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