56 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session or to the international community as a whole. It can involve relatively minor infringements as well as the most serious breaches of obligations under peremptory norms of general international law. Questions of the gravity of the breach and the peremptory character of the obligation breached can affect the consequences which arise for the responsible State and, in certain cases, for other States also. Certain distinctions between the consequences of certain breaches are accordingly drawn in Parts Two and Three of these articles.202 But the regime of State responsibility for breach of an international obligation under Part One is comprehensive in scope, general in character and flexible in its application: Part One is thus able to cover the spectrum of possible situations without any need for further distinctions between categories of obligation concerned or the category of the breach. (7) Even fundamental principles of the international legal order are not based on any special source of law or specific law-making procedure, in contrast with rules of constitutional character in internal legal systems. In accordance with article 53 of the 1969 Vienna Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is one which is “accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character”. Article 53 recognizes both that norms of a peremptory character can be created and that the States have a special role in this regard as par excellence the holders of normative authority on behalf of the international community. Moreover, obligations imposed on States by peremptory norms necessarily affect the vital interests of the international community as a whole and may entail a stricter regime of responsibility than that applied to other internationally wrongful acts. But this is an issue belonging to the content of State responsibility.203 So far at least as Part One of the articles is concerned, there is a unitary regime of State responsibility which is general in character. (8) Rather similar considerations apply with respect to obligations arising under the Charter of the United Nations. Since the Charter is a treaty, the obligations it contains are, from the point of view of their origin, treaty obligations. The special importance of the Charter, as reflected in its Article 103,204 derives from its express provisions as well as from the virtually universal membership of States in the United Nations. (9) The general scope of the articles extends not only to the conventional or other origin of the obligation breached but also to its subject matter. International awards and decisions specifying the conditions for the existence of an internationally wrongful act speak of the breach of an international obligation without placing any restriction on 202 See Part Three, chapter II and commentary; see also article 48 and commentary. 203 See articles 40 and 41 and commentaries. 204 According to which “[i]n the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail”. the subject matter of the obligation breached.205 Courts and tribunals have consistently affirmed the principle that there is no a priori limit to the subject matters on which States may assume international obligations. Thus, PCIJ stated in its first judgment, in the S.S. “Wimbledon” case, that “the right of entering into international engagements is an attribute of State sovereignty”.206 That proposition has often been endorsed.207 (10) In a similar perspective, it has sometimes been argued that an obligation dealing with a certain subject matter could only have been breached by conduct of the same description. That proposition formed the basis of an objection to the jurisdiction of ICJ in the Oil Platforms case. It was argued that a treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation could not in principle have been breached by conduct involving the use of armed force. The Court responded in the following terms: The Treaty of 1955 imposes on each of the Parties various obligations on a variety of matters. Any action by one of the Parties that is incompatible with those obligations is unlawful, regardless of the means by which it is brought about. A violation of the rights of one party under the Treaty by means of the use of force is as unlawful as would be a violation by administrative decision or by any other means. Matters relating to the use of force are therefore not per se excluded from the reach of the Treaty of 1955.208 Thus, the breach by a State of an international obligation constitutes an internationally wrongful act, whatever the subject matter or content of the obligation breached, and whatever description may be given to the non-conforming conduct. (11) Article 12 also states that there is a breach of an international obligation when the act in question is not in conformity with what is required by that obligation, “regardless of its … character”. In practice, various classifications of international obligations have been adopted. For example, a distinction is commonly drawn between obligations of conduct and obligations of result. That distinction may assist in ascertaining when a breach has occurred. But it is not exclusive,209 and it does not seem to bear specific or direct consequences as far as the present articles are concerned. In the Colozza case, for example, the European Court of Human Rights was concerned with the trial in absentia of a person who, without actual notice of his trial, was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment and was not allowed subsequently to contest his conviction. 205 See, e.g., Factory at Chorzów, Jurisdiction (footnote 34 above); Factory at Chorzów, Merits (ibid.); and Reparation for Injuries (footnote 38 above). In these decisions it is stated that “any breach of an international engagement” entails international responsibility. See also Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania (footnote 39 above), p. 228. 206 S.S. “Wimbledon” (see footnote 34 above), p. 25. 207 See, e.g., Nottebohm, Second Phase, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1955, p. 4, at pp. 20–21; Right of Passage over Indian Territory, Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1960, p. 6, at p. 33; and Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (footnote 36 above), p. 131, para. 259. 208 Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Preliminary Objection, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 803, at pp. 811–812, para. 21. 209 Cf. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (footnote 27 above), p. 77, para. 135, where the Court referred to the parties having accepted “obligations of conduct, obligations of performance, and obligations of result”.