Bernas Public International Law – STATE RESPONSIBILITY Part 3

NICARAGUA v. US

Facts:

Nicaragua alleges that the mining of Nicaraguan ports or waters was carried out by US military personnel. The President of US authorized a US Government agency to lay mines in Nicaraguan ports, either in Nicaraguan internal waters or in its territorial sea, by persons in the pay and acting of the instructions of such agency. US did not issue any public and official warning to international shipping of the existence and location of the mines; and that personal and material injury was caused by the explosion of the mines. The imputability to US of these attacks appear therefore to the Court to be established.

Nicaragua complains also of infringement of its air space by US military personnel. The Court finds that only violations of Nicaraguan air space imputable to US on the basis of the high altitude reconnaissance flights and low altitude flights causing sonic booms.

Nicaragua also alleges that US conceived, created and organized a mercenary army, the contra force. The Court is not able to satisfy itself that US created the contra force but holds it largely financed, trained, equipped, armed and organized the FDN, one element of the force.

Issue:

Whether or not the contras is equated as an organ of US or is acting on behalf of US

Held:

The Court considers that the evidence available to it is insufficient to demonstrate the toal dependence of the contras on US aid. A partial dependency may be inferred from the fact that the leaders were selected by US. There is no clear evidence that US actually exercised such a degree of control as to justify treating the contras as acting on its behalf.

HOME MISSIONARY SOCIETY CLAIM (US v. BRITAIN)

Facts:

The collection of a tax newly imposed by Great Britain on the natives of Sierra Leone known as the hut tax was the signal for a serious and widespread revolt in the Ronietta district.

In the course of rebellion, all US’ Missions were attacked, and either destroyed or damaged, and some of the missionaries were murdered.

US contends that British Government is responsible for the revolt since it wholly failed to take proper steps for the maintenance of order and the protection of life and property, and that the loss of life and damage to property is the result of such neglect.

Issue:

Whether or not the revolt is attributable to the British Government

Held:

Even assuming that the hut tax was the effective cause of the native rebellion, it was in itself a fiscal measure to which British Government was perfectly entitled to exercise.

It is well established principle of international law that no government can be held responsible for the act of rebellious bodies of men committed in violation of its authority, where it is itself guilty of no breach of good faith, or of no negligence in suppressing insurrection.

SHORT v. IRAN

Facts:

Claimant is an American national employed by an American Company in Iran. 3 days before the Islamic Revolutionary Government took office; claimant was evacuated from Iran on company orders. The claimant sought compensation for salary and other losses resulting from his alleged expulsion contrary to international law.

Held: 

Where a revolution leads to the establishment of a new government, the State is held responsible for the acts of the overthrown government insofar as the latter maintained control of the situation.

Claimant relies only on the acts committed by revolutionaries and is unable to identify any agent of the revolutionary movements whose actions compelled him to leave Iran. The acts of supporters of a revolution as opposed to its agents cannot be attributed to the government.

Claimant relies on the declarations made by the leader of the Revolution. While these statements are of anti-foreign and in particular anti-American sentiments, these do not amount to an authorization to revolutionaries to act in such a way that the Claimant should be forced to leave Iran.