40 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session Article 4. Conduct of organs of a State 1. The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under international law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever position it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as an organ of the central Government or of a territorial unit of the State. 2. An organ includes any person or entity which has that status in accordance with the internal law of the State. Commentary (1) Paragraph 1 of article 4 states the first principle of attribution for the purposes of State responsibility in international law—that the conduct of an organ of the State is attributable to that State. The reference to a “State organ” covers all the individual or collective entities which make up the organization of the State and act on its behalf. It includes an organ of any territorial governmental entity within the State on the same basis as the central governmental organs of that State: this is made clear by the final phrase. (2) Certain acts of individuals or entities which do not have the status of organs of the State may be attributed to the State in international law, and these cases are dealt with in later articles of this chapter. But the rule is nonetheless a point of departure. It defines the core cases of attribution, and it is a starting point for other cases. For example, under article 8 conduct which is authorized by the State, so as to be attributable to it, must have been authorized by an organ of the State, either directly or indirectly. (3) That the State is responsible for the conduct of its own organs, acting in that capacity, has long been recognized in international judicial decisions. In the Moses case, for example, a decision of a Mexico-United States Mixed Claims Commission, Umpire Lieber said: “An officer or person in authority represents pro tanto his government, which in an international sense is the aggregate of all officers and men in authority.”102 There have been many statements of the principle since then.103 (4) The replies by Governments to the Preparatory Committee for the 1930 Hague Conference104 were unanimously of the view that the actions or omissions of organs of the State must be attributed to it. The Third Committee of the Conference adopted unanimously on first reading an article 1, which provided that international responsibility shall be incurred by a State as a consequence of “any 102 Moore, History and Digest, vol. III, p. 3127, at p. 3129 (1871). See, e.g., Claims of Italian Nationals (footnote 41 above); Salvador Commercial Company, UNRIAA, vol. XV (Sales No. 66.V.3), p. 455, at p. 477 (1902); and Finnish Shipowners (Great Britain/Finland), ibid., vol. III (Sales No. 1949.V.2), p. 1479, at p. 1501 (1934). 104 League of Nations, Conference for the Codification of International Law, Bases of Discussion … (see footnote 88 above), pp. 25, 41 and 52; Supplement to Volume III: Replies made by the Governments to the Schedule of Points; Replies of Canada and the United States of America (document C.75(a)M.69(a).1929.V), pp. 2–3 and 6. 103 failure on the part of its organs to carry out the international obligations of the State”.105 (5) The principle of the unity of the State entails that the acts or omissions of all its organs should be regarded as acts or omissions of the State for the purposes of international responsibility. It goes without saying that there is no category of organs specially designated for the commission of internationally wrongful acts, and virtually any State organ may be the author of such an act. The diversity of international obligations does not permit any general distinction between organs which can commit internationally wrongful acts and those which cannot. This is reflected in the closing words of paragraph 1, which clearly reflect the rule of international law in the matter. (6) Thus, the reference to a State organ in article 4 is intended in the most general sense. It is not limited to the organs of the central government, to officials at a high level or to persons with responsibility for the external relations of the State. It extends to organs of government of whatever kind or classification, exercising whatever functions, and at whatever level in the hierarchy, including those at provincial or even local level. No distinction is made for this purpose between legislative, executive or judicial organs. Thus, in the Salvador Commercial Company case, the tribunal said that: a State is responsible for the acts of its rulers, whether they belong to the legislative, executive, or judicial department of the Government, so far as the acts are done in their official capacity.106 ICJ has also confirmed the rule in categorical terms. In Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, it said: According to a well-established rule of international law, the conduct of any organ of a State must be regarded as an act of that State. This rule … is of a customary character.107 In that case the Court was principally concerned with decisions of State courts, but the same principle applies to legislative and executive acts.108 As PCIJ said in Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Merits): 105 Reproduced in Yearbook ... 1956, vol. II, p. 225, document A/CN.4/96, annex 3. 106 See Salvador Commercial Company (footnote 103 above). See also Chattin case, UNRIAA, vol. IV (Sales No. 1951.V.1), p. 282, at pp. 285–286 (1927); and Dispute concerning the interpretation of article 79 of the Treaty of Peace, ibid., vol. XIII (Sales No. 64.V.3), p. 389, at p. 438 (1955). 107 Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights (see footnote 56 above), p. 87, para. 62, referring to the draft articles on State responsibility, article 6, now embodied in article 4. 108 As to legislative acts, see, e.g., German Settlers in Poland (footnote 65 above), at pp. 35���36; Treatment of Polish Nationals (footnote 75 above), at pp. 24–25; Phosphates in Morocco (footnote 34 above), at pp. 25–26; and Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1952, p. 176, at pp. 193–194. As to executive acts, see, e.g., Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (footnote 36 above); and ELSI (footnote 85 above). As to judicial acts, see, e.g., “Lotus” (footnote 76 above); Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig (footnote 82 above); and Ambatielos, Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1953, p. 10, at pp. 21–22. In some cases, the conduct in question may involve both executive and judicial acts; see, e.g., Application of the Convention of 1902 (footnote 83 above) at p. 65.