State responsibility 59 gation had terminated with the passage of time, France’s responsibility for its earlier breach remained.229 Article 14. Extension in time of the breach of an international obligation (8) Both aspects of the principle are implicit in the ICJ decision in the Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru case. Australia argued there that a State responsibility claim relating to the period of its joint administration of the Trust Territory for Nauru (1947–1968) could not be brought decades later, even if the claim had not been formally waived. The Court rejected the argument, applying a liberal standard of laches or unreasonable delay.230 But it went on to say that: 1. The breach of an international obligation by an act of a State not having a continuing character occurs at the moment when the act is performed, even if its effects continue. [I]t will be for the Court, in due time, to ensure that Nauru’s delay in seising [sic] it will in no way cause prejudice to Australia with regard to both the establishment of the facts and the determination of the content of the applicable law.231 Evidently, the Court intended to apply the law in force at the time the claim arose. Indeed that position was necessarily taken by Nauru itself, since its claim was based on a breach of the Trusteeship Agreement, which terminated at the date of its accession to independence in 1968. Its claim was that the responsibility of Australia, once engaged under the law in force at a given time, continued to exist even if the primary obligation had subsequently terminated.232 (9) The basic principle stated in article 13 is thus well established. One possible qualification concerns the progressive interpretation of obligations, by a majority of the Court in the Namibia case.233 But the intertemporal principle does not entail that treaty provisions are to be interpreted as if frozen in time. The evolutionary interpretation of treaty provisions is permissible in certain cases,234 but this has nothing to do with the principle that a State can only be held responsible for breach of an obligation which was in force for that State at the time of its conduct. Nor does the principle of the intertemporal law mean that facts occurring prior to the entry into force of a particular obligation may not be taken into account where these are otherwise relevant. For example, in dealing with the obligation to ensure that persons accused are tried without undue delay, periods of detention prior to the entry into force of that obligation may be relevant as facts, even though no compensation could be awarded in respect of the period prior to the entry into force of the obligation.235 229 “Rainbow Warrior” (see footnote 46 above), pp. 265–266. Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1992, p. 240, at pp. 253–255, paras. 31–36. See article 45, subparagraph (b), and commentary. 231 Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru, ibid., p. 255, para. 36. 232 The case was settled before the Court had the opportunity to consider the merits: Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru, Order of 13 September 1993, I.C.J. Reports 1993, p. 322; for the settlement agreement, see Agreement between Australia and the Republic of Nauru for the Settlement of the Case in the International Court of Justice concerning Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru, 10 August 1993) (United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1770, No. 30807, p. 379). 233 Namibia case (see footnote 176 above), pp. 31–32, para. 53. 234 See, e.g., Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, Eur. Court H.R., Series A, No. 26, pp. 15–16 (1978). 235 See, e.g., Zana v. Turkey, Eur. Court H.R., Reports, 1997–VII, p. 2533 (1997); and J. Pauwelyn, “The concept of a ‘continuing violation’ of an international obligation: selected problems”, BYBIL, 1995, vol. 66, p. 415, at pp. 443–445. 230 2. The breach of an international obligation by an act of a State having a continuing character extends over the entire period during which the act continues and remains not in conformity with the international obligation. 3. The breach of an international obligation requiring a State to prevent a given event occurs when the event occurs and extends over the entire period during which the event continues and remains not in conformity with that obligation. Commentary (1) The problem of identifying when a wrongful act begins and how long it continues is one which arises frequently236 and has consequences in the field of State responsibility, including the important question of cessation of continuing wrongful acts dealt with in article 30. Although the existence and duration of a breach of an international obligation depends for the most part on the existence and content of the obligation and on the facts of the particular breach, certain basic concepts are established. These are introduced in article 14. Without seeking to be comprehensive in its treatment of the problem, article 14 deals with several related questions. In particular, it develops the distinction between breaches not extending in time and continuing wrongful acts (see paragraphs (1) and (2) respectively), and it also deals with the application of that distinction to the important case of obligations of prevention. In each of these cases it takes into account the question of the continuance in force of the obligation breached. (2) Internationally wrongful acts usually take some time to happen. The critical distinction for the purpose of article 14 is between a breach which is continuing and one which has already been completed. In accordance with paragraph 1, a completed act occurs “at the moment when the act is performed”, even though its effects or consequences may continue. The words “at the moment” are intended to provide a more precise description of the time frame when a completed wrongful act is performed, 236 See, e.g., Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Judgment No. 2, 1924, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 2, p. 35; Phosphates in Morocco (footnote 34 above), pp. 23–29; Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria, Judgment, 1939, P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 77, p. 64, at pp. 80–82; and Right of Passage over Indian Territory (footnote 207 above), pp. 33–36. The issue has often been raised before the organs of the European Convention on Human Rights. See, e. g., the decision of the European Commission of Human Rights in the De Becker v. Belgium case, application No. 214/56, Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights, 1958–1959, p. 214, at pp. 234 and 244; and the Court’s judgments in Ireland v. the United Kingdom, Eur. Court H.R., Series A, No. 25, p. 64 (1978); Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece, ibid., No. 260–B, para. 40 (1993); and Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, ibid., No. 330–A, p. 22, para. 58 (1995). See also E. Wyler, “Quelques réflexions sur la réalisation dans le temps du fait internationalement illicite”, RGDIP, vol. 95, p. 881 (1991).