Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-hxdxx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-13T16:07:41.533Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Institutionalizing State Responsibility: Global Security and UN Organs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2017

Vincent-Joël Proulx
Vincent-Joël Proulx*
Affiliation:
National University of Singapore
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reexamining International Law at the International, Regional, and State Levels (New Voices)
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 110 , 2016 , pp. 212 - 215
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, e.g., Vincent-Joël Proulx, Transnational Terrorism and State Accountability: A New Theory of Prevention (2012); Kimberley Trapp, State Responsibility for International Terrorism (2011); Tal Becker, Terrorism and the State: Rethinking the Rules of State Responsibility (2006).

2 See Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UN Doc A/56/10 Arts, 21, 28 (2001); II(2) Yearbook of the International Law Commission 26 (2001) (and Commentary, p. 31).

3 See id., Arts. 31, 34–37. Of course, it may well be that restitution is not a feasible remedy following an internationally wrongful act involving the perpetration of a terrorist attack.

4 See, e.g., S.C. Res. 1373 (Sept. 28, 2001); S.C. Res. 2178 (Sept. 24, 2014).

5 These brief remarks draw on research published in Vincent-Joe¨l Proulx, Institutionalizing State Responsibility: Global Security and UN Organs (2016).

6 Needless to say, the adoption of countermeasures is subject to some requirements which are laid down in Chapter II of the International Law Commission's Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, supra note 2, Arts. 49–53.

7 Much has been written on the Security Council's “quasi-legislative” role. See, e.g., Talmon, Stefan, The Security Council as World Legislature, 99 AJIL 175 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Szasz, Paul, The Security Council Starts Legislating, 96 AJIL 901 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 See S.C. Res. 687, paras. 2, 7–14, 32 (Apr. 3, 1991).

9 See S.C. Res. 660, paras. 1–2 (Aug. 2, 1990); S.C. Res. 661, para. 1 (Aug. 6, 1991); S.C. Res. 688, para. 2 (Apr. 5, 1991).

10 See S.C. Res. 748, para. 2 (Mar. 31, 1992).

11 See S.C. Res. 918, para. 1 (May 17, 1994).

12 See, e.g., S.C. Res. 687, para. 16 (Apr. 3, 1991).

13 The language is borrowed from Vera Gowlland-Debbas, Security Council Enforcement Action and Issues of State Responsibility, 43 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 55, 65 (1994).

14 S.C. Res. 487, para. 6 (June 19, 1981).

15 S.C. Res. 138, para. 2 (June 23, 1960).