ABSTRACT
This chapter considers if and why there would be state or juridical support for state accountability evolving as a legal norm, when an established principle of state responsibility already exists in public international law. There are two objectives here, the fi rst of which is to identify the differences and points of convergence between the doctrine of state responsibility and the concept of state accountability. This task is necessary because at fi rst glance the Chorzów Factory principle that underpins the state responsibility doctrine, whereby a ‘breach of an engagement involves an obligation to make reparation in an adequate form’, already appears to capture the essence of state accountability. The discussion here aims to show that the distinction between the doctrine and a broader concept of state accountability relates to the separate role played by each, in terms of what aspect of international law the state is being made to answer for and the manner in which it is being made to answer. The second objective of this chapter is to determine whether, despite the difference in function, indicators can be identifi ed from within the legal space inhabited by state responsibility that a broader approach to seeking redress from states is juridically viable.
