Facts of the Case
‘X’, a citizen of State A, visited State B for tourism. During the visit, local political tensions in State B turned violent. Riots broke out in several cities. In one such incident, a violent mob attacked and killed ‘X’.
The mob consisted of local civilians acting spontaneously. Law enforcement failed to control the situation. Authorities in State B later issued an apology, but offered no compensation to X’s family. State A demanded an explanation and reparations for the wrongful death of its citizen.
Issues of the Case
- Is State B liable under international law for the death of a foreign national within its borders?
- Does the failure to prevent mob violence constitute a breach of State B’s duty?
- What standards determine a state’s responsibility for non-state actors’ actions?
- Can the victim’s home country legally claim compensation or take action?
Principles and Related Case
Under international law, a state holds the responsibility to protect foreign nationals within its territory. This duty arises from customary international law and treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
The key principle in such cases is “due diligence”. A state must exercise reasonable care in protecting all individuals—citizens or foreigners—from harm, especially during civil unrest.
The Neer Claim (U.S.A. v. Mexico, 1926) sets an important precedent. In this case, the tribunal held that a state is internationally liable if its conduct toward a foreign national falls below the international standard of justice. If authorities act negligently or fail to intervene, they violate this standard.
Another relevant case is the Elettronica Sicula (ELSI) Case (U.S. v. Italy, ICJ 1989). Here, the International Court of Justice reiterated that a breach of international law may occur even when harm results from private actors, if the state failed to act with due diligence.
In the present scenario, State B had knowledge of ongoing riots. Authorities failed to impose curfews, disperse violent mobs, or provide safe zones for tourists. The factor in determining liability lies in this lack of preventive action and failure to provide minimum protection.
Judgment
State B bears international responsibility for the death of X. Even though the mob acted independently, State B did not uphold its obligation to maintain public order during a known volatile period.
The law does not demand absolute protection, but it does require reasonable measures. State B had a duty to:
- Warn travelers.
- Secure tourist zones.
- Mobilize police and emergency services.
- Coordinate evacuation plans if needed.
Its inaction represents a breach of its duty of care. Therefore, State A has a valid claim to demand reparations under diplomatic protection. State B must issue formal acknowledgment of the wrongful death, compensate the victim’s family, and ensure institutional reforms to prevent future occurrences.
International legal principles emphasize that states are custodians of safety for all within their jurisdiction. Failure to protect visitors—even during riots—is not excusable under international norms.
