 Now that we know which obligation is binding on whom and how to interpret international law, now that we know also which obligation has to be preferred in case of conflicting obligations, let us turn to the issue of the performance of international obligations. What is required in order to duly perform an obligation? It is actually impossible to give a general and abstract answer to that question and one needs to look on a case-by-case basis on each obligation to determine what performing that obligation requires. Moreover, it is often when a breach of the obligation is alleged that the issue of the proper performance of the obligation will arise and it is only then if a breach is found that the proper performance will appear and will appear a contrario. As the International Law Commission has written in its 2001 final report on its draft articles on the responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts and I quote, in some cases precisely defined conduct is expected from the state concerned. In other the obligation only sets a minimum standard above which the state is free to act. Conduct prescribed by an international obligation may involve an act or an omission or a combination of acts and omissions. It may involve the passage of legislation or specific administrative or other action in a given case or even a threat of such action whether or not the threat is carried out or a final judicial decision. It may require the provision of facilities or the taking of precaution or the enforcement of a prohibition. In every case says the ILC it is by comparing the conduct in fact engaged in by the state with the conduct legally prescribed by the international obligation that one can determine whether or not there is a breach of that obligation and of this long quote. It is beyond the scope of this course to detail the various types and characters of international obligations and to see what behavior is required to duly perform each of them. Furthermore one must immediately point to the fact that there is no clear and authorized typology of international obligations with a specific regime attached to each of them and also it is important to realize that the specificities of each treaty prevent any over generalization while the drafters of treaties remain always free to invent obligations and to invent their content. Well this being said let me draw your attention to a few basic recurring distinctions. First of all some obligations may require that a certain result be achieved either through an action or through an abstention. An obligation of result requiring to act would for instance be the obligation by which two neighborly states decide to build a dam on a common watercourse or an obligation by which states have agreed to dismantle certain type and quantities of weapons. In those cases states have undertaken to do a certain thing and that thing has to be achieved for the obligation to be duly performed. An obligation of result requiring an abstention to act can be found in numerous obligations taking the form of a prohibition like the prohibition to use force or the prohibition of torture. In contrast to obligations requiring that a certain result be achieved other obligations only require a certain conduct. In those cases it is the behavior expected which is the object of the obligation rather than its result and for instance the obligation to take all necessary measures to ensure that activities taking place in the territory of the state do not cause any pollution abroad is an obligation requiring a certain conduct rather than a certain result in the sense that it does not require the state to succeed in avoiding pollution. To perform such obligation of conduct the state will have to act with due diligence in the particular case and the obligation to prevent pollution can be fulfilled even if pollution occurs. Likewise states must exercise administrative controls and take the necessary measures over fishing vessels flying their flag in particular in order to ensure that those vessels are not engaged in what is called illegal unreported and unregulated fishing activities in the exclusive economic zones of other states. That obligation is also an obligation of due diligence as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has ruled in April 2015. Obligations to prevent certain outcomes like pollution or even genocide are all obligations of conduct in that sense. Those obligations to prevent are only breached if the outcome to be prevented has occurred. But it is not because it has occurred that the obligation to prevent has been breached. To put it differently the obligation to prevent will only be breached if the outcome that to be prevented has occurred and if the state breached the standard of due diligence required. As the ICJ has put it in the case between Bosnia- Herzegovina and Serbia concerning the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, responsibility for breached of the obligation to prevent genocide, I quote, is incurred if the state manifestly failed to take all measures to prevent genocide which were within its power and with which might have contributed to preventing the genocide, end of quote. The yardstick to assess the state conduct is whether it acted with due diligence which calls for an assessment in concreto. If you turn to human rights obligations most notably to social and economic rights you will see that a trilogy of obligations are usually referred to. It is said that by becoming parties to human rights treaties states assume the obligation to respect, to protect and to fulfill human rights and if you look at the website of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights you will see those obligations defined as follows and I quote, the obligation to respect means that states must refrain from interfering with or curtailing the enjoyment of human rights. The obligation to protect requires states to protect individuals and groups against human rights abuses. The obligation to fulfill means that states must take positive action to facilitate the enjoyment of basic human rights and of quote. Those obligations require negative or positive behavior but they are all they are not all obligations of conduct as defined earlier. The obligation to respect being more of the type of an obligation of result while the obligation to protect and certainly the obligation to fulfill require to act with due diligence. Let me conclude this video by seeing that in many cases the state will need to enact domestic legislation in order to comply with its international obligations and sometimes the enactment of domestic legislation will be a requirement under the obligation itself. It will be a result required by the obligation. For instance under a treaty the state may be bound to criminalize certain acts under its own laws like for instance the financing of terrorism but more generally enacting domestic legislation will not be a specific result required by the international obligation itself but it will be a necessary step to make sure that the obligation is fulfilled and the treaty duly performed. We'll turn soon to the important question of the application of international law in domestic law but before that let us have a closer look at the ICJ judgment in the genocide case that I alluded to earlier in this video.