RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES FOR INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACTS

国家对国际不法行为的责任条款草案

PART ONE

第 一 部 分

THE INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACT OF A STATE

一国的国际不法行为

CHAPTER I

第 一 章

General principles

一 般 原 则

Article 1

第 1 条

Responsibility of a State for its internationally wrongful acts

一国对其国际不法行为的责任

Every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State.

一国的每一国际不法行为引起该国的国际责任。

Article 2

第 2 条

Elements of an internationally wrongful act of a State

一国国际不法行为的要素

There is an internationally wrongful act of a State when conduct consisting of an action or omission:

一国的国际不法行为在下列情况下发生：

(a) Is attributable to the State under international law;

(a) 由作为或不作为组成的行为依国际法归于该国；

and

并且

(b) Constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State.

(b) 该行为构成对该国国际义务的违背。

Article 3

第 3 条

Characterization of an act of a State as internationally wrongful

把一国的行为定性为国际不法行为

The characterization of an act of a State as internationally wrongful is governed by international law.

在把一国的行为定性为国际不法行为时须遵循国际法。

Such characterization is not affected by the characterization of the same act as lawful by internal law.

这种定性不因国内法把同一行为定性为合法行为而受到影响。

Chapter II

第 二 章

Attribution of conduct to a State

把行为归于一国

Article 4

第 4 条

Conduct of organs of a State

国家机关的行为

1. The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under international law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever position it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as an organ of the central government or of a territorial unit of the State.

1. 任何国家机关，不论它行使立法、行政、司法或任何其他职能，不论它在国家的组织中具有何种地位，也不论它作为该国中央政府机关或一领土单位的机关的特性，其行为应视为国际法所指的国家行为。

2. An organ includes any person or entity which has that status in accordance with the internal law of the State.

2. 一机关包括依该国国内法具有此种地位的任何人或实体。

Article 5

第 5 条

Conduct of persons or entities exercising elements of governmental authority

行使政府权力要素的个人或实体的行为

The conduct of a person or entity which is not an organ of the State under article 4 but which is empowered by the law of that State to exercise elements of the governmental authority shall be considered an act of the State under international law, provided the person or entity is acting in that capacity in the particular instance.

虽非第4条所指的国家机关、但经该国法律授权行使政府权力要素的个人或实体，其行为依国际法应视为该国的行为，但以该个人或实体在特定情形下系以政府资格行事者为限。

Article 6

第 6 条

Conduct of organs placed at the disposal of a State by another State

由另一国交由一国支配的机关的行为

The conduct of an organ placed at the disposal of a State by another State shall be considered an act of the former State under international law if the organ is acting in the exercise of elements of the governmental authority of the State at whose disposal it is placed.

由另一国交由一国支配的机关，如果为行使支配该机关的国家的政府权力要素而行事，其行为依国际法应视为支配该机关的国家的行为。

Article 7

第 7 条

Excess of authority or contravention of instructions

逾越权限或违背指示

The conduct of an organ of a State or of a person or entity empowered to exercise elements of the governmental authority shall be considered an act of the State under international law if the organ, person or entity acts in that capacity, even if it exceeds its authority or contravenes instructions.

国家机关或经授权行使政府权力要素的任何个人或实体，如果以此种资格行事，即使逾越权限或违背指示，其行为仍应视为国际法所指的国家行为。

Article 8

第 8 条

Conduct directed or controlled by a State

受到国家指挥或控制的行为

The conduct of a person or group of persons shall be considered an act of a State under international law if the person or group of persons is in fact acting on the instructions of, or under the direction or control of, that State in carrying out the conduct.

如果一人或一群人实际上按照国家的指示或在其指挥或控制下行事，其行为应视为国际法所指的该国的行为。

Article 9

第 9 条

Conduct carried out in the absence or default of the official authorities

正式当局不存在或缺席时实施的行为

The conduct of a person or group of persons shall be considered an act of a State under international law if the person or group of persons is in fact exercising elements of the governmental authority in the absence or default of the official authorities and in circumstances such as to call for the exercise of those elements of authority.

如果一个人或一群人在正式当局不存在或缺席和在需要行使上述权力要素的情况下实际上行使政府权力的要素，其行为应视为国际法所指的国家的行为。

Article 10

第 10 条

Conduct of an insurrectional or other movement

叛乱运动或其他运动的行为

1. The conduct of an insurrectional movement which becomes the new government of a State shall be considered an act of that State under international law.

1. 成为一国新政府的叛乱运动的行为应视为国际法所指的该国的行为。

2. The conduct of a movement, insurrectional or other, which succeeds in establishing a new State in part of the territory of a pre-existing State or in a territory under its administration shall be considered an act of the new State under international law.

2. 在一个先已存在的国家的一部分领土或其管理下的某一领土内组成一个新国家的叛乱运动或其他运动的行为，依国际法应视为该新国家的行为。

3. This article is without prejudice to the attribution to a State of any conduct, however related to that of the movement concerned, which is to be considered an act of that State by virtue of articles 4 to 9.

3. 本条不妨碍把任何按第4条至第9条的规定应视为该国行为的任何行为归于该国，无论该行为与有关运动的行为如何相关。

Article 11

第 11 条

Conduct acknowledged and adopted by a State as its own

经一国确认并当作其本身行为的行为

Conduct which is not attributable to a State under the preceding articles shall nevertheless be considered an act of that State under international law if and to the extent that the State acknowledges and adopts the conduct in question as its own.

按照前述各条款不归于一国的行为，在并且只在该国确认并当作其本身行为的情况下，依国际法视为该国的行为。

CHAPTER III

第 三 章

Breach of an international obligation

违背国际义务

Article 12

第 12 条

Existence of a breach of an international obligation

违背国际义务行为的发生

There is a breach of an international obligation by a State when an act of that State is not in conformity with what is required of it by that obligation, regardless of its origin or character.

一国的行为如不符合国际义务对它的要求，即为违背国际义务，而不论该义务的起源或特性为何。

Article 13

第 13 条

International obligation in force for a State

对一国为有效的国际义务

An act of a State does not constitute a breach of an international obligation unless the State is bound by the obligation in question at the time the act occurs.

一国的行为不构成对一国际义务的违背，除非该行为是在该义务对该国有约束力的时期发生。

Article 14

第 14 条

Extension in time of the breach of an international obligation

违背义务行为在时间上的延续

1. The breach of an international obligation by an act of a State not having a continuing character occurs at the moment when the act is performed, even if its effects continue.

1. 没有持续性的一国行为违背国际义务时，该行为发生的时刻即为违背义务行为发生的时刻，即使其影响持续存在。

2. The breach of an international obligation by an act of a State having a continuing character extends over the entire period during which the act continues and remains not in conformity with the international obligation.

2. 有持续性的一国行为违背国际义务时，该行为延续的时间为该行为持续、并且一直不遵守该国际义务的整个期间。

3. The breach of an international obligation requiring a State to prevent a given event occurs when the event occurs and extends over the entire period during which the event continues and remains not in conformity with that obligation.

3. 一国违背要求它防止某一特定事件之国际义务的行为开始于该事件发生的时刻，该行为延续的时间为该事件持续、并且一直不遵守该义务的整个期间。

Article 15

第 15 条

Breach consisting of a composite act

一复合行为违背义务

1. The breach of an international obligation by a State through a series of actions or omissions defined in aggregate as wrongful, occurs when the action or omission occurs which, taken with the other actions or omissions, is sufficient to constitute the wrongful act.

1. 一国以被一并定义为不法行为的一系列作为或不作为违背国际义务的时刻开始于一作为或不作为发生的时刻，该作为或不作为连同已采取的另一些作为或不作为来看，足以构成不法行为。

2. In such a case, the breach extends over the entire period starting with the first of the actions or omissions of the series and lasts for as long as these actions or omissions are repeated and remain not in conformity with the international obligation.

2. 在上述情况下，该违背义务行为持续的时间从一系列作为或不作为中的第一个开始发生到此类行为再次发生并且一直不遵守该国国际义务的整个期间。

CHAPTER IV

第 四 章

Responsibility of a State in connection with the act of another State

一国对另一国行为的责任

Article 16

第 16 条

Aid or assistance in the commission of an internationally wrongful act

援助或协助实施一国际不法行为

A State which aids or assists another State in the commission of an internationally wrongful act by the latter is internationally responsible for doing so if:

援助或协助另一国实施国际不法行为的国家应该对其援助或协助行为负国际责任，如果：

(a) That State does so with knowledge of the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act;

(a) 该国在知道该国际不法行为的情况下这样做，而且

and (b) The act would be internationally wrongful if committed by that State.

(b) 该行为若由援助或协助国实施会构成国际不法行为。

Article 17

第 17 条

Direction and control exercised over the commission of an internationally wrongful act

指挥或控制一国际不法行为的实施

A State which directs and controls another State in the commission of an internationally wrongful act by the latter is internationally responsible for that act if:

指挥或控制另一国实施其国际不法行为的国家应对该行为负国际责任，如果：

(a) That State does so with knowledge of the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act;

(a) 该国在知道该国际不法行为的情况下这样做；

and

而且

(b) The act would be internationally wrongful if committed by that State.

(b) 该行为若由该国实施会构成国际不法行为。

Article 18

第 18 条

Coercion of another State

胁迫另一国

A State which coerces another State to commit an act is internationally responsible for that act if:

胁迫另一国实施一行为的国家应对该行为负国际责任，如果：

(a) The act would, but for the coercion, be an internationally wrongful act of the coerced State; and

(a) 在没有胁迫的情况下，该行为仍会是被胁迫国的国际不法行为，而且

(b) The coercing State does so with knowledge of the circumstances of the act.

(b) 胁迫国在知道该胁迫行为的情况下这样做。

Article 19

第 19 条

Effect of this chapter

本章的效力

This chapter is without prejudice to the international responsibility, under other provisions of these articles, of the State which commits the act in question, or of any other State.

本章不妨碍实施有关行为的国家或任何其他国家根据这些条款的其他规定应该承担的国际责任。

CHAPTER V

第 五 章

Circumstances precluding wrongfulness

解除行为不法性的情况

Article 20

第 20 条

Consent

同 意

Valid consent by a State to the commission of a given act by another State precludes the wrongfulness of that act in relation to the former State to the extent that the act remains within the limits of that consent.

一国以有效方式表示同意另一国实行某项特定行为时，该特定行为的不法性在与该国家的关系上即告解除，但以该行为不逾越该项同意的范围为限。

Article 21

第 21 条

Self-defence

自 卫

The wrongfulness of an act of a State is precluded if the act constitutes a lawful measure of self-defence taken in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations.

一国的行为如构成按照《联合国宪章》采取的合法自卫措施，则该行为的不法性即告解除。

Article 22

第 22 条

Countermeasures in respect of an internationally wrongful act

对一国际不法行为采取的反措施

The wrongfulness of an act of a State not in conformity with an international obligation towards another State is precluded if and to the extent that the act constitutes a countermeasure taken against the latter State in accordance with chapter II of Part Three.

一国不遵守其对另一国国际义务的行为，在并且只在该行为构成按照第三部分第二章针对该另一国采取的一项反措施的情况下，其不法性才可解除。

Article 23

第 23 条

Force majeure

不可抗力

1. The wrongfulness of an act of a State not in conformity with an international obligation of that State is precluded if the act is due to force majeure, that is the occurrence of an irresistible force or of an unforeseen event, beyond the control of the State, making it materially impossible in the circumstances to perform the obligation.

1. 一国不遵守其国际义务的行为如起因于不可抗力，即有不可抗拒的力量或该国无力控制、无法预料的事件发生，以致该国在这种情况下实际上不可能履行义务，该行为的不法性即告解除。

2. Paragraph 1 does not apply if:

2. 在下列情况下第1款不适用：

(a) The situation of force majeure is due, either alone or in combination with other factors, to the conduct of the State invoking it;

(a) 不可抗力的情况是由援引此种情况的国家的行为单独导致或与其他因素一并导致；

or

或

(b) The State has assumed the risk of that situation occurring.

(b) 该国已承担发生这种情况的风险。

Article 24

第 24 条

Distress

危 难

1. The wrongfulness of an act of a State not in conformity with an international obligation of that State is precluded if the author of the act in question has no other reasonable way, in a situation of distress, of saving the author’s life or the lives of other persons entrusted to the author’s care.

1.一国不遵守其国际义务的行为，如有关行为人在遭遇危难的情况下为了挽救其生命或受其监护的其他人的生命，除此行为之外，别无其他合理方法，则该行为的不法性即告解除。

2. Paragraph 1 does not apply if:

2. 在下列情况下第1款不适用：

(a) The situation of distress is due, either alone or in combination with other factors, to the conduct of the State invoking it;

(a) 危难情况是由援引这种情况的国家的行为单独导致或与其他因素一并导致；

or

或

(b) The act in question is likely to create a comparable or greater peril.

(b) 有关行为可能造成类似的或更大的灾难。

Article 25

第 25 条

Necessity

危急情况

1. Necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding the wrongfulness of an act not in conformity with an international obligation of that State unless the act:

1. 一国不得援引危急情况作为理由解除不符合该国所承担的某项国际义务的行为的不法性，除非：

(a) Is the only way for the State to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril;

(a) 该行为是该国保护基本利益、对抗某项严重迫切危险的唯一办法；

and

而且

(b) Does not seriously impair an essential interest of the State or States towards which the obligation exists, or of the international community as a whole.

(b) 该行为并不严重损害作为所负义务对象的一国或数国的基本利益或整个国际社会的基本利益。

2. In any case, necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding wrongfulness if:

2. 一国绝不得在以下情况下援引危急情况作为解除其行为不法性的理由：

(a) The international obligation in question excludes the possibility of invoking necessity;

(a) 有关国际义务排除援引危急情况的可能性；

or

或

(b) The State has contributed to the situation of necessity.

(b) 该国促成了该危急情况。

Article 26

第 26 条

Compliance with peremptory norms

对强制性规范的遵守

Nothing in this chapter precludes the wrongfulness of any act of a State which is not in conformity with an obligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law.

违反一般国际法某一强制性规范规定的义务的一国，不得以本章中的任何规定作为解除其任何行为之不法性的理由。

Article 27

第 27 条

Consequences of invoking a circumstance precluding wrongfulness

援引解除行为不法性的情况的后果

The invocation of a circumstance precluding wrongfulness in accordance with this chapter is without prejudice to:

根据本章援引解除行为不法性的情况不妨碍：

(a) Compliance with the obligation in question, if and to the extent that the circumstance precluding wrongfulness no longer exists;

(a) 在并且只在解除行为不法性的情况不再存在时遵守该项义务；

(b) The question of compensation for any material loss caused by the act in question.

(b) 对该行为所造成的任何实质损失的补偿问题。

PART TWO

第 二 部 分

CONTENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

一国国际责任的内容

OF A STATE

第 一 章

Chapter I General principles

一 般 原 则

Article 28

第 28 条

Legal consequences of an internationally wrongful act

国际不法行为的法律后果

The international responsibility of a State which is entailed by an internationally wrongful act in accordance with the provisions of Part One involves legal consequences as set out in this Part.

一国依照第一部分的规定对一国际不法行为承担的国际责任，产生本部分所列的法律后果。

Article 29

第 29 条

Continued duty of performance

继续履行的责任

The legal consequences of an internationally wrongful act under this Part do not affect the continued duty of the responsible State to perform the obligation breached.

本部分所规定的一国际不法行为的法律后果不影响责任国继续履行所违背义务的责任。

Article 30

第 30 条

Cessation and non-repetition

停止和不重复

The State responsible for the internationally wrongful act is under an

国际不法行为的责任国有义务：

obligation: (a) To cease that act, if it is continuing;

(a) 在该行为持续时，停止该行为；

(b) To offer appropriate assurances and guarantees of non-repetition, if circumstances so require.

(b) 在必要的情况下，提供不重复该行为的适当承诺和保证。

Article 31

第 31 条

Reparation

赔偿

1. The responsible State is under an obligation to make full reparation for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act.

1. 责任国有义务对国际不法行为所造成的损害提供充分赔偿；

2. Injury includes any damage, whether material or moral, caused by the internationally wrongful act of a State.

2. 损害包括一国国际不法行为造成的任何损害，无论是物质损害还是精神损害。

Article 32

第 32 条

Irrelevance of internal law

与国内法无关

The responsible State may not rely on the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to comply with its obligations under this Part.

责任国不得以其国内法的规定作为不能按照本部分的规定遵守其义务的理由。

Article 33

第 33 条

Scope of international obligations set out in this Part

本部分所载国际义务的范围

1. The obligations of the responsible State set out in this Part may be owed to another State, to several States, or to the international community as a whole, depending in particular on the character and content of the international obligation and on the circumstances of the breach.

1. 本部分规定的责任国义务可能是对另一国、若干国家、或对整个国际社会承担的义务，具体取决于该国际义务的特性和内容及违反义务的情况。

2. This Part is without prejudice to any right, arising from the international responsibility of a State, which may accrue directly to any person or entity other than a State.

2. 本部分不妨碍任何人或国家以外的任何实体由于一国的国际责任可能直接取得的任何权利。

Chapter II

第 二 章

Reparation for injury

赔 偿 损 害

Article 34

第 34 条

Forms of reparation

赔偿方式

Full reparation for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act shall take the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction, either singly or in combination, in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

对国际不法行为造成的损害的充分赔偿，应按照本章的规定，单独或合并地采取恢复原状、补偿和抵偿的方式。

Article 35

第 35 条

Restitution

恢复原状

A State responsible for an internationally wrongful act is under an obligation to make restitution, that is, to re-establish the situation which existed before the wrongful act was committed, provided and to the extent that restitution:

并且只在下列情况下，一国际不法行为的责任国有义务恢复原状，即恢复到实施不法行为以前所存在的状况：

(a) Is not materially impossible;

(a) 恢复原状并非实际上办不到的；

(b) Does not involve a burden out of all proportion to the benefit deriving from restitution instead of compensation.

(b) 从恢复原状而不要求补偿所得到的利益不致与所引起的负担完全不成比例。

Article 36

第 36 条

Compensation

补 偿

1. The State responsible for an internationally wrongful act is under an obligation to compensate for the damage caused thereby, insofar as such damage is not made good by restitution.

1. 一国际不法行为的责任国有义务补偿该行为造成的任何损害，如果这种损害没有以恢复原状的方式得到赔偿；

2. The compensation shall cover any financially assessable damage including loss of profits insofar as it is established.

2. 这种补偿应弥补在经济上可评估的任何损害，包括可以确定的利润损失。

Article 37

第 37 条

Satisfaction

抵 偿

1. The State responsible for an internationally wrongful act is under an obligation to give satisfaction for the injury caused by that act insofar as it cannot be made good by restitution or compensation.

1. 一国际不法行为的责任国有义务抵偿该行为造成的损失，如果这种损失不能以恢复原状或补偿的方式得到赔偿。

2. Satisfaction may consist in an acknowledgement of the breach, an expression of regret, a formal apology or another appropriate modality.

2. 抵偿可采取承认不法行为、表示遗憾、正式道歉，或另一种合适的方式。

3. Satisfaction shall not be out of proportion to the injury and may not take a form humiliating to the responsible State.

3. 抵偿不应与损失不成比例，而且不得采取羞辱责任国的方式。

Article 38

第 38 条

Interest

利息

1. Interest on any principal sum due under this chapter shall be payable when necessary in order to ensure full reparation.

1. 为确保充分赔偿，必要时，应支付根据本章所应支付的任何本金金额的利息。

The interest rate and mode of calculation shall be set so as to achieve that result.

应为取得这一结果规定利率和计算方法。

2. Interest runs from the date when the principal sum should have been paid until the date the obligation to pay is fulfilled.

2. 利息从应支付本金金额之日起算，至履行了支付义务之日为止。

Article 39

第 39 条

Contribution to the injury

促成损害

In the determination of reparation, account shall be taken of the contribution to the injury by wilful or negligent action or omission of the injured State or any person or entity in relation to whom reparation is sought.

在确定赔偿时，应考虑到提出索赔的受害国或任何人或实体由于故意或疏忽以作为或不作为促成损害的情况。

Chapter III

第 三 章

Serious breaches of obligations under peremptory norms of general international law

严重违反依一般国际法强制性规范承担的义务

Article 40

第 40 条

Application of this chapter

本章的适用

1. This chapter applies to the international responsibility which is entailed by a serious breach by a State of an obligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law.

1. 本章适用于一国严重违反依一般国际法强制性规范承担的义务所产生的国际责任。

2. A breach of such an obligation is serious if it involves a gross or systematic failure by the responsible State to fulfil the obligation.

2. 如果这种违反情况是由于责任国严重或系统地未能履行义务所引起的，则为严重违反行为。

Article 41

第 41 条

Particular consequences of a serious breach of an obligation under this chapter

严重违反依本章承担的一项义务的特定后果

1. States shall cooperate to bring to an end through lawful means any serious breach within the meaning of article 40.

1. 各国应进行合作，通过合法手段制止第40 条含义范围内的任何严重违反义务行为。

2. No State shall recognize as lawful a situation created by a serious breach within the meaning of article 40, nor render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation.

2. 任何国家均不得承认第40条含义范围内的严重违反义务行为所造成的情势为合法，也不得协助或援助维持该情势。

3. This article is without prejudice to the other consequences referred to in this Part and to such further consequences that a breach to which this chapter applies may entail under international law.

3. 本条不妨碍本部分所指的其他后果和本章适用的违反义务行为可能依国际法引起的进一步的此类后果。

PART THREE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL

第 三 部 分

RESPONSIBILITY OF A STATE

一国国际责任的履行

Chapter I

第 一 章

Invocation of the responsibility of a State

一国责任的援引

Article 42

第 42 条

Invocation of responsibility by an injured State

一受害国援引责任

A State is entitled as an injured State to invoke the responsibility of another State if the obligation breached is owed to:

一国有权在下列情况下作为受害国援引另一国的责任如果被违反的义务是：

(a) That State individually;

(a) 个别地对该国承担的义务；

or

或

(b) A group of States including that State, or the international community as a whole, and the breach of the obligation:

(b) 对包括该国在内的一国家集团或对整个国际社会承担的义务，而且对该义务的违反：

(i) Specially affects that State;

(i) 特别影响到该国；

or

或

(ii) Is of such a character as radically to change the position of all the other States to which the obligation is owed with respect to the further performance of the obligation.

(ii) 具有如此性质以致会根本改变作为该义务当事相对方的所有其他国家在继续履行该义务上所处的地位。

Article 43

第 43 条

Notice of claim by an injured State

一受害国通知其要求

1. An injured State which invokes the responsibility of another State shall give notice of its claim to that State.

1. 援引另一国责任的受害国应将其要求通知该国。

2. The injured State may specify in particular:

2. 受害国可具体指明：

(a) The conduct that the responsible State should take in order to cease the wrongful act, if it is continuing;

(a) 从事一项持续性不法行为的责任国应如何停止该行为；

(b) What form reparation should take in accordance with the provisions of Part Two.

(b) 应根据第二部分的规定采取哪种赔偿形式。

Article 44

第 44 条

Admissibility of claims

可否提出要求

The responsibility of a State may not be invoked if:

在下列情况下不得援引另一国的责任：

(a) The claim is not brought in accordance with any applicable rule relating to the nationality of claims;

(a) 不是按照涉及国籍的任何可适用的规则提出要求；

(b) The claim is one to which the rule of exhaustion of local remedies applies and any available and effective local remedy has not been exhausted.

(b) 该项要求适用用尽当地救济办法规则，却未用尽可利用的有效当地救济办法。

Article 45

第 45 条

Loss of the right to invoke responsibility

援引责任权利的丧失

The responsibility of a State may not be invoked if:

在下列情况下不得援引一国的责任：

(a) The injured State has validly waived the claim;

(a) 受害国已以有效方式放弃要求；

(b) The injured State is to be considered as having, by reason of its conduct, validly acquiesced in the lapse of the claim.

或 (b) 受害国基于其行为应被视为已以有效方式默许其要求失效。

Article 46

第 46 条

Plurality of injured States

数个受害国

Where several States are injured by the same internationally wrongful act, each injured State may separately invoke the responsibility of the State which has committed the internationally wrongful act.

在数个国家由于同一国际不法行为而受害的情况下，每一受害国可分别援引实施了该国际不法行为的国家的责任。

Article 47

第 47 条

Plurality of responsible States

数个责任国

1. Where several States are responsible for the same internationally wrongful act, the responsibility of each State may be invoked in relation to that act.

1. 在数个国家应为同一国际不法行为负责任的情况下，可对每一国家援引涉及该行为的责任。

2. Paragraph 1:

2. 第1 款：

(a) Does not permit any injured State to recover, by way of compensation, more than the damage it has suffered;

(a) 不允许任何受害国取回多于所受损失的补偿；

(b) Is without prejudice to any right of recourse against the other responsible States.

(b) 不妨碍对其他责任国的任何追索权利。

Article 48

第 48 条

Invocation of responsibility by a State other than an injured State

受害国以外的国家援引责任

1. Any State other than an injured State is entitled to invoke the responsibility of another State in accordance with paragraph 2 if:

1. 受害国以外的任何国家有权按照第2 款在下列情况下对另一国援引责任：

(a) The obligation breached is owed to a group of States including that State, and is established for the protection of a collective interest of the group;

(a) 被违反的义务是对包括该国在内的一国家集团承担的、为保护该集团的集体利益而确立的义务；

or

或

(b) The obligation breached is owed to the international community as a whole.

(b) 被违反的义务是对整个国际社会承担的义务。

2. Any State entitled to invoke responsibility under paragraph 1 may claim from the responsible State:

2. 有权按照第1 款援引责任的任何国家可要求责任国：

(a) Cessation of the internationally wrongful act, and assurances and guarantees of non-repetition in accordance with article 30;

(a) 按照第30条的规定，停止国际不法行为，并提供不重复的承诺和保证；

and

和

(b) Performance of the obligation of reparation in accordance with the preceding articles, in the interest of the injured State or of the beneficiaries of the obligation breached.

(b) 按照前几条中的规定履行向受害国或被违反之义务的受益人提供赔偿的义务。

3. The requirements for the invocation of responsibility by an injured State under articles 43, 44 and 45 apply to an invocation of responsibility by a State entitled to do so under paragraph 1.

3. 受害国根据第43条、第44条和第45条援引责任的必要条件，适用于有权根据第1 款对另一国援引责任的国家援引责任的情况。

CHAPTER II

第 二 章

Countermeasures

反 措 施

Article 49

第 49 条

Object and limits of countermeasures

反措施的目的和限制

1. An injured State may only take countermeasures against a State which is responsible for an internationally wrongful act in order to induce that State to comply with its obligations under Part Two.

1. 一受害国只在为促使一国际不法行为的责任国依第二部分履行其义务时，才可对该国采取反措施。

2. Countermeasures are limited to the non-performance for the time being of international obligations of the State taking the measures towards the responsible State.

2. 反措施限于暂不履行采取措施的一国对责任国的国际义务。

3. Countermeasures shall, as far as possible, be taken in such a way as to permit the resumption of performance of the obligations in question.

3. 反措施应尽可能以容许恢复履行有关义务的方式进行。

Article 50

第 50 条

Obligations not affected by countermeasures

不受反措施影响的义务

1. Countermeasures shall not affect:

1. 反措施不得影响：

(a) The obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force as embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;

(a) 《联合国宪章》中规定的禁止威胁或使用武力的义务；

(b) Obligations for the protection of fundamental human rights;

(b) 保护基本人权的义务；

(c) Obligations of a humanitarian character prohibiting reprisals;

(c) 禁止报复的人道主义性质的义务；

(d) Other obligations under peremptory norms of general international law.

(d) 依一般国际法强行规则承担的其他义务。

2. A State taking countermeasures is not relieved from fulfilling its obligations:

2. 采取反措施的国家仍应履行其下列义务：

(a) Under any dispute settlement procedure applicable between it and the responsible State;

(a) 与责任国之间任何可适用的解决争端程序规定的义务；

(b) To respect the inviolability of diplomatic or consular agents, premises, archives and documents.

(b) 尊重外交或领事代表、馆舍、档案和文件之不可侵犯性。

Article 51

第 51 条

Proportionality

相称

Countermeasures must be commensurate with the injury suffered, taking into account the gravity of the internationally wrongful act and the rights in question.

反措施必须和所遭受的损害相称，并应考虑到国际不法行为的严重程度和有关权利。

Article 52

第 52 条

Conditions relating to resort to countermeasures

与采取反措施有关的条件

1. Before taking countermeasures, an injured State shall:

1. 一受害国在采取反措施以前应：

(a) Call on the responsible State, in accordance with article 43, to fulfil its obligations under Part Two;

(a) 根据第43条,要求责任国按照第二部分的规定履行其义务；

(b) Notify the responsible State of any decision to take countermeasures and offer to negotiate with that State.

(b) 将采取反措施的任何决定通知责任国并提议与该国进行谈判。

2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1 (b), the injured State may take such urgent countermeasures as are necessary to preserve its rights.

2. 虽有第1款(b)项的规定，受害国可采取必要的紧急反措施以维护其权利。

3. Countermeasures may not be taken, and if already taken must be suspended without undue delay if:

3. 在下列情况下不得采取反措施，如已采取，务必停止，不得无理拖延；

(a) The internationally wrongful act has ceased; and

(a) 国际不法行为已经停止，并且

(b) The dispute is pending before a court or tribunal which has the authority to make decisions binding on the parties.

(b) 已将争端提交有权作出对当事国具有约束力之决定的法院或法庭。

4. Paragraph 3 does not apply if the responsible State fails to implement the dispute settlement procedures in good faith.

4. 若责任国不善意履行解决争端程序，第3款即不适用。

Article 53

第 53 条

Termination of countermeasures

终止反措施

Countermeasures shall be terminated as soon as the responsible State has complied with its obligations under Part Two in relation to the internationally wrongful act.

一旦责任国按照第二部分履行其与国际不法行为有关的义务，即应尽快终止反措施。

Article 54

第 54 条

Measures taken by States other than an injured State

受害国以外的国家采取的措施

This chapter does not prejudice the right of any State, entitled under article 48, paragraph 1 to invoke the responsibility of another State, to take lawful measures against that State to ensure cessation of the breach and reparation in the interest of the injured State or of the beneficiaries of the obligation breached.

本章不妨碍依第48条第1款有权援引另一国责任的任何国家，为了受害国或被违背之义务的受益人的利益对该另一国采取合法措施以确保其停止该违背义务行为和进行赔偿。

PART FOUR

第 四 部 分

GENERAL PROVISIONS

一 般 规 定

Article 55

第 55 条

Lex specialis

特别法

These articles do not apply where and to the extent that the conditions for the existence of an internationally wrongful act or the content or implementation of the international responsibility of a State are governed by special rules of international law.

在并且只在一国际不法行为的存在条件或一国国际责任的内容或履行应由国际法特别规则规定的范围内，不得适用本条款。

Article 56

第 56 条

Questions of State responsibility not regulated by these articles

本条款中没有明文规定的国家责任问题

The applicable rules of international law continue to govern questions concerning the responsibility of a State for an internationally wrongful act to the extent that they are not regulated by these articles.

在本条款中没有明文规定的情况下，关于一国对一国际不法行为的责任问题，仍应遵守可适用的国际法规则。

Article 57

第 57 条

Responsibility of an international organization

国际组织的责任

These articles are without prejudice to any question of the responsibility under international law of an international organization, or of any State for the conduct of an international organization.

本条款不影响一国际组织依国际法承担的、或任何国家对一国际组织的行为的责任的任何问题。

Article 58

第 58 条

Individual responsibility

个人的责任

These articles are without prejudice to any question of the individual responsibility under international law of any person acting on behalf of a State.

本条款不影响以国家名义行事的任何人在国际法中的个人责任的任何问题。

Article 59

第 59 条

Charter of the United Nations

联合国宪章

These articles are without prejudice to the Charter of the United Nations.

本条款不妨碍《联合国宪章》的规定。

2. Text of the draft articles with commentaries thereto

2. 条款草案案文及其评注

1. The text of the draft articles with commentaries thereto adopted by the Commission at its fifty-third session, are reproduced below:

77. 委员会第五十三届会议通过的条款草案案文及其评注载录如下：

RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES FOR INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACTS

国家对国际不法行为的责任

(1) These articles seek to formulate, by way of codification and progressive development, the basic rules of international law concerning the responsibility of States for their internationally wrongful acts.

(1) 本条款试图以编纂和逐渐发展方式拟订关于国家对国际不法行为的责任的国际法基本规则。

The emphasis is on the secondary rules of State responsibility: that is to say, the general conditions under international law for the State to be considered responsible for wrongful actions or omissions, and the legal consequences which flow therefrom.

重点是在国家责任的次级规则上：也就是说，根据国际法认定国家应对其违法的作为或不作为负责的一般条件，以及这种责任所引起的法律后果。

The articles do not attempt to define the content of the international obligations breach of which gives rise to responsibility.

本条款并不试图界定一旦被违背便会引起责任的国际义务的内容。

This is the function of the primary rules, whose codification would involve restating most of substantive international law, customary and conventional.

这种界定是初级规则的职能，编纂初级规则时需要重申大多数实质性的习惯国际法和协约国际法。

(2) Roberto Ago, who was responsible for establishing the basic structure and orientation of the project, saw the articles as specifying …

(2) 负责确定本专题基本结构和方针的罗伯特 •阿戈先生认为本条款应该详细说明…

“the principles which govern the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, maintaining a strict distinction between this task and the task of defining the rules that place obligations on States, the violation of which may generate responsibility … [I]t is one thing to define a rule and the content of the obligation it imposes, and another to determine whether that obligation has been violated and what should be the consequences of the violation.”

“据以确定国家对其国际不法行为的责任的原则，并对该原则和赋予国家义务的规则保持严格的区分，赋予国家义务的规则规定的是国家必须遵守否则就会引起责任的事项…规定某项规则和必须遵守的义务的内容是一回事，确定该项义务是否已经被违背、如果违背了应该承担哪些后果，又是另一回事。

(3) Given the existence of a primary rule establishing an obligation under international law for a State, and assuming that a question has arisen as to whether that State has complied with the obligation, a number of further issues of a general character arise. These include:

” (3) 在有了初级规则以规定一国根据国际法应该承担的义务之后，假定已经发生该国是否遵守了该项义务的问题，还会产生若干一般性问题，其中包括：

(a) The role of international law as distinct from the internal law of the State concerned in characterizing conduct as unlawful;

(a) 在将行为定性为非法方面国际法有别于当事国国内法的作用；

(b) Determining in what circumstances conduct is to be attributed to the State as a subject of international law;

(b) 确定在什么情况下应将行为归于作为国际法主体的国家；

(c) Specifying when and for what period of time there is or has been a breach of an international obligation by a State;

(c) 指明一国在什么时候和多长的一段期间违背了某项国际义务；

(d) Determining in what circumstances a State may be responsible for the conduct of another State which is incompatible with an international obligation of the latter;

(d) 确定一国在什么情况下须为另一国实行的违背某项国际义务的行为负责；

(e) Defining the circumstances in which the wrongfulness of conduct under international law may be precluded;

(e) 规定可以根据国际法排除行为不法性的情况；

(f) Specifying the content of State responsibility, i.e. the new legal relations that arise from the commission by a State of an internationally wrongful act, in terms of cessation of the wrongful act, and reparation for any injury done;

(f) 从停止不法行为和赔偿造成的任何损失方面详述国家责任的后果，即详述由一国犯下国际不法行为所引起的新的法律关系；

(g) Determining any procedural or substantive preconditions for one State to invoke the responsibility of another State, and the circumstances in which the right to invoke responsibility may be lost;

(g) 确定一国援引另一国的责任的任何程序性或实质性先决条件，以及确定可能丧失援引责任之权利的情况；

(h) Laying down the conditions under which a State may be entitled to respond to a breach of an international obligation by taking countermeasures designed to ensure the fulfilment of the obligations of the responsible State under these articles.

(h) 规定一国有权在哪些条件下针对违背国际义务的行为采取旨在确保责任国履行这些条款所规定之义务的反措施。

This is the province of the secondary rules of State responsibility.

这属于国家责任次级规则的领域。

(4) A number of matters do not fall within the scope of State responsibility as dealt with in the present articles:

(4)以下若干事项不属于本条款所处理的国家责任的范围：

First, as already noted, it is not the function of the articles to specify the content of the obligations laid down by particular primary rules, or their interpretation.

第一，正如已经指出的那样，本条款的作用不是要详细说明某些初级规则所规定的义务的内容，或对初级规则详细加以解释。

Nor do the articles deal with the question whether and for how long particular primary obligations are in force for a State.

也不处理某些初级规则是否对一国生效或在多长的期间内生效的问题。

It is a matter for the law of treaties to determine whether a State is a party to a valid treaty, whether the treaty is in force for that State and with respect to which provisions, and how the treaty is to be interpreted.

一国是否一条约的缔约国、该条约是否对该国有效以及其中哪些条款对该国有效、如何解释该条约等事项须由条约法加以确定。

The same is true, mutatis mutandis, for other “sources” of international obligations, such as customary international law.

国际义务的其他“渊源”，例如习惯国际法，也基本上是如此。

The articles take the existence and content of the primary rules of international law as they are at the relevant time;

本条款接受国际法初级规则在有关时间点上的现有状况和内容；

they provide the framework for determining whether the consequent obligations of each State have been breached, and with what legal consequences for other States.

这些初级规则提供了确定每一国家随之承担的义务是否已经被违背和对另一些国家有何法律后果的框架。

Secondly, the consequences dealt with in the articles are those which flow from the commission of an internationally wrongful act as such.

第二，本条款所处理的后果是由本条款所述的国际不法行为的实施所引起的后果。

No attempt is made to deal with the consequences of a breach for the continued validity or binding effect of the primary rule (e.g. the right of an injured State to terminate or suspend a treaty for material breach, as reflected in article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties). Nor do the articles cover such indirect or additional consequences as may flow from the responses of international organizations to wrongful conduct.

本条款不拟处理一违约行为对初级规则是否继续有效或具有约束力所产生的影响(例如《维也纳条约法公约》第60条规定：受害国有援引重大违约情事而终止或暂停施行某一条约的权利)，也不拟包括国际组织可能对不法行为做出的反应等间接的或另外的后果。

In carrying out their functions it may be necessary for international organizations to take a position on whether a State has breached an international obligation.

国际组织为了履行其职能，可能需要对一国是否违背了某项国际义务的问题采取一项立场。

But even where this is so, the consequences will be those determined by or within the framework of the constituent instrument of the organization, and these fall outside the scope of the articles.

但即使是这样，不法行为的后果将由该国际组织确定或属于该国际组织章程规定的范围，而不属于本条款的范围。

This is particularly the case with action of the United Nations under the Charter, which is specifically reserved by article 59.

对于联合国根据《宪章》采取行动的情况来说，尤其这样，第59条对此种情况做出了明确的保留。

Thirdly, the articles deal only with the responsibility for conduct which is internationally wrongful.

第三，本条款仅处理了国际不法行为的责任问题。

There may be cases where States incur obligations to compensate for the injurious consequences of conduct which is not prohibited, and may even be expressly permitted, by international law (e.g. compensation for property duly taken for a public purpose).

可能会有这样的情形：对于不受国际法禁止甚至是国际法明确容许的行为的有害后果，国家有义务给予补偿(例如补偿出于公益目的而以适当方式拿走的财产)。

There may also be cases where a State is obliged to restore the status quo ante after some lawful activity has been completed. These requirements of compensation or restoration would involve primary obligations;

另外还会有这样的情形：一国在完成了一些合法的活动之后有义务恢复原状。

it would be the failure to pay compensation, or to restore the status quo which would engage the international responsibility of the State concerned.

这些给予补偿或恢复原状的要求涉及初级义务。

Thus for the purposes of these articles, international responsibility results exclusively from a wrongful act contrary to international law.

因此为了本条款的目的，国际责任仅产生于违背国际法的不法行为。

This is reflected in the title of the articles.

这一点也反映在本条款的标题上。

Fourthly, the articles are concerned only with the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful conduct, leaving to one side issues of the responsibility of international organizations or of other non-State entities (see articles 57, 58).

第四，本条款仅涉及国家对国际不法行为的责任，将国际组织或国家以外的其他实体的责任问题搁置一边(见第57和第58条)。

(5) On the other hand the present articles are concerned with the whole field of State responsibility.

(5)但是，本条款又涉及国家责任的全部领域。

Thus they are not limited to breaches of obligations of a bilateral character, e.g. under a bilateral treaty with another State.

因此其范围并不限于违背双边性质的义务，例如与另一国签订的双边条约所产生的义务。

They apply to the whole field of the international obligations of States, whether the obligation is owed to one or several States, to an individual or group, or to the international community as a whole.

它们适用于国家的国际义务的全部领域，包括对一国或数国、对个人或团体、或对整个国际社会的义务。

Being general in character, they are also for the most part residual.

条款既是一般性的，也多半是备用性的。

In principle States are free, when establishing or agreeing to be bound by a rule, to specify that its breach shall entail only particular consequences and thereby to exclude the ordinary rules of responsibility.

原则上，国家在制定或同意遵守某一规则时，可以指明：遇有违规情事，将只引起特定后果，从而把普通责任规则排除在外。

This is made clear by article 55.

第55条对此做出了明确规定。

(6) The present articles are divided into four Parts.

(6)本条款分为四部分。

Part One is entitled “The Internationally Wrongful Act of a State”. It deals with the requirements for the international responsibility of a State to arise.

第一部分是：“一国的国际不法行为”，载述引起一国国际责任的必要条件。

Part Two, “Content of the International Responsibility of a State”, deals with the legal consequences for the responsible State of its internationally wrongful act, in particular as they concern cessation and reparation.

第二部分是：“一国国际责任的内容”，载述对其国际不法行为负责的国家应承担的法律后果，特别是涉及停止不法行为和给予赔偿的后果。

Part Three is entitled “The Implementation of the International Responsibility of a State”.

第三部分是“一国国际责任的履行”。

It identifies the State or States which may react to an internationally wrongful act and specifies the modalities by which this may be done, including, in certain circumstances, by the taking of countermeasures as necessary to ensure cessation of the wrongful act and reparation for its consequences.

它确定了可以对国际不法行为做出反应的一国或数国，并且限定了做出反应的方式，包括在若干情况下采取必要的反措施以确保停止不法行为和为其后果提供赔偿。

Part Four contains certain general provisions applicable to the articles as a whole.

第四部分载述适用于整个条款草案的若干一般性规定。

Part One

第 一 部 分

THE INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACT OF A STATE

一国的国际不法行为

Part One defines the general conditions necessary for State responsibility to arise.

第一部分规定了引起国家责任的一般必要条件。

Chapter I lays down three basic principles for responsibility, from which the articles as a whole proceed.

第一章规定了引起责任的三个基本原则，作为实行本条款的出发点。

Chapter II defines the conditions under which conduct is attributable to the State.

第二章规定了将行为归于国家的情况。

Chapter III spells out in general terms the conditions under which such conduct amounts to a breach of an international obligation of the State concerned.

第三章概要地说明当事国的某一行为违背其国际义务的情况。

Chapter IV deals with certain exceptional cases where one State may be responsible for the conduct of another State not in conformity with an international obligation of the latter.

第四章载述了一国可能为另一国违背其国际义务的行为负责的一些例外情况。

Chapter V defines the circumstances precluding the wrongfulness for conduct not in conformity with the international obligations of a State.

第五章规定了在哪些情况下可以将违背一国国际义务的行为的不法性排除。

Chapter I

第 一 章

General principles

一 般 原 则

Article 1

第 1 条

Responsibility of a State for its internationally wrongful acts

一国对其国际不法行为的责任

Every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State.

一国的每一国际不法行为引起该国的国际责任。

Commentary

评注

(1) Article 1 states the basic principle underlying the articles as a whole, which is that a breach of international law by a State entails its international responsibility.

(1) 第1条规定整个条款的根本原则，即：一国违反国际法的行为引起其国际责任。

An internationally wrongful act of a State may consist in one or more actions or omissions or a combination of both.

一国的一国际不法行为可以包括一项或多项作为或不作为或两者兼而有之。

Whether there has been an internationally wrongful act depends, first, on the requirements of the obligation which is said to have been breached and, secondly, on the framework conditions for such an act, which are set out in Part One.

是否有国际不法行为取决于：一、对据称遭违背的义务的要求； 二、第一部分中所规定的此种行为的框架条件。

The term “international responsibility” covers the new legal relations which arise under international law by reason of the internationally wrongful act of a State.

“国际责任”一词包括按照国际法由于一国的国际不法行为而产生的新的法律关系。

The content of these new legal relations is specified in Part Two.

这些新的法律关系的内容载于第二部分。

(2) The Permanent Court of International Justice applied the principle set out in article 1 in a number of cases.

(2) 常设国际法院在若干案件中适用了第1条中所载述的原则。

For example in Phosphates in Morocco, the Permanent Court affirmed that when a State commits an internationally wrongful act against another State international responsibility is established “immediately as between the two States”.

例如，常设法院在“摩洛哥磷酸盐”案中申明：当一国对另一国实施一国际不法行为时，国际责任在“两国之间立即”产生。

The International Court of Justice has applied the principle on several occasions, for example in the Corfu Channel case, in the Military and Paramilitary Activities case, and in the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project case.

国际法院在若干情况下适用了该原则，例如“科孚海峡” 案、 “尼加拉瓜境内和反对尼加拉瓜的军事和准军事活动”案 和“加布奇科沃－大毛罗斯项目”案。

The Court also referred to the principle in the advisory opinions on Reparation for Injuries, and on the Interpretation of Peace Treaties (Second Phase), in which it stated that “refusal to fulfil a treaty obligation involves international responsibility”.

国际法院也在其“执行联合国职务而受伤害者的赔偿”咨询案 和“对于和平条约的解释(第二阶段)” 的咨询意见中提到这一原则，指出：“拒不履行条约义务牵涉国际责任”。

Arbitral tribunals have repeatedly affirmed the principle, for example in the Claims of Italian Subjects Resident in Peru cases, in the Dickson Car Wheel Company case, in the International Fisheries Company case, in the British Claims in the Spanish Zone of Morocco case, and in the Armstrong Cork Company case.

仲裁法庭屡次申明这项原则，例如“侨居秘鲁的意大利子民权利要求”案、 ”迪克森车轮公司”案、 “国际渔业公司”案、 “英国在摩洛哥西班牙区权利要求”案、 “阿姆斯特朗软木塞公司”案。

In the Rainbow Warrior case, the Arbitral Tribunal stressed that “any violation by a State of any obligation, of whatever origin, gives rise to State responsibility”.

在“彩虹勇士号”案(新西兰/法国)中，仲裁法庭着重指出：“一国违背任何义务的任何行为，无论其起因为何，都引起国家责任”。

(3) That every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State, and thus gives rise to new international legal relations additional to those which existed before the act took place, has been widely recognized, both before and since article 1 was first formulated by the Commission.

(3) 一国的每一国际不法行为均引起该国的国际责任，并因此除了实施该行为以前业已存在的国际法律关系之外，又产生了新的国际法律关系，这一点在委员会首次拟第1条以前和以后，都已经得到广泛的承认。

It is true that there were early differences of opinion over the definition of the legal relationships arising from an internationally wrongful act.

诚然，早先人们对一国际不法行为所产生的法律关系的定义有意见分歧。

One approach, associated with Anzilotti, described the legal consequences deriving from an internationally wrongful act exclusively in terms of a binding bilateral relationship thereby established between the wrongdoing State and the injured State, in which the obligation of the former State to make reparation is set against the “subjective” right of the latter State to require reparation.

赞成安齐洛蒂（Anzilotti）观点的一种处理方式是完全从违法国和受害国之间因国际不法行为而确立的具有约束力的双边关系的角度来描述一国际不法行为引起的后果。 在这种关系中，违法国有赔偿的义务，受害国则有要求赔偿的“主观”权利。

Another view, associated with Kelsen, started from the idea that the legal order is a coercive order and saw the authorization accorded to the injured State to apply a coercive sanction against the responsible State as the primary legal consequence flowing directly from the wrongful act.

以凯尔森(Kelsen)为首的另一种意见首先认为法律秩序是一种强制性秩序，并认为作为由不法行为直接引起的主要法律后果，受害国有权对责任国实行强制性制裁。

According to this view, general international law empowered the injured State to react to a wrong;

这种意见认为：一般国际法授权受害国对不法之事作出反应；

the obligation to make reparation was treated as subsidiary, a way by which the responsible State could avoid the application of coercion.

赔偿的义务被当作次要事项处理，这是责任国可因此避免受到强制制裁的方式。

A third view, which came to prevail, held that the consequences of an internationally wrongful act cannot be limited either to reparation or to a “sanction”.

盛行的第三种看法认为：国际不法行为的后果不能只限于赔偿或“制裁”。

In international law, as in any system of law, the wrongful act may give rise to various types of legal relations, depending on the circumstances.

在国际法中，同在任何法律体系中一样，视不同情况，不法行为可能产生各种各样的法律关系。

(4) Opinions have also differed on the question whether the legal relations arising from the occurrence of an internationally wrongful act were essentially bilateral, i.e., concerned only the relations of the responsible State and the injured State inter se.

(4) 一国际不法行为的发生所引起的法律关系是否基本上是双边的，即它是否只涉及责任国和受害国彼此之间的关系，对于这一问题也有不同看法。

Increasingly it has been recognized that some wrongful acts engage the responsibility of the State concerned towards several or many States or even towards the international community as a whole.

日益得到承认的观点认为，某些不法行为引起当事国对若干国家、甚至对整个国际社会的责任。

A significant step in this direction was taken by the International Court in the Barcelona Traction case when it noted that:

国际法院在“巴塞罗那电车、电灯和电力公司”案中朝着这个方向迈出了重要的一步，指出：

“an essential distinction should be drawn between the obligations of a State towards the international community as a whole, and those arising vis-à-vis another State in the field of diplomatic protection.

“一国对整个国际社会的义务和在外交保护领域产生的相对于另一国的义务，两者之间应该加以实质区别。

By their very nature the former are the concern of all States.

根据义务的本质，前者是所有国家的关切。

In view of the importance of the rights involved, all States can be held to have a legal interest in their protection;

鉴于所涉权利的重要性，所有国家都对这些权利的保护具有合法权益；

they are obligations erga omnes.”

这些义务是对一切人的义务。

Every State, by virtue of its membership in the international community, has a legal interest in the protection of certain basic rights and the fulfilment of certain essential obligations.

” 每个国家，作为国际的社会成员，对若干基本权利的保护和若干基本义务的履行具有合法权益。

Among these the Court instanced “the outlawing of acts of aggression, and of genocide, as also … the principles and rules concerning the basic rights of the human person, including protection from slavery and racial discrimination”.

其中，法院援引了“宣布侵略行为和灭绝种族行为为不合法的行为，也作为包括受到保护以免遭受奴役和种族歧视在内的关于人类的基本权利的原则和规则”的例证。

In later cases the Court has reaffirmed this idea.

在后面几个案件中，法院重申了这一观念。

The consequences of a broader conception of international responsibility must necessarily be reflected in the articles which, although they include standard bilateral situations of responsibility, are not limited to them.

国际责任概念的结果必须在本条款中得到反映，本条款包括标准的由责任引起的双边情势，但并不限于那些情势。

(5) Thus the term “international responsibility” in article 1 covers the relations which arise under international law from the internationally wrongful act of a State, whether such relations are limited to the wrongdoing State and one injured State or whether they extend also to other States or indeed to other subjects of international law, and whether they are centred on obligations of restitution or compensation or also give the injured State the possibility of responding by way of countermeasures.

(5) 因此，第1条中的“国际责任”涵盖了一国的国际不法行为在国际法上产生的各种关系，无论这些关系是否仅限于违法国和一受害国或者也扩大到包括其他国家甚至扩大到其他国际法主体，是否侧重恢复原状或补偿的义务或者还给予受害国以反措施作出反应的可能性。

(6) The fact that under article 1 every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State does not mean that other States may not also be held responsible for the conduct in question, or for injury caused as a result.

(6) 第1条规定的一国的每一国际不法行为均引起该国的国际责任并不意味着另一些国家就不必为该行为或为由此造成的损害承担责任。

Under chapter II the same conduct may be attributable to several States at the same time.

第二章规定，同样的行为可以同时归于数个国家。

Under chapter IV, one State may be responsible for the internationally wrongful act of another, for example if the act was carried out under its direction and control.

第四章规定，一国可能需为另一国的国际不法行为承担责任，例如：另一国的行为是在一国指挥或控制下实施的。

Nonetheless the basic principle of international law is that each State is responsible for its own conduct in respect of its own international obligations.

虽然如此，国际法的基本原则是：每一国就其国际义务而言要为它自己的行为负责。

(7) The articles deal only with the responsibility of States.

(7) 本条款只涉及国家的责任。

Of course, as the International Court of Justice affirmed in the Reparation for Injuries case, the United Nations “is a subject of international law and capable of possessing international rights and duties … it has the capacity to maintain its rights by bringing international claims”.

当然，国际法院在处理“执行联合国职务而受伤害者的赔偿”咨询案时确认，联合国“是一个国际法主体，能够拥有国际权利和义务…它有能力通过提出国际求偿来维护其权利”。

The Court has also drawn attention to the responsibility of the United Nations for the conduct of its organs or agents.

法院也强调联合国对其机关或代表的行为的责任。

It may be that the notion of responsibility for wrongful conduct is a basic element in the possession of international legal personality.

或许可以这样认为：对不法行为承担责任的观念是拥有国际法律人格的一个基本因素。

Nonetheless special considerations apply to the responsibility of other international legal persons, and these are not covered in the articles.

不过，应对其他国际法律人格者的责任予以特殊考虑，这些特殊考虑不属于本条款的范围。

(8) As to terminology, the French term “fait internationalement illicite” is preferable to “délit” or other similar expressions which may have a special meaning in internal law.

(8) 关于术语，在法文本中使用“fait internationalement illicite (国际不法行为)”一语比使用“delit(侵权行为)”或在国内法中具有特别含义的其他类似用语更合适。

For the same reason, it is best to avoid, in English, such terms as “tort”, “delict” or “delinquency”, or in Spanish the term “delito”.

基于同样的理由，最好避免在英文本中使用“tort”，“delict”或“delinquency”，或在西班牙文本中使用“delito”。

The French term “fait internationalement illicite” is better than “acte internationalement illicite”, since wrongfulness often results from omissions which are hardly indicated by the term “acte”.

在法文本中使用“fait internationalement illicite (国际不法行为)”比使用“acte internationalement illicite(国际不法行为)”合适，因为不法性通常来源于不作为，“acte(行为)”一语很难表达这个含义。

Moreover, the latter term appears to imply that the legal consequences are intended by its author.

此外，后一用语似乎暗示行为者有意产生某种法律后果。

For the same reasons, the term “hecho internacionalmente ilícito” is adopted in the Spanish text.

基于同样的理由，西班牙文本中采用了“hecho internacionalmente ilicito”一语。

In the English text, it is necessary to maintain the expression “internationally wrongful act”, since the French “fait” has no exact equivalent;

英文本必须保持“internationally wrongful act(国际不法行为)”的措辞方式，因为法文中的“fait(行为)”在英文中没有确切的对应语；

nonetheless, the term “act” is intended to encompass omissions, and this is made clear in article 2.

不过，“act(行为)”一词试图包括不作为，第2条中明确了这一点。

Article 2

第 2 条

Elements of an internationally wrongful act of a State

一国国际不法行为的要素

There is an internationally wrongful act of a State when conduct consisting of an action or omission:

一国的国际不法行为在下列情况下发生：

(a) Is attributable to the State under international law;

(a) 由作为或不作为组成的行为依国际法归于该国；

and

并且

(b) Constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State.

(b) 该行为构成对该国国际义务的违背。

Commentary

评注

(1) Article 1 states the basic principle that every internationally wrongful act of a State entails its international responsibility.

(1) 第1条规定一国的每一国际不法行为均引起该国的国际责任的基本原则。

Article 2 specifies the conditions required to establish the existence of an internationally wrongful act of the State, i.e. the constituent elements of such an act.

第2条明确了据以确定该国有国际不法行为存在的必要条件，即此类行为的构成要素。

Two elements are identified.

该条确定了两个要素。

First, the conduct in question must be attributable to the State under international law.

一、该行为依国际法必须归于该国；

Secondly, for responsibility to attach to the act of the State, the conduct must constitute a breach of an international legal obligation in force for that State at that time.

二、为了确定该国对该行为的责任，该行为必须是违背了当时对该国有效的国际法律义务的行为。

(2) These two elements were specified, for example, by the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Phosphates in Morocco case.

(2) 例如常设国际法院在“摩洛哥磷酸盐”案 中说明了这两个因素。

The Court explicitly linked the creation of international responsibility with the existence of an “act being attributable to the State and described as contrary to the treaty right[s] of another State”.

常设国际法院把国际责任的产生同“归于该国并且被认定为违反另一国条约权利的行为”的存在明确地联系起来。

The International Court has also referred to the two elements on several occasions.

国际法院也在若干情况下提到这两个因素。

In the Diplomatic and Consular Staff case, it pointed out that, in order to establish the responsibility of Iran … “[f]irst, it must determine how far, legally, the acts in question may be regarded as imputable to the Iranian State.

它在“美国驻德黑兰的外交和领事人员”案 中指出，为了确定伊朗的责任“首先，必须确定法律上在多大的程度上可认为有关行为归罪于伊朗国。

Secondly, it must consider their compatibility or incompatibility with the obligations of Iran under treaties in force or under any other rules of international law that may be applicable.”

其次，必须考虑到这些行为符合或者违背伊朗根据目前生效的条约或可以适用的其他国际法规则所承担的义务的情况。

Similarly in the Dickson Car Wheel Company case, the Mexico-United States General Claims Commission noted that the condition required for a State to incur international responsibility is “that an unlawful international act be imputed to it, that is, that there exist a violation of a duty imposed by an international juridical standard”.

” 同样，在“迪克森车轮公司”案中，墨西哥——美国一般索赔委员会指出，引起一国国际责任的必要条件是“一非法国际行为归于该国，即该国违反了依国际司法标准应承担的责任”。

(3) The element of attribution has sometimes been described as “subjective” and the element of breach as “objective”, but the articles avoid such terminology.

(3) 有时人们把行为归于国家这一要素说成是“主观的”，而把违背有关义务的要素说成是“客观的”，但是本条款避免使用这种术语。

Whether there has been a breach of a rule may depend on the intention or knowledge of relevant State organs or agents and in that sense may be “subjective”.

是否存在着违背规则的行为可能取决于当事国或其代表的故意或明知，在这个意义上可以说是“主观的”。

For example article II of the Genocide Convention states that: “In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such … ”. In other cases, the standard for breach of an obligation may be “objective”, in the sense that the advertence or otherwise of relevant State organs or agents may be irrelevant.

例如，《灭绝种族公约》第二条规定：“本公约内所称灭绝种族系指蓄意全部或局部消灭某一民族、人种、种族或宗教团体，犯有下列行为之一者…”在另外的情况下，是否违背某项义务的标准可能是“客观的”，因为有关国家的机关或代表的注意或不注意可能是不相干的。

Whether responsibility is “objective” or “subjective” in this sense depends on the circumstances, including the content of the primary obligation in question.

在这个意义上，责任是“客观的”还是“主观的”取决于具体情况，尤其包括有关初级义务的内容。

The articles lay down no general rule in that regard.

本条款没有在这方面规定任何一般性规则。

The same is true of other standards, whether they involve some degree of fault, culpability, negligence or want of due diligence.

其他标准也是如此，不论它们涉及一定程度的过失、可归责性、疏忽或缺乏应有的注意。

Such standards vary from one context to another for reasons which essentially relate to the object and purpose of the treaty provision or other rule giving rise to the primary obligation.

这些标准依情境不同而不同，其原因基本上与条约的规定或产生基本义务的其他规则的目标和目的有关。

Nor do the articles lay down any presumption in this regard as between the different possible standards.

本条款也没有在这方面就各种可能的不同标准之间的关系规定任何假设。

Establishing these is a matter for the interpretation and application of the primary rules engaged in the given case.

确立这些假设是在特定案件上对涉及的初级规则加以解释和运用的问题。

(4) Conduct attributable to the State can consist of actions or omissions.

(4) 归于国家的行为可以分为作为或不作为。

Cases in which the international responsibility of a State has been invoked on the basis of an omission are at least as numerous as those based on positive acts, and no difference in principle exists between the two.

基于不作为援引一国国际责任的情况至少同基于积极的行为援引责任的情况一样多，两者原则上没有差别。

Moreover it may be difficult to isolate an “omission” from the surrounding circumstances which are relevant to the determination of responsibility.

另外，将一个“不作为”与确定责任有关的周围情况相割离可能很困难。

For example in the Corfu Channel case, the International Court of Justice held that it was a sufficient basis for Albanian responsibility that it knew, or must have known, of the presence of the mines in its territorial waters and did nothing to warn third States of their presence.

例如在“科孚海峡”案中，国际法院认为，阿尔巴尼亚知道、或者应该知道其领水中有水雷，却没有就此向第三国提出警告，这构成了其责任的充分基础。

In the Diplomatic and Consular Staff case, the Court concluded that the responsibility of Iran was entailed by the “inaction” of its authorities which “failed to take appropriate steps”, in circumstances where such steps were evidently called for.

在“美国驻德黑兰的外交和领事人员”案中，法院得出结论，伊朗的责任是由其当局的“没有采取适当步骤” 的“不作为”引起的，而在当时的情况下，这些步骤显然是必要的。

In other cases it may be the combination of an action and an omission which is the basis for responsibility.

在另外一些情况下，可能是作为和不作为兼而有之，构成了责任的基础。

(5) For particular conduct to be characterized as an internationally wrongful act, it must first be attributable to the State.

(5) 对定性为国际不法行为的特定行为，首先必须归于国家。

The State is a real organized entity, a legal person with full authority to act under international law.

国家是真正有组织的实体，是具有充分权力的依国际法采取行动的法律人格者。

But to recognize this is not to deny the elementary fact that the State cannot act of itself.

但是承认这一点并不等于否认国家本身不能采取行动的基本事实。

An “act of the State” must involve some action or omission by a human being or group: “States can act only by and through their agents and representatives.

“国家的行为”必须涉及个人或团体的一些作为或不作为：“国家只能经由和通过其代理或代表采取行动。

” The question is which persons should be considered as acting on behalf of the State, i.e. what constitutes an “act of the State” for the purposes of State responsibility.

” 这里的问题是应该把谁视为代表国家行事的人，即为了确定国家责任的目的，什么能构成“国家的行为”。

(6) In speaking of attribution to the State what is meant is the State as a subject of international law.

(6) 把行为归于国家的含义是将国家视为国际法主体。

Under many legal systems, the State organs consist of different legal persons (ministries or other legal entities), which are regarded as having distinct rights and obligations for which they alone can be sued and are responsible.

在许多法系中，国家机关由各种法律人格者(部委或其他法律实体)组成，它们被视为具有单独的权利和义务，可以单独对它们提出控告，它们能够单独为其违约行为负责任。

For the purposes of the international law of State responsibility the position is different.

就国家责任的国际法来说，情况则不同了。

The State is treated as a unity, consistent with its recognition as a single legal person in international law.

国家被当成一个整体对待，这一点与他们在国际法中被确认为单一的法律人格者是一致的。

In this as in other respects the attribution of conduct to the State is necessarily a normative operation.

这一点同其他方面一样，将行为归于国家必然是一种规范性的行动。

What is crucial is that a given event is sufficiently connected to conduct (whether an act or omission) which is attributable to the State under one or other of the rules set out in chapter II.

至关紧要的是，某一特定事件与根据第二章中规定的一项或另一项规则应归于国家的行为(作为或不作为)有充分关联。

(7) The second condition for the existence of an internationally wrongful act of the State is that the conduct attributable to the State should constitute a breach of an international obligation of that State.

(7) 国家的国际不法行为能够存在的第二个条件是：归于国家的行为应该构成对该国某项国际义务的违背。

The terminology of breach of an international obligation of the State is long established and is used to cover both treaty and non-treaty obligations.

对国家某项国际义务的违背这一术语很久以来 便已确定，在使用违背一词时，条约和非条约义务均包括在内。

In its judgment on jurisdiction in the Factory at Chorzów case, the Permanent Court of International Justice used the words “breach of an engagement”.

常设国际法院在关于它对“霍茹夫工厂”案的管辖权的判决中，使用了“违背承诺”的措辞。

It employed the same expression in its subsequent judgment on the merits.

它在随后对案情的判决中使用了同样的措辞。

The International Court of Justice referred explicitly to these words in the Reparation for Injuries case.

国际法院在“执行联合国职务而受伤害者的赔偿”咨询案中明确地提到这些措辞。

The Arbitral Tribunal in the Rainbow Warrior affair, referred to “any violation by a State of any obligation”.

仲裁法庭在关于“彩虹勇士号”的案件中，提到“一国违背任何义务的任何行为”。

In practice, terms such as “non-execution of international obligations”, “acts incompatible with international obligations”, “violation of an international obligation” or “breach of an engagement” are also used.

实践中还使用诸如“不履行国际义务”、“不符合国际义务的行为”、“违背一国际义务的行为”或“违背承诺”等术语。

All these formulations have essentially the same meaning.

所有这些案文基本上具有相同的含义。

The phrase preferred in the articles is “breach of an international obligation” corresponding as it does to the language of article 36 (2) (c) of the Statute of the International Court.

本条款适用的违背一国际义务的行为的措辞与《国际法院规约》第36条第2 款(c)项中的用语一致。

(8) In international law the idea of breach of an obligation has often been equated with conduct contrary to the rights of others.

(8) 在国际法中，违背一项义务的概念往往等同于违反他人权利的行为。

The Permanent Court of International Justice spoke of an act “contrary to the treaty right[s] of another State” in its judgment in the Phosphates in Morocco case.

常设国际法院在对“摩洛哥磷酸盐案”的判决中提到“违反另一国条约权利”的行为。

That case concerned a limited multilateral treaty which dealt with the mutual rights and duties of the parties, but some have considered the correlation of obligations and rights as a general feature of international law: there are no international obligations of a subject of international law which are not matched by an international right of another subject or subjects, or even of the totality of the other subjects (the international community as a whole).

该案涉及一个规定当事方相互权利和责任的有限多边条约，但是有些人认为义务和权利的相关性是国际法的一项一般特征：凡是国际法主体的国际义务，必有另一或另外一些主体、甚至其他主体的全体(整个国际社会)的国际权利与之相对。

But different incidents may attach to a right which is held in common by all other subjects of international law, as compared with a specific right of a given State or States.

但是，不同的事件可能涉及国际法的所有其他主体共同的权利，而不是某一或某几个国家的特定权利。

Different States may be beneficiaries of an obligation in different ways, or may have different interests in respect of its performance.

不同的国家可能以不同的方式成为某项义务的受益人，或对该义务的履行具有不同的利益。

Multilateral obligations may thus differ from bilateral ones, in view of the diversity of legal rules and institutions and the wide variety of interests sought to be protected by them.

鉴于法律规则和机构多种多样，要求它们保护的利益也各不相同，多边义务可能与双边义务不同。

But whether any obligation has been breached still raises the two basic questions identified in article 2, and this is so whatever the character or provenance of the obligation breached.

但是，任何义务是否遭违背仍然引起第2条中所确定的两个基本问题，不管被违背的义务的特性或起源为何，情况都是这样。

It is a separate question who may invoke the responsibility arising from the breach of an obligation: this question is dealt with in Part Three.

谁可以援引某项义务被违背所引起的责任是一个单独的问题：第三部分便处理这个问题。

(9) Thus there is no exception to the principle stated in article 2 that there are two necessary conditions for an internationally wrongful act - conduct attributable to the State under international law and the breach by that conduct of an international obligation of the State.

(9) 因此，第2条所载述的原则没有例外，该项原则是，国际不法行为有两个必要条件：该项行为依国际法归于该国； 该国因该项行为而违背了该国的某项国际义务。

The question is whether those two necessary conditions are also sufficient.

问题在于这两个必要条件是否也是充分条件。

It is sometimes said that international responsibility is not engaged by conduct of a State in disregard of its obligations unless some further element exists, in particular, “damage” to another State.

有时会有人说，国际责任并不是由一国无视其义务的行为引起的，除非存在更多的因素，尤其是对另一国的“损害”。

But whether such elements are required depends on the content of the primary obligation, and there is no general rule in this respect.

但是，是否要求这些因素取决于初级义务的内容，在这方面并没有一般规则。

For example, the obligation under a treaty to enact a uniform law is breached by the failure to enact the law, and it is not necessary for another State party to point to any specific damage it has suffered by reason of that failure.

例如，因没有履行条约规定的制订统一法律的义务而构成对该义务的违背，另一缔约国不必指称它因此而受到了任何特定的损害。

Whether a particular obligation is breached forthwith upon a failure to act on the part of the responsible State, or whether some further event must occur, depends on the content and interpretation of the primary obligation and cannot be determined in the abstract.

是否由于责任国未能采取行动就违背了某项特定义务？ 或是否还必须发生进一步的事件，取 决于初级义务的内容和对其内容的解释，不能抽象地加以确定。

(10) A related question is whether fault constitutes a necessary element of the internationally wrongful act of a State.

(10) 与此有关的一个问题是：过失是否构成一国国际不法行为的必要因素？

This is certainly not the case if by “fault” one understands the existence, for example, of an intention to harm.

如果“过失”指存在着如，伤害的意图，则其答案当然是否定的。

In the absence of any specific requirement of a mental element in terms of the primary obligation, it is only the act of a State that matters, independently of any intention.

就初级义务而言，不存在对于心理要件的任何特定要求，与此有关的只是一国的行为，不论其意图为何。

(11) Article 2 introduces and places in the necessary legal context the questions dealt with in subsequent chapters of Part One.

(11) 第2条提出第一部分随后各章中所处理的问题，并且把它们放置在必要的法律背景中。

Subparagraph (a) - which states that conduct attributable to the State under international law is necessary for there to be an internationally wrongful act - corresponds to chapter II, while chapter IV deals with the specific cases where one State is responsible for the internationally wrongful act of another State.

(a)款——规定依国际法归于国家的行为的存在是构成国际不法行为的必要条件——与第二章相应，同时第四章处理一国对另一国的国际不法行为负有责任的一些特定情况。

Subparagraph (b) - which states that such conduct must constitute a breach of an international obligation - corresponds to the general principles stated in chapter III, while chapter V deals with cases where the wrongfulness of conduct, which would otherwise be a breach of an obligation, is precluded.

(b)款——规定这种行为必须构成对一国际义务的违背——与第三章所载述的一般原则相应，同时第五章处理了行为违背了义务但其不法性被排除的情况。

(12) In subparagraph (a), the term “attribution” is used to denote the operation of attaching a given action or omission to a State.

(12) 在(a)款中，“attribution (归于)”一词是用于指将某一作为或不作为与一国联系起来。

In international practice and judicial decisions, the term “imputation” is also used.

在国际实践和司法判决中，也使用了“imputation (归咎)”一词。

But the term “attribution” avoids any suggestion that the legal process of connecting conduct to the State is a fiction, or that the conduct in question is “really” that of someone else.

但是，“attribution”避免了暗示将行为同该国联系起来的法律程序是虚构的，或暗示该行为“实际上”应归于另一国。

(13) In subparagraph (b), reference is made to the breach of an international obligation rather than a rule or a norm of international law.

(13) (b)款中提到违背一国际义务而不是一国际法规则或规范。

What matters for these purposes is not simply the existence of a rule but its application in the specific case to the responsible State.

就这些目的来说，关键不仅是某一规则的存在，还包括一规则在特定情况下适用于责任国的情况。

The term “obligation” is commonly used in international judicial decisions and practice and in the literature to cover all the possibilities.

“义务(obligation)”一词通常用于国际司法判决和实践以及文献中，以包括上述各种可能性。

The reference to an “obligation” is limited to an obligation under international law, a matter further clarified in article 3.

提及“义务”时，仅限于指依照国际法所确定的义务，这一问题在第3条里得到进一步澄清。

Article 3

第 3 条

Characterization of an act of a State as internationally wrongful

把一国的行为定性为国际不法行为

The characterization of an act of a State as internationally wrongful is governed by international law.

在把一国的行为定性为国际不法行为时须遵循国际法。

Such characterization is not affected by the characterization of the same act as lawful by internal law.

这种定性不因国内法把同一行为定性为合法行为而受到影响。

Commentary

评注

(1) Article 3 makes explicit a principle already implicit in article 2, namely that the characterization of a given act as internationally wrongful is independent of its characterization as lawful under the internal law of the State concerned.

(1) 第3条明示了第2条中已经暗示的一项原则，即：将一特定行为定性为国际不法行为不因当事国依国内法将其定性为合法行为而受影响。

There are two elements to this.

这一原则包括两个因素。

First, an act of a State cannot be characterized as internationally wrongful unless it constitutes a breach of an international obligation, even if it violates a provision of the State’s own law.

第一，不能将一国的一行为定性为国际不法行为，除非该行为构成对一项国际义务的违背，否则即使该行为违反该国本国法律的规定也不能被定性为国际不法行为。

Secondly and most importantly, a State cannot, by pleading that its conduct conforms to the provisions of its internal law, escape the characterization of that conduct as wrongful by international law.

第二，也是最重要的一点是：一国不能辩称其行为符合其国内法而不应依国际法定性为国际不法行为。

An act of a State must be characterized as internationally wrongful if it constitutes a breach of an international obligation, even if the act does not contravene the State’s internal law - even if, under that law, the State was actually bound to act in that way.

一国的一行为如果构成对一国际义务的违背，则必须定性为国际不法行为，即使该行为并不违反该国的国内法，即使根据该国内法该国实际上必须采取那样的行动。

(2) As to the first of these elements, perhaps the clearest judicial decision is that of the Permanent Court in the Treatment of Polish Nationals case.

(2) 就上面第一个要素而言，最明确的司法判决或许是常设法院对“波兰国民和其他波兰裔或操波兰语的人在但泽领地的待遇”案的判决。

The Court denied the Polish Government the right to submit to organs of the League of Nations questions concerning the application to Polish nationals of certain provisions of the constitution of the Free City of Danzig, on the ground that:

该法院否认波兰政府有权向国际联盟的一些机关提交对波兰国民适用但泽自由市宪法中若干规定的问题，理由如下：

“… according to generally accepted principles, a State cannot rely, as against another State, on the provisions of the latter’s Constitution, but only on international law and international obligations duly accepted … [C]onversely, a State cannot adduce as against another State its own Constitution with a view to evading obligations incumbent upon it under international law or treaties in force …

“…根据公认的一些原则，一国不能依靠另一国的宪法来对该另一国采取行动，它只能依靠国际法和正常接受的国际义务…反之，一国不能对另一国引用它本国的宪法来规避它依国际法或有效条约应该承担的义务。

The application of the Danzig Constitution may … result in the violation of an international obligation incumbent on Danzig towards Poland, whether under treaty stipulations or under general international law … . However, in cases of such a nature, it is not the Constitution and other laws, as such, but the international obligation that gives rise to the responsibility of the Free City.”

…适用《但泽宪法》的结果可能…违背了格但斯克应该向波兰履行的根据条约规定或一般国际法规定的国际义务…但是，在具有这种性质的情况中，引起该自由市的责任的不是这样的宪法和其他法律，而是国际义务。 ”

(3) That conformity with the provisions of internal law in no way precludes conduct being characterized as internationally wrongful is equally well settled.

(3) 对国内法规定的遵守绝对不能排除将行为定性为国际不法行为，这一点也是同样明确的。

International judicial decisions leave no doubt on that subject.

国际司法判决在这个问题上没有任何疑问。

In particular, the Permanent Court expressly recognized the principle in its first judgment, in the S.S. Wimbledon.

具体地说，常设法院在其第一个判决即对“温布尔顿号”案的判决中明确承认这项原则。

The Court rejected the argument of the German Government that the passage of the ship through the Kiel Canal would have constituted a violation of the German neutrality orders, observing that:

法院拒绝接受德国政府的论点，即：船只若通过基尔运河，将构成对德国中立法令的违反，法庭认为：

“… a neutrality order, issued by an individual State, could not prevail over the provisions of the Treaty of Peace … under article 380 of the Treaty of Versailles, it was [Germany’s] definite duty to allow [the passage of the Wimbledon through the Kiel Canal].

“…单个国家发布的中立法令不能凌驾于《和平条约》的规定之上…根据《凡尔赛条约》第380条的规定，[德国]有明确的责任允许[温布尔登号船通过基尔运河]。

She could not advance her neutrality orders against the obligations which she had accepted under this article.”

德国不能提出本国的中立法令来否定德国按照该条所接受的义务” 。

The principle was reaffirmed many times:

法院多次重申了这项原则：

“… it is a generally accepted principle of international law that in the relations between Powers who are contracting Parties to a treaty, the provisions of municipal law cannot prevail over those of the treaty.”

“…在一条约的缔约各国之间的关系中，本国法律的规定不能凌驾条约的规定，这是公认的国际法原则。

“… it is certain that France cannot rely on her own legislation to limit the scope of her international obligations.”

” “…确切无疑的是，法国不能以其本国的立法为由限制其国际义务的范围。 ”

“… a State cannot adduce as against another State its own Constitution with a view to evading obligations incumbent upon it under international law or treaties in

“…一国不能对另一国引用本国宪法以规避其依国际法或生效的条约应该履行的义务。

force.”

”

A different facet of the same principle was also affirmed in the Advisory Opinions on Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations and Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig.

同一原则的另一侧面也在关于交换希腊和土耳其居民 和但泽法院管辖权的咨询意见中得到确认。

(4) The International Court has often referred to and applied the principle. For example in the Reparation for Injuries case, it noted that “[a]s the claim is based on the breach of an international obligation on the part of the Member held responsible… the Member cannot contend that this obligation is governed by municipal law”.

(4) 国际法院经常提到并适用这一原则，例如在“执行联合国职务而受伤害者的赔偿”咨询案 中，国际法院指出，“索赔主张根据的是被认定有责任的成员国对一项国际义务的违背…该成员国不能辩称这一义务是受国内法制约的”。

In the ELSI case, a Chamber of the Court emphasized this rule, stating that:

在“西西里电子股份公司”案 中，法院的一个分庭强调了这一规则，指出：

“Compliance with municipal law and compliance with the provisions of a treaty are different questions.

“遵守国内法与遵守条约规定是不同的问题。

What is a breach of treaty may be lawful in the municipal law and what is unlawful in the municipal law may be wholly innocent of violation of a treaty provision.

对条约的违反行为在国内法中可能是合法行为，而在国内法中不合法的行为可能根本不是违反条约规定的行为。

Even had the Prefect held the requisition to be entirely justified in Italian law, this would not exclude the possibility that it was a violation of the FCN Treaty.”

即使政府当局认为依意大利法律，征用是完全合理的，但并不能排除它是违反友好通商航行条约行为的可能性。

Conversely, as the Chamber explained:

” 反之，该分庭解释说：

“… the fact that an act of a public authority may have been unlawful in municipal law does not necessarily mean that that act was unlawful in international law, as a breach of treaty or otherwise.

“…公共权力机关的行为在国内法中可能不合法不一定意味着在国际法中该行为不合法，如同违反条约或其他此类的不法行为。

A finding of the local courts that an act was unlawful may well be relevant to an argument that it was also arbitrary;

一些地方法院关于某一行为是不法行为的裁决可能意味着该行为也是任意的；

but by itself, and without more, unlawfulness cannot be said to amount to arbitrariness … Nor does it follow from a finding by a municipal court that an act was unjustified, or unreasonable, or arbitrary, that that act is necessarily to be classed as arbitrary in international law, though the qualification given to the impugned act by a municipal authority may be a valuable indication.”

但是，光是凭借该结论，要是没有更多的论据，还不能说不法性等于任意性…也不能根据一国内法院的裁决：某一行为是缺乏理据、或不合理、或任意的行为，就认定该行为必然归类为国际法中的任意行为，虽然国内当局对受到责难之行为的定性可能具有重要的指示作用。 ”

The principle has also been applied by numerous arbitral tribunals.

许多仲裁法庭也适用了这项原则。

(5) The principle was expressly endorsed in the work undertaken under the auspices of the League of Nations on the codification of State Responsibility, as well as in the work undertaken under the auspices of the United Nations on the codification of the rights and duties of States and the law of treaties.

(5) 在国际联盟主持下进行的关于国家责任的编纂工作和在联合国主持下进行的关于国家权利和义务以及条约法的编纂工作中明确赞同这项原则。

The International Law Commission’s Draft declaration on rights and duties of States, article 13, provided that: “Every State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.”

国际法委员会的国家权利和义务宣言草案第13条规定：”各国有义务善意地履行由条约和国际法其他渊源产生的义务，不得以其宪法或法律之规定作为不履行此种责任的借口。 ”

(6) Similarly this principle was endorsed in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, article 27 of which provides that:

(6) 《维也纳条约法公约》同样赞同这项原则，其中第27条规定：

“A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.

“一当事国不得援引其国内法规定作为不履行条约的依据。

This rule is without prejudice to article 46.”

此项规则不妨碍第46条。 ”

(7) The rule that the characterization of conduct as unlawful in international law cannot be affected by the characterization of the same act as lawful in internal law makes no exception for cases where rules of international law require a State to conform to the provisions of its internal law, for instance by applying to aliens the same legal treatment as to nationals.

(7) 在国际法中把一行为定性为不法行为不因国内法中把同一行为定性为合法行为而受影响的规则并没有为国际法规则要求一国遵照其国内法规定的情况作出例外规定，例如应对外侨适用与本国国民同样的法律待遇。

It is true that in such a case, compliance with internal law is relevant to the question of international responsibility. But this is because the rule of international law makes it relevant, e.g. by incorporating the standard of compliance with internal law as the applicable international standard or as an aspect of it.

的确，在这种情形下，对国内法的遵守与国际责任问题有关，但这是由于国际法规则使之相关，例如把遵守国内法的标准纳入可适用的国际标准中或作为其一个方面。

Especially in the fields of injury to aliens and their property and of human rights, the content and application of internal law will often be relevant to the question of international responsibility.

尤其是在损害外侨的人身及其财产和人权方面，国内法的内容和适用往往会涉及国际责任问题。

In every case it will be seen on analysis that either the provisions of internal law are relevant as facts in applying the applicable international standard, or else that they are actually incorporated in some form, conditionally or unconditionally, into that standard.

在每一情况下，都可以从分析中看出，国内法的规定要么与适用可适用的国际标准的事实有关，要么已在附带或不附带条件的情况下以某种形式实际纳入该项标准。

(8) As regards the wording of the rule, the formulation “The municipal law of a State cannot be invoked to prevent an act of that State from being characterized as wrongful in international law”, which is similar to article 5 of the draft adopted on first reading at the Hague Conference of 1930 and also to article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, has the merit of making it clear that States cannot use their internal law as a means of escaping international responsibility.

(8) 关于本规则的措辞，“不能援引一国国内法阻止该国的某一行为依国际法被定性为不法行为”这一案文，与1930 年海牙会议上一读通过的草案第5条类似，也与《维也纳条约法公约》第27条类似，其优点是明确指出了国家不能以国内法作为逃避国际责任的手段。

On the other hand, such a formulation sounds like a rule of procedure and is inappropriate for a statement of principle.

另一方面，这种案文像一条程序规则，不宜用来陈述一项原则。

Issues of the invocation of responsibility belong to Part Three, whereas this principle addresses the underlying question of the origin of responsibility.

援引责任的问题属于第三部分的范围，尽管这项原则涉及责任起源的基本问题。

In addition, there are many cases where issues of internal law are relevant to the existence or otherwise of responsibility.

此外，在许多情况下，国内法问题与责任的存在或不存在有关。

As already noted, in such cases it is international law which determines the scope and limits of any reference to internal law.

上文已经指出，在这种情况下，只有国际法才能确定在什么样的范围和限制内提及国内法。

This element is best reflected by saying, first, that the characterization of State conduct as internationally wrongful is governed by international law, and secondly by affirming that conduct which is characterized as wrongful under international law cannot be excused by reference to the legality of that conduct under internal law.

最能体现这个要素的说法是：一、把一国的行为定性为国际不法行为由国际法院规定； 二、申明不得以该行为在国内法中的合法性为借口而不依国际法把它定性为不法行为。

(9) As to terminology, in the English version the term “internal law” is preferred to “municipal law”, because the latter is sometimes used in a narrower sense, and because the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties speaks of “internal law”.

(9) 关于术语，英文本中用了“internal law（国内法）”，而未用“municipal law”，因为后者有时候在更窄的意义上使用，也因为《维也纳条约法公约》中使用了“internal law”。

Still less would it be appropriate to use the term “national law”, which in some legal systems refers only to the laws emanating from the central legislature, as distinct from provincial, cantonal or local authorities.

使用“national law”就更不合适了，因为在某些法律系统中，其含义只包括中央立法机关所制订的法律，并不包括省、州或地方当局制订的法律。

The principle in article 3 applies to all laws and regulations adopted within the framework of the State, by whatever authority and at whatever level.

第3条中的原则适用于国家范围内由任何级别的任何当局所制定的一切法律规章。

In the French version the expression “droit interne” is preferred to “législation interne” and “loi interne”, because it covers all provisions of the internal legal order, whether written or unwritten and whether they take the form of constitutional or legislative rules, administrative decrees or judicial decisions.

法文本中“国内法”的用语是“droit interne”，而不是“législation interne”或“loi interne”，因为它包括了本国法律秩序中的所有规定，不论是成文法还是不成文法，也不论是否采取了宪法或立法规则、行政命令或司法决定的形式。

Chapter II

第 二 章

Attribution of conduct to a State

把行为归于一国

(1) In accordance with article 2, one of the essential conditions for the international responsibility of a State is that the conduct in question is attributable to the State under international law.

(1) 根据第2条，产生一国国际责任的两个基本条件之一是：有关行为依国际法归于该国。

Chapter II defines the circumstances in which such attribution is justified, i.e. when conduct consisting of an act or omission or a series of acts or omissions is to be considered as the conduct of the State.

第二章规定了有理由把行为归于某一国的情况，即：某一作为或不作为、或由某一系列作为或不作为组成的行为被视为该国的行为。

(2) In theory, the conduct of all human beings, corporations or collectivities linked to the State by nationality, habitual residence or incorporation might be attributed to the State, whether or not they have any connection to the government.

(2) 从理论上说，通过国籍、惯常居所或成立公司而与国家相联系的所有的人、社团或集体的行为，无论是否与政府有任何联系，都可能被归于国家。

In international law, such an approach is avoided, both with a view to limiting responsibility to conduct which engages the State as an organization, and also so as to recognize the autonomy of persons acting on their own account and not at the instigation of a public authority.

在国际法中则避免这样做，一则为了将责任限定于国家作为一个组织所从事的行为，再则为了承认个人出于自己的目的行事、而不是在公共当局的指使下采取行动的自主性。

Thus the general rule is that the only conduct attributed to the State at the international level is that of its organs of government, or of others who have acted under the direction, instigation or control of those organs, i.e., as agents of the State.

因此，一般的规则是：在国际层面上归于国家的唯一行为是政府的机关，或在那些机关指挥、指使或控制行事的其他人(即：国家的代理)的行为。

(3) As a corollary, the conduct of private persons is not as such attributable to the State.

(3) 作为一种推论，私人的行为从这个意义上说，并不归于国家。

This was established, for example, in the Tellini case of 1923.

这项规则在1923 年“特立尼”案中获得确立。

The Council of the League of Nations referred to a special Committee of Jurists certain questions arising from an incident between Italy and Greece.

国际联盟理事会将一起涉及意大利和希腊的事件而引起的某些问题提交给一个专门由法学家组成的委员会。

This involved the assassination on Greek territory of the Chairman and several members of an international commission entrusted with the task of delimiting the Greek-Albanian border.

此案涉及一负责划定希腊与阿尔巴尼亚边界的国际委员会的主席和若干成员在希腊境内被暗杀的事件。

In reply to question five, the Committee stated that:

在答复第5个问题时，委员会认为：

“The responsibility of a State is only involved by the commission in its territory of a political crime against the persons of foreigners if the State has neglected to take all reasonable measures for the prevention of the crime and the pursuit, arrest and bringing to justice of the criminal.”

“在一国境内对外国人实施的政治犯罪，只有当该国忽视采取一切合理措施防止犯罪并追踪、逮捕和审判罪犯时，才涉及国家的责任”

(4) The attribution of conduct to the State as a subject of international law is based on criteria determined by international law and not on the mere recognition of a link of factual causality.

(4) 把行为归于作为国际法主体的国家，其依据是国际法所确定的标准，而不是基于对实际因果关系的承认。

As a normative operation, attribution must be clearly distinguished from the characterization of conduct as internationally wrongful.

作为一种规范的运作方式，必须在将行为归于某一国同将行为定性为国际不法行为之间作出明确区分。

Its concern is to establish that there is an act of the State for the purposes of responsibility.

其关注是确定责任的目的，必须有国家的行为存在。

To show that conduct is attributable to the State says nothing, as such, about the legality or otherwise of that conduct, and rules of attribution should not be formulated in terms which imply otherwise.

表明该行为归于某一国家本身并不能说明该行为是否具有合法性，拟定将行为归于某一国家的规则不应使用暗示其他含义的措辞。

But the different rules of attribution stated in chapter II have a cumulative effect, such that a State may be responsible for the effects of the conduct of private parties, if it failed to take necessary measures to prevent those effects.

但是，第二章所载述的将行为归于某一国家的各种规则具有累积的作用，所以一国可能要对私人当事方的行为的后果负责，如果该国没有采取必要措施防止这些后果的发生。

For example a receiving State is not responsible, as such, for the acts of private individuals in seizing an embassy, but it will be responsible if it fails to take all necessary steps to protect the embassy from seizure, or to regain control over it.

例如，就此而论，接受国可以不为私人占据大使馆负责，但如果它没有采取一切必要步骤来保护该大使馆免遭占据或重新恢复对该大使馆的控制，则须负责。

In this respect there is often a close link between the basis of attribution and the particular obligation said to have been breached, even though the two elements are analytically distinct.

在这方面，确定行为归属的依据和据称被违反的特定义务，虽然就分析法而言是两个不同的因素，但两者之间常常有密切的联系。

(5) The question of attribution of conduct to the State for the purposes of responsibility is to be distinguished from other international law processes by which particular organs are authorized to enter into commitments on behalf of the State.

(5) 为了确定责任而把行为归于某一国家的问题必须与据以授权特定机关以国家名义承担义务的其他国际法程序区别开来。

Thus the head of State or government or the minister of foreign affairs is regarded as having authority to represent the State without any need to produce full powers.

因此，国家元首或政府首脑或外交部长被视为有权代表国家而无需出示全权证书。

Such rules have nothing to do with attribution for the purposes of State responsibility.

这种规则与为了确定国家责任而将行为归于国家无关。

In principle, the State’s responsibility is engaged by conduct incompatible with its international obligations, irrespective of the level of administration or government at which the conduct occurs.

原则上，国家的责任由其违背国际义务行为引起，不论实施行为的行政或政府当局的层级如何。

Thus the rules concerning attribution set out in this chapter are formulated for this particular purpose, and not for other purposes for which it may be necessary to define the State or its government.

因此，本章中所列关于将行为归于某一国家的规则是为了上述特定目的、而不是为了有必要界定国家或其政府的其它目的而拟定的。

(6) In determining what constitutes an organ of a State for the purposes of responsibility, the internal law and practice of each State are of prime importance.

(6) 为了确定责任而确定国家机关的组成要素时，最重要的因素是每一国家的国内法和实践。

The structure of the State and the functions of its organs are not, in general, governed by international law.

国家的结构和国家机关的职能总体而言不受国际法制约。

It is a matter for each State to decide how its administration is to be structured and which functions are to be assumed by government.

每一国家自行决定其行政机关的组织方式和政府承担的职能。

But while the State remains free to determine its internal structure and functions through its own law and practice, international law has a distinct role.

虽然国家可以根据本国的法律与实践而自由决定其内部结构和职能，国际法却有不同的作用。

For example, the conduct of certain institutions performing public functions and exercising public powers (e.g. the police) is attributed to the State even if those institutions are regarded in internal law as autonomous and independent of the executive government.

例如，发挥公共职能和行使公权力的某些机构(例如警察)的行为归于国家，即使在国内法上将这些机构看作独立于政府行政部门管理的自主机构。

Conduct engaged in by organs of the State in excess of their competence may also be attributed to the State under international law, whatever the position may be under internal law.

国家机关超越其职权行事的行为也可依国际法归于国家，而不论依其国内法该机关地位如何。

(7) The purpose of this chapter is to specify the conditions under which conduct is attributed to the State as a subject of international law for the purposes of determining its international

(7) 本章的目的是为了阐明出于确定其国际责任的目的而把行为归于作为国际法主体的国家的条件。

responsibility. Conduct is thereby attributed to the State as a subject of international law and not as a subject of internal law.

因此，行为归于作为国际法主体、而不是国内法主体的国家。

In internal law, it is common for the “State” to be subdivided into a series of distinct legal entities.

在国内法中，通常将“国家”分为一系列不同的法律实体。

For example, ministries, departments, component units of all kinds, State commissions or corporations may have separate legal personality under internal law, with separate accounts and separate liabilities.

例如，部委、司局、各种各样的单位，国家职司委员会或社团可能依国内法具有单独的法律人格，职有专司，各自对其违约行为负责。

But international law does not permit a State to escape its international responsibilities by a mere process of internal subdivision.

但是，国际法不允许一国以内部职能划分程序逃避其国际责任。

The State as a subject of international law is held responsible for the conduct of all the organs, instrumentalities and officials which form part of its organization and act in that capacity, whether or not they have separate legal personality under its internal law.

国家作为一个国际法主体，应该为构成其组织的一部分并以此名义行事的所有机关、机制和官员的行为负责，不论它们是否依国内法具有单独的法律人格。

(8) Chapter II consists of eight articles.

(8) 第二章由8个条文组成。

Article 4 states the basic rule attributing to the State the conduct of its organs.

第4条规定把国家机关的行为归于国家的基本规则。

Article 5 deals with conduct of entities empowered to exercise the governmental authority of a State, and article 6 deals with the special case where an organ of one State is placed at the disposal of another State and empowered to exercise the governmental authority of that State.

第5条处理被授权行使一国政府权力的实体的行为。 第6条处理一国某一机关由另一国支配并被授权行使该另一国政府权力的特殊情况。

Article 7 makes it clear that the conduct of organs or entities empowered to exercise governmental authority is attributable to the State even if it was carried out outside the authority of the organ or person concerned or contrary to instructions.

第7条明文规定被授权行使政府权力的机关或实体的行为应归于国家，即使这些行为是在有关机关或人员的权力范围以外或在违反指示的情况下实施的。

Articles 8-11 then deal with certain additional cases where conduct, not that of a State organ or entity, is nonetheless attributed to the State in international law.

第8条至第11条接着处理了不是国家机关或实体的行为但依国际法应归于国家的另外一些情况。

Article 8 deals with conduct carried out on the instructions of a State organ or under its direction or control.

第8条处理按照一国家机关的指示或在其指挥或控制下实施的行为。

Article 9 deals with certain conduct involving elements of governmental authority, carried out in the absence of the official authorities.

第9条处理在正式当局不存在的情况下实施的若干涉及政府权力要素的行为。

Article 10 concerns the special case of responsibility in defined circumstances for the conduct of insurrectional movements.

第10条载述在规定的情况下为叛乱运动的行为承担责任的特殊情况。

Article 11 deals with conduct not attributable to the State under one of the earlier articles which is nonetheless adopted by the State, expressly or by conduct, as its own.

第11条处理按照前述一条文的规定不应归于国家、但国家自行以明示的方式或以行为承认其归属的情况。

(9) These rules are cumulative but they are also limitative.

(9) 这些规则是累积的，但也是限定的。

In the absence of a specific undertaking or guarantee (which would be a lex specialis), a State is not responsible for the conduct of persons or entities in circumstances not covered by this chapter.

若没有特定的承诺或保证(这将构成特别法)，则一国不对本章所涵盖的情况之外的人员或实体的行为负责。

As the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal has affirmed, “in order to attribute an act to the State, it is necessary to identify with reasonable certainty the actors and their association with the State”.

如同伊朗-美利坚合众国索赔仲裁庭所确认的：“为将某行为归于某国，必须合理确定行为者及其与某国的联系。

This follows already from the provisions of article 2.

”此结论自第2条的规定已得出。

Article 4

第 4 条

Conduct of organs of a State

国家机关的行为

1. The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under international law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever position it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as an organ of the central government or of a territorial unit of the State.

1. 任何国家机关，不论它行使立法、行政、司法或任何其他职能，不论它在国家的组织中具有何种地位，也不论它作为该国中央政府机关或一领土单位的机关的特性，其行为应视为国际法所指的国家行为。

2. An organ includes any person or entity which has that status in accordance with the internal law of the State.

2. 一机关包括依该国国内法具有此种地位的任何人或实体。

Commentary

评注

(1) Paragraph 1 of article 4 states the first principle of attribution for the purposes of State responsibility in international law - that the conduct of an organ of the State is attributable to that State.

(1) 第4条第1款载述为了确立国际法中的国家责任而将行为归于国家的第一原则——一国家机关的行为归于该国家。

The reference to a “State organ” covers all the individual or collective entities which make up the organization of the State and act on its behalf.

“国家机关”一词包括组成国家并以国家名义行事的所有个别的或集体的实体。

It includes an organ of any territorial governmental entity within the State on the same basis as the central governmental organs of that State: this is made clear by the final phrase.

这个原则适用于在国家范围内立足于与该国中央政府机关同样的基础上的领地政府实体：“一领土单位的机关”一语明确了这一点。

(2) Certain acts of individuals or entities which do not have the status of organs of the State may be attributed to the State in international law, and these cases are dealt with in later articles of this chapter.

(2) 不具备国家机关地位的个人或实体的若干行为在国际法中可归于国家，本章后面的条文处理了这些情况。

But the rule is nonetheless a point of departure.

但这项规则是个出发点。

It defines the core cases of attribution, and it is a starting point for other cases.

它规定了确定行为归于一国的核心情况，并且是处理其他情况的出发点。

For example, under article 8 conduct which is authorized by the State, so as to be attributable to it, must have been authorized by an organ of the State, either directly or indirectly.

例如，根据第8条，由国家授权、因而应归于国家的行为，必须曾经直接或间接地得到一国家机关的授权。

(3) That the State is responsible for the conduct of its own organs, acting in that capacity, has long been recognized in international judicial decisions.

(3) 国家对以其名义行事的国家机关的行为负责，长期以来得到国际司法判决的承认。

In the Moses case, for example, a decision of a Mexico-United States Mixed Claims Commission, Umpire Lieber said: “An officer or person in authority represents pro tanto his government, which in an international sense is the aggregate of all officers and men in authority”.

例如在“摩西”案(1871)中，墨西哥－美国混合索赔委员会仲裁人Lieber在裁决中指出：“主管官员或人员在此程度上代表政府，在国际层面上,它是所有主管官员和人员的总称”。

There have been many statements of the principle since then.

从那时以来,有过关于许多这项原则的声明。

(4) The replies by Governments to the Preparatory Committee for the 1930 Conference for the Codification of International Law were unanimously of the view that the actions or omissions of organs of the State must be attributed to it.

(4) 各国政府向1930 年国际法编纂会议筹备委员会提交的答复一致认为：国家机关的作为或不作为必须归于国家。

The Third Committee of the Conference adopted unanimously on first reading an article 1, which provided that international responsibility shall be incurred by a State as a consequence of “any failure on the part of its organs to carry out the international obligations of the State …”

该会议第三委员会全体一致一读通过了第1条，规定“任何国家机关未能履行该国的国际义务…”的后果引起该国的国际责任。

(5) The principle of the unity of the State entails that the acts or omissions of all its organs should be regarded as acts or omissions of the State for the purposes of international responsibility.

(5) 国家统一性的原则要求：为了确定国际责任，应该将所有国家机关的作为或不作为视为国家的作为或不作为。

It goes without saying that there is no category of organs specially designated for the commission of internationally wrongful acts, and virtually any State organ may be the author of such an act.

勿庸置疑，没有特别指定任何类别的机关为国际不法行为的实施者，事实上，国家的任何机关都可能是这样一个行为的实施者。

The diversity of international obligations does not permit any general distinction between organs which can commit internationally wrongful acts and those which cannot.

由于国际义务具有多样性，不可能对能够实行国际不法行为和不能够实行国际不法行为的机关进行一般性的区分。

This is reflected in the closing words of paragraph 1, which clearly reflect the rule of international law in the matter.

这一点体现在第4条第1款的结束语中，它明确地反映了关于这一事项的国际法规则。

(6) Thus the reference to a State organ in article 4 is intended in the most general sense.

(6) 因此，第4条中的“国家机关”一语的用意是指最普遍的含义。

It is not limited to the organs of the central government, to officials at a high level or to persons with responsibility for the external relations of the State.

它不限于中央政府的机关、高级官员或负责国家外交关系的人员。

It extends to organs of government of whatever kind or classification, exercising whatever functions, and at whatever level in the hierarchy, including those at provincial or even local level.

它扩大适用于任何种类或任何类别的、在等级结构的任何级别上履行任何职能的政府机关，包括省级机关、甚至地方一级的机关。

No distinction is made for this purpose between legislative, executive or judicial organs.

没有为了确定国际责任而区分立法、行政或司法机关。

Thus, in the Salvador Commercial Company case, the Tribunal said that: “… a State is responsible for the acts of its rulers, whether they belong to the legislative, executive, or judicial department of the Government, so far as the acts are done in their official capacity.”

因此，在“萨尔瓦多商业公司”案中，法庭指出：“…一国应为其管理者以官方身份行事的行为负责，无论该官员属于政府的立法、行政或司法部门。

The International Court has also confirmed the rule in categorical terms.

” 国际法院也直截了当地确认了这个规则。

In Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, it said:

它在“关于人权委员会特别报告员法律程序之豁免的争论”咨询意见中，指出：

“According to a well-established rule of international law, the conduct of any organ of a State must be regarded as an act of that State.

“根据一项业已确立的国际法规则，一国任何机关的行为必须被视为该国的行为。

This rule… is of a customary character…”

这项规则…具有习惯法性质…”。

In that case the Court was principally concerned with decisions of State courts, but the same principle applies to legislative and executive acts.

在该案中，法院主要关心国家法院的判决，但是同一原则适用于立法和行政行为。

As the Permanent Court said in Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Merits) …

常设国际法院在“德国在波兰上西列西亚的利益”案(实体问题)中指出：

“From the standpoint of International Law and of the Court which is its organ, municipal laws … express the will and constitute the activities of States, in the same manner as do legal decisions or administrative measures.”

“从国际法的角度和本法院作为其机关的立场看来，国内法…以与法律决定或行政措施同样的方式表现意志并构成国家的活动。 ”。

Thus article 4 covers organs, whether they exercise “legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions”.

因此，第4条适用于各机关，无论它们行使的是“立法、行政、司法或任何其他职能”。

This language allows for the fact that the principle of the separation of powers is not followed in any uniform way, and that many organs exercise some combination of public powers of a legislative, executive or judicial character.

这一用语考虑到这样的事实：三权分立原则并没有以任何统一的形式得到遵循，许多机关行使的公共权力兼具立法、行政或司法性质。

Moreover the term is one of extension, not limitation, as is made clear by the words “or any other functions”.

而且，这个用语的含义的扩展而不是限制，“或任何其他职能”的措辞已明确这一点。

It is irrelevant for the purposes of attribution that the conduct of a State organ may be classified as “commercial” or as “acta iure gestionis”.

为了将行为归于国家，将某一国家机关的行为归类为“商业”或“行政”行为无关紧要。

Of course the breach by a State of a contract does not as such entail a breach of international law.

当然，就此而论，一国的违反合同的行为本身并不引起对国际法的违反。

Something further is required before international law becomes relevant, such as a denial of justice by the courts of the State in proceedings brought by the other contracting party.

还需要进一步的情况，例如该国法院在其他缔约方提出的诉讼中拒绝司法，才会涉及国际法。

But the entry into or breach of a contract by a State organ is nonetheless an act of the State for the purposes of article 4, and it might in certain circumstances amount to an internationally wrongful act.

但是就第4条的目的而言，一国家机关的缔结或违反一项合同是该国的行为， 在某些情形下，这种行为可能构成国际不法行为。

(7) Nor is any distinction made at the level of principle between the acts of “superior” and “subordinate” officials, provided they are acting in their official capacity.

(7) 只要是以官方身份行事，并不原则区分“上级”和“下属”官员的行为。

This is expressed in the phrase “whatever position it holds in the organization of the State” in article 4.

这一点体现在第4条中的“无论在国家的组织中地位如何”。

No doubt lower level officials may have a more restricted scope of activity and they may not be able to make final decisions.

无疑，低级官员的活动范围更受到限制；

But conduct carried out by them in their official capacity is nonetheless attributable to the State for the purposes of article 4.

可能无法作出最后决定，但是，为了第4条的目的，由他们以官方身份实施的行为却应归于国家。

Mixed commissions after the Second World War often had to consider the conduct of minor organs of the State, such as administrators of enemy property, mayors and police officers, and consistently treated the acts of such persons as attributable to the State.

二战以后的混合委员会往往必须考虑到敌产管理人、市长和警官等国家次要机关的行为，并且一贯将这些人的行为归于该国。

(8) Likewise, the principle in article 4 applies equally to organs of the central government and to those of regional or local units.

(8) 同理，第4条中的原则也适用于中央政府机关和区域或地方机关。

This principle has long been recognized.

这项原则长期以来得到承认。

For example the Franco-Italian Conciliation Commission in the Heirs of the Duc de Guise case said:

例如，法国—意大利调解委员会在“吉兹公爵的继承人”案中指出：

“For the purposes of reaching a decision in the present case it matters little that the decree of 29 August 1947 was not enacted by the Italian State but by the region of Sicily.

“为就本案作出决定，1947 年8 月29 日的法令不是由意大利国、而是由西西里区域颁布的事实无关紧要。

For the Italian State is responsible for implementing the Peace Treaty, even for Sicily, notwithstanding the autonomy granted to Sicily in internal relations under the public law of the Italian Republic.”

因为意大利国有责任履行《和平条约》，甚至对西西里履约负有责任，虽然意大利共和国公法在国内关系上赋予西西里自治地位。

This principle was strongly supported during the preparatory work for the Conference for the Codification of International Law of 1930.

” 这个原则在1930 年国际法编纂会议的筹备工作中得到强烈支持。

Governments were expressly asked whether the State became responsible as a result of “[a]cts or omissions of bodies exercising public functions of a legislative or executive character (communes, provinces, etc.

会议明确地询问各国政府：国家是否应该为“行使具有立法或行政性质的公共职能的机构(市镇、州省等)的作为或不作为”的后果负责。

)”. All answered in the affirmative.

各国的答复均是肯定的。

(9) It does not matter for this purpose whether the territorial unit in question is a component unit of a federal State or a specific autonomous area, and it is equally irrelevant whether the internal law of the State in question gives the federal parliament power to compel the component unit to abide by the State’s international obligations.

(9) 为了将行为归于国家的目的，有关领土单位是联邦国家的一个组成单位或一个特定自治区是无关紧要的，该国国内法是否授权联邦议会迫使该组成单位遵守该国的国际义务同样与此无关。

The award in the Montijo case is the starting point for a consistent series of decisions to this effect.

“蒙蒂霍”案的裁决是这方面一系列一致性裁决的起点。

The France/Mexico Claims Commission in the Pellat case reaffirmed “the principle of the international responsibility … of a federal State for all the acts of its separate States which give rise to claims by foreign States” and noted specially that such responsibility “…cannot be denied, not even in cases where the federal Constitution denies the central Government the right of control over the separate States or the right to require them to comply, in their conduct, with the rules of international law”.

法国/墨西哥索赔委员会在“佩拉”案中重申“…一联邦国家必须为引起外国索赔的各州的一切行为承担国际责任的原则”，并且特别指出这种责任“…不容否认，即使联邦宪法否认中央政府有权控制各州或要求各州在行事时遵守国际法规则”。

That rule has since been consistently applied.

从此以后，这项规则得到一贯适用。

Thus for example in the LaGrand case, the International Court said: “Whereas the international responsibility of a State is engaged by the action of the competent organs and authorities acting in that State, whatever they may be;

例如，国际法院在“拉格朗德”案中就此指出：”鉴于一国为以该国名义行事的主管机关和当局的行动承担国际责任，无论何种行动；

whereas the United States should take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Walter LaGrand is not executed pending the final decision in these proceedings;

鉴于美国应该采取可以利用的一切措施确保沃尔特 •拉格兰德在上述诉讼最后判决作出以前不被执行；

whereas, according to the information available to the Court, implementation of the measures indicated in the present Order falls within the jurisdiction of the Governor of Arizona;

鉴于，根据本法院获得的资料，执行法院令中所指措施属于亚利桑那州州长的权限范围；

whereas the Government of the United States is consequently under the obligation to transmit the present Order to the said Governor;

鉴于美国政府因此有义务将本院命令转交该州长；

whereas the Governor of Arizona is under the obligation to act in conformity with the international undertakings of the United States…”

鉴于亚利桑那州长有义务遵照美国的国际承诺行事；

(10) The reasons for this position are reinforced by the fact that federal States vary widely in their structure and distribution of powers, and that in most cases the constituent units have no separate international legal personality of their own (however limited), nor any treaty-making power.

(10) 采取这种立场的理由由于下列事实而得到加强：联邦国家在结构和权力分配方面差异很大； 在大多数情况下，各组成单位没有自己的(无论如何有限的)单独的国际法律人格，也没有任何缔约权。

In those cases where the constituent unit of a federation is able to enter into international agreements on its own account, the other party may well have agreed to limit itself to recourse against the constituent unit in the event of a breach.

在联邦的组成单位能够以自己名义缔结国际协定的情况下，另一缔约方很可能同意如果对方违约，只诉究该组成单位；

In that case the matter will not involve the responsibility of the federal State and will fall outside the scope of the present articles.

在这种情况下，将不涉及联邦国家的责任，而且不属于本条款的范围。

Another possibility is that the responsibility of the federal State under a treaty may be limited by the terms of a federal clause in the treaty.

另一个可能性是：联邦国家依条约所承担的责任可能由该条约中的联邦条款加以限制。

This is clearly an exception to the general rule, applicable solely in relations between the States parties to the treaty and in the matters which the treaty covers.

这显然是一般规则的一个例外，只适用于各缔约国之间的关系以及该条约所涉及的事项。

It has effect by virtue of the lex specialis principle, dealt with in article 55.

它具有根据特别法原则产生的效力：见第55条。

(11) Paragraph 2 explains the relevance of internal law in determining the status of a State organ.

(11) 第2款解释国内法在确定某一国家机关的地位方面的相关性。

Where the law of a State characterizes an entity as an organ, no difficulty will arise.

在国内法认定某实体为国家机关时，不会产生问题。

On the other hand, it is not sufficient to refer to internal law for the status of State organs.

另一方面，确定国家机关的地位仅提及国内法是不够的。

In some systems the status and functions of various entities are determined not only by law but also by practice, and reference exclusively to internal law would be misleading.

在一些法系中，各种实体的地位和职能不仅由法律还由实践和惯例决定，仅提及国内法可能引起误导。

The internal law of a State may not classify, exhaustively or at all, which entities have the status of “organs”.

一国国内法可能没有全面界定或者根本没有界定哪些实体具有“机关”的地位。

In such cases, while the powers of an entity and its relation to other bodies under internal law will be relevant to its classification as an “organ”, internal law will not itself perform the task of classification.

在这种情形下，虽然国内法中规定的某一实体的权力及其依国内法与其他实体的关系将同它是否被归类为“机关”有关，但是，国内法本身并不履行分类的任务。

Even if it does so, the term “organ” used in internal law may have a special meaning, and not the very broad meaning it has under article 4.

即使如此，国内法中所使用的“机关”一语可能具有特殊的含义，而且不是第4条中所指的范围极为广泛的含义。

For example, under some legal systems the term “government” refers only to bodies at the highest level such as the head of State and the cabinet of ministers.

例如，在某些法系中，“政府”一词仅指国家元首和由部长组成的内阁等最高机关。

In others, the police have a special status, independent of the executive;

在另一些法系中，警察部门具有不受行政部门辖制的特殊地位；

this cannot mean that for international law purposes they are not organs of the

不能因此便认为，为了国际法的目的，警察部门不是国家机关。

State. Accordingly, a State cannot avoid responsibility for the conduct of a body which does in truth act as one of its organs merely by denying it that status under its own law.

相应地，一国仅依国内法否认某一的确以国家机关名义行事的实体不具有这样的地位，并无法免除该国对其行为的责任。

This result is achieved by the use of the word “includes” in paragraph 2.

第2款中使用“包括”一词实现这个结果。

(12) The term “person or entity” is used in article 4, paragraph 2, as well as in articles 5 and 7.

(12) 在第4条第2款以及第5条和第7条使用了“人或实体”。

It is used to include in a broad sense to include any natural or legal person, including an individual office holder, a department, commission or other body exercising public authority, etc.

这是为了从广义上包括任何自然人或法人，其中包括担任公职的个人、部门、委员会或行使公权力的其他机构等等。

The term “entity” is used in a similar sense in the draft articles on Jurisdictional immunities of States and their property, adopted in 1991.

“实体”一词的含义与1991 年通过的《国家及其财产的管辖豁免条款草案》中该词的含义相同。

(13) Although the principle stated in article 4 is clear and undoubted, difficulties can arise in its application.

(13) 虽然第4条中所载述的原则明确无疑，但在适用上可能会有困难。

A particular problem is to determine whether a person who is a State organ acts in that capacity.

一个特别的问题是确定作为国家机关的某人是否以国家机关的名义行事。

It is irrelevant for this purpose that the person concerned may have had ulterior or improper motives or may be abusing public power.

为此目的，该人是否有隐蔽的或不适当的动机或者可能滥用公共权力，并不相干。

Where such a person acts in an apparently official capacity, or under colour of authority, the actions in question will be attributable to the State.

在该人明确以官方身份或以当局作为幌子行事时，其行为应归于国家。

The distinction between unauthorized conduct of a State organ and purely private conduct has been clearly drawn in international arbitral decisions.

国际仲裁裁决中已经明确区分了国家机关未经授权的行为和纯属私人的行为。

For example, the award of the United States/Mexico General Claims Commission in the Mallén case (1927) involved, first, the act of an official acting in a private capacity, and secondly, another act committed by the same official in his official capacity, although in an abusive way.

例如，美国/墨西哥一般索赔委员会对“马伦”案的裁决(1927)考虑到：一、以私人名义行事的某一官员的行为； 二、同一官员以官方身份实施的尽管是滥用权力的另一行为。

The latter action was, and the former was not, held attributable to the State.

后一行为归于国家，前一行为则不然。

The French-Mexican Claims Commission in the Caire case excluded responsibility only in cases where “the act had no connexion with the official function and was, in fact, merely the act of a private individual”.

法国—墨西哥索赔委员会在“凯尔”案中只在“与官方职能无关，而且实际上只是私人行为”的情况下，才免除责任。

The case of purely private conduct should not be confused with that of an organ functioning as such but acting ultra vires or in breach of the rules governing its operation.

纯属私人行为的情况不应该与超越其权限行事或违反其运作规则的国家机关的行为混淆起来。

In this latter case, the organ is nevertheless acting in the name of the State: this principle is affirmed in article 7.

在后一情况下，该机关却是以国家名义行事的：第7条中确认了这个原则。

In applying this test, of course, each case will have to be dealt with on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.

当然，在进行这种检验时，每一案件都必须基于事实和情况加以处理。

Article 5

第 5 条

Conduct of persons or entities exercising elements of governmental authority

行使政府权力要素的个人或实体的行为

The conduct of a person or entity which is not an organ of the State under article 4 but which is empowered by the law of that State to exercise elements of the governmental authority shall be considered an act of the State under international law, provided the person or entity is acting in that capacity in the particular instance.

虽非第4条所指的国家机关、但经该国法律授权行使政府权力要素的个人或实体，其行为依国际法应视为该国的行为，但以该个人或实体在特定情形下系以政府资格行事者为限。

Commentary

评注

(1) Article 5 deals with the attribution to the State of conduct of bodies which are not State organs in the sense of article 4, but which are nonetheless authorized to exercise governmental authority.

(1) 第5条规定把虽然不是第4条所指国家机关、但经授权行使政府权力的机构的行为归于国家的情况。

The article is intended to take account of the increasingly common phenomenon of para-statal entities, which exercise elements of governmental authority in place of State organs, as well as situations where former State corporations have been privatized but retain certain public or regulatory functions.

该条的用意是考虑到准国家实体代替国家机关行使政府权力要素的现象越来越普遍，以及以前的国营公司私有化以后保有某些公共职能或管理职能的情况。

(2) The generic term “entity” reflects the wide variety of bodies which, though not organs, may be empowered by the law of a State to exercise elements of governmental authority.

(2) “实体”这一普通用语反映了各种各样的机构，它们虽然不是机关却可以由一国法律授权行使政府权力的要素。

They may include public corporations, semi-public entities, public agencies of various kinds and even, in special cases, private companies, provided that in each case the entity is empowered by the law of the State to exercise functions of a public character normally exercised by State organs, and the conduct of the entity relates to the exercise of the governmental authority concerned.

它们可能包括公共事务行政机构、公共实体、各种公共机构、在特殊情况下，甚至包括私营公司，前提是，在每一情况下，该实体由该国法律授权行使通常由国家机关行使的公共性质的职能而且实体的行为涉及有关政府权力的行使。

For example in some countries private security firms may be contracted to act as prison guards and in that capacity may exercise public powers such as powers of detention and discipline pursuant to a judicial sentence or to prison regulations.

例如，某些国家的私营保卫公司可能根据合同担任监狱的警卫，可以以该身份行使公共权力，例如根据司法判决或监狱规章行使拘留权和惩罚措施。

Private or State-owned airlines may have delegated to them certain powers in relation to immigration control or quarantine.

私营或国营的航空公司可能授权行使有关移民管制或检疫的某些权力。

In one case before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, an autonomous foundation established by the State held property for charitable purposes under close governmental control; its powers

在伊朗－美国索赔法庭审理的一个案件中，有一个由国家成立的自治基金会在政府的密切监督下拥有用于慈善事业的财产；

included the identification of property for seizure.

它的权力包括查明要扣押的财产。

It was held that it was a public and not a private entity, and therefore within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction;

法庭认为，它是一个公营实体而不是私营实体，因此属于该法庭的管辖范围；

with respect to its administration of allegedly expropriated property, it would in any event have been covered by article 5.

鉴于该基金会对据称被没收的财产的管理，无论如何，其应该属于第5条的适用范围。

(3) The fact that an entity can be classified as public or private according to the criteria of a given legal system, the existence of a greater or lesser State participation in its capital, or, more generally, in the ownership of its assets, the fact that it is not subject to executive control - these are not decisive criteria for the purpose of attribution of the entity’s conduct to the State.

(3) 一实体可根据特定法系的标准归类为公营或私营实体的事实，国家对其资本、或更一般地对其资产所有权程度不同的参与的存在，它不受行政部门控制的事实——对于是否应把实体的行为归于国家，上述这些都不是决定性的标准。

Instead, article 5 refers to the true common feature, namely that these entities are empowered, if only to a limited extent or in a specific context, to exercise specified elements of governmental authority.

反之，第5条提到这些实体的真正共同特性：它们都被授权，如果仅在有限程度上或特定的情况中，行使政府权力的特定要素。

(4) Para-statal entities may be considered a relatively modern phenomenon, but the principle embodied in article 5 has been recognized for some time.

(4) 准国家实体或许是相对比较现代的现象，但是第5条中所体现的原则一段时间以来已经得到承认。

For example the replies to the request for information made by the Preparatory Committee for the 1930 Codification Conference indicated strong support from some governments for the attribution to the State of the conduct of autonomous bodies exercising public functions of an administrative or legislative character.

例如，1930 年编纂会议筹备委员会调查表得到的答复显示：一些政府强烈支持将行使行政或立法性质的公共职能的自治机构的行为归于国家。

The German Government, for example, asserted that:

例如德国政府宣称：

“when, by delegation of powers, bodies act in a public capacity, e.g., police an area … the principles governing the responsibility of the State for its organs apply with equal force.

“当一些机构经由授权以政府机关的名义行事，例如维持一个地区的治安…国家应为其机关承担责任的原则以同等的效力适用。

From the point of view of international law, it does not matter whether a State polices a given area with its own police or entrusts this duty, to a greater or less extent, to autonomous bodies”.

从国际法的观点看来，一国是否以自己的警察维持一个地区的治安或在不同程度上委托一些自治机构行使这一职责，是无关紧要的”。

The Preparatory Committee accordingly prepared the following Basis of Discussion, though the Third Committee of the Conference was unable in the time available to examine it:

据此，筹备委员会拟订了下列讨论基础，虽然该会议第三委员会未能在会期内加以审查：

“A State is responsible for damage suffered by a foreigner as the result of acts or omissions of such … autonomous institutions as exercise public functions of a legislative or administrative character, if such acts or omissions contravene the international obligations of the State”.

“一国的…自治机构行使立法或行政性质的公共职能时，若这些机构的作为或不作为违反该国的国际义务…其结果对外国人造成损害，该国要对此负责”。

(5) The justification for attributing to the State under international law the conduct of “para-statal” entities lies in the fact that the internal law of the State has conferred on the entity in question the exercise of certain elements of the governmental authority.

(5) 依国际法把“准国家”实体的行为归于国家的理由是基于这样的事实：国家的国内法授权该实体履行政府权力的某些要素。

If it is to be regarded as an act of the State for purposes of international responsibility, the conduct of an entity must accordingly concern governmental activity and not other private or commercial activity in which the entity may engage.

如果为了确定国际责任的目的，把一实体的行为视为国家的行为，那么该行为必须相应地涉及政府的活动，而不是该实体所从事的其他私人活动或商业活动。

Thus, for example, the conduct of a railway company to which certain police powers have been granted will be regarded as an act of the State under international law if it concerns the exercise of those powers, but not if it concerns other activities (e.g. the sale of tickets or the purchase of rolling-stock).

例如，铁路公司获得了某些警察权力，如果其行为涉及行使那些权力，将依国际法被视为国家的行为，如果从事其他活动(例如售票或购置车皮)，就不能视为国家的行为。

(6) Article 5 does not attempt to identify precisely the scope of “governmental authority” for the purpose of attribution of the conduct of an entity to the State.

(6) 第5条并不是为了把一实体的行为归于国家而试图确切界定“政府权力”的范围。

Beyond a certain limit, what is regarded as “governmental” depends on the particular society, its history and traditions.

超越一定的范围，何为“政府的”取决于特定社会、其历史和传统。

Of particular importance will be not just the content of the powers, but the way they are conferred on an entity, the purposes for which they are to be exercised and the extent to which the entity is accountable to government for their exercise.

尤为重要的不仅是权力的内容，而是授权该实体的方式、行使那些权力的目的、该实体必须为行使那些权力向政府负责的程度。

These are essentially questions of the application of a general standard to varied circumstances.

基本上，这些问题是将一般标准适用于各种情况的问题。

(7) The formulation of article 5 clearly limits it to entities which are empowered by internal law to exercise governmental authority.

(7) 第5条案文明确限定为国内法授权行使政府权力的那些实体。

This is to be distinguished from situations where an entity acts under the direction or control of the State, which are covered by article 8, and those where an entity or group seizes power in the absence of State organs but in situations where the exercise of governmental authority is called for: these are dealt with in article 9.

这一点与适用第8条规定的一实体在国家的指挥或控制下行事的情况不同，也有别于适用第9条规定的在国家机关不存在或需要行使政府权力的情况下一实体或团体掌握权力的情况。

For the purposes of article 5, an entity is covered even if its exercise of authority involves an independent discretion or power to act;

为了第5条的目的，也适用于一实体在权力的行使上需要有独立的裁量权或行事权的情况；

there is no need to show that the conduct was in fact carried out under the control of the State.

无须证明该行为实际上是在国家的控制下进行的。

On the other hand article 5 does not extend to cover, for example, situations where internal law authorizes or justifies certain conduct by way of self-help or self-defence;

另一方面，第5条不拟适用于，例如国内法授权或容许某些以自助或自卫方式实施的行为的情况。

i.e. where it confers powers upon or authorizes conduct by citizens or residents generally. The internal law in question must specifically authorize the conduct as involving the exercise of public authority;

有关国内法必须授权涉及行使公共权力的行为，仅作为社区事务一般规章的一部分容许进行活动是不够的。

it is not enough that it permits activity as part of the general regulation of the affairs of the community.

因此，这是一个范围狭窄的类别。

It is accordingly a narrow category.

第 6 条

Article 6 Conduct of organs placed at the disposal of a State by another State

由另一国交由一国支配的机关的行为

The conduct of an organ placed at the disposal of a State by another State shall be considered an act of the former State under international law if the organ is acting in the exercise of elements of the governmental authority of the State at whose disposal it is

由另一国交由一国支配的机关，如果为行使支配该机关的国家的政府权力要素而行事，其行为依国际法应视为支配该机关的国家的行为。

placed.

评注

Commentary (1) Article 6 deals with the limited and precise situation in which an organ of a State is effectively put at the disposal of another State so that the organ may temporarily act for its benefit and under its authority.

(1) 第6条规定一种有限的具体的情形：一国的机关实际上由另一国支配，该机关因此可以暂时为该另一国的利益并在该国的管理下行事。

In such a case, the organ, originally that of one State, acts exclusively for the purposes of and on behalf of another State and its conduct is attributed to the latter State alone.

在这种情况下，原来属于一国的机关完全为另一国的目的并代表该国行事，其行为只归于该另一国。

(2) The words “placed at the disposal of” in article 6 express the essential condition that must be met in order for the conduct of the organ to be regarded under international law as an act of the receiving and not of the sending State.

(2) 第6条中“交由支配”一语表明为了依国际法使该机关的行为视为接受国的行为、而不是派遣国的行为所必须满足的基本条件。

The notion of an organ “placed at the disposal of” the receiving State is a specialized one, implying that the organ is acting with the consent, under the authority of and for the purposes of the receiving State.

“交由”接受国“支配”的机关的概念是一个专门的概念，意味着该机关是经接受国同意、受其管理并为其目的行事。

Not only must the organ be appointed to perform functions appertaining to the State at whose disposal it is placed. In performing the functions entrusted to it by the beneficiary State, the organ must also act in conjunction with the machinery of that State and under its exclusive direction and control, rather than on instructions from the sending State.

该机关不仅必须被委以执行与支配该机关的国家相关的职能，在履行受惠国（接受国）委托它行使的职能时，该机关还必须与接受国的机构合作，并只受接受国指挥和控制，而不应按派遣国的指示行事。

Thus article 6 is not concerned with ordinary situations of interstate cooperation or collaboration, pursuant to treaty or otherwise.

因此，第6条不涉及通常依照条约或以其他方式进行国家间合作或协作的情况。

(3) Examples of situations that could come within this limited notion of a State organ “placed at the disposal” of another State might include a section of the health service or some other unit placed under the orders of another country to assist in overcoming an epidemic or natural disaster, or judges appointed in particular cases to act as judicial organs of another State.

(3) 可以列入“交由”另一国“支配”的一国家机关这个有限概念范围内的事例可能包括保健部门的一部分或交由另一国指挥以协助克服瘟疫或自然灾害的另一些单位，或在特定情况下指派法官到另一国的司法机关任职。

On the other hand, mere aid or assistance offered by organs of one State to another on the territory of the latter is not covered by article 6.

另一方面，一国机关只是在另一国境内向其提供援助或协助的情况不适用第6条。

For example armed forces may be sent to assist another State in the exercise of the right of collective self-defence or for other purposes.

例如，为了行使集体自卫权利或为了其他目的，可能派遣武装部队支援另一国。

Where the forces in question remain under the authority of the sending State, they exercise elements of the governmental authority of that State and not of the receiving State.

该部队仍由派遣国指挥，所行使的是派遣国、而不是接受国的政府权力要素。

Situations can also arise where the organ of one State acts on the joint instructions of its own and another State, or there may be a single entity which is a joint organ of several States.

也可能发生这样的情况：一国的机关按照本国和另一国的共同指示行事，或者一个单一的实体却是若干国家的共同机关。

In these cases, the conduct in question is attributable to both States under other articles of this chapter.

在这些情况下，按照本章另一些条文的规定，有关行为归于两国。

(4) Thus what is crucial for the purposes of article 6 is the establishment of a functional link between the organ in question and the structure or authority of the receiving State.

(4) 因此，为第6条的目的关键在于在有关机关与接受国政府结构或当局之间建立一种职能联系。

The notion of an organ “placed at the disposal” of another State excludes the case of State organs, sent to another State for the purposes of the former State or even for shared purposes, which retain their own autonomy and status: for example, cultural missions, diplomatic or consular missions, foreign relief or aid organizations.

受另一国“支配的机关”的概念排除了为一国的目的或甚至为共同的目的派往另一国而又保持其自主性和地位的国家机关的情况：例如，文化处、外交使团或领馆、外国救灾或援助组织。

Also excluded from the ambit of article 6 are situations in which functions of the “beneficiary” State are performed without its consent, as when a State placed in a position of dependence, territorial occupation or the like is compelled to allow the acts of its own organs to be set aside and replaced to a greater or lesser extent by those of the other State.

下列情况也不属于第6条的范围：在不征得“受惠”国家的同意下行使其职能，例如，处于未独立状况、领土被占领或类似地位的国家被迫允许其自身机关的行为或多或少被另一国忽视或取代。

(5) There are two further criteria that must be met for article 6 to apply.

(5) 若要适用第6条，还必须满足另外两个条件。

First, the organ in question must possess the status of an organ of the sending State;

首先，所指机关必须拥有派遣国机关的地位；

and secondly its conduct must involve the exercise of elements of the governmental authority of the receiving State.

其次，其行为必须涉及行使接受国的政府权利的要素。

The first of these conditions excludes from the ambit of article 6 the conduct of private entities or individuals which have never had the status of an organ of the sending State.

这两个条件中的第一个将不具备派遣国机关地位的私人实体或个人排除在第6条的范围之外。

For example, experts or advisors placed at the disposal of a State under technical assistance programs usually do not have the status of organs of the sending State.

例如，在技术援助方案下供一国支配的专家或顾问通常不具备派遣国机关的地位。

The second condition is that the organ placed at the disposal of a State by another State must be “acting in the exercise of elements of the governmental authority” of the receiving State.

第二个条件是另一国交由一国支配的机关必须“行使”接受国的“政府权力要素”。

There will only be an act attributable to the receiving State where the conduct of the loaned organ involves the exercise of the governmental authority of that State.

只有在被借用的机关的行为涉及行使接受国的政府权力时，其行为才能归于该接受国。

By comparison with the number of cases of cooperative action by States in fields such as mutual defence, aid and development, article 6 covers only a specific and limited notion of “transferred responsibility”.

与国家在诸如共同防御、援助和发展领域开展的合作行动的若干例子相比，第6条只涵盖具体和有限的“被转移的责任”的概念。

Yet in State practice the situation is not unknown.

然而，在国家实践中情况确曾发生。

(6) In the Chevreau case, a British consul in Persia, temporarily placed in charge of the French consulate, lost some papers entrusted to him.

(6) 在“谢弗罗”案中，一位英国驻波斯领事临时代管法国领馆时丢失了托付给他的某些文件。

On a claim being brought by France, Arbitrator Beichmann held that “the British Government cannot be held responsible for negligence by its Consul in his capacity as the person in charge of the Consulate of another Power.

对于法国提出的诉讼，仲裁人比奇曼认为“英国政府不能为其领事在代管另一国领馆时的疏忽承担责任。

” It is implicit in the Arbitrator’s finding that the agreed terms on which the British Consul was acting contained no provision allocating responsibility for the consul’s acts.

”仲裁人的裁决暗示，英国领事代行职责的商定条件中未载有对其行为分摊责任的规定。

If a third State had brought a claim, the proper respondent in accordance with article 6 would have been the State on whose behalf the conduct in question was carried out.

如果第三国就此提出诉讼，按照第6条适当的被告应是英国领事作为其代表实施有关行为的国家 。

(7) Similar issues were considered by the European Commission of Human Rights in two cases relating to the exercise by Swiss police in Liechtenstein of “delegated” powers.

(7) 欧洲人权委员会在涉及瑞士警察在列支敦士登行使“委托”权力的两起案例中考虑了类似问题。

At the relevant time Liechtenstein was not a party to the European Convention, so that if the conduct was attributable only to Liechtenstein no breach of the Convention could have occurred.

当时列支敦士登并非《欧洲人权公约》的缔约方，因此如果有关行为只归于列支敦士登，则不可能发生违反该公约的行为。

The Commission held the case admissible, on the basis that under the treaty governing the relations between Switzerland and Liechtenstein of 1923, Switzerland exercised its own customs and immigration jurisdiction in Liechtenstein, albeit with the latter’s consent and in their mutual

欧洲人权委员会认为此案可以受理，依据是根据瑞士和列支敦士登1923 年处理两国关系的条约，瑞士在列支敦士登行使自己的海关和移民管辖权，尽管需征得后者的同意和出于相互利益。

interest. The officers in question were governed exclusively by Swiss law and were considered to be exercising the public authority of Switzerland.

涉案官员只受瑞士法律管辖并被视为行使瑞士公共权力。

In that sense, they were not “placed at the disposal” of the receiving State.

从这个意义上说，他们并非“交由”接受国“支配”。

(8) A further, long-standing example, of a situation to which article 6 applies is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which has acted as the final court of appeal for a number of independent States within the Commonwealth.

(8) 适用第6条的另一个长期存在的实例是枢密院的司法委员会，它担任英联邦中若干独立国家的最终上诉法院。

Decisions of the Privy Council on appeal from an independent Commonwealth State will be attributable to that State and not to the United Kingdom.

枢密院对一独立的英联邦国家的上诉作出的裁决所引起的责任将归于该国、而不是联合王国。

The Privy Council’s role is paralleled by certain final courts of appeal acting pursuant to treaty arrangements.

枢密院的作用与根据条约安排行事的某些最终上诉法院平行。

There are many examples of judges seconded by one State to another for a time: in their capacity as judges of the receiving State, their decisions are not attributable to the sending State, even if it continues to pay their salaries.

一国法官在一段期间内借调给另一国的例子很多：他们以接受国法官的身份作出裁决的行为不能归于派遣国，即便派遣国继续支付他们的薪水。

(9) Similar questions could also arise in the case of organs of international organizations placed at the disposal of a State and exercising elements of that State’s governmental authority.

(9) 在国际组织的机关交由一国支配并行使该国的政府权力要素的情况下，也可能发生同样的问题。

This is even more exceptional than the interstate cases to which article 6 is limited.

与第6条目前限定于国与国之间的情况相比，这更属于例外情况。

It also raises difficult questions of the relations between States and international organizations, questions which fall outside the scope of these Articles.

它还引起了国家与国际组织之间关系这一难题。 这个问题不属于本条款的范围。

Article 57 accordingly excludes from the ambit of the articles all questions of the responsibility of international organizations or of a State for the acts of an international organization.

因此，第57条规定：国际组织的责任或一国对某一国际组织的行为负责的所有问题都不属于在本条款范围。

By the same token, article 6 does not concern those cases where, for example, accused persons are transferred by a State to an international institution pursuant to treaty.

同样，第6条不涉及诸如一国根据条约将被告人转交一国际机构的情况。

In cooperating with international institutions in such a case, the State concerned does not assume responsibility for their subsequent conduct.

在这种情况下，有关国家在与国际机构合作时并不对这些机构随后的行为承担责任。

Article 7

第 7 条

Excess of authority or contravention of instructions

逾越权限或违背指示

The conduct of an organ of a State or of a person or entity empowered to exercise elements of the governmental authority shall be considered an act of the State under international law if the organ, person or entity acts in that capacity, even if it exceeds its

国家机关或经授权行使政府权力要素的任何个人或实体，如果以此种资格行事，即使逾越权限或违背指示，其行为仍应视为国际法所指的国家行为。

authority or contravenes instructions. Commentary

评注

(1) Article 7 deals with the important question of unauthorized or ultra vires acts of State organs or entities.

(1) 第7条规定的是国家机关或实体未经授权的行为或越权行为这一重要问题。

It makes it clear that the conduct of a State organ or an entity empowered to exercise elements of the governmental authority, acting in its official capacity, is attributable to the State even if the organ or entity acted in excess of authority or contrary to instructions.

它清楚地表明，以其官方身份行事的国家机关或授权行使政府权利要素的实体的行为，即使该机关或实体逾越授权或违背指示行事，其行为仍归于国家。

(2) The State cannot take refuge behind the notion that, according to the provisions of its internal law or to instructions which may have been given to its organs or agents, their actions or omissions ought not to have occurred or ought to have taken a different form.

(2) 国家不能躲在下列概念之后，即按照其国内法或下达给其机关或代理人的指示，他们的作为或不作为本不应发生，或本应采取别的形式。

This is so even where the organ or entity in question has overtly committed unlawful acts under the cover of its official status or has manifestly exceeded its competence.

甚至在所涉机关或实体以其官方地位为掩护公开实施不法行为或明显逾越其权限的情况下，仍然如此。

It is so even if other organs of the State have disowned the conduct in question.

即便该国的其他机关宣称该行为与其无关，亦是如此。

Any other rule would contradict the basic principle stated in article 3, since otherwise a State could rely on its internal law in order to argue that conduct, in fact carried out by its organs, was not attributable to it.

任何其他规则都会违背第3条所陈述的基本原则，负责国家就可以引用其国内法辩称该行为实际由其机关所实施，不能归于国家。

(3) The rule evolved in response to the need for clarity and security in international relations.

(3) 这一规则的逐渐演变是回应了国际关系中清晰和安全的需要。

Despite early equivocal statements in diplomatic practice and by arbitral tribunals, State practice came to support the proposition, articulated by the British Government in response to an Italian request, that “all Governments should always be held responsible for all acts committed by their agents by virtue of their official capacity”.

尽管早期的外交实践和仲裁法庭未有明确表述， 国家实践倾向于支持由英国政府为答复意大利的请求而表明的主张，即“所有政府均应对其代理人以其官方身份作出的行为负责”。

As the Spanish Government pointed out: “If this were not the case, one would end by authorizing abuse, for in most cases there would be no practical way of proving that the agent had or had not acted on orders received.

如西班牙政府所指出的：“如果不是这样，最后就有可能授权滥用权力，因为在大多数情况下没有可行的方法来证明代理人是否按照收到的指令行事”。

” At this time the United States supported “a rule of international law that sovereigns are not liable, in diplomatic procedure, for damages to a foreigner when arising from the misconduct of agents acting out of the range not only of their real but of their apparent authority”.

此时美国支持的“国际法规则是主权国家在外交程序上对代理人不仅逾越实际授权而且逾越表意代理权的渎职行为而给一外国人造成的损害不承担责任”。

It is probable that the different formulations had essentially the same effect, since acts falling outside the scope of both real and apparent authority would not be performed “by virtue of … official capacity”.

或许不同的表达方式具有基本相同的效果，因为不属于实际和表意代理权范围内的行为不可能“以…官方身份”作出。

In any event, by the time of the Hague Codification Conference in 1930, a majority of States responding to the Preparatory Committee’s request for information were clearly in favour of the broadest formulation of the rule, providing for attribution to the State in the case of “[a]cts of officials in the national territory in their public capacity (actes de fonction) but exceeding their authority”.

不管怎么说，在1930 年海牙编纂会议上，对筹委会提出的征求意见请求作出反应的大多数国家明显赞成该规则使用的措辞最广义规定“官员在国家境内以公职身份(职能行为)行事的但逾越其授权的行为”归于国家。

The Basis of Discussion prepared by the Committee reflected this view.

由委员会编写的讨论基础反应了这一观点。

The Third Committee of the Conference adopted an article on first reading in the following terms:

会议第三委员会一读通过了以下一条：

“International responsibility is… incurred by a State if damage is sustained by a foreigner as a result of unauthorized acts of its officials performed under cover of their official character, if the acts contravene the international obligations of the State”

“如果由于一国官员以其官方职能为掩护而作出的未授权行为使一外国人蒙受损失，如果这一行为违背该国的国际法义务，则引起…该国的国际责任”。

(4) The modern rule is now firmly established in this sense by international jurisprudence, State practice and the writings of jurists.

(4) 在国际判例、国家实践和法学家著作已牢固树立起了这个意义上的现代规则。

It is confirmed, for example, in article 91 of the 1977 Geneva Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, which provides that: “A Party to the conflict … shall be responsible for all acts by persons forming part of its armed forces”: this clearly covers acts committed contrary to orders or instructions.

例如，这一点得到1949 年8 月12 日的《日内瓦公约》的《1977 年第一附加议定书》第91条规定：“冲突一方，…应对组成其武装部队的人员的一切行为负责”：这清楚地包含违反命令或指示实施的行为。

The commentary notes that article 91 was adopted by consensus and “correspond[s] to the general principles of law on international responsibility”.

评注指出，第91条以协商一致获得通过并“符合关于国际责任的一般法律原则”。

(5) A definitive formulation of the modern rule is found in the Caire case.

(5) 对这一现代规则的确定的阐述见于“凯尔”案。

The case concerned the murder of a French national by two Mexican officers who, after failing to extort money, took Caire to the local barracks and shot him. The Commission held …

该案涉及两名墨西哥军官谋杀一名法国国民，这两人在勒索赎金未果后将凯尔押进当地的兵营并将他枪杀。

“that the two officers, even if they are deemed to have acted outside their competence … and even if their superiors countermanded an order, have involved the responsibility of the State, since they acted under cover of their status as officers and used means placed at their disposal on account of that status.”

委员会认为…”这两名军官，即便被认为是逾越职权行事…即便其上司下达了相反的命令，仍然涉及国家的责任，因为他们以军官地位为掩护行事并且利用了由于该地位而供其支配的手段。

(6) International human rights courts and tribunals have applied the same rule.

” (6) 国际人权法院和法庭也适用同一规则。

For example the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Velásquez Rodríguez Case said …

例如美洲国家间人权法院在“维拉斯克斯

“This conclusion [of a breach of the Convention] is independent of whether the organ or official has contravened provisions of internal law or overstepped the limits of his authority: under international law a State is responsible for the acts of its agents undertaken in their official capacity and for their omissions, even when those agents act outside the sphere of their authority or violate internal law.”

•罗德里格斯”案中指出，… “这一[违反《公约》]的结论不因机关或官员是否违反了国内法的规定或逾越其授权而受影响：根据国际法，一国对其代理人以官方身份的作为或不作为负责，即便这种代理人超越其授权范围或违反国内法行事”。

(7) The central issue to be addressed in determining the applicability of article 7 to unauthorized conduct of official bodies is whether the conduct was performed by the body in an official capacity or not.

(7) 在确定第7条对于官方机构未经授权的行为的适用性时要解决的核心问题是，该机构的行为是否以官方身份作出。

Cases where officials acted in their capacity as such, albeit unlawfully or contrary to instructions, must be distinguished from cases where the conduct is so removed from the scope of their official functions that it should be assimilated to that of private individuals, not attributable to the State.

其中官员以其官方身份行事尽管违法或违背指示的案例必须与其行为与官方职能的范围相去甚远，以至于应等同于私人行为而不能归于国家的案例加以区别。

In the words of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, the question is whether the conduct has been “carried out by persons cloaked with governmental authority.”

用伊朗－美国索赔法庭的话说，问题在于行为是否由“披着政府授权外衣的人所为。 ”

(8) The problem of drawing the line between unauthorized but still “official” conduct, on the one hand, and “private” conduct on the other, may be avoided if the conduct complained of is systematic or recurrent, such that the State knew or ought to have known of it and should have taken steps to prevent it.

(8) 如申诉的行为属于有计划有步骤或反复出现的行为，即国家对已经了解或应当了解并已采取步骤加以防范，则可避免对未经授权但仍属“官方”的行为和“私人”行为加以区别的问题。

However, the distinction between the two situations still needs to be made in some cases, for example when considering isolated instances of outrageous conduct on the part of persons who are officials.

然而，在某些情况下仍需要对这两种情况加以区别，例如审议身为官员的个人严重违法行为的个别案例就属这种情况。

That distinction is reflected in the expression “if the organ, person or entity acts in that capacity” in article 7.

这一区分体现在第7条“如果机关、个人或实体以这一身份行事”的表述中。

This indicates that the conduct referred to comprises only the actions and omissions of organs purportedly or apparently carrying out their official functions, and not the private actions or omissions of individuals who happen to be organs or agents of the State.

这表明所指行为仅包括意图行使或明显地在行使其官方职能的机关的作为和不作为，而非恰巧属于国家机关或代理人的个人的私人作为或不作为。

In short, the question is whether they were acting with apparent authority.

总之，问题在于他们是否在行使明确的权力。

(9) As formulated, article 7 only applies to the conduct of an organ of a State or of an entity empowered to exercise elements of the governmental authority, i.e. only to those cases of attribution covered by articles 4, 5 and 6.

(9) 第7条草案只适用于国家机关或经授权行使政府权力要素的实体的行为，即只适用于由第4、第5 和第6条所涵盖的将行为归于国家的情况。

Problems of unauthorized conduct by other persons, groups or entities give rise to distinct problems, which are dealt with separately under articles 8, 9 and 10.

由其他人、群体或实体实施的未经授权的行为引起不同的问题，分别由第8、第9 和第10条加以处理。

(10) As a rule of attribution, article 7 is not concerned with the question whether the conduct amounted to a breach of an international obligation.

(10) 作为一条将行为归属于国家的原则，第7条并不涉及行为是否构成违反国际义务的问题。

The fact that instructions given to an organ or entity were ignored, or that its actions were ultra vires, may be relevant in determining whether or not the obligation has been breached, but that is a separate issue.

下达给一机关或实体的指示被置之不理，或其行为属于越权行为在确定是否违反义务时可能有关，但这是另外一个问题。

Equally, article 7 is not concerned with the admissibility of claims arising from internationally wrongful acts committed by organs or agents acting ultra vires or contrary to their instructions.

同样，第7条并不涉及由机关或代理人越权或违反指示所实施的国际不法行为引起的诉讼可否受理的问题。

Where there has been an unauthorized or invalid act under local law and as a result a local remedy is available, this will have to be resorted to, in accordance with the principle of exhaustion of local remedies, before bringing an international claim.

根据当地法律凡出现未经授权或无效行为因而可获得当地救济时，根据用尽当地补救的原则，在提出国际诉讼之前必须先诉诸于当地救济。

Article 8

第 8 条

Conduct directed or controlled by a State

受到国家指挥或控制的行为

The conduct of a person or group of persons shall be considered an act of a State under international law if the person or group of persons is in fact acting on the instructions of, or under the direction or control of, that State in carrying

如果一人或一群人实际上按照国家的指示或在其指挥或控制下行事，其行为应视为国际法所指的该国的行为。

out the conduct. Commentary

评注

(1) As a general principle, the conduct of private persons or entities is not attributable to the State under international law.

(1) 作为一般原则，私人或实体的行为依国际法不归于国家。

Circumstances may arise, however, where such conduct is nevertheless attributable to the State because there exists a specific factual relationship between the person or entity engaging in the conduct and the State.

但是可能发生这样的情况：由于行事的个人或实体与国家之间存在着特定的事实上的关系，这种行为应归于国家。

Article 8 deals with two such circumstances. The first involves private persons acting on the instructions of the State in carrying out the wrongful conduct.

第8条规定了两个这样的情况：第一个是私人接受国家指示实施不法行为的情况。

The second deals with a more general situation where private persons act under the State’s direction or control.

第二个是私人在国家的指挥或控制下行事的更一般的情况。

Bearing in mind the important role played by the principle of effectiveness in international law, it is necessary to take into account in both cases the existence of a real link between the person or group performing the act and the State machinery.

考虑到国际法中实际控制原则发挥的重要作用，在这两种情况下都必须考虑到行事的人或集体与国家机构之间实际联系的存在。

(2) The attribution to the State of conduct in fact authorized by it is widely accepted in international jurisprudence.

(2) 把实际上由国家授权的行为归于国家在国际判例中得到了广泛的接受。

In such cases it does not matter that the person or persons involved are private individuals nor whether their conduct involves “governmental activity”.

在此类案件中，涉及的人员是否私人以及其行为是否涉及“政府的活动”无关紧要。

Most commonly cases of this kind will arise where State organs supplement their own action by recruiting or instigating private persons or groups who act as “auxiliaries” while remaining outside the official structure of the State.

最常见的这类情况是：国家机关为了辅助自己的行动而招聘或鼓动私人或团体担任国家正式编制以外的“辅助人员”。

These include, for example, individuals or groups of private individuals who, though not specifically commissioned by the State and not forming part of its police or armed forces, are employed as auxiliaries or are sent as “volunteers” to neighbouring countries, or who are instructed to carry out particular missions abroad.

他们包括，例如，一些个人或私人团体虽然没有明确接受国家的委托，也没有纳入警察或军队编制，却担任辅警或军中辅助人员，或作为“志愿人员”派到邻国工作，或奉命到国外执行特殊任务。

(3) More complex issues arise in determining whether conduct was carried out “under the direction or control” of a State.

(3) 确定行为是否“受一国的指挥或控制”是更为复杂的问题。

Such conduct will be attributable to the State only if it directed or controlled the specific operation and the conduct complained of was an integral part of that operation.

若国家指挥或控制特定行动而且被诉行为是该项行动的一个组成部分，行为才能归于国家。

The principle does not extend to conduct which was only incidentally or peripherally associated with an operation and which escaped from the State’s direction or control.

这项原则不适用于只是与一行动有关、但未由国家指挥或控制的附带行为或外围行为。

(4) The degree of control which must be exercised by the State in order for the conduct to be attributable to it was a key issue in the Military and Paramilitary case.

(4) 在“尼加拉瓜境内和反对尼加拉瓜的军事和准军事活动”案中，为使行为归于国家，该国对其控制的程度是关键问题。

The question was whether the conduct of the contras was attributable to the United States so as to hold the latter generally responsible for breaches of international humanitarian law committed by the contras.

问题在于：是否可以把叛军的行为归于美国，以便使美国为叛军违反国际人道主义法的行为承担总的责任。

This was analysed by the Court in terms of the notion of “control”.

法院就“控制”的概念分析了这个问题。

On the one hand, it held that the United States was responsible for the “planning, direction and support” given by United States to Nicaraguan operatives.

一方面，法院认为，由于美国对尼加拉瓜行动军提供“计划、指挥和支持”，美应为此承担责任。

But it rejected the broader claim of Nicaragua that all the conduct of the contras was attributable to the United States by reason of its control over them.

但是，法院拒绝了尼加拉瓜以叛军受到美国控制为由，把叛军的一切行为归于美国的要求。

It concluded that:

法院总结指出：

“[D]espite the heavy subsidies and other support provided to them by the United States, there is no clear evidence of the United States having actually exercised such a degree of control in all fields as to justify treating the contras as acting on its behalf … All the forms of United States participation mentioned above, and even the general control by the respondent State over a force with a high degree of dependency on it, would not in themselves mean, without further evidence, that the United States directed or enforced the perpetration of the acts contrary to human rights and humanitarian law alleged by the applicant State.

“尽管美国对叛军提供了大量的津贴和其他支持，却没有明确的证据 显示美国实际上在一切领域实行控制的程度可以认定叛军是代表美国行事…在没有进一步证据的情况下，上面提到的美国的一切参与形式、甚至美国对高度依赖它的一支武装力量的控制，其本身并不意味着美国指挥或实施了原告国所指称的侵犯人权和违反人道主义法的行为。

Such acts could well be committed by members of the contras without the control of the United States.

这种行为很可能是叛军成员在不受美国控制的情况下实施的。

For this conduct to give rise to legal responsibility of the United States, it would in principle have to be proved that that State had effective control of the military or paramilitary operations in the course of which the alleged violations were committed.”

若要美国承担对这种行为的法律责任，原则上必须证明：该国在尼加拉瓜指称的侵犯人权事件过程中，对军队或警备部队的行动实行了有效的控制。

Thus while the United States was held responsible for its own support for the contras, only in certain individual instances were the acts of the contras themselves held attributable to it, based upon actual participation of and directions given by that State.

” 因此，虽然美国必须为支持叛军承担责任，根据美国实际参与和加以指挥的情况，只有在一些个别事例中，叛军自身的行为归于美国。 法院确认，仅凭叛军

The Court confirmed that a general situation of dependence and support would be insufficient to justify attribution of the conduct to the State.

对美国的依赖和美国对叛军的支持的一般情况，并不足以构成把行为归于美国的理由。

(5) The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia has also addressed these issues.

(5) 前南斯拉夫问题国际刑事法庭上诉分庭也提及了这些问题。

In Prosecutor v. Tadić, the Chamber stressed that:

在“塔迪其”案中，该分庭强调：

“The requirement of international law for the attribution to States of acts performed by private individuals is that the State exercises control over the individuals.

“国际法对于把私人的行为归于国家的要求是：国家对个人实行了控制。

The degree of control may, however, vary according to the factual circumstances of each case.

但是，控制的程度可能根据每一案件的实际情况而各不相同。

The Appeals Chamber fails to see why in each and every circumstance international law should require a high threshold for the test of control.”

上诉分庭不明白为何在所有情况下国际法都要求对控制承担的检验达到如此高的标准。

The Appeals Chamber held that the requisite degree of control by the Yugoslavian authorities over these armed forces required by international law for considering the armed conflict to be international was “overall control going beyond the mere financing and equipping of such forces and involving also participation in the planning and supervision of military operations”.

” 该上诉分庭认为，按照国际法的规定，为了将武装冲突确定为国际性武装冲突，南斯拉夫当局对这些军队的控制程度必须是“不仅限于资助和装备军队以及参与军事行动的规划和监督的整体控制”。

In the course of their reasoning, the majority considered it necessary to disapprove the International Court’s approach in Military and Paramilitary activities.

在讨论过程中，多数人认为，必需否定国际法院在“尼加拉瓜境内和反对尼加拉瓜的军事和准军事活动”案中所采取的方法。

But the legal issues and the factual situation in that case were different from those facing the International Court in Military and Paramilitary activities.

但是本案中的法律问题和实际情况与国际法在“尼加拉瓜境内和反对尼加拉瓜的军事和准军事活动”案中面临的情况不同。

The Tribunal’s mandate is directed to issues of individual criminal responsibility, not State responsibility, and the question in that case concerned not responsibility but the applicable rules of international humanitarian law.

该法庭的职责是指向个人的刑事责任问题而不是国家责任问题，该案中的问题不涉及责任而涉及国际人道主义法的适用规则。

In any event it is a matter for appreciation in each case whether particular conduct was or was not carried out under the control of a State, to such an extent that the conduct controlled should be attributed to it.

总之，需要逐案鉴别特定行为是否在国家的控制下进行，且其控制的程度使该行为应归于该国。

(6) Questions arise with respect to the conduct of companies or enterprises which are State-owned and controlled.

(6) 由国家经营和控制的公司或企业的行为，也产生问题。

If such corporations act inconsistently with the international obligations of the State concerned the question arises whether such conduct is attributable to the State.

如果这种公司的行为违反该国的国际义务，便产生可否将这种行为归于国家的问题。

In discussing this issue it is necessary to recall that international law acknowledges the general separateness of corporate entities at the national level, except in those cases where the “corporate veil” is a mere device or a vehicle for fraud or evasion.

在讨论这个问题时，人们必须记得：国际法认识到，在国家一级上的公司实体通常是独立的，但把将“公司面纱”当作障眼法或诈欺或逃避手段的情况除外。

The fact that the State initially establishes a corporate entity, whether by a special law or otherwise, is not a sufficient basis for the attribution to the State of the subsequent conduct of that entity.

国家起初根据一项特别法或其他规章成立了公司实体不能成为随后将该实体的行为归于国家的充分基础。

Since corporate entities, although owned by and in that sense subject to the control of the State, are considered to be separate, prima facie their conduct in carrying out their activities is not attributable to the State unless they are exercising elements of governmental authority within the meaning of article 5.

虽然这些公司实体为国家所拥有并在这个意义上受到国家的控制，但既然公司实体被认为是独立的，从表面证据上看，其执行活动的行为不归于国家，除非它们在第5条的含义范围内行使政府权力的要素。

This was the position taken, for example, in relation to the de facto seizure of property by a State-owned oil company, in a case where there was no proof that the State used its

在某国有石油公司对事实上查封财产的案件中就采取了这样的立场。

ownership interest as a vehicle for directing the company to seize the property.

在该案中，没有任何证据显示，国家利用其所有权利益作为指挥该公司查封财产的手段。

On the other hand, where there was evidence that the corporation was exercising public powers, or that the State was using its ownership interest in or control of a corporation specifically in order to achieve a particular result, the conduct in question has been attributed to the State.

另一方面，若有证据显示该公司行使公共权力或该国利用在公司中的所有权利益或明确控制某一公司以便取得特定的结果，则该行为归于该国。

(7) It is clear then that a State may, either by specific directions or by exercising control over a group, in effect assume responsibility for their conduct.

(7) 显然，一国可通过对一团体的明确指挥或控制，实际上对那些团体的行为负责。

Each case will depend on its own facts, in particular those concerning the relationship between the instructions given or the direction or control exercised and the specific conduct complained of. In the text of article 8, the three terms “instructions”, “direction” and “control” are disjunctive;

每一案件的审理应取决于它自己的实际情况，尤其是发出的指示进行指挥或控制与被申诉的特定行为之间的关系，在第8条的案文中，“指示”、“指挥”和“控制”三个用语是分离的；

it is sufficient to establish any one of them.

证明了其中的任何一个足矣。

At the same time it is made clear that the instructions, direction or control must relate to the conduct which is said to have amounted to an internationally wrongful act.

此外，第8条明确指出，指示、指挥或控制必须与据称构成国际不法行为的行为相关。

(8) Where a State has authorized an act, or has exercised direction or control over it, questions can arise as to the State’s responsibility for actions going beyond the scope of the authorization.

(8) 若一国已授权采取一行为，或对该行为进行指挥或控制，可能产生该国对超出授权范围的行为的责任问题。

For example questions might arise if the agent, while carrying out lawful instructions or directions, engages in some activity which contravenes both the instructions or directions given and the international obligations of the instructing State.

例如，如果代理人在执行合法指示或指令的时候从事了一些违反收到的指示或指令并违反指示国的国际义务的活动，便可能发生问题。

Such cases can be resolved by asking whether the unlawful or unauthorized conduct was really incidental to the mission or clearly went beyond it.

为了解决这种问题，可以问明：非法行为或未经授权的行为是否伴随着任务而发生或是否明显地超出了它的范围。

In general a State, in giving lawful instructions to persons who are not its organs, does not assume the risk that the instructions will be carried out in an internationally unlawful way.

一般来说，一国在对不属于其机关的人员发出合法指令的时候，并不承担其指示将被以国际不法行为方式执行的风险。

On the other hand, where persons or groups have committed acts under the effective control of a State the condition for attribution will still be met even if particular instructions may have been ignored.

另一方面，若一些人员或团体在一国的有效控制下实施了一些行为，即使特定指示被忽视了，却仍然符合将行为归于它的条件。

The conduct will have been committed under the control of the State and it will be attributable to the State in accordance with article 8.

该行为是在该国控制下实行的，根据第8条的规定，应归于该国。

(9) Article 8 uses the words “person or group of persons”, reflecting the fact that conduct covered by the article may be that of a group lacking separate legal personality but acting on a de facto basis.

(9) 第8条使用了“一人或一群人”的措辞，反映了这样的事实：这一条所涵盖的行为可以是没有单独法律人格但依事实上的基础行事的一个团体所采取的行动。

Thus while a State may authorize conduct by a legal entity such as a corporation, it may also deal with aggregates of individuals or groups that do not have legal personality but are nonetheless acting as a collective.

因此，虽然一国可能授权诸如公司等法律实体采取行动，它也可能涉及不具有法律人格但作为一个集体行事的个人或团体。

Article 9

第 9 条

Conduct carried out in the absence or default of the official authorities

正式当局不存在或缺席时实施的行为

The conduct of a person or group of persons shall be considered an act of a State under international law if the person or group of persons is in fact exercising elements of the governmental authority in the absence or default of the official authorities and in circumstances such as to call for the exercise of those

如果一个人或一群人在正式当局不存在或缺席和在需要行使上述权力要素的情况下实际上行使政府权力的要素，其行为应视为国际法所指的国家的行为。

elements of authority. Commentary

评注

(1) Article 9 deals with the exceptional case of conduct in the exercise of elements of the governmental authority by a person or group of persons acting in the absence of the official authorities and without any actual authority to do so.

(1) 第9条规定一人或一群人在正式当局不存在而且没有实际上行使政府权力的当局时行使政府权力要素的行为这样一种特殊情况。

The exceptional nature of the circumstances envisaged in the article is indicated by the phrase “in circumstances such as to call for”.

“需要…的情况”等用语指明了这一条中所设想的情况的特殊性。

Such cases occur only rarely, such as during revolution, armed conflict or foreign occupation, where the regular authorities dissolve, are disintegrating, have been suppressed or are for the time being inoperative.

这种情况很少见，只在革命、武装冲突或外国占领等正规当局解散、正在解体或受到抑制或暂时不起作用的情况下发生。

They may also cover cases where lawful authority is being gradually restored, e.g., after foreign occupation.

它们也可能包括合法当局正在逐渐恢复(例如在外国占领以后)的情况。

(2) The principle underlying article 9 owes something to the old idea of the levée en masse, the self-defence of the citizenry in the absence of regular forces: in effect it is a form of agency of necessity.

(2) 第9条的根本原则借用了旧时国家战时总动员、即在没有正规军情况下的全民自卫的观念： 实际上，它是一种危急情况下的代理形式。

Instances continue to occur from time to time in the field of State responsibility.

在国家责任领域，这种情况还是时时发生。

Thus the position of the Revolutionary Guards or “Komitehs” immediately after the revolution in the Islamic Republic of Iran was treated by the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal as covered by the principle expressed in article 9.

例如，伊朗伊斯兰共和国革命后革命护卫队或“Komitehs”采取的立场曾由伊朗—美国索赔法庭视为属于第9条中所表述的原则的范围。

Yeager v. Islamic Republic of Iran concerned, inter alia, the action of performing immigration, customs and similar functions at Tehran airport in the immediate aftermath of the revolution.

“伊戈尔诉伊朗伊斯兰共和国”，除其他外，涉及革命后立即在德黑兰机场行使移民、海关和类似职能的行为。

The Tribunal held the conduct attributable to the Islamic Republic of Iran, on the basis that, if it was not actually authorized by the Government, then the Guards …

法庭将这种行为归于伊朗伊斯兰共和国，其论据是，如果该行为实际上未得到政府授权，那么，护卫队…

“at least exercised elements of the governmental authority in the absence of official authorities, in operations of which the new Government must have had knowledge and to which it did not specifically object.”

“至少在不存在正式当局的情况下行使政府权力要素，新政府必定知道这些举动，它并没有明确反对这样做。 ”

(3) Article 9 establishes three conditions which must be met in order for conduct to be attributable to the State: first, the conduct must effectively relate to the exercise of elements of the governmental authority, secondly, the conduct must have been carried out in the absence or default of the official authorities, and thirdly, the circumstances must have been such as to call for the exercise of those elements of authority.

(3) 第9条规定了为将行为归于国家必须满足的三个条件：第一、该行为必须有效地涉及政府权力要素的行使； 第二、该行为必须在正式当局不存在或缺席时从事； 第三、在当时的情况下需要行使上述权力要素。

(4) As regards the first condition, the person or group acting must be performing governmental functions, though they are doing so on their own initiative.

(4) 关于第一个条件，行事的个人或一群人必须行使政府职能，尽管他们是自行采取行动。

In this respect, the nature of the activity performed is given more weight than the existence of a formal link between the actors and the organization of the State.

在这方面，行为的性质比行为者同国家的组织之间的正式联系更为重要。

It must be stressed that the private persons covered by article 9 are not equivalent to a general de facto government.

必须着重指出：第9条所涉及的私人并不相当于一般的事实上的政府。

The cases envisaged by article 9 presuppose the existence of a government in office and of State machinery whose place is taken by irregulars or whose action is supplemented in certain cases.

第9条假定政府机关和国家机构都存在，只是在某些情况下，它们的位置被非正规军所取代或在行动上得到非正规军的补充。

This may happen on part of the territory of a State which is for the time being out of control, or in other specific circumstances.

这种情况可能发生在一国暂时失去控制的部分领土或另一些特定情况。

A general de facto government, on the other hand, is itself an apparatus of the State, replacing that which existed previously.

另一方面，一个一般的事实上的政府本身是一个国家机器，取代了以前存在过的国家机关。

The conduct of the organs of such a government is covered by article 4 rather than article 9.

这种政府机关的行为适用第4条而不适用第9条。

(5) In respect of the second condition, the phrase “in the absence or default of” is intended to cover both the situation of a total collapse of the State apparatus as well as cases where the official authorities are not exercising their functions in some specific respect, for instance, in the case of a partial collapse of the State or its loss of control over a certain locality.

(5) 关于第二个条件，“不存在或缺席”是为了涵盖国家机构完全崩溃的情况，以及正式当局不行使某些特定方面的职能的情况，例如国家部分崩溃或丧失对一部分领土的控制的情况。

The phrase “absence or default” seeks to capture both situations.

“不存在或缺席”用语是为了表述两种情况。

(6) The third condition for attribution under article 9 requires that the circumstances must have been such as to call for the exercise of elements of the governmental authority by private persons.

(6) 第9条将行为归于国家的第三个条件规定：当时的情况必须到了已经需要由私人行使政府权力要素的地步。

The term “called for” conveys the idea that some exercise of governmental functions was called for, though not necessarily the conduct in question.

“需要”一语传达了需要行使一些政府职能的概念，尽管不一定是有关行为。

In other words, the circumstances surrounding the exercise of elements of the governmental authority by private persons must have justified the attempt to exercise police or other functions in the absence of any constituted authority.

换言之，在任何正式当局已不存在的情况下，国家的政府权力要素由私人来行使的各种情况为试图行使警察或其他职能提供了合法依据。

There is thus a normative element in the form of agency entailed by article 9, and this distinguishes these situations from the normal principle that conduct of private parties, including insurrectionary forces, is not attributable to the State.

因此，产生了第9条所规定的代理形式的规范性要素，这一做法使上述情况有别于私人当事方的行为，包括叛乱部队的行为，不归于国家的通常原则。

Article 10

第 10 条

Conduct of an insurrectional or other movement

叛乱运动或其他运动的行为

1. The conduct of an insurrectional movement which becomes the new government of a State shall be considered an act of that State under international law.

1. 成为一国新政府的叛乱运动的行为应视为国际法所指的该国的行为。

2. The conduct of a movement, insurrectional or other, which succeeds in establishing a new State in part of the territory of a pre-existing State or in a territory under its administration shall be considered an act of the new State under international law.

2. 在一个先已存在的国家的一部分领土或其管理下的某一领土内组成一个新国家的叛乱运动或其他运动的行为，依国际法应视为该新国家的行为。

3. This article is without prejudice to the attribution to a State of any conduct, however related to that of the movement concerned, which is to be considered an act of that State by virtue of articles 4 to 9.

3. 本条不妨碍把任何按第4条至第9条的规定应视为该国行为的任何行为归于该国，无论该行为与有关运动的行为如何相关。

Commentary

评注

(1) Article 10 deals with the special case of attribution to a State of conduct of an insurrectional or other movement which subsequently becomes the new government of the State or succeeds in establishing a new State.

(1) 第10条规定将随后成为该国新政府或成功建立新国家的反叛运动或其他运动的行为归于国家的特殊情况。

(2) At the outset, the conduct of the members of the movement presents itself purely as the conduct of private individuals.

(2) 起初，这种运动的成员将其行为描述为纯粹的私人行为。

It can be placed on the same footing as that of persons or groups who participate in a riot or mass demonstration and it is likewise not attributable to the State.

可将之等同 于参加暴乱或大规模示威的个人或团体，同样，其行为不能归于国家。

Once an organized movement comes into existence as a matter of fact, it will be even less possible to attribute its conduct to the State, which will not be in a position to exert effective control over its activities.

一旦有组织的运动作为一个事实产生，就更不大可能将其行为归为国家，因为国家对其活动无法实行有效的控制。

The general principle in respect of the conduct of such movements, committed during the continuing struggle with the constituted authority, is that it is not attributable to the State under international law.

关于这类运动在与宪法当局持续斗争的过程中实施的行为的一般原则是，该行为根据国际法不能归于国家。

In other words, the acts of unsuccessful insurrectional movements are not attributable to the State, unless under some other article of chapter II, for example in the special circumstances envisaged by article 9.

换言之，不成功的叛乱组织的行为不归于国家，但适用第二章中另外一些条文的情况(例如第9条中所设想的一些特殊情况)除外。

(3) Ample support for this general principle is found in arbitral jurisprudence.

(3) 在仲裁判例中可找到对这项一般原则的充分的支持。

International arbitral bodies, including mixed claims commissions and arbitral tribunals have uniformly affirmed what Commissioner Nielsen in the Solis case described as a “well-established principle of international law”, that no government can be held responsible for the conduct of rebellious groups committed in violation of its authority, where it is itself guilty of no breach of good faith, or of no negligence in suppressing insurrection.

国际仲裁机构，包括混合索赔委员会和仲裁法庭一致确认Nielson专员在“索利斯”案中所称的“既定的国际法原则”，即任何政府在本身未违背诚信，或在镇压叛乱方面无疏忽的情况下都不应对叛乱集团对抗政府权威而实施的行为负责。

Diplomatic practice is remarkably consistent in recognizing that the conduct of an insurrectional movement cannot be attributed to the State.

外交实践在承认叛乱运动的行为不能归于国家方面表现出高度的一致。

This can be seen, for example, from the preparatory work for the 1930 Codification Conference.

例如从1930 年的编纂会议筹备工作中就能看到这一点。

Replies of Governments to point IX of the request for information addressed to them by the Preparatory Committee indicated substantial agreement that: (a) the conduct of organs of an insurrectional movement could not be attributed as such to the State or entail its international responsibility;

各国政府对筹备委员会提交给它们征求意见的第九点的答复显示出了实质的一致性：(a)一叛乱运动各机关的行为不能归为国家和引起国家的国际责任；

and (b) only conduct engaged in by organs of the State in connection with the injurious acts of the insurgents could be attributed to the State and entail its international responsibility, and then only if such conduct constituted a breach of an international obligation of that State.

和(b)只有国家机关针对反叛分子的有害行为所从事的行为才能由国家负责并引起国家的国际责任，而且只有当这种行为构成违反该国的国际义务时才成立。

(4) The general principle that the conduct of an insurrectional or other movement is not attributable to the State is premised on the assumption that the structures and organization of the movement are and remain independent of those of the State.

(4) 叛乱运动或其他运动的行为不能归于国家这一一般原则所立足的假设前提是，该运动的结构和组织独立于国家的结构和组织之外。

This will be the case where the State successfully puts down the revolt.

国家成功地镇压了反叛的情况即如此。

In contrast, where the movement achieves its aims and either installs itself as the new government of the State or forms a new State in part of the territory of the pre-existing State or in a territory under its administration, it would be anomalous if the new regime or new State could avoid responsibility for conduct earlier committed by it.

相形之下，如果这一运动实现了其目的并且成为国家的新政府或在前国家的部分领土上或在其管辖的领土上成立了新的国家，如果该新政权或新的国家能避免承担其以前行为的责任就不正常了。

In these exceptional circumstances, article 10 provides for the attribution of the conduct of the successful insurrectional or other movement to the State.

在这类例外的情况下，第10条规定将成功的叛乱运动或其他运动的行为责任归于国家。

The basis for the attribution of conduct of a successful insurrectional or other movement to the State under international law lies in the continuity between the movement and the eventual government.

依国际法将成功的叛乱运动或其他运动行为的责任归为国家的基础是该运动与最终政府之间的连续性。

Thus the term “conduct” only concerns the conduct of the movement as such and not the individual acts of members of the movement, acting in their own capacity.

因此“行为”一词只涉及该运动的行为而非该行动的成员以其个人身份所从事的个人行为。

(5) Where the insurrectional movement, as a new government, replaces the previous government of the State, the ruling organization of the insurrectional movement becomes the ruling organization of that State.

(5) 在叛乱运动作为新政府取代了国家的原先政府的情况下，叛乱运动的统治组织成为该国的统治组织。

The continuity which thus exists between the new organization of the State and that of the insurrectional movement leads naturally to the attribution to the State of conduct which the insurrectional movement may have committed during the struggle.

国家的新组织与叛乱运动组织之间因而存在的连续性导致理所当然地将叛乱运动在其斗争中所从事的行为的责任归于国家。

In such a case, the State does not cease to exist as a subject of international law.

在这种情况下，国家作为国际法的主体未停止存在。

It remains the same State, despite the changes, reorganizations and adaptations which occur in its institutions.

它仍为同一国家，尽管在其体制方面发生了变化、重组和调整。

Moreover it is the only subject of international law to which responsibility can be attributed.

此外，它是唯一能够可归属责任的国际法主体。

The situation requires that acts committed during the struggle for power by the apparatus of the insurrectional movement should be attributable to the State, alongside acts of the then established government.

这一情况要求有叛乱运动各机构在夺权斗争中所实施的行为和当时成立的政府的行为一并归于国家。

(6) Where the insurrectional or other movement succeeds in establishing a new State, either in part of the territory of the pre-existing State or in a territory which was previously under its administration, the attribution to the new State of the conduct of the insurrectional or other movement is again justified by virtue of the continuity between the organization of the movement and the organization of the State to which it has given rise.

(6) 对于叛乱运动或其他运动成功地在以前存在的国家的部分领土上或在以前由其管辖的领土上成立一新的国家的情况，将叛乱运动或其他运动的行为归于国家也可以该运动的组织与它所建立的国家的组织之间的延续性为法律依据。

Effectively the same entity which previously had the characteristics of an insurrectional or other movement has become the government of the State it was struggling to establish.

实际上，以前曾具有叛乱运动或其他运动特征的同一实体现已成为它通过斗争而建立的国家的政府。

The predecessor State will not be responsible for those acts.

被继承国无法对这些行为负责。

The only possibility is that the new State be required to assume responsibility for conduct committed with a view to its own establishment, and this represents the accepted rule.

唯一的可能性是要求新的国家对其本身建立中所从事的行为承担责任，这是一项被接受的规则。

(7) Paragraph 1 of article 10 covers the scenario in which the insurrectional movement, having triumphed, has substituted its structures for those of the previous government of the State in question.

(7) 第10条第1款涉及叛乱运动在取得成功之后以其本身的结构取代了所涉国家前政府的结构的情况。

The phrase “which becomes the new government” is used to describe this consequence.

“成为新政府”一词的使用正是为了描述这一结果。

However, the rule in paragraph 1 should not be pressed too far in the case of governments of national reconciliation, formed following an agreement between the existing authorities and the leaders of an insurrectional movement.

然而，第1款中的规则不应适用于依现行当局与叛乱运动领导人达成的协议成立的全国和解政府的情况。

The State should not be made responsible for the conduct of a violent opposition movement merely because, in the interests of an overall peace settlement, elements of the opposition are drawn into a reconstructed government.

如果仅因为重组的政府出于全面和平解决的目的而吸纳了反对派分子，那么国家不应对这个暴力的反对运动的行为负责。

Thus the criterion of application of paragraph 1 is that of a real and substantial continuity between the former insurrectional movement and the new government it has succeeded in forming.

因此，适用第1款的标准为前叛乱运动与其所成功组建的新政府之间存在真正和实质的延续性。

(8) Paragraph 2 of article 10 addresses the second scenario, where the structures of the insurrectional or other revolutionary movement become those of a new State, constituted by secession or decolonization in part of the territory which was previously subject to the sovereignty or administration of the predecessor State.

(8) 第10条第2款涉及的是第二种情况，其中叛乱运动或其他革命运动的结构成为一新国家的结构，由从属于先前国家的主权或管辖的领土脱离或这一领土的部分非殖民化而成立。

The expression “or in any other territory under its administration” is included in order to take account of the differing legal status of different dependent territories.

采用“或其管理下的某一领土”的措辞的目的是考虑到不同附属领地所具有的不同法律地位。

(9) A comprehensive definition of the types of groups encompassed by the term “insurrectional movement” as used in article 10 is made difficult by the wide variety of forms which insurrectional movements may take in practice, according to whether there is relatively limited internal unrest, a genuine civil war situation, an anti-colonial struggle, the action of a national liberation front, revolutionary or counter-revolutionary movements and so on.

(9) 对第10条所采用的“叛乱运动”一词所包含的各种类型的团体下一个全面定义很困难，因为根据情况的不同，从有限的国内骚乱、真正的内战局面、反殖民化斗争、全国解决阵线行动、到革命或反革命运动等，叛乱运动在实践中采取各种不同的形式。

Insurrectional movements may be based in the territory of the State against which the movement’s actions are directed, or on the territory of a third State.

叛乱运动可能以该运动行动所针对的国家领土为据点，或以第三国领土为根据地。

Despite this diversity, the threshold for the application of the laws of armed conflict contained in Additional Protocol II of 1977 may be taken as a guide.

尽管存在这种多样性，1977 年《第二附加议定书》所适用的武装冲突法的最低标准可以作为指导方针。

Article 1, paragraph 1 refers to “dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of [the relevant State’s] territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol”, and it contrasts such groups with “situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence and other acts of a similar character” (article 1, para. 2).

其第1条第1款提到“在负责统帅下对 [有关国家的]一部分领土行使控制权，从而使其能进行持久而协调的军事行动并履行本议定书的持不同政见的武装部队或其他有组织的武装集团”，并将这类团体与”内部动乱和紧张局势，如暴动、孤立而不时发生的暴力行为和其他类似性质的行为”(第1条第2款)加以比较。

This definition of “dissident armed forces” reflects, in the context of the Protocols, the essential idea of an “insurrectional movement”.

在这两项议定书范围内，“持不同政见的武装部队”定义体现了“叛乱运动”的基本思想。

(10) As compared with paragraph 1, the scope of the attribution rule articulated by paragraph 2 is broadened to include “insurrectional or other” movements. This terminology reflects the existence of a greater variety of movements whose actions may result in the formation of a new State.

(10) 与第1款相比较，由第2款所表明的责任归属范围扩大到包括叛乱或其他“运动”，这一术语反映了其行动有可能形成新国家各种运动的存在。

The words do not however extend to encompass the actions of a group of citizens advocating separation or revolution where these are carried out within the framework of the predecessor State.

然而，这一措词并不包括主张分离或革命并且在先前国家结构的框架内行动的公民团体的活动。

Nor does it cover the situation where an insurrectional movement within a territory succeeds in its agitation for union with another State.

它也不包括在一叛乱运动在一领土内鼓动与另一国合并获得成功的情况。

This is essentially a case of succession, and outside the scope of the articles, whereas article 10 focuses on the continuity of the movement concerned and the eventual new government or State, as the case may be.

基本上，这属于继承的情况，不属于本条款的范围。 第10条则强调有关运动和最终可能出现的新政府或国家之间的延续性。

(11) No distinction should be made for the purposes of article 10 between different categories of movements on the basis of any international “legitimacy” or of any illegality in respect of their establishment as a government, despite the potential importance of such distinctions in other contexts.

(11) 出于第10条的目的，不应依据其成立政府的任何国际“合法性”或任何非法性而对不同类别的运动加以区分，尽管在其他情况下作出这种区分可能十分重要。

From the standpoint of the formulation of rules of law governing State responsibility, it is unnecessary and undesirable to exonerate a new government or a new State from responsibility for the conduct of its personnel by reference to considerations of legitimacy or illegitimacy of its origin.

从拟定国家责任的法律规则的角度出发，援引一新政府或新国家起源的合法性或非法性来免除一新政府或一新国家对其人员行为的责任既无必要，也不可取。

Rather, the focus must be on the particular conduct in question, and on its lawfulness or otherwise under the applicable rules of international law.

相反，着眼点必须放在具体的行为上，并重点考虑该行为依国际法的适用规则是否具有合法性。

(12) Arbitral decisions, together with State practice and the literature, indicate a general acceptance of the two positive attribution rules in article 10.

(12) 仲裁裁决连同国家实践和文献均普遍接受第10条中的两项将行为归于国家的积极规则。

The international arbitral decisions, e.g. those of the mixed commissions established in respect of Venezuela (1903) and Mexico (1920-1930), support the attribution of conduct by insurgents where the movement is successful in achieving its revolutionary aims.

例如委内瑞拉(1903 年)和墨西哥(1920-1930 年)设立的混合委员会的国际仲裁裁决就支持对其运动成功地实现了革命目标的叛乱分子的行为归于国家。

For example in the Bolivar Railway Company claim, the principle is stated in the following terms:

“玻利瓦尔铁路公司索赔”案也陈述了该原则：

“The nation is responsible for the obligations of a successful revolution from its beginning, because in theory, it represented ab initio a changing national will, crystallizing in the finally successful result.”

“国家从其一开始即对一次成功革命的义务承担责任，因为从理论上，它一开始就代表了一种变化着的国家意志，并以最终成功的结果为体现。

The French-Venezuelan Mixed Claims Commission in its decision concerning the French Company of Venezuelan Railroads emphasized that the State cannot be held responsible for the acts of revolutionaries “unless the revolution was successful”, since such acts then involve the responsibility of the State “under the well-recognized rules of public law”.

”法国——委内瑞拉混合索赔委员会在关于法国委内瑞拉铁路公司的裁决中强调，“除非革命取得成功”，否则国家不能对革命者的行为负责，因为这类行为涉及国家根据“公法普遍确认的规则”所承担的责任。

In the Pinson case, the French-Mexican Claims Commission ruled that …

在“潘森”案中，法墨索赔委员会作出以下裁决：

“if the injuries originated, for example, in requisitions or forced contributions demanded … by revolutionaries before their final success, or if they were caused… by offenses committed by successful revolutionary forces, the responsibility of the State … cannot be denied.”

“…如果损害起源于，例如革命者在其最后成功之前的征用或所要求的强迫捐助…，或者由取得成功的革命力量所实施的罪行造成损害…，就不得否认…国家的责任。

(13) The possibility of holding the State responsible for conduct of a successful insurrectional movement was brought out in the request for information addressed to Governments by the Preparatory Committee for the 1930 Codification Conference.

” (13) 1930 年编纂会议筹备委员会在征求各国政府意见的请求中引出了国家对取得成功的叛乱运动的行为负责的可能性。

On the basis of replies received from a number of governments, the Preparatory Committee of the Conference drew up the following Basis of Discussion: “A State is responsible for damage caused to foreigners by an insurrectionist party which has been successful and has become the Government to the same degree as it is responsible for damage caused by acts of the Government de jure or its officials or troops.

根据若干国家的政府答复，会议筹备委员会起草了以下讨论的基础：“一国应对已取得成功并已成为政府的叛乱党派给外国人造成的损害负责，其程度应与其对法律上的政府或其官员或军队对所造成的损害负责的程度相同。

” Although the proposition was never discussed, it may be considered to reflect the rule of attribution now contained in paragraph 2.

”尽管未对这一主张进行讨论，但可以认为这一主张反映了第2款中现在所规定的归属规则。

(14) More recent decisions and practice do not, on the whole, give any reason to doubt the propositions contained in article 10.

(14) 近年来的裁决和实践总的来说并未对第10条所载的主张提出任何疑问。

In one case the Supreme Court of Namibia went even further in accepting responsibility for “anything done” by the predecessor administration of South Africa.

纳米比亚最高法院在一起案例中甚至接受对南非前行政当局“所做任何事情”承担责任。

(15) Exceptional cases may occur where the State was in a position to adopt measures of vigilance, prevention or punishment in respect of the movement’s conduct but improperly failed to do so.

(15) 若国家本来能够对该运动的行为采取警惕、防止或惩罚措施，却未能这样做，则可能发生例外情况。 第10条第3款保留了这种可能性，其中规定：

This possibility is preserved by paragraph 3 of article 10, which provides that the attribution rules of paragraphs 1 and 2 are without prejudice to the attribution to a State of any conduct, however related to that of the movement concerned, which is to be considered an act of that State by virtue of other provisions in chapter II. The term “however related to that of the movement concerned” is intended to have a broad meaning.

按照第二章中的其他规定应该视为一国的某一行为，无论与有关运动的行为多么 相关，第1款和第2款中的归属规则都不妨碍将任何行为归于该国。 “无论与有关运动的行为如何相关”一语是为了具有广泛的含义。

Thus the failure by a State to take available steps to protect the premises of diplomatic missions, threatened from attack by an insurrectional movement, is clearly conduct attributable to the State and is preserved by paragraph 3.

因此，某一国若未能采取现有的步骤以保护外交使团的馆舍，使它免于受到某一叛乱运动攻击之威胁，显然属于第3款规定的情况，可以归于国家的行为，。

(16) A further possibility is that the insurrectional movement may itself be held responsible for its own conduct under international law, for example for a breach of international humanitarian law committed by its forces.

(16) 另一个可能性是，叛乱运动本身可能依国际法为它自己的行为，例如其军队实施的违反国际人道主义法的行为承担责任。

The topic of the international responsibility of unsuccessful insurrectional or other movements, however, falls outside the scope of the present Articles, which are concerned only with the responsibility of States.

但是，不成功的叛乱运动或其他运动的国际责任不属于只涉及国家责任的本条款的范围。

Article 11

第 11 条

Conduct acknowledged and adopted by a State as its own

经一国确认并当作其本身行为的行为

Conduct which is not attributable to a State under the preceding articles shall nevertheless be considered an act of that State under international law if and to the extent that the State acknowledges and adopts the conduct in question as its

按照前述各条款不归于一国的行为，在并且只在该国确认并当作其本身行为的情况下，依国际法视为该国的行为。

own. Commentary

评注

(1) All the bases for attribution covered in chapter II, with the exception of the conduct of insurrectional or other movements under article 10, assume that the status of the person or body as a State organ, or its mandate to act on behalf of the State, are established at the time of the alleged wrongful act.

(1) 第二章涵盖的所有责任归属的依据(第10条下的叛乱运动或其他运动的行为除外)假定或作为国家机关的个人或机构，或其代表国家行事的职权是在被控的不法行为发生时即已确立的。

Article 11, by contrast, provides for the attribution to a State of conduct that was not or may not have been attributable to it at the time of commission, but which is subsequently acknowledged and adopted by the State as its own.

相反，第11条规定一行为，如在实施时不归于或可能不归于一国，但随后被该国确认并当作该国本身的行为，则该行为应归于该国。

(2) In many cases, the conduct which is acknowledged and adopted by a State will be that of private persons or entities.

(2) 在许多情况下，由国家承认和认可的行为属于私人或实体的行为。

The general principle, drawn from State practice and international judicial decisions, is that the conduct of a person or group of persons not acting on behalf of the State is not considered as an act of the State under international law.

源于国家实践和国际司法决定的一般原则是：不代表国家行事的个人或一部分人的行为，不视为国际法上所指的该国的行为。

This conclusion holds irrespective of the circumstances in which the private person acts and of the interests affected by the person’s conduct.

这一结论不因个人行为的情况和受此人行为影响的利益而受到影响。

(3) Thus like article 10, article 11 is based on the principle that purely private conduct cannot as such be attributed to a State.

(3) 因此，第11条像第10条一样依据纯粹的个人行为不能归于国家的这一原则。

But it recognizes “nevertheless” that conduct is to be considered as an act of a State “if and to the extent that the State acknowledges and adopts the conduct in question as its own”.

但它承认“但是”一行为“在并且只在该国确认并当作其本身行为的情况下”则应视为国家行为。

Instances of the application of the principle can be found in judicial decisions and State practice.

在司法裁决和国家实践中可以找到适用这一原则的例子。

For example, in the Lighthouses arbitration, a tribunal held Greece liable for the breach of a concession agreement initiated by Crete at a period when the latter was an autonomous territory of the Ottoman Empire, partly on the basis that the breach had been “endorsed by [Greece] as if it had been a regular transaction … and eventually continued by her, even after the acquisition of territorial sovereignty over the island … ” In the context of State succession, it is unclear whether a new State succeeds to any State responsibility of the predecessor State with respect to its territory.

例如，在“灯塔”仲裁案中，法庭裁定希腊要为违反经克里特岛草签的一项租让协议承担责任，当时克里特岛为奥斯曼帝国的一个自治领地。 法庭的部分依据是这一违反行为曾“得到[希腊]的认可，如同一项正常的交易…且最终由其继续实施，甚至在取得了对该岛屿的领土主权后仍然如此…”就国家继承问题而言，新国家是否继承前国家有关其领土的任何国家责任并不清楚。

However, if the successor State, faced with a continuing wrongful act on its territory, endorses and continues that situation, the inference may readily be drawn that it has assumed responsibility for it.

然而，如果继承国面对其境内持续的不法行为而认可这一局面并允许其继续，则即可推断它应对此承担责任。

(4) Outside the context of State succession, the Diplomatic and Consular Staff case provides a further example of subsequent adoption by a State of particular conduct.

(4) 除了国家继承问题外，“美国驻德黑兰的外交和领事人员”案提供了国家对某一行为于其后予以认可的又一个例子。

There the Court drew a clear distinction between the legal situation immediately following the seizure of the United States embassy and its personnel by the militants, and that created by a decree of the Iranian State which expressly approved and maintained the situation.

法院明确地区分了武装分子占据美国大使馆并扣留其工作人员之后立即出现的法律局面和伊朗发布明确同意和保持这一局面的国家令所造成的局势。

In the words of the Court:

法院指出：

“The policy thus announced by the Ayatollah Khomeini, of maintaining the occupation of the Embassy and the detention of its inmates as hostages for the purpose of exerting pressure on the United States Government was complied with by other Iranian authorities and endorsed by them repeatedly in statements made in various contexts.

“阿亚图拉 •霍梅尼为向美国政府施加压力宣布维持对使馆的占领和扣留其驻守人员作为人质的政策。 该政策得到了伊朗其他权力机构的遵守并得到他们在各种场合下所作的声明的一再赞同。

The result of that policy was fundamentally to transform the legal nature of the situation created by the occupation of the Embassy and the detention of its diplomatic and consular staff as hostages.

这一政策的结果是根本地改变了因占领使馆和扣押外交和领事工作人员作为人质所造成局面的法律性质。

The approval given to these facts by the Ayatollah Khomeini and other organs of the Iranian State, and the decision to perpetuate them, translated continuing occupation of the Embassy and detention of the hostages into acts of that State.”

阿亚图拉 •霍梅尼及伊朗的其他国家机关对这些事实的核准以及维持这种局面的决定将持续占领使馆和扣押人质转化为国家行为。 ”

In that case it made no difference whether the effect of the “approval” of the conduct of the militants was merely prospective, or whether it made the Islamic Republic of Iran responsible for the whole process of seizure of the embassy and detention of its personnel ab initio.

该案没有明确对武装分子行为的“核准”的效力只是预期的，还是使伊朗伊斯兰共和国从一开始就对占据使馆和扣押工作人员的整个过程负责。

The Islamic Republic of Iran had already been held responsible in relation to the earlier period on a different legal basis, viz., its failure to take sufficient action to prevent the seizure or to bring it to an immediate end.

基于另一不同的法律依据，即未采取足够的行动防止占据使馆或使之立即终止，伊朗伊斯兰共和国应对前一段时期负责，采取哪一种立场都没什么区别。

In other cases no such prior responsibility will exist. Where the acknowledgement and adoption is unequivocal and unqualified there is good reason to give it retroactive effect, which is what the Tribunal did in the Lighthouses arbitration.

但在许多情况下并不存在这种先前的责任，但是，当国家作出的承认和认属明确和不附带条件时，就完全有理由使其具有追溯力。 这也正是法庭在“灯塔”仲裁案中所作的。

This is consistent with the position established by article 10 for insurrectional movements and avoids gaps in the extent of responsibility for what is, in effect, the same continuing act.

这同第10条针对叛乱运动而确定的立场相一致，并且避免了在对实际上同样的连续行为负责的程度上有所区别。

(5) As regards State practice, the capture and subsequent trial in Israel of Adolf Eichmann may provide an example of the subsequent adoption of private conduct by a State.

(5) 关于国家实践，逮捕并随后在以色列审判阿道夫 •艾希曼可能为随后由国家认可私人行为提供一个例子。

On 10 May 1960, Eichmann was captured by a group of Israelis in Buenos Aires.

1960 年5 月10 日，艾希曼在布宜诺斯艾利斯被一伙以色列人逮捕。

He was held in captivity in Buenos Aires in a private home for some weeks before being taken by air to Israel.

他在布宜诺斯艾利斯的一个私人住所中被关押数周后被飞机送到以色列。

Argentina later charged the Israeli Government with complicity in Eichmann’s capture, a charge neither admitted nor denied by the Israeli Foreign Minister (Ms. Meir), during the Security Council’s discussion of the complaint. She referred to Eichmann’s captors as a “volunteer group”.

阿根廷后来指责以色列政府是逮捕艾希曼一事的共谋。 在安理会讨论这一申诉时以色列外交部长梅厄女士对这一指控既未承认也未否认，而将逮捕艾希曼的人称为“志愿团体”。

Security Council resolution 138 of 23 June 1960 implied a finding that the Israeli Government was at least aware of, and consented to, the successful plan to capture Eichmann in Argentina.

安理会1960 年6 月23 日第138 号决议暗示其认为色列政府至少知悉并同意在阿根廷成功逮捕艾希曼的计划。

It may be that Eichmann’s captors were “in fact acting on the instructions of or under the direction or control of” Israel, in which case their conduct was more properly attributed to the State under article 8.

逮捕艾希曼的人可能“事实上奉”以色列“的指示或在其指导或控制下”行事，在这种情况下，将他们的行为根据第8条归于国家更为妥当。

But where there are doubts about whether certain conduct falls within article 8, these may be resolved by the subsequent adoption of the conduct in question by the State.

但如果对某些行为是否属于第8条的范围存有疑问，其后由国家认可这一行为即可清除这些疑问。

(6) The phrase “acknowledges and adopts the conduct in question as its own” is intended to distinguish cases of acknowledgement and adoption from cases of mere support or endorsement The Court in the Diplomatic and Consular Staff case used phrases such as “approval”, “endorsement”, “the seal of official governmental approval” and “the decision to perpetuate [the situation]”.

(6) “确认并当作其本身的行为”一词的目的在于将确认并当作其自身的行为的情况与仅是支持和认可的情况加以区别。 法院在“美国驻伊朗外交和领事人员”案中使用了诸如“核准”、“认可”、“盖上政府官方核准的印章”和“决定维持[这一局面]”等措辞。

These were sufficient in the context of that case, but as a general matter, conduct will not be attributable to a State under article 11 where a State merely acknowledges the factual existence of conduct or expresses its verbal approval of it.

在这一案例中，这些是足够的，但一般而言，根据第11条，单凭国家承认某行为事实上的存在或口头核准这一行为并不能将这一行为归于国家。

In international controversies States often take positions which amount to “approval” or “endorsement” of conduct in some general sense but do not involve any assumption of responsibility.

在国际争议中，国家可采取在某种一般意义上说相当于对该行为“核准”或“认可”的立场，但并不涉及任何责任的承担。

The language of “adoption”, on the other hand, carries with it the idea that the conduct is acknowledged by the State as, in effect, its own conduct.

另一方面，“认可”一词则含有国家实际上承认这一行为是其本身的行为的意思。

Indeed, provided the State’s intention to accept responsibility for otherwise non-attributable conduct is clearly indicated, article 11 may cover cases in which a State has accepted responsibility for conduct of which it did not approve, had sought to prevent and deeply regretted.

的确，如果国家明确表示有意接受本不归于该国的行为的责任，那么第11条可包括国家接受它对未经核准的行为试图防止该行为并深感遗憾的情况。

However such acceptance may be phrased in the particular case, the term “acknowledges and adopts” in article 11 makes it clear that what is required is something more than a general acknowledgement of a factual situation, but rather that the State identifies the conduct in question and makes it its own.

不论这种接受在特定案件中如何表述，第11条中的“承认并认可”的用语要求的不仅是对一事实状况的一般承认，而是国家明确了有关行为并将其视为自己的行为。

(7) The principle established by article 11 governs the question of attribution only.

(7) 第11条所确立的原则只规定行为归属问题。

Where conduct has been acknowledged and adopted by a State, it will still be necessary to consider whether the conduct was internationally wrongful.

即便行为已由国家承认和认可，仍有必要考虑这一行为是否为国际不法行为。

For the purposes of article 11, the international obligations of the adopting State are the criterion for wrongfulness.

就第11条而言，认属国的国际义务为衡量不法性的标准。

The conduct may have been lawful so far as the original actor was concerned, or the actor may have been a private party whose conduct in the relevant respect was not regulated by international law.

就原行为者而言，这一行为可能合法，或者行为者可能是其行为在有关方面不受国际法管束的私人当事方。

By the same token, a State adopting or acknowledging conduct which is lawful in terms of its own international obligations does not thereby assume responsibility for the unlawful acts of any other person or entity.

同样，如果一国对就其本身的国际义务而言属于合法的行为进行或承认，则该国并不对任何其他个人或实体的非法行为承担责任。

Such an assumption of responsibility would have to go further and amount to an agreement to indemnify for the wrongful act of another.

这种承担责任须得再进一步并相当于同意对另一方的不法行为做出损失赔偿。

(8) The phrase “if and to the extent that” is intended to convey a number of ideas.

(8) “在并且只在”一词目的在于传达多层意思。

First, the conduct of, in particular, private persons, groups or entities is not attributable to the State unless under some other article of chapter II or unless it has been acknowledged and adopted by the State.

首先，尤其是私人、团体或实体的行为不能将责任归为国家，除非根据第二章的某一其他条款，或除非得到国家的承认和认可。

Secondly, a State might acknowledge and adopt conduct only to a certain extent. In other words a State may elect to acknowledge and adopt only some of the conduct in question.

第二，国家可能只在一定程度上承认和认可某行为，换句话说一国可以选择只承认与认可有关行为的一部分。

Thirdly, the act of acknowledgment and adoption, whether it takes the form of words or conduct, must be clear and unequivocal.

第三，承认和认可行为，无论采取文字或行动方式都必须明确和毫不含混。

(9) The conditions of acknowledgement and adoption are cumulative, as indicated by the word “and”.

(9) 如同“和”一字所表明的那样，承认和认可的条件是同时具备的。

The order of the two conditions indicates the normal sequence of events in cases in which article 11 is relied on.

两个条件的顺序表明第11条所赖以成立的事件的通常次序。

Acknowledgement and adoption of conduct by a State might be express (as for example in the Diplomatic and Consular Staff case), or it might be inferred from the conduct of the State in question.

一国对行为的承认和认可可以是明示的(例如“美国驻德黑兰的外交和领事人员”案)，或者可以由有关国家的行为而推定。

Chapter III

第 三 章

Breach of an international obligation

违背国际义务

(1) There is a breach of an international obligation when conduct attributed to a State as a subject of international law amounts to a failure by that State to comply with an international obligation incumbent upon it, or, to use the language of article 2 (b), when such conduct constitutes “a breach of an international obligation of the State”.

(1) 当归于作为一国际法主体的某一国家的行为实际上是该国未遵守它应承担的国际义务时，或者以第2条(b)款的措词方式来说，当该行为构成“对该国国际义务的违背”时，即为违背国际义务。

This chapter develops the notion of a breach of an international obligation, to the extent that this is possible in general terms.

本章将在可能范围内概括地阐述违背国际义务的概念。

(2) It must be stressed again that the articles do not purport to specify the content of the primary rules of international law, or of the obligations thereby created for particular States.

(2) 必须再次强调，这些条款并不意图详述国际法初级规则的内容或由此引起的特定国家的义务。

In determining whether given conduct attributable to a State constitutes a breach of its international obligations, the principal focus will be on the primary obligation concerned.

在确定可归于一国的某一行为是否构成违背其国际义务时，主要的考虑重点将是有关的基本义务。

It is this which has to be interpreted and applied to the situation, determining thereby the substance of the conduct required, the standard to be observed, the result to be achieved, etc.

因此，必须对此加以解释并适用于有关情况，从而确定所指行为的实质、应遵守的标准、待取得的结果等。

There is no such thing as a breach of an international obligation in the abstract, and chapter III can only play an ancillary role in determining whether there has been such a breach, or the time at which it occurred, or its duration.

没有抽象的违背国际义务这种事，因此第三章只能在确定违背国际义务是否发生、其发生时间、或其持续时间方面发挥辅助作用。

Nonetheless a number of basic principles can be stated.

尽管如此，仍有若干基本原则可加以阐述。

(3) The essence of an internationally wrongful act lies in the non-conformity of the State’s actual conduct with the conduct it ought to have adopted in order to comply with a particular international obligation.

(3) 国际不法行为的本质在于国家的实际行为不符合它为遵守某一特定国际义务应当采取的行为。

Such conduct gives rise to the new legal relations which are grouped under the common denomination of international responsibility.

这种行为引起了集合在国际责任这一通称下的各种新法律关系。

Chapter III therefore begins with a provision specifying in general terms when it may be considered that there is a breach of an international obligation (article 12).

因此第三章的第一个条款概括地规定了在什么情况下可视为发生了违背国际义务(第12条)。

The basic concept having been defined, the other provisions of the chapter are devoted to specifying how this concept applies to various situations.

界定了基本概念后，本章的其他条款就用于规定这一概念如何适用于各种不同情况。

In particular, the chapter deals with the question of the intertemporal law as it applies to State responsibility, i.e. the principle that a State is only responsible for a breach of an international obligation if the obligation is in force for the State at the time of the breach (article 13), with the equally important question of continuing breaches (article 14), and with the special problem of determining whether and when there has been a breach of an obligation which is directed not at single but at composite acts, i.e. where the essence of the breach lies in a series of acts defined in aggregate as wrongful (article 15).

特别是，本章论述了时际法适用于国家责任的问题，即一国只有在下述情况下才对违背国际义务负责的原则：该义务在被违背时对该国是有效的(第13条)； 并论述了同样重要的持续违背问题(第14条)，以及不仅针对单一行为也针对复合行为确定是否及何时发生违背义务的特别问题，即违背的本质在于被一并定义为不法行为的一系列行为中(第15条)。

(4) For the reason given in paragraph (2) above, it is neither possible nor desirable to deal in the framework of this Part with all the issues that can arise in determining whether there has been a breach of an international obligation. Questions of evidence and proof of such a breach fall entirely outside the scope of the Articles.

(4) 基于上文第(2)段所述的理由，既不可能也无必要在本部分范围内论述所有可能在确定是否发生违背国际义务中出现的问题，违背义务的论据和证明问题完全不属于本章条款的范围。

Other questions concern rather the classification or typology of international obligations.

其他问题多少涉及国际义务的分类或类型。

These have only been included in the text where they can be seen to have distinct consequences within the framework of the secondary rules of State

这些只有在可以看出它们在国家责任次要规则范围内具有明显重要性的情况下才被纳入案文。

responsibility. Article 12

第 12 条

Existence of a breach of an international obligation

违背国际义务行为的发生

There is a breach of an international obligation by a State when an act of that State is not in conformity with what is required of it by that obligation, regardless of its

一国的行为如不符合国际义务对它的要求，即为违背国际义务，而不论该义务

origin or character.

的起源或特性为何。

Commentary

评注

(1) As stated in article 2, a breach by a State of an international obligation incumbent upon it gives rise to its international responsibility.

(1) 第2条规定，一国违背它应承担的国际义务时即引起国际责任。

It is first necessary to specify what is meant by a breach of an international obligation.

首先有必要说明违背国际义务的含义。

This is the purpose of article 12, which defines in the most general terms what constitutes a breach of an international obligation by a State.

第12条的目的最概括地界定什么构成一国违背国际义务。

In order to conclude that there is a breach of an international obligation in any specific case, it will be necessary to take account of the other provisions of chapter III which specify further conditions relating to the existence of a breach of an international obligation, as well as the provisions of chapter V dealing with circumstances which may preclude the wrongfulness of an act of a State.

为了在任何具体案件中得出违背国际义务的结论，有必要考虑到第三章中其它与违背国际义务有关的具体情况的条款以及第五章中有关可能解除一国行为不法性的情况的规定。

But in the final analysis, whether and when there has been a breach of an obligation depends on the precise terms of the obligation, its interpretation and application, taking into account its object and purpose and the facts of the case.

但是归根到底，是否和何时发生违背国际义务取决于义务的具体条件、其解释和适用，同时要考虑到其目标和宗旨以及案件的实情。

(2) In introducing the notion of a breach of an international obligation, it is necessary again to emphasize the autonomy of international law in accordance with the principle stated in article 3.

(2) 在采用违背国际义务概念时，有必要再次强调，按照第3条规定的原则国际法具有自主性。

In the terms of article 12, the breach of an international obligation consists in the disconformity between the conduct required of the State by that obligation and the conduct actually adopted by the State - i.e., between the requirements of international law and the facts of the matter.

按照第12条的规定，违背国际义务是该义务要求该国采取行为与该国实际采取的行为不相符合——即国际法的要求与事实不相符。

This can be expressed in different ways.

这可以用不同的方式表示。

For example the International Court has used such expressions as “incompatibility with the obligations” of a State, acts “contrary to” or “inconsistent with” a given rule, and “failure to comply with treaty obligations”.

例如，国际法院用过下述措词； “与一国的义务不相容”、“违反”或“不符合特定规则”的行为、和“未遵守条约义务”。

In the ELSI case, a Chamber of the Court asked the “question whether the requisition was in conformity with the requirements… of the FCN Treaty”.

在“厄尔西公司”案中，国际法院的一个分庭问起“征用是否符合…友好、通商和航海条约的要求问题”。

The expression “not in conformity with what is required of it by that obligation” is the most appropriate to indicate what constitutes the essence of a breach of an international obligation by a State.

“不符合该义务对它的要求”这一措词最适合于表述一国违背国际义务的本质。

It allows for the possibility that a breach may exist even if the act of the State is only partly contrary to an international obligation incumbent upon it.

它考虑到了即使一国的行为仅部分地违反它应承担的国际义务也可能存在违背该义务的可能性。

In some cases precisely defined conduct is expected from the State concerned;

在有些情况下，要求有关国家采取明确界定的行为；

in others the obligation only sets a minimum standard above which the State is free to act.

在另一些情况下，义务仅确定最低标准，在这一标准之上国家可自由行事。

Conduct proscribed by an international obligation may involve an act or an omission or a combination of acts and omissions;

国际义务禁止的行为可能包括某一作为或某一不作为或兼有作为和不作为；

it may involve the passage of legislation, or specific administrative or other action in a given case, or even a threat of such action, whether or not the threat is carried out, or a final judicial decision.

它可能涉及通过立法，或特定案件中的具体行政或其他行动，或甚至威胁采取这类行动，不管威胁是否落实，或最后司法判决。

It may require the provision of facilities, or the taking of precautions or the enforcement of a prohibition.

它可能要求提供便利条件，或采取预防措施或执行一项禁止。

In every case, it is by comparing the conduct in fact engaged in by the State with the conduct legally prescribed by the international obligation that one can determine whether or not there is a breach of that obligation.

在每一情况下，是否违背国际义务，都是通过比较国家实际从事的行为和该国际义务依法规定的行为来确定。

The phrase “is not in conformity with” is flexible enough to cover the many different ways in which an obligation can be expressed, as well as the various forms which a breach may take.

“不符合”这一用词灵活性很大，足以包括可用来表达一项义务的许多不同方式以及违背该义务可能采取的各种形式。

(3) Article 12 states that there is a breach of an international obligation when the act in question is not in conformity with what is required by that obligation “regardless of its origin”.

(3) 第12条规定，有关行为如不符合国际义务对它的要求即违背该义务，“不论该义务的起源为何”。

As this phrase indicates, the Articles are of general application.

如这一措词所表明的，第三章的条款是普遍适用的。

They apply to all international obligations of States, whatever their origin may be.

它们适用于国家的所有国际义务，不论其起源为何。

International obligations may be established by a customary rule of international law, by a treaty or by a general principle applicable within the international legal order.

国际义务可能是国际法习惯规则、条约或国际法律秩序内适用的一般原则确定的。

States may assume international obligations by a unilateral act.

国家可通过单方面行为承担国际义务。

An international obligation may arise from provisions stipulated in a treaty (a decision of an organ of an international organization competent in the matter, a judgment given between two States by the International Court of Justice or another tribunal, etc.

国际义务可能由条约规定产生(国际组织主管有关问题的机构作出的决定、国际法院或另一法院作出的关于两国的裁决等)。

). It is unnecessary to spell out these possibilities in article 12, since the responsibility of a State is engaged by the breach of an international obligation whatever the particular origin of the obligation concerned.

因此，由于一国违背国际义务即应承担责任，不论有关义务的特定起源为何，没有必要在第12条中列出这些可能性。

The formula “regardless of its origin” refers to all possible sources of international obligations, that is to say, to all processes for creating legal obligations recognized by international law. The word ”source” is sometimes used in this context, as in the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations which stresses the need to respect “the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law”.

“不论其起源为何”一词述及国际义务的所有可能渊源，也就是说，国际法承认的所有创设法律义务的程序，“渊源”一词有时也在这方面使用，例如《联合国宪章》在序言中强调有必要尊重“由条约和国际法其他渊源产生的义务”。

The word “origin” which has the same meaning, is not attended by the doubts and doctrinal debates the term “source” has provoked.

具有同样含义的“起源”一词并不带来“渊源”一词所引起的疑问和学术辩论。

(4) According to article 12, the origin or provenance of an obligation does not, as such, alter the conclusion that responsibility will be entailed if it is breached by a State, nor does it, as such, affect the regime of State responsibility thereby arising.

(4) 根据第12条，义务的起源或来源本身并不改变一国如违背该义务将承担责任的结论，它本身也不影响由此引起的国家责任制度。

Obligations may arise for a State by a treaty and by a rule of customary international law or by a treaty and a unilateral act.

一国的义务可能由一项条约和习惯国际法的一条规则或由一项条约和一个单方面行为产生。

Moreover these various grounds of obligation interact with each other, as practice clearly shows.

此外，实践清楚地表明，产生义务的这些不同依据彼此互相作用。

Treaties, especially multilateral treaties, can contribute to the formation of general international law;

条约，特别是多边条约，可有助于形成一般国际法；

customary law may assist in the interpretation of treaties;

习惯法可以用于条约的解释；

an obligation contained in a treaty may be applicable to a State by reason of its unilateral act, and so on.

条约义务可通过一国的单方面行为适用于该国，等等。

Thus international courts and tribunals have treated responsibility as arising for a State by reason of any “violation of a duty imposed by an international juridical standard”.

因此国际法院和法庭认为国家的责任是因“违反国际司法标准施加的义务”而产生的。

In the Rainbow Warrior arbitration, the Tribunal said that “any violation by a State of any obligation, of whatever origin, gives rise to State responsibility and consequently, to the duty of reparation”.

在“彩虹勇士号”仲裁案中，法庭认为“一国违反任何一项义务，不论其来源，都引起国家责任，从而引起赔偿责任”。

In the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project case, the International Court of Justice referred to the relevant draft article provisionally adopted by the Commission in 1976 in support of the proposition that it is “well established that, when a State has committed an internationally wrongful act, its international responsibility is likely to be involved whatever the nature of the obligation it has failed to respect”.

在“加布奇科沃—大毛罗斯项目”案中，国际法院以国际法委员会在1976 年暂时通过的有关条款草案作为其论点的依据，指出“公认的是，国家一旦实施国际不法行为，不论其未加遵守的义务的本质，都可能引起国际责任”。

(5) Thus there is no room in international law for a distinction, such as is drawn by some legal systems, between the regime of responsibility for breach of a treaty and for breach of some other rule, i.e. for responsibility arising ex contractu or ex delicto.

(5) 因此在国际法中不像在有些法律制度中对违反条约的责任制度和违反一些其他规则的责任制度作出区分，即不区分因契约引起的责任和因过失引起的责任。

In the Rainbow Warrior arbitration, the Tribunal affirmed that “in the international law field there is no distinction between contractual and tortious responsibility”.

在彩虹勇士仲裁案中，法庭认为“国际法领域不区分契约责任和侵权责任”。

As far as the origin of the obligation breached is concerned, there is a single general regime of State responsibility.

至于所违背义务的起源，目前有单一的普遍国家责任制度。

Nor does any distinction exist between the “civil” and “criminal” responsibility as is the case in internal legal systems.

但没有像国内法律制度那样在国家责任中区分“民事”责任和“刑事”责任。

(6) State responsibility can arise from breaches of bilateral obligations or of obligations owed to some States or to the international community as a whole.

(6) 国家责任可能是因违背双边义务或违背对一些国家或整个国际社会所负的义务而产生的。

It can involve relatively minor infringements as well as the most serious breaches of obligations under peremptory norms of general international law.

它可能涉及轻微的违背以及最严重的违背一般国际法的强制规范规定的义务。

Questions of the gravity of the breach and the peremptory character of the obligation breached can affect the consequences which arise for the responsible State and, in certain cases, for other States also.

违背的严重性和所违背义务的强制性问题可能影响对有责任的国家和在某些情况下对其他国家带来的后果。

Certain distinctions between the consequences of certain breaches are accordingly drawn in Parts Two and Three of these Articles.

因此在条款第二部分和第三部分中对某些违背的后果作了一些区分。

But the regime of State responsibility for breach of an international obligation under Part One is comprehensive in scope, general in character and flexible in its application: Part One is thus able to cover the spectrum of possible situations without any need for further distinctions between categories of obligation concerned or the category of the breach.

但第一部分规定的违背国际义务的国家责任制度范围全面、性质普遍并且适用灵活。 因此第一部分能够适用于各种可能的情况而无需进一步区分有关的义务类别或违背类别。

(7) Even fundamental principles of the international legal order are not based on any special source of law- or specific law-making procedure, in contract with rules of constitutional character in internal legal systems.

(7) 即使国际法律秩序的基本原则也不是建立在任何特别的法律渊源或特定的立法程序之上，与国内法制度中宪法性质的规则大不相同。

In accordance with article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a peremptory norm of general international law is one which is “accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character”.

根据《维也纳条约法公约》第53条，一般国际法强制规范是“国家之国际社会全体接受并公认为不许损抑且仅有以后具有同等性质之一般国际法规律始得更改之规律”。

Article 53 recognizes both that norms of a peremptory character can be created and that the States have a special role in this regard as par excellence the holders of normative authority on behalf of the international community.

第53条承认强制性规范可以创设，也承认国家在这方面发挥特别的作用，因为国家是国际社会的规范性权力的卓越持有者。

Moreover, obligations imposed on States by peremptory norms necessarily affect the vital interests of the international community as a whole and may entail a stricter regime of responsibility than that applied to other internationally wrongful acts.

此外，强制规范对国家施加的义务必定影响到整个国际社会的实质利益，其限定的责任制度可能比适用于其他国际不法行为的责任制度更严格。

But this is an issue belonging to the content of State responsibility.

但这是属于国家责任内容的问题。

So far at least as Part One of the Articles is concerned, there is a unitary regime of State responsibility which is general in character.

至少就条款第一部分而言，存在一个普遍性的单一国家责任制度。

(8) Rather similar considerations apply with respect to obligations arising under the Charter of the United Nations.

(8) 同样的考虑适用于《联合国宪章》所规定的义务。

Since the Charter is a treaty, the obligations it contains are, from the point of view of their origin, treaty obligations.

由于《宪章》是条约，它所载的义务从其起源来讲是条约义务。

The special importance of the Charter, as reflected in its Article 103, derives from its express provisions as well as from the virtually universal membership of States in the United Nations.

其第103条所反映的《宪章》的特殊重要性来自其明文规定以及联合国会员国几乎包括世界上所有国家这一事实。

(9) The general scope of the Articles extends not only to the conventional or other origin of the obligation breached but also to its subject matter.

(9) 条款的总范围不仅包括违背条约义务或违背其他起源下的义务也包括其主题。

International awards and decisions specifying the conditions for the existence of an internationally wrongful act speak of the breach of an international obligation without placing any restriction on the subject-matter of the obligation breached.

具体提到存在国际不法行为的条件的国际判决和决定都论及违背国际义务而没有对所违背义务的主题作任何限制。

Courts and tribunals have consistently affirmed the principle that there is no a priori limit to the subject matters on which States may assume international obligations.

法院和法庭一贯确认对国家可能承担国际义务的主题没有先验限制的原则。

Thus the Permanent Court stated in its first judgment, in the S.S. “Wimbledon”, that “the right of entering into international engagements is an attribute of State sovereignty”.

因此，国际常设法院在其第一个判决，即对“温布尔顿号”案件作出的判决中说“缔结国际约定的权利是国家主权的一项属性”。

That proposition has often been endorsed.

这一论点常得到认可。

(10) In a similar perspective, it has sometimes been argued that an obligation dealing with a certain subject matter could only have been breached by conduct of the same description.

(10) 同样地，有时有人认为涉及某一主题的义务只可能被同一类型的行为所违背。

That proposition formed the basis of an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court in the Oil Platforms

这一论点构成了反对法院对“石油平台”案的管辖权的基础。

case. It was argued that a treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation could not in principle have been breached by conduct involving the use of armed force.

有人声称一项友好、通商和航海条约原则上不可能被涉及使用武力的行为所违背。

The Court responded in the following terms:

法院的答复如下：

“The Treaty of 1955 imposes on each of the Parties various obligations on a variety of matters.

“1955 年的条约对缔约各方规定了涉及一系列事项的多种义务。

Any action by one of the Parties that is incompatible with those obligations is unlawful, regardless of the means by which it is brought about.

缔约一方任何有违这些义务的行动均属非法，不论行为所采取的方式为何。

A violation of the rights of one party under the Treaty by means of the use of force is as unlawful as would be a violation by administrative decision or by any other means.

以使用武力的方式侵犯另一缔约方根据条约享有的权利，同通过行政决定或以任何其他手段实施的侵犯行为一样不合法。

Matters relating to the use of force are therefore not per se excluded from the reach of the Treaty of 1955.”

因此，涉及使用武力的事项本身并不被排除在1955 年条约的范围以外。

Thus 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.

” 因此一国违背国际义务即是国际不法行为，不论主题为何或所违背义务的内容为何，也不论对不符合义务要求的行为所作的描述为何。

(11) Article 12 also states that there is a breach of an international obligation when the act in question is not in conformity with what is required by that obligation, “regardless of its … character”.

(11) 第12条还规定有关行为如不符合国际义务的要求即为违背该国际义务，“不论该义务的特性为何”。

In practice, various classifications of international obligations have been adopted.

在实践中，国际义务有各种不同的分类。

For example a distinction is commonly drawn between obligations of conduct and obligations of result.

例如通常对行为义务和结果义务作了区分。

That distinction may assist in ascertaining when a breach has occurred.

这一区分可能有助于确定违背在何时发生。

But it is not exclusive, and it does not seem to bear specific or direct consequences as far as the present Articles are concerned.

但它并非唯一的标准，而且就现有的条款来说似乎不具有特定的或直接的意义。

In the Colozza case, for example, the European Court of Human Rights was concerned with the trial in absentia of a person who, without actual notice of his trial, was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment and was not allowed subsequently to contest his conviction.

例如，在Colozza 案中，欧洲人权法院对在一个人缺席的情况下进行审判表示关注，因为该人实际上没有收到审判通知，被判处六年监禁，并且后来不许他对其定罪提出申诉。

He claimed that he had not had a fair hearing, contrary to article 6 (1) of the European Convention.

他声称他没有获得欧洲人权公约第6(1)条规定的公平审判。

The Court noted that:

法院指出：

“The Contracting States enjoy a wide discretion as regards the choice of the means calculated to ensure that their legal systems are in compliance with the requirements of article 6 (1) in this field.

“在选择用于确保本国法律制度符合第6(1)条的规定的手段方面，缔约国享有广泛的裁量权。

The Court’s task is not to indicate those means to the States, but to determine whether the result called for by the Convention has been achieved…

法院的任务并非向缔约国指出这些手段，而是确定是否实现了公约所要求的结果…。

For this to be so, the resources available under domestic law must be shown to be effective and a person ‘charged with a criminal offence’ … must not be left with the burden of proving that he was not seeking to evade justice or that his absence was due to force majeure.”

为确定实现了结果，必须证明，国内法所提供的资源是有效的，‘被控实施刑事犯罪’的人绝不应承担举证责任以证明他并非试图逃避法律制裁或他的缺席是不可抗力造成的。

The Court thus considered that article 6 (1) imposed an obligation of result.

” 因此法院认为第6(1)条规定了结果义务。

But, in order to decide whether there had been a breach of the Convention in the circumstances of the case, it did not simply compare the result required (the opportunity for a trial in the accused’s presence) with the result practically achieved (the lack of that opportunity in the particular case).

但是，为了决定在本案件中是否发生违背公约的情况，法院并非仅仅将所要求的结果(审判时被告人在场的机会)同实际取得的结果(在该特定案件中缺乏此种机会)进行比较。

Rather it examined what more Italy could have done to make the applicant’s right “effective”.

确切说，法院审查了意大利本可以更多地采取哪些措施使申诉人的权利得以“实现”。

The distinction between obligations of conduct and result was not determinative of the actual decision that there had been a breach of article 6 (1).

行为义务和结果义务之间的区分并不是实际作出的违背第6(1)条的决定的决定性因素。

(12) The question often arises whether an obligation is breached by the enactment of legislation by a State, in cases where the content of the legislation prima facie conflicts with what is required by the international obligation, or whether the legislation has to be implemented in the given case before the breach can be said to have occurred.

(12) 在某法规的内容表面上与国际义务所要求的相抵触的情况下，往往出现一国制定法规是否违背义务的问题，或者是否只有当该法规在特定情况下被执行后才能被认为违背了义务。

Again, no general rule can be laid down applicable to all cases.

必须重申不可能制定适用于所有情况的一般规则。

Certain obligations may be breached by the mere passage of incompatible legislation.

某些义务可能仅因通过不相容的法规而被违背。

Where this is so, the passage of the legislation without more entails the international responsibility of the enacting State, the legislature itself being an organ of the State for the purposes of the attribution of responsibility.