Circumstances precluding wrongfulness: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Content added Content deleted
No edit summary |
(ASR citation fixed) |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
! scope="col" style="background-color:#ffffaa;"| [[Circumstances precluding wrongfulness]] |
! scope="col" style="background-color:#ffffaa;"| [[Circumstances precluding wrongfulness]] |
||
|- |
|- |
||
|[[File:Circumstances precluding wrongfulness.svg|left|frameless|200x200px]]A specific cyber-relation action or omission will only constitute an internationally wrongful act in the absence of circumstances precluding its wrongfulness.<ref>Cf. Articles on State Responsibility, commentary to Part One, chapter V, para |
|[[File:Circumstances precluding wrongfulness.svg|left|frameless|200x200px]]A specific cyber-relation action or omission will only constitute an internationally wrongful act in the absence of circumstances precluding its wrongfulness.<ref>Cf. ILC [http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf Articles on State Responsibility], commentary to Part One, chapter V, para 1 (“The existence in a given case of a circumstance precluding wrongfulness ... provides a shield against an otherwise well-founded claim for the breach of an international obligation”).</ref> |
||
The wrongfulness of specific conduct is precluded if one of the following conditions is met: |
The wrongfulness of specific conduct is precluded if one of the following conditions is met: |
||
# the State affected by that conduct gives its valid consent to the commission of the relevant act, as long as the act remains within the limits of that consent;<ref>Articles on State Responsibility, Art. 20.</ref> |
# the State affected by that conduct gives its valid consent to the commission of the relevant act, as long as the act remains within the limits of that consent;<ref>ILC [http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf Articles on State Responsibility], Art. 20.</ref> |
||
# the conduct of the acting State qualifies as a lawful measure of self-defence taken in conformity with the UN Charter;<ref>Articles on State Responsibility, Art. 21.</ref> |
# the conduct of the acting State qualifies as a lawful measure of self-defence taken in conformity with the UN Charter;<ref>ILC [http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf Articles on State Responsibility], Art. 21.</ref> |
||
# the conduct of the acting State constitutes a lawful [[Countermeasures|countermeasure]] taken against another State;<ref>Articles on State Responsibility, Arts 22 and 49–54.</ref> |
# the conduct of the acting State constitutes a lawful [[Countermeasures|countermeasure]] taken against another State;<ref>ILC [http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf Articles on State Responsibility], Arts 22 and 49–54.</ref> |
||
# the conduct of the acting State is justified by the existence of a situation of force majeure;<ref>Articles on State Responsibility, Art. 23.</ref> |
# the conduct of the acting State is justified by the existence of a situation of force majeure;<ref>ILC [http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf Articles on State Responsibility], Art. 23.</ref> |
||
# owing to a situation of distress, the acting person has no other reasonable way of saving their own life or the lives of other persons entrusted to their care;<ref>Articles on State Responsibility, Art. 24.</ref> |
# owing to a situation of distress, the acting person has no other reasonable way of saving their own life or the lives of other persons entrusted to their care;<ref>ILC [http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf Articles on State Responsibility], Art. 24.</ref> |
||
# the conduct of the acting State is the only way for the State to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril (also referred to as acting under the “plea of necessity”).<ref>Articles on State Responsibility, Art. 25.</ref> |
# the conduct of the acting State is the only way for the State to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril (also referred to as acting under the “plea of necessity”).<ref>ILC [http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf Articles on State Responsibility], Art. 25.</ref> |
||
|}<section end=Definition /> |
|}<section end=Definition /> |
||
Revision as of 15:39, 16 February 2021
Definition
Circumstances precluding wrongfulness |
---|
A specific cyber-relation action or omission will only constitute an internationally wrongful act in the absence of circumstances precluding its wrongfulness.[1]
The wrongfulness of specific conduct is precluded if one of the following conditions is met:
|
Appendixes
See also
Notes and references
- ↑ Cf. ILC Articles on State Responsibility, commentary to Part One, chapter V, para 1 (“The existence in a given case of a circumstance precluding wrongfulness ... provides a shield against an otherwise well-founded claim for the breach of an international obligation”).
- ↑ ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Art. 20.
- ↑ ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Art. 21.
- ↑ ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Arts 22 and 49–54.
- ↑ ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Art. 23.
- ↑ ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Art. 24.
- ↑ ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Art. 25.