text: wrongful act. Therefore, by definition, there was always a legal injury when a rule of international law was breached and it would result from that theory that satisfaction would have to be granted for every single breach. That - 215 -approach did not seem practical, Considering the increashg number of inter-State co-operation agreements and consequently the increasing possibility for technical and bureauaratic violations, it seemed unreasonable each time to ask for satisfaction. In most cases, it was enough for the aggrieved State to remind the other State of its obligation, The article on satiefaction should display some decree of moderation with respect to petty violations of that kind. Satisfaction in the view of these members should be limited to thr:, infringement of the State’s dignity, honour and prestige which gAve an approximate idea of those attributes of a State which could suffer “moral &image”, These members felt that the reference to “legal injury” should, therefore, be deleted. 400, Some members also felt thet the reference to “nominal or punitive clamages~~ should be deleted not only because itgave a punitive character to satisfaction, but also because it was theoretically inconsistent with the very thrj name:? damage not economically assessable. If such damage were assessable, it should be covered by article 8 on reparation by equivalent. It was also suggested that the reference to apologies as a form of satisfaction be changed to “expressions of regreti’ which appeared more feasible. Some members, however, referred to the ruling of the Secretary-Qeneral on thee of 6 July 1986 z1p./ between France and New Zealand in which apologies were recommended and given by France in addition to other forms of satisfaction, 401, According to the Special Rapporteur, the question of “moral and legal injury” was a matter to be considered with the utmost care, particularly in
analysis: The text appears to be discussing international law and the concept of satisfaction in the event of a wrongful act, specifically in the context of inter-State co-operation agreements. It seems to be focused on the theoretical and practical implications of satisfaction, including the types of damages that could be considered and the language used to describe them. This suggests that the category is likely to be related to international law or diplomacy.