Responsibility of States for Wrongdoing: Who Is to Decide?

Alon Harel, Julian Kulaga

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterpeer-review


Can States determine unilaterally what counts as a wrongful behaviour in the absence of public international adjudicative institutions? Can meaningful responsibility for wrongful acts exist in the absence of a public adjudicative entity? What happens in the case of a conflict between a unilateral (private) judgment of a State accused of having committed a wrong and the decision of a (public) international adjudicative institution? The authors advocate for a system based on conflicting judgments concerning responsibility made both by international adjudicative institutions (publicly) and by the States themselves (privately), what they refer to as the ‘discordant parity hypothesis’. The case for the overriding power of international adjudicative institutions is based on the importance of the State’s publicly recognized duties. The case for the overriding power of judgments made by States stems from its promise to facilitate active engagement of States with their obligations. The chapter embraces a system that recognizes the normative force of both (and the inevitable resulting conflicts).
Original languageAmerican English
Title of host publicationTheories of International Responsibility Law
EditorsSamantha Besson
Place of PublicationCambridge
PublisherCambridge University Press
Number of pages24
ISBN (Print)9781009208550
StatePublished - 2022

Publication series

NameASIL Studies in International Legal Theory


  • statist
  • international adjudication
  • auto-interpretation
  • self-judging clauses
  • circumstances precluding wrongfulness
  • derogation
  • discordant parity
  • public/private


Dive into the research topics of 'Responsibility of States for Wrongdoing: Who Is to Decide?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this