122 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session between the responsible State and the injured State, or, if there is more than one, all the injured States, may preclude any claim for reparation. Positions taken by individual States referred to in article 48 will not have such an effect. (2) Subparagraph (a) deals with the case where an injured State has waived either the breach itself, or its consequences in terms of responsibility. This is a manifestation of the general principle of consent in relation to rights or obligations within the dispensation of a particular State. (3) In some cases, the waiver may apply only to one aspect of the legal relationship between the injured State and the responsible State. For example, in the Russian Indemnity case, the Russian embassy had repeatedly demanded from Turkey a certain sum corresponding to the capital amount of a loan, without any reference to interest or damages for delay. Turkey having paid the sum demanded, the tribunal held that this conduct amounted to the abandonment of any other claim arising from the loan.688 (4) A waiver is only effective if it is validly given. As with other manifestations of State consent, questions of validity can arise with respect to a waiver, for example, possible coercion of the State or its representative, or a material error as to the facts of the matter, arising perhaps from a misrepresentation of those facts by the responsible State. The use of the term “valid waiver” is intended to leave to the general law the question of what amounts to a valid waiver in the circumstances.689 Of particular significance in this respect is the question of consent given by an injured State following a breach of an obligation arising from a peremptory norm of general international law, especially one to which article 40 applies. Since such a breach engages the interest of the international community as a whole, even the consent or acquiescence of the injured State does not preclude that interest from being expressed in order to ensure a settlement in conformity with international law. (5) Although it may be possible to infer a waiver from the conduct of the States concerned or from a unilateral statement, the conduct or statement must be unequivocal. In the Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru case, it was argued that the Nauruan authorities before independence had waived the rehabilitation claim by concluding an agreement relating to the future of the phosphate industry as well as by statements made at the time of independence. As to the former, the record of negotiations showed that the question of waiving the rehabilitation claim had been raised and not accepted, and the Agreement itself was silent on the point. As to the latter, the relevant statements were unclear and equivocal. The Court held there had been no waiver, since the conduct in question “did not at any time effect a clear and unequivocal waiver of their claims”.690 In particular, the statements relied on “[n]otwithstanding some ambiguity in the wording … did not imply any departure from the point of view ex688 Russian Indemnity (see footnote 354 above), p. 446. Cf. the position with respect to valid consent under article 20: see paragraphs (4) to (8) of the commentary to article 20. 690 Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru, Preliminary Objections (see footnote 230 above), p. 247, para. 13. 689 pressed clearly and repeatedly by the representatives of the Nauruan people before various organs of the United Nations”.691 (6) Just as it may explicitly waive the right to invoke responsibility, so an injured State may acquiesce in the loss of that right. Subparagraph (b) deals with the case where an injured State is to be considered as having, by reason of its conduct, validly acquiesced in the lapse of the claim. The article emphasizes conduct of the State, which could include, where applicable, unreasonable delay, as the determining criterion for the lapse of the claim. Mere lapse of time without a claim being resolved is not, as such, enough to amount to acquiescence, in particular where the injured State does everything it can reasonably do to maintain its claim. (7) The principle that a State may by acquiescence lose its right to invoke responsibility was endorsed by ICJ in the Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru case, in the following passage: The Court recognizes that, even in the absence of any applicable treaty provision, delay on the part of a claimant State may render an application inadmissible. It notes, however, that international law does not lay down any specific time limit in that regard. It is therefore for the Court to determine in the light of the circumstances of each case whether the passage of time renders an application inadmissible.692 In the LaGrand case, the Court held the German application admissible even though Germany had taken legal action some years after the breach had become known to it.693 (8) One concern of the rules relating to delay is that additional difficulties may be caused to the respondent State due to the lapse of time, e.g. as concerns the collection and presentation of evidence. Thus, in the Stevenson case and the Gentini case, considerations of procedural fairness to the respondent State were advanced.694 In contrast, the plea of delay has been rejected if, in the circumstances of a case, the respondent State could not establish the existence of any prejudice on its part, as where it has always had notice of the claim and was in a position to collect and preserve evidence relating to it.695 (9) Moreover, contrary to what may be suggested by the expression “delay”, international courts have not engaged simply in measuring the lapse of time and applying clear-cut time limits. No generally accepted time limit, 691 Ibid., p. 250, para. 20. Ibid., pp. 253–254, para. 32. The Court went on to hold that, in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the history of the matter, Nauru’s application was not inadmissible on this ground (para. 36). It reserved for the merits any question of prejudice to the respondent State by reason of the delay. See further paragraph (8) of the commentary to article 13. 693 LaGrand, Provisional Measures (see footnote 91 above) and LaGrand, Judgment (see footnote 119 above), at pp. 486–487, paras. 53–57. 694 See Stevenson, UNRIAA, vol. IX (Sales No. 59.V.5), p. 385 (1903); and Gentini, ibid., vol. X (Sales No. 60.V.4), p. 551 (1903). 695 See, e.g., Tagliaferro, UNRIAA, vol. X (Sales No. 60.V.4), p. 592, at p. 593 (1903); see also the actual decision in Stevenson (footnote 694 above), pp. 386–387. 692