A/80/302 2. Derivative responsibility (complicity) 56. In the context of externalization arrangements where the involvement of the externalizing State is less direct (for example, provision of training and equipment), such State can still incur responsibility for human rights violations committed by third States if it is complicit in these violations under the articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts (chap. IV) and the articles on the responsibility of international organizations (chap. IV). This form of derivative responsibility (complicity) arises when a State or international organization aids, assists, directs or controls another State or organization in the commission of a violation or coerces another State or organization to commit a violation, provided that it does so with knowledge of the circumstances of the act. For this threshold to be met, it must be shown that the assistance contributed significantly, though not decisively, to the commission of the violation. 57. Such assistance as funding or the provision of equipment, surveillance technology or training for border management that results in human rights violations may, under certain conditions, amount to “aid or assistance” under the law of international responsibility. As noted by the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, States that knowingly provide instructions, directions, equipment, training, personnel, financial assistance or intelligence information in support of unlawful prevention operations conducted by third States incur legal responsibility for those violations. 109 According to the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, funding States, by financing and training the very agencies that commit abuses, are potentially aiding and assisting in the loss of life. 110 3. Joint and shared responsibility 58. When externalization measures are implemented by multiple States and international organizations, any resulting human rights violations could be attributed to several actors. In both the articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts (art. 47) and the articles on the responsibility of international organizations (art. 48) and the related commentaries, it is acknowledged that multiple States or international organizations can be responsible for the same violation. “Joint responsibility” of this kind may arise, for example, where the act is attributable to two or more States or international organizations. 59. “Shared responsibility,” which is grounded in the articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts and the articles on the responsibility of international organizations, is a related concept that has been further developed in the guiding principles on shared responsibility in international law. 111 Under those principles, shared responsibility arises when two or more States or international organizations share responsibility for the same violation or multiple violations if they contribute to a single indivisible injury suffered by another actor. The concept of shared responsibility is particularly relevant in multi-actor contexts where more than one State or international organization contributes to a single violation (such as loss of life, refoulement or other human rights violations) but it is not possible to determine each actor’s contribution. __________________ 109 110 111 20/23 A/HRC/37/50, para. 56. A/72/335, para. 37. André Nollkaemper and others, “Guiding principles on shared responsibility in international law”, European Journal of International Law, vol. 31, No. 1 (February 2020), pp. 15–72. 25-12609