Responsibility

Abstract

Cities are capable of violating international law as witnessed by international human rights law and international investment law. The traditional approach to violations committed by cities entails that states are held responsible for their territorial subunits. The law of state responsibility becomes applicable as the normative framework and in particular the rule establishing territorial units as state organs. This recognized practice nevertheless overlooks the increased global leverage of cities. More direct forms of responsibility could be contemplated, with either self-standing responsibility of cities or shared responsibility with states offering potential legal avenues. At this stage, both options seem unrealistic due to lack of practice. This has spurred resort to soft and preventive forms of responsibility, including non-legally binding standard-setting and monitoring mechanisms. Such means of accountability complement the hard law of state responsibility in addressing wrongs committed by cities.