity. The toolkit of the conceptual-comparative approach with its methods of macro- and micro-comparison, synchronic and diachronic, normative, textual, and doctrinal comparisons is helpful in comparing the studied phenomena. The application of the approaches analyzed in the article allows for a comprehensive study of the issues of state responsibility, to develop an international legal concept of state responsibility in international law, to consider the specifics of state responsibility for the illegal conduct of state and non-state actors in conditions of modern political and legal processes.

Recent Developments of International Law Commission Work on Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction

Immunity is a well bedded concept within international law and mainly within the principle of sovereign equality of states. There are different procedural implications of the concept of immunity – diplomatic and consular privileges and immunities, State jurisdictional immunities and also immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. The Article focuses on the latter one and portrays on recent developments of immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction as it is elaborated by the UN International Law Commission (‘ILC’). The author frames (in the introduction) the concept of immunity and especially the immunity of State officials and puts it in a large theoretical structure of international law and in the work of ILC. Then, he focuses his attention on the phenomenon of progressive development of international law (2) and how it is used with respect to the topic considerated by the ILC. He then presents main ILC conclusions regarding limitations and exceptions to immunity of State officials (3) and finally outlines latest development (4) of the ILC work dealing mainly with relationship between foreign criminal jurisdiction and international criminal jurisdiction and other procedural questions.

Invocation of State Responsibility for Violation of Obligations Owed to the International Community as a Whole

The article discusses the features of the application of paragraph 1 (b) of Art. 48 of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility, developed by the UN International Law Commission and taken into consideration by the UN General Assembly by its resolution 56/83 of December 12, 2001. The norm of this article enshrines the right of any state that is not a victim to call to international legal responsibility state that has committed a breach of an obligation owed to the international community as a whole. This rule contributes to the establishment in modern international law of the ancient Roman theory of actio popularis, according to which any citizen could file a claim in the public interest. The UN International Law Commission is considering paragraph 1 (b) of Art. 48 of the 2001 Draft Articles on State Responsibility as a result of the progressive development of International Law. This is manifested primarily in a new approach to the interpretation of concepts such as “the international community as a whole” and “obligation owed to the international community as a whole”. The article notes that the concept of "the international community as a whole" should no longer be considered as a community of sovereign states, since it already presupposes a more active participation in maintaining international legitimacy of all participants of international relations – subjects of international law. In addition, attention is drawn to the fact that the concept of “obligation owed to the international community as a whole” is a new category proposed by the International Law Commission as a part of the progressive development of the theory of erga omnes and jus cogens norms. The author compares these types of obligations and points out a number of problems that may arise while interpreting this concept in order to apply this rule in practice.