Can Acta Jure Gestionis Be Attributable to the State? A Restrictive Doctrine of State Responsibility

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Yohei Okada
{"title":"Can Acta Jure Gestionis Be Attributable to the State? A Restrictive Doctrine of State Responsibility","authors":"Yohei Okada","doi":"10.1093/ejil/chad018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The distinction between acta jure imperii and jure gestionis, while playing a pivotal role in the law of state immunity, appears alien to the law of state responsibility. However, recent practice has shown conceptual overlaps between these different areas of international law. The sovereign/commercial dichotomy has informed the attribution of parastatal entities’ conduct to a state under Article 5 of the International Law Commission’s Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA). More precisely, acta jure gestionis have been excluded from the scope of attributable conduct. Against this backdrop, this study investigates whether, and to what extent, the distinction between acta jure imperii and jure gestionis dictates the interpretation and application of Article 5 of ARSIWA. We conclude that the distinction does have relevance in this context, although Article 5 was not designed to preclude the attributability of commercial acts. However, its obscure wording has allowed subsequent practice to overly narrow the scope of attributable conduct. This study, critically analysing a restrictive doctrine of state responsibility, aims to provide a more accurate and desirable conception of the rule and a clear and detailed guideline on when the commercial act of parastatal entities can be attributable to the state.","PeriodicalId":47727,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chad018","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The distinction between acta jure imperii and jure gestionis, while playing a pivotal role in the law of state immunity, appears alien to the law of state responsibility. However, recent practice has shown conceptual overlaps between these different areas of international law. The sovereign/commercial dichotomy has informed the attribution of parastatal entities’ conduct to a state under Article 5 of the International Law Commission’s Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA). More precisely, acta jure gestionis have been excluded from the scope of attributable conduct. Against this backdrop, this study investigates whether, and to what extent, the distinction between acta jure imperii and jure gestionis dictates the interpretation and application of Article 5 of ARSIWA. We conclude that the distinction does have relevance in this context, although Article 5 was not designed to preclude the attributability of commercial acts. However, its obscure wording has allowed subsequent practice to overly narrow the scope of attributable conduct. This study, critically analysing a restrictive doctrine of state responsibility, aims to provide a more accurate and desirable conception of the rule and a clear and detailed guideline on when the commercial act of parastatal entities can be attributable to the state.
陪审团行为可以归于国家吗?国家责任的限制性原则
帝国法和手势法之间的区别虽然在国家豁免法中发挥关键作用,但似乎与国家责任法格格不入。然而,最近的实践表明,国际法的这些不同领域在概念上有重叠。根据国际法委员会《国家对国际不法行为的责任条款》(ARSIWA)第5条,主权/商业二分法为将半国有实体的行为归于国家提供了依据。更确切地说,法律行为已被排除在可归责行为的范围之外。在此背景下,本研究探讨帝国法和手势法之间的区别是否以及在何种程度上决定了ARSIWA第5条的解释和适用。我们的结论是,这种区别在这种情况下确实具有相关性,尽管第5条并非旨在排除商业行为的可归因性。然而,其模糊的措辞使得随后的实践过度缩小了可归责行为的范围。本研究批判性地分析了国家责任的限制性原则,旨在提供一个更准确和理想的规则概念,以及一个半国有实体的商业行为何时可以归因于国家的明确和详细的指导方针。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: The European Journal of International Law is firmly established as one of the world"s leading journals in its field. With its distinctive combination of theoretical and practical approaches to the issues of international law, the journal offers readers a unique opportunity to stay in touch with the latest developments in this rapidly evolving area. Each issue of the EJIL provides a forum for the exploration of the conceptual and theoretical dimensions of international law as well as for up-to-date analysis of topical issues. Additionally, it is the only journal to provide systematic coverage of the relationship between international law and the law of the European Union and its Member States.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信