The recognition of obligations erga omnes constitutes a major development in contemporary international law, fundamentally challenging the classical, bilateral structure of State responsibility. Particularly in the field of human rights, such obligations are owed not to individual States, but to the international community as a whole. A central issue therefore arises as to whether the acknowledgment of obligations erga omnes necessarily entails the conferral of enforcement powers upon non-injured States within the framework of international responsibility.

The 2001 Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) reflect this conceptual shift, while adopting a deliberately cautious approach to implementation. Following the abandoned expansion of the notion of the “injured State” in the 1996 Draft Articles, the International Law Commission introduced a structural distinction between injured and non-injured States. This distinction recognises the legal interest of non-injured States in the observance of obligations erga omnes, whether of a customary or treaty-based character, while intentionally limiting the scope of their enforcement entitlements.

This article contends that Article 54 of ARSIWA should not be construed as a legislative gap or technical shortcoming. Instead, it embodies a form of “normative suspension,” designed to manage the structural tension between the imperative of effective enforcement of fundamental obligations and the systemic risks inherent in decentralised implementation. While this approach does not offer a definitive solution to the enforcement of obligations erga omnes, it establishes a measured equilibrium between community-oriented responsibility and institutional stability, thereby supporting the gradual development of international law in this area.