Legislation in all Australian jurisdictions allows courts to award damages either in addition to, or in lieu of, specific performance or an injunction. Although damages awarded under this legislation are sometimes known as ‘equitable damages’, to avoid confusion with equitable compensation, they are called ‘Lord Cairns’ Act damages’ in this book.

Lord Cairns’ Act damages are primarily awarded for proprietary torts such as trespass, and for breaches of contract or negative covenant where no other relief is available (either because it is impossible or for discretionary reasons). Their calculation varies according to the facts of the individual case, and the rules are complex. They have also been awarded for equitable or statutory wrongs, but this is controversial.

As noted in this chapter, the placement of this remedy within a functional structure presents difficulties. Lord Cairns’ Act damages have been said to perform multiple functions including compensation and restitution. Strictly speaking, they do not compel performance, but award money instead. However, because they are a monetarised version of specific relief, they follow specific performance and injunctions for the pragmatic reason that they ‘fit’ best here.

This chapter is concerned with Germany’s stand on State responsibility and liability. It is found that Germany mistakenly attributed acts by the Houthi rebels to the State of Yemen and mistakenly assumed that the Houthi rebels are bound by Yemen’s international human rights obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Further, Germany’s position that Russia is responsible for the use of a chemical weapon in the poisoning of Alexei Nawalny will be addressed. It will be argued that Germany should have cooperated directly with Russia rather than only calling the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Concerning the Federal Parliament’s Scientific Research Services’ assessment on claims against China for damages incurred due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, it will be argued that the only conclusion to be drawn from the report is that legal actions against China must be doomed to failure. Finally, the question will be raised whether Malta apologising for a Maltese ambassador who compared the German Chancellor to Hitler forms a rare example of a formal State apology.

Legislation in all Australian jurisdictions allows courts to award damages in addition to, or in lieu of, specific performance or an injunction. Although these are sometimes called ‘equitable damages’, to avoid confusion with equitable compensation, they are called ‘Lord Cairns’ Act damages’ in this book and i the principles text.

These damages are primarily awarded for proprietary torts such as trespass, and for breaches of negative covenant where no other relief is available. The quantum varies, and the measurement of ‘reasonable fee’ awards in particular is still controversial

The author concludes the volume by reflecting on the interface between philosophy and law, arguing that they are both complementary and interdependent. He shows examples of the legal translation of philosophical principles and stresses the necessity to establish a system of responsibility – that is, a clear system of sanctions – so that philosophical and legal norms do not remain mere gratuitous statements. The chapter reflects on the philosophical foundations of legal responsibility, the historical movement of gradual individualization of responsibility and the shift to joint obligation to respond to collective threats and challenges. It ultimately argues that classical responsibility reduced to an essentially inter-individual relationship is technically very sophisticated, both philosophically and legally, but insufficient to face collective challenges (in particular the environmental crisis).

The rules of state responsibility are set out in the International Law Commission’s (ILC) Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. This chapter introduces the basic features of the ILC’s Articles on State Responsibility, beginning with an explanation of what constitutes an internationally wrongful act. The following section discusses the circumstances precluding wrongfulness that may be invoked by states seeking to avoid responsibility for an internationally wrongful act. The chapter then covers the aftermath of an internationally wrongful act, which can involve legal consequences, such as reparations, as well as countermeasures. This chapter focuses specifically on the responsibility of states, rather than the responsibility of international organizations or individuals.

The rules of state responsibility are set out in the International Law Commission’s (ILC) Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. This chapter introduces the basic features of the ILC’s Articles on State Responsibility, beginning with an explanation of what constitutes an internationally wrongful act. The following section discusses the circumstances precluding wrongfulness that may be invoked by states seeking to avoid responsibility for an internationally wrongful act. The chapter then covers the aftermath of an internationally wrongful act, which can involve legal consequences, such as reparations, as well as countermeasures. This chapter focuses specifically on the responsibility of states, rather than the responsibility of international organizations or individuals.