J 
RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES 
have the same duties with respect to private citizens, and it is incumbent 
upon the State to afford the rights of the latter proper protection against 
the injustice and encroachments of either rank. This would be a truly 
logical and equitable solution. 
(e) In connection with these acts of subordinate agents, special con- 
sideration has been given in certain cases to damages caused through violence 
on the part of incompetent armed forces! When they are acting under 
orders of their superiors, their conduct belongs under the same category as 
the usual acts which involve the responsibility of the State. There are 
certain other instances, however, in which soldiers may inflict damage with- 
out the authority, or while not being under the control of their superiors, 
either through the use of the means at their disposal, or through the exercise 
of apparent authority. It is maintained also that it is not essential that 
the acts of soldiers should have been executed in their military capacity, 
or that they should or not be within the scope of their functions.2 Respon- 
sibility should be absolute and unqualified, as provided by Article III of 
the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907, which states that “the belligerent 
power shall be responsible for all the acts committed by persons who form 
part of its armed forces”, 
(f) The task accomplished by the Preparatory Committee of the Codifi- 
cation Conference leads to believe that it is possible to attain the codification 
of this question of responsibility for administrative acts. Practically all 
the States consulted have stated uniform views. Tt might be mentioned that 
the Government of Great Britain affirms the principle of responsibility for 
loss or damage caused by the acts or omissions of officials within the range 
of their authority, but which are contrary to the international obligations 
of the State, or to its municipal laws, or which may be considered as having 
been anticipated by such laws? However, this last phrase relating to 
!Even though damages caused by armed forces are, in fact, of an unusual char- 
acter, there is no proper technical ground to place them in a class by themselves. The 
Institute of International Law considers that the action of military officers should be 
governed by the same general principles involving the conduct of government officials 
and agents. 
*4It is immaterial whether the delinquent has or not availed himself of his military 
capacity; in fact, the reason why he was able to commit the act was the power that 
he always has while he is a soldier (or an officer). It is likewise immaterial whether or 
not the act is within the range of his military functions; moreover, in certain cases the 
act is utterly inconsistent with military duties (rape and arson) ; and responsibility also 
exists because such acts show, either wrongful negligence (criminal negligence if it is 
willful) on the part of the superior officers, or at least, lack of proper discipline and 
supervision. The wrongful act was committed by the soldier or officer by virtue of the 
powers that the State has placed in their hands, and the State is responsible for the 
improper use of such powers which it has entrusted to them, and which it should 
always keep under proper control.” (Observations de M. le Fur—Annuaire de L’Instie 
tut de Droit International, Tome I, 1027, p. 514.) 
#“The State is responsible internationally for the acts or omissions of its officials 
acting within the limits of their authority. If a foreigner suffers loss or injury from