The cessation of the unlawful under international law

The obligation to cease a continuing wrongful act in international public law is, traditionally, conceived as a legal consequence of the international responsibility of the State, separate from the obligation to repair the injury caused by a wrongful act. In its 2001 project of codification of the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful act, the International Law Commission has formulated a rule linking the commission of a continuing wrongful act and the obligation to cease it. Still, studying the States practices, one can argue that, in the current state of international law, the obligation of cessation is not always distinct from the obligation to repair when reparation is a restitution in kind. It is also highly difficult to ascertain that a rule does exist, that would link a continuing wrongful act to the creation of an obligation to cease it. This study aims at showing that the traditional notion of cessation actually hides two obligations distinct by nature and at rejecting the notion that the obligation of cessation arises from the commission of a continuing wrongful act. The obligation of cessation, according to the circumstances, can be described either as an obligation of ceasing an illegal situation generally caused by an instantaneous wrongful act, or as an order to cease a behavior, which constitutes a continuing breach of an international obligation, by an international jurisdiction which has the power to order the enforcement of an obligation.