The Subjects of International Law

Introduction

The Subjects of International Law asks who can hold rights, carry obligations, exercise powers, and take part in legal procedures at the international level. The question is practical, not semantic. A rule on aggression, a human rights treaty, a claim for immunity, a boundary dispute, or an indictment for war crimes has legal meaning only when the law can identify the entity entitled to act or required to answer.

Classical doctrine placed states at the centre. They made treaties, exchanged diplomats, controlled territory, claimed reparations, incurred responsibility, and appeared before international courts. That position still matters. States retain the widest legal capacity in public international law: they create rules, invoke responsibility, exercise jurisdiction, claim immunities, and appear as parties in contentious cases before the International Court of Justice (Crawford, 2006; Klabbers, 2024).

Modern doctrine is broader, but it is not unlimited. The International Court of Justice confirmed in Reparation for Injuries that the United Nations possessed international legal personality, while also making clear that an international organization does not have the same legal nature or range of powers as a state (International Court of Justice, 1949). The point is central to the whole subject. International legal personality is not a uniform status. It varies according to the source of the rule, the function of the entity, and the legal consequence at issue.

Individuals also changed the older state-centred picture. Human rights law gives persons direct protection under international instruments. International criminal law imposes direct responsibility for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. Refugee law, consular law, regional human rights systems, and international administrative tribunals add further examples of individual capacity. Still, individual status remains limited. A person may hold a right under international law and lack access to a particular international court (Higgins, 1994; Peters, 2016).

The same care is needed when examining people, Indigenous peoples, corporations, armed groups, non-governmental organizations, cities, and special entities such as the Holy See or the International Committee of the Red Cross. These categories do not fit the older model, but they should not be forced into a single group of “new subjects.” People may hold a collective right to self-determination. Indigenous peoples may hold rights linked to land, culture, resources, consultation, and self-government. Corporations may receive treaty-based standing in investment arbitration. Armed groups may be bound by humanitarian law. NGOs may shape evidence, advocacy, and treaty processes without acquiring full legal personality.

This article treats subjecthood as a graduated doctrine. The better question is not simply, “Who is a subject?” The more accurate question is: what capacity does the entity possess, under which rule, for what purpose, and before which institution? That approach avoids two errors. The first reduces international law to states alone. The second treats influence as a legal personality. A multinational company, a city network, or a human rights organization may affect international practice, but influence by itself does not have a legal status.

The analysis follows a distinction between subjects, actors, and participants. A subject holds rights, duties, powers, immunities, responsibilities, or standing under international law. An actor may influence international relations or legal development. A participant may contribute to monitoring, litigation, compliance, advocacy, or standard-setting. These roles can overlap, but they are not identical (Higgins, 1994; Portmann, 2010).

The article begins with the doctrine of international legal personality and the tests used to identify it. It then examines states as full subjects, international organizations as functional subjects, individuals as holders of limited but direct rights and duties, and collective entities such as peoples and Indigenous peoples. It also addresses corporations, NGOs, armed groups, cities, special historical entities, and disputed cases of statehood. The aim is to give readers a precise legal map: who counts, for what purpose, and with what consequences under public international law.

1. The Subjects of International Law as a Doctrine

The doctrine of subjecthood explains how international law allocates legal capacity. It identifies who can hold rights, carry obligations, exercise powers, claim protection, incur responsibility, or participate in international procedures. The question is not which entities are politically important. The question is which entities international law recognizes for a specific legal purpose.

This distinction matters because the international legal order does not treat every entity in the same way. States have the broadest legal capacity. International organizations may act internationally when their functions require it. Individuals can hold rights under human rights law and face responsibility under international criminal law. Other entities, including Indigenous peoples, corporations, armed groups, and non-governmental organizations, may have narrower roles that depend on the relevant rule or institution.

The older view, which treated states as the only real subjects of international law, no longer explains the field accurately. It ignores the development of international organizations, human rights law, international criminal law, investment law, humanitarian law, and self-determination. At the same time, it would be equally wrong to treat every influential actor as a subject. Influence is not the same as legal personality. A private corporation, a city network, or a human rights organization may shape international practice, but that does not automatically give it full international legal status.

A more precise approach treats international legal personality as a matter of degree. The relevant question is not simply, “Is this entity a subject?” The better question is: what legal capacity does the entity have, under which rule, for what purpose, and before which institution? This approach reflects the reasoning of the International Court of Justice in Reparation for Injuries, where the Court recognized the legal personality of the United Nations but did not equate it with the personality of a state (International Court of Justice, 1949).

1.1 Subjects, actors, and participants

A subject of international law is an entity capable of holding rights or obligations under international law. That definition is simple, but its application is often complex. A state, for example, can conclude treaties, claim immunity, bring a case before the International Court of Justice, and incur responsibility for an internationally wrongful act. An individual may hold rights under a human rights treaty, but cannot bring a contentious case before the International Court of Justice. A corporation may bring an investment claim where a treaty allows it, but it does not possess the general legal capacity of a state.

An actor is broader than a subject. Actors influence international relations and legal development. States, international organizations, corporations, NGOs, expert bodies, armed groups, and city networks may all act in ways that affect international law. Yet their influence does not always translate into direct legal personality.

A participant has an even more specific role. A participant may contribute to law-making, monitoring, fact-finding, litigation, advocacy, or compliance without holding full subjecthood. NGOs often fall into this category. They may submit reports, assist victims, provide evidence, and influence treaty negotiations, but their legal standing remains limited and usually depends on institutional rules.

The distinction between subjects, actors, and participants prevents doctrinal confusion. It allows the article to recognize the real complexity of modern international law without losing legal precision.

1.2 Personality and legal capacity

International legal personality means capacity under international law. It is not a symbolic label. It has practical consequences. It determines who may make legal claims, who may be responsible for a breach, who may receive reparation, who may invoke immunity, and who may appear before an international body.

Legal capacity can take different forms. Treaty-making power is one form. Procedural standing is another. The ability to incur responsibility is another. Immunity, claim-making, reparation, and direct rights are also separate capacities. An entity may possess one of these capacities without possessing all of them.

This is why subjecthood should not be treated as an all-or-nothing question. States possess a general legal personality. International organizations possess a personality linked to their functions. Individuals possess direct rights and duties in specific fields. Corporations may receive procedural rights under investment treaties. Armed groups may bear obligations under humanitarian law. Each case requires attention to the source of the rule and the legal consequence being claimed.

1.3 Full, functional, and limited personality

The strongest category is full personality. States belong in this group because they possess the widest range of international capacities. They can conclude treaties, exercise jurisdiction, maintain diplomatic relations, enjoy sovereign immunity, incur responsibility, make international claims, and appear as parties before the International Court of Justice.

International organizations usually have a functional personality. Their powers are not sovereign. They depend on their constituent instruments, implied powers, institutional practice, and assigned purposes. The United Nations is the clearest example. It has an international personality because it must act on the international plane to perform its functions, but its personality is different in nature and scope from that of a state (International Court of Justice, 1949; Klabbers, 2024).

Limited personality describes entities that hold direct rights, duties, or procedural capacities only in certain regimes. Individuals, Indigenous peoples, corporations, investors, and organized armed groups may fall within this category depending on the legal context. The category is useful because it avoids exaggeration. It recognizes legal capacity without pretending that all entities have the same status.

Special personality covers exceptional entities whose position rests on history, recognition, treaty practice, or unique functions. The Holy See, the Sovereign Order of Malta, and the International Committee of the Red Cross require separate treatment because they do not fit neatly into ordinary statehood or organization doctrine.

1.4 A test for identifying subjecthood

A serious analysis of subjecthood should apply a practical test. The first question is whether a rule of international law gives the entity direct rights or obligations. That rule may come from a treaty, custom, a general principle, an institutional instrument, or a binding decision.

The second question is whether the entity can act internationally without depending entirely on a state. This may include treaty-making, institutional participation, international claims, or the performance of functions recognized by international law.

The third question is whether the entity can bring or face an international claim. Standing is important, but it must be assessed carefully. A person may hold a right under international law and still lack access to a particular court. A corporation may sue a state under an investment treaty, but only where the state has consented to that procedure.

The fourth question is whether the entity can incur responsibility under international law. States and international organizations can incur responsibility for internationally wrongful acts. Individuals can incur responsibility under international criminal law. Armed groups may be bound by humanitarian law, although the precise consequences of breach may vary.

The final question is the scope of the capacity. Is it general, functional, limited, special, or exceptional? This final step is essential. It prevents the analysis from overstating the status of entities that possess only narrow rights or obligations.

2. States as Full Subjects

States remain the central subjects of international law. They possess the broadest legal capacity and continue to structure the international legal system. They make treaties, maintain diplomatic relations, exercise jurisdiction, claim immunity, incur responsibility, participate in international organizations, and appear in contentious cases before the International Court of Justice.

This does not mean that states are the only subjects of international law. Modern international law recognizes other entities for specific purposes. Still, no other category has the same general capacity. International organizations depend on their functions. Individuals depend on specific regimes. Corporations and armed groups have narrower forms of capacity. States, by contrast, possess a general personality.

Statehood is also the gateway to many core legal consequences. A state may become a party to multilateral treaties, join the United Nations, invoke the responsibility of another state, claim sovereign equality, control nationality, and exercise territorial jurisdiction. It may also be bound by duties under human rights law, environmental law, humanitarian law, diplomatic law, the law of the sea, and the prohibition on the use of force.

2.1 Statehood criteria

The classic criteria for statehood are usually drawn from the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. Article 1 refers to a permanent population, a defined territory, government, and capacity to enter into relations with other states (Montevideo Convention, 1933). These criteria remain influential because they provide a structured way to assess statehood.

They are not mechanical, however. Statehood is not decided by a checklist alone. Effectiveness, recognition, legality, self-determination, territorial integrity, and institutional practice may all affect the legal analysis. This is why contested cases, such as Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan, Somaliland, and Northern Cyprus, cannot be resolved by formulaic reasoning.

2.1.1 Permanent population

A state requires a stable human community. The population does not need to be large. It does not need to be ethnically uniform, linguistically unified, or politically harmonious. International law does not impose a minimum population threshold.

The requirement points to a basic idea: a state is not merely land, administration, or diplomatic recognition. It is a territorial and political order connected to a human community. That community may be diverse, divided, mobile, or affected by migration, but it must have enough stability to support the existence of a state.

2.1.2 Defined territory

A state must have a territorial base. The territory does not need to be perfectly delimited. Many states have existed despite boundary disputes, contested frontiers, or unresolved maritime claims. A border dispute does not, by itself, destroy statehood.

The legal question is whether the entity has a sufficiently identifiable territory over which public authority may operate. The requirement protects the distinction between a state and a government-in-exile, a political movement, an international organization, or a private association.

Territory also connects statehood to jurisdiction. A state exercises authority primarily within its territory. It controls entry, applies domestic law, regulates resources, and performs public functions. International law then limits that authority through duties concerning human rights, diplomatic protection, environmental harm, self-determination, and the use of force.

2.1.3 Government

A state normally requires a government capable of exercising public authority. This includes maintaining order, representing the state, administering institutions, and carrying out basic functions. Effectiveness matters because international law must identify who can act for the state and who can be held responsible for its conduct.

The requirement must be applied with caution. States do not lose their legal personality simply because they face civil war, occupation, institutional collapse, or temporary loss of control. State continuity is a strong principle in international law. A weak or disrupted government may create practical problems, but it does not automatically extinguish the state.

This distinction is important in cases of occupation, failed institutions, or competing authorities. The state may continue to exist even when the government is contested or unable to exercise effective control over the whole territory. The legal personality of the state is not the same as the political stability of its government.

2.1.4 Capacity for external relations

The fourth criterion is the capacity to enter into relations with other states. This includes treaty-making, diplomatic relations, participation in international organizations, representation abroad, and the ability to assume international obligations.

This criterion is partly a consequence of statehood and partly evidence of it. An entity that can maintain stable external relations is more likely to be treated as a state in practice. Yet external capacity also depends on recognition, political circumstances, institutional admission, and the willingness of other states to engage.

The criterion should not be confused with actual recognition by every state. No state needs universal recognition to exist. Many states have operated despite limited or contested recognition. What matters is whether the entity has the legal and practical capacity to act internationally as an independent political unit.

2.2 Sovereign equality

Sovereign equality is the legal principle that all states have equal juridical status. It does not mean that all states have equal military, economic, demographic, or diplomatic power. It means that each state has equal standing as a legal person under international law.

This principle supports treaty consent, non-intervention, jurisdictional equality, diplomatic relations, immunities, voting in many international institutions, and the formal equality of states before international law. A small island state and a major power are unequal in political influence, but they are equal in legal personality.

Sovereign equality also has limits. It does not give states a right to violate peremptory norms, annex territory by force, commit genocide, deny self-determination, or disregard binding obligations. Modern international law preserves sovereign equality while restricting the uses of sovereign power.

2.3 State powers and state duties

States hold extensive powers under international law. They may exercise territorial jurisdiction, regulate nationality, conclude treaties, maintain diplomatic missions, control borders, manage natural resources, and participate in international institutions. They may also invoke responsibility when another state breaches an international obligation.

Those powers exist alongside duties. States must refrain from the threat or use of force, respect treaty obligations, protect diplomatic missions, comply with humanitarian law, observe human rights commitments, prevent certain transboundary harms, and respect the rights of other states. They may also owe obligations to the international community as a whole, especially where peremptory norms or erga omnes obligations are involved.

A serious account of state subjecthood must keep both sides together. States are not only holders of power. They are also bearers of legal restraint. Their centrality in international law comes precisely from this combination of capacity and responsibility.

2.4 State continuity

State continuity means that the state normally survives changes in government, constitutional structure, political regime, territory, or internal stability. A revolution, coup, election, civil war, occupation, or constitutional crisis does not usually create a new state.

This principle gives international law stability. Treaties, debts, claims, memberships, nationality rules, boundaries, and responsibility cannot disappear every time a government changes. The state remains a legal person, even when its government is replaced or contested.

Continuity also helps separate legal personality from legitimacy. A government may lack democratic legitimacy, violate constitutional law, or face non-recognition. Those problems may affect representation, diplomatic relations, or institutional participation, but they do not necessarily end the state itself.

2.5 State succession

State succession concerns the legal consequences of major territorial or political change. It may arise through dissolution, separation, merger, absorption, independence, or transfer of territory. The issue is not merely historical. It affects treaties, state property, archives, debts, nationality, membership in international organizations, and sometimes responsibility.

Examples such as the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and South Sudan show that succession is rarely simple. Some cases involve continuity of one state and succession by others. Some involve dissolution. Others involve negotiated separation. The legal consequences depend on the facts, the agreements between the parties, institutional practice, and the relevant treaty rules.

Succession also shows why state personality is not only about birth. International law must also manage transformation. When states divide, merge, or lose territory, the law must decide which obligations continue, which claims survive, which treaties remain in force, and which entity represents the prior legal person.

3. Recognition and Contested Statehood

Recognition is one of the most difficult areas in the law of statehood because it sits between legal doctrine and political judgment. It affects diplomatic relations, treaty practice, immunity, participation in international organizations, access to courts, and the practical operation of legal status. Yet recognition does not work like a magic formula. It does not automatically create a state where the legal conditions for statehood are absent.

The safer view is that recognition has evidential and practical force. It confirms that other states are willing to treat an entity as a state. It may open diplomatic channels, support treaty relations, and make international participation possible. Still, the existence of a state must be assessed by reference to legal criteria, effectiveness, independence, territorial authority, and the broader rules of international law (Crawford, 2006; Shaw, 2021).

The difficulty appears most clearly in contested cases. Some entities control territory but receive little recognition. Others receive substantial recognition but face serious questions about territorial control, independence, or institutional admission. Some situations are affected by illegality, especially where territorial change follows aggression, unlawful annexation, or the denial of self-determination. In those cases, recognition is not only a political act. It may become legally restricted.

3.1 Declaratory recognition

The declaratory theory treats recognition as confirmation of an existing legal situation. Under this view, an entity becomes a state when it satisfies the criteria of statehood. Recognition by other states may provide evidence of that status, but it does not create the status itself.

This view protects legal objectivity. If statehood depended entirely on the political will of existing states, powerful states could decide who to admit to the international legal order based on convenience rather than law. The declaratory approach limits that problem by focusing on population, territory, government, independence, and external capacity.

The Montevideo Convention reflects this logic. Article 3 states that the political existence of a state is independent of recognition by other states (Montevideo Convention, 1933). Although the Convention is regional, its formulation has influenced general discussions of statehood because it separates legal existence from diplomatic acceptance.

The declaratory theory also explains why a state may exist despite partial recognition. No state needs universal recognition to function as a legal person. Many states have faced non-recognition by some governments while still taking part in treaties, diplomacy, and international institutions. Recognition matters, but it is not the whole test.

3.2 Constitutive recognition

The constitutive theory takes the opposite starting point. It argues that an entity becomes a state, at least in legal relations with others, only when existing states recognize it. This view reflects a practical reality: statehood without recognition may have little operational value.

An unrecognized entity may struggle to join international organizations, conclude treaties, open embassies, obtain immunities, access international courts, or participate in multilateral systems. In that sense, recognition can make statehood effective, even if it does not create all the legal facts behind it.

The constitutive view explains some hard cases better than a purely declaratory model. An entity may satisfy several factual criteria, yet remain excluded from much of international life because other states refuse recognition. Somaliland is often used as an example. It has maintained a high degree of internal effectiveness, but the absence of broad recognition has severely limited its international legal operation.

The weakness of the constitutive theory is its dependence on political choice. If recognition alone created statehood, the legal order would give existing states excessive control over the personality of new entities. That would make statehood vulnerable to strategic denial, geopolitical bargaining, and selective recognition. For that reason, modern doctrine usually treats recognition as important, but not conclusive.

3.3 Premature recognition

Premature recognition occurs when a state recognizes an entity before it has achieved the legal conditions required for statehood. The legal risk is serious. Recognition may interfere in an internal conflict, support secession before the territorial situation is settled, or undermine the territorial integrity of an existing state.

The problem is not recognition itself. States may recognize new states when the legal and factual basis is sufficiently clear. The problem arises when recognition is used to influence the outcome of a conflict rather than to acknowledge an established legal situation. In that case, recognition may breach the principle of non-intervention.

Civil war makes the issue especially delicate. A secessionist movement may claim independence while the parent state still asserts territorial authority. Recognition at that stage can shift the balance of conflict. It may strengthen one side, weaken negotiations, and create facts on the ground before statehood is legally settled.

Premature recognition also damages legal consistency. If states recognize entities selectively, based on strategic interest, the doctrine of statehood loses credibility. This is why recognition must be assessed with attention to effectiveness, independence, self-determination, territorial integrity, and any relevant illegality.

3.4 Non-recognition duties

International law may require states not to recognize certain situations as lawful. This is different from choosing not to recognize an entity as a matter of policy. A duty of non-recognition arises when the situation results from a serious breach of fundamental rules, such as aggression, unlawful annexation, apartheid, or the denial of self-determination.

The International Court of Justice gave an important statement of this principle in the Namibia advisory opinion. The Court held that states had a duty not to recognize South Africa’s continued presence in Namibia as lawful and not to assist in maintaining that illegal situation (International Court of Justice, 1971). The same logic appears in the law of state responsibility, especially where serious breaches of peremptory norms are involved (International Law Commission, 2001).

Northern Cyprus is a major example. After the Turkish intervention and the declaration of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus,” the Security Council called upon states not to recognize the entity. The issue was not merely lack of recognition. It was non-recognition linked to the protection of territorial integrity and the rejection of an unlawful situation (UN Security Council, 1983; UN Security Council, 1984).

Crimea raises a similar structure of analysis. The attempted annexation by the Russian Federation was widely rejected as contrary to the prohibition on the use of force and the territorial integrity of Ukraine. The legal issue is not only who controls the territory in fact. It is also whether other states may treat the territorial change as lawful (UN General Assembly, 2014).

Non-recognition duties show that statehood cannot be separated from legality. Effectiveness matters, but it is not always enough. International law does not reward every successful seizure of territory with legal acceptance.

3.5 Hard cases

Kosovo illustrates the difference between a declaration of independence and statehood. In its 2010 advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice concluded that Kosovo’s declaration of independence did not violate general international law. The Court did not decide that Kosovo was a state, nor did it impose a duty on other states to recognize it (International Court of Justice, 2010). The opinion is often overstated. Its central value lies in what it refused to decide.

Palestine raises a different problem. It has received extensive recognition, participates in many international instruments, and holds non-member observer state status at the United Nations. It has also been treated as capable of accepting jurisdiction under the Rome Statute in the context of the International Criminal Court. Yet its statehood remains contested because of occupation, divided governance, territorial fragmentation, and the absence of full United Nations membership (UN General Assembly, 2012; International Criminal Court, 2021).

Taiwan presents another kind of tension. It has a defined territory, a permanent population, effective institutions, and substantial external economic relations. Its formal diplomatic recognition remains limited because of the position of the People’s Republic of China and the policies adopted by many states. Taiwan shows the gap between factual capacity and formal diplomatic status.

Somaliland shows that effectiveness alone may not be enough. It has maintained institutions and territorial control for decades, but broad recognition has not followed. The case demonstrates how regional practice, African Union concerns about borders, and fears of encouraging secession can limit the legal effects of effectiveness.

Northern Cyprus shows the opposite problem: an entity may have institutions and territorial control, but non-recognition may be legally required because of the circumstances in which the entity emerged. This case is essential because it proves that statehood analysis cannot ignore illegality.

These examples should not be treated as political comparisons. Each one tests a different legal issue: effectiveness, recognition, institutional participation, occupation, unlawful force, territorial integrity, and self-determination. A serious analysis of contested statehood must keep those issues separate.

4. Governments and State Organs

The state and the government are not the same legal concept. The state is an international legal person. The government is the authority that represents it, acts for it, and exercises its public functions. A government may change, collapse, lose legitimacy, or face armed opposition while the state continues to exist.

This distinction is essential for legal stability. If every revolution, coup, election, civil war, or constitutional crisis created a new state, treaties, debts, borders, nationality, responsibility, and membership in international organizations would become unstable. International law avoids that result by preserving the continuity of the state while treating governments as changing authorities.

The distinction also affects responsibility. A state cannot act physically on its own. It acts through organs, officials, agencies, armed forces, courts, police, and other public authorities. The law of attribution connects those acts to the state. Without attribution, state responsibility would remain abstract.

4.1 Recognition of governments

Recognition of governments has become more cautious than recognition of states. Many states avoid formal recognition of governments and instead deal with whoever exercises effective authority. This practice reduces the risk of appearing to approve coups, unconstitutional transfers of power, or contested regimes.

The legal problem is practical. Other states must know who can sign treaties, control embassies, represent the state in international organizations, access state assets, and speak on behalf of the state. Effectiveness matters because international relations require an authority capable of acting.

Legitimacy still matters in some contexts. A government that comes to power through a coup, mass repression, foreign intervention, or serious constitutional violation may face diplomatic isolation, sanctions, or refusal of credentials in international organizations. Yet those measures usually affect representation, not the existence of the state itself.

Credentials disputes at the United Nations show the institutional side of the problem. When rival authorities claim to represent the same state, international organizations may have to decide which delegation is accepted. That decision can have major legal effects, even when it is framed as procedural rather than as formal recognition of a government.

Civil war adds another layer. A government may control the capital but not the whole territory. A rival authority may control territory but lack recognition. External states may maintain contact with both for humanitarian, diplomatic, or security reasons. Those contacts do not necessarily amount to recognition.

4.2 Organs and attribution

Attribution determines when conduct is treated as an act of the state. It is central to the connection between state subjecthood and state responsibility. A state may be responsible for conduct carried out by its organs, even when those organs exceed authority or violate instructions (International Law Commission, 2001).

State organs include legislatures, courts, ministries, armed forces, police bodies, intelligence services, local authorities, and officials acting in an official capacity. The form of the organ is not decisive. What matters is its status under domestic law or its function as part of the state structure.

Attribution may also arise when an entity is empowered by domestic law to exercise public authority. A private company running a prison, a security contractor performing delegated public functions, or a state-owned enterprise exercising governmental powers may, in some circumstances, generate state responsibility.

Direction and control are also relevant. If private actors or armed groups act under the instruction, direction, or control of a state, their conduct may be attributed to that state. The exact threshold is demanding, and international courts have not always expressed it in identical terms. The central point remains clear: a state cannot avoid responsibility merely by acting through intermediaries.

A state may also adopt conduct after the fact. If the state acknowledges and accepts private conduct as its own, attribution may follow. This prevents governments from benefiting from unlawful conduct while denying responsibility for the actors who carried it out.

4.3 Officials and immunity

Officials are not states, but their conduct may be treated as state conduct. A foreign minister, ambassador, soldier, judge, police officer, or head of state may act as an organ of the state. When the official acts in that capacity, the conduct may engage the responsibility of the state.

Immunity protects certain officials from foreign jurisdiction. Personal immunity attaches to a limited group of high-ranking officials while they hold office, especially heads of state, heads of government, and foreign ministers. It protects them even in relation to private acts during their term, because the purpose is to allow the state to conduct international relations without interference (International Court of Justice, 2002).

Functional immunity is different. It protects official acts after the official has left office, because those acts are treated as acts of the state. The logic is that a foreign court should not indirectly judge one state by prosecuting its former official for conduct performed in an official capacity.

The tension appears in cases involving international crimes. Modern international criminal law rejects official capacity as a defence before international criminal tribunals. A head of state or senior official may face prosecution before an international court where the relevant statute and jurisdictional conditions apply. The position before foreign national courts is more complex because immunity rules still operate there.

The Arrest Warrant case illustrates the difficulty. The International Court of Justice held that an incumbent foreign minister enjoyed immunity from criminal jurisdiction before foreign national courts, while also noting that immunity from jurisdiction does not mean immunity from legal responsibility (International Court of Justice, 2002). This distinction is central. Immunity may block a forum, but it does not erase the underlying legal duty.

Diplomatic and consular officials raise related issues. Diplomats enjoy broad protection under diplomatic law, including inviolability and immunity from receiving-state jurisdiction. Consular immunity is narrower and more function-based. These immunities belong to the sending state’s international relations, not to the personal privilege of the individual official.

4.4 De facto authorities

De facto authorities control territory or perform public functions without being recognized as the government of a state. They may arise during civil war, occupation, secessionist conflict, institutional collapse, or foreign-backed territorial control. Their legal status is often limited, but their conduct cannot be ignored.

International law sometimes deals with de facto authorities because facts on the ground affect human beings. An authority that controls detention facilities, courts, taxation, policing, borders, or humanitarian access may affect rights and obligations, even if it lacks recognized statehood. Legal analysis must respond to that reality without granting full status.

Humanitarian law is the clearest example. Organized armed groups may be bound by common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and customary humanitarian rules. These obligations do not make the group a state. They impose minimum standards because the group has the capacity to affect protected persons during armed conflict.

De facto authorities may also conclude practical arrangements. Ceasefire agreements, humanitarian access arrangements, prisoner exchanges, and local security understandings may have legal relevance. Their effect depends on the wording, parties, context, and applicable legal framework. Such arrangements should not be confused with recognition.

This point is important in occupied or contested territories. Courts and institutions may sometimes give limited effect to acts of de facto authorities, especially civil acts such as birth, death, marriage, or local administration, when ignoring them would harm the population. That limited effect does not validate the authority or recognize statehood.

De facto authority is a category of necessity, not endorsement. International law may regulate conduct, protect individuals, and preserve legal order without treating the authority as a full subject of international law.

5. International Organizations

International organizations form the second core category of subjects of international law. Their legal personality is not the same as the state's personality. States possess general legal capacity because they are sovereign entities. International organizations possess capacity because their members created them to perform specific functions.

This difference controls the whole doctrine. An organization cannot act internationally merely because it is politically important. It must point to a legal source for its powers, usually a constituent treaty, an implied power, a binding decision, or settled institutional practice. Its personality is functional, not sovereign (Klabbers, 2015; Schermers and Blokker, 2018).

The International Court of Justice confirmed this position in Reparation for Injuries. The Court held that the United Nations had international legal personality because it needed legal capacity to perform the functions assigned to it by the Charter. The Court did not say that the UN was a state. It recognized a different form of personality, adapted to the organization’s purposes (International Court of Justice, 1949).

5.1 Constituent instruments

Most international organizations are created by treaties. These treaties are often called constituent instruments because they do more than record obligations between states. They establish an institutional structure, define organs, allocate powers, regulate membership, set voting procedures, and determine the organization’s legal capacity.

The UN Charter is the clearest example. It creates principal organs, defines the purposes of the organization, gives the Security Council primary responsibility for international peace and security, and gives the General Assembly broad deliberative and recommendatory functions. Other organizations follow different models. The World Health Organization, the International Labour Organization, the International Civil Aviation Organization, and the World Trade Organization each operate under a legal framework designed for a particular field.

A constituent instrument also limits the organization. International organizations do not possess a general freedom to act outside their mandate. If an organization exceeds its powers, the legal question becomes one of competence. This is why institutional law depends so heavily on interpretation. The relevant treaty must be read in light of its text, object, purpose, structure, practice, and the functions assigned to the organization.

This functional design separates international organizations from states. A state does not need a treaty to possess general international personality. An organization usually does. Its powers are not inherent. They are conferred, implied, or developed through institutional practice accepted by members.

5.2 Express powers

Express powers are powers written into the constituent instrument or another binding legal instrument. They may include the power to adopt decisions, approve budgets, conclude agreements, employ staff, own property, bring claims, cooperate with other organizations, and enter into headquarters agreements with host states.

These powers matter because they make institutional action legally possible. An organization must be able to hire staff, protect its premises, manage funds, contract for services, and communicate with states. Without these capacities, it could not perform even basic administrative functions.

Some express powers have broader legal consequences. The Security Council, for example, may adopt binding decisions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The International Labour Organization adopts conventions and recommendations through its tripartite structure. The World Trade Organization operates a dispute settlement system that has shaped trade relations between members. These powers are not identical. Each depends on the relevant treaty.

Express powers also support external relations. Many organizations conclude cooperation agreements, host-country agreements, technical assistance arrangements, and operational agreements. These instruments do not turn the organization into a state. They show that the organization can act on the international plane within the limits of its mandate.

5.3 Implied powers

Implied powers are not expressly written into the constituent instrument, but they are necessary for the organization to carry out its functions. The doctrine prevents institutional paralysis. If every operational capacity had to be stated in exact words, many organizations could not function effectively.

Reparation for Injuries remains the leading authority. The International Court of Justice reasoned that the UN had the capacity to bring an international claim for injuries suffered by its agents because that capacity was necessary for the performance of its functions. The Court looked at the purposes of the organization, the duties entrusted to it, and the practical need to protect its agents (International Court of Justice, 1949).

The doctrine is powerful, but it is not unlimited. Implied powers must be connected to the organization’s functions. They cannot be used to rewrite the constituent treaty or create a general competence that the members did not confer. The stronger the claimed power, the stronger the legal basis must be.

The Certain Expenses advisory opinion confirmed the importance of institutional function. The Court accepted that expenses for peacekeeping operations could fall within the purposes of the United Nations, even though peacekeeping was not expressly listed as a Charter mechanism in the same way as enforcement action under Chapter VII (International Court of Justice, 1962). The opinion illustrates how institutional practice and functional necessity can shape organizational powers.

5.4 The United Nations

The United Nations requires separate treatment because of its central position in the international legal order. It is not a world state, but it has a legal role unmatched by other organizations. Its Charter is a treaty, yet it also functions as a constitutional instrument for the organization and as a foundation for collective security.

The UN has universal or near-universal membership, principal organs, specialized responsibilities, and broad institutional reach. The Security Council may adopt binding decisions. The General Assembly may debate, recommend, codify, and influence legal development. The International Court of Justice settles disputes between states and gives advisory opinions. The Secretariat performs administrative, diplomatic, technical, and operational functions.

The UN also benefits from privileges and immunities necessary for independent action. The Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations protects the organization, its property, officials, experts, and representatives to secure institutional independence (Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, 1946). These protections are not ceremonial. They allow the organization to operate across different legal systems without dependence on one host state.

At the same time, the UN’s position creates accountability problems. Peacekeeping operations, sanctions regimes, administrative decisions, and field missions can affect individuals directly. When immunity prevents domestic litigation, the availability of alternative remedies becomes crucial. The legal personality of the UN gives it capacity to act, but that capacity must be matched with responsibility and credible procedures for claims.

5.5 Specialized and regional bodies

Specialized and regional organizations show why international legal personality must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The International Labour Organization, the World Health Organization, the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Maritime Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the African Union, the Organization of American States, the Council of Europe, ASEAN, NATO, and the European Union all differ in mandate and structure.

The ILO has a distinctive tripartite model, involving governments, employers, and workers. The WHO coordinates international health cooperation and adopts health regulations. The ICAO develops standards for civil aviation. The IMF and World Bank operate in the monetary and development fields. The WTO provides a rules-based trade system with a dispute settlement mechanism. Regional organizations may focus on security, economic integration, human rights, political cooperation, or technical coordination.

These organizations do not have identical powers. Some adopt binding rules. Some mainly coordinate policy. Some supervise treaties. Some operate courts or quasi-judicial mechanisms. Some have strong administrative organs, while others depend heavily on intergovernmental bargaining.

Their legal personality must be drawn from their constituent instruments, subsequent practice, headquarters agreements, immunities, external agreements, and institutional functions. A general statement that “international organizations are subjects” is too vague. The real question is what each organization can do, under which legal source, and with what consequences.

5.6 The European Union

The European Union is an advanced and unusual case. It has legal personality, external treaty-making capacity, institutions with law-making powers, a court with strong authority, and a legal order that can affect individuals and domestic courts within member states. It is an international organization, but not an ordinary one.

The EU can conclude international agreements in areas within its competence. It participates in international organizations and treaty regimes. It has exclusive competence in some fields and shared competence in others. Its law may have a direct effect within member states, subject to the doctrines developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

This makes the EU more integrated than most international organizations. It does not merely coordinate state action. In several fields, it produces rules that operate internally, bind institutions, constrain member states, and create rights or obligations for individuals and companies.

The EU should not be used as the standard model for all international organizations. Its legal order is exceptional because of its depth of integration, judicial structure, internal market, supranational features, and allocation of competences. It proves that international organization personality can develop far beyond basic coordination, but it does not erase the functional nature of organizational personality (De Witte, 2021).

5.7 Responsibility of organizations

International organizations can incur international responsibility. The International Law Commission’s Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations set out the basic framework. An organization commits an internationally wrongful act when conduct attributable to it breaches an international obligation binding on it (International Law Commission, 2011).

Attribution is central. Conduct may be attributed to an organization when performed by its organs or agents in the exercise of their functions. Difficult questions arise when member-state troops, officials, or experts act within an institutional operation. Peacekeeping is the classic example. A wrongful act may involve the organization, the contributing state, or both, depending on control, command, and the legal framework of the mission.

Responsibility can also arise through binding decisions. If an organization adopts a decision that requires or authorizes conduct contrary to international law, responsibility may follow. Member states may also incur responsibility if they use an organization to avoid their own obligations. The relationship between organization responsibility and member-state responsibility remains one of the most difficult areas of institutional law.

Remedies are a persistent weakness. If an organization enjoys immunity before domestic courts, victims may lack an effective forum. This problem has appeared in disputes involving staff claims, sanctions, peacekeeping harm, and operational failures. The existence of organizational responsibility means little if no credible claims mechanism exists.

5.8 Immunity and accountability

The immunity of international organizations is functional. It exists to protect institutional independence, not to place organizations above the law. An organization operating across many states needs protection from unilateral interference by national courts, administrative authorities, and local political pressure.

Functional immunity is strongest when litigation would interfere with the organization’s mandate, internal administration, decision-making, property, funds, archives, or official communications. Headquarters agreements and privileges and immunities conventions usually regulate these protections.

The problem is the effect on individuals. Staff members, contractors, local communities, sanctioned persons, and victims of operational harm may suffer real injury. If immunity blocks domestic proceedings, alternative remedies become essential. Administrative tribunals, claims commissions, ombudsperson mechanisms, internal review procedures, and independent panels may reduce the accountability gap.

Human rights courts have treated this balance carefully. In Waite and Kennedy, the European Court of Human Rights accepted that granting immunity to an international organization could be compatible with the right of access to a court, especially where reasonable alternative means of protection existed (European Court of Human Rights, 1999). The logic is clear: immunity may be justified, but it should not leave legal injury without any remedy.

Accountability is now part of the subjecthood debate. If organizations can act internationally, employ staff, run missions, impose sanctions, manage territory, or affect private persons, the law must ask not only what powers they possess, but also how those powers are controlled.

6. Individuals

Individuals are no longer merely objects of international law. They can hold direct rights, bear direct duties, and appear before certain international bodies. Their personality remains limited, but it is real.

The older state-centred model treated individuals mainly through nationality and diplomatic protection. A person harmed by a foreign state usually depended on their own state to bring a claim. That structure has not disappeared. It still matters in diplomatic protection, consular law, and some claims processes. Yet modern human rights law and international criminal law changed the position of the individual in a fundamental way (Higgins, 1994; Peters, 2016).

The key point is precision. Individuals are not full subjects like states. They cannot make treaties, claim sovereign immunity, join the United Nations, or bring contentious cases before the International Court of Justice. Their status is regime-based. They hold rights or duties where international law gives them those rights or duties.

6.1 The classical position

Classical international law treated individuals largely through the state. The state was the bearer of international rights and duties. Individuals were protected indirectly, if at all, through nationality, diplomatic protection, treaty provisions implemented in domestic law, or claims brought by states.

This did not mean that individuals were irrelevant. Nationality, alien protection, diplomatic protection, and state responsibility often concern injury to persons. The legal claim, however, was usually framed as a claim by the state. The injury to the individual became, in legal form, an injury to the state whose national had been harmed.

The Mavrommatis case expressed this traditional structure. The Permanent Court of International Justice stated that, by taking up the case of one of its nationals, a state was asserting its own right to ensure respect for international law (Permanent Court of International Justice, 1924). That formula shaped diplomatic protection for decades.

The classical position became inadequate as international law began to regulate how states treat persons within their jurisdiction. Human rights law, refugee law, international criminal law, labour law, and regional courts made it impossible to describe individuals only as objects of international concern.

6.2 Human rights as direct rights

Human rights law gives individuals direct rights under international law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights set out the modern vocabulary of human dignity, equality, liberty, fair trial, political participation, social protection, and freedom from abuse. The ICCPR and ICESCR then translated much of that vocabulary into treaty obligations (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948; ICCPR, 1966; ICESCR, 1966).

Regional systems deepened this transformation. The European Convention on Human Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights created legal regimes in which individuals, groups, or communities may invoke rights before international or regional bodies, subject to admissibility rules.

These rights are direct in substance. A person has the right not to be tortured, arbitrarily detained, disappeared, enslaved, or discriminated against because the relevant rule protects the person, not merely the state. The state remains the main duty-bearer in most human rights systems, but the beneficiary is the individual or protected group.

Human rights law also shows that subjecthood is not always linked to procedural equality. A person may hold a right under an international treaty, but enforcement may depend on domestic courts, state reporting, diplomatic pressure, treaty bodies, or a regional court. Direct rights and direct access are connected, but not identical.

6.3 Procedural access

Procedural access is one of the clearest signs of individual personality, but it varies widely. Some systems allow individuals to bring complaints. Others allow communications only if the state has accepted the relevant procedure. Some bodies issue binding judgments. Others issue views, findings, or recommendations.

The European Court of Human Rights provides one of the strongest examples of individual access. Individuals may bring applications against states that are party to the Convention, subject to admissibility requirements. The Inter-American and African systems use different procedures, but they also allow individual or collective grievances to enter regional supervision.

UN treaty bodies provide another form of access. Under optional protocols or complaint procedures, individuals may submit communications alleging violations of treaty rights. These procedures do not operate like ordinary courts, but they give individuals a recognized place within international legal supervision.

International administrative tribunals also matter. Staff members of international organizations may bring employment-related claims before specialized tribunals. These proceedings show that individuals can hold procedural rights against international organizations within institutional legal systems.

Access remains uneven. Individuals cannot bring contentious cases before the International Court of Justice. They cannot force a state to exercise diplomatic protection. They cannot litigate in every treaty body merely because a treaty protects them. Procedural standing always depends on the rules of the forum.

6.4 Criminal responsibility

International criminal law gives individuals direct duties under international law. This is the strongest answer to the older view that only states can bear international obligations. Individuals may be criminally responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression when the legal conditions for jurisdiction and liability are met.

The Nuremberg Tribunal expressed the central principle after the Second World War: crimes under international law are committed by individuals, not abstract entities alone (International Military Tribunal, 1946). That principle later shaped the statutes and jurisprudence of the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, as well as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Individual responsibility includes several modes of liability. A person may be responsible for direct commission, ordering, aiding and abetting, contribution to a group crime, command responsibility, or other forms recognized by the applicable statute. Superior orders do not automatically excuse responsibility, and official capacity does not remove criminal liability before international criminal courts.

This does not abolish state responsibility. A massacre, deportation campaign, or act of torture may generate both state responsibility and individual criminal responsibility. The two regimes operate differently. State responsibility concerns breach, attribution, cessation, assurances, and reparation. Individual criminal responsibility concerns guilt, punishment, fair trial, and the personal role of the accused.

6.5 Nationality and protection

Nationality remains important because it connects individuals to states for many international purposes. It affects diplomatic protection, consular assistance, migration status, political rights, treaty benefits, and sometimes jurisdiction.

In Nottebohm, the International Court of Justice considered whether Liechtenstein could rely on a grant of nationality against Guatemala for purposes of diplomatic protection. The Court emphasized a genuine connection between the individual and the state, granting nationality (International Court of Justice, 1955). The judgment is often debated because it should not be read as a universal rule for all questions of nationality. Its strongest role lies in diplomatic protection.

Barcelona Traction addressed corporate nationality and diplomatic protection. The Court held that Belgium could not bring a diplomatic protection claim for Belgian shareholders in a company incorporated in Canada. The case illustrates the difference between injury to a company and injury to shareholders, as well as the importance of corporate nationality in international claims (International Court of Justice, 1970).

Diplomatic protection still depends heavily on the state. The individual suffers the injury, but the state decides whether to espouse the claim. The exhaustion of local remedies usually remains required. This structure shows the survival of the classical model inside modern law.

The distinction between individual harm and state claim matters. A person may have suffered a real injury, but that does not always mean the person can bring an international claim personally. In diplomatic protection, the state remains the procedural actor, even when the underlying harm concerns an individual.

6.6 Consular rights

Consular law shows the gap between individual rights and interstate procedure. Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations requires authorities to inform detained foreign nationals of their right to contact their consulate. This right protects individuals, but disputes about the treaty may still arise between states (Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963).

In LaGrand, the International Court of Justice held that Article 36 created individual rights, and that Germany could invoke violations of those rights against the United States (International Court of Justice, 2001). In Avena, the Court reached a similar conclusion concerning Mexican nationals who had not been properly informed of their consular rights (International Court of Justice, 2004).

These cases are important because they reject a purely state-only understanding of treaty rights. The individual foreign national is not merely a factual beneficiary. The treaty gives the person a right to consular information and communication.

At the same time, enforcement remained interstate before the International Court of Justice. Germany and Mexico brought the claims. The detained individuals did not appear as parties before the Court. Consular law, like much of international law, separates substantive entitlement from procedural standing.

That separation is central to the position of individuals as subjects. They may hold rights, bear duties, and participate in procedures, but their legal capacity depends on the relevant regime. Individual personality is real, direct, and limited.

7. Peoples and Self-Determination

Self-determination gives collective legal status to a people. It is one of the clearest examples of international law moving beyond the state as the only legally relevant unit. The right is not held by a government, a political party, or a temporary majority. It belongs to a collective community recognized by international law for a specific purpose: the determination of its political status and the pursuit of its economic, social, and cultural development.

The plural term “peoples” is used in international legal instruments, including the United Nations Charter and common Article 1 of the ICCPR and ICESCR. The term is grammatically correct in this field because it refers to distinct collective groups, not simply many persons. Still, its legal use must be careful. Not every population, ethnic group, minority, electorate, or region is automatically a “people” for the purposes of external self-determination.

Self-determination became central during decolonization. It gave legal force to the claim that colonial rule was not merely a political problem, but a denial of an international right. The United Nations General Assembly’s Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples treated colonial domination as incompatible with the Charter and affirmed that all peoples have the right to determine their political status (UN General Assembly, 1960).

The doctrine now operates in several settings. Its strongest form appears in decolonization. It also applies to foreign occupation and alien domination. Inside existing states, it supports participation, equality, cultural protection, and meaningful political inclusion. Claims to unilateral secession outside those contexts remain controversial and must be treated with caution.

7.1 People as collective subjects

A people is not the same thing as a population. A state has a population, but that does not mean every territorial group within the state has a separate right to independent statehood. A nation, minority, Indigenous community, electorate, or ethnic group may overlap with the concept of a people, but none of these categories is identical to it.

The legal meaning depends on context. In colonial situations, the population of a non-self-governing territory was treated as a people entitled to determine its political future. In occupied territory, the right protects the collective status and political destiny of the affected population. In established states, the concept usually supports internal participation, cultural survival, and freedom from domination.

This is why self-determination must be separated from ordinary democratic preference. A regional majority may want independence, but political preference alone does not create a legal right to secede. International law asks a narrower question: does the relevant group hold a right to self-determination in the specific legal setting being claimed?

The International Court of Justice has treated self-determination as a right with strong legal status. In the Wall advisory opinion, the Court linked the construction of the barrier and associated measures to the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination (International Court of Justice, 2004). In the Chagos advisory opinion, the Court treated the completion of decolonization as a legal obligation connected to the right of self-determination (International Court of Justice, 2019).

7.2 Colonial peoples

Decolonization is the clearest legal setting for self-determination. Colonial peoples hold the right to decide their political status through independence, free association, integration with an independent state, or another arrangement freely chosen by the people concerned. The legal point is consent. The territory cannot be treated as an object of imperial administration.

Resolution 1514 marked a decisive shift. It declared that subjection of peoples to alien domination was contrary to the Charter and that inadequacy of political, economic, social, or educational preparedness should not delay independence (UN General Assembly, 1960). Resolution 1541 then developed the possible outcomes for non-self-governing territories, including independence, free association, and integration (UN General Assembly, 1960).

The International Court of Justice reinforced this approach in the Western Sahara advisory opinion. The Court rejected the idea that historical ties of allegiance could defeat the right of the people of the territory to decide their future through a free and genuine expression of will (International Court of Justice, 1975). This is a core authority because it connects self-determination to the actual choice of the people concerned.

Colonial self-determination also affected title to territory. A colonial power could not lawfully divide, detach, or retain part of a territory in a way that frustrated the right of the people to determine their status. The Chagos advisory opinion applied this logic to the separation of the Chagos Archipelago before Mauritius achieved independence. The Court concluded that the decolonization of Mauritius had not been lawfully completed (International Court of Justice, 2019).

7.3 Occupied peoples

Self-determination also protects a people living under foreign occupation. Occupation does not transfer sovereignty to the occupying power. It creates a temporary regime governed by international humanitarian law, human rights law, and the wider prohibition on territorial acquisition by force.

The Wall advisory opinion is the main modern authority. The International Court of Justice found that the route of the barrier, together with the associated regime, severely impeded the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination (International Court of Justice, 2004). The Court did not treat self-determination as a vague political aspiration. It treated it as a legal right capable of generating consequences for states.

The Chagos advisory opinion also matters because it confirmed that the right to self-determination has an erga omnes character. This means that all states have a legal interest in its protection, not only the directly affected state or territory (International Court of Justice, 2019). The right concerns the structure of the international legal order because it rejects alien domination as a lawful basis for governing a people.

Occupation cases show why self-determination is tied to territory, but not reducible to territorial control. The protected interest is the collective ability of the people to determine political status without coercion, annexation, settlement policies, demographic manipulation, or permanent subordination.

7.4 Internal self-determination

Internal self-determination concerns the ability of a people to participate meaningfully in the political, economic, social, and cultural life of the state. It does not require the creation of a new state. It usually operates through representation, autonomy, equality, non-discrimination, cultural protection, language rights, and local institutions.

This form of self-determination is especially important in plural states. A state may contain several national, ethnic, linguistic, religious, or Indigenous communities. International law does not treat that fact as an automatic basis for secession. Instead, it often asks whether the state allows genuine participation, protects identity, and avoids domination.

Internal self-determination also helps connect collective rights with human rights. Elections, political participation, freedom of association, education, cultural life, and equality before the law all affect whether a community can shape its future within the state. The right is collective, but its protection often depends on institutions that secure individual rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s Quebec Secession Reference is useful, although it is a domestic decision engaging international law. The Court distinguished internal self-determination, which can normally be exercised within an existing state, from a possible claim to external self-determination in exceptional cases of colonial rule, foreign occupation, or severe exclusion from political participation (Supreme Court of Canada, 1998). That reasoning reflects the cautious approach found in much international practice.

7.5 External self-determination

External self-determination concerns the choice of international political status. In decolonization, it may lead to independence, free association, integration, or another freely chosen outcome. In occupied or alien-dominated territories, it protects the right of the people to determine their future without foreign coercion.

Outside those settings, international law is cautious. The reason is structural. A broad right of unilateral secession would destabilize territorial integrity, encourage external manipulation, and create conflict between self-determination and the sovereign equality of states. International law protects people, but it also protects the stability of borders.

This does not mean that territorial integrity always defeats self-determination. The Friendly Relations Declaration links territorial integrity to states that conduct themselves in compliance with equal rights and self-determination, and that possess a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without discrimination (UN General Assembly, 1970). The wording is important because it suggests that representation and equality matter to the legitimacy of territorial integrity.

External self-determination must be analyzed with restraint. In colonial and occupied contexts, it has a strong legal basis. In ordinary separatist disputes, the legal basis is much weaker unless there is extreme oppression, denial of meaningful internal self-determination, or another exceptional factor recognized by law.

7.6 Remedial session

Remedial secession is the argument that a group may have a right to separate when it suffers severe oppression and is denied any meaningful possibility of internal self-determination. The argument has moral force. It asks why international law should protect the territorial integrity of a state that permanently excludes, persecutes, or destroys part of its population.

Its status as positive law remains uncertain. International instruments do not clearly establish a general right of remedial secession. State practice is inconsistent. Courts have often avoided endorsing the doctrine in broad terms.

The Kosovo advisory opinion is often cited in this debate, but it must be read carefully. The International Court of Justice held that Kosovo’s declaration of independence did not violate general international law. It did not decide that Kosovo had a right of remedial secession, and it did not create a general rule allowing unilateral separation whenever a group claims oppression (International Court of Justice, 2010).

A careful article should present remedial secession as an unsettled doctrine. It is relevant to the discussion of subjecthood because it shows how a collective group may claim legal status against the state. Yet the claim must be separated from established colonial self-determination. The law is strongest in decolonization and occupation. It is much less settled when secession is claimed within an existing state outside those settings.

8. Indigenous Peoples and Minorities

Indigenous peoples and minorities must not be treated as the same category. Both may hold collective interests, and both may suffer exclusion, assimilation, or discrimination. Their legal positions, however, are different.

Indigenous peoples have rights linked to land, identity, culture, institutions, resources, consultation, and self-government. These rights reflect their historical connection to territory, their distinct political and legal traditions, and the effects of colonization or dispossession. Minorities usually receive protection through equality, language, religion, education, cultural life, and participation rights.

The distinction matters for subjecthood. Indigenous peoples may hold collective rights under international instruments and regional jurisprudence. This does not make them states. It gives them a specific form of legal standing as collective right-holders. Minorities, by contrast, are usually protected as groups within the state, without independent international personality.

8.1 Indigenous collective rights

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is the central modern instrument. It recognizes rights to self-determination, culture, identity, institutions, lands, territories, resources, consultation, and free, prior, and informed consent (UN General Assembly, 2007). Although it is a declaration rather than a treaty, it has become a major reference point for international institutions, domestic courts, and regional human rights bodies.

ILO Convention No. 169 provides binding treaty obligations for states that have ratified it. It requires consultation, protection of land rights, respect for social and cultural identity, and participation in decisions affecting Indigenous communities (International Labour Organization, 1989). Its ratification is not universal, but its influence is significant, especially in Latin America.

Indigenous collective rights are not only cultural. They concern authority, territory, participation, and legal survival. A community may seek protection for language, sacred sites, traditional governance, resource use, education, and environmental integrity. These are not simply private interests. They are collective rights connected to the continued existence of the group.

International law does not generally treat Indigenous peoples as states. Their right to self-determination is usually understood through autonomy, participation, self-government, cultural integrity, and control over internal affairs. The legal challenge is to protect those rights without falsely equating them with ordinary state sovereignty.

8.2 Land and resources

Land is central to Indigenous rights because identity, culture, spirituality, economy, and governance are often tied to territory. Dispossession is not only a loss of property. It can destroy social organization, sacred relationships, subsistence practices, and collective memory.

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has developed strong jurisprudence in this area. In Awas Tingni, the Court held that Nicaragua had violated the property rights of an Indigenous community by failing to recognize and protect its communal land tenure (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2001). The case is important because it treated communal land as protected property under human rights law.

In Saramaka, the Court addressed resource exploitation on ancestral territory. It held that large-scale development or investment projects affecting Indigenous or tribal lands require safeguards, including effective participation, benefit-sharing, environmental and social impact assessment, and, in certain circumstances, free, prior, and informed consent (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2007).

These cases show how Indigenous rights can limit state control over natural resources. States may claim sovereignty over resources, but that authority must be exercised consistently with human rights, consultation duties, environmental protection, and collective land rights.

Free, prior, and informed consent is especially important. It is not a simple administrative consultation. It requires good-faith engagement before a decision is made, with adequate information, culturally appropriate procedures, and respect for the community’s own decision-making structures. Its precise legal effect varies by instrument and context, but its importance in Indigenous rights law is now difficult to deny.

8.3 Self-government

Indigenous self-government concerns the ability of Indigenous communities to maintain and develop their own institutions, laws, leadership structures, dispute-resolution practices, and cultural systems. It is not identical to secession. It usually operates within the territorial framework of the state.

UNDRIP recognizes the right of Indigenous peoples to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing autonomous functions (UN General Assembly, 2007). This supports arrangements involving local governance, education, cultural preservation, land administration, and participation in public decisions.

Legal pluralism is part of this discussion. Many Indigenous communities have legal traditions that predate the modern state. Recognition of those traditions may involve customary law, community justice, land tenure systems, family law practices, environmental stewardship, and traditional authorities. Domestic constitutional law often determines how far such recognition can operate.

The tension with state sovereignty is real. States may resist Indigenous authority where it affects land, mining, forests, water, infrastructure, security, or national economic policy. International law does not remove every conflict. It supplies standards for consultation, participation, non-discrimination, cultural protection, and respect for collective rights.

Self-government also has a procedural dimension. Indigenous communities must be able to participate through their own representatives and institutions. A state cannot satisfy consultation duties merely by speaking to individuals selected for convenience or by treating Indigenous communities as ordinary interest groups.

8.4 Minority protection

Minority protection serves a different function. It protects persons belonging to ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities against assimilation, discrimination, exclusion, and cultural erasure. The key legal focus is equality and participation within the state.

Article 27 of the ICCPR protects the rights of persons belonging to minorities to enjoy their culture, profess and practise their religion, and use their language (ICCPR, 1966). The wording is individual in form, but the rights often have a collective dimension because culture, language, and religion are lived through community.

Minority protection may include education rights, language use, access to media, participation in public affairs, anti-discrimination measures, and protection of religious or cultural practices. Regional systems may add further guarantees, especially in Europe, through the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.

Minority rights do not normally create a right to independent statehood. They are usually designed to secure dignity, equality, and cultural survival inside the existing state. A minority may have strong claims to autonomy, representation, or protection against discrimination, but that is not the same as international personality equivalent to a state.

The distinction between Indigenous peoples and minorities is important because merging them weakens both doctrines. Indigenous rights respond to distinct histories of colonization, dispossession, and survival of pre-existing communities. Minority rights respond more broadly to the need to protect identity and equality within plural societies. Both categories matter, but they operate through different legal structures.

9. Corporations and Investors

Corporations have become powerful actors in the international legal order. They build infrastructure, operate supply chains, extract natural resources, manage digital platforms, provide security services, and influence regulatory standards. Some have economic power greater than many states. That power, however, does not make them full subjects of international law.

Their status remains fragmented. A corporation may have procedural rights under an investment treaty, duties under domestic human rights due diligence legislation, contractual rights under a host-state agreement, or exposure to sanctions and civil litigation. None of these elements gives corporations the general legal capacity of states. Their position depends on the rule, the forum, and the legal instrument being applied (Muchlinski, 2021; Sornarajah, 2021).

The main doctrinal point is simple. Corporations can be recognized for particular purposes without becoming full international legal persons. A mining company may bring an investment claim against a state. A technology company may be regulated under human rights due diligence rules. A private military contractor may create responsibility issues for the state that directs or controls it. Each situation must be assessed separately.

9.1 Domestic origin

Corporations are normally created by domestic law. A state decides how companies are incorporated, governed, taxed, dissolved, and held liable. Corporate personality begins in municipal legal systems, not in general international law.

This domestic origin affects their international position. A corporation does not enter the international legal order as a sovereign entity. It enters through treaties, contracts, concessions, arbitration clauses, domestic statutes implementing international standards, sanctions regimes, or sector-specific rules. Its capacity is derivative and limited.

International investment law is the clearest example. A company may qualify as an investor because a treaty defines it as one. That status does not arise automatically under general international law. It depends on nationality, incorporation, ownership, control, investment definition, consent to arbitration, and the wording of the applicable instrument.

Human rights due diligence rules show another route. States may require companies to identify, prevent, mitigate, and address human rights or environmental risks in their operations and chains of activity. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights provide the leading global framework, although they are not a treaty (UN Human Rights Council, 2011). More recent domestic and regional legislation, including the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, moves parts of that framework into binding regulatory systems for covered companies (European Union, 2024).

The result is a layered position. Corporations remain creatures of domestic law, but international law increasingly shapes the duties, risks, and procedures attached to their conduct.

9.2 Investor-state arbitration

Investor-state arbitration gives corporations one of the strongest forms of international procedural capacity. A foreign investor may bring a claim directly against a host state when a treaty, statute, or contract grants consent to arbitration. This is a major departure from the older diplomatic protection model, where the investor usually depended on its home state to act.

The ICSID Convention created an institutional framework for disputes between contracting states and nationals of other contracting states (ICSID Convention, 1965). Bilateral investment treaties and investment chapters in trade agreements often add substantive protections, such as fair and equitable treatment, protection against uncompensated expropriation, full protection and security, and non-discrimination.

This gives corporations direct access to an international forum, but the capacity is narrow. It exists only when jurisdictional requirements are met. The investor must fall within the treaty definition. The dispute must concern a protected investment. The state must have consented to arbitration. Procedural standing is powerful, but it is not general personality.

Investment arbitration also shows the imbalance in corporate subjecthood. Corporations may sue states directly in many investment regimes, yet affected communities often lack equivalent access against investors before the same tribunals. A project may affect land, water, health, or labour conditions, but the investment system is usually structured around investor claims against states.

Recent treaty practice has tried to correct part of this imbalance by including references to sustainable development, corporate social responsibility, environmental protection, anti-corruption, and counterclaims. These developments matter, but they have not created a comprehensive system of direct corporate responsibility under general international law.

9.3 Corporate responsibilities

The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights distinguish between the state duty to protect human rights, the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, and access to remedy (UN Human Rights Council, 2011). This framework is now central to debates on business conduct and international law.

The corporate responsibility to respect human rights means that companies should avoid infringing rights and address adverse impacts linked to their operations, products, or services. It covers direct corporate conduct and, depending on the relationship, impacts connected to business partners, suppliers, contractors, and other commercial relationships.

The legal force of this responsibility varies. The Guiding Principles themselves are soft law. They do not create a treaty-based court with general jurisdiction over corporations. Still, they influence legislation, corporate reporting, procurement rules, investor expectations, litigation, sanctions, and internal compliance systems.

Due diligence is the practical mechanism. A company is expected to identify risk, assess impacts, take preventive action, monitor results, communicate measures, and support remediation where it caused or contributed to harm. The process is especially relevant in extractive industries, garment production, agriculture, surveillance technology, private security, conflict minerals, and large infrastructure projects.

Environmental harm and forced labour show the limits of voluntary approaches. A corporation may operate through subsidiaries, suppliers, contractors, or licensing structures across several states. Harm may occur far away from the parent company’s headquarters. Victims may face weak courts, a lack of evidence, fear of retaliation, cost barriers, or jurisdictional obstacles. This is why domestic due diligence laws and civil liability mechanisms have become more important.

Corporate responsibility is not the same as international criminal responsibility. Individuals who direct companies may face criminal liability for international crimes where the legal conditions are met. The corporation as an entity, however, is not subject to a complete general international criminal regime. Domestic systems may impose corporate criminal or civil liability, but the international level remains incomplete.

9.4 Corporate liability gaps

The core problem is accountability. Corporations can cause or contribute to transnational harm, but international law still lacks a complete general regime for direct corporate liability. The gap is not theoretical. It appears in land dispossession, toxic pollution, unsafe working conditions, forced labour, private security abuses, digital surveillance, corruption, and operations in conflict zones.

Several legal routes may be available, but each has limits. Domestic courts may hear tort claims, criminal prosecutions, consumer actions, supply-chain claims, or parent-company liability cases. Sanctions regimes may target companies or executives. Export controls may restrict surveillance tools or dual-use items. Public procurement rules may exclude abusive suppliers. Investment contracts may include social or environmental clauses.

These mechanisms are uneven. They depend on domestic legislation, judicial independence, access to evidence, forum rules, limitation periods, corporate structure, and political will. A victim harmed by a subsidiary abroad may struggle to establish jurisdiction over the parent company. A supply-chain worker may have no practical route against the brand that benefits from the labour arrangement. A community affected by pollution may face years of litigation before reaching the merits.

The proposed business and human rights treaty process at the United Nations reflects dissatisfaction with this fragmented system. Its aim is to strengthen accountability for business-related human rights harm. The process remains politically contested, and states disagree on scope, jurisdiction, corporate obligations, and enforcement design.

The doctrinal lesson is clear. Corporate power has outgrown the older assumption that private entities matter only inside domestic legal systems. At the same time, general international law has not yet made corporations full duty-bearers comparable to states. Their legal position sits between influence, treaty-based rights, domestic regulation, and emerging accountability duties.

9.5 Attribution to states

Corporate conduct may sometimes become state conduct. Attribution is the legal bridge. If a corporation acts as a private company, the state is not automatically responsible for everything it does. If the company exercises public authority, acts under state instruction, or operates under state direction or control, responsibility may arise for the state (International Law Commission, 2001).

State-owned enterprises raise difficult questions. Ownership alone is not always enough. A state may own shares in a company without every corporate act being attributable to it. The analysis changes when the company exercises governmental powers, acts under direct state instructions, or serves as a tool for public policy in a specific operation.

Delegated public functions are especially important. A private company running detention facilities, managing border control technology, operating public security systems, or providing military logistics may perform functions closely tied to state authority. If domestic law empowers the company to exercise public powers, its conduct may be attributable to the state under the law of responsibility.

Private military and security companies create acute risks. They may guard facilities, train forces, transport detainees, protect convoys, or support military operations. If their conduct is controlled by a state, or if they exercise delegated public authority, the state may be responsible for violations. Individual employees may also face criminal liability where the relevant elements of an offence are present.

Attribution prevents a state from avoiding responsibility by outsourcing. A government cannot escape international obligations merely by using companies, contractors, or intermediaries to perform functions that it could not lawfully perform itself. The private form of the actor does not automatically break the link to the state.

10. NGOs and Civil Society

Non-governmental organizations occupy a different position. They are usually actors and participants, not full subjects. Their legal existence normally comes from domestic law, and their international role depends on institutional access, expertise, advocacy, monitoring, and credibility.

Their influence is real. NGOs document atrocities, support victims, submit reports to treaty bodies, provide amicus briefs, lobby during treaty negotiations, assist prosecutors, monitor elections, track sanctions violations, and expose environmental harm. Yet influence alone does not create international legal personality.

The distinction matters because NGOs often operate close to legal processes. They may shape facts, arguments, and public pressure. They may influence how international institutions understand a crisis. They may support litigation that changes doctrine. Even so, their standing is usually limited and depends on the rules of the body before which they act.

10.1 Advocacy and monitoring

NGOs have become central to international monitoring. Human rights organizations gather testimony, analyze satellite imagery, preserve digital evidence, document detention practices, and publish reports on violations. Environmental groups track emissions, biodiversity loss, deforestation, toxic waste, and failures of regulatory compliance. Anti-corruption groups monitor procurement, money laundering, illicit finance, and sanctions evasion.

This work can affect legal outcomes. A treaty body may rely on NGO reports to question a state. A prosecutor may use civil society documentation to identify patterns of violence. A sanctions committee may receive information about individuals or entities involved in prohibited activity. A domestic court may use NGO evidence in cases involving torture, forced labour, or environmental harm.

NGO monitoring can also reduce information asymmetry. States often control access to records, detention sites, military zones, border areas, and official data. Civil society organizations may provide alternative evidence, especially where victims cannot safely approach state authorities.

The legal value of NGO work depends on the method. Serious organizations explain sources, preserve evidence, distinguish allegation from verification, protect witnesses, and avoid exaggeration. Poor methodology weakens credibility and may harm victims. In international law, advocacy is strongest when it is supported by disciplined fact-finding.

10.2 Consultative status

Consultative status gives NGOs access to certain international organizations. The best-known framework operates through the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It allows qualifying NGOs to attend meetings, submit written statements, make oral interventions in some settings, and engage with UN processes under established rules (UN Economic and Social Council, 1996).

This access matters, but it should not be overstated. Consultative status does not make an NGO a state, an international organization, or a full subject. It gives the organization a procedural channel for participation. The NGO may speak, submit information, and influence debate, but it does not acquire general treaty-making power or sovereign standing.

Other institutions provide different forms of civil society access. Regional human rights systems may accept petitions, amicus submissions, expert reports, or communications supported by NGOs. Environmental regimes may permit observer participation. International criminal tribunals may receive information from civil society groups, although prosecutorial independence remains essential.

Consultative status also raises political tension. States may try to block NGOs that criticize them. Some organizations may be accused of partisanship, foreign influence, or weak methodology. International institutions must balance openness with procedural integrity. Access should improve information and accountability, not turn legal forums into unmanaged political stages.

10.3 Litigation support

NGOs often support litigation without being formal parties. They may prepare amicus briefs, assist victims, gather evidence, locate experts, finance legal teams, train local lawyers, or submit shadow reports to treaty bodies. In some systems, NGOs may bring complaints directly or represent affected individuals, subject to procedural rules.

Amicus briefs are particularly important. They allow organizations with expertise to assist courts on questions of law, comparative practice, social context, or technical evidence. A well-prepared amicus submission can clarify the legal issue without duplicating the arguments of the parties.

Evidence gathering is another major role. In atrocity situations, NGOs may document attacks, identify command structures, preserve videos, interview witnesses, map detention sites, and analyze open-source material. This work can support international criminal investigations, human rights claims, sanctions design, and domestic prosecutions.

Strategic litigation also shows the practical power of civil society. NGOs may select cases that expose structural problems, challenge abusive laws, or clarify standards on detention, asylum, surveillance, discrimination, climate harm, or corporate accountability. The NGO may not be the right-holder, but it may help bring the right-holder before a forum that can act.

This creates ethical duties. NGOs must avoid instrumentalizing victims, overstating legal claims, or pursuing publicity at the cost of security. Litigation support is most defensible when affected persons retain agency, informed consent is respected, and the legal strategy serves the interests of those harmed.

10.4 The ICRC

The International Committee of the Red Cross requires separate treatment. It is not an ordinary NGO. It is a private Swiss association by legal form, but international humanitarian law gives it recognized functions that distinguish it from civil society organizations generally.

The Geneva Conventions assign the ICRC specific humanitarian roles. It may visit prisoners of war, assist protected persons, support family contact, offer services to parties to conflict, and work to ensure respect for humanitarian law. Common Article 3 also allows an impartial humanitarian body, such as the ICRC, to offer its services to parties to a non-international armed conflict (Geneva Conventions, 1949).

The ICRC’s authority rests on neutrality, impartiality, independence, confidentiality, and long institutional practice. Its confidential dialogue with parties to conflict is often criticized by those who want public denunciation, but confidentiality is part of its operational model. The aim is access to detainees, protection of civilians, and practical compliance during armed conflict.

Its legal status is unusual. The ICRC is not a state. It is not an intergovernmental organization. It does not possess a general international legal personality equivalent to the United Nations. Yet it performs functions recognized by treaties and customary humanitarian law. It also concludes agreements, maintains delegations, and operates internationally with a status that ordinary NGOs do not share.

This is why the ICRC belongs in the category of special entities. Its role confirms the broader point of the article: international legal personality is not a single formula. International law sometimes recognizes limited or functional capacities where an entity performs a necessary role within a specific legal regime.

11. Armed Groups and De Facto Entities

Organized armed groups occupy a difficult position in international law. They are not states merely because they control territory, collect taxes, run courts, recruit fighters, or negotiate with governments. Territorial control may increase their practical power, but it does not give them sovereign equality.

International law still regulates them. The reason is practical and protective. An armed group may detain civilians, attack military targets, control access to food, recruit children, operate checkpoints, or govern a town for years. If the law ignored such groups until they became states, the people living under their control would be left in a legal vacuum.

This does not mean that armed groups have a full international personality. Their status is limited, functional, and usually tied to conflict, humanitarian protection, criminal responsibility, or peace negotiations. International law can impose duties on an armed group without recognizing it as a government or accepting its political claims (Crawford, 2006; Sivakumaran, 2012).

11.1 Humanitarian obligations

International humanitarian law is the clearest field in which organized armed groups bear direct obligations. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to armed conflicts not of an international character. It requires humane treatment, prohibits violence to life and person, bans hostage-taking, forbids humiliating and degrading treatment, and requires basic judicial guarantees (Geneva Conventions, 1949).

Additional Protocol II develops these rules for certain non-international armed conflicts. It applies when organized armed groups, under responsible command, exercise enough territorial control to conduct sustained military operations and implement the Protocol. Its threshold is higher than common Article 3, but its purpose is similar: to protect persons affected by internal armed conflict (Additional Protocol II, 1977).

Customary humanitarian law also binds organized armed groups. These rules regulate targeting, treatment of detainees, protection of civilians, medical care, child recruitment, sexual violence, humanitarian relief, and the treatment of the dead. The binding force of these rules does not depend on the group becoming a state. It depends on the existence of an armed conflict and the group’s organization and conduct.

The Tadić jurisdiction decision helped clarify the legal threshold for non-international armed conflict. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia emphasized protracted armed violence and the organization of the parties as key elements (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, 1995). This test matters because ordinary riots, criminal violence, or sporadic unrest do not trigger the full framework of humanitarian law.

Humanitarian obligations do not legitimize an armed group. They impose minimum standards because the group has the capacity to harm, detain, govern, and fight. The law separates regulation from recognition.

11.2 Human rights debates

The human rights obligations of armed groups remain contested. Traditional human rights law binds states. Treaties are ratified by states, supervised through state reporting, and enforced mainly against public authorities. Armed groups do not normally become parties to human rights treaties.

The difficulty arises when an armed group exercises stable control over territory and performs government-like functions. If it runs prisons, schools, courts, police units, health services, taxation, or local administration, its decisions may affect rights in the same way as state decisions. In that situation, a strict state-only approach can leave affected persons without meaningful protection.

Some UN bodies, commissions of inquiry, and expert reports have argued that armed groups exercising de facto control should respect human rights standards, especially when they perform public functions. The argument is strongest where the group controls territory for a sustained period and has enough institutional capacity to comply (UN Human Rights Council, 2011; Clapham, 2006).

The limits remain important. Not every armed group can realistically perform the full range of human rights obligations. A mobile insurgent group operating in remote terrain is not in the same position as a de facto authority administering a city. The content of any obligation must reflect control, capacity, function, and the type of right involved.

The better view is cautious. Armed groups are clearly bound by humanitarian law during armed conflict. They may also be expected, and in some settings treated, as bound by basic human rights standards when they exercise government-like control. That claim is developing, but it should not be presented as fully settled across all contexts.

11.3 Peace agreements

Peace agreements show that armed groups can take part in legal arrangements without becoming states. Ceasefire agreements, demobilization accords, humanitarian access arrangements, prisoner exchanges, power-sharing agreements, and UN-backed peace settlements often include non-state armed groups as parties.

The legal status of these agreements depends on their wording, context, parties, and institutional endorsement. Some are political commitments. Some contain binding obligations under domestic law. Some are linked to Security Council resolutions, regional guarantees, constitutional reform, or international monitoring. Their legal character cannot be assumed from the label “peace agreement” alone (Bell, 2008).

Special agreements under humanitarian law deserve separate attention. Common Article 3 encourages parties to a non-international armed conflict to bring all or part of the Geneva Conventions into force through special agreements. Such arrangements may improve protection without changing the legal status of the parties (Geneva Conventions, 1949).

Peace agreements may also create transitional institutions, disarmament obligations, amnesty provisions, reparations programmes, truth commissions, electoral procedures, or autonomy arrangements. These clauses affect legal order after conflict, but they do not automatically convert an armed group into an international legal person with general capacity.

The core point is that international law can engage with armed groups for limited purposes. Negotiation, compliance, monitoring, and implementation may require treating them as capable of commitment. That practical capacity is not the same as statehood.

11.4 Criminal responsibility

Leaders and members of armed groups may incur individual criminal responsibility under international criminal law. The relevant crimes may include war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, terrorism-related offences under applicable domestic or treaty regimes, recruitment of children, torture, sexual violence, persecution, and attacks against civilians.

International criminal law focuses on individuals, not the group as an abstract political entity. A commander, political leader, recruiter, financier, prison official, or field officer may be responsible if the elements of the crime and the required form of liability are established. The group’s non-state status does not shield its members.

Command responsibility is especially important. A commander may be responsible when they knew, or had reason to know, that subordinates were committing crimes and failed to prevent them or punish those responsible. This principle applies to military and comparable command structures, including organized armed groups where the factual conditions are met (Rome Statute, 1998).

Crimes against humanity do not require an international armed conflict. They require a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population, with knowledge of the attack, under the applicable legal definition. This makes the doctrine relevant to armed groups that control territory or carry out organized campaigns of violence against civilians.

Individual criminal responsibility does not settle the group’s legal status. It proves something narrower: international law can reach persons who act through non-state structures. A rebel leader, militia commander, or de facto prison chief may be accountable even when the group itself is not treated as a state.

11.5 Terrorist groups

States are especially cautious about recognizing terrorist groups as subjects of international law. The concern is legitimacy. A group that uses violence against civilians may seek recognition, negotiation, or publicity as proof of political status. States often resist any legal language that could appear to validate the group’s claims.

That caution does not mean that the law is silent. Terrorist groups and their members may be subject to criminal prosecution, sanctions, asset freezes, travel bans, arms embargoes, counter-financing rules, and Security Council measures. Individuals may face liability under domestic criminal law, treaty-based offences, or international criminal law where the conduct also amounts to war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide.

A terrorist label can also create legal complications. It may affect humanitarian access, peace negotiations, prisoner exchanges, and engagement by neutral organizations. If contact with a listed group is too broadly criminalized, humanitarian actors may struggle to deliver aid or negotiate access to civilians.

The legal balance is difficult. International law can impose duties and consequences on a terrorist group without granting statehood, sovereign equality, or political legitimacy. Regulation is not recognition. Accountability is not endorsement.

This distinction is essential for the broader doctrine of subjecthood. An entity may be addressed by international law because its conduct is dangerous, not because it has acquired a respected legal status.

12. Special and Historical Subjects

Some entities do not fit ordinary statehood or international organization doctrine. Their status rests on history, recognition, treaty practice, humanitarian function, or special institutional arrangements. They should not be treated as models for general subjecthood.

This category matters because it shows the flexibility of international legal personality. International law does not use one formula for every entity. It may recognize narrow capacities where history, function, and practice support that result.

The danger is exaggeration. Special entities are often exceptional precisely because they cannot be easily repeated. Their legal position should be explained with care, not used to argue that every influential institution has an international personality.

12.1 The Holy See

The Holy See is one of the clearest examples of a special historical subject. It maintains diplomatic relations, concludes treaties, participates in international organizations, and holds observer status in the United Nations. Its international personality is older than Vatican City State and is not reducible to territorial sovereignty alone.

The distinction between the Holy See and Vatican City State is essential. Vatican City State provides a territorial base. The Holy See is the governing authority of the Catholic Church and the entity that conducts most diplomatic relations. International law has long treated the Holy See as capable of acting on the international plane (Crawford, 2006).

Its personality is historical and functional. It does not rest on the ordinary Montevideo model in the same way as a state with a permanent population, defined territory, government, and general external capacity. It is recognized because of a long diplomatic practice, treaty relations, and its special religious and institutional role.

The Holy See should not be used as a template for other religious bodies. Its status is exceptional. Other religious organizations may have international influence, but they do not automatically acquire international legal personality.

12.2 The Sovereign Order of Malta

The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta is another unusual case. It has diplomatic relations with many states, performs humanitarian work, issues certain official documents, and maintains a recognized international presence.

Its position is difficult to classify because it lacks ordinary territorial statehood. It is not a state in the normal sense. Its status rests on history, diplomatic practice, humanitarian functions, and recognition by states willing to treat it as having limited international capacity.

The Order’s legal personality is best described as exceptional and limited. It may conclude agreements and maintain diplomatic relations in certain contexts, but it does not possess the general powers of a state. It cannot be treated as equal to a territorial sovereign.

The value of the example is analytical. It shows that an international personality can survive in special historical forms. It also shows why subjecthood must be assessed by specific capacity, not by broad labels.

12.3 National liberation movements

National liberation movements became especially important during decolonization. They claimed to represent a people under colonial rule, alien domination, or racist regime structures. In some cases, they received observer status, participated in international conferences, engaged with the United Nations, and entered into humanitarian commitments.

Their status was connected to self-determination. International law did not treat every insurgent movement as a national liberation movement. The category was strongest where the movement claimed to represent a colonial people or a people subject to foreign domination. The legal setting mattered.

Humanitarian law also recognized the relevance of liberation struggles. Additional Protocol I extended the category of international armed conflict to certain armed conflicts in which people fought against colonial domination, alien occupation, and racist regimes in the exercise of self-determination (Additional Protocol I, 1977). This was a major legal development, although not every state accepted its full implications in the same way.

National liberation movements could sometimes participate in treaty-related processes or make commitments under humanitarian law. That capacity was limited. It did not make every movement a state or government. It recognized a specific representative function linked to self-determination.

The category is less central today because formal decolonization has largely ended. It remains relevant for understanding how international law handled the transition between colonial rule and statehood, and how collective claims can receive legal recognition before the creation of a new state.

12.4 Mandates and trust territories

Mandates and trust territories show how international law created special regimes for territories before full independence. These arrangements were not ordinary sovereignty. They placed the administering power under international obligations concerning governance, welfare, development, and eventual self-government.

The League of Nations mandate system emerged after the First World War. Former territories of defeated powers were placed under administration by mandatory powers. The system carried deep paternalistic and imperial assumptions, but it also introduced the idea that territorial administration could be subject to international supervision.

The United Nations trusteeship system developed this idea after the Second World War. The UN Charter linked trusteeship to international peace, advancement of inhabitants, self-government, and progressive development toward independence or another freely chosen status (UN Charter, 1945). The system made territorial administration an international responsibility rather than a purely colonial entitlement.

Mandates and trust territories also help explain self-determination. They show that international law did not move straight from empire to equal statehood. It passed through transitional legal categories that treated some territories and communities as objects of administration, then gradually as holders of a right to determine political status.

The Chagos advisory opinion confirmed the modern endpoint of that development. Decolonization must reflect the free and genuine expression of the will of the people concerned, and the administering power cannot lawfully detach territory in a way that frustrates that right (International Court of Justice, 2019).

These regimes are historical, but they still matter doctrinally. They show how international law can create legal personality, duties, and protected interests before full statehood. They also expose the risk of legal forms that claim to protect communities while preserving external control.

13. Sub-State Entities and Cities

Sub-state entities may act internationally, but their legal capacity is usually derivative. They do not possess a general international personality merely because they have political institutions, territory, elected authorities, or economic power. Their external role normally depends on domestic constitutional law, authorization by the state, treaty arrangements, or special institutional rules.

This category includes federal units, autonomous territories, overseas territories, special administrative regions, separate customs territories, and cities. These entities may sign cooperation agreements, participate in technical bodies, manage cross-border projects, or join transnational networks. Yet the state usually remains the main international legal person and the bearer of responsibility for conduct linked to its organs or territorial units (Crawford, 2006; Aust, 2010).

The legal problem is not whether these entities matter. They clearly do. The issue is whether their participation creates independent legal personality, or whether it remains tied to the state that authorizes or tolerates their external activity.

13.1 Federal units

Federal units, such as provinces, states, cantons, Länder, and regions, may have external powers under domestic constitutional law. Some can conclude administrative agreements, cooperate with neighbouring regions, participate in trade promotion, or maintain representative offices abroad. Their capacity depends on the constitution of the state concerned.

International law does not treat every federal unit as an independent subject. A Canadian province, a German Land, a Swiss canton, or a state within the United States may have important powers under domestic law, but the federation normally remains responsible internationally. If a federal unit breaches an international obligation, the state cannot escape responsibility by pointing to its internal constitutional structure (International Law Commission, 2001).

This point is central to treaty performance. Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that a party may not invoke its internal law as justification for failure to perform a treaty (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969). A federal state must organize its internal system in a way that allows compliance with its international obligations.

Federal arrangements may still affect implementation. A treaty on education, policing, environment, culture, or health may require action by sub-state authorities. The international obligation binds the state, while domestic law determines which internal body must act. This division may create political difficulty, but it does not alter the state’s external responsibility.

A federal unit may gain a stronger external role when a treaty expressly permits participation or when the state authorizes it to act. Even then, the capacity remains limited. It is not the same as sovereign personality.

13.2 Autonomous territories

Autonomous territories require case-by-case analysis. Some have internal self-government but little external authority. Others may participate in trade, customs, migration, aviation, taxation, or technical regimes under special arrangements. The legal position depends on the constitutional structure, the relevant treaty, and the practice of other states or international organizations.

Special administrative regions provide useful examples. Hong Kong participates separately in several economic and technical regimes under arrangements linked to its constitutional status. It has acted as a separate customs territory in the World Trade Organization. That capacity is specific. It does not make Hong Kong a state under general international law.

Overseas territories and dependent territories raise related questions. Some participate in regional organizations, fisheries bodies, environmental regimes, or technical agreements. Others are represented internationally by the metropolitan state. The key question is always the same: which legal source grants external capacity, and who remains internationally responsible?

Autonomy can also be relevant to self-determination. A territory may have internal institutions, local law-making powers, and control over certain policy areas while remaining connected to a state. International law may accept such arrangements when they reflect a freely chosen political status. The legal validity of the arrangement depends on consent, representation, and the absence of coercion.

Separate customs territories show that international economic law sometimes recognizes entities for functional reasons. A territory may participate in trade arrangements because it has a distinct customs regime, not because it has full statehood. This confirms the graduated nature of international personality.

13.3 Cities

Cities have become influential actors in global governance. They join climate networks, adopt human rights charters, manage migration services, cooperate on public health, regulate digital infrastructure, and exchange policy models across borders. Urban authorities often implement international standards more directly than national ministries.

Climate governance illustrates this role. City networks can promote emissions reductions, public transport reform, urban resilience, flood planning, energy efficiency, and local adaptation. These commitments may influence policy and produce practical results. They do not usually create binding obligations under general international law.

Migration is another example. Cities often deliver housing, education, emergency care, language support, policing, and integration services. International migration law may bind the state, but local authorities carry much of the practical burden. This gives cities operational importance, even when they lack independent treaty-making capacity.

Public health also shows the limits of state-only analysis. During health emergencies, cities may regulate transport, communicate public guidance, coordinate hospitals, and manage local restrictions. International health obligations remain primarily interstate or institutional, but implementation frequently depends on municipal action.

The legal status of cities remains limited. They are usually domestic public authorities. Their international activities depend on national law, state tolerance, funding arrangements, and non-binding cooperation networks. A city may be an important actor without becoming a full subject of international law.

The main risk is exaggeration. City diplomacy is real, but it does not erase the state. International law may increasingly rely on cities for implementation, evidence, and policy innovation. Still, legal personality remains narrow unless a treaty, statute, or institutional rule grants a specific capacity.

14. Humanity, Nature, and Future Generations

Humanity, nature, animals, and future generations occupy an important but delicate place in modern international law. They appear in debates on environmental protection, climate change, biodiversity, cultural heritage, the deep seabed, outer space, and obligations owed to the international community. Their legal significance is growing, but they do not automatically become legal persons under general international law.

The difference between protection and personality is essential. International law may protect an interest without creating a subject capable of holding rights, bringing claims, or incurring duties. The climate system, endangered species, ecosystems, cultural heritage, and future generations may be protected through duties imposed on states and other actors. That does not always mean that the protected interest has independent legal personality.

This section should be read with caution. These categories are legally meaningful, but they are not equivalent to states, international organizations, or individuals. Their role is strongest where treaties, advisory opinions, customary rules, domestic law, or institutional practice give them concrete legal effect (Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell, 2021; Sands et al., 2023).

14.1 Humankind

Humankind appears in several legal concepts. The common heritage of humankind is associated most clearly with the deep seabed beyond national jurisdiction. The law of the sea treats the Area and its resources as common heritage, regulated through an international regime rather than through ordinary territorial acquisition (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982).

Outer space law also uses the language of common interest. The Outer Space Treaty states that exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, and shall be the province of all mankind (Outer Space Treaty, 1967). This language rejects national appropriation and supports shared access, but it does not create a global legal person called humanity.

Cultural heritage law also protects interests that exceed the state. Certain cultural sites, objects, traditions, and forms of heritage may have value for humanity as a whole. The World Heritage Convention reflects this idea by creating an international system for identifying and protecting heritage of outstanding universal value (World Heritage Convention, 1972).

Climate law uses a related structure. The climate system is not owned by one state. Harm to it affects communities, territories, ecosystems, and future generations. Treaties such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement frame climate change as a common concern requiring cooperation, national commitments, reporting, and progressive action (UNFCCC, 1992; Paris Agreement, 2015).

These concepts protect shared interests. They limit unilateral control, support cooperation, and justify duties that go beyond bilateral relations. They do not, by themselves, make humankind a subject with general procedural standing.

14.2 Future generations

Future generations are increasingly present in environmental law, climate litigation, sustainable development, and advisory proceedings. The idea is straightforward: present decisions can impose irreversible burdens on people who cannot vote, litigate, negotiate, or consent today.

International instruments often refer to intergenerational equity. The Rio Declaration states that the right to development must be fulfilled so as to meet the developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations (Rio Declaration, 1992). Climate law also reflects this logic because greenhouse gas emissions accumulate over time and may affect living conditions for decades or centuries.

The legal status of future generations remains debated. They are usually treated as a protected interest rather than as a full subject of international law. States may owe duties that take their interests into account, but future persons do not normally have direct procedural standing in international courts.

Domestic and regional climate cases have increased the practical importance of the concept. Courts have examined whether insufficient climate policy violates rights, statutory duties, constitutional guarantees, or obligations of care toward younger and future persons. These cases do not create a single international rule, but they influence how lawyers think about time, risk, and responsibility.

Advisory proceedings on climate change also place future generations at the centre of legal argument. The point is not only compensation for present harm. It is also prevention, mitigation, adaptation, and the protection of conditions necessary for human life and dignity in the future.

The safest conclusion is measured. Future generations are legally relevant because international law increasingly protects long-term collective interests. They should not be described as full subjects unless a specific legal regime gives them a defined procedural or substantive status.

14.3 Nature and animals

Nature and animals raise a different issue. International law protects biodiversity, ecosystems, endangered species, migratory animals, wetlands, forests, oceans, and the atmosphere. It does so through treaties, customary duties, environmental impact assessment, due diligence, conservation regimes, and cooperation duties.

Some domestic legal systems recognize rights of nature. Rivers, forests, mountains, or ecosystems may receive legal personality or guardianship under national constitutional law, legislation, or judicial decisions. These developments are important, especially because they challenge the older idea that nature is only an object of ownership or regulation.

General international law has not yet adopted a broad doctrine of legal personality for nature. Environmental treaties usually impose duties on states. They may require conservation, environmental assessment, prevention of transboundary harm, sustainable use, restoration, cooperation, and reporting. The ecosystem is protected, but the treaty does not always make the ecosystem a legal claimant.

Animal protection follows a similar pattern. International law protects certain species through conservation treaties and trade restrictions. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species regulates trade in listed species. The Convention on Biological Diversity addresses conservation and sustainable use. Regional instruments and domestic laws may go further. Still, animals are not generally treated as subjects of international law.

This may change over time. Ecological harm, climate change, biodiversity collapse, and animal welfare debates are pushing legal systems to rethink the boundary between protected objects and legal subjects. For now, a careful article should distinguish domestic rights-of-nature models from general international law.

14.4 Community interests

Community interests are central to modern international law. Some obligations are owed not merely to one injured state, but to the international community as a whole. This idea appears in the doctrine of erga omnes obligations, peremptory norms, serious breaches, and common interests.

Barcelona Traction is the classic authority for erga omnes obligations. The International Court of Justice distinguished ordinary obligations owed to another state from obligations owed to the international community as a whole. It gave examples such as the prohibition of aggression, genocide, slavery, and racial discrimination (International Court of Justice, 1970).

Peremptory norms, or jus cogens, add another layer. These are norms accepted and recognized by the international community of states as a whole as norms from which no derogation is permitted. They affect treaty validity, state responsibility, non-recognition, cooperation, and the legal consequences of serious breaches (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969; International Law Commission, 2022).

Environmental protection increasingly intersects with this structure. Severe environmental harm, climate change, biodiversity loss, and marine pollution affect shared interests that cannot be reduced to bilateral injury. The law is still developing, but the move toward community-based reasoning is visible in environmental due diligence, climate obligations, and advisory opinions on environmental harm.

Community interests expand the reach of legal protection, but they do not automatically create a new subject. An obligation owed to the international community may allow broader invocation of responsibility or stronger duties of cooperation. It does not necessarily mean that “the international community” has its own legal personality equivalent to a state or organization.

This distinction preserves accuracy. International law can protect humanity, nature, future generations, and community interests by imposing duties on states, organizations, individuals, and, in some regimes, private actors. Protection is expanding. Full subjecthood remains limited.

Also read

• Introduction to International Law

• Principle of Sovereign Equality of States

• State Responsibility in International Law

• Principle of Self-Determination of Peoples

• Principle of Territorial Integrity in International Law

• The Statute of the International Court of Justice

• Jus cogens and the hierarchy of international norms

• International Law and Colonialism

15. Standing Before International Courts

Procedural standing must be separated from subjecthood. An entity may hold rights under international law and still lack access to a particular court. Another entity may appear before an international tribunal only because a treaty, statute, or institutional rule gives it that procedural route.

This distinction is essential. A human being may hold rights under a human rights treaty, but cannot bring a contentious case before the International Court of Justice. A corporation may sue a state before an investment tribunal, but only where the state has consented to that forum. An international organization may possess legal personality, yet lack standing as a contentious party before the ICJ.

Standing is not a general reward for importance. It is a jurisdictional question. Each court or tribunal has its own rules on parties, claims, admissibility, remedies, and legal effect. Subjecthood explains who can hold legal capacity. Standing explains who can use a particular procedure.

15.1 The ICJ

The International Court of Justice has a narrow contentious jurisdiction. Article 34 of the ICJ Statute states that only states may be parties in cases before the Court (Statute of the International Court of Justice, 1945). This rule is decisive. Individuals, corporations, NGOs, Indigenous peoples, armed groups, and international organizations cannot appear as contentious parties before the ICJ.

This does not mean that their interests are absent. A case between states may concern individual rights, diplomatic protection, consular notification, genocide, self-determination, environmental harm, or the legal status of a territory. The procedural parties are states, but the underlying interests may involve persons, communities, corporations, or international institutions.

LaGrand and Avena illustrate the point. Germany and Mexico brought claims before the ICJ concerning consular rights of detained nationals. The Court recognized that Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations created individual rights, but the litigation remained interstate (International Court of Justice, 2001; International Court of Justice, 2004).

Advisory jurisdiction is different. Under Article 96 of the UN Charter and Article 65 of the ICJ Statute, authorized UN organs and specialized agencies may request advisory opinions on legal questions within the permitted scope (UN Charter, 1945; Statute of the International Court of Justice, 1945). Advisory opinions may address issues involving peoples, territories, international organizations, human rights, occupation, or decolonization. Still, advisory jurisdiction does not turn non-state entities into contentious parties.

The ICJ proves the need to separate personality, interest, and standing. A group may have a protected legal interest. An individual may hold a treaty right. An organization may possess an international personality. None of that changes Article 34.

15.2 Human rights systems

Human rights systems give individuals and, in some settings, groups or communities direct procedural access. This is one of the main reasons individuals can no longer be described as mere objects of international law. They may bring complaints, submit communications, seek findings of violation, and obtain remedies where the relevant instrument allows it.

The European Convention on Human Rights offers a strong model of individual petition. Article 34 allows individuals, NGOs, and groups of individuals to bring applications before the European Court of Human Rights, subject to admissibility requirements (European Convention on Human Rights, 1950). This gives individuals a direct procedural role against states.

The Inter-American system operates differently. Individuals and NGOs may submit petitions to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Cases may then reach the Inter-American Court through the Commission or a state, depending on jurisdictional conditions. The individual is central to the system, even though access to the Court is institutionally mediated (American Convention on Human Rights, 1969).

The African system also uses a mixed structure. Individuals and NGOs may submit communications to the African Commission. Access to the African Court depends on the relevant protocol and, for direct individual and NGO applications, on whether the state has accepted that procedure. This shows how procedural personality can be strong in one regime and limited in another (African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981; Protocol to the African Charter on the African Court, 1998).

UN treaty bodies provide another route. Optional protocols and communication procedures allow individuals to submit claims under instruments such as the ICCPR, CEDAW, CAT, CRPD, and other treaties, where the state has accepted the procedure. These bodies do not function exactly like courts, but they create international procedures through which individuals can invoke treaty rights.

Human rights standing remains treaty-based. It is not universal. A person must satisfy admissibility rules, victim status requirements, exhaustion of domestic remedies, time limits, and jurisdictional conditions. The existence of human rights does not automatically open every international forum.

15.3 International criminal courts

International criminal courts treat individuals differently. The individual appears not primarily as a rights-holder bringing a claim, but as an accused person, convicted person, victim, witness, or reparation beneficiary. This is a distinct form of procedural personality.

The accused has procedural rights under the statute and rules of the relevant court. These include fair trial guarantees, defence rights, disclosure, legal representation, interpretation, examination of witnesses, and protection against unlawful conviction. International criminal procedure gives the accused direct legal status because punishment is personal.

Victims may also have procedural roles. The Rome Statute allows victim participation where their personal interests are affected and where participation is consistent with the rights of the accused and a fair trial (Rome Statute, 1998). Victims may also benefit from reparations orders through the International Criminal Court’s framework.

This differs sharply from state standing. A state appears before an international court as a legal person asserting rights, defending conduct, or seeking remedies. An accused person appears because international criminal law imposes direct responsibility. A victim appears because the legal process recognizes harm and, in some systems, allows participation or reparation.

International criminal courts also show that subjecthood is not only about empowerment. It may involve liability exposure. Individual personality under international criminal law means that a person can be prosecuted for crimes under international law, even when the conduct was committed through a state, army, militia, or political organization.

15.4 Investment tribunals

Investment tribunals give foreign investors, including corporations and sometimes natural persons, direct procedural capacity against states. This is one of the most powerful examples of non-state standing in international law.

The capacity arises from consent. A state may consent to arbitration through a bilateral investment treaty, a multilateral treaty, a domestic investment law, or a contract. Once the investor accepts that offer according to the applicable rules, the investor may bring a claim before a tribunal, often under ICSID or UNCITRAL procedures (ICSID Convention, 1965; Sornarajah, 2021).

This structure departs from diplomatic protection. The investor does not need its home state to bring the claim. The investor acts directly. It may seek damages for breach of investment protections such as fair and equitable treatment, expropriation without compensation, discrimination, or failure to provide protection and security.

The power is narrow, however. It exists only within the limits of the relevant instrument. The tribunal must have jurisdiction over the investor, the investment, the respondent state, the consent clause, and the subject matter. A corporation with standing under one treaty may have none under another.

Investment standing does not equal general international personality. A corporation that can sue a state under an investment treaty cannot join the United Nations, bring a contentious ICJ case, claim sovereign immunity, or exercise public jurisdiction. Its procedural capacity is real, but treaty-specific.

15.5 Administrative tribunals

International administrative tribunals give international civil servants direct procedural rights within institutional legal orders. Staff members of international organizations may bring claims concerning employment disputes, disciplinary measures, contracts, pensions, harassment, termination, or internal administrative decisions.

These tribunals exist because international organizations often enjoy immunity from domestic courts. If staff members cannot sue the organization nationally, an internal or international tribunal may provide the alternative remedy needed to make immunity acceptable. This link between immunity and remedy is central to institutional accountability.

Examples include the International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal, the United Nations Dispute Tribunal, and the United Nations Appeals Tribunal. Their jurisdiction depends on the rules of the organization and the tribunal’s statute. The claimant is usually an individual staff member, while the respondent is the organization.

Administrative tribunals show another limited form of personality. The individual is not acting as a state. The claim is not diplomatic protection. The procedure arises within an institutional legal system. Yet the individual has direct standing and may obtain a binding decision.

This category is often overlooked in discussions of subjecthood. It matters because it proves that international legal capacity is not limited to grand questions of statehood, war, or self-determination. It also appears in employment law, institutional justice, and the daily operation of international organizations.

16. A Modern Taxonomy

A modern account of subjecthood must avoid two mistakes. The first is the old state-only model, which cannot explain international organizations, human rights law, international criminal responsibility, investment arbitration, Indigenous rights, and humanitarian obligations of armed groups. The second is the opposite error: treating every influential actor as a subject of international law.

The better approach is taxonomy. Entities should be classified according to their legal capacity, not their political visibility. The key questions are: what rights or duties does the entity hold, which rule creates them, what powers can it exercise, can it incur responsibility, and does it have standing before any international body?

This taxonomy is not rigid. International law develops through treaties, custom, institutional practice, adjudication, and political settlement. Still, a clear structure helps readers understand the subject without collapsing legal categories into slogans.

16.1 Full subjects

States are full subjects of international law. They possess a general international legal personality and the widest range of legal capacities. They can conclude treaties, maintain diplomatic relations, exercise jurisdiction, claim immunities, bring international claims, incur responsibility, join international organizations, and appear as parties before the ICJ.

Their full personality does not mean unlimited freedom. States are bound by treaty law, customary law, peremptory norms, human rights law, humanitarian law, environmental obligations, diplomatic law, and the prohibition on the threat or use of force. Full subjecthood combines authority and restraint.

States also remain the main lawmakers. Their practice and opinio juris shape custom. Their consent creates treaties. Their participation sustains international institutions. Even when modern law protects individuals, communities, or global interests, the state remains the principal structure through which many rules are made and enforced.

This centrality should not be confused with exclusivity. States are the fullest subjects, not the only subjects.

16.2 Functional subjects

International organizations are functional subjects. Their legal personality depends on their purposes, constituent instruments, implied powers, institutional practice, and the functions assigned to them by member states.

The United Nations is the leading example. It can bring claims, conclude agreements, enjoy privileges and immunities, employ staff, conduct operations, and act internationally because those capacities are necessary for its functions. Other organizations possess different capacities according to their mandates.

Functional personality is narrower than state personality. An organization cannot claim powers merely because they would be useful. It must connect them to its legal basis. The stronger the power claimed, the stronger the connection to the organization’s mandate must be.

This category also includes the problem of responsibility. If organizations can act internationally, they can breach obligations. If they enjoy immunity, they must provide credible alternative remedies where rights or interests are affected. A functional personality must be matched with functional accountability.

16.3 Limited subjects

Limited subjects hold direct rights, duties, or procedural capacities in specific regimes. Their personality is real, but it is not general.

Individuals are the clearest example. They hold rights under human rights law, may submit complaints in certain systems, and can bear criminal responsibility under international criminal law. Yet they cannot make treaties, claim sovereign equality, or appear as contentious parties before the ICJ.

People are collective right-holders in the law of self-determination. Their strongest status appears in decolonization, foreign occupation, and alien domination. Their legal capacity does not automatically give every region, minority, or political community a right to independent statehood.

Indigenous peoples hold collective rights related to land, culture, resources, identity, consultation, participation, and self-government. Their status is distinct from ordinary minority protection, but it does not make them states.

Corporations and investors may hold treaty-based procedural rights, especially in investment arbitration. They may also face regulatory duties through domestic and regional laws influenced by international standards. Their capacity remains fragmented.

Organized armed groups may bear humanitarian obligations and their members may incur criminal responsibility. In some settings, groups exercising territorial control may also be addressed through human rights language. These duties regulate conduct. They do not grant sovereign legitimacy.

16.4 Special subjects

Special subjects do not fit ordinary categories. Their status rests on history, recognition, treaty practice, or a unique function.

The Holy See has diplomatic relations, treaty practice, and international participation rooted in a long historical position. Its personality is separate from ordinary statehood and must be distinguished from the Vatican City State.

The Sovereign Order of Malta has a limited international capacity connected to history, diplomatic practice, and humanitarian work. It is not a state in the ordinary sense, and its status should not be generalized.

The International Committee of the Red Cross has recognized functions under international humanitarian law. It is not an intergovernmental organization, but it performs roles that ordinary NGOs do not possess, including confidential humanitarian engagement and activities connected to the Geneva Conventions.

National liberation movements, especially during decolonization, also occupied a special position. Their legal relevance came from representation claims linked to self-determination, observer status, and humanitarian law. The category remains important historically and doctrinally, although it is less central after formal decolonization.

Special subjects prove that an international personality is flexible. They also prove that flexibility has limits. An exception is not a doctrine for every case.

16.5 Actors without full subjecthood

Some entities influence international law without possessing a general international personality. NGOs, cities, social movements, expert networks, private standard-setters, corporations outside specific treaty regimes, academic bodies, and professional associations may shape law, facts, policy, and compliance.

Their influence may be significant. NGOs document atrocities, support litigation, and monitor human rights. Cities implement climate and migration policies. Expert bodies shape technical standards. Private standard-setters influence trade, finance, digital governance, and environmental practice. Social movements change the political conditions in which legal rules are created.

None of this automatically creates subjecthood. The legal question is not whether the actor matters. The question is whether international law gives it rights, duties, powers, immunities, responsibility, or standing. Influence may explain why the law should respond to an actor. It does not, by itself, prove legal personality.

Corporations illustrate the distinction. Outside a treaty, contract, domestic statute, sanctions regime, or specific regulatory framework, a corporation may be globally powerful but still lack direct international personality. Inside an investment treaty, the same corporation may have standing against a state. Legal status depends on the applicable regime.

This final category keeps the doctrine disciplined. Modern international law is plural, but not shapeless. It recognizes more than states, but it does not recognize everyone in the same way.

17. Doctrinal Mistakes to Avoid

The doctrine of subjecthood is often misunderstood because it sits at the intersection of legal personality, institutional practice, political recognition, and procedural access. A weak analysis usually makes one of two errors: it keeps international law trapped in an outdated state-only model, or it expands the category of subjects so broadly that legal precision disappears.

A serious account must do neither. The modern law recognizes several entities for specific legal purposes, but it does not treat them all as equal. Subjecthood is not a slogan. It is a question of legal capacity, source, function, responsibility, and standing.

17.1 Reducing subjecthood to statehood

The first mistake is reducing subjecthood to statehood. This was once a common way to explain international law, but it no longer describes the field accurately. States remain central, but they are not alone.

International organizations can hold legal personality where their functions require it. The United Nations is the leading example, because the International Court of Justice recognized its capacity to bring an international claim in Reparation for Injuries (International Court of Justice, 1949). Individuals can hold rights under human rights law and bear responsibility under international criminal law. Foreign investors may bring claims directly against states under investment treaties. Organized armed groups may be bound by humanitarian law.

A state-only model also fails to explain self-determination. The right belongs to a collective community recognized by international law, not simply to an existing state. Decolonization, occupation, and alien domination cannot be understood if the only relevant legal person is the state that controls the territory.

The better view keeps states at the centre without treating them as the whole system. States still possess the widest legal capacity, but other entities may hold narrower capacities under specific regimes.

17.2 Equating influence with personality

The second mistake is equating influence with international legal personality. Many actors influence international law. NGOs document violations, corporations shape investment and supply chains, cities implement climate policies, expert networks draft standards, and armed groups may control territory. None of that automatically makes them full subjects of international law.

Influence is factual. Personality is legal. An entity may be powerful, visible, or indispensable in practice, yet lack direct rights, obligations, immunities, responsibility, or standing under international law.

Corporations illustrate the point. A multinational company may have vast economic influence. It may affect labour conditions, environmental policy, data governance, and public infrastructure. Still, its international legal capacity depends on specific legal sources, such as investment treaties, contracts, sanctions rules, domestic due diligence laws, or sectoral regulations. Power alone is not personality.

NGOs show the same distinction. A human rights organization may provide evidence used by a court, submit reports to treaty bodies, or support victims in litigation. Those roles are important, but they usually amount to participation rather than full subjecthood.

The distinction protects the doctrine from inflation. If every influential actor became a subject, the concept would lose analytical value.

17.3 Ignoring procedural limits

A third mistake is ignoring procedural limits. An entity may hold a right under international law and still lack standing before a particular court. Rights and procedures do not always move together.

The ICJ is the clearest example. Only states may be parties in contentious cases before the Court (Statute of the International Court of Justice, 1945). A dispute may concern individual rights, genocide, consular notification, self-determination, environmental harm, or the legal status of a territory. The procedural parties remain states.

Human rights systems operate differently. Individuals may bring petitions before certain regional courts or treaty bodies, but only where the relevant instrument allows it and the admissibility conditions are met. Investment arbitration follows another model. Investors may sue states directly, but only where consent, jurisdiction, and treaty conditions exist.

International criminal law adds a further distinction. Individuals appear as accused persons, victims, witnesses, or reparation beneficiaries. That is not the same as state standing. It is a form of procedural status created by criminal jurisdiction.

Ignoring these limits leads to inaccurate claims. A person may be protected by international law without having access to the ICJ. A corporation may have standing before an investment tribunal without becoming a general subject of international law. A community may hold a collective right without possessing the procedural powers of a state.

17.4 Treating all subjects equally

The fourth mistake is treating all subjects as if they possessed the same legal capacity. They do not. International law recognizes different forms and degrees of personality.

States have a general personality. They can conclude treaties, exercise jurisdiction, maintain diplomatic relations, claim immunities, incur responsibility, join organizations, and appear before the ICJ. International organizations have a functional personality. Their powers depend on their constituent instruments, implied powers, institutional practice, and assigned purposes.

Individuals have direct rights and duties in specific regimes. Communities entitled to self-determination hold collective rights in particular legal contexts. Indigenous communities hold rights linked to land, culture, resources, consultation, participation, and self-government. Corporations may have treaty-based standing in investment arbitration. Armed groups may bear humanitarian obligations.

These are not equal positions. They must not be placed in one undifferentiated category. A state and an individual are both legally relevant, but their capacities are not comparable. The same is true of a corporation, the United Nations, the Holy See, an Indigenous community, and an organized armed group.

Subjecthood is graduated. Its content depends on what the law allows the entity to do, what duties it imposes, and which forum can address the claim.

17.5 Confusing legality and legitimacy

The final mistake is confusing legality with legitimacy. Recognition, participation, or regulation may carry political implications, but legal status must still be grounded in rules, practice, institutional decisions, and judicial reasoning.

This distinction is especially important for contested statehood and armed groups. Recognizing a state may have political consequences, but statehood cannot rest only on sympathy, strategic interest, or diplomatic preference. The analysis must consider territory, population, government, independence, recognition, legality, self-determination, and institutional practice.

The same caution applies to armed groups. International law may impose humanitarian obligations on an armed group without legitimizing its political project. It may allow humanitarian engagement without recognizing the group as a government. Regulation is not endorsement.

Non-recognition duties show the other side of the issue. International law may require states not to recognize a situation created by aggression, unlawful annexation, apartheid, or denial of self-determination. In those cases, effectiveness cannot cure illegality.

Legitimacy may influence political judgment, but legal personality requires legal evidence. A disciplined analysis must identify the source of capacity, the scope of that capacity, and the consequences attached to it.

Conclusion

The subjects of international law are no longer limited to states, but states remain the fullest subjects of the system. They possess general legal personality, the broadest range of powers, and the widest procedural capacity. They make treaties, exercise jurisdiction, claim immunities, incur responsibility, participate in organizations, and appear as contentious parties before the International Court of Justice.

International organizations form the second core category. Their personality is functional, not sovereign. They act because their constituent instruments, implied powers, institutional practice, and assigned purposes give them legal capacity. The United Nations illustrates the point most clearly, but each organization must be examined according to its own mandate and legal framework.

Individuals hold a real, but limited, position. Human rights law gives them direct rights. International criminal law imposes direct responsibility. Consular law, refugee law, regional human rights systems, treaty body procedures, and administrative tribunals add further forms of capacity. Yet individuals do not possess the general legal powers of states.

Collective entities also have legal relevance. Communities entitled to self-determination hold rights in contexts such as decolonization, occupation, and alien domination. Indigenous communities have rights connected to land, culture, resources, consultation, participation, and self-government. Minorities receive protection through equality, language, religion, culture, education, and participation rights.

Corporations, investors, NGOs, armed groups, cities, and sub-state entities occupy narrower positions. Some hold treaty-based rights. Some bear obligations in specific fields. Some participate in legal processes without becoming full subjects. Others influence international law mainly through practice, evidence, advocacy, governance, or implementation.

Special entities, such as the Holy See, the Sovereign Order of Malta, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and some national liberation movements, confirm that international legal personality can take unusual forms. Their status depends on history, function, recognition, treaty practice, or a specific legal role. They are exceptions, not general models.

The strongest modern view is graduated subjecthood. International law allocates personality by source, function, capacity, responsibility, and procedural standing. The question is not simply who matters in world affairs. The legal question is who can hold rights, bear duties, exercise powers, incur responsibility, or appear before a forum under a specific rule of international law.

That approach gives the doctrine both accuracy and flexibility. It preserves the central role of states, explains the rise of international organizations and individuals, and avoids the careless claim that every influential actor is a subject. The result is a clearer map of modern public international law: plural, structured, and still disciplined by legal capacity.

References

1. Additional Protocol I (1977) Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts [online]. Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977 (Accessed: 1 June 2026).

2. Additional Protocol II (1977) Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts [online]. Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/apii-1977 (Accessed: 1 June 2026).

3. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1981) African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights [online]. Available at: https://au.int/en/treaties/african-charter-human-and-peoples-rights (Accessed: 1 June 2026).

4. American Convention on Human Rights (1969) American Convention on Human Rights [online]. Available at: https://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_b-32_american_convention_on_human_rights.htm (Accessed: 1 June 2026).

5. Aust, A. (2010) Handbook of International Law. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

6. Bell, C. (2008) On the Law of Peace: Peace Agreements and the Lex Pacificatoria. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

7. Boyle, A. and Redgwell, C. (2021) Birnie, Boyle, and Redgwell’s International Law and the Environment. 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

8. Clapham, A. (2006) Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

9. Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) Convention on Biological Diversity [online]. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/convention/text (Accessed: 1 June 2026).

10. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (1973) Text of the Convention [online]. Available at: https://cites.org/eng/disc/text.php (Accessed: 1 June 2026).

11. Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (1946) Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/cpiun-cpisa/cpiun-cpisa.html (Accessed: 4 June 2026).

12. Crawford, J. (2006) The Creation of States in International Law. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

13. de Witte, B. (2011) ‘The European Union as an international legal experiment’, in de Búrca, G. and Weiler, J.H.H. (eds.) The Worlds of European Constitutionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19–56.

14. European Convention on Human Rights (1950) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [online]. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG (Accessed: 4 June 2026).

15. European Court of Human Rights (1999) Waite and Kennedy v Germany, Application no. 26083/94, Judgment of 18 February 1999 [online]. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58912 (Accessed: 4 June 2026).

16. European Union (2024) Directive (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on corporate sustainability due diligence [online]. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1760/oj/eng (Accessed: 4 June 2026).

17. Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1995) Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities [online]. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/16800c10cf (Accessed: 17 June 2026).

18. Geneva Conventions (1949) Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 [online]. Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties (Accessed: 4 June 2026).

19. Higgins, R. (1994) Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

20. ICSID Convention (1965) Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States [online]. Available at: https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/ICSID%20Convention%20English.pdf (Accessed: 4 June 2026).

21. International Court of Justice (1949) Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1949, p. 174 [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/4 (Accessed: 6 June 2026).

22. International Court of Justice (1955) Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v Guatemala), Second Phase, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1955, p. 4 [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/18 (Accessed: 6 June 2026).

23. International Court of Justice (1962) Certain Expenses of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1962, p. 151 [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/49 (Accessed: 6 June 2026).

24. International Court of Justice (1970) Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v Spain), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1970, p. 3 [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/50 (Accessed: 6 June 2026).

25. International Court of Justice (1971) Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1971, p. 16 [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/53 (Accessed: 6 June 2026).

26. International Court of Justice (1975) Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1975, p. 12 [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/61 (Accessed: 6 June 2026).

27. International Court of Justice (2001) LaGrand (Germany v United States of America), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2001, p. 466 [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/104 (Accessed: 6 June 2026).

28. International Court of Justice (2002) Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2002, p. 3 [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/121 (Accessed: 6 June 2026).

29. International Court of Justice (2004) Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v United States of America), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2004, p. 12 [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/128 (Accessed: 6 June 2026).

30. International Court of Justice (2004) Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 2004, p. 136 [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/131 (Accessed: 9 June 2026).

31. International Court of Justice (2010) Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 2010, p. 403 [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/141 (Accessed: 9 June 2026).

32. International Court of Justice (2019) Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 2019, p. 95 [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/169 (Accessed: 9 June 2026).

33. International Criminal Court (2021) Situation in the State of Palestine, Decision on the Prosecutor’s request pursuant to article 19(3) for a ruling on the Court’s territorial jurisdiction in Palestine, ICC-01/18, 5 February 2021 [online]. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/court-record/icc-01/18-143 (Accessed: 9 June 2026).

34. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (1995) Prosecutor v Tadić, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, IT-94-1-AR72, 2 October 1995 [online]. Available at: https://www.icty.org/x/cases/tadic/acdec/en/51002.htm (Accessed: 9 June 2026).

35. International Court of Justice Statute (1945) Statute of the International Court of Justice [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/statute (Accessed: 9 June 2026).

36. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [online]. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights (Accessed: 9 June 2026).

37. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [online]. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights (Accessed: 11 June 2026).

38. International Labour Organization (1989) Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169) [online]. Available at: https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C169 (Accessed: 11 June 2026).

39. International Law Commission (2001) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf (Accessed: 11 June 2026).

40. International Law Commission (2011) Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations, with commentaries [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_11_2011.pdf (Accessed: 11 June 2026).

41. International Law Commission (2022) Draft conclusions on identification and legal consequences of peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens), with commentaries [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/1_14_2022.pdf (Accessed: 11 June 2026).

42. Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2001) Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v Nicaragua, Judgment of 31 August 2001, Series C No. 79 [online]. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/Seriec_79_ing.pdf (Accessed: 11 June 2026).

43. Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2007) Saramaka People v Suriname, Judgment of 28 November 2007, Series C No. 172 [online]. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_172_ing.pdf (Accessed: 13 June 2026).

44. Klabbers, J. (2015) An Introduction to International Organizations Law. 3rd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

45. Klabbers, J. (2024) International Law. 4th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

46. Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933) Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States [online]. Available at: https://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-40.html (Accessed: 13 June 2026).

47. Muchlinski, P.T. (2021) Multinational Enterprises and the Law. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

48. Outer Space Treaty (1967) Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies [online]. Available at: https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/outerspacetreaty.html (Accessed: 13 June 2026).

49. Paris Agreement (2015) Paris Agreement [online]. Available at: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf (Accessed: 13 June 2026).

50. Permanent Court of International Justice (1924) Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Judgment, PCIJ Series A No. 2 [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/pcij-series-a (Accessed: 13 June 2026).

51. Peters, A. (2016) Beyond Human Rights: The Legal Status of the Individual in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

52. Portmann, R. (2010) Legal Personality in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

53. Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1998) Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights [online]. Available at: https://au.int/en/treaties/protocol-african-charter-human-and-peoples-rights-establishment-african-court-human-and (Accessed: 13 June 2026).

54. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) Rio Declaration on Environment and Development [online]. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_CONF.151_26_Vol.I_Declaration.pdf (Accessed: 13 June 2026).

55. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court [online]. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/RS-Eng.pdf (Accessed: 17 June 2026).

56. Sands, P., Peel, J., Fabra, A. and MacKenzie, R. (2023) Principles of International Environmental Law. 5th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

57. Schermers, H.G. and Blokker, N.M. (2018) International Institutional Law: Unity within Diversity. 6th edn. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff.

58. Shaw, M.N. (2021) International Law. 9th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

59. Sivakumaran, S. (2012) The Law of Non-International Armed Conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

60. Sornarajah, M. (2021) The International Law on Foreign Investment. 5th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

61. Supreme Court of Canada (1998) Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217 [online]. Available at: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1643/index.do (Accessed: 15 June 2026).

62. UN Charter (1945) Charter of the United Nations [online]. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text (Accessed: 15 June 2026).

63. UN Economic and Social Council (1996) Resolution 1996/31: Consultative relationship between the United Nations and non-governmental organizations [online]. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/E/RES/1996/31 (Accessed: 15 June 2026).

64. UN General Assembly (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Resolution 217A (III) [online]. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights (Accessed: 15 June 2026).

65. UN General Assembly (1960) Resolution 1514 (XV): Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples [online]. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/1514(XV) (Accessed: 15 June 2026).

66. UN General Assembly (1960) Resolution 1541 (XV): Principles which should guide Members in determining whether or not an obligation exists to transmit the information called for under Article 73e of the Charter [online]. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/1541(XV) (Accessed: 15 June 2026).

67. UN General Assembly (1970) Resolution 2625 (XXV): Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations [online]. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/2625(XXV) (Accessed: 15 June 2026).

68. UN General Assembly (2007) Resolution 61/295: United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples [online]. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/61/295 (Accessed: 15 June 2026).

69. UN General Assembly (2012) Resolution 67/19: Status of Palestine in the United Nations [online]. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/67/19 (Accessed: 15 June 2026).

70. UN General Assembly (2014) Resolution 68/262: Territorial integrity of Ukraine [online]. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/68/262 (Accessed: 15 June 2026).

71. UN Human Rights Council (2011) Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework, A/HRC/17/31 [online]. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/17/31 (Accessed: 17 June 2026).

72. UN Security Council (1983) Resolution 541 (1983) [online]. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/S/RES/541(1983) (Accessed: 17 June 2026).

73. UN Security Council (1984) Resolution 550 (1984) [online]. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/S/RES/550(1984) (Accessed: 17 June 2026).

74. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [online]. Available at: https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf (Accessed: 17 June 2026).

75. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [online]. Available at: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf (Accessed: 17 June 2026).

76. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963) Vienna Convention on Consular Relations [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_2_1963.pdf (Accessed: 17 June 2026).

77. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf (Accessed: 17 June 2026).

78. World Heritage Convention (1972) Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage [online]. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext (Accessed: 17 June 2026).