국제법상 對世的 義務 위반에 대한 ICJ 제소의 原告適格

A breach of international obligations erga omnes (partes) raises some questions including whether a non-injured State may invoke the responsibility of the State that breached such an obligation, and particularly whether the former State may sue the latter at the ICJ. This paper aims at clarifying whether a non-injured State has standing to institute contentious proceedings at the ICJ against the State allegedly responsible for a breach of obligations erga omnes or those erga omnes partes. By an analysis of the ILC’s work and relevant jurisprudence of PCIJ and ICJ, it is claimed that a non-injured State has standing to do so if the obligation breached is established to protect a common interest of the group in question. It seems unclear, however, whether any State other than those injured by a breach of obligations erga omnes has standing as well. Given that the boundary between obligations erga omnes partes and other ones has not yet delimited completely, all States parties to a lot of multilateral treaties seemingly have a common interest in the question of standing in such cases.