Where is R2P grounded in international law? Anne-Marie Judson A ...

prosecution in regards to humanitarian and human rights law, which is outside the
scope of this thesis.
CAN ATTRIBUTION BE PLACED ON A STATE AB INITIO OF THE
CONDUCT AND BREACH THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE?
There are cases whereby the state has adopted attribution of situations where initially
they had no control of the direction of the situation. This includes the Tehran case as
previously mentioned. The Ayatollah government accepted and endorsed the takeover
of the embassy ab initio of the fact and used it as an action to exert pressure on the
United States government. In this particular case the ICJ held that the “decision to
perpetrate them, translated continuing occupation of the Embassy and detention of
the hostages into acts of that state”. 141 This example of omission ab initio is dealt with
under Article 11 on conduct acknowledged and adopted by the state.
DISCUSSION
As discussed above the state is responsible for insurrectional movements if they are
successful in taking over the preceding government. The first half of this section also
illustrated how this relates to civilians in an environment that gives rise to self-defence
in absence of any governmental authority. This research showed that the state is still
responsible for these actions when the civilians become the actors of the state itself,
once again confirming that R2P in relation to responsibility of states is well grounded
and documented in international law. State responsibility is wide and varying in
relation to omissions and acts by persons acting on behalf of or in absence of state
authority. Lastly this research also has shown that states acknowledge or take on
private persons’ actions as acts of the state even when they are ab initio of the fact they
become attributions of the state. Article 12, of the ILC draft articles on Responsibility
of States of Internationally Wrongful Acts of a State (2001) incorporates this broad
mindedness. It says that there is a breach of an international obligation when the act
in question is not in conformity with which, is required by that obligation (in
international law) regardless of its origin.
141 Tehran case see footnote 94
52