For the complete documentation index, see llms.txt.Skip to main content
In international law, countermeasures are acts that would normally be unlawful but are rendered lawful because they are taken in response to a prior internationally wrongful act by another state, with the aim of inducing that state to comply with its obligations. They are a circumstance precluding wrongfulness under the law of state responsibility.
The authoritative framework is the International Law Commission's Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA, 2001), particularly Articles 22 and 49–54. Key requirements include:
Countermeasures are distinct from retorsion (unfriendly but lawful acts, such as recalling an ambassador or imposing visa restrictions) and from sanctions authorised by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII. They are typically self-help measures taken by an injured state, though Article 54 leaves open the contested question of countermeasures by states other than the injured state in response to breaches of erga omnes obligations.
Leading judicial treatment includes the ICJ's Gabčíkovo–Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia, 1997), which set out conditions for lawful countermeasures, and the earlier Air Services Agreement arbitration (United States/France, 1978). In the WTO system, the term is used in a more specific sense under the DSU Article 22 for suspension of concessions authorised by the Dispute Settlement Body.
Countermeasures are self-help acts by an injured state under customary law, while UN sanctions are collective measures authorised by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
No. ARSIWA Article 50 prohibits countermeasures involving the threat or use of force, breaches of human rights, humanitarian obligations, or peremptory norms.
ARSIWA Article 54 leaves the question open. State practice on countermeasures by non-injured states reacting to breaches of erga omnes obligations remains contested.