STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

INTRODUCTION 

The UN Charter and other human rights instruments oblige States to recognize, respect and protect  the fundamental rights and freedoms of all individuals without prejudice to their race, sex,  language or religion1. Where an individual’s right has been violated by the acts or omissions of  State organs and officials or by private entities and individuals acting under the control or  acquiescence of the State; the State is obligated to investigate, prosecute and sanction such  perpetrator, as well as compensate victims of human rights abuses as imposed by international  law2.  

However, in practice, numerous States have exhibited indifference in addressing human rights violations occurring within their jurisdiction. This incessant failure of accountability allows for  continuing violations, undermining the effectiveness of human rights enforcement mechanisms. 

This article examines the concept of human rights violations and analyses the principle of State responsibility for such violations under International Law. It further considers the challenges associated with the enforcement of State responsibility in the human rights sphere. 

Concept of State Responsibility 

The right of an individual is the duty of a State to respect and protect. State responsibility is an  international law principle which provides that when a State commits an international wrong, such  violating State should be held accountable for its reparation3. 

The principle of State responsibility is governed by the International Law Commission’s  (ILC) Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001). The articles reflect customary international law provisions on a State’s responsibility towards international  wrongs. Article 2 of ILC Articles provides that an act of a State can only be held to be  internationally wrongful when the conduct consisting of an action or omission: (a) is attributable to the State under international law; and (b) constitutes a breach of an international obligation of  the State. 

State responsibility arises in relation to human rights violations because these rights are entrenched  in treaties entered into by States and some fundamental rights are also considered jus cogens4. By  these legal bases, States are bound by their provisions and must ensure individual fundamental  rights are respected, upheld and protected by State actors and individuals. Additionally, States are  obligated to investigate, prosecute violators and compensate victims of human rights violations5.  Failure to do so constitutes breach of an international obligation which is an international wrongful  act leading to State responsibility. 

Attribution of Human Rights Violations to the State 

Attribution is one of the elements for establishing State responsibility. It is defined as the operation  of attaching a given action or omission to a State under international law6. Attribution of a State for an act or omission is governed by Articles 4-11 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for  Internationally Wrongful Acts7. 

Under ILC Article 4, the conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of the State,  including the executive, legislative, judiciary and its officials. Whatever conduct or misconduct of  such organ and its agents including ultra vires actions is attributed to the State.8 

Furthermore, Article 5 and 8 of the ILC Articles stipulate that the actions of private entities and  individuals performing under the control or discretion of the State government shall be considered  an act of the State, provided such entity is acting within that capacity in that instance9. However,  for such actions to be effectively attributed to a State, an established link of control must exist10.  

Thus, in Nicaragua v USA11, the ICJ held that to be responsible for the human rights violations by  its military forces, the US would have had to issue specific instructions for the specific wrongful  acts. 

Notwithstanding the above, States can be held responsible for human rights violations even when  they did not directly commit the wrongful act but failed to act when and how they should have12. As reiterated by Article 2 ILC Articles, a wrongful act of a State can involve an omission by the State13. For instance, the Police refusing to investigate a killing is a State omission that can incur  responsibility. 

Accordingly, the principle of due diligence under international law imposes a standard of care on  States towards their enforcement and protection of human rights. Under this principle, a State may  incur responsibility where it fails in the prevention of violations where possible, investigating  violations when they occur, punishing violators and providing remedies or compensation to  victims14. The due diligence obligation therefore ensures that States are held accountable not only  for direct violations, but also for their failure to respond adequately to human rights abuses within  their jurisdiction. 

Breach of International Human Rights Obligations 

Once an act has been attributed to the State, the next question is whether such action constitutes a  breach of fundamental rights. Article 12 of the ILC Articles defines breach under international law  to exist where an act of that State is not in conformity with what is required of it by that  obligation15. By the aforementioned provision, the intent to breach its obligations is not an element  for responsibility, the key ingredient is the non-compliance of a State in adhering to its  international obligations. 

International human rights obligations arise from treaty provisions with the objective of  recognizing and protecting specific individual rights [e.g. Convention on the Elimination of All  Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)], obligations also arise from customary international law provisions and jus cogens norms which binds all States, to which no derogation  is permitted (e.g. acts of war crimes and genocide)16. 

A breach of fundamental rights can be established by the acts or omissions of the State17. The acts  can include the direct violations by organs of the State and its officials (unlawful detention, torture  by police) and the violating conduct by private individuals and entities acting under the control of  the State. However, as explained by the principle of due diligence, States can still be responsible for human rights violations by their inactions or omissions which include failure to investigate  violations, insufficient remedy to victims.  

These actions and inactions constitute a breach of human rights obligations which a State can incur  responsibility for. Despite the clear actions and omissions of States, their agents and in certain  circumstances, non-State actors that amount to human rights abuses, significant difficulty persist  in the enforcement of State responsibility for human rights violations under international law. 

Challenges in Enforcing State Responsibility for Human Rights Violations 

Notwithstanding the legal framework governing State responsibility for human rights violations in  its jurisdiction under international law, the enforcement of such liability is obscured with  significant challenges. One major difficulty is the principle of State sovereignty which limits  external intervention from States’ internal affairs or disputes. As sovereign entities, some States  are reluctant to submit territorial human rights abuses for determination by external or international  adjudicatory mechanisms. They fail to comply with the decisions of these judicial bodies created  for the enforcement of human rights18. This reluctance by States thus hinders the full compliance  of human rights protection mechanisms. 

Additionally, evidentiary basis and attribution pose a significant challenge in enforcing State responsibility. Victims and courts find it hard to establish a causal link between the wrongful act  committed and the State, specifically where the violations are committed by non-State actors. For  instance, the prerequisite for proving effective control, as emphasized in Nicaragua v USA19, often  sets a high burden of proof that victims may find difficult to satisfy. This complexity usually results  in State’s exemption from human rights abuses. 

Furthermore, selective enforcement poses a challenge in the holistic enforcement of State responsibility. Politically, some predominantly stronger States are not held accountable for human  rights violations because of their geopolitical influence, causing weaker States to frequently face  liability for abuses rather than a holistic approach. This challenge questions the impartiality and effectiveness of human rights protection mechanisms.  

Summarily, while international law strives to safeguard fundamental rights from abuse, lack of  compulsory jurisdiction for adjudication, State refusal to comply with court decisions, high  evidentiary threshold on victims and selective enforcement poses significant challenges towards  its actuality. Addressing these obstacles involves stringent compliance mechanisms, cooperation  of the international community and commitment by States to uphold their International human  rights obligations. 

CONCLUSION 

The existence of fundamental rights in international law is intrinsic to individual survival in every  ramification of life. Overtime, even with this laudable provisions, human rights violations are at  an all time high especially from State violators. Thus, the principle of State responsibility was  established to hold States accountable for the acts and omissions of States and its agents as well as  non-State actors under its control. However, enforcement remains an issue in actuality, especially  with State violators refusing to comply with decisions of human rights enforcement courts and the  outright rejection of the jurisdiction of some judiciary bodies. Notwithstanding this, with arduous efforts and compliance by the international community, the future of holistic protection and  recognition of human rights is assured.

REFERENCE(S):

1 Charter of The United Nations, 1945, Article 55 

2 Tatyana Eatwell, ‘State Responsibility for Human Rights Violation Committed in The State Territory by Armed  Non-State Actors’ (first published 2018) 11 

3 Vishakha Jaiprakash Thanvi, ‘State Responsibility under International Law’ [2023] 6(1) IJLMH 486, 489

4 Marco Sassóli, ‘State responsibility for violations of international humanitarian law’ [2002] 84(846) IRRC 401,  414 

5 United Nations General Assembly, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Clément Nyaletsossi Voule (A/HRC/53/38) 2 

6 Müller Daniel, ‘Attribution’ (Jus Mundi, 29 August 2025) <https://jusmundi.com/en/document/publication/en attribution> accessed 30 December 2025  

7International Law Commission, 2001  

8International Law Commission Article on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001, Article  4 

9(n 8, Article 5-8) 

10 (n 4, 407)

11 Case Concerning the Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua 1986 ICJ 14 12 (n 8, Article 2) 

13 (n 8) 

14 Joanna Kulesza, ‘Human Rights Due Diligence’ [2021] 30(2) WMBORJ 265 

15 (n 8, Article 12)

16 Erjona Ramaj, ‘Binding international norms, jus cogens’ [2016] 5(3) EJSD 318  <https://ecsdev.org/ojs/index.php/ejsd/article/view/358/355> accessed 26 December 2025

17 International Law Commission Article on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001, Article 2, 4 

18 Mannat Bindra, ‘The Principle of State Sovereignty vs. Humanitarian Intervention in International Law’  (Research Gate, March 2025)  <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390236842_The_Principle_of_State_Sovereignty_vs_Humanitarian_Inte rvention_in_International_Law> 

 19 Nicaragua’s Case (n 11)