20) 
RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES 
which the facts have been submitted to investigation in order to establish 
their truth, their nature, and to fix responsibility therefor. The last case 
which may be cited as an example is the boundary controversy between 
Bolivia and Paraguay. Both States were claiming for encroachments upon 
their territorial sovereignty. A Commission was appointed to fix the re- 
sponsibility.! The same thing occurred in the incident of the Dogger Bank. 
But, under ordinary circumstances, the facts have been considered sufficient 
in themselves to impute to the State responsibility for the acts of its agents 
or officials, as in the case of the violation of the Brazilian sovereignty by 
the seamen of the Panther. The distinction between the two situations 
does not lie in the character of the agents blamed, but in the nature of 
the alleged acts and their juridical import. However, both cases cover 
agents or officials, irrespective of their category, who, due to the circum- 
stances under which they are acting, are deemed to represent the State as 
an international entity and involve its responsibility, whether they have acted 
within the range of their authority, or have exceeded same, or otherwise 
violated the laws of their own country. 
(c) Among the acts which might involve responsibility, are the uni- 
iateral or bilateral declarations of will of the competent authorities. These 
are: the Chief Executive of the Nation, the Ministers of State, the Congress 
itself as regards its power to authorize or approve treaties, and diplomatic 
representatives in charge of their negotiations under instructions from their 
governments. © The declarations of will of these various organs, in general, 
* This incident took .place shortly after a Conference of all the American Republics 
had met in Washington to adopt two conventions on conciliation and arbitration. The 
Conference tendered its good offices to Bolivia and Paraguay, and both Republics 
accepted. As a result of these good offices, which were exercised through a Special 
Commission, the two Republics signed a Protocol on January 3, 1929. The pertinent 
articles of this Protocol are of the following tenor: “The Governments of Bolivia and 
Paraguay agree upon the following stipulations: First. To organize a Commission of 
Investigation and Conciliation which shall be composed as follows: (a) Two dele- 
gates each from the Governments of Bolivia and Paraguay, and (b) one delegate 
appointed by the Governments of each of the following five American Republics : 
United States of America, Mexico, Colombia, Uruguay and Cuba, Second. The 
Commission of Investigation and Conciliation shall undertake to investigate, by hearing 
both sides, what has taken place, taking into consideration the allegations set forth by 
soth parties, and determining in the end which of the parties has brought about a 
change in the peaceful relations between the two countries. Article Six. The Com- 
mission is empowered, in case it should not be able to effect conciliation, to establish both 
the truth of the matter investigated and the responsibilities which, in accordance with 
international law, may appear as a result of its investigation. Article Ten. The high 
contracting parties reiterate their firm purpose of having said controversy settled, in 
Any event, by juridical means and in perfect peace and friendship between the two 
countries. 
The Commission has performed its task very efficiently, having brought about a 
reconciliation. It has also made efforts to settle the territorial controversy between 
the two interested Republics and, at this moment, the good offices of the five Republics 
represented in the Commission are still being exercised through their diplomatic organs, 
with very good prospects of obtaining successful recultc