A critical analysis of the work of the ILC on ‘State Succession in Matters of State Responsibility’: A missed opportunity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article examines the recent work of the ILC on ‘Succession of States in Respect of State Responsibility’. While the ILC decided in 2024 to stop working on the topic, the five reports submitted by Special Rapporteur Šturma and the Guidelines provisionally adopted will have a long-lasting impact on state succession scholarship and may influence states in their practice. This article provides a critical analysis of the Guidelines by comparing its content with the Resolution adopted by the Institute of International Law in 2015 on the same issue. It will show that while the solutions which were initially put forward by Special Rapporteur Šturma in his reports followed many of the same features as the Institute’s Resolution, the final version of the Guidelines are significantly different in both content and tone. A major shift occurred when each provision was examined by the Drafting Committee. This is because some ILC members, and many states, rejected any presumption of succession to responsibility. Instead, they favoured the opposite general rule of nonsuccession. As a result, none of the provisions provisionally adopted by the ILC impose any obligations whatsoever on states. They only go so far as to encourage them to reach agreements on matters of succession to responsibility. Ultimately, the Guidelines leave wide open the possibility that a wrong remains unpunished in the context of a succession of states. As such, the Guidelines do little to protect the interests of injured states.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it