Abstract:
Draft articles of International Law Commission (hereinafter ILC) on International Responsibility of States (2001) (ARSIWA) and International Organizations (2011) (ARIO) have considered responsibility for act of another party, called Derived Responsibility. Its scope is not clear enough, although being exclusive. In order to clarify the the scope of its application, the present article seeks to investigate the articles in the two said documents in connection with derived responsibility. Therefore, this will be dealt by comparative study of relevant articles in these two drafts. The comparative study of the two said drafts shows that, ‘Aid or Assistance’, ‘Direction and Control’, ‘Coercion’ and ‘Circumvention’ hav been regarded as the for scenario in respect of international organizations and states, the both. In spite of the fact that the cirumvention the international obligation has not been mentioned in arsiwa (2001), is also applicable to states. Derived responsibility in addition to the fundamental foundation of the law of international responsibility (ie derived responsibility), may lead to justice in the exercise of responsibility.
Machine summary:
2 Given that, on one hand, there is little practice regarding the responsibility of international organizations arising from aid or assistance in the commission of an internationally wrongful act, and on the other hand, it does not seem that the nature and characteristics of international legal personality have an effect on the inclusion of this case of derivative responsibility, the International Law Commission has included Article 14 in the 2011 Draft with only very minor changes to Article 16, which is appropriate for the scope of an international organization, and most of the explanations provided regarding State responsibility for aid or assistance can also be applied to the responsibility of international organizations.
) of this set, but this should not be considered as a lack of coherence in the International Law Commission's work; because when it comes to the category of evasion of international obligations through making a decision, given the provisions of Article 17, especially the lack of necessity for the act to be wrongful for member States or organizations, this relationship is a very minor overlap, and if an overlap occurs between Articles 16 and 17, the organization can be held responsible either according to Article 16 or responsibility can be established by relying on Article 17.
" 3 According to Article 17, an international organization can be held responsible if, by making a binding decision, it compels States or organizations that have become members to commit an act which, if performed by that State, would be considered an internationally wrongful act; 4 as the Commission has stated in the commentary on Article 17, and the commentary on Article 61 also refers to it, the intention of non-performance of the obligation is implicit in the term "evasion.
(
, 
, 
)
