VII. FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL QUESTIONS 104. Given the questionable legality of the circumstances of the detention of women and children in the al Hol and Roj camps, and given the relationships between European States and the AANES/SDF authorities and the influence European States are able to wield in respect of their nationals in the camps, RSI considers that there are serious questions as to European States’ legal responsibility for violations committed against the detained women and children. In this section, RSI briefly sets out some of the realistic arguments establishing European States’ own legal responsibility for the ongoing detention and intolerable conditions experienced by their nationals in the North East Syria camps so as to underscore the imperative for European action. An exhaustive technical legal analysis of the situation will be provided in the forthcoming report ‘Closing Europe’s Guantanamo,’ due for publication in early 2021. Obligations to Prevent Violations of Fundamental International Norms 105. The fact that the detainees in the camps are within the physical control of the SDF and the AANES does not mean that responsibility as a matter of international law would end with them. The principles of sovereignty and non-intervention which normally prevent foreign States from bearing responsibilities for what is occurring across borders are important, but are far from absolute as a matter of international law, especially where non-State actors and situations of compromised sovereignty are concerned. Basic standards of international humanitarian law justify, and indeed may well demand, intervention from bystander States. Basic norms of international law are binding erga omnes – that is, they are obligations which, as the International Court of Justice has consistently stated ‘[b]y their very nature … are the concern of all States’ and so ‘[i]n view of the importance of the rights involved, all States can be held to have a legal interest in their protection.’94 106. States not only have a legal interest in the protection of these basic norms, they are also expected to comply with them. As a matter of international law generally, the International Court of Justice has noted that, once a situation has been determined to constitute a serious breach of international law, that situation ‘cannot remain without consequence’ and so ‘there is an obligation [upon States] to bring that situation to an end.’95 The International Law Commission – the most authoritative body of international legal experts tasked with codifying international law – has reiterated this obligation in Article 41 of the Articles on State Responsibility,96 which have been repeatedly endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly.97 107. Where serious violations of international humanitarian law are concerned, customary international law98 and Common Article 1 to the Geneva Conventions (to which all States are signatories) oblige States to refrain from encouraging violations of international humanitarian law by any party to an armed conflict, and also positively require States to exert their influence, to the degree possible, to bring violations of international humanitarian law 40 RIGHTS & SECURITY INTERNATIONAL