Chapter 5 explores the nature of international economic obligations. It suggests that remedies in international economic regimes have a restorative rather than punitive purpose. It is argued that attribution of breach may not be relevant, or that relevant, in the international economic law context. This study posits that what international courts and tribunals ask is not who is responsible for a breach but rather who is best placed to bear responsibility. In international economic law, shared responsibility typically raises the question of the proper respondent(s).

Contractual remedies protect the aggrieved party's contractual surplus, a compensatory, contextual remedy that addresses major issues of repair.

Common law remedies did not provide adequate compensation for many claimants and they sought a remedy from the King instead. The King had so many cases to hear that he asked the Lord Chancellor to assist. The Lord Chancellor was a man of the Church and so other remedies which were often fairer were granted. One remedy was specific performance which required the defendant to carry out certain duties. It can only be awarded in certain circumstances and will not be awarded when the claimant does not come to court with 'clean' hands which means the claimant must not have behaved improperly to the defendant. Contracts requiring supervision such as employment contracts will not be specifically enforced. Other types of equitable remedy include injunctions which are orders usually forbidding an act to be done which constitutes an infringement of legal rights. Sometimes an interim injunction may be awarded before the final judgment where certain conditios are satisfied.Other equitable remedies include rectification allowing the parties to rectify a contract that does not reflect the true intentions of the parties and rescission which allows a contract to be set aside.