The author demonstrates that the issue of the possibility of criminal responsibility of a state for internationally wrongful acts does not have a clear solution in the doctrine of international law. The basis of the contradictions lies in the problem of the possibility of the existence of state guilt, that is, the subjective element of a wrongful act. The article identifies three main theoretical approaches presented in the legal and philosophical literature. In particular, the state-centric approach provides for the possibility of criminal liability of states by analogy with corporations or criminal organizations. It recognizes that the state as a structure does not have its own will, but it embodies the will of its leadership and all citizens, including their inaction, and, as an organized structure, creates opportunities for the implementation of this will. Or, conversely, the state acts as the basis of systemic crime and a criminal environment, it can use the individual (and not vice versa) to commit these acts, and therefore the punishment of the latter does not change the situation and does not prevent subsequent such acts. The differentiated ethical and legal approach to the problem of criminal responsibility of states involves the recognition of the collective guilt of society, and through it – of the state, but takes this responsibility beyond the limits of law. The anthropocentric approach is based on the denial of the possibility of the state having will and guilt, emphasizing the injustice of collective criminal punishments for entire societies, and therefore denies the possibility of criminal responsibility of states. This approach became normative in international law after the adoption in 2001 of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts.

But the purely political circumstances of the consolidation of this approach in the aforementioned document, as well as the current active development of other approaches to this issue indicate a significant potential for the further development of the relevant doctrine.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Bonafè B I, The Relationship Between State and Individual Responsibility for International Crimes (Martinus Nijhoff, 2009).

2. Brownlie I, International Law and the Use of Force by States (Clarendon Press 2002).

3. Fleming S, Leviathan on a Leash. A Theory of State Responsibility (Princeton University Press 2020).

4. Jørgensen N H B, The Responsibility of States for International Crimes (Oxford University Press 2000).

5. Quirico O, International ‘Criminal’ Responsibility Antinomies (Routledge 2019).

6. Sellars K, “Crimes against peace” and international law (Cambridge University Press 2024).

7. Antypenko V, Teoria ugolovnoi otvetstvennosti gosudarstva (Feniks 2016) (in Russian).

8. Vazhna K, Kontseptsia kryminalnoi vidpovidalnosti derzhavy: mozhlyvist realizatsii v suchasnomu mizhnarodnomu pravi (Lira-K 2017) (in Ukrainian). Edited books

9. Caron D, ‘State Crimes: Looking at Municipal Experience with Organizational Crime’, Ragazzi M (ed), International Responsibility Today. Essays in Memory of Oscar Schachter (Martinus Nijhoff 2005) 25.

10. Drumbl M, ‘Collective Responsibility and Postconflict Justice’, T Isaacs, R Vernon (eds), Accountability for collective wrongdoing (Cambridge University Press 2011) 24–25.

11. Isaacs T, ‘Introduction’, T Isaacs, R Vernon (eds), Accountability for collective wrongdoing (Cambridge University Press 2011) 4–5.

12. Nollkaemper A, ‘State responsibility for international crimes: A Review of Principles of Reparation’, A Constantinides, N Zaikos (eds), The diversity of international law: essays in honour of professor Kalliopi K. Koufa (Amsterdam Center for International Law 2009) 491– 495, 508.

13. Rao P S, ‘International Crimes and State Responsibility’, Ragazzi M (ed), International Responsibility Today. Essays in Memory of Oscar Schachter (Martinus Nijhoff 2005) 77, 80.

14. Schabas W A, ‘Nuremberg and Aggressive War’, L N Sadat (еd), Seeking Accountability for the Unlawful Use of Force (Cambridge University Press 2018) 61.Journal articles

15. French P, ‘The Corporation as a Moral Person’ [1979] 16(4) American Philosophical Quarterly 207–215.

16. Kelsen H, ‘Collective and Individual Responsibility in International Law with Particular Regard to the Punishment of War Criminals’ [1943] 31(5) California Law Review 531.

17. Andreichenko S, ‘Doktrynalnyi rozvytok kontseptsii mizhnarodnoi vidpovidalnosti derzhav’ [2019] 23 Naukovi pratsi NU OYuA 9 (in Ukrainian).

18. Hradetska N, ‘Vidpovidalnist derzhavy iak harantia mizhnarodnoho pravoporiadku’ [2023] 3 Pravo ta derzhavne upravlinnia 24–25 (in Ukrainian).

19. Vazhna K, ‘Idea kryminalnoi vidpovidalnosti derzhavy v Komisii mizhnarodnoho prava OON’ [2012] 65 Aktualni problem derzhavy i prava 190 (in Ukrainian).

20. Vazhna K, ‘Zmist kontseptsii kryminalnoi vidpovidalnosti derzhavy’ [2019] 4 Mizhnarodni vidnosyny: teoretyko-praktychni aspekty 129–140 (in Ukrainian).

21. Yaspers K, ‘Do pytannia nimetsloi provyny’ [2020] 28 Ukraina moderna 363 (in Ukrainian). Theses

22. Blazhevych Yu, ‘Vidpovidalnist derzhav za mizhnarodno-protypravni diyannia’ (dys kand yur nauk, 2006) (in Ukrainian). Websites

23. Corporate Criminal Liability in Selected Jurisdictions (Global Legal Research Directorate, The Library of Congress, February 2025) (accessed 27.09.2025).

24. Lauterpacht H, Committee on Crimes Against International Public Order: Punishment of War Crimes (Memorandum 1942) 2–3 (accessed 27.09.2025).

25. Arendt H, ‘Orhanizovana provyna ta universalna vidpovidalnist’ (in Ukrainian).