IX 
CIVIL WAR, INSURRECTIONS AND MOB 
VIOLENCE 
(a) The damages which involve the responsibility of the State, result- 
ing either from the acts of its organs or of private persons, might arise 
under certain circumstances that give them a special nature. This refers 
to such situations as insurrections, civil wars, riots, or popular disturb- 
ances. Some of the authorities consider these acts subject to the same 
common rules of international responsibility applicable to illicit acts of 
public officers or private persons. It seems evident, however, that the 
peculiar circumstances involved in these various acts should not be altogether 
barred from consideration. It is just precisely due to this fact that attempts 
have been made to establish different doctrines as a basis for responsibility. 
In some cases responsibility is made absolute, or with exceptions; in others 
there is utter exemption from responsibility, or with certain exceptions; 
and finally, in certain instances responsibility is subject to the consideration 
of the conduct of the State as regards the damage caused or the public 
disturbance. However, all these doctrines are still mere theories. There is, 
on the other hand, a practical and well defined principle, as very few are, 
that is observed both in practice and in international jurisprudence. This 
is the doctrine whereby the State is not responsible for damage caused by 
insurgents or revolutionists.? It is thus set forth in most of the replies of 
*The following doctrines have been propounded: 1. The quasi ex coniractu of 
Breton. 2. The one which applies State risks in international matters. (Fauchille.) 
This is based upon the fact that foreigners constitute a source of profit for the State 
wherein they reside and that it is only logical and fair that in consideration thereof, 
the State should have the obligation to indemnify them for whatever damage they 
may sustain on account of the acts of the State’s nationals or of other aliens. 3. The 
one which renders the principle of indemnity for compulsory expropriation applicable 
to the international jurisdiction. (Brusa.) “4. The objective theory of impotence 
(Wiese), which derives the responsibility of the State from its failure to preserve 
order. And finally, 5, the so-called doctrine of “common interest”, which considers 
an alien residing in a foreign country as an integral unit of the national community. 
The damage which he sustains, or might sustain, in case of riot, insurrection or 
civil war, is covered by a sort of virtual nationalization and does not involve inter- 
national responsibility. (Podestd Costa.) 
?In his work on “Diplomatic Protection”, Mr. Edwin Borchard cites the outstand- 
ing scientific authorities in support of the doctrine that the State is not responsible