How are Individuals and States Accountable for Committing International Crimes?

State Accountability

The principle of state responsibility has not been regulated or codified in international law or treaties but is binding as a rule of international law on states. The unification of the discussion of state responsibility for international offences and crimes is done because the form of obligations imposed on the state in dealing with both types of international crimes is basically the same.

A state is held responsible for an international criminal offence if it fails to take measures to prevent, investigate, or extradite and punish individual perpetrators of international crimes, such as acts and matters relating to slavery, torture, piracy on the high seas, dangerous crimes on board aircraft, and so on. In this case, the state committed an act against international law that is classified as an international infraction. The state must also be liable for losses suffered by other states for tortious acts that harm other parties and occur within its jurisdiction.

Based on Bassiouni's research, the types of international criminal offences that occur due to very high state involvement are aggression, war crimes, crimes against humanity, illegal use of weapons, genocide, apartheid and mercenarism. States must be held accountable for criminal offences that violate the most fundamental protections of the international community, namely international peace and security.

State responsibility for international criminal offences is grouped into two, namely:

• State responsibility for crimes that are not directly committed by the state (ordinary violations to international crimes), such as international offences and delicts;
• responsibility for international crimes that are planned, willed and committed by the state directly (extra-ordinary violations of international crimes).

The exhaustion of local remedies is a manifestation of state responsibility for international criminal offences.  States are liable for international criminal offences essentially for the exercise of their national jurisdiction, whether on the basis of territorial, active or passive personal, and international criminal principles.

In addition, the implementation of state responsibility through international dispute settlement forums by international institutions or organisations, countermeasures, UN international dispute settlement, and self-defence of a state are regimes of state responsibility for international crimes. 

The form of state responsibility for acts against international law is also through UN international dispute resolution, either by peaceful means, such as the case of "United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran" or violence, such as the case of crimes against humanity and genocide committed by Yugoslavia against the people or civilian population of Kosovo.

Special international or national regulation on state responsibility in international criminal offences is needed considering that international criminal law and other regulations have not confirmed the state as a legal subject so that state responsibility is still not implemented properly. It can also make it easier to resolve problems related to international crimes committed by the full state.