State responsibility 33 the Dickson Car Wheel Company case,42 in the International Fisheries Company case,43 in the British Claims in the Spanish Zone of Morocco case44 and in the Armstrong Cork Company case.45 In the “Rainbow Warrior” case,46 the arbitral tribunal stressed that “any violation by a State of any obligation, of whatever origin, gives rise to State responsibility”.47 ary, a way by which the responsible State could avoid the application of coercion. A third view, which came to prevail, held that the consequences of an internationally wrongful act cannot be limited either to reparation or to a “sanction”.51 In international law, as in any system of law, the wrongful act may give rise to various types of legal relations, depending on the circumstances. (3) That every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State, and thus gives rise to new international legal relations additional to those which existed before the act took place, has been widely recognized, both before48 and since49 article 1 was first formulated by the Commission. It is true that there were early differences of opinion over the definition of the legal relationships arising from an internationally wrongful act. One approach, associated with Anzilotti, described the legal consequences deriving from an internationally wrongful act exclusively in terms of a binding bilateral relationship thereby established between the wrongdoing State and the injured State, in which the obligation of the former State to make reparation is set against the “subjective” right of the latter State to require reparation. Another view, associated with Kelsen, started from the idea that the legal order is a coercive order and saw the authorization accorded to the injured State to apply a coercive sanction against the responsible State as the primary legal consequence flowing directly from the wrongful act.50 According to this view, general international law empowered the injured State to react to a wrong; the obligation to make reparation was treated as subsidi- (4) Opinions have also differed on the question whether the legal relations arising from the occurrence of an internationally wrongful act were essentially bilateral, i.e. concerned only the relations of the responsible State and the injured State inter se. Increasingly it has been recognized that some wrongful acts engage the responsibility of the State concerned towards several or many States or even towards the international community as a whole. A significant step in this direction was taken by ICJ in the Barcelona Traction case when it noted that: 42 Dickson Car Wheel Company (U.S.A.) v. United Mexican States, UNRIAA, vol. IV (Sales No. 1951.V.1), p. 669, at p. 678 (1931). 43 International Fisheries Company (U.S.A.) v. United Mexican States, ibid., p. 691, at p. 701 (1931). 44 According to the arbitrator, Max Huber, it is an indisputable principle that “responsibility is the necessary corollary of rights. All international rights entail international responsibility”, UNRIAA, vol. II (Sales No. 1949.V.1), p. 615, at p. 641 (1925). 45 According to the Italian-United States Conciliation Commission, no State may “escape the responsibility arising out of the exercise of an illicit action from the viewpoint of the general principles of international law”, UNRIAA, vol. XIV (Sales No. 65.V.4), p. 159, at p. 163 (1953). 46 Case concerning the difference between New Zealand and France concerning the interpretation or application of two agreements concluded on 9 July 1986 between the two States and which related to the problems arising from the Rainbow Warrior affair, UNRIAA, vol. XX (Sales No. E/F.93.V.3), p. 215 (1990). 47 Ibid., p. 251, para. 75. 48 See, e.g., D. Anzilotti, Corso di diritto internazionale, 4th ed. (Padua, CEDAM, 1955) vol. I, p. 385; W. Wengler, Völkerrecht (Berlin, Springer, 1964), vol. I, p. 499; G. I. Tunkin, Teoria mezhdunarodnogo prava (Moscow, Mezhdunarodnye otnoshenia, 1970), p. 470, trans. W. E. Butler, Theory of International Law (London, George Allen and Unwin, 1974), p. 415; and E. Jiménez de Aréchaga, “International responsibility”, Manual of Public International Law, M. Sørensen, ed. (London, Macmillan, 1968), p. 533. 49 See, e.g., I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 5th ed. (Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 435; B. Conforti, Diritto internazionale, 4th ed. (Milan, Editoriale Scientifica, 1995), p. 332; P. Daillier and A. Pellet, Droit international public (Nguyen Quoc Dinh), 6th ed. (Paris, Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, 1999), p. 742; P.-M. Dupuy, Droit international public, 4th ed. (Paris, Dalloz, 1998), p. 414; and R. Wolfrum, “Internationally wrongful acts”, Encyclopedia of Public International Law, R. Bernhardt, ed. (Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1995), vol. II, p. 1398. 50 See H. Kelsen, Principles of International Law, 2nd ed., R. W. Tucker, ed. (New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966), p. 22. an essential distinction should be drawn between the obligations of a State towards the international community as a whole, and those arising vis-à-vis another State in the field of diplomatic protection. By their very nature the former are the concern of all States. In view of the importance of the rights involved, all States can be held to have a legal interest in their protection; they are obligations erga omnes.52 Every State, by virtue of its membership in the international community, has a legal interest in the protection of certain basic rights and the fulfilment of certain essential obligations. Among these the Court instanced “the outlawing of acts of aggression, and of genocide, as also … the principles and rules concerning the basic rights of the human person, including protection from slavery and racial discrimination”.53 In later cases the Court has reaffirmed this idea.54 The consequences of a broader conception of international responsibility must necessarily be reflected in the articles which, although they include standard bilateral situations of responsibility, are not limited to them. (5) Thus the term “international responsibility” in article 1 covers the relations which arise under international law from the internationally wrongful act of a State, whether such relations are limited to the wrongdoing State and one injured State or whether they extend also to other States or indeed to other subjects of international law, and whether they are centred on obligations of restitution or compensation or also give the injured State the possibility of responding by way of countermeasures. (6) The fact that under article 1 every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State does not mean that other States may not also be held responsible for the conduct in question, or for injury caused as a result. Under chapter II the same 51 See, e.g., R. Ago, “Le délit international”, Recueil des cours..., 1939–II (Paris, Sirey, 1947), vol. 68, p. 415, at pp. 430–440; and L. Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, vol. I, Peace, 8th ed., H. Lauterpacht, ed. (London, Longmans, Green and Co., 1955), pp. 352–354. 52 Barcelona Traction (see footnote 25 above), p. 32, para. 33. 53 Ibid., para. 34. 54 See East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1995, p. 90, at p. 102, para. 29; Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226, at p. 258, para. 83; and Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 595, at pp. 615–616, paras. 31–32.