Abstract:State responsibility can be examined from the moral, legal, and political perspectives. Historically, state responsibility was the subject of extensive work by the International Law Commission, which was carried out over 40 years (1956–2001). While the Commission’s work was terminated in 2001 with no binding conventions or treaties resulting from it, many of its final articles have become references in international and domestic tribunals. However, the Commission was unable to establish obligatory arbitration between states, to agree on penalties for international crimes, or to establish any formal legal structure with which to oversee legal state responsibility. Differences between domestic jurisdiction and international jurisdiction limit definitive, formal legal state responsibility. The United Nations, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the International Criminal Court (ICC) all deal with state responsibility, but all reflect, to different extents the role of international politics in state responsibility. The permanent members of the UN Security Council have veto power. All United Nations member states are members of the ICJ. However, only 74 of them recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ and the ICC tries individuals, not states. The use of “illegal but legitimate” to justify military intervention in the Balkans was an example of how states creatively avoid following the legal limits of their responsibility. The decision of the ICJ in the Nicaragua v . United States case also showed the importance of the role of politics in a judicial process and the difficulties of defining the limits of a state’s responsibilities. The very question of state responsibility in international politics reflects the importance of states and interstate international politics. States are the primary subjects of international law. However, issues such as climate change and the environment go beyond mere state responsibility and push the boundaries of the statist paradigm to larger global responsibilities erga omnes as well as actors above and below the state levels.

The Nature of Enforcement of R2P by the United Nations: from Political Responsibility to Legal Obligation

The dynamics of China’s attitude towards implementing the responsibility to protect in the Middle East and North Africa

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Concept as an Attempt for Protection of Human Rights in International Humanitarian Law Context

China and the Responsibility to Protect

On the Principle of Superior Responsibility in the International Criminal Law

Misapplying R2P in Sri Lanka

The Principle of Non-Interference and Its Application in Practices of Contemporary International Law

State Responsibility in International Politics

China And Russia In R2p Debates At The Un Security Council

Analysis on International Wrongful Acts in Articles of States Responsibility

Maritime Enforcement of United Nations Security Council Resolutions: Use of Force and Coercive Measures

The Law of International Human Rights Protection

Analysis of the Legal Nature of Encroachment of Obligatory Rights

Enforcers beyond Borders: Transnational NGOs and the Enforcement of International Law

On the Normative Structure of International Human Rights Treaties Monitoring Mechanisms and Its Legal Challenges

On Construction of Commandant Responsibility in International Criminal Law

THE LEGALITY OF IMPOSING UNILATERAL ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AT THE LEVEL OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

State responsibility for omissions : establishing a breach of the full protection and security obligation by omissions

A Discussion on "due Regard" in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

On Use of Force in the United Nations Peacekeeping Operations

The Law on State Responsibility and the World Trade Organization