IJ №4 (20) 2016
Relevance of articles on responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts for legal defense in WTO dispute settlement mechanism

Abstract
The article deals with the problem of reference of the parties of the dispute considered by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) to the Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ILC Articles) adopted by the International Law Commission in 2001 (ILC) in the process of dispute resolution. Such issues as the legal status of ILC Articles, the definition of international responsibility and internationally wrongful act as the ground of international responsibility are examined. The authors make a conclusion that customary rules regarding responsibility of the states for internationally wrongful acts are codified in ILC Articles. At the same time, ILC Articles contain several norms which constitute a progressive development and only in future can become the legally binding provision. Another conclusion made by the authors is that international responsibility and coercive measures, such as sanctions and countermeasures are different notions related to different legal institutions, although closely related to each other. The international responsibility can be enforced without application of such coercive measures. International responsibility relations are based on the existence of internationally wrongful act, despite of such legal consequences as application (or non-application) of coercive measures. Authors highlight that there is a wide practice of application of ILC Articles with the purpose of interpretation of the provisions of the WTO Agreements. The co-relation of the norms of the WTO Agreements and ILC Articles is examined in more details by the example of Articles 20 and 45 of ILC Articles. The recent case Peru – Additional Import Duty on Imports of Certain Agricultural Products, where Guatemala is the applicant is analyzed in the present article. The authors make a conclusion that article 20 of ILC Articles shall not be viewed as a provision used with the purpose of interpretation of article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, rather as a remedy applied under general international law.

About the authors
Dar’ya Boklan- Candidate of Science (Ph. D.) in Law, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, National Research University – Higher School of Economics.

Olga Boklan- Postgraduate student, International Law Department, Russian Foreign Trade Academy.

Anait Smbatyan- Doctor of Science in Law, Senior expert, “WTO Expertise Center”.

Citation
Boklan D., Boklan O., Smbatyan A. (2016) Znachenie Statey ob otvetstvennosti gosudarstv za mezhdunarodno-protivopravnye deyaniya dlya pravovoy zashchity interesov storon pri razreshenii sporov v ramkakh WTO [Relevance of articles on responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts of 2001 for legal defense in WTO dispute settlement mechanism]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no. 4. pp. 99–113. (In Russian).

References:

Alekseev S. (1981) Obshchaya teoriya prava [General theory of law], Moscow: Yuridicheskaya literatura. (In Russian).

Anufrieva L. P. (ed.) (2016) Pravo WTO: teoriya i praktika primeneniya [WTO law: theory and practice of application], Moscow : Norma: INFRA-M. (In Russian).

Bekashev K. (ed.) (2003) Mezhdunarodnoe publichnoe pravo [Public international law], 2nd ed., Moscow: Prospect. (In Russian).

Brinchuk M. (2004) Ekologicheskoe pravo [Environmental law], Moscow: Yurist. (In Russian).

Chernichenko S. (2014) Kontury mezhdunarodnogo prava. Obshchie voprosy [Frameworks of international law. General issues], Moscow: Nauchnaya kniga. (In Russian).

Get’man-Pavlova I. (2006) Mezhdunarodnoe pravo [International Law], Moscow: Yurist. (In Russian).

Ignatenko G., Tiunov O. (eds.) (2009) Mezhdunarodnoe pravo [International law], 5th ed., Moscow: Norma. (In Russian).

Jiménez de Aréchaga E. (1983) Sovremennoe mezhdunarodnoe pravo [Modern international law], Moscow: Progress. (In Russian).

Kozheurov Y. S. (2013) Mezhdunarodnaya otvetstvennost’ za narushenie prava WTO: sootnoshenie s obshchim mezhdunarodnym pravom [International responsibility for the violations of the WTO law: correlation with the common international law]. Aktual’nye problemy rossiyskogo prava, no. 10, vol. 35, pp. 1334–1340. (In Russian).

Levin D. (1966) Otvetstvennost’ gosudarstv v sovremennom mezhdunarodnom prave [State responsibility in modern international law], Moscow : Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. (In Russian).

Lukashuk I. (2004) Pravo mezhdunarodnoy otvetstvennosti [Law of international responsibility], Moscow: Wolters Kluver. (In Russian).

Matuzov A., Mal’ko A. (1997) Teoriya gosudarstva i prava [Theory of state and law], Moscow: Yurist. (In Russian).

Meleshnikov A., Pushmin E. (1988) Mezhdunarodno-pravovaya otvetstvennost’: ponyatie, processual’nye voprosy realizatsii [International Responsibility: definition, procedural issues of realization]. Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo, no. 8, pp. 83–90. (In Russian).

Shumilov V. (2003) Mezhdunarodnoe ekonomicheskoe pravo v epokhu globalizatsii [International economic law in the era of globalization], Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. (In Russian).

Shumilov V. (2007) Mezhdunarodnoe pravo [International Law], Moscow :Velsbi. (In Russian).

Talalaev A. (ed.) (1999) Mezhdunarodnoe pravo [International law], Moscow: Yuridicheskaya literatura. (In Russian).

Vylegzhanin A. (ed.) (2009) Mezhdunarodnoe pravo [International law], Moscow: Yurayt. (In Russian).

Issue articles