The question of ‘soft responsibility’ remains largely a doctrinal subject which can only be approached through inferences from scattered and informal practice. The starting postulate is clear: the universe of ‘soft law’ does not have an appropriate form of responsibility—itself ‘soft’—as a matter of positive law. This hypothesis is confirmed by the ILC’s silence: nothing in the ILC Articles supports directly or even indirectly the concept of soft responsibility. Articles 1 and 2 define internationally wrongful acts as actions or omissions attributable to a State...
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full
to access all content.