000			02940nab a22002897a 4500
001			555579
003			OSt
005			20220519151300.0
006			aqr|pdrw|||o00| 0
007			ta
008			220517c |||qr|pdrw|||o00| 0 engod
022			_a0031-7721
040			_cUM Bansalan College LIC
082			_aBPer. 340 _bP538
100			_aFernandez, Gemmo Bautista _914583
245			_aRevisiting the Concepts of Rights, Obligations and Injury in the Invocation of State Responsibility in Inter-State Adjudication/ _cby Gemmo Bautista Fernandez
260			_aDiliman, Quezon City, Philippines: _bUniversity of the Philippines College of Law
300			_a29 pages
310			_aQuarterly
362			_aOctober 2018
440			_aPhilippine Law Journal _vVol.91, No.4 (October 2018) _x0031-7721 _914528
490			_vVol.91, No.4 (October 2018) _x0031-7721
520			_aThis article delves into the two-tiered approach to standing presented by Article 42 and 48 of the International Law Commission's Draft Articles on State Responsibility. Particularly it highlights the issues brought about by the articles, ranging from overbreadth, potential for abuse, desirability of distinction, and legal status. It also looks into the decisions of the International Court of Justice and observes that, while there may be practice from states in raising such a claim to standing, there is an absence of judicial recognition with regard to Article 48, thereby highlighting its status as lex ferenda. After highlighting the issues and the status of the two-tiered approach, the Article revisits the concepts of rights, obligations, and injury, and demonstrates the merits of the reunification of the two articles. First, the article deals with the issue of the distinction between "rights" under Article 42 and "legal interests" used in Article 48. The article seeks to eliminate this distinction by relying on "rights" alone as a basis for the invocation of state responsibility in inter-state adjudication. Second, it submits the international obligations, even orga omnes partes and erga omnes, could be "bilateralised" thereby eliminating the need for different approaches based on the nature of the obligations. Third, the article addresses the issue of "injury" and notes that both classes of states viewed by the two articles are in fact injured if their "rights" have been violated through a breach of obligation by a responsible state. Lastly, it delves into the effect of the reunification of the articles on the implementation of state responsibility. It also endeavours to clarify issues surrounding the implementation of obligations erga omnes such as whether community decisions are required for its invocation and whether the directly affected states have the primacy of action over those states which are not.
650			_aInternational law _914584
650			_aInternational law (Human rights) _914585
942			_2ddc _cBPER.
999			_c9488 _d9488