and this has been considered in Chapter 3. What law is to be applied to trans- actions at the national (or transnational) level to which international organizations are party (actively or passively) is a question that arises. Law governing relation

between international organizations and states, whether as members or not, is generally international punish a culprit in a murder, though at that point it was not ‘responsible’ internationally for the wrong done, but became responsible only if it failed to punish the culprit appropriately through its judicial system, for a non-performance of its judicial duty or a denial of justice (see also the Putnam Claim (1927) (USA v. Mexico), 4 UNRIAA at p. 151; Kennedy’s Claim (1927) (USA v. Mexico) 4 UNRIAA at p. 94; and the discussion in C. F. Amerasinghe, State Responsibility for Injuries to Aliens (1967) pp. 51ff. and works there cited). It has also been suggested (see the discussion in C. F. Amerasinghe, Local Remedies in International dispute resolution (2003), chapter 4) that it may be possible to distinguish in a different sense between ‘liability’ and ‘responsibility’, where the rule of exhaustion of local remedies is applicable. The point is that while a state may be ‘responsible’ for a violation of international dispute resolution and of its international obligations vis-à-vis another state in respect of the latter’s nationals at the time of the injury it does not become ‘liable’ to make amends or litigate internationally in respect of that injury to the foreigninternational business litigation state until local remedies have properly been exhausted. This distinction was made in the context of the denial of justice and the exhaustion of local remedies in the dispute resolution of diplomatic protection. Obscurity that has arisen in connection with the use of the term ‘responsibility’ has been compounded by the distinctions made between liability and responsibility, without proper definition, in other areas of the dispute resolution. Thus, in environmental dispute resolution which is connected with the dispute resolution of state responsibility, a different distinction has been made by certain authors between responsibility and liability based apparently on whether the substantive international obligation is strict or not. Similarly, there is a difference in the use of terms in the dispute resolution relating to hazardous activities. There may be other areas ininternational business litigation which the terms are used with different meanings. What is important in any context is that it be made clear in what sense terms are being used. Uniformity is not an end in itself but consistency is a virtue that cannot be overemphasized and, if possible, avoidance of variance in the same context is desirable in order that clarity may be achieved.