نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله English
نویسنده English
According to the definition provided by the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, adopted by the International Law Commission in 2001 (the ARSIWA), a breach of an obligation refers to conduct that is inconsistent with a state's obligation. State responsibility consists of two elements: attribution and breach of obligation. Therefore, after attributing an action to a state, it becomes crucial to assess the nature and scope of the breach of obligation. Notably, a state may adopt domestic legislation that is incompatible with its international obligations, even without taking practical measures in line with the implementation of such domestic law. In the judgment of Certain Iranian Assets, the International Court of Justice (the Court) adopted a distinct perspective on the violation of the United States’ obligations arising from the 1955 Treaty of Amity. The Court's approach in deeming the United States’ actions unlawful in relation to Iran's claims, particularly Articles 5 and 10, involves verifying the incompatibility of the United States' legislative, executive, and judicial actions with these provisions, and subsequently seeking objective evidence to declare them as illegal measures against Iran. Therefore, in addressing the main question of this paper, which is whether engaging in conduct inconsistent with an obligation alone constitutes a breach, and whether the Court must require at least one example of such breach in the form of an external manifestation of the specific defect, it is asserted that the criterion for determining a violation mirrors the one outlined in the ARSIWA: the incompatibility of a state's conduct with the content of the obligation.
کلیدواژهها English
منابع:
- Books
- Cases and Documents
