On the Use and Abuse of Necessity in the Law of State Responsibility

Abstract

Necessity, necessità, is Machiavelli’s guiding principle . . . that infringing the moral law is justified when it is necessary.Thus is inaugurated the dualism of modern political culture, which simultaneously upholds absolute and relative standards of value. The modern state appeals to morality, to religion, and to natural law as the ideological foundation for its existence. At the same time it is prepared to infringe any or all of these in the interest of self-preservation.—J. M. CoetzeeRecent jurisprudence in investment arbitration, almost all of which originated in disputes arising out of Argentina’s turn-of-the-century fiscal crisis, has raised difficult questions about the existence, nature, and advisability of necessity as a defense to state responsibility. The jurisprudence has contributed to a sophisticated literature focusing on necessity’s role in the special context of investment arbitration. But the growing prominence of necessity pleas in international law has not been so limited. Nor will its effects be. In the first place, investor-state arbitral jurisprudence contributes to the evolution of general international law. Investment tribunals invoke the latter, for example, to inform their interpretation of bilateral investment treaties (BITs) or to cure lacunae in the law. More significantly, beyond the realm of investment arbitration, the past few decades have seen a striking growth in necessity pleas in fields ranging widely across the landscape of international law.

A TRIPS-COVID Waiver and Overlapping Commitments to Protect Intellectual Property Rights Under International IP and Investment Agreements

“…As stated by the Unión Fenosa Tribunal: "To an extent, a situation of necessity can always be traced back, as a matter of history, to political and economic mistakes made by a State years, if not decades, earlier". 205 In line with the ILC position on first reading, 206 instead, other tribunals have interpreted this standard more narrowly, as requiring some degree of fault. 207 In all cases, there is a further difficulty: at what point in time do policies and other State behaviour become too remote to be a relevant contribution to the situation?…”

Malicious Cyber Operations, “Hackbacks” and International Law: An Austrian Example as a Basis for Discussion on Permissible Responses

“…A state may take a countermeasure against a state who has committed an internationally wrongful act, in order to induce the state to comply with its international obligations. 42 These countermeasures would be, in general, unlawful, if they were not undertaken as a reactive measure to the initial wrongful act. 43 Thus, in order to take a countermeasure, the initial act must be in violation of international law.…”

“…Countermeasures need to be distinguished from retorsions: Retorsions are lawful, but unfriendly acts, whereas countermeasures are unlawful acts, 42 See UN International Law Commission. ( 2001 whose unlawfulness is, however, precluded if they are a reaction to another violation of international law.…”

Solving the enigma

“…Consequently, the SC relied on volunteer "coalitions of the willing" to enforce its 610 (Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self-Defence, 2011), pp. 189-193;(Sloane, 2012) (Cassese, 1999), p. 24. 613 UN Charter Article 1, para 1 lists the UN's purposes and principles as follows: "To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace […]".…”