ACTS OF STATE ORGANS 
9 
the acts of persons acting in representation or on behalf of the State may 
be deemed official acts of the latter; and it is essential to deal especially 
with those acts which pertain exclusively to the performance of official 
functions and could not be otherwise exercised by a private individual. The 
essence of responsibility would thus consist of imputing to the State the 
injury resulting from the act of its agent in violation of an international 
obligation. The difficulties that arise, however, are in reference to the 
definition and scope of such international obligations. These obligations may 
be found expressed in treaties; more or less defined in the common law; 
they are implied in the attainment of certain purposes, which impose upon 
the State an efficient conduct towards that end; and, finally, in the observ- 
ance of a reasonable conduct in pursuing the general or special endeavors 
incident to national character. All of these obligations may be classed as 
either positive or negative. However, there is an extensive modern field of 
new relationships undergoing intense development, which could not very 
well be defined without due discussion. In this state of affairs, naturally, it 
has been possible for a great many. new questions to arise, and the interested 
parties have in vain demanded cognizance by the Law of Nations. 
The organs or authorities which make of the State a real entity with 
international character are subject to all the various forms of organization 
according to the different systems of municipal law. However, this is im- 
material from the international point of view. The State is the one respon- 
sible as a legal entity. Its agents act for it and legally bind it. The acts 
of the agents might not be in accordance with the regulations of the laws 
in force; they might have exceeded their authority or improperly used 
their official investiture; and their acts might be entirely beyond the scope of 
their official functions, but performed by virtue of their being clothed with 
the robe of public office, or using the means which the State has placed at 
their disposal. When these acts are performed in the legitimate exercise 
of the authority of the State, or in pursuance of instructions issued by the 
proper State organ, there can be no doubt but that the personality of the 
agent is merged into. that of the State it is the act of the State itself, 
[f it violates an international obligation, the State proper has committed the 
requirements, which establish in advance the proper rules to determine under what 
conditions and by what persons the acts should have been executed. To term an act a 
‘State act’ means, therefore, first of all, that it comes within the scope of the activi 
ies of the State in the sense that it forms part of the usual procedure, and its con- 
nection with the State is thereby established. The unity of the State entity, therefore, 
becomes manifest through these acts of the State. . This relationship between the vari- 
bus organs of the entire entity, founded upon their rules of conduct, forms the basis 
of ‘imputation’ of the acts to the State. The State is, so to speak, the center where 
these various acts termed ‘State acts’ converge, by operation of this constructive impu- 
tation.” Hans Kelsen: Les Rapports de Systeme entre le Droit Interne et le Droit 
International Public. Académie de Droit International. Recueil des Cours 1926. 
'V. Tome 14 de la Collection. Librairie Hachette. Paris. 1g27.