text: State. Therefore all States would draw, on balance, equal advantages and disadvantages from any rules adopted. 331. A few members did not agree with the Special Rapportcur’s analysis that all States were on an equal footing in matters of remedy. While it was true that on legal grounds States were equal, factually States were not equal. There were States who were capital exporting and those who were capital importing) there were former administering States and former colonies! there were militarily powerful States and weaker States, etc. State practice upon which the Special Rapporteur had relied had grown also in the light of such factual inequalities between States. Thus, formulating abstract rules on reparation on the assumption that States had equal interests might lead to undesirable consequences. 332. The Special Rapporteur stressed in his reply that he had not intended to deny the existence of differences between States due to historical, economic and other factors. He had only meant that the conflicts of interest duo to - 184 -such differences did not affect the choice of secondary rules as nrucir - and a8 directly -as they surely affected choices with regard to primary rules) and equity, which in hi6 view played an implied role in the application of any rule, could surely be invoked in favour of a poor injured or responsible State more than in favour of a rich one. It was also hi8 belief that it was mainly in the area of the primary rules that the vital needs and concerns of the developing countries should be taken into fuller account than had been done 80 far by the developed world. Another matter wae of course the problem of taking account of inequality of might when dealing with countermeafiuree, With regarr3 to the latter it would be indispensable to avoid formulatiny any rules
analysis: The text discusses the equality of states in matters of remedy, highlighting the differences between states in terms of their economic, historical, and military power. The Special Rapporteur emphasizes the need to take into account these differences when formulating rules on reparation, particularly in the area of primary rules. This suggests that the text is related to the concept of international relations and the treatment of developing countries by developed countries.