) 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