 Part two of the articles on the responsibility of states for internationally wrongful act is entitled content of the international responsibility of a state. It deals with the new obligations that are owed by the state responsible for an internationally wrongful act and also as we shall see later with certain obligations imposed on the other states following serious violations of international law. As stated in article 29 of Arsiois those new obligations are without prejudice to the duty of the responsible state to continue to perform the primary obligation, the obligation breached. If that obligation of course is still binding on the state. Article 30a of Arsiois deals with the secondary obligation of cessation which is owed by the responsible state if its wrongful act is continuing. Cessation is probably the most immediate and important obligation stemming from any ongoing internationally wrongful act. The obligation that diplomats will want to see achieved as soon as possible and on which they will concentrate all their efforts. Cessation of the ongoing wrongful act seems to be pretty close to simply resuming the obligation of the primary obligation breached. Cessation of the breach and performance of the breach obligation seem to be two sides of the same coin. However, cessation has been identified in practice as a new secondary obligation distinct from the duty to perform the primary obligation and which allows addressing the wrongful act as such. For instance, in the advisory opinion about the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, the International Court of Justice said that Israel was under a duty to seize the construction of the wall and also on the basis of cessation to dismantle the parts of the wall that had already been built. Dismantling the wall is owed by Israel as a matter of cessation because the sheer presence of the wall, not only its ongoing construction. The sheer presence of the wall is a continuing violation of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Respecting that right would however require much more than dismantling the wall. And if Israel were to dismantle the wall it built, this would of course be favorable to the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, but it would be far from equating with full respect for that right. Hence, while Israel must in general respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, it must more specifically seize its wrongful act consisting in building and managing the wall. Cessation as a new obligation stems from the internationally wrongful act and it is owed by the responsible state when that act is continuing, when it is ongoing. There is no exception to the duty to seize ongoing violations. Article 30b of Arsiois adds that the responsible state is under the obligation, I quote, to offer appropriate assurances and guarantees of non-repetition if circumstances so require, that obligation may exist even when the violation has ceased to exist, but it is far from being automatically owed. Knowing when the circumstances require that such assurances and guarantees of non-repetition must be offered is a matter of concrete assessment, the practice being rather scarce in that regard. Assurances and guarantees of non-repetition are often claimed but rarely awarded because international courts and tribunals presume that states will act in good faith in the future and will comply with their obligations. Let us turn now to the obligation to make reparation.