I. Editorial Overview
The Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) are a foundational modern statement of international law on State responsibility. They set out when a State incurs international responsibility for a breach of an international obligation, what legal consequences follow, and how responsibility is implemented.
ARSIWA turn disputes that might otherwise remain politically contested into a structured set of legal relationships: an injured State may invoke responsibility and demand cessation and reparation, and the Articles also help clarify the doctrinal basis on which affected individuals or non-State entities may seek remedies where international law allows.
(1) Historical Context
International law is inherently a decentralized, horizontal structure lacking a central authority to enforce legal order. Consequently, defining and regulating State responsibility has been a primary objective of the United Nations. The International Law Commission (ILC) placed “State responsibility” on its agenda as early as 1949. After fifty years of negotiation and drafting, ARSIWA was finally completed and commended to States by a United Nations General Assembly resolution in 2001.
Although not yet a formal treaty, ARSIWA is widely regarded as a codification of customary international law, demonstrating high normative force in practice. International judicial bodies—including the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), and arbitral tribunals—repeatedly cite its articles and framework to determine the establishment and consequences of State responsibility. In 2024, the ILC included “Compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts” in its long-term program of work to further deepen the development of ARSIWA.
(2) Why It Matters for Taiwan
ARSIWA defines the “breach of an obligation” as the basis for State responsibility. Once a State violates an international obligation, legal consequences automatically follow, without reliance on specific treaties or the consent of the wrongdoing State. In an era where totalitarian regimes challenge the international order—specifically regarding the lawfare, cognitive warfare, and military threats posed by China against Taiwan—ARSIWA offer a usable legal vocabulary and framework, including:
- Attribution:
Under Article 8, conduct directed or controlled by a State is considered an act of that State. If Taiwan can prove that grey-zone operations—such as cyberattacks, “fifth column” activities, or maritime militia harassment—are under the effective control of China, legal responsibility can be attributed to the Chinese government. - Wrongfulness:
Under Article 1, every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State. As a reflection of customary international law, ARSIWA applies to the wrongful acts of all States, including China. - Reparation:
Article 31 imposes an obligation on the responsible State to make “full reparation” for the injury caused. Furthermore, Article 33(2) contains a “saving clause,” stating that the Articles are without prejudice to any right “which may accrue directly to any person or entity other than a State.” This preserves the right of non-State victims (such as the Taiwanese people) to claim remedy and reparation from the responsible State (China). - Peremptory Norms:
Under Articles 40 and 41, regarding serious breaches of peremptory norms—such as war crimes or genocide—all States are under an obligation to cooperate to bring the breach to an end and not to recognize the situation as lawful. This provides a legal basis for the international community to maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.
(3) Core Principles
ARSIWA consists of four parts and 59 articles. Based on the introduction by former ILC Special Rapporteur James Crawford, the framework can be summarized into seven core principles:
Principle 1: State responsibility as “secondary rules”
ARSIWA does not define the substantive content of State obligations (primary rules), such as the prohibition of torture or treaty performance. Instead, it functions as “secondary rules” that determine the legal consequences when an obligation is breached. In this sense, ARSIWA operate as a general framework applicable across international law.
Principle 2: The foundations of State responsibility
ARSIWA are primarily objective. In general, they do not require proof of a State’s subjective intent or fault. Responsibility is engaged when:
- Attribution: the conduct is attributable to the State; and
- Breach: the conduct is not in conformity with an international obligation.
Principle 3: The consequences of State responsibility
Once an internationally wrongful act is established, several legal consequences follow. Importantly, illegality does not extinguish the underlying obligation; the State remains bound to perform it.
- Cessation: ongoing wrongful conduct must stop.
- Non-repetition: where appropriate, assurances and guarantees must be given to reduce the risk of recurrence.
- Reparation: the State must make full reparation for the injury caused.
Principle 4: The nature and forms of reparation
Reparation is a legal obligation. ARSIWA adopt the principle of full reparation but do not provide for punitive damages. The principal forms are:
- Restitution: restoring the situation that existed before the wrongful act (e.g., releasing detained persons, returning territory).
- Compensation: monetary payment for financially assessable damage when restitution is not possible (including moral damage, where appropriate).
- Satisfaction: measures for injury not financially quantifiable (e.g., impairment of dignity), such as acknowledgement of the breach, expression of regret, or a formal apology.
Principle 5: Serious breaches of peremptory norms (jus cogens)
Where a State seriously breaches obligations arising under the most fundamental peremptory norms (e.g., aggression or crimes against humanity), all States have duties to:
- cooperate, through lawful means, to bring the breach to an end;
- not recognize as lawful the situation created by the breach; and
- not aid or assist in maintaining that unlawful situation.
Principle 6: The invocation of responsibility
ARSIWA set out who may invoke responsibility, along with procedures and limits. The main categories are:
- Injured State: in most cases, the State directly affected is entitled to invoke responsibility and demand cessation and reparation.
- States other than the injured State: where obligations are owed to a group of States or to the international community as a whole, a State may invoke responsibility to protect collective interests even if it is not directly injured.
Principle 7: Countermeasures
ARSIWA permits an injured State to take temporary countermeasures (e.g., trade sanctions) to induce a wrongdoing State to comply with its obligations. However, countermeasures must be proportionate and are strictly prohibited from involving the use of force or violating fundamental human rights.
(4) Terminology Notes
- Primary Rules:
A concept associated with jurist H.L.A. Hart (The Concept of Law). In international law, primary rules are substantive obligations that directly regulate what States must do or must not do—such as prohibitions on aggression and torture, treaty obligations, or human rights duties. They answer the question: What should a State do in the first place? - Secondary Rules:
Secondary rules address the legal consequences when primary rules are breached. Building on Hart’s theory, Special Rapporteur Roberto Ago reframed ARSIWA away from politicized disputes about substantive obligations (primary rules) and toward a responsibility framework that governs the consequences of breach (secondary rules). - Attribution:
The legal process of treating particular conduct (acts or omissions) as an act of the State. Under ARSIWA, conduct may be attributable where it involves: (1) State organs (regardless of rank or function); (2) entities empowered to exercise governmental authority; (3) private groups acting under State direction or effective control (e.g., cyber units or militias); or (4) conduct later acknowledged and adopted by the State. - Wrongfulness:
An attributable act is wrongful when it objectively fails to conform to an international obligation. The test is objective: intent or fault is generally not required, and a State may not rely on domestic law as a justification. - Peremptory Norms:
Norms accepted and recognized by the international community as a whole as hierarchically superior and non-derogable (e.g., the prohibitions of aggression and genocide). Breaches can trigger obligations of collective response. - Invocation:
The formal legal action of asserting that another State is internationally responsible. It is the procedural prerequisite for demanding cessation, reparation, or taking countermeasures.
(5) How to Use This Document
ARSIWA contain 59 articles. They are not organized by types of conduct, but by the legal logic of responsibility arising → responsibility’s content → responsibility invoked and implemented. The framework is best understood in four parts:
- Part One: The Internationally Wrongful Act of a State (Articles 1–27)
Addresses three core questions: which conduct is attributable to the State, what counts as a breach of an international obligation, and when wrongfulness may be precluded. This is the conceptual foundation of the Articles. - Part Two: Content of the International Responsibility of a State (Articles 28–41)
Addresses what consequences follow a breach. Covers cessation, restitution, compensation, satisfaction, and serious breaches of peremptory norms. - Part Three: The Implementation of the International Responsibility of a State (Articles 42–54)
Explains who may invoke responsibility and how, and regulates countermeasures under specific conditions. - Part Four: General Provisions (Articles 55–59)
Provides supplementary rules to ensure ARSIWA operate coherently alongside other parts of international law.
II. Document Information
Official Title: Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts（PDF Download）
Chinese Title: 國家對國際不法行為的責任（PDF Download）
Adopting Body: United Nations General Assembly
Date of Adoption: 2001-12-12
Resolution / Document Number: A/RES/56/83
Document Type: Draft Articles adopted by the International Law Commission and taken note of by the United Nations General Assembly (with annexed Articles)
Legal Status / Legal Effect: Not a binding treaty; widely recognized as an authoritative codification and progressive development of customary international law on State responsibility, frequently relied upon by international courts, tribunals, and human rights bodies.
VST Edition: 2026-01-24 Version
III. Full Text
Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts
The General Assembly,
Having considered chapter IV of the report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session, which contains the draft articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts,
Noting that the International Law Commission decided to recommend to the General Assembly that it should take note of the draft articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts in a resolution and annex the draft articles to that resolution, and that it should consider at a later stage, in the light of the importance of the topic, the possibility of convening an international conference of plenipotentiaries to examine the draft articles with a view to concluding a convention on the topic,
Emphasizing the continuing importance of the codification and progressive development of international law, as referred to in Article 13, paragraph 1 (a), of the Charter of the United Nations,
Noting that the subject of responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts is of major importance in the relations of States,
1. Welcomes the conclusion of the work of the International Law Commission on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts and its adoption of the draft articles and a detailed commentary on the subject;
2. Expresses its appreciation to the International Law Commission for its continuing contribution to the codification and progressive development of international law;
3. Takes note of the articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, presented by the International Law Commission, the text of which is annexed to the present resolution, and commends them to the attention of Governments without prejudice to the question of their future adoption or other appropriate action;
4. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its fifty-ninth session an item entitled “Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts”.
85th plenary meeting
12 December 2001
Annex
Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts
PART ONE
THE INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACT OF A STATE
Chapter I
General principles
Article 1
Responsibility of a State for its internationally wrongful acts
Every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State.
Article 2
Elements of an internationally wrongful act of a State
There is an internationally wrongful act of a State when conduct consisting of an action or omission:
(a) Is attributable to the State under international law; and
(b) Constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State.
Article 3
Characterization of an act of a State as internationally wrongful
The characterization of an act of a State as internationally wrongful is governed by international law. Such characterization is not affected by the characterization of the same act as lawful by internal law.
Chapter II
Attribution of conduct to a State
Article 4
Conduct of organs of a State
1. The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under international law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever position it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as an organ of the central government or of a territorial unit of the State.
2. An organ includes any person or entity which has that status in accordance with the internal law of the State.
Article 5
Conduct of persons or entities exercising elements of governmental authority
The conduct of a person or entity which is not an organ of the State under article 4 but which is empowered by the law of that State to exercise elements of the governmental authority shall be considered an act of the State under international law, provided the person or entity is acting in that capacity in the particular instance.
Article 6
Conduct of organs placed at the disposal of a State by another State
The conduct of an organ placed at the disposal of a State by another State shall be considered an act of the former State under international law if the organ is acting in the exercise of elements of the governmental authority of the State at whose disposal it is placed.
Article 7
Excess of authority or contravention of instructions
The conduct of an organ of a State or of a person or entity empowered to exercise elements of the governmental authority shall be considered an act of the State under international law if the organ, person or entity acts in that capacity, even if it exceeds its authority or contravenes instructions.
Article 8
Conduct directed or controlled by a State
The conduct of a person or group of persons shall be considered an act of a State under international law if the person or group of persons is in fact acting on the instructions of, or under the direction or control of, that State in carrying out the conduct.
Article 9
Conduct carried out in the absence or default of the official authorities
The conduct of a person or group of persons shall be considered an act of a State under international law if the person or group of persons is in fact exercising elements of the governmental authority in the absence or default of the official authorities and in circumstances such as to call for the exercise of those elements of authority.
Article 10
Conduct of an insurrectional or other movement
1. The conduct of an insurrectional movement which becomes the new government of a State shall be considered an act of that State under international law.
2. The conduct of a movement, insurrectional or other, which succeeds in establishing a new State in part of the territory of a pre-existing State or in a territory under its administration shall be considered an act of the new State under international law.
3. This article is without prejudice to the attribution to a State of any conduct, however related to that of the movement concerned, which is to be considered an act of that State by virtue of articles 4 to 9.
Article 11
Conduct acknowledged and adopted by a State as its own
Conduct which is not attributable to a State under the preceding articles shall nevertheless be considered an act of that State under international law if and to the extent that the State acknowledges and adopts the conduct in question as its own.
Chapter III
Breach of an international obligation
Article 12
Existence of a breach of an international obligation
There is a breach of an international obligation by a State when an act of that State is not in conformity with what is required of it by that obligation, regardless of its origin or character.
Article 13
International obligation in force for a State
An act of a State does not constitute a breach of an international obligation unless the State is bound by the obligation in question at the time the act occurs.
Article 14
Extension in time of the breach of an international obligation
1. The breach of an international obligation by an act of a State not having a continuing character occurs at the moment when the act is performed, even if its effects continue.
2. The breach of an international obligation by an act of a State having a continuing character extends over the entire period during which the act continues and remains not in conformity with the international obligation.
3. The breach of an international obligation requiring a State to prevent a given event occurs when the event occurs and extends over the entire period during which the event continues and remains not in conformity with that obligation.
Article 15
Breach consisting of a composite act
1. The breach of an international obligation by a State through a series of actions or omissions defined in aggregate as wrongful occurs when the action or omission occurs which, taken with the other actions or omissions, is sufficient to constitute the wrongful act.
2. In such a case, the breach extends over the entire period starting with the first of the actions or omissions of the series and lasts for as long as these actions or omissions are repeated and remain not in conformity with the international obligation.
Chapter IV
Responsibility of a State in connection with the act of another State
Article 16
Aid or assistance in the commission of an internationally wrongful act
A State which aids or assists another State in the commission of an internationally wrongful act by the latter is internationally responsible for doing so if:
(a) That State does so with knowledge of the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act; and
(b) The act would be internationally wrongful if committed by that State.
Article 17
Direction and control exercised over the commission of an internationally wrongful act
A State which directs and controls another State in the commission of an internationally wrongful act by the latter is internationally responsible for that act if:
(a) That State does so with knowledge of the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act; and
(b) The act would be internationally wrongful if committed by that State.
Article 18
Coercion of another State
A State which coerces another State to commit an act is internationally responsible for that act if:
(a) The act would, but for the coercion, be an internationally wrongful act of the coerced State; and
(b) The coercing State does so with knowledge of the circumstances of the act.
Article 19
Effect of this chapter
This chapter is without prejudice to the international responsibility, under other provisions of these articles, of the State which commits the act in question, or of any other State.
Chapter V
Circumstances precluding wrongfulness
Article 20
Consent
Valid consent by a State to the commission of a given act by another State precludes the wrongfulness of that act in relation to the former State to the extent that the act remains within the limits of that consent.
Article 21
Self-defence
The wrongfulness of an act of a State is precluded if the act constitutes a lawful measure of self-defence taken in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations.
Article 22
Countermeasures in respect of an internationally wrongful act
The wrongfulness of an act of a State not in conformity with an international obligation towards another State is precluded if and to the extent that the act constitutes a countermeasure taken against the latter State in accordance with chapter II of part three.
Article 23
Force majeure
1. The wrongfulness of an act of a State not in conformity with an international obligation of that State is precluded if the act is due to force majeure, that is the occurrence of an irresistible force or of an unforeseen event, beyond the control of the State, making it materially impossible in the circumstances to perform the obligation.
2. Paragraph 1 does not apply if:
(a) The situation of force majeure is due, either alone or in combination with other factors, to the conduct of the State invoking it; or
(b) The State has assumed the risk of that situation occurring.
Article 24
Distress
1. The wrongfulness of an act of a State not in conformity with an international obligation of that State is precluded if the author of the act in question has no other reasonable way, in a situation of distress, of saving the author’s life or the lives of other persons entrusted to the author’s care.
2. Paragraph 1 does not apply if:
(a) The situation of distress is due, either alone or in combination with other factors, to the conduct of the State invoking it; or
(b) The act in question is likely to create a comparable or greater peril.
Article 25
Necessity
1. Necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding the wrongfulness of an act not in conformity with an international obligation of that State unless the act:
(a) Is the only way for the State to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril; and
(b) Does not seriously impair an essential interest of the State or States towards which the obligation exists, or of the international community as a whole.
2. In any case, necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding wrongfulness if:
(a) The international obligation in question excludes the possibility of invoking necessity; or
(b) The State has contributed to the situation of necessity.
Article 26
Compliance with peremptory norms
Nothing in this chapter precludes the wrongfulness of any act of a State which is not in conformity with an obligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law.
Article 27
Consequences of invoking a circumstance precluding wrongfulness
The invocation of a circumstance precluding wrongfulness in accordance with this chapter is without prejudice to:
(a) Compliance with the obligation in question, if and to the extent that the circumstance precluding wrongfulness no longer exists;
(b) The question of compensation for any material loss caused by the act in question.
PART TWO
CONTENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF A STATE
Chapter I
General principles
Article 28
Legal consequences of an internationally wrongful act
The international responsibility of a State which is entailed by an internationally wrongful act in accordance with the provisions of part one involves legal consequences as set out in this part.
Article 29
Continued duty of performance
The legal consequences of an internationally wrongful act under this part do not affect the continued duty of the responsible State to perform the obligation breached.
Article 30
Cessation and non-repetition
The State responsible for the internationally wrongful act is under an obligation:
(a) To cease that act, if it is continuing;
(b) To offer appropriate assurances and guarantees of non-repetition, if circumstances so require.
Article 31
Reparation
1. The responsible State is under an obligation to make full reparation for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act.
2. Injury includes any damage, whether material or moral, caused by the internationally wrongful act of a State.
Article 32
Irrelevance of internal law
The responsible State may not rely on the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to comply with its obligations under this part.
Article 33
Scope of international obligations set out in this part
1. The obligations of the responsible State set out in this part may be owed to another State, to several States, or to the international community as a whole, depending in particular on the character and content of the international obligation and on the circumstances of the breach.
2. This part is without prejudice to any right, arising from the international responsibility of a State, which may accrue directly to any person or entity other than a State.
Chapter II
Reparation for injury
Article 34
Forms of reparation
Full reparation for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act shall take the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction, either singly or in combination, in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
Article 35
Restitution
A State responsible for an internationally wrongful act is under an obligation to make restitution, that is, to re-establish the situation which existed before the wrongful act was committed, provided and to the extent that restitution:
(a) Is not materially impossible;
(b) Does not involve a burden out of all proportion to the benefit deriving from restitution instead of compensation.
Article 36
Compensation
1. The State responsible for an internationally wrongful act is under an obligation to compensate for the damage caused thereby, insofar as such damage is not made good by restitution.
2. The compensation shall cover any financially assessable damage including loss of profits insofar as it is established.
Article 37
Satisfaction
1. The State responsible for an internationally wrongful act is under an obligation to give satisfaction for the injury caused by that act insofar as it cannot be made good by restitution or compensation.
2. Satisfaction may consist in an acknowledgement of the breach, an expression of regret, a formal apology or another appropriate modality.
3. Satisfaction shall not be out of proportion to the injury and may not take a form humiliating to the responsible State.
Article 38
Interest
1. Interest on any principal sum due under this chapter shall be payable when necessary in order to ensure full reparation. The interest rate and mode of calculation shall be set so as to achieve that result.
2. Interest runs from the date when the principal sum should have been paid until the date the obligation to pay is fulfilled.
Article 39
Contribution to the injury
In the determination of reparation, account shall be taken of the contribution to the injury by wilful or negligent action or omission of the injured State or any person or entity in relation to whom reparation is sought.
Chapter III
Serious breaches of obligations under peremptory norms of general international law
Article 40
Application of this chapter
1. This chapter applies to the international responsibility which is entailed by a serious breach by a State of an obligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law.
2. A breach of such an obligation is serious if it involves a gross or systematic failure by the responsible State to fulfil the obligation.
Article 41
Particular consequences of a serious breach of an obligation under this chapter
1. States shall cooperate to bring to an end through lawful means any serious breach within the meaning of article 40.
2. No State shall recognize as lawful a situation created by a serious breach within the meaning of article 40, nor render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation.
3. This article is without prejudice to the other consequences referred to in this part and to such further consequences that a breach to which this chapter applies may entail under international law.
PART THREE
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF A STATE
Chapter I
Invocation of the responsibility of a State
Article 42
Invocation of responsibility by an injured State
A State is entitled as an injured State to invoke the responsibility of another State if the obligation breached is owed to:
(a) That State individually; or
(b) A group of States including that State, or the international community as a whole, and the breach of the obligation:
(i) Specially affects that State; or
(ii) Is of such a character as radically to change the position of all the other States to which the obligation is owed with respect to the further performance of the obligation.
Article 43
Notice of claim by an injured State
1. An injured State which invokes the responsibility of another State shall give notice of its claim to that State.
2. The injured State may specify in particular:
(a) The conduct that the responsible State should take in order to cease the wrongful act, if it is continuing;
(b) What form reparation should take in accordance with the provisions of part two.
Article 44
Admissibility of claims
The responsibility of a State may not be invoked if:
(a) The claim is not brought in accordance with any applicable rule relating to the nationality of claims;
(b) The claim is one to which the rule of exhaustion of local remedies applies and any available and effective local remedy has not been exhausted.
Article 45
Loss of the right to invoke responsibility
The responsibility of a State may not be invoked if:
(a) The injured State has validly waived the claim;
(b) The injured State is to be considered as having, by reason of its conduct, validly acquiesced in the lapse of the claim.
Article 46
Plurality of injured States
Where several States are injured by the same internationally wrongful act, each injured State may separately invoke the responsibility of the State which has committed the internationally wrongful act.
Article 47
Plurality of responsible States
1. Where several States are responsible for the same internationally wrongful act, the responsibility of each State may be invoked in relation to that act.
2. Paragraph 1:
(a) Does not permit any injured State to recover, by way of compensation, more than the damage it has suffered;
(b) Is without prejudice to any right of recourse against the other responsible States.
Article 48
Invocation of responsibility by a State other than an injured State
1. Any State other than an injured State is entitled to invoke the responsibility of another State in accordance with paragraph 2 if:
(a) The obligation breached is owed to a group of States including that State, and is established for the protection of a collective interest of the group; or
(b) The obligation breached is owed to the international community as a whole.
2. Any State entitled to invoke responsibility under paragraph 1 may claim from the responsible State:
(a) Cessation of the internationally wrongful act, and assurances and guarantees of non-repetition in accordance with article 30; and
(b) Performance of the obligation of reparation in accordance with the preceding articles, in the interest of the injured State or of the beneficiaries of the obligation breached.
3. The requirements for the invocation of responsibility by an injured State under articles 43, 44 and 45 apply to an invocation of responsibility by a State entitled to do so under paragraph 1.
Chapter II
Countermeasures
Article 49
Object and limits of countermeasures
1. An injured State may only take countermeasures against a State which is responsible for an internationally wrongful act in order to induce that State to comply with its obligations under part two.
2. Countermeasures are limited to the non-performance for the time being of international obligations of the State taking the measures towards the responsible State.
3. Countermeasures shall, as far as possible, be taken in such a way as to permit the resumption of performance of the obligations in question.
Article 50
Obligations not affected by countermeasures
1. Countermeasures shall not affect:
(a) The obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force as embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;
(b) Obligations for the protection of fundamental human rights;
(c) Obligations of a humanitarian character prohibiting reprisals;
(d) Other obligations under peremptory norms of general international law.
2. A State taking countermeasures is not relieved from fulfilling its obligations:
(a) Under any dispute settlement procedure applicable between it and the responsible State;
(b) To respect the inviolability of diplomatic or consular agents, premises, archives and documents.
Article 51
Proportionality
Countermeasures must be commensurate with the injury suffered, taking into account the gravity of the internationally wrongful act and the rights in question.
Article 52
Conditions relating to resort to countermeasures
1. Before taking countermeasures, an injured State shall:
(a) Call upon the responsible State, in accordance with article 43, to fulfil its obligations under part two;
(b) Notify the responsible State of any decision to take countermeasures and offer to negotiate with that State.
2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1 (b), the injured State may take such urgent countermeasures as are necessary to preserve its rights.
3. Countermeasures may not be taken, and if already taken must be suspended without undue delay if:
(a) The internationally wrongful act has ceased; and
(b) The dispute is pending before a court or tribunal which has the authority to make decisions binding on the parties.
4. Paragraph 3 does not apply if the responsible State fails to implement the dispute settlement procedures in good faith.
Article 53
Termination of countermeasures
Countermeasures shall be terminated as soon as the responsible State has complied with its obligations under part two in relation to the internationally wrongful act.
Article 54
Measures taken by States other than an injured State
This chapter does not prejudice the right of any State, entitled under article 48, paragraph 1, to invoke the responsibility of another State, to take lawful measures against that State to ensure cessation of the breach and reparation in the interest of the injured State or of the beneficiaries of the obligation breached.
PART FOUR
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 55
Lex specialis
These articles do not apply where and to the extent that the conditions for the existence of an internationally wrongful act or the content or implementation of the international responsibility of a State are governed by special rules of international law.
Article 56
Questions of State responsibility not regulated by these articles
The applicable rules of international law continue to govern questions concerning the responsibility of a State for an internationally wrongful act to the extent that they are not regulated by these articles.
Article 57
Responsibility of an international organization
These articles are without prejudice to any question of the responsibility under international law of an international organization, or of any State for the conduct of an international organization.
Article 58
Individual responsibility
These articles are without prejudice to any question of the individual responsibility under international law of any person acting on behalf of a State.
Article 59
Charter of the United Nations
These articles are without prejudice to the Charter of the United Nations.
IV. VST Editorial Disclaimer
- Disclaimer:The translation and editorial commentary reflect the author’s personal academic and professional views for public education and institutional comparison purposes only. Unless otherwise stated, content is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.
- How to Cite: Hsiao, I-Min (2026). Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts: Overview & VST Edition. Victim Support Taiwan (VST). Retrieved from https://victim-support.tw/en/responsibility-of-states-for-internationally-wrongful-acts-overview-vst-edition/
- Revision & Update Log: 2026-01-24— Initial publication