3 
RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES 
following formula at its Lausanne session in 1927, covering responsibility by 
reason of a denial of justice or manifest injustice: 
“First; when the courts necessary to assure protection to aliens do not 
exist, or are not functioning. Second; when, in the absence of reasons justi- 
fied by the requirements of procedure, the courts are not equally accessible 
to foreigners and nationals alike. Third; when such courts manifestly fail 
to provide those guaranties indispensable to assure the proper administration 
of justice. 
“The State is equally responsible if the proceedings or the decision con- 
stitute a manifest injustice, and especially, if they have been influenced by 
1l-will against all foreigners as such, or against the nationals of one State in 
narticular.” 
The Research Committee of the Harvard Law School has adopted the 
‘ollowing formula as a solution for this problem : 
“A State is responsible if an injury to an alien results from a denial of 
justice. Denial of justice exists when there is a denial, unwarranted delay 
or obstruction of access to courts, gross deficiency in the administration of 
judicial or remedial process, failure to provide those guaranties which are 
generally considered indispensable to the proper administration of justice, or 
2 manifestly unjust judgment. An error of a national court which does not 
produce a manifest injustice is not a denial of justice.” 
The Preparatory Committee of the Codification Conference propounded 
this question in Basis of Discussion No. 6, reading as follows: 
“A State is responsible for damage suffered by a foreigner as the result 
of the courts following a procedure and rendering a judgment vitiated by 
faults so gross as to indicate that they did not offer the guarantees indis- 
pensable for the proper administration of justice.” 
The replies of the various governments are not uniform. The Govern- 
ment of Australia deems that a State may incur responsibility if the decision 
is either corrupt or so erroneous that it could not honestly have been given 
by a competent court, or is given under pressure from the executive organs 
of the government. The Government of Belgium recognizes responsibility 
if after the judge has been shown to be guilty of corruption, the laws of the 
country do not allow the decision to be reversed. Great Britain believes that 
there are four principal grounds for responsibility in the case of an erroneous 
decision: if it is 
“(a) So erroneous that no properly constituted court could honestly 
aave arrived at such a decision; 
“(b) Due to corruption; 
“(c) Due to pressure from the executive organs of the Government: 
and