Articles

• Cannizzaro, Enzo

Abstract

It is not contended in legal literature and jurisprudence that proportionality constitutes a basic requirement of the unilateral response to wrongful conduct. Still, its role and content in the system of state responsibility remains unclear. In the prevailing opinion, proportionality is viewed as a quantitative link between the wrongful conduct and the response thereto. In a different theoretical perspective, the author suggests that the function of the response must rather be taken into account. However, the analysis of international practice proves the existence of a plurality of instruments and tools of self‐redress, each of them having a proper nature and function. In the second part of the article, it is therefore argued that proportionality should be assessed on the basis of different standards, which correspond to the different functions pursued by countermeasures. A distinction is thus made between countermeasures having respectively normative, retributive, coercive and executive function. In determining the proper function of countermeasures, and, consequently, the standard to be adopted for assessing the proportionality of the response, due consideration must be given to the structure of the breached rule and to the consequences of the breach. The theoretical and practical consequences of this conclusion are dealt with accordingly.