4-4

RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES

cept in so far as the duty of the State to afford proper protection is concerned.
 The main question in this matter is, therefore, to determine wherein
does the international obligation lie. If the damage has been inflicted upon
another State, the principles of responsibility are limited by the duty imposed
 by the community upon its members to mutually protect themselves in
matters involving the essential elements of its preservation or dignity. If
the damage has been caused to foreign nationals, the question to ascertain is
whether the State should afford them the same protection given to its own
nationals, or whether this protection may differ. This has been one of the
questions which have on certain occasions incensed Latin American States,
on account of the impositions of which they have been victims in the past on
the part of powerful States that have exacted excessive indemnities for their
nationals.
There are conventions between the American States, constitutions and
laws, treaties and court decisions, which have followed the policy of confining
 State responsibility within the limits of protection afforded to nationals.
 This was also the doctrine of the old treaty authorities and it was incorporated
 in the declaration of the Institute of International Law at its
session in Oxford, wherein it was set forth that foreigners, regardless of
their nationality, are entitled to the same civil rights as nationals, except in
so far as otherwise specifically provided by current legislation. The same
doctrine has been, of course, embodied in the draft code of the American
Institute: “The American Republics do not recognize in favor of foreigners
other obligations or responsibilities than those established for their own
nationals in their constitutions, their respective laws, and the treaties in
force.” The reports of arbitral awards and of diplomatic claims contain
varied decisions. The oldest rulings follow the principle of equality of
nationals and foreigners. In the latest cases, however, there appears to be
a change in this view. This modification has been clearly and specifically set
forth in the resolution of the Institute of International Law at its Lausanne
session and in Decision No. 7 of the Permanent Court of International
Justice. The resolution of the Institute imposes upon the State the obligation
to treat foreigners in accordance with the international law. This treatment
 of foreigners may have to be better than that accorded to nationals, if
the municipal laws do not come up to the standards required by the international
 community. The Permanent World Court has proclaimed the predominance
 of international common law. The mixed arbitration commissions
organized under the peace treaties of 1919 follow the same principle. A
ruling of the Claims Commission, United States and Mexico, in 1926, also
sets forth that in this question the problem does not consist merely of comparing
 the rights of nationals and foreigners, but that it is also necessary to
allow foreigners their rights under international law.