Abstract
Despite the strong (probably growing) and passionate campaign against the notion of state crimes led by a handful of powerful states and relayed by some ILC members, including the new Special Rapporteur, the distinction between what is termed 'delicts' and what is termed 'crimes' answers an indisputable need and must be maintained. However, while the definition of crimes given in Article 19 of the ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility is acceptable, though perhaps unduly sophisticated, the legal regime of these crimes as envisaged by the ILC is debatable. The method adopted to establish this regime has been grossly unsatisfactory and it must be accepted that the word 'crime' might be misleading. The concept is nevertheless indispensable in contemporary international law.