EXHAUSTION OF LOGICAL REMEDIES 53 
“If damage has been caused to a foreigner in violation of contractual 
engagements or other indisputable obligations at international law, inter- 
national responsibility may be claimed against the State irrespective of 
the condition that the matter must have been laid before the national 
courts.” 
These reservations, however, do not affect the principle in question in 
any way, because practically all of them refer to matters that are essentially 
international in character, such as offences between States, differences of 
opinion in the interpretation of treaties, and the application of their pro- 
visions. In some of these cases it is possible for the State to make repara- 
tion through its national organs; and to allow the State an opportunity to 
do so would, naturally, make for cordial relations. However, these matters 
pertain to the international jurisdiction by reason of their very nature, and 
in the majority of cases they are beyond the scope of the State organs. The 
other points refer principally to damage caused to private persons. The 
responsibility arising therefrom, or in connection therewith, exists from 
the moment that the injury was inflicted. However, in order to make this 
responsibility effective, various proceedings have to be followed. The claim 
instituted through diplomatic channels is a relative and temporary pro- 
cedure. This is resorted to whenever the State has failed to discharge its 
obligation as regards the proper administration of justice. . This procedure 
will continue to be followed while the injured parties are not afforded 
personal actions that can be directly prosecuted by them in the international 
jurisdiction. And for the very reason that this diplomatic claim proceeding 
is relative, temporary and liable to impair the cordial relations of the States, 
its use should be properly restricted. The codification in this regard should 
also be inclined towards restriction, The codification formulas propounded 
in the various plans do not appear to be materially different. However, they 
are not free from defects. Basis No. 27 of the Preparatory Committee has 
the difficulty that it does not contemplate the cases in which the person has 
international remedies available. The formula of the Harvard Law School 
Research Committee is imperfect, because it subordinates responsibility itself, 
instead of the mere diplomatic proceeding, to the exhaustion of local reme- 
dies.3 The formula of the Institute of International Law is-an improve- 
1 Société des Nations—Conférence pour la Codification du Droit International—C, 
7s. M. 60. 1920 V. 
2 “Where the foreigner has a legal remedy open to him in the courts of the State 
(which term includes administrative courts), the State may require that any question 
of international responsibility shall remain in suspense until its courts have given 
their final decision. This rule does not exclude application of the provisions set out 
in Bases of Discussion Nos. 5 and 6.” (Conférence pour la Codification du Droit 
International, C. 75 M. 69. 1020 V. p. 139.) 
® “Article 6.—A state is not ordinarily responsible (under a duty to make repara- 
tion to another state) until the local remedies available to the injuried alien have been 
exhausted.” (Research in International Law—Harvard Law School—p. 133.)