34 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session conduct may be attributable to several States at the same time. Under chapter IV, one State may be responsible for the internationally wrongful act of another, for example if the act was carried out under its direction and control. Nonetheless the basic principle of international law is that each State is responsible for its own conduct in respect of its own international obligations. ful act of the State, i.e. the constituent elements of such an act. Two elements are identified. First, the conduct in question must be attributable to the State under international law. Secondly, for responsibility to attach to the act of the State, the conduct must constitute a breach of an international legal obligation in force for that State at that time. (7) The articles deal only with the responsibility of States. Of course, as ICJ affirmed in the Reparation for Injuries case, the United Nations “is a subject of international law and capable of possessing international rights and duties … it has capacity to maintain its rights by bringing international claims”.55 The Court has also drawn attention to the responsibility of the United Nations for the conduct of its organs or agents.56 It may be that the notion of responsibility for wrongful conduct is a basic element in the possession of international legal personality. Nonetheless, special considerations apply to the responsibility of other international legal persons, and these are not covered in the articles.57 (2) These two elements were specified, for example, by PCIJ in the Phosphates in Morocco case. The Court explicitly linked the creation of international responsibility with the existence of an “act being attributable to the State and described as contrary to the treaty right[s] of another State”.58 ICJ has also referred to the two elements on several occasions. In the United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran case, it pointed out that, in order to establish the responsibility of the Islamic Republic of Iran: (8) As to terminology, the French term fait internationalement illicite is preferable to délit or other similar expressions which may have a special meaning in internal law. For the same reason, it is best to avoid, in English, such terms as “tort”, “delict” or “delinquency”, or in Spanish the term delito. The French term fait internationalement illicite is better than acte internationalement illicite, since wrongfulness often results from omissions which are hardly indicated by the term acte. Moreover, the latter term appears to imply that the legal consequences are intended by its author. For the same reasons, the term hecho internacionalmente ilícito is adopted in the Spanish text. In the English text, it is necessary to maintain the expression “internationally wrongful act”, since the French fait has no exact equivalent; nonetheless, the term “act” is intended to encompass omissions, and this is made clear in article 2. Article 2. Elements of an internationally wrongful act of a State There is an internationally wrongful act of a State when conduct consisting of an action or omission: (a) is attributable to the State under international law; and (b) constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State. Commentary (1) Article 1 states the basic principle that every internationally wrongful act of a State entails its international responsibility. Article 2 specifies the conditions required to establish the existence of an internationally wrong55 Reparation for Injuries (see footnote 38 above), p. 179. Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1999, p. 62, at pp. 88–89, para. 66. 57 For the position of international organizations, see article 57 and commentary. 56 [f]irst, it must determine how far, legally, the acts in question may be regarded as imputable to the Iranian State. Secondly, it must consider their compatibility or incompatibility with the obligations of Iran under treaties in force or under any other rules of international law that may be applicable.59 Similarly in the Dickson Car Wheel Company case, the Mexico-United States General Claims Commission noted that the condition required for a State to incur international responsibility is “that an unlawful international act be imputed to it, that is, that there exist a violation of a duty imposed by an international juridical standard”.60 (3) The element of attribution has sometimes been described as “subjective” and the element of breach as “objective”, but the articles avoid such terminology.61 Whether there has been a breach of a rule may depend on the intention or knowledge of relevant State organs or agents and in that sense may be “subjective”. For example, article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide states that: “In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such …” In other cases, the standard for breach of an obligation may be “objective”, in the sense that the advertence or otherwise of relevant State organs or agents may be irrelevant. Whether responsibility is “objective” or “subjective” in this sense depends on the circumstances, including the content of the primary obligation in question. The articles lay down no general rule in that regard. The same is true of other standards, whether they involve some degree of fault, culpability, negligence or want of due diligence. Such standards vary from one context to another for reasons which essentially relate to the object and purpose of the treaty provision or other rule giving rise to the primary obligation. Nor do the articles lay down any presumption in this regard as between the different 58 See footnote 34 above. United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1980, p. 3, at p. 29, para. 56. Cf. page 41, para. 90. See also Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (footnote 36 above), pp. 117–118, para. 226; and GabčíkovoNagymaros Project (footnote 27 above), p. 54, para. 78. 60 See footnote 42 above. 61 Cf. Yearbook ... 1973, vol. II, p. 179, document A/9010/Rev.1, paragraph (1) of the commentary to article 3. 59