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

This shows that a breach is not limited in scope and includes bilateral and multilateral
agreements. It can also include minimal breaches as well as serious crimes against
humanity without distinction to the vicariousness of the violation at hand. The
agreement that is in breach ascertains the responsibility of the state in question. The
ILC commentators reflect this position when they stated that. “The breach by a state
of an international obligation constitutes an internationally wrongful act, whatever the
subject matter or content of the obligation breached and whatever description may be
given to the non-conforming conduct”. This shows again how wide and varying the
scope of responsibility is that remains with the state. The state that has acted in good
faith or pacta sunt servada is also responsible for its failure to act on its international
obligations in international law.
When the courts assess whether the obligation has been breached they have also been
known to ask, what more could the state have done to make international law more
effective? 142 This illustrates that effective implementation or application of
international law is dependent on the state’s readiness to apply and effectively
incorporate the agreements into local law. This readiness combined with
responsibility is also the basis of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, whereby each
state must not only protect its citizens from atrocities but must also prevent these from
taking place. This includes implementation of obligations in international law into
local jurisdiction and local education. (This will be covered in more detail in chapter
4). There are many other important distinctions in internationally wrongful acts of the
state, however this thesis has limited room for the question at hand. It is suggested that
a more comprehensive study is required to ascertain the full scope of international
responsibility of the state, in relation to application principles, for now this research
shows that R2P is well grounded in the ILC commentaries, international law and in
international courts both in opinio juris and in obiter dictum. It also shows how courts of
arbitration, human rights courts and other tribunals are ready and willing to
incorporate the responsibility of states into their decisions in relation to internationally
wrongful acts of the state.
142 See Colozza v. Italy, (1985) European Court Human Rights series A No 89, pp 15-­‐16 para 30
53