SIXTH COMMITTEE CONTINUES DISCUSSION OF STATE RESPONSIBILITY
Press Release
GA/L/3018
SIXTH COMMITTEE CONTINUES DISCUSSION OF STATE RESPONSIBILITY
19961107 The notion that criminal responsibility should be attached to a State rather than an individual did not serve any useful purpose, the representative of Ireland said this afternoon, as the Sixth Committee (Legal) continued its consideration of draft articles on State responsibility being prepared by the International Law Commission.The concept of "State crimes" confused, rather than clarified, the analysis of particular situations and should be deleted from the draft, the representative of the United States told the Committee. It was both inappropriate and unproductive for the Commission to weave new rules on supposed crimes by States into the law on State responsibility, he said.
A mechanism should be established that would obviate the need for countermeasures by injured States, the representative of the Czech Republic said. However, until the international community was ready to take that step, a specific framework must be put in place governing countermeasures, in order to prevent their abuse.
The Sixth Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. tomorrow, 8 November, to continue its consideration of the Commission's draft articles on State responsibility.
Sixth Committee - 2 - Press Release GA/L/3018 35th Meeting (PM) 7 November 1996
Committee Work Programme The Sixth Committee (Legal) met this afternoon to continue its consideration of the annual report of the International Law Commission (documents A/51/10 and Corr.1). It was expected to focus on the Commission's draft articles on State responsibility. (For background on the report, see Press Release GA/L/3014 of 4 November.)
Statements JOHN CROOK (United States) said key parts of the draft on State responsibility had serious flaws. If they were not corrected, the United States would not be able to accept the draft. The concept of State crimes confused, rather than clarified, the analysis of particular situations and should be deleted. It was inappropriate and unproductive to weave new rules on supposed crimes by States into the law on State responsibility. He said it was neither possible nor responsible to decree in advance any particular form of dispute-settlement. The draft also placed unjustifiable limits on an injured State's ability to protect itself against an offending State through the use of countermeasures. The Commission must respect the legitimate and important role of such measures in assuring international legality. The draft articulated a flawed standard of compensation for viola- tions of State responsibility and departed from customary international law. VACLAV MIKULKA (Czech Republic) said a neutral expression such as "internationally wrongful acts" was needed to replace the terms of "crime" and "delict". Even if those terms were not replaced, it was important to keep in mind that these were two different types of wrongful acts, and their consequences needed to be taken into account. He said his Government supported the establishment of a mechanism that would obviate the need for countermeasures. However, since the international community was not yet ready to establish such a mechanism, it was necessary to have a specific framework for countermeasures in order to prevent their abuse. ALPHA CONNELLY (Ireland) said the designation of "State crimes" might not serve any useful purpose. As stated by the Nuremburg Tribunal, crimes were committed by men, not by abstract entities. Individual criminal responsibility was now universally recognized for certain conduct. However, enforcement of State crimes posed serious problems. States would never be held meaningfully accountable in the absence of an international body capable of taking effective action. The classification of internationally wrongful acts as either delicts or crimes might be neither meaningful nor workable, she said. A crime gave rise to greater consequences than did a delict. The restitution required of a wrongdoing State could seriously jeopardize its political independence or economic stability, she added. It could also involve a disproportionate burden which might impair the dignity of that State.
* *** *