<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>The question whether international law is a system is one of the modern topics discussed by specialists of international law. The text of P. Saganek poses this question with respect to the rules on international responsibility. The two aims are to establish whether the rules on state responsibility are a system themselves and whether they may prima facie support the idea of international law as such a system. The two prima facie answers are positive. Every violation of international law gives rise to state responsibility if it can be attributed to a state and no circumstance precluding wrongfulness is in place. In this sense the rules on state responsibility form a sub-system supporting the thesis on the systemic nature of international law. On a closer analysis one can encounter several doubts as to both answers. Paradoxically those rules are too ideal, too systemic. The author – without denying the necessity of several if not the majority of the identified rules – refers to a tendency of presenting as law some non-binding documents prepared by expert groups. This is a part of a wider process of ‘paper-law’. In this sense expert groups engage in ‘creating the language’ in which the true subjects of international law are expected to speak.</p></abstract>

The question whether international law is a system is one of the modern topics discussed by specialists of international law. The text of P. Saganek poses this question with respect to the rules on international responsibility. The two aims are to establish whether the rules on state responsibility are a system themselves and whether they may prima facie support the idea of international law as such a system. The two prima facie answers are positive. Every violation of international law gives rise to state responsibility if it can be attributed to a state and no circumstance precluding wrongfulness is in place. In this sense the rules on state responsibility form a sub-system supporting the thesis on the systemic nature of international law. On a closer analysis one can encounter several doubts as to both answers. Paradoxically those rules are too ideal, too systemic. The author – without denying the necessity of several if not the majority of the identified rules – refers to a tendency of presenting as law some non-binding documents prepared by expert groups. This is a part of a wider process of ‘paper-law’. In this sense expert groups engage in ‘creating the language’ in which the true subjects of international law are expected to speak.

International Responsibility and the Systemic Character of International Law

Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Law Studies

Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

{"article-title":"International Responsibility and the Systemic Character of International Law"}

The question whether international law is a system is one of the modern topics discussed by specialists of international law. The text of P. Saganek poses this...

International Responsibility and the Systemic Character of International Law

Published Online: Apr 24, 2018

Page range: 229 - 245

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/slgr-2017-0053

Keywords
responsibility, sources of international law, general principles of law

© 2017 Przemysław Saganek, published by De Gruyter Open

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

International Responsibility and the Systemic Character of International Law

Published Online: Apr 24, 2018

Page range: 229 - 245

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/slgr-2017-0053

Keywordsresponsibility, sources of international law, general principles of law

© 2017 Przemysław Saganek, published by De Gruyter Open

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Keywords
responsibility, sources of international law, general principles of law