377. Distinction between claims by way of diplomatic protection and claims for direct injury to the state.

Although on the traditional approach the exercise of diplomatic protection was classically justified on the basis that the state, in taking up the claim of its national, was asserting its own rights1, international judicial practice nevertheless evidences the existence of a distinction between claims made by way of diplomatic protection and claims by a state concerning direct injury caused to it by a breach of international law. In this respect it is necessary to have regard to the nature of the claim as a whole and whether the essential nature of the claim is such that it is brought