 The other substantial obligation triggered by the internationally wrongful act and owed by the responsible state is, as article 31, paragraph 1 of Arsiewa recalls, I quote, the obligation to make full reparation for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act. And of course, the duty to make reparation for the injury caused by the violation is probably the most obvious obligation under any regime of responsibility. It is also well established under international law, but it nevertheless deserves a few words of explanation. It is indeed important to understand what is an injury, what making reparation means, and what are the forms by which reparation can be achieved. And let me start with the notion of injury. Article 31, paragraph 2 of Arsiewa says that the injury includes any damage, whether material or moral, caused by the internationally wrongful act of a state. And of course, and this is all good and well, but it is important to realize that under damage, an injury is a legal construct despite its apparent materiality. It is a legal construct for two reasons. First, intrinsically, the injury must concern an interest of the state which is protected under international law. The injury must be about a legally protected interest, a legitimate interest under the law. Under international law, states have basically three legally protected interests. States have a legally protected interest to see their sovereignty respected, to see their property respected, and thirdly, to see that international law is respected in the person of their own nationals. States suffer an injury themselves when the rights of their own nationals are breached, and states may claim reparation in such a case, and doing so is called diplomatic protection and will revert to it later in the course. The injury can be actual or future in the sense that loss of profits can be claimed, provided of course that it is duly established, as required under article 36, paragraph 2 of Arsieois. Second, extrinsically, the damage is also a legal construct because it must be linked by a causal link to the internationally wrongful act. The damage must be caused by the violation, it must result from it. Causality under the law is not the same as material causality in natural sciences. Legal causality results from a human assessment. Domestic laws operate under different theories of causality, and because there are much fewer cases in international law, the theories developed in international law are less refined than in domestic law, but they all refer to the idea of a normal foreseeable cause of events, of proximate cause, and sometimes a difference is made between direct and indirect damage. But whatever the words used, they all express a judgment of reasonableness in the particular circumstances of a case. Human causality is no different from judging how far can humans be held accountable for their acts. And just one example to show you that causality under international law has very little to do with material causality in nature. After the Gulf War of 1991, the United Nations Security Council established a compensation commission called the United Nations Compensation Commission in order to allocate war reparations. Iraq was responsible to make reparations for all the damages resulting from its illegal invasion and occupation of Kuwait, and an important share of its all revenue was allocated to a special fund for that purpose. The UN Compensation Commission decided that the destructions that had been materially caused by the victorious armies that fought against Iraq to liberate Kuwait were to be compensated by Iraq. Those destructions were materially caused by the American, the French, the British or other Allied armies, not by the Iraqi army. Nevertheless, those damages were legally considered to be the result of the illegal invasion for which Iraq was responsible. The causal assessment was as follows. Had there been no illegal invasion, there would have been no Allied military reaction. And it was foreseeable for Iraq that such reaction would take place. And of course, because those destructions were legitimate acts of war, if Iraq did not have to pay for them, no one would bear responsibility and the victims would never be compensated. After the Second World War, exactly the same causal assessment was made by various conciliation commissions. Let us turn now to what making reparation means. In a famous case between Germany and Poland about a factory at Czorzów, the Permanent Court of International Justice famously stated that, I quote, Reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed. And of course, from this dictum it is important to realize that reparation is not about re-establishing the situation which had existed just before the violation occurred. Reparation is not about the status quo ante. Rather, reparation is about re-establishing the situation which would, in all probability, have existed now without the violation. Because reparation is about wiping out all the consequences of the wrongful act, it must aim at establishing at the very moment when reparation is made, establishing the situation which would, in all probability, have existed had the wrongful act not been committed. How can this be achieved? What are the forms of reparation? Under customary international law, and as recalled by article 34 of Arsiois, I quote, Full reparation for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act shall take the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction, either singly or in combination. And of course, the three forms of reparation are restitution, compensation and satisfaction. Depending on the nature and extent of the injury, they may be owed singly or in combination in order to achieve reparation. That is to establish the situation which in all likelihood would have existed if the violation had not occurred. Let us turn to each of those forms now, forms of reparation in the next reading.