Internationally Wrongful Act
An action or omission attributable to a state that breaches an international obligation and causes injury to another state. It triggers state responsibility.
Updated April 23, 2026
How It Works
An internationally wrongful act occurs when a state commits an action or fails to act in a way that violates an international obligation, such as a treaty or customary international law, and this violation causes harm to another state. This act must be attributable to the state, meaning it is carried out by its organs, agents, or entities under its control. The breach triggers state responsibility, obliging the offending state to make reparations or take corrective measures to repair the injury caused.
Why It Matters
Understanding internationally wrongful acts is fundamental to maintaining international order. When states violate their international obligations, it threatens peace, security, and cooperation. The principle of state responsibility ensures there are consequences for breaches, encouraging compliance with international law. It also provides injured states with legal mechanisms to seek remedies, fostering accountability and stability in international relations.
Internationally Wrongful Act vs Act of Aggression
While all acts of aggression are internationally wrongful acts, not all internationally wrongful acts qualify as acts of aggression. An act of aggression specifically refers to the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of another state. In contrast, internationally wrongful acts encompass a broader range of violations, including diplomatic breaches, treaty violations, or economic sanctions that harm another state.
Real-World Examples
A classic example is the 1982 sinking of the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano by the United Kingdom during the Falklands War. Argentina claimed the UK committed an internationally wrongful act by attacking outside the declared exclusion zone. Although contentious, this incident illustrates how acts during conflict can raise questions about state responsibility under international law.
Another example is when a state unlawfully expropriates foreign-owned property without adequate compensation, breaching bilateral investment treaties and causing injury to another state's nationals.
Common Misconceptions
One common misconception is that only direct actions can be internationally wrongful acts. However, omissions—failures to act when there is an obligation to do so—can also constitute wrongful acts if they cause injury. Another misunderstanding is that only states can be responsible, but in international law, only states (not individuals) can commit internationally wrongful acts that trigger state responsibility, although individuals may be held accountable under separate international criminal law frameworks.
What It Means in Practice
When an internationally wrongful act occurs, the injured state may invoke countermeasures, seek diplomatic negotiations, or bring the matter before international courts or arbitration. The responsible state is obligated to cease the wrongful act and make full reparation, which may include restitution, compensation, or satisfaction. This framework helps resolve disputes peacefully and uphold the rule of law among nations.
Example
In 2010, the International Court of Justice found that Serbia committed an internationally wrongful act by failing to prevent and punish genocide in Srebrenica during the Bosnian War.