{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01634472511144131, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.756410256410256, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
International Responsibility and the Systemic Character of International Law

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.