Full text: Responsibility of states for damage caused in their territory to the person or property of foreigners

After the cases involving responsibility have been established, it should 
be stipulated, as hereinbefore suggested, that the prosecution of them should 
not always depend upon diplomatic claims procedure or interposition on 
the part of the governments. Responsibility is an obligation imposed by the 
principles of justice. The enforcement of responsibility is a function that 
may be either national or international. It is primarily a national function. 
Civilized nations have established administrative and judicial organizations 
for the purpose of preventing injury, repressing illicit acts, and providing 
due reparation for the damages sustained. In the international community 
there is, or should be, among the States, an agreement to set up a similar 
organization to exercise these functions in the international sphere, in order 
to restore cordial relations whenever impaired by a violation of the rights 
of any one of the States. This would be an excellent way of reconciling 
national autonomy with international cooperation. Moreover, this system 
is necessary in order to raise the standard of good will in the international 
relations of the States, and to avoid friction between their governments. 
Their intervention, after all, is only justified in cases of necessity. If there 
is no need for intervention, because of other expedient means available, 
diplomatic intervention would imply an exercise of undue pressure as re- 
gards questions of juridical nature. In this regard all the scientific views 
are in perfect accord! both in the practice followed by the States, as well 
as in international jurisprudence. There is also the very important part 
*The work by Edwin Borchard, Diplomatic Relations, and The Responsibility of 
States in International Law by Clyde Eagleton, contain convincing data on this point. 
* This practice is evidenced by the diplomatic correspondence of many of the States 
and by other documents of their governments. The note of the British Foreign Office 
of April 24, 1916, may be cited. This note sets forth that the Government of Great 
Britain attributes considerable importance to the rule that all national remedies should 
be exhausted before any diplomatic action is taken. 
' Among the large number of cases cited by Borchard, Eagleton and Ralston on this 
point, the following may be mentioned: Burn Case, Moore's Arbitrations, p. 3140; 
Bensley Cases, ibid., pages 3016-3018; Lagueruene, ibid. 3027; Baldwin, ibid. 3126; Sel- 
kirk, ibid. 3130; Leichardt, ibid. 3133; Jennings, Laughland and Co., ibid. 3135; Slocum, 
ibid. 3140; Ada, ibid. 3143; Smith, ibid. 3146; La Guaira, Ralston’s Venezuelan Arbitra- 
tions, p. 182; De Caro, ibid. 819; Poggioli, ibid. 867: Canadian Claims for Refund of

Note to user

Dear user,

In response to current developments in the web technology used by the Goobi viewer, the software no longer supports your browser.

Please use one of the following browsers to display this page correctly.

Thank you.