DOCTRINE: State Responsibility for action of state actors a state is internationally responsible for acts committed by its

officials or organs outside their competence if the officials or

organs “acted at least to all appearances as competent
officials or organs, or… used powers or methods appropriate
to their official capacity… .”
CAIRE CLAIM CASE
Here, The officers in question … consistently conducted
FRANCE, petitioners, themselves as officers …; in this capacity they began by
vs. exacting the remittance of certain sums of money; they
MEXICO, respondents. continued by having the victim taken to a barracks of the
occupying troops; and it was clearly because of the refusal of
Caire to meet their repeated demands that they finally shot
FACTS: him. Under these circumstances, there remains no doubt
Jean-Baptiste Caire, a French national, was unlawfully shot that, even if they are to be regarded as having acted outside
and killed at an army barracks in Mexico by two Mexican army their competence, which is by no means certain, and even if
officers, a major and a captain aided by a few privates, after their superior officers issued a counter-order, these two
Caire refused a demand by one of the officers to pay a sum of officers have involved the responsibility of the State, in view of
money. This prompted Caire’s widow to sue Mexico for the fact that they acted in their capacity of officers and used
indemnity. the means placed at their disposition by virtue of that capacity.

ISSUE/s of the CASE: Indemnity awarded.

Whether or not Mexico is responsible for actions of individual
military personnel acting without orders or against the wishes
of their commanding officers

HELD:
YES. The French-Mexican Claims Commission held that
Mexico was internationally responsible for the conduct of the
army officers. In this regard, Presiding Commissioner Verzijl
observed that, under the doctrine of objective responsibility
(state responsibility for the acts of state officials or state DOCTRINE: Exhaustion of local remedies
organs even in the absence of “fault” on the part of the state),

Panevezys-Saldutiskis Railway case
ESTONIA, petitioners,
vs.
LITHUANIA, respondents.
FACTS:
A company was founded in constructed and operated a
railway line, a branch of which, from Panevezys to Saldutiskis,
crossed territory which, following World War I and the
upheavals in Russia and the Baltic States, became
Lithuanian. A company founded in Estonia in 1923 and
purporting to be the successor to the Russian company,
claimed compensation for the part of the railway that was in
Lithuania, who’s Government had seized it.
The Estonian Government espoused this claim, and brought it
before the PCIJ relying on Optional Clause declarations made
by the two States.
Lithuania raised two preliminary objections. One was based
on the principle of the nationality of claims, and in particular
on the fact that the Estonian company did not exist at the time
of the taking. The other was based on the fact that local
remedies had not been exhausted.
ISSUE/s of the CASE:
Whether or not, Lithuania is correct in asserting the non-
exhaustion of local remedies doctrine.
HELD:
Before an alien can have his case admitted in International
court must have local remedies exhausted.
These rules require from the States to which they are directed
a particular final result in respect of the treatment of foreign
nationals, leaving the State which is under the obligation free
as regards the means to be used. If an organ of the State
which is under the obligation performs an act contrary to
the desired result, the existence of an internationally
unlawful act and of the international responsibility of the
State cannot be asserted so long as the foreign national
has a possibility of securing, through the means provided
by the municipal legal system, the result required by the
international rule."
In the case Estonian Company has not instituted any legal
proceedings before the Lithuanian courts in order to establish
its title to the Panevezys-Saldutiskis railway. The court
declared the objection regarding the non-exhaustion of the
remedies afforded by municipal law is well founded, and
declares that the claim presented by the Estonian
Government cannot be entertained.