Introduction

1. The interpretive framework

2. The substantive concept

1 Breaking state accountability down to its conceptual parts

1.1 ‘Accountability’

1.1.1 Linguistic interpretation

1.1.1.1 The difference between accountability and responsibility

1.1.1.2 The relationship between accountability and impunity

1.1.2 A trend toward bottom-up accountability?

1.1.3 Interpreting accountability in the context of human rights

1.1.4 Is there a legal obligation to ensure accountability?

1.1.5 A working understanding of accountability

1.2 The‘state’

1.3 Conclusion

2 State accountability as a conceptual whole

2.1 The scope of the ad hoc accountability practice for analysis

2.2 A tentative set of acountability criteria

2.2.1 Is state accountability associated with criminal accountability?

2.2.2 Is slate accountability associated with state responsibility?

2.2.3 Is state accountability associated with the particular law breached?

2.2.4 Is state accountability solely associated with legal accountability?

2.2.5 Is state accountability associated with political or moral accountability?

2.3 Conclusion

3 The relationship between state accountability and jus cogens norms

3.1 Jus cogens as the link between conceptual state accountability and established international law

3.2 The debate and attempting to define jus cogens

3.2.1 Distinguishing jus cogens norms from standard norms

3.2.2 The source and substance of jus cogens

3.2.3 Are states under a positive duty to comply and ensure compliance with jus cogens norms?

3.2.4 Which norms are jus cogens norms?

3.3 A working definition of jus cogens

3.4 Conclusion

4 The relationship between conceptual state accountability and doctrinal state responsibility

4.1 An introduction to the doctrine of state responsibility

4.2 State responsibility under the ILC'S Draft Articles

4.2.1 Can the international community as a whole invoke state responsibility?

4.2.2 Is state responsibility for violating an erga omnes obligation effectual in terms of holding states accountable for breaching the underlying jus cogens norm?

4.2.3 How effective is reparation under the Draft Articles in holding states accountable?

4.3 Juridical support for state accountability in the context of the state responsibility doctrine

4.4 Conclusion

5 State accountability in state practice

5.1 Setting the scene to analyse state accountability in practice

5.1.1 Who determines whether a state breached international law?

5.1.2 What forms of redress ensure the breaching state is held accountable?

5.1.3 Is state accountability solely a state prerogative?

5.2 Case studies

5.2.1 Armenian massacre 1915

5.2.2 Crimes against humanity by the USSR - Holdomor famine 1933 and the Katyn Forest massacre 1940

5.2.3 Apartheid in South Africa

5.2.4 Comparing responses to state aggresion in the 20th century

5.2.4.1 Invasion of the Republic of Korea 1950

5.2.4.2 Bombing of the Osiraq Nuclear Reactor 1981

5.2.4.3 Invasion of Kuwait 1990

5.2.4.4 Conclusions on the responses to state aggression

5.2.5 Australia’s ‘stolen generation’

5.3 Conclusion

Conclusion: An accountability epoch?

1 State accountability has no normative standing

2 State practice is indicative rather than determinative of state accountability

3 State accountability is a legal， political and moral concept

4 State accountability represents a continuum of answerability

5 State accountability is sought on the basis of a norm’s substance，not its jus cogens status

6 Characteristics of state accountability

6.1 A mix of motivations

6.2 A mix of accountability seekers

6.3 A mix of responses

7 Moving from lex feranda to lex lata?

Bibliography

Index