CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATION OF STATE RESPONSIBILITY

WITH SPECIAL REFERANCE TO MOB VIOLENCE

Submitted to
Mr. Mohd. Atif Khan

Submitted by
Atul Verma

Sem – IV
Sec - C
Roll no.- 35

Hidayattullah National Law University

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I have taken efforts in this project. However, it would not have been possible without the kind
support and help of many individuals. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all of them. I
am highly indebted to Mr. Mohd. Atif Khan sir for putting trust in me and giving me a
project topic as such as this and for having the faith in me to deliver.

It is with his guidance and constant supervision and support in completing the project. I would like
to express my gratitude towards my parents & members of HNLU for their kind co-operation and
encouragement which help me in completion of this project.

My thanks and appreciations also go to my colleagues in developing the project and people who
have willingly helped me out with their abilities.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENT

1- Introduction …………………………………………………………………………4
2- Research objective…………………………………………………………………..6
3- Research methodology……………………………………………………………...6
4- Research question ………………………………………………………….……….6
5- Hypothesis ………………………………………………………………….………7
6- Mode of citation …………………………………………………………….……...7
7- Chapterisation ……………………………………………………………….……..7
8- Scope of study ………………………………………………………………..…….7
9- States responsibility for acts of mob-violence ………………………………..……8
10- Responsibility of states for injuries suffered by foreigner within their territories on
account of mob violence .........................................................................................11
11- State responsibility in case of person serving the National Organisation. …….…13
12- Conclusion …………………………………………………………………….….14
13- Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………...15

3
 CHAPTER – 1

INTRODUCTION

The doctrine of state responsibility is one of the core tenets of international law. Legally
speaking state responsibility is ‘simply the principle which establishes an obligation to make
good any violation of international law producing injury’. State responsibility arises out of the
legal maxim stated by Grotius in 1646 that ‘every fault creates the obligation to make good the
losses’. As states are the conventional subjects of international law, technically the principle of
state responsibility applies only on the state-to-state level. Duties owned to citizens are left out1.

By looking at the world today, it becomes clear that a large number of states are repeatedly
violating their international obligations. Since there is no effective international policies, states at
times act as if they are above the law. The basic principle of “State Responsibility” in
international law provides that any state that violates its international obligations must be held
accountable for its acts. More concretely, the notion of state responsibility means that states,
which do not respect their international duties, are responsible immediately to stop their illegal
actions, and make reparations to the injured.

It is an obligation of a state to prevent its own subjects as well as foreign subjects living within
its territory from committing such acts, which may cause injury to the other states. If any
wrongful act is done by an individual or a group of individuals a state to which they belong is
held responsible for the acts. Such responsibility is called ‘indirect’ responsibility because a state
is responsible not for the wrongful acts of its own organs but for the acts of its individuals.
Oppenheim has rightly stated that if a state has not exercised due diligence it can be made
responsible and held liable to pay damages. Acts of individuals for which a state may be held
responsible may be many2. For instance, the crime against foreign sovereigns or ambassadors,
offences to the flag of a foreign state, organization of armed bands in support of insurrection,

1
Crook,J., ‘The United Nations Compensation Commission: A New Structure to Enforce State Responsibility’,
American Journal of International Law, (1993), p.144
2
Oppenheim’s, International law, vol.1, (9th Ed), pp. 501-502

4
injurious propaganda directed against a foreign state or its head, damages to the person or
property of aliens.

A state is responsible for the damage caused by a group of individuals or by mob. Responsibility
of a state for the mob violence may arise in two ways:-

Firstly, a state shall be responsible if foreign public or private property is damaged by the mob
violence due to substantial neglect to take reasonable precautionary or preventive action. In other
words, responsibility of a state arises where a state has not taken due diligence to prevent the
mob-violence. The principle implies that it is a duty of a state to foresee the danger of violence
and it should have made special efforts to prevent it.

Secondly, state is also responsible where mob violence takes place due to indifferent attitude of
its organs, i.e., if the wrongful act is done with the connivance of its organs. In order to establish
the responsibility, it has to prove that the violence occurred due to the connivance of the state.

5
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to:

 Describe the conceptual foundation of state responsibility with reference to mob

violence.
 Discuss responsibility of states for injuries suffered by foreigner within their
territories on account of mob violence.
 State responsibility in case of person serving the International Organisation.
 Research few states mob violence.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND SOURCE OF DATA

This Research Project is doctrinal in nature. Accumulation of the information on the topic includes wide
use of primary sources such as cases as well as secondary sources like books, e-articles etc. The matter
from these sources have been compiled and analysed to understand the concept and reproduced it afresh
in this project.

Websites, dictionary and articles have also been referred.

RESEARCH QUESTION

This project aims to answer question whether State responsibility arises in case of Mob violence.

6
 HYPOTHESIS

State responsibility will arise in all case of mob violence unless state had taken some
precautionary action to curb down the violence.

MODE OF CITATION

This project follows a uniform Bluebook 19th Ed. Citation format for footnotes and
bibliography.

CHAPTERISATION

The project broadly has been divided into 5 chapters. Chapter 1 comprises of the
introduction to the topic along with the research methodology that has been adopted in
this project. Chapter 2 comprises of state responsibility with reference to mob violence.
Chapter 3 covers up the Responsibility of states for injuries suffered by foreigner
within their territories on account of mob violence. Chapter 4 is the State responsibility
in case of person serving the National Organisation. Chapter 5 is the conclusion which

sums up the State responsibility with reference to mob violence.

Scope of Study

Due to time constraint this project aims to cover the Conceptual Foundation of State
responsibility with special reference to mob violence in a nutshell. This project does
not cover in detail each mode. The various types of asylum have been dealt in brief
giving mention to procedure while granting asylum. The project report is descriptive
and thus it does analyse the protection of refugees with the help of Examples.

7
 Chapter - 2

States responsibility for acts of mob-violence: - States responsibility for acts of mob-
violence is same as for acts of private individuals. Generally, state may be held responsible for
mob violence only when it has not made due diligence to prevent it. “Outbreaks of mob-violence
resulting in injury to the aliens raise regularly the question of prevention as well as redress.
While occasional outbreak of mob-violence may be accepted in any state, and there mere
occurrence is not of itself a ground of responsibility, the state is expected to use ‘due diligence’
to prevent it. But this test it very uncertain and ambiguous.

‘Due diligence’ to prevent mob violence depends upon the time, facts and circumstances. “what
constitute ‘due diligence’ is a question of time and circumstances”. This test is so ambiguous that
even jurist express the view that there is no state responsibility in respect of mob-violence. But
this view is not correct. Some countries such as England and America do not support this view.
If the alien person is some officer of foreign country then the state responsibility is further
increased.

As regards the vagueness of the test and definition of the term ‘due diligence’, “obviously no
very dogmatic definition would be appropriate, since what is involved is a standard which will
vary according to the circumstances.

The report for the international law commission on state responsibility, Gracia Amador,
concludes that the basic principle is that there is a presumption against responsibility and process
of the following provision: “the State is responsible for injuries caused to alien in consequences
of riots, civil strife or other internal disturbances if the constituted authority was manifestly
negligent in taking the measures which, in such circumstances are normally taken to prevent or
punish the acts in question”. There is some authority for the view that the granting of the
amnesty to rebels constitute a failure of duty and an acceptance of responsibility for their acts on
the basis of form of estoppels.

8
Case concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran3, which involved
the acts of rioters and other militants who attached and occupied U.S. diplomatic and consular
premise in Iran. The rioters and militants also seized the occupants and held them as hostage.
Since the rioters and militants were persons without official status in the initial stages their acts
could not be imputed to the states, The International Court of Justice held Iran not responsible
for the initial stages of their acts. But subsequently the situation changed when the militants
became agents of the state and hence Iran was held responsible for their acts.

The world court also held Iran responsible for breach of its International responsibility to take
steps to protect America diplomatic premise and to restore status quo.

It is often said that a state is not responsible to another state for unlawful acts committed by its
agents unless such acts are committed willfully and maliciously or with culpable negligence. It is
difficult to accept so wide a conclusion and so invariable requirement. A general floating
condition of malice or culpable negligence rather contradicts the scientific and practical
considerations underlying the law as to state responsibility. Few rules in treaties imposing duties
on states contain anything expressly in terms relating to malice or culpable negligence, and
braches of those treaties may without more involve the responsibility of a state party.

It is only in specific cases when particular circumstances demand it that willfulness or malice or
negligence may be necessary to render a state responsible; for example, if the state knowingly
connives in the wrongful acts of insurgents or rioters, it would become liable, although not
generally otherwise, or if it were negligent in failing to provide adequate police protection for
diplomatic premises against the injurious acts of demonstrators or rioters, and damage occurred.

A state is only responsible for acts or omissions which can be attributed to it as its own. In
international law, a state is responsible for the actions of:

(a) the government,

(b) any political sub division of the state,

3
ICJ Reports, 1949, P,4; 16 ILR, p.155

9
 (c) any organ, agency official employee or other agents of its government or of any sub
division acting within the scope of their employment4 . Immutability is a legal fiction
assimilating the acts of those identified above to the state as if they were its own. A state
is not responsible for acts committed by one of its nationals

4
Rebecca. M.M. Wallace, International Law; (2nd Ed.1993), p. 169

10
 Chapter :- 3

Responsibility of states for injuries suffered by foreigner within their territories on account
of mob violence.

By way of introduction it may be well to state at the outset a few of the generally accepted rules
regarding the nature of the responsibility of states, in general, for injuries sustained by aliens
within their territories.

In the first place, the responsibility may be international, that is, it may be a responsibility
imposed by international law, either customary or conventional, or it may be municipal, that is, a
responsibility voluntarily imposed by the state upon itself by its own municipal legislation.
Municipal responsibility may fall short of that fixed by international law, but it is by the latter, of
course, that the international obligations of a state are determined. On the other hand, the
responsibility which a state may admit and assume is sometimes greater than that which
international law establishes. Thus a state may by municipal legislation impose upon itself or
upon its local governments an obligation to indemnify foreigners for injuries sustained in their
persons or property regardless of whether the injuries resulted from lack of due diligence or fault
on the part of its officers or agents. Likewise it may by treaty with another state obligate itself to
guarantee a greater degree of protection to the nationals of the latter state than international law
requires and to make reparation for injuries sustained by them when reparation is not obligatory
according to international law.

In the second place, it is generally admitted that the obligation to make reparation, when it exists,
is an obligation to the state whose nationality the injured person possesses and not to the
individual victim.

International law neither creates rights for individuals nor imposes duties on them. Individuals
are not subjects of international law; whether, as Oppenheim contends, they may be regarded as
objects of international law, It is believed, therefore, that individuals cannot be guilty of violating

11
international law; they may of course commit acts injurious to aliens which it is the duty of the
state to employ reasonable means to prevent, and if it is unable to prevent them, to employ
similar measures to punish the offenders. If it neglects or refuses to do either it is bound by
international law to make reparation to the foreign state whose nationals have been the victims of
such acts. The obligations and duties which international law prescribes are addressed to states
alone. They are both positive and negative; they embrace duties of positive action (legislative
and administrative), abstention, prevention and in certain cases, reparation.

So far as the protection of aliens is concerned, they include the duty of enacting legislation of a
protective character and of establishing administrative and judicial organs through recourse to
which aliens can be reasonably assured of protection; the duty of refraining from the enactment
of legislation or putting into effect administrative regulations which are contrary to international
law to prevent all persons within their jurisdiction from committing wrongs in violation of
international law against the nationals of foreign states domiciled or sojourning therein; and
finally, the duty to make reparation under certain conditions where such wrongs have been
committed. It is hardly necessary to say that the lack of appropriate legislation, or of adequate
legislation to enable the government in a particular emergency to perform effectively the duties
which international law imposes upon states, cannot be pleaded as a defense to a claim for
reparation on account of injuries sustained by an alien in consequence of the failure to discharge
such duties.

" A State is responsible if an injury to an alien results from an act of an individual or from
mob violence, if the State has failed to exercise due diligence to prevent such injury and
if local remedies have been exhausted without adequate redress for such failure, or if
there has been a denial of justice."

12
 Chapter :- 4

State responsibility in case of person serving the National Organisation.

There is also State responsibility in respect of persons serving under the auspices of International
Organisations. These conclusion can be validly drawn on the basis of the decision of the
International Court of Justice in the case of Count Bernadottee or the case of Reparation for
the injuries suffered in the case of Service of U.N.5

Facts of the case -

 Count Bernadottee along with a French observer was appointed by the United Nation
Security Council to mediate in the conflicts between Arabs and Jews in Palestine.
 On September 17, 1948, when he was in that area of Jerusalam which was under the
occupation of Israel he along with a French observer was murdered.
 In this connection, general assembly of United Nation requested, in 1948, the
International court of justice to give an advisory opinion as to whether in such matters the
United Nation can claim compensation and damages for organization and person
appointed under its service.

Decision - The court held that organisation was intended to exercise functions and rights which
could only be explained on the basis of possession of large measure of international personality
and the capacity to operate upon international plane. It was further held that Organisation had the
capacity to bring claim and to give it a character of an international action for reparation for the
damage that had been caused to it.

The world court further declared that the orgainsation can claim reparation not only in respect of
damage caused to itself but also in respect of damages suffered by victims persons entitled
through him.

5
Kaoor S.K. Internation

13
 CHAPTER - 5

CONCLUSION

"The State is not responsible for injuries caused in case of mob violence, riot, insurrection or
civil war, unless it has not sought to prevent the injurious acts with the diligence proper to
employ normally in such circumstances, or unless it has not acted with like diligence against
these acts or unless it does not apply to foreigners the same measures of protection as to its
nationals. It is especially obligated to give to foreigners the benefits of the same indemnities as to
nationals with regard to communes of other persons.

14
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Daniel Bodansky and John R. Crook, "Symposium: The ILC's State

Responsibility Articles" (2002) 96 American Journal of International Law 773.
 The ILC's Draft Articles on State Responsibility
 Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts
 James Crawford, "The International Law Commission's Articles on State
Responsibility. Introduction, Text and Commentaries" (2002),
 Helmut Philipp Aust, "Complicity and the Law of State Responsibility" (2011)

 Procedural history note and audiovisual material on the Articles on Responsibility of States
for Internationally Wrongful Acts in the Historic Archives of the United Nations Audiovisual
Library of International Law
1949 Year Book of the International Law Commission 46, 49-50, UN Doc.

15