According to Black’s Law Dictionary, “state” means the political system of a body of people

who are politically organized, and “responsibility” means that under legal rules, one is liable to
pay compensation in certain eventualities. When these two words are put together, and in
relation to our current topic, “state responsibility” arises when a state is held liable
for breaches of their obligations which is attributable to the state itself, or when a state is held
responsible for direct violations of international law. Basing from the facts given in the case,
Achina will not incur state responsibility for the following reasons.
First, the People’s Republic of Achina is protected under the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity
whereby it cannot be sued without its consent in the courts of another State. This rule is derived
from the principle of sovereign equality of states. And even though this principle is not
absolute, a state can be a subject of lawsuit in different local courts should the same waive its
right against State immunity, instituted said proceedings itself, or when it has a commercial
transaction with private entities. Absent any of the aforementioned circumstances, the defense
of State immunity can be raised by Achina. It is also pertinent to note that the foregoing defense
cannot be applied should the state itself committed acts in its private capacity. However,
noteworthy is the fact that the wildlife market is administered by Mr. Pooh, who I assume is a
private individual who runs the business without an actual involvement by the People’s
Republic of Achina itself.
Second, the valid grounds for filing an action against a state in the international arena are claims
based on commercial activity carried out by a foreign state that has a direct effect in the suing
state, or when there is a non-commercial tort that takes place in the suing state perpetrated by
such foreign government. Howbeit, the aforementioned grounds are absent in the present case.
It was posited that KokoVid-Top1 emerged from the wildlife market administered by Mr. Pooh,
and not from any subdivisions controlled by the Achina itself. Such wildlife market might be
considered as a commercial activity and affected Ritalia, but to reiterate, without sounding
repetitious, the market is under a private individual’s management and not directed by the
People’s Republic of Achina. Hence, Achina cannot be sued nor will incur a state responsibility
in the Commonwealth of Ritalia’s favor. In addition, it has also been stated that Mr. Pooh has
an alleged strong tie with the country’s local leaders. Nonetheless, the aforesaid assertion is
unfounded. Assuming arguendo, should the local leaders be indeed involved with the
transactions in the wildlife market, their alleged actions are not attributable to the state for they
are acting in their private capacities, and not in their public capacities.
Ritalia’s claim that the activities in the wildlife market as administered by Mr. Pooh are
attributable to the Achina government is unwarranted. For the claimed activities in the wildlife
market to be attributable to Achina, its political unit acting in its capacity should commit an
internationally wrongful conduct. In this case, the emersion of the mysterious virus opined to be
transmissible to humans from bats and pangolins might have transpired from the subject
wildlife market, but it is salient to bethink that Mr. Pooh, its administrator, is not an official nor
a representative of the Achina Government. Additionally, Mr. Pooh is not acting under the
direction of the Achina. Reiteratively, Achina can only incur liability for the commission which
can be attributed to it. Since Mr. Pooh’s administration in the wildlife market is not in the
exercise of Achina’s governmental actions nor under the latter’s instructions, such actions are
not attributable to Achina, hence, the same cannot incur state responsibility.
Accordingly, Ritalia's contention that Achina will incur state liability fails to hold water. The
acts of Mr. Pooh's wildlife market can never be held attributable to the Government of Achina
for the former is in no way formally involved with the latter. What Ritalia should focus on is the
building of coalitions in the effort for discovering the vaccine since it is already clear from the
foregoing that the People's Republic of Achina can never incur state responsibility.

Summary of the Argument for the People’s Republic of Achina

The People’s Republic of Achina will not incur state responsibility. State responsibility only arises
when a State is held liable for breaches of their obligations which is attributable to the State itself, or
when a State is held responsible for direct violations of international law. 1 Based on the facts given in
the case, Achina will not incur state responsibility for the following reasons.
First, the People’s Republic of Achina is protected under the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity whereby
it cannot be sued without its consent in the local courts of another State. 2 This rule is derived from the
principle of sovereign equality of States. And even though this principle is not absolute, a State can be
a subject of lawsuits in different municipal courts should the same waive its right against State
immunity, instituted said proceedings itself, or when it has a commercial transaction with private
entities.3 Absent any of the aforementioned circumstances, the defense of State immunity can be raised
by Achina.
Second, some of the valid grounds for filing an action against a State in the international arena are
claims based on commercial activity carried out by a foreign state that has a direct effect in the suing
state, or when there is a non-commercial tort that takes place in the suing state perpetrated by such
foreign government.4 Howbeit, the aforementioned grounds are absent in the present case. The subject
wildlife market might be considered as a commercial activity and affected the Commonwealth of
Ritalia, but such market is under a private individual’s management and not directed by the People’s
Republic of Achina itself. Ritalia’s claim that the activities in the wildlife market as administered by
Mr. Pooh are attributable to the Achina government is unwarranted. For the claimed activities in the
wildlife market to be attributable to Achina, its political unit acting in its capacity should commit an
internationally wrongful conduct.5
Ultimately, Ritalia's contention that Achina will incur state liability fails to hold water. The acts of Mr.
Pooh's wildlife market can never be held attributable to the Government of Achina for the latter is not
officially associated with the former. What Ritalia should focus on is the building of coalitions in the
effort for discovering a vaccine, since it is already clear from the foregoing that the People's Republic

1
Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. Arts. 1 and 2 (2001)
2
D Gaukrodger. Foreign State Immunity and Foreign Government Controlled Investors’. OECD Working Papers on International
Investment (2010)
3
United Nations Convention on the Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property (2005)
4
General exceptions to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state.28 U.S. Code § 1605
5
Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. Art. 4 (2001)
of Achina can never incur state responsibility which is contrary to the Commonwealth of Ritalia’s
assertion.