CYIL vol. 12 (2021)

jan ondřej CYIL 12 (2021) such conduct to the host state . The realization of the right to self-defence can be interpreted as an exception to the prohibition of recourse to the armed forces. As stated by Čepelka and David, the primary rules prohibiting force themselves standardize this exception by not applying the prohibition to the case of self-defence. The rules on self-defence thus specify the scope of their own prohibition of force. 54 Conclusion From the point of view of the state’s responsibility for internationally illegal acts, the state is only internationally responsible for its own behaviour, i.e., the behaviour of its bodies. Responsibility may also be invoked by persons acting in fact in the interest of the state who are not its official organs, the so-called de facto organs. The behaviour of its own organs in relation to private persons is also attributable to the state if its bodies neglect the obligation of prevention or repression. Especially problematic from the point of view of the attribution of the state is the situation when there are attacks of terrorists or armed gangs from the territory of the state on the territory of a foreign state. In this context, the question also arises of the application of the doctrine of the reluctance or inability of the “host state” to prevent such attacks. Some of these cases can be attributable to the state, such as in Afghanistan in 2001, when the Taliban government was called upon by Security Council Resolution 1267/1999 to take appropriate effective measures to ensure that the territory under its control is not used for terrorist facilities and camps. In other cases, where the state is willing but unable to prevent such an infringement, because it is unable to control its territory (it does not effectively control it), it is not internationally responsible for such a failure. However, even in cases where the behaviour of non-state actors cannot be attributable to the “host state”, the state concerned may not tolerate the behaviour of terrorists, various armed gangs – non-state actors and may exercise its right to self-defence. From the point of view of the Articles on Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts, the question is to what extent these articles sufficiently respond to cases of responsibility that may arise in connection with the conduct of private individuals.

32

54 ČEPELKA, Č., DAVID, V. Introduction to the theory of international law. Brno, 1983, p. 164.