2 responsibility of the State has resisted to such an extent the efforts to codify and progressively develop it. 4. Discussion of this topic has followed long and difficult paths.2 In the course of over seven decades of studies on the subject with the aim of codifying it (from the renowned and failed 1930 Hague Codification Conference to date), controversy has persisted regarding various aspects, including the very moment at which the international responsibility of the State arises,3 and there continues to be tension between the bilateralist inter-State vision of juridical relations of responsibility and a vision of the same –which I, personally, share- that also takes into account fundamental or higher values of the international community as a whole. 5. For years, from the start of the 20th century, the legal positivism then prevalent sought to transcend fault or blame (from Roman law) as the basis for international responsibility, by grounding the latter on contradiction of the act or omission attributable to the State with the legal provision. With this, legal positivism –always receptive with respect to dogmatism of State sovereignty- reduced the relationship of responsibility to a matter of reparation of damage, at the level of relations between the State committing the infraction and the victim, without even establishing the intention of the State to cause said damage (as an aggravating circumstance). This hermetic approach became stratified over time. 6. It was necessary to wait several years for new developments in legal doctrine4 to open the path toward a certain “criminalization” of the relationship of responsibility, reducing the space formerly occupied by State voluntarism. Thus –regarding the basis for international responsibility of the State- D. Anzilotti sought to transcend fault or blame;5 decades later, R. Ago sought to do the same with respect to damage;6 as rapporteur for the International Law Commission (ILC) of the United Nations on the issue of international responsibility of the State, R. Ago developed, going beyond previous theoretical models, a gradation of violations of State obligations, which led, in 1976, to his renowned proposal of Article 19 of the State Responsibility Project, including the concept of “international crime” and establishing a distinction between it and “international delict.” 7. The ILC itself, in its comment on the matter, compared adoption of the language that recognized the distinction between both concepts (international crimes 2 . From the writings of D. Anzilotti to the studies and reports by R. Ago (during which time we also find the influential reflections of H. Kelsen, H. Lauterpacht, C.Th. Eustathiades and F. García Amador, among others), and subsequently –in the framework of the International Law Commission of the United Nations- the reports by W. Riphagen, G. Arangio-Ruiz, and J. Crawford. 3 . Cf. A.A. Cançado Trindade, "The Birth of State Responsibility and the Nature of the Local Remedies Rule", 56 Revue de droit international de sciences diplomatiques et politiques (1978) pp. 157-188; and, regarding the implications for implementation of the international responsibility of the State, in the various contexts both of international human rights protection and of diplomatic protection, cf. A.A. Cançado Trindade, The Application of the Rule of Exhaustion of Local Remedies in International Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983, pp. 6-56 and 290-322. 4 . Cf. nota (2), supra. 5 . Cf. D. Anzilotti, Teoría Generale della Responsabilità dello Stato nel Diritto Internazionale, part I, Firenze, F. Lumachi Libr.-Ed., 1902, pp. 25-101. 6 . For the reminiscences of R. Ago regarding his predecessor D. Anzilotti, of the brilliant Italian school of international law, cf. R. Ago, "Rencontres avec Anzilotti", 45 Boletim da Sociedade Brasileira de Direito Internacional (1992) n. 81/83, pp. 17-25.