 As I said earlier, this course concentrates on the international responsibility of states. But when they are endowed with an international legal personality and are therefore legally distinct from their member states, international organizations may also incur responsibility for their own internationally wrongful acts. The rules on the responsibility of international organizations are based, I said, on very similar principles to those applicable to the responsibility of states. And they have been also codified by the International Law Commission. Most notably, organizations are responsible for the conduct of their organs or agents acting in that capacity. As I recalled in the first video of this week, the ILC draft was endorsed by the General Assembly in a resolution adopted in 2011, which took note of the articles on the responsibility of international organizations or ARRIO. I'm not going to survey all those articles, but I would just like to address one issue which touches both on the responsibility of states and on the responsibility of international organizations. On many occasions, international organizations cannot perform their functions by themselves because they do not have enough staff of their own. Member states will then put some of their organs at the disposal of the organization. And this is notably the case of the many peacekeeping operations conducted by the United Nations, and that we shall study during the last week of the course. The UN has no standing army of its own. It must therefore rely on the contribution of member states that are putting some of their own troops at its disposal. In such a situation, who is legally responsible for the wrongful conduct of the peacekeepers? The United Nations? Or the member state? Or both? The issue is far from being theoretical. Take for instance the dramatic events in Cebrenica that I mentioned already in July 1995. A Dutch battalion of the UN peacekeeping operation was present in the surroundings when up to 8,000 Muslim Bosnian men were slaughtered by the Bosnian Serbs. If there had been a wrongful failure to prevent the genocide at Cebrenica, who is to be blamed? Serbia, as we saw. So what about the United Nations, or the Netherlands, who were also present? And the attribution issue under the rules of international responsibility has an immediate bearing on the possibility to bring a claim. Because if the UN is said to be responsible, then the 1946 Convention on UN Privileges and Immunities prevents to bring any claim against the UN in domestic courts. While if the Netherlands is the rightful respondent in a civil claim, the Dutch courts may hear the case. This is very practical. Another example, who is to bear responsibility between the UN, France, Germany or Norway, for not having properly cleared unexploded ordnance on a hill in Kosovo, where local children went to play and died because of an explosion? Is it the UN? Because K4 is ultimately under the command of the Security Council? Or is it any of the contributing states to K4 at the place of the incident? Or again, if the Nepalese troops present with the UN in Haiti in 2010 are indeed at the origin of a cholera outbreak, who should be responsible for it, the UN or Nepal who contribute to troops to the UN mission? It is important to clearly understand that the situation of state organs put at the disposal of an international organization is different from the situation of state organs that are fully integrated in the organization. When state organs are fully surgunded, they are not to be considered as state organs anymore, but as organs of the organization and of the organization only. But this is rarely the case of peacekeeping troops. The soldiers from national contingents are still members of their national armed forces and their state continues to have disciplinary powers and criminal jurisdiction over the members of the national contingents put at the disposal of the UN. But at the same time, those soldiers serve with the UN for a specific mission. The UN has a commanding responsibility, but the soldiers are not fully surgunded to the UN. Article 7 of the articles on the responsibility of international organizations deals with the issue of state organs put at the disposal of an international organization. Under that article, which is said to reflect the current status of international law, two conditions must cumulatively be met for the wrongful conduct of the state organ to be attributed to the organization. The state organ must be put at the disposal of the organization, which means that it must help the organization to fulfill its own functions. And the organization must exercise effective control over that specific conduct. In the absence of effective control by the organization over the conduct of the state organ put at its disposal, such conduct remains attributed to the state. And the conduct is not of the responsibility of the organization. Contrary to what the European Court of Human Rights decided in May 2007 in the Berami and Saramati case versus France, Germany and Norway, the effective control test refers to an actual operation control and it must be preferred to the ultimate control test used by the court, the European Court, in those cases. If the organization does not exercise effective control over the conduct of the state organ put at its disposal, there is no need to ask whether the state itself exercised effective control over the conduct of its organ. And this is because the organ is not fully seconded and it is still an organ of the state. Its conduct is presumed to be the conduct of the state under the rules on attribution codified by Arciois. It is only if it is established that the organization exercised in fact effective control over that conduct that it will be attributed to the organization rather than to the state. But the question is must this choice be so absolute? Must it be attribution either to the state by default or to the organization in case of effective control over the wrongful conduct? Is it not possible that the effective control is exercised in particular circumstances by the organization does not totally displace a national chain of command? And if that is the case would it not be possible to have a double attribution and two responsibilities? This is what the Dutch courts have decided in the Srebrenica case, but the matter remains controversial and still in development. Furthermore, the factual specificities of each case, the content of the agreements that may exist between the landing states and the UN, together with the nature of the obligation allegedly preached that caused the injury. All those elements will have a decisive bearing on the attribution reasoning and the conclusion of any court.