RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES 
Another important decision worthy of consideration is the one of the 
Claims Commission, United States and Mexico, rendered in 1926. In one of 
its most interesting rulings dealing with the responsibility arising out of 
a homicide that may have been justified by the military regulations of the 
United States in force, the Commission declared that the principles of the 
Law of Nations in reference to the protection of human life prevailed over the 
provisions of the municipal law.! This is probably the clearest and most 
specific case in which this principle of natural justice has been adopted as 
a practical rule of international conduct. The Commission upheld this 
principle as against the municipal law and established in a practical way 
the manner in which the State incurs responsibility through imperfect 
legislation.2 
* Claims Commission, United States and Mexico—Opinions of Commissioners— 
February 4, 1926—July 23, 1927—Washington, 1927. 
“In this issue of legislative responsibility, there are many other relevant cases 
among which the following may be cited: 1. The cases arising out of the Italian law 
of 1912 in connection with the State monopoly of the life insurance business and the 
Uruguayan legislative sanction in re the same subject. 2. The Montiji case (Moore 
1440), in which the Arbitrator upheld the treaty as against the Constitution. (The 
laws of the Republic should conform to the provisions of the Treaty, and not the 
Treaty to the provisions of the law.) 3. The Baldwin case (Ralston 102), in which 
the Arbitrator upheld the municipal laws in so far as they were not in conflict with the 
general established principles of the Law of Nations. 4. The Massiani case of the 
Claims Commission, France and Venezuela (Ralston 103), wherein the Arbitrator up- 
held the laws of Venezuela, which did not embody any particular offence but, on the 
tontrary, were, in general, in full accord with the Law of Nations. 5 The Creole case 
{Ralston 104).