Transformation of the Law of State Responsibility Under International Law

1.传统的国家责任法侧重于国家对在其领土内对外国人造成的损害的责任，因为传统的国际法本身就是资本主义世界市场的法律的催化剂。这项研究调查了在联合国编纂工作期间，这种传统法律转变为国家对一般国际不法行为的责任法的过程。《联合国国家责任法的变革-国家责任法的变革（2）》（Kokusaiho Gaiko Zassi，Vol.91 No.4，1992）考察了1949年至1963年联合国机构审议中国家责任法上述变革的过程和背景。这一转变是第二次世界大战以来国际社会结构性变化的必然结果。为了确保在“分裂的世界”中编纂国家责任法，有人认为，不可避免地要把重点放在与“主要规则”相分离的“次要规则”上，因为各国对这些规则的看法往往严重冲突。“1930年编纂会议上的国家责任法-国家责任法变革的前奏”（见Shoichi Kidana等人，《国际经济法的当代问题》，Toshindo，将于1993年出版）明确指出，虽然1930年会议由于各国对外国人待遇的“主要规则”持对立态度而未能编纂国家责任法，但就“次要规则”达成了广泛的协议，已经有人主张，本会议必须侧重于“次要规则”，以确保在这一法律领域中有条件。

1.The traditional law of State responsibility focussed on the responsibility of State for damage done in its territory to foreigners, because the traditional international law itself was a legal catalyzer for the capitalist world market. This research surveys the process of transformation of such traditional law into the law of State responsibility for international wrongful acts in general of State , during the United Nations codification efforts.2."The Transformation of the Law of State Responsibility at the United nations -- The Transformation of the Law of State Responsibility (2)--"(Kokusaiho Gaiko Zassi, Vol.91 No.4, 1992) examined the process and backgrounds of the above-mentioned transformation of law of State responsibility in the deliberation of the United Nations organs from 1949 to 1963. This transformation was necessitated by a structural change of the international community since the Second World War. In order to secure codification of the law of State responsibility in a "divided world" it was considered inevitable to focus on the "secondary rules" divorced from the "primary rules", on which views of States often conflicted severely."The Law of State Responsibility in the 1930 Codification Conference -- a Plerude for the Transformation of the Law of State Responsibility"(in,Shoichi Kidana, et al., eds, Contemporary Issues of International Economic Law, Toshindo, to be published in 1993) makes it clear that though the 1930 Conference has failed to codify the law of State responsibility because of antagonism of States concerning the "primary rules" on the treatment of foreigners, a wide range of agreement has been established on the "secondary rules", and a view has already been asserted that the Conference has to focus on the "secondary rules" in order to secure condification in this field of law.