525536 Ryanne Tuit
To answer the question whether the State of the Netherlands is responsible for the deaths in State B,
caused by the donated vaccines, it is important to take a look to international customary law. The
most relevant rules and principles are found in a series of Articles on Responsibility of States for
Internationally Wrongful Acts (ASR) prepared by the International Law Commission (ILC). 1 Even
though the ASR is not a treaty it is still binding for all states, because it is part of international
customary law. These articles are part of secondary law. These secondary rules describe how primary
law is created, interpreted and enforced. 2
Article 2 ASR determines whether the state is responsible. Three cumulative conditions must be
fulfilled3:
1. There is an act or omission.
2. The act or omission is attributable to the State of the Netherlands.
3. The act or omission constitutes a breach of international obligation of the State.
The last two conditions are referred to in the Tehran Hostage case. According to the International
Court of Justice these two elements illustrate wrongful conduct. 4
The first condition is fulfilled. Donating the vaccines is the act. The Netherlands donated vaccines
even though the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs could know that the vaccines were
dangerous, because the vaccine was no longer used in the Netherlands. The Ministry did not tell that
to State B, what makes it an omission.
The second condition is more complicated. It is debatable whether the act or omission is attributable
to the State. To determine whether the act or omission is attributable to the State, you have to take
a point of view. The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs bought the vaccines from a private
company. The company is private what means that they are not under control of the State. This
company is only incorporated in and operating from the Netherlands. Thus, the State of the
Netherlands is not responsible for the deficiency in the vaccines, according to article 8 ASR. This
article specifies that the State is only responsible for the conduct of individuals when the acting
individual are under control of the State. So, this act is not attributable to the State.
On the other point of view, it was the Ministry who donated the vaccines, not the private company.
So, the donation is an act which is attributable to the State.
Also, not telling State B that the vaccines weren’t incomplete is an omission attributable to the State.
The third condition is also fulfilled. The act and omission constitute a breach of international
obligation. The due diligence obligations are violated. The due diligence means that the act has been
done with care and accuracy. The Ministry should do research about the vaccines, before sending
them to State B. They haven’t done it so violated the due diligence obligations.
There are no circumstances precluding wrongfulness according to articles 20 till 26 ASR. 5
In the end there can be doubt about the State responsibility. It depends how you look at the act of
the State. When you argue that the deficiency is the fault of the private company, the State is not
responsible for this act. The private company made the vaccine and is responsible for the deaths.
On the other hand, you can argue that the State could know that there was something wrong with
1
Mr. L, Said. Lecture 2: State responsibility, slide 2
2
A, Henriksen, International Law. Second edition, Oxford; Oxford University Press; 2019, P. 120-121.
3
Mr. L, Said. Lecture 2: State responsibility, slide 3
4
ICJ 29 November 1979, United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v.
Iran)
5
A, Henriksen, International Law. Second edition, Oxford; Oxford University Press; 2019, P. 129.
To answer the question whether the State of the Netherlands is responsible for the deaths in State B,
caused by the donated vaccines, it is important to take a look to international customary law. The
most relevant rules and principles are found in a series of Articles on Responsibility of States for
Internationally Wrongful Acts (ASR) prepared by the International Law Commission (ILC). 1 Even
though the ASR is not a treaty it is still binding for all states, because it is part of international
customary law. These articles are part of secondary law. These secondary rules describe how primary
law is created, interpreted and enforced. 2
Article 2 ASR determines whether the state is responsible. Three cumulative conditions must be
fulfilled3:
1. There is an act or omission.
2. The act or omission is attributable to the State of the Netherlands.
3. The act or omission constitutes a breach of international obligation of the State.
The last two conditions are referred to in the Tehran Hostage case. According to the International
Court of Justice these two elements illustrate wrongful conduct. 4
The first condition is fulfilled. Donating the vaccines is the act. The Netherlands donated vaccines
even though the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs could know that the vaccines were
dangerous, because the vaccine was no longer used in the Netherlands. The Ministry did not tell that
to State B, what makes it an omission.
The second condition is more complicated. It is debatable whether the act or omission is attributable
to the State. To determine whether the act or omission is attributable to the State, you have to take
a point of view. The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs bought the vaccines from a private
company. The company is private what means that they are not under control of the State. This
company is only incorporated in and operating from the Netherlands. Thus, the State of the
Netherlands is not responsible for the deficiency in the vaccines, according to article 8 ASR. This
article specifies that the State is only responsible for the conduct of individuals when the acting
individual are under control of the State. So, this act is not attributable to the State.
On the other point of view, it was the Ministry who donated the vaccines, not the private company.
So, the donation is an act which is attributable to the State.
Also, not telling State B that the vaccines weren’t incomplete is an omission attributable to the State.
The third condition is also fulfilled. The act and omission constitute a breach of international
obligation. The due diligence obligations are violated. The due diligence means that the act has been
done with care and accuracy. The Ministry should do research about the vaccines, before sending
them to State B. They haven’t done it so violated the due diligence obligations.
There are no circumstances precluding wrongfulness according to articles 20 till 26 ASR. 5
In the end there can be doubt about the State responsibility. It depends how you look at the act of
the State. When you argue that the deficiency is the fault of the private company, the State is not
responsible for this act. The private company made the vaccine and is responsible for the deaths.
On the other hand, you can argue that the State could know that there was something wrong with
1
Mr. L, Said. Lecture 2: State responsibility, slide 2
2
A, Henriksen, International Law. Second edition, Oxford; Oxford University Press; 2019, P. 120-121.
3
Mr. L, Said. Lecture 2: State responsibility, slide 3
4
ICJ 29 November 1979, United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v.
Iran)
5
A, Henriksen, International Law. Second edition, Oxford; Oxford University Press; 2019, P. 129.
