) J
RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES
is no practical reason for the classification of State agents into principals and
subordinates. Those who have brought up this classification, place in the
first rank the representative authorities, such as the Chief Executive of the
Nation and his Ministers. The purpose of the classification is to impute to
the State responsibility for the acts or omissions of high government officials.
The action of petty agents or employees would not, fundamentally speaking,
give rise to responsibility. This would be established, eventually, in cases
in which the injured party would have no means available for legal redress,
or in which the State should fail to apply proper disciplinary measures
to the delinquent subordinate officer. This is the doctrine propounded by
the oldest treaty authorities, who specifically set forth a series of severe
disciplinary measures to be applied in cases of responsibility for the acts
of subordinate officers. The doctrine of the Harvard School adheres to
these same principles. This school recognizes responsibility in respect of the
acts of high government officials in pursuance of the functions of their
office, if no legal remedy can be had; and of petty officers and employees in
the course of their duties in cases where there has been a denial of justice,
or in which the Government has failed to apply proper disciplinary measures.
The views of the various governments in their reply to the inquiry of the
Preparatory Committee of the Codification Conference make no mention
of the classification of State organs or officials. It is not possible to state,
nowever, that a standard and definite procedure may be noted in going
through the decisions. There are some arbitral awards which have fixed
responsibility upon the State in connection with the acts of its sub-
ordinate officers. FHowever, generally speaking, it may be stated that arbi-
tral awards, especially in cases involving the United States of America and
the Latin American Republics, have set forth that the action of subordinate
officers should be prosecuted in the national courts. Only in cases of a
denial of justice would they assume international import. It is contended
that it would seem unfair to hold the State internationally responsible for
the acts of its employees, who it is physically impossible to maintain under
‘he constant supervision of their superiors. Assuming that a regular system
of government organization and supervision is in force, together with effi-
cient disciplinary regulations, the administrative acts of the employees should
be subject only to the legal remedies available to the parties concerned in
order to secure proper redress for their injuries. But it has been claimed,
on the other hand, that the numerous arbitral awards which have relieved
the State from responsibility on account of the action of its employees, have
not been prompted by the rank of the culprits, but by the fact that the
claimants had not exhausted their legal means to secure redress. From this
point of view, the decisions should not be construed in the sense that they
do not recognize international responsibility in these cases. but rather that