{"id":345,"date":"2019-07-30T07:41:44","date_gmt":"2019-07-30T07:41:44","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2019-08-07T12:17:49","modified_gmt":"2019-08-07T12:17:49","slug":"international-rules-state-responsibility-justified-3735","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/international-law\/international-rules-state-responsibility-justified-3735.php","title":{"rendered":"Are International Rules on State Responsibility Justified?"},"content":{"rendered":"

I. Introduction<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n

International Law has granted Rights and
\nDuties to the States, in which they can exercise power and control. However,
\nRights and Duties should work in tandem. Right of one State is a duty of
\nanother. State needs to be just while exercising their rights. If a State fails
\nto comply by the duties as stated by Draft Articles of International Law
\nCommission, then it is to be held responsible. And this law applies to all
\nstates big or small, irrespective of whether they are old or new. The extension
\nof State Duties and Rights has given rise to State Responsibilities. <\/p>\n

To put things in perspective, there are
\ncertain judgments by Permanent Court of International Justice that highlights
\nthe nature of State Responsibilities. In a judgment of Chorzow Factory case[1]<\/a> the Court explicitly stated
\nthat \u201cbreach of engagement involves an obligation\u201d which means if there is a
\nbreach of law by a State  then it should
\nbe dealt by holding it accountable against the State it has erred and it needs
\nto make repairs if any, which might have affected the state in particular. <\/p>\n

In a similar case involving Albania and UK which is
\nknown to be as Corfu Channel case, the Court held Albania responsible for mine
\nlaying in the territorial waters. Infact Albania had to compensate for the loss
\nof human lives and even had to pay money to United Kingdom[2]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

So, to address the question whether or not
\nInternational Rules on State Responsibility are complete and justified, one
\nneeds to have a deep look at broader aspects of State Responsibilities and see
\nhow and when it finally came in the form we know today.<\/p>\n

II. History of State Responsibility<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n

For the first time in 1928, it was decided to
\nformally write down the State Responsibilities but unfortunately it could not
\nbe done due to time constraints in Conference for Codification of International
\nLaw. No progress on this front was made until 1949. International Law
\nCommission while preparing a tentative list of 14 topics in 1949 considered it
\nproper to classify propositions which it found suitable for codification of the
\nprinciples of State Responsibility. Subsequently, the UN General Assembly in 1953
\nrequested the Commission to complete the work of codifying the principles of State
\nResponsibility[3]<\/a> and
\nthe laws governing them. It was not until 1995 that many amendments and
\nrectifications were made in the Draft. After several changes to improve the existing
\ndraft in the subsequent years the \u2018Responsibility of States for Internationally
\nWrongful Acts (draft articles) was finally adopted by the Commission in 2001.
\nOn December 12, 2001, the General Assembly highlighted the articles in the
\ndraft law and brought the same to the attention of the governments for its adherence
\nwhere it was rendered fit for adoption. Draft articles are even cited by the
\nInternational Court of Justice hence are very important.<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n

III. State Responsibility Classification<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n

It is not always the Government of a State that is
\nresponsible for breach of International Law but the individuals of a State can
\nalso be held responsible. Apparently, there is no fundamental difference
\nbetween these two classifications but on the ground their consequences are
\ndifferent. Based on whether the government is responsible or any other element
\nof the state, responsibilities can broadly be classified in two categories<\/p>\n

a) Original Responsibility<\/p>\n

b) Vicarious Responsibility<\/p>\n

State is originally held responsible when any breach
\nof code is committed by the Government of that particular state or by any
\nperson who is authorized by the Government. In this classification Government
\nis directly involved in breach of International Law. However, there is another
\ncategory in which the elements external to the Government are involved in
\nwrongful acts, like people living in the territory or unauthorized agents. This
\nclassification and responsibility associated with it is termed as \u2018vicarious\u2019
\nresponsibility.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

There are more specific classifications regarding the
\nState Responsibilities in which government\u2019s role is assessed as direct and
\nindirect. In direct State Responsibility the Acts of Government are directly
\ninvolved in breach of international Law whereas in Indirect State
\nResponsibility, the actions of the Government are not directly in the line of
\nfire.<\/p>\n

III.(a) Direct State Responsibility<\/strong><\/p>\n

The State is an abstract entity therefore act of
\nstate must be dealt with more precision. Since State acts through different
\nagencies and organizations, therefore to attribute Direct State Responsibility
\nit was specified that State would be held responsible directly if any wrongful
\nact or breach of International Law is done by any of its agency or organ. To
\nadd to this, the conduct of government officials is also under the ambit of
\nDirect State Responsibility[5]<\/a>. Hence persons who act under
\nthe control of government in various positions[6]<\/a> and do wrongful acts fall in
\nthe category of Direct State Responsibility. Such organs and entities include
\nthe following: –<\/p>\n

(i) 
\nExecutive and Administrative Organs<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n

If a Head of a State or a person who is
\nby the command of the Head of the State commits a crime or a breach of
\nInternational Law, then the actions of individual are attributed to the State.
\nThese acts are international delinquency. International delinquency does not
\ndifferentiate between high end personnel or low-end personnel. For example,
\naggression or violence by police personnel and inability to act against the
\npersonnel will constitute a State Responsibility[7]<\/a><\/p>\n

There is a significant difference between
\nInternational Delinquency and International Crime. An International Delinquency
\nis called an International Crime if the breach of code was carried out for the
\ngreater good of the community at large. To put things in order, at times it
\nbecome essential to use force and harsh actions   to curb violence or genocide for
\nsafeguarding human lives. This specific act, which may be considered as a
\nbreach of international law ,is considered to be essential for maintaining
\npeace and security .Similar cases 
\nsuch  as  prohibiting slavery and fighting against
\napartheid are also to  be treated  as instances 
\nof international crime. However, any internationally wrongful act which an
\ninternational crime is not constitutes an international delict.[8]<\/a><\/p>\n

International delinquency may or may not
\ninvolve the breach of treaty. To explain International delinquency involving
\ntreaty, let\u2019s take the example of Chorzow Factory Case again, in which
\nInternational Court of Justice acknowledged that \u201cbreach of engagement involves
\nobligation to take reparation\u201d.[9]<\/a> However this does not mean
\nthat delinquency always will involve breach of treaty. In-fact a State can be
\naffected by wrong doings such as intervention or through attack on its persons
\nabroad. It is to be noted that damage is not a pre-condition of State
\nResponsibility which is also reiterated by International Law Commission. <\/p>\n

In the nineteenth century properties
\nbelonging to foreigners were confiscated in the name of nationalization of
\nproperty in various nations. It was clearly a breach of law because this
\npractice of land consolidation was biased and targeted. However, in
\ncontemporary world same practice when applied in accordance with declared
\npolicy and without discrimination is not illegal to say the least[10]<\/a>. Having said that however in
\ncase if confiscation is unlawful, the State is obliged to pay damages for any
\nloss that may have occurred to the injured party.[11]<\/a><\/p>\n

Wrongful acts committed by a state in self-defense
\nis not considered International delinquency although it may have caused severe
\ndamages<\/p>\n

(ii) Acts of Diplomatic Envoys<\/strong><\/p>\n

The State is responsible for the
\ninjurious actions of its diplomatic envoys in another state. It is believed
\nthat the Diplomatic personnel\u2019s\u2019 injurious action is performed at the command
\nor in consultation with the Home State. Therefore, the diplomatic envoys are
\nnot directly responsible, but the State is held responsible for such malicious
\nactions.[12]<\/a><\/p>\n

It is noteworthy that all breach of
\ninternational code by the envoys of a State are directly attributed to the home
\nstate.<\/p>\n

(iii) 
\nArmed Forces Actions<\/strong><\/p>\n

State is always held responsible for the
\nactions of its armed forces which are authorized by the Government[13]<\/a>. However, for every other
\nwrong doing which is not authorized by the State, the State is not held responsible.
\nA reckless or mistake or a casual conduct by the armed force officer which
\nresults in violation of international coded law is a Direct State
\nResponsibility whether or not it was authorized by the State. A Korean
\nCommercial aircraft was shot down in 1983 due to a mistake, otherwise to be
\ntreated as culpable action, is an example of direct responsibility.<\/p>\n

(iv) 
\nJudicial Actions<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n

Any judgment by any court which breaches
\nInternational Law results in State Responsibility. All other merits of case
\nbecome irrelevant. For instance, if a court issues an order that denies the
\nimmunity cover to ambassador of other state, then such a judgment is a breach
\nof International Law and the State is directly held responsible. Irrespective
\nof the fact that Government and Judiciary work independently in most federal
\nsystems. Another relevant example of this case that if an extradition treaty is
\noverlooked by the judiciary dealing with an offender, in such a case too, the
\nState is to be held responsible for the action of the Judiciary. Further that
\nif a Court is unable to comprehend or interpret a treaty or commits error with
\nregards to a treaty, then for such a judgment rendered by court the State is
\nresponsible directly.<\/p>\n

(v) Territorial and sub Units of Federal
\nState<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n

There is always a debate whether or not
\nthe wrongful doings of territorial units of Federal State be attributed to
\nState. However, in International Law it is generally the case. Whether or not a
\nfederal state can exercise control over territorial units, it is accepted that
\nit is the responsibility of State. International Law
\nCommission has explicitly stated in its report of 1974 that the State is
\nresponsible for acts and omissions of organs of territorial governmental
\nentities[14]<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

In some cases, it is not evidently clear
\nwhich agency or organ of the state has breached international law. However, the
\nState is still held responsible if the act is committed in its territory. Corfu
\nChannel case is a perfect example for illustrating this point. In Corfu Channel
\ncase, Albania was held responsible for the consequences of mine-laying in its
\nterritorial waters owing to the reason that Albanian authorities knew of the
\npresence of the mines. In fact, no evidence was found to prove which agency or
\norganization was responsible and it cannot be ruled out that a third state may
\nhave been present.[15]<\/a>Similarly armed expeditions
\nmay be carried out by a neutral state using its territory against another State.[16]<\/a><\/p>\n

III.(b) Indirect State Responsibility <\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n

In indirect State Responsibility, it
\nis obligatory on the part of the state to check control and prevent its
\nsubjects and foreign nationals who live within the territory of the state from
\ndoing any such act which may result in causing injury to other states. If any
\ncriminal activity is committed by any one individual or group, the state will
\nhave to own the responsibility. This kind of responsibility by the state is
\nknown as \u201cindirect\u201d responsibility. The state is responsible for any criminal
\nactivity committed by its organs and for the wrongful acts of its individuals.
\nThe state is blamed for not having control and not being able to prevent the
\nunlawful activity of its organs. According to Oppenheim \u201cif a state has not
\nexercised due to diligence it can be made responsible and held liable to pay
\ndamages\u201d[17]<\/a><\/p>\n

The responsibility falls on the state
\nwhen its organs fail to prevent the damage and give redressal to the foreign
\nstate which is injured by it. Failure on the part of the state to prevent
\nwrongful activity amounts to breach of international obligation. There are
\ncertain activities committed by the individuals, for example, wrongful activity
\nagainst foreign diplomats or ambassadors, disrespectful to the flag of the
\nforeign nation, injury propaganda against a foreign state or to head or damage
\nto property or person of foreign nationals.<\/p>\n

The state is also held responsible
\nfor mob violence causing damage to public and private property of foreign
\nnationals. It is the duty of the state to provide safety and security to the
\nlife and property of foreigners. If the state fails to do so and it is proved
\nthat proper care and due diligence is not taken to prevent violence- aggressive
\nand criminal activity, it will be held responsible. The state will also be held
\nresponsible if it is proved that the state and its organs had connivance in spreading
\nor supporting the violence.<\/p>\n

In case of attack by armed militants
\nto the foreign public property the state will be held responsible for not
\nproviding enough security or for not being able to prevent it e.g. in case of
\nmilitant attack to the embassy of USA in Tehran. The state was held responsible
\nby the International Court of Justice. The international court of justice
\nnailed out that the state was under obligation to protect the U.S. embassy if
\nit failed in its duty. The militants became the agents of the state as the
\nIranian authority had approval for the act. The court gave the decision that
\nIran is under obligation to make reparation to the government of USA for the
\ninjury caused by the militants[18]<\/a><\/p>\n

In case of violence in insurrection
\nand civil wars the state will be responsible if injury is caused to foreign
\nnationals. Here again due diligence is required by the state to prevent riots
\nand revolutionary activity by the state for otherwise the state will be held
\nresponsible for the damage and injury caused to the foreign subjects. <\/p>\n

In general, however, broad formulae
\non State Responsibility are unhelpful and may not be analogous to municipal law.
\nTo Brownlie, responsibility only arises when the act or omission complain is
\nimputable to a state.\u201d[19]<\/a><\/p>\n

In the same argument one can refer to
\nthe Youman\u2019s case in which the mayor of the town in Mexico ordered the lieutenant
\nof the town to curb the riot like situation and to prevent the attack against
\ncertain American citizens. The troops on the contrary attacked the house where
\nthe Americans had taken shelter for their safety.[20]<\/a><\/p>\n

One American citizen was killed, two more
\ncitizens were killed by rioters. In the firing incident the Mexican troop had
\ndisobeyed the orders of the Mayor and the Mexican State was held liable for the
\nwrongful act controlled by the troops.<\/p>\n

(i)
\nState Responsibility for the acts of corporation<\/strong><\/p>\n

Corporations are attributed as a nationality. They are treated as nationals. Responsibility may be put on states for any wrongful activity committed by the corporation according to their nationality <\/p>\n

A Canadian company which started Smelting lead and Zinc at Trail on the Colombian river near the border of Canada and USA within the Canadian territory. During 1920s to 1930s the company emitted (daily) over 300 tons of Sulphur containing Sulphur dioxide. The fumes resulted in impacting adversary in the Colombian river valley and caused damage to land and environment in the state of Washington. After negotiation between the two countries the case was referred to International Joint Commission, a body having jurisdiction over water boundaries. The commission assessed the damage to the tune of $350,000, Canada agreed to pay the amount, but the Smelter at Trail continued to operate. The issue as leading from compensation to dispute was subsequently referred to arbitration. The tribunal as per prevalent law and law of United States observed that no state has the right to use its territory in such a way so as to cause injury or damage to another territory. The tribunal gave the decision against Canada and held it responsible for the conduct of Trail Smelter[21]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

(ii)
\nState Responsibility in case of injury suffered by UN personnel<\/strong><\/p>\n

 It is responsibility of the state to protect
\nthe persons serving under International organizations. The international court
\nof Justice in case of the Court Bernadottee or in case of Reparations for Injuries
\nsuffered in service of the UN declared that international organization is a
\nsubject of international law and is entitled to claim reparation. In this case,
\nCourt Bernadottee and a French observer were appointed by UNSC to act as
\nmediator for the peace talks between Arabs and Jews in Palestine. Both were
\nmurdered in Jerusalem which was under the occupation of Israel. The UN Secretary
\nGeneral claimed compensation from the Government of Israel for the death of the
\nCount and French observer. Although, the govt. of Israel paid the money in the
\nform of compensation but refused to accept any obligation under law in this
\nregard. Similarly subjects of international law can also move against the state,
\nif they feel not properly treated by the state. A state is liable for the
\ncitizens and other states whose rights are denied.  <\/p>\n

IV. Calvo clause<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Calvo principle ,also associated with
\nthe Argentine publicist Calvo who pronounced 
\nthe doctrine in 1868.[22]<\/a> According to him, \u201cStates
\nwere not to be embarrassed by international claims based on vicarious
\nresponsibility for acts of their officials, riots and insurrections which had
\nresulted in damage to property belonging to aliens provided that the damage or the
\nfailure to repair it was not due to measures of a discriminatory character\u201d.
\nThus, according to him a State may not be held responsible for the damages
\nsuffered by foreigners as the result of civil strife, or during conflicts,
\nsince that would amount to injustice with regard to its own citizens suffering
\nlosses in the similar situations. <\/p>\n

The Calvo principle is in practice in
\ncertain Latin American countries since the last quarter of nineteenth century.
\nThe Calvo clause is part of the constitution of Mexico and the provision is specifically
\nincluded under Article 27 of the Constitution.<\/p>\n

V. Consequences
\nof the State Responsibility <\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n

If there is a breach of an international obligation,
\nthen two types of legal consequences arise-<\/p>\n

1.      Duty
\nof cessation<\/p>\n

2.      Duty
\nof full reparation<\/p>\n

In International law, responsibility is discharged
\nthrough reparation. As cited in the Chorzow Factory Case, Permanent Court of
\nInternational Justice held that if there is a breach of an engagement then the
\nprinciple of International Law says that after the breach of engagement
\nreparation has to be done in an adequate form. It was also held by the court
\nthat this principle is established by international practice and decisions of
\narbitral tribunal must wipe out all the illegal acts and try to establish the
\nsituation which should have existed if not have been committed[23]<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n

The term reparation is a wide term and includes all
\nthe measures which a State should take to do away which such a responsibility.
\nWhether it may be restitution, indemnity or satisfaction.<\/p>\n

V.(a) Restitution<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n

In
\nrestitution, one can perform the obligation which the State was supposed to
\ndischarge. Or it can be done through revocating the unlawful act, or by
\nabstaining from the further wrongful act. It depends from case to case that
\nwhat types of duties the State will perform.<\/p>\n

V.(b) Indemnity<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n

Indemnity
\noccurs when restitution is not possible. In the Chorzow Factory case it was
\nheld by the Permanent Court of International Justice that it is a principle of
\nInternational Law that the reparation of a wrong may consist of an indemnity. This
\nis the most usual form of reparation. How much indemnity should be done it
\ndepends from case to case. In the case of Military and Paramilitary activities
\nin and against Nicaragua[24]<\/a>, The government of
\nNicaragua demanded an amount to the tune of $370,200,000 from  the court as the minimum value for direct
\ndamages done. The Court however, held that the amount of reparation will be
\nsettled by the Court itself on merit.<\/p>\n

Responsibility for the Destruction of Pan Am Airliner <\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n

In
\nLockerbie, in 1988 there was an explosion on a Pan Am Flight causing the death
\nof 270 civilians.[25]<\/a>Libyans were held
\nresponsible for this destruction. But, Libya didn\u2019t cooperate in giving
\npunishments to its nationals for this act. However, it agreed to send two of
\nits suspected nationals for the trial by the Scottish judges in the
\nNetherlands. In 2001 for the same case the court convicted one of the people
\ni.e., Abdel Basset Ali al-Meghrahi. In 2003 the Libyan government accepted its
\nresponsibility and agreed to pay the compensation to the bereaved families.
\nReacting over the incidence the than Libyan Foreign Minister Mr. Abdelrehmane Chalgham
\nstated, \u201cWe have taken the responsibility for the case on the basis of the
\nInternational Law which states that the State takes on responsibility for what
\nits employees do\u201d. The Libyan government had to pay $2.70 billion in
\ncompensation to the families of all the 270 people who died in the explosion of
\nthe plane.<\/p>\n

V.(c)<\/strong> Satisfaction<\/strong><\/p>\n

Any measure which the author of a breach of duty is
\nbound to take under the International Law or in an agreement between parties in
\ndispute which is different from restitution or compensation is known as
\nsatisfaction[26]<\/a>.
\nSatisfaction as a part of reparation is considered in those cases where a harm
\nhas been caused to the dignity and personality of a State. In these types of
\ncases material damage is not given but the State does such activities which
\nsatisfies the injured State.<\/p>\n

VI. Conclusions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The State Responsibilities are complete and justified and under its legal obligation states are solely responsible for its own conduct or for the actions of its officials under its authority and command. One however needs to understand, that responsibility of the state for internationally wrongful acts are formulated by way of codification and progressive development and therefore also constitute as an inseparable part of the State Responsibilities. <\/p>\n

According to Marko
\nMilanovic, \u201cIt is one thing to define a rule and the content of the obligation
\nit imposes, and another to determine whether that obligation has been violated
\nand what should be the obligation of the violation\u201d [27]<\/a> The Articles drafted under state
\nresponsibilities emphasize on secondary rules of State Responsibilities and
\ngive little or no weightage to the primary rules of International Law. Neither these
\narticles touch on the content of obligation, nor do they have  any scope for their interpretation.  <\/p>\n

Therefore, it is
\nfor primary international law to decide upon whether a state is involved in a
\ntreaty, whether or not the treaty is in place and how the treaty needs to be
\ninterpreted in the given circumstances. The Secondary Law or what we call as
\nArticles on State Responsibility can decide the framework for determining the
\nlegal obligations that the state at fault needs to fulfill.<\/p>\n

Another aspect
\nwhich is not clearly elaborated in the State Responsibility articles is the
\nfact that it does not give the provision to injured State to abandon or suspend
\nthe treaty. It may happen that a state is unjust to another state for a binding
\nperiod of a treaty or for that matter, a treaty itself is unjust to a
\nparticular state. The State Responsibility Articles do not consider this
\nclause, although this clause is a part of Article 60 of Vienna Convention[28]<\/a>. One may suggest, therefore
\nthat there should be a provision in Customary Secondary International Law
\nregarding opting out of treaty if the Treaty or Obligation is unjust, the
\ndetails of such a provision can be worked out by inviting the opinions of all
\nStates. <\/p>\n

The Articles also
\ndo not cover the consequences that may arise as response of various
\nInternational Organizations for the wrongful conduct. Thus, a stand needs to be
\ntaken against a breach of code by an international organization. However, this
\nclause is not covered by the Articles of State Responsibilities. The breach of
\nConduct that may occur and its legal consequences are also not covered under State
\nResponsibilities Articles.<\/p>\n

It may be
\nconcluded that the term \u2018internationally wrong\u2019 is not well defined in the afore
\nmentioned articles. There could be cases as wherein State has to compensate for
\nbehavior or conduct which is not prohibited by any means in international law
\nlet\u2019s say for example compensating for land or property which is taken in for the
\nwellbeing of people. Thus for some cases international responsibility will act
\ncontrary to International Law. <\/p>\n

As the name
\nsuggests- the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful
\nActs cover the wrongful acts committed by the State and does not have its
\njurisdiction or draft articles for wrongful acts committed by the International
\nOrganizations and the Non-State Actors[29]<\/a> which may potentially injure
\na state and the injured state has no scope within these articles to seek
\ncompensation.<\/p>\n

But the fact, one
\nmay appreciate about the State Responsibilities Articles is that; they cover an
\nentire gamut of issues involving states and do not necessarily get restricted
\nto bilateral treaties. The articles not only cover single state or group of
\nStates but the international community as a whole. Even though it was mentioned
\nearlier that the Articles are quite general in nature and do not give any
\ninterpretation of treaties, it may mean that States have the freedom to engage
\nin treaties and obligations with their choice and will and can decide upon the
\nnuances of the obligation. [30]<\/a><\/p>\n

To conclude the argument
\nwhether or not Articles on State Responsibility are complete and satisfactory, one
\nmay say that they cover most aspects of internationally wrongful acts committed
\nby State\/States against other States. However, some amendments can be made in
\naspects such as dealing with primary international law. It would mean that
\nprimary and secondary international law can complement each other. This could
\nbe accomplished by inviting suggestions from the international community and
\nforming committees that can deliberate on this issue so as how to make
\ncustomary State Responsibilities more relevant and stronger. <\/p>\n

To sum up the
\nargument, one may refer to one of the judgments that was made by International
\nArbitral Tribunal in a case regarding Archer Daniels and others v. the United
\nMexican States. In the given case the court observed and penned its assessment
\non the Articles of the State Responsibilities. It acknowledged that ILC
\narticles are a result of over five decades of work and represent to a large
\nextent a restatement of customary international law regarding secondary
\nprinciples of State Responsibility[31]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

It is however
\nsubmitted that conclusions as drawn are limited and on the basis of facts and
\nliterature consulted for conducting the present study. <\/p>\n

Bibliography<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Factory at Chorzow (Germ. v. Pol.), 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 9 (July 26)<\/li>\n
  2. (United Kingdom v. Albania) 1948 I.C.J. Rep. 15; 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 4.<\/li>\n
  3. Crawford, James.State Responsibility: The General Part. <\/em>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2013<\/li>\n
  4. Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. 1, Ninth Edition<\/li>\n
  5. Article 5.Draft Articles<\/em> on the Responsibility<\/em> of States<\/em> for Internationally Wrongful Acts (“Draft Articles<\/em>“) by the International<\/em> Law Commission (ILC)<\/li>\n
  6. Article 8.Draft Articles<\/em> on the Responsibility<\/em> of States<\/em> for Internationally Wrongful Acts (“Draft Articles<\/em>“) by the International<\/em> Law Commission (ILC)<\/li>\n
  7. Margaret Roper<\/em> (U.S.A.) v. United Mexican States. 4<\/em> April 1927<\/em>. IV R.I.A.A<\/em><\/li>\n
  8. Article 2.Draft Articles<\/em> on the Responsibility<\/em> of States<\/em> for Internationally Wrongful Acts (“Draft Articles<\/em>“) by the International<\/em> Law Commission (ILC)<\/li>\n
  9. Factory at Chorzow (Germ. v. Pol.), 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A)<\/li>\n
  10. Responsibility for injury to aliens? <https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/international-law\/codification-international-law-state-responsibility-injury-aliens-international-law-essay.php<\/a>><\/li>\n
  11. Factory at Chorzow (Germ. v. Pol.), 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) <\/li>\n
  12. Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. 1, Ninth Edition p542<\/li>\n
  13. Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. 1, Ninth Edition p545<\/li>\n
  14. Report of International Law commission, 1974 pp. 3-4.<\/li>\n
  15. Brownlie Ian, Principles of Public International Law 7th<\/sup>Ed  p. 447<\/li>\n
  16. Brownlie Ian, Principles of Public International Law 7th<\/sup>Ed  p. 447-48<\/li>\n
  17. Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. 1, Ninth Edition<\/li>\n
  18. United States of America v. Iran, Order, 12 V 81, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 12 May 1981<\/li>\n
  19. Brownlie, Ian,  Principles of Public International Law 7th<\/sup> Ed<\/li>\n
  20. Kapoor, S.K., International Law and Human Rights, 1998<\/li>\n
  21. Trail smelter case (United States v. Canada), 3 UNRIAA, 1941<\/li>\n
  22. Calvo, Carlos, International Law of Europe and American in Theory and Practice (1868).<\/li>\n
  23. \u2018Legal Consequences on Construction of wall in the occupied Palestinian territory\u2019 https:\/\/www.icj-cij.org\/en\/case\/131<\/a><\/li>\n
  24. Nicaragua v. United States of America, Merits, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 27 June 1986<\/li>\n
  25. Johnson, David, Lockerbie, the real story. Bloomsbury Publishing Ltd, 1989<\/li>\n
  26. Brownlie, Ian Principles of Public International Law 7th<\/sup> Ed<\/li>\n
  27. Milanovi\u0107, Marko, State Responsibility for Genocide, European Journal of International Law,<\/em> Volume 17, Issue 3, 1 June 2006<\/li>\n
  28. Corten, Oliverand Klein, Pierre, The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary, Oxford University Press,2011<\/li>\n
  29. Article 57-58, Draft Articles<\/em> on the Responsibility<\/em> of States<\/em> for Internationally Wrongful Acts (“Draft Articles<\/em>“) by the International<\/em> Law Commission (ILC)<\/li>\n
  30. Article 55, Draft Articles<\/em> on the Responsibility<\/em> of States<\/em> for Internationally Wrongful Acts (“Draft Articles<\/em>“) by the International<\/em> Law Commission (ILC)<\/li>\n
  31. Archer Daniels and others v. the United Mexican State, Case No. ARB(AF)\/04\/05, 21 Nov 2007<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
    \n

    [1]<\/a> Factory at Chorzow (Germ. v. Pol.), 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 9 (July 26)<\/p>\n

    [2]<\/a> (United Kingdom v. Albania) 1948 I.C.J. Rep. 15; 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 4.<\/p>\n

    [3]<\/a> James Crawford,State Responsibility: The General Part. <\/em>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2013.<\/p>\n

    [4]<\/a> Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. 1, Ninth Edition <\/p>\n

    [5]<\/a>
    \nArticle 5.Draft Articles<\/em> on the Responsibility<\/em> of States<\/em> for
    \nInternationally Wrongful Acts (“Draft Articles<\/em>“) by the International<\/em> Law Commission (ILC) <\/p>\n

    [6]<\/a> Article 8.Draft Articles<\/em> on the Responsibility<\/em> of States<\/em> for Internationally Wrongful Acts (“Draft Articles<\/em>“) by the International<\/em> Law Commission (ILC) <\/p>\n

    [7]<\/a> Margaret Roper<\/em> (U.S.A.) v. United Mexican States. 4<\/em> April 1927<\/em>. IV R.I.A.A.<\/em><\/p>\n

    [8]<\/a>
    \nArticle 2.Draft Articles<\/em> on the Responsibility<\/em> of States<\/em> for Internationally Wrongful Acts
    \n(“Draft
    \nArticles<\/em>“) by the International<\/em> Law Commission (ILC) <\/p>\n

    [9]<\/a> Factory at Chorzow (Germ. v. Pol.), 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) <\/p>\n

    [10]<\/a> Responsibility for injury to aliens? <https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/international-law\/codification-international-law-state-responsibility-injury-aliens-international-law-essay.php><\/p>\n

    [11]<\/a> Factory at Chorzow (Germ. v. Pol.), 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) <\/p>\n

    [12]<\/a> Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. 1, Ninth Edition p542<\/p>\n

    [13]<\/a> Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. 1, Ninth Edition p545<\/p>\n

    [14]<\/a> Report of International Law commission, 1974 pp. 3-4.<\/p>\n

    [15]<\/a> Ian Brownlie,
    \nPrinciples of Public International Law 7th<\/sup>Ed  p. 447.<\/p>\n

    [16]<\/a> Ian
    \nBrownlie, Principles of Public International Law 7th<\/sup>Ed  p. 447-48<\/p>\n

    [17]<\/a> Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. 1, Ninth Edition<\/p>\n

    [18]<\/a> United States of America v. Iran, Order, 12 V 81, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 12 May 1981<\/p>\n

    [19]<\/a> Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law 7th<\/sup> Ed<\/p>\n

    [20]<\/a> SK Kapoor, International Law and Human Rights, 1998<\/p>\n

    [21]<\/a> Trail smelter case (United States v. Canada), 3 UNRIAA, 1941<\/p>\n

    [22]<\/a> Carlos
    \nCalvo, International Law of Europe and American in Theory and Practice (1868).<\/p>\n

    [23]<\/a> \u2018Legal
    \nConsequences on Construction of wall in the occupied Palestinian territory\u2019
    \n<https:\/\/www.icj-cij.org\/en\/case\/131><\/p>\n

    [24]<\/a> Nicaragua v. United States of America, Merits, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 27 June 1986<\/p>\n

    [25]<\/a> David Johnson, Lockerbie, the real story. Bloomsbury Publishing Ltd, 1989<\/p>\n

    [26]<\/a> Ian
    \nBrownlie, Principles of Public International Law 7th<\/sup> Ed<\/p>\n

    [27]<\/a> <\/a>Marko Milanovi\u0107<\/a>, State Responsibility for Genocide, European Journal of International Law,<\/em> Volume 17, Issue 3, 1 June 2006<\/p>\n

    [28]<\/a>Olivier Cortenand Pierre
    \nKlein, The Vienna
    \nConventions on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary Oxford University
    \nPress,2011<\/p>\n

    [29]<\/a>
    \nArticle 57-58, Draft Articles<\/em> on the Responsibility<\/em> of States<\/em> for
    \nInternationally Wrongful Acts (“Draft Articles<\/em>“) by the International<\/em> Law Commission (ILC)<\/p>\n

    [30]<\/a>
    \nArticle 55, Draft Articles<\/em> on the Responsibility<\/em> of States<\/em> for
    \nInternationally Wrongful Acts (“Draft Articles<\/em>“) by the International<\/em> Law Commission (ILC)<\/p>\n

    [31]<\/a> Archer
    \nDaniels and others v. the United Mexican State, Case No. ARB(AF)\/04\/05, 21 Nov
    \n2007<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    If a Head of a State or a person who is by the command of the Head of the State commits a crime or a breach of International Law, then the actions of individual are attributed to the State. These acts are international delinquency. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[36],"tags":[86],"class_list":["post-345","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-free-law-essaysinternational-law","tag-int-law"],"yoast_head":"\nAre International Rules on State Responsibility Justified? | LawTeacher.net<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"If a Head of a State or a person who is by the command of the Head of the State commits a crime or a breach of International Law, then the actions of individual are attributed to the State. These acts are international delinquency.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/international-law\/international-rules-state-responsibility-justified-3735.php\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Are International Rules on State Responsibility Justified?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"If a Head of a State or a person who is by the command of the Head of the State commits a crime or a breach of International Law, then the actions of individual are attributed to the State. These acts are international delinquency.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/international-law\/international-rules-state-responsibility-justified-3735.php\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"LawTeacher.net\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-large-logo.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1080\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"LawTeacher\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"LawTeacher\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"ScholarlyArticle\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/international-law\/international-rules-state-responsibility-justified-3735.php#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/international-law\/international-rules-state-responsibility-justified-3735.php\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"LawTeacher\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e\"},\"headline\":\"Are International Rules on State Responsibility Justified?\",\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/international-law\/international-rules-state-responsibility-justified-3735.php\"},\"wordCount\":5248,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"International Law\"],\"articleSection\":[\"International Law\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/international-law\/international-rules-state-responsibility-justified-3735.php\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/international-law\/international-rules-state-responsibility-justified-3735.php\",\"name\":\"Are International Rules on State Responsibility Justified? | LawTeacher.net\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"description\":\"If a Head of a State or a person who is by the command of the Head of the State commits a crime or a breach of International Law, then the actions of individual are attributed to the State. These acts are international delinquency.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/international-law\/international-rules-state-responsibility-justified-3735.php#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/international-law\/international-rules-state-responsibility-justified-3735.php\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/international-law\/international-rules-state-responsibility-justified-3735.php#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Are International Rules on State Responsibility Justified?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\",\"name\":\"Law Teacher\",\"description\":\"The Law Essay Professionals\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"LawTeacher.net\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Law Teacher\",\"alternateName\":\"LawTeacher.net\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg\",\"width\":250,\"height\":250,\"caption\":\"Law Teacher\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send\/?phone=447723491966&text&type=phone_number&app_absent=0\"],\"description\":\"Law Teacher provides academic writing services for law students throughout the world.\",\"email\":\"contact@lawteacher.net\",\"telephone\":\"+44 115 966 7966\",\"numberOfEmployees\":{\"@type\":\"QuantitativeValue\",\"minValue\":\"51\",\"maxValue\":\"200\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e\",\"name\":\"LawTeacher\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"LawTeacher\"},\"description\":\"LawTeacher.net is the UK's leading provider of academic legal support, offering both writing services and an extensive collection of law study resources for students in the UK and overseas. Founded in 2003 by Grey's Inn graduate Barclay Littlewood, the Company was built on a commitment to excellence, with unique guarantees and a high standard of service from day one. The team includes over 500 UK legally qualified writing experts, with many practising solicitors and barristers, and several former lecturers.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/gravatar.com\/lawteacherprofile\"],\"knowsAbout\":[\"Contract Law\",\"Criminal Law\",\"Constitutional and Administrative Law\",\"EU Law\",\"Tort Law\",\"Property Law\",\"Equity and Trusts\",\"Jurisprudence\",\"Company Law\",\"Commercial Law\",\"Family Law\",\"Human Rights Law\",\"Employment Law\",\"Evidence\",\"Public International Law\",\"Legal Research and Methods\",\"Dispute Resolution\",\"Business Law and Practice\",\"Civil Litigation\",\"Criminal Litigation\",\"Professional Conduct\",\"Taxation\",\"Wills and Administration of Estates\",\"Solicitors\u2019 Accounts\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/author\/lawteacher\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Are International Rules on State Responsibility Justified? | LawTeacher.net","description":"If a Head of a State or a person who is by the command of the Head of the State commits a crime or a breach of International Law, then the actions of individual are attributed to the State. These acts are international delinquency.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/international-law\/international-rules-state-responsibility-justified-3735.php","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Are International Rules on State Responsibility Justified?","og_description":"If a Head of a State or a person who is by the command of the Head of the State commits a crime or a breach of International Law, then the actions of individual are attributed to the State. These acts are international delinquency.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/international-law\/international-rules-state-responsibility-justified-3735.php","og_site_name":"LawTeacher.net","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet","article_published_time":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1920,"height":1080,"url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-large-logo.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"LawTeacher","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@LawTeacherNet","twitter_site":"@LawTeacherNet","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"LawTeacher","Estimated reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"ScholarlyArticle","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/international-law\/international-rules-state-responsibility-justified-3735.php#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/international-law\/international-rules-state-responsibility-justified-3735.php"},"author":{"name":"LawTeacher","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e"},"headline":"Are International Rules on State Responsibility Justified?","datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/international-law\/international-rules-state-responsibility-justified-3735.php"},"wordCount":5248,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization"},"keywords":["International Law"],"articleSection":["International Law"],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/international-law\/international-rules-state-responsibility-justified-3735.php","url":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/international-law\/international-rules-state-responsibility-justified-3735.php","name":"Are International Rules on State Responsibility Justified? | LawTeacher.net","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website"},"datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","description":"If a Head of a State or a person who is by the command of the Head of the State commits a crime or a breach of International Law, then the actions of individual are attributed to the State. These acts are international delinquency.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/international-law\/international-rules-state-responsibility-justified-3735.php#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/international-law\/international-rules-state-responsibility-justified-3735.php"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/international-law\/international-rules-state-responsibility-justified-3735.php#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Are International Rules on State Responsibility Justified?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website","url":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/","name":"Law Teacher","description":"The Law Essay Professionals","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization"},"alternateName":"LawTeacher.net","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization","name":"Law Teacher","alternateName":"LawTeacher.net","url":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg","width":250,"height":250,"caption":"Law Teacher"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/","https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send\/?phone=447723491966&text&type=phone_number&app_absent=0"],"description":"Law Teacher provides academic writing services for law students throughout the world.","email":"contact@lawteacher.net","telephone":"+44 115 966 7966","numberOfEmployees":{"@type":"QuantitativeValue","minValue":"51","maxValue":"200"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e","name":"LawTeacher","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"LawTeacher"},"description":"LawTeacher.net is the UK's leading provider of academic legal support, offering both writing services and an extensive collection of law study resources for students in the UK and overseas. Founded in 2003 by Grey's Inn graduate Barclay Littlewood, the Company was built on a commitment to excellence, with unique guarantees and a high standard of service from day one. The team includes over 500 UK legally qualified writing experts, with many practising solicitors and barristers, and several former lecturers.","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/gravatar.com\/lawteacherprofile"],"knowsAbout":["Contract Law","Criminal Law","Constitutional and Administrative Law","EU Law","Tort Law","Property Law","Equity and Trusts","Jurisprudence","Company Law","Commercial Law","Family Law","Human Rights Law","Employment Law","Evidence","Public International Law","Legal Research and Methods","Dispute Resolution","Business Law and Practice","Civil Litigation","Criminal Litigation","Professional Conduct","Taxation","Wills and Administration of Estates","Solicitors\u2019 Accounts"],"url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/author\/lawteacher"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/345","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=345"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/345\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=345"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=345"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=345"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}