Abstract
The concept of direction and control within the framework of international state responsibility law, pursuant to Article 17 of the ILC's 2001 Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, necessitates the existence of "actual domination" and "operational direction" by one state over the conduct of another international actor, such that wrongful acts may be attributed to the directing state. However, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in its jurisprudence, has tempered these rigorous criteria by prioritizing human rights protection and victim-centered accountability, adopting more flexible models such as overall control, spatial control, and analogous approaches. The significance of this issue resides in addressing accountability gaps in complex scenarios, including multinational operations, hybrid occupations, and armed conflicts. The article underscores the importance of direction and control in bolstering erga omnes obligations. The principal research question centers on the manner in which the ECtHR adapts the ILC’s criteria to ensure effective human rights safeguards, with the core hypothesis predicated on the ECtHR's flexibility in lowering attribution thresholds. The methodological approach draws on pertinent library-based studies, grounded in a qualitative analysis of key Court judgments and ILC documents. This study concludes that the more pragmatic and adaptable approach of the ECtHR relative to the stringent criteria of the ILC, enhances state responsibility and expands the scope of remedies available to victims.