The Use of the Concept of Unjust Enrichment to Resolve Issues of State Succession to International Responsibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses an aspect of one of the most controversial issues in the field of State succession: whether there is a succession of States to obligations arising from an internationally wrongful act committed by the predecessor State against a third State before the of The aim of this paper is not to provide a comprehensive analysis of the complex and controversial question of State succession to international responsibility. The present article examines the principle of unjust enrichment and its possible use to resolve issues of State succession to international responsibility. To the best of the author's knowledge, this question has not been comprehensively addressed in doctrine. This paper will first critically examine the arguments advanced by scholars for whom the successor State does not take over the obligations arising from internationally wrongful acts committed by the predecessor State before the date of succession. We submit an alternative approach whereby the solution to the question of whether or not the successor State takes over such obligations essentially depends on different factors and circumstances as well as the different types of succession of States involved. The present paper will examine in detail one such relevant factor: whether or not the successor State has unjustly enriched itself as a result of an internationally wrongful act committed before the date of succession. We will examine the content of the general principle of law of unjust enrichment and its use to resolve issues of State succession. This paper will argue that the concept of unjust enrichment is a useful tool to determine whether or not a new State succeeds to any State responsibility of the predecessor State. As a matter of principle, a State (the predecessor or the successor State) which has unjustly enriched itself as a result of an internationally wrongful act committed before the date of succession should provide reparation to the injured third State after the date of succession. Finally, we will examine the concrete application of this principle for different types of succession of States. The present author submits that the concrete application of the concept of unjust enrichment to resolve issues of State succession to international responsibility leads to fair and equitable results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".