Abstract

This article is a critical reaction to the 2020 EJIL Foreword titled ‘Guiding Principles on Shared Responsibility in International Law’. It focuses on Principle 3, concerning a ‘single internationally wrongful act’, and it is divided into its constitutive elements: the meaning of same conduct (Section 2), the attribution to multiple persons (Section 3), the breach of obligations (Section 4) and the indivisible injury (Section 5). The main criticism is that the Guiding Principles make things more complex than they already are. The established principles of international responsibility provide simpler and more effective answers. This is particularly the case for Principle 3, which concerns multiple responsibilities arising from the same conduct. There are two main elements through which the Guiding Principles on Shared Responsibility seek to provide guidance in the case of a plurality of internationally responsible persons. First, they employ the comprehensive notion of an internationally wrongful act, while ARSIWA and ARIO distinguish between the two elements of attribution of conduct and the breach of an obligation. Second, the Guiding Principles consider the injury to be a constitutive element included in the definition of shared responsibility, while ARSIWA and ARIO only employ it in the context of reparation and countermeasures. There are no actual benefits coming from these attempts of clarification.

中文翻译：

---

重塑方向盘的好处：一项国际不法行为的概念

摘要

本文是对2020年EJIL前言``国际法共同责任指导原则''的重要反应。它着眼于原则3，涉及“单一国际不法行为”，并分为其构成要素：同一行为的含义（第2节），归因于多人的行为（第3节），违反义务的行为（第2节）。 4）和不可分割的伤害（第5节）。主要批评是《指导原则》使事情变得比现在复杂。既定的国际责任原则提供了更简单，更有效的答案。原则3尤其如此，该原则涉及同一行为引起的多重责任。共同责任指导原则旨在通过两个主要要素为多个国际责任人员提供指导。首先，他们采用了国际不法行为的综合概念，而ARSIWA和ARIO则将行为归因和违背义务的两个要素区分开来。其次，《指导原则》认为伤害是共同责任定义中的构成要素，而ARSIWA和ARIO仅在赔偿和对策中使用伤害。这些澄清尝试并没有实际的好处。而ARSIWA和ARIO将行为归因和违背义务的两个要素区分开来。其次，《指导原则》认为伤害是共同责任定义中的构成要素，而ARSIWA和ARIO仅在赔偿和对策中使用伤害。这些澄清的尝试没有任何实际的好处。而ARSIWA和ARIO将行为归因和违背义务的两个要素区分开来。其次，《指导原则》认为伤害是共同责任定义中的构成要素，而ARSIWA和ARIO仅在赔偿和对策中使用伤害。这些澄清的尝试没有任何实际的好处。