Nature and Definition of International Law

Meaning of International Law

International Law is a distinct body of rules and principles that governs the relations and interactions among various actors on the international stage. Unlike national or domestic law, which applies within a specific country's borders and regulates the conduct of individuals and entities within that state, international law operates at the global level.

Law governing relations between States

Traditionally, the primary subjects of international law have been sovereign States. Historically, international law was largely viewed as a system regulating the conduct, rights, and obligations of States in their interactions with each other. This included rules regarding treaties, territorial boundaries, diplomatic relations, the use of force, and the conduct of war.

States are considered the main actors because they possess sovereignty – the supreme authority within their territory and independence in their external relations. International law provides a framework for States to coexist peacefully, cooperate on common issues, and resolve disputes.

Law of Nations

The historical term for international law is the "Law of Nations" (*Jus Gentium* in Latin, although its meaning has evolved). This term was used by early international legal thinkers to describe the body of rules and customs that governed the interactions between different nations or states.

Over time, the scope of international law has expanded beyond merely governing relations between States. While States remain the principal subjects, international law now also directly affects and imposes obligations on other actors, including:

International Organizations: Bodies like the United Nations (UN), World Trade Organization (WTO), World Health Organization (WHO) are subjects of international law and have international legal personality, allowing them to enter into treaties, have privileges and immunities, and bring international claims.
Individuals: International human rights law grants rights directly to individuals, and international criminal law imposes liabilities on individuals for serious crimes (like genocide, war crimes) regardless of national laws.
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs): While generally not considered full subjects, they play an important role in shaping and monitoring international law.
Multinational Corporations (MNCs): Their activities are increasingly subject to international standards and regulations.

Thus, while the historical roots are in the "Law of Nations" primarily governing States, modern international law is a more complex system regulating a wider range of actors and activities across national borders.

Is International Law True Law?

A long-standing debate exists among jurists about whether international law constitutes "true law" in the same sense as national or domestic law. This debate often stems from comparing international law with the characteristics typically found in a developed domestic legal system.

Arguments Against International Law as True Law:

Lack of a Sovereign Legislator: There is no single, supreme world government or parliament capable of enacting laws binding on all States. International law is created primarily through the consent of States (treaties) or through customary practice, which lacks the centralized authority of a domestic legislature.
Lack of Compulsory Jurisdiction: No international court (like the International Court of Justice - ICJ) has automatic and compulsory jurisdiction over all States. States must consent to the jurisdiction of international courts.
Lack of Effective Enforcement Mechanism: There is no centralized executive authority or police force to consistently enforce international law. Enforcement often relies on self-help measures (like countermeasures), diplomatic pressure, or collective action which can be hindered by political factors (e.g., veto power in the UN Security Council). Violations can occur without immediate legal repercussions.

Positivist vs. Naturalist Views (in relation to the basis of law):

These philosophical schools approach the nature of law differently, influencing how one might view international law:

Positivist View: Legal positivists emphasize that law is what is posited or enacted by a recognized authority. In the international context, positivists tend to see international law as binding because States have consented to it (either explicitly through treaties or implicitly through customary practice and recognition). For strict positivists like John Austin (though his views on IL are debated), international law might be viewed more as "positive morality" than true law because it lacks a sovereign command and effective sanctions. However, modern positivists accept international law as a legal system with its own unique structure, distinct from domestic law, based on rules of recognition accepted by states.
Naturalist View: Natural law theorists argue that law is based on inherent moral principles or reason, discoverable through nature or human intellect. From this perspective, international law derives its validity from universal principles of justice and morality, binding states irrespective of their consent. This view tends to support international law as true law based on its perceived ethical or moral foundation, rather than solely on its institutional structure or enforcement capabilities.

Arguments For International Law as True Law:

It is a System of Rules: International law consists of a body of rules and principles that guide conduct and define rights and obligations.
States Treat it as Law: States and international actors consistently treat international law as law. They invoke it in their diplomatic relations, incorporate it into domestic law, rely on it in international negotiations, and argue before international courts based on international legal principles.
Identifiable Sources: International law has recognized sources (Treaties, Customary International Law, General Principles of Law).
Legal Institutions: There are international courts, tribunals, and organizations that interpret and apply international law, even if their jurisdiction is often consensual.
Mechanisms for Compliance: While not perfectly enforced, international law is often complied with. Compliance is promoted through reciprocity, reputation, diplomatic pressure, and sometimes collective measures or domestic legal systems.

Despite the differences in structure and enforcement compared to national law, the overwhelming consensus among states, international lawyers, and jurists today is that international law is true law, albeit a distinct legal system operating in a unique international environment characterized by sovereign equality and decentralized power.

Example 1. A powerful State violates an international treaty it has signed. There is no international police force to immediately arrest the State's leaders or seize its assets. Does this lack of immediate, centralized enforcement mean the treaty is not 'law'?

Answer:

From a strict positivist view focusing solely on sovereign command and centralized enforcement (like Austin's), one might argue it lacks the characteristics of true law. However, under modern international law, this instance does not negate the legal nature of the treaty. The treaty is still binding on the State under international law because the State consented to it. The breach has legal consequences: other States parties to the treaty can invoke the breach, potentially take countermeasures (subject to rules), or bring the case before an international court if the State has consented to its jurisdiction. While enforcement is decentralized, the legal obligation and the breach thereof are recognized within the international legal system. Most jurists today view the treaty as law, and the State's action as a violation of that law, despite the limitations in enforcement mechanisms.

Scope and Function of International Law

The scope of international law has expanded dramatically over centuries. Originally focused on inter-state relations in times of peace and war, it now covers a vast array of global issues and affects various actors.

Scope of International Law:

Modern international law addresses numerous fields, including:

Peace and Security: Regulating the use of force (UN Charter), arms control, collective security mechanisms.
Diplomatic and Consular Relations: Governed by conventions like the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961.
Treaty Law: Rules governing the making, interpretation, and termination of treaties (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969).
State Responsibility: Rules on when a State is responsible for violating international law and the consequences thereof.
Territorial Sovereignty and Jurisdiction: Rules on state borders, jurisdiction over territory, persons, and events.
Law of the Sea: Governing maritime zones, navigation, resource exploitation (UN Convention on the Law of the Sea - UNCLOS).
International Economic Law: Trade (WTO law), investment treaties, international financial institutions.
International Human Rights Law: Protecting the rights of individuals (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international human rights treaties).
International Environmental Law: Addressing issues like climate change, biodiversity, pollution (e.g., Paris Agreement, Kyoto Protocol).
International Criminal Law: Defining and prosecuting international crimes (e.g., through the International Criminal Court - ICC, ad hoc tribunals).
International Humanitarian Law (Law of Armed Conflict): Regulating conduct during armed conflicts (Geneva Conventions).
International Air and Space Law.
International Communications and Cyber Law.

The scope is continuously evolving to address new global challenges and forms of interaction.

Function of International Law:

International law serves several critical functions in the global system:

Facilitating Order and Stability: It provides a framework of rules and principles that guide the conduct of states and other actors, promoting predictability and reducing the potential for conflict.
Promoting Cooperation: It enables states to cooperate on issues of common concern (trade, environment, health, security) through treaties and international organizations.
Providing a Framework for Relations: It defines the basic rights and obligations of states (e.g., sovereign equality, non-interference, peaceful settlement of disputes).
Providing Legal Means for Dispute Resolution: It offers various mechanisms for resolving international disputes peacefully, such as negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and judicial settlement (e.g., through the ICJ, ITLOS, specialized tribunals).
Protecting Global Commons: It provides rules for regulating areas outside national jurisdiction, such as the high seas, outer space, and Antarctica.
Protecting Fundamental Values: Through human rights law and international criminal law, it seeks to protect individuals and uphold certain universal values, sometimes even overriding state sovereignty in cases of grave violations.

In essence, international law provides the necessary legal architecture for a complex and interconnected world, enabling interactions, managing conflicts, and pursuing common goals among diverse actors.

Example 1. India and Bangladesh are negotiating a treaty regarding the sharing of river water. What aspect of international law are they primarily engaged with?

Answer:

They are primarily engaged with the aspect of international law relating to Treaty Law and International Watercourses Law. Treaty law (governed by principles codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties) provides the rules and procedures for how states enter into, interpret, and implement treaties. International Watercourses Law deals specifically with the rights and obligations of states sharing transboundary rivers. Their negotiation is based on the framework and principles provided by these branches of international law to regulate their relationship regarding a shared natural resource.

Sources of International Law

Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)

When determining the applicable law in disputes brought before it, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) refers to Article 38(1) of its Statute. This article is widely regarded as the most authoritative statement on the sources of international law, listing the primary ways in which international law is created and identified.

Article 38(1) states:

"The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:

(a) international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting States;

(b) international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;

(c) the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;

(d) subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law."

Explanation: This article provides a hierarchy in terms of how the Court identifies rules of international law, though the sources themselves do not necessarily have a strict hierarchy in all cases (e.g., a treaty can override custom between parties to the treaty, but custom can also develop to modify a treaty or bind states not party to it). Clauses (a), (b), and (c) are considered the primary sources, while (d) lists subsidiary means.

International Conventions (Treaties)

Clause (a) refers to International Conventions, also known as Treaties, Covenants, Pacts, Charters, Protocols, etc. These are written agreements between States (or between States and international organizations) that create legally binding obligations for the parties that have consented to be bound by them.

Explanation:

Agreements between subjects of international law: Primarily States, but also IOs.
Create binding rules: Treaties create rules of international law for the parties to the treaty.
Consent is key: A State is only bound by a treaty if it has ratified or acceded to it. Treaties are based on the principle of *pacta sunt servanda* (agreements must be kept).
General or Particular: Treaties can be multilateral (many parties, often establishing general rules) or bilateral (two parties, usually dealing with specific matters).

Treaties are a major source of international law today, providing clarity and specificity on many international issues. Examples include the UN Charter, Geneva Conventions, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, international human rights treaties, and bilateral investment treaties.

International Custom

Clause (b) refers to International Custom, which is one of the oldest sources of international law. Customary international law arises from the general and consistent practice of States followed out of a sense of legal obligation.

Explanation: Custom has two essential elements:

State Practice (*Usus*): There must be widespread, consistent, and uniform practice by States. This can be seen in their actions, statements, diplomatic correspondence, national legislation, and judicial decisions. Practice does not need to be universal, but must be general and representative.
Opinion Juris (*Opinio Juris Sive Necessitatis*): The practice must be followed by States out of a sense of legal obligation, believing that they are required to do so by law, not merely out of courtesy, political expediency, or habit. This subjective element indicates that the practice is 'accepted as law'.

Customary international law is binding on all States, irrespective of whether they have explicitly consented to it, unless a State has persistently objected to the custom from its formation. Examples include the principle of sovereign immunity, diplomatic immunity, and the prohibition of genocide (which is also codified). Custom can develop to modify or even supersede treaties.

General Principles of Law recognized by civilized nations

Clause (c) refers to General Principles of Law. These are fundamental principles of law that are common to the major legal systems of the world.

Explanation:

These are principles derived from national legal systems that are applicable to the international sphere.
They are used to fill gaps in treaty law and customary international law, or to provide basic concepts necessary for the functioning of the international legal system.
Examples include the principle of good faith, the principle of estoppel, the principle that no one should be a judge in their own cause, the principle that a person injured by a wrong is entitled to compensation, and procedural principles like *res judicata* (a matter decided).

These principles provide a reserve source of law that judges can draw upon to ensure justice and coherence in international law.

Judicial Decisions and Teachings of Publicists (as subsidiary means)

Clause (d) lists judicial decisions and the teachings of publicists as subsidiary means for determining rules of law. They are not primary sources that create law but are used to help identify and interpret the rules found in the primary sources.

Judicial Decisions: Decisions of international courts (like the ICJ, ITLOS, ICC) and arbitral tribunals are important. Decisions of national courts on questions of international law are also relevant State practice. While the ICJ Statute (Article 59) states that the Court's decisions have no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case (no strict doctrine of precedent like in common law systems), in practice, judicial decisions are highly influential in clarifying and developing international law.
Teachings of Publicists: Writings of highly qualified international law scholars and jurists (publicists) are also considered. Their work can help in understanding the evolution of international law, interpreting complex rules, and identifying emerging norms. However, their influence depends on their reputation and the extent to which their views are supported by State practice and *opinio juris*.

These subsidiary sources play a vital role in the practical application and development of international law by providing evidence of existing rules and aiding in their interpretation.

Example 1. If two States, A and B, have signed a treaty on extradition, and later a dispute arises between them over extradition, which source of international law would the ICJ primarily look at to resolve the dispute between A and B?

Answer:

The ICJ would primarily look at the Treaty (International Convention) on extradition signed by States A and B. According to Article 38(1)(a) of the ICJ Statute, international conventions establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting States are the primary source. Since both States are parties to the treaty, the terms of that specific treaty are the most direct and binding source of law governing their relationship on the matter of extradition.

Other Sources

While Article 38(1) is the traditional starting point, the international legal landscape is dynamic, and other potential sources or means of identifying international law have emerged or gained prominence. These are not explicitly listed as primary sources in Article 38 but are significant in modern international law.

Unilateral Acts of States

Under certain circumstances, a unilateral declaration or act by a State can create legal obligations for that State under international law. If a State makes a clear statement of intent to be bound by a specific course of conduct, and the statement is made publicly and with the intention of being bound, it can create a legal obligation, even without reciprocity from other States.

Example: A State publicly announces that it will cease nuclear testing. This unilateral declaration can create a legal obligation for that State. The ICJ has recognized the binding nature of unilateral declarations by States.

Resolutions of International Organizations

Resolutions adopted by international organizations, particularly the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and the UN Security Council (UNSC), can be relevant to international law, although their legal force varies.

UNSC Resolutions (Chapter VII of UN Charter): Resolutions adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter (dealing with threats to peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression) are legally binding on all UN Member States (Article 25 of the UN Charter). These resolutions can impose obligations or authorize actions, and are a source of binding international obligations.
UNGA Resolutions: UN General Assembly resolutions are generally not legally binding, but are recommendations. However, they can be politically influential. Moreover, if a series of UNGA resolutions on a particular topic reflect widespread and consistent State practice coupled with *opinio juris*, they can contribute to the formation or evidence of customary international law. Resolutions on matters within the UN's internal functioning (e.g., budget) are binding on member states in that context.
Resolutions of other IOs: Resolutions of other international organizations may be binding if the constituent treaty of the organization grants them such power (e.g., certain WHO regulations). Otherwise, they are typically recommendatory but can influence State practice.

Jus Cogens (Peremptory Norms)

Jus Cogens (or peremptory norms) refers to a small body of fundamental principles of international law that are so important that they are considered binding on all States, regardless of their consent, and cannot be contracted out of by treaty. Treaties that conflict with a *jus cogens* norm are void (Article 53, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties).

Explanation:

Universally Binding: *Jus cogens* norms are accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as norms from which no derogation is permitted.
Hierarchical Superiority: They are considered hierarchically superior to ordinary international law (treaties and custom).
Examples: The prohibition of genocide, prohibition of slavery, prohibition of torture, prohibition of piracy, prohibition of aggression, and the right to self-determination are often cited as examples of *jus cogens*.

*Jus cogens* norms represent fundamental values of the international legal order and are binding on all States as a matter of public international order, even if a State has not explicitly consented to be bound by them through treaty or practice. They are not listed as a source in Article 38(1) but are recognized as a category of norms that have special legal status.

Soft Law:

While not strictly binding legal sources, 'soft law' instruments like resolutions, guidelines, codes of conduct, and declarations by international bodies can influence the development of international law by shaping State practice and *opinio juris*, or by being incorporated into treaties or national laws.

Example 1. The UN Security Council passes a resolution under Chapter VII of the UN Charter requiring all Member States to impose economic sanctions on a specific country. Is this resolution binding on all UN Member States, including those who voted against it or abstained?

Answer:

Yes, this resolution is legally binding on all UN Member States. Resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter are considered binding obligations for all Member States as per Article 25 of the UN Charter. Even Member States who voted against the resolution or abstained are legally required to comply with it. This makes such resolutions a significant source of binding international obligations.

Subjects of International Law

States as Primary Subjects

A subject of international law is an entity capable of possessing international rights and obligations, and having the capacity to maintain its rights by bringing international claims. Historically, States were considered the only subjects of international law, holding full international legal personality. While the landscape has changed, States remain the principal and most important subjects.

States possess inherent sovereignty and are the primary creators of international law through treaties and customary practice. The structure of international law has traditionally revolved around regulating relations between these sovereign entities.

Statehood criteria

The generally accepted criteria for an entity to qualify as a 'State' in international law are derived from the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, 1933 (Article 1). Although the Convention has limited parties, its criteria are widely considered reflective of customary international law on statehood. These criteria are:

(a) a permanent population: There must be a population residing within the territory, although there is no minimum size requirement.
(b) a defined territory: The entity must have a clearly defined geographical area over which it exercises authority. Borders do not need to be perfectly settled, but there must be a stable core territory.
(c) government: There must be an effective government capable of exercising control over the territory and population and maintaining law and order. This government should be independent of external control.
(d) capacity to enter into relations with the other States: The entity must have the independence and ability to engage in diplomatic relations, enter into treaties, and participate in the international community as a sovereign entity. This is often seen as a consequence of having a defined territory, population, and effective government.

The existence of these four criteria is considered the factual test for statehood (*constitutive theory* in its declarative aspect). While some theories emphasize the role of recognition by other states (*constitutive theory* in its subjective aspect), the prevailing view is that meeting the objective criteria is sufficient for statehood, and recognition by other states is merely declarative of this existing fact, although recognition is politically important for participation in international relations.

Example 1. A geographically defined territory has a population and a government that collects taxes and maintains a police force, but no other State in the world recognizes it as an independent country. Is this entity a State under international law?

Answer:

Based on the declarative aspect of the constitutive theory of statehood, if the entity meets the four objective criteria of the Montevideo Convention (permanent population, defined territory, effective government, and capacity to enter into relations with other States - implied by independent government), then it is arguably a State under international law, regardless of recognition. Recognition by other States, while politically crucial for practical relations and participation in forums like the UN, is seen as merely acknowledging the existing statehood rather than creating it. However, the *capacity to enter into relations* might be hindered if no other State recognizes it, leading to complex debates in specific cases. But objectively, meeting the first three criteria and having the will/ability to conduct foreign affairs is usually seen as establishing statehood.

International Organizations

International Organizations (IOs) are associations of States established by a treaty (constituent instrument) to achieve common objectives. With the growth of international cooperation in the 20th century, IOs have emerged as significant actors on the international stage and are now recognized as subjects of international law, albeit with a more limited and functional legal personality compared to States.

Recognition as Subjects

The recognition of IOs as subjects of international law was famously affirmed by the ICJ in the Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations (Advisory Opinion) (1949). The Court held that the UN has international legal personality and is a subject of international law capable of having international rights and duties and bringing international claims. This personality is necessary for the UN to perform its functions effectively.

The international legal personality of an IO is generally functional; it is determined by the powers and purposes granted to it in its constituent instrument and the necessities of its operations. Their personality is not as comprehensive as that of States.

Examples: UN, regional organizations

United Nations (UN): The most prominent example. Established by the UN Charter, it has wide-ranging functions related to peace, security, human rights, development, etc. It has the capacity to enter into treaties (e.g., Headquarters Agreements), claim privileges and immunities for its staff, and bring international claims (as confirmed by the ICJ).
Regional Organizations: Organizations like the European Union (EU), African Union (AU), Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) also have international legal personality within their respective spheres, enabling them to act on behalf of their member states in certain matters, enter into agreements with third parties, and have standing before international bodies.
Specialized Agencies: Organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO), International Labour Organization (ILO), World Trade Organization (WTO) are also recognized as subjects of international law with functional personality.

The specific rights, powers, and obligations of an IO are determined by the treaty that created it and the practice of States and the organization itself. They derive their authority from their member states.

Example 1. The World Health Organization (WHO) enters into an agreement with a pharmaceutical company for the procurement of vaccines for global distribution. Is the WHO capable of entering into such an agreement in its own name under international law?

Answer:

Yes, the WHO is capable of entering into such an agreement in its own name. The WHO, as a specialized agency of the UN and an international organization established by treaty, is recognized as a subject of international law with functional legal personality. This personality includes the capacity to enter into contracts and agreements necessary for carrying out its functions, such as procuring medical supplies for global health initiatives. Therefore, the agreement with the pharmaceutical company would be a valid international agreement entered into by the WHO itself, not just by its member states individually.

Individuals

Historically, individuals were considered mere "objects" of international law, meaning that international law regulated how States treated their own citizens or foreign nationals, but individuals themselves did not possess direct rights or obligations under international law. Their rights were enforced and their obligations were imposed through the actions of their national States.

However, in the 20th century, individuals emerged as subjects of international law due to developments in international human rights law and international criminal law.

Rights and duties of individuals

International Human Rights Law: Treaties and customary international law on human rights (e.g., Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) grant rights directly to individuals. Individuals can, in some cases, seek redress for violations of their human rights before international or regional human rights bodies or mechanisms (e.g., European Court of Human Rights, UN Human Rights Committee - for States that have ratified relevant protocols). This gives individuals limited capacity to bring international claims.
International Criminal Law: Individuals can be held directly responsible under international law for the commission of international crimes, such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression. This responsibility is independent of their national law and the actions of their State. Individuals can be prosecuted and punished by international criminal tribunals or the International Criminal Court (ICC). This imposes direct obligations on individuals under international law.

While individuals' international legal personality is limited compared to States (e.g., they cannot generally create international law or participate in the ICJ), their capacity to directly possess rights and be held directly responsible under certain branches of international law signifies their status as subjects, albeit partial or limited, of international law.

Example 1. An individual suffers torture by agents of their own State. Can this individual potentially seek a remedy under international law, even if their State's domestic laws offer no adequate protection?

Answer:

Yes, the individual can potentially seek a remedy under international law. The prohibition of torture is a fundamental human right and a norm of *jus cogens*. States have obligations under international human rights law (often through treaties they have ratified) to prevent torture and provide remedies for victims. If the State has ratified a treaty that allows for individual complaints (e.g., the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture), the individual may be able to bring a case before an international human rights body after exhausting domestic remedies. Furthermore, individuals can be held criminally responsible for committing torture under international criminal law (as a crime against humanity or war crime), meaning the individual perpetrators could potentially face prosecution by the International Criminal Court or national courts exercising universal jurisdiction. This demonstrates that individuals possess direct rights and face direct obligations under international law in such matters.

Other Entities

Beyond States, International Organizations, and Individuals, several other entities play roles in the international system and may possess a limited or emerging international legal personality, depending on the context and recognition by States.

Insurgents, Beligerents, National Liberation Movements

In situations of internal armed conflict or struggles for self-determination, certain organized groups may acquire limited international legal personality:

Insurgents: Organized groups rebelling against a government. They may be accorded limited rights and obligations under international humanitarian law if they control a portion of territory and meet certain organizational criteria.
Belligerents: If an insurgency reaches a certain level of intensity and organization, and is recognized by other States as belligerency, the insurgent group may be granted broader rights and obligations under international law, including those related to the conduct of warfare and diplomatic representation.
National Liberation Movements (NLMs): Organized groups representing a people's struggle for self-determination against colonial rule or foreign occupation. NLMs (e.g., Palestine Liberation Organization - PLO, historically) may be recognized by international organizations (like the UN) and States, granting them observer status in international forums, the capacity to enter into certain agreements, and rights/obligations under international humanitarian law. Their legal personality is usually aimed at achieving statehood.

The international legal personality of these groups is generally temporary and limited, depending on the specific circumstances and the extent of recognition by the international community.

Multinational Corporations (MNCs)

MNCs are private business entities operating in multiple countries. While primarily subjects of national law (the law of the country where they are incorporated and where they operate), their significant economic and political influence, activities spanning across borders, and involvement in international investment and arbitration have led to discussions about their status in international law.

MNCs can be parties to international investment agreements (BITs) and participate in international arbitration against States.
They are increasingly subject to international standards and guidelines on corporate social responsibility, human rights, and environmental protection, though these are often 'soft law'.
Debates continue on whether MNCs should have direct obligations under international human rights law or be subject to direct enforcement mechanisms beyond national courts.

Currently, MNCs are generally not considered full subjects of international law capable of creating international law or having standing before international courts (like the ICJ). Their international relevance is primarily as powerful actors whose conduct impacts international relations and who are increasingly addressed by international standards and regulations that are enforced through national laws or specific treaty mechanisms.

Other Potential Actors:

The list of actors with potential international legal relevance is dynamic. Indigenous peoples, certain international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) playing a significant role in international advocacy and norm development, and even geographical entities (e.g., recognition of certain rights for international waterways or shared ecosystems) are sometimes discussed in terms of their relationship with international law.

However, compared to States and International Organizations, their status as subjects with defined rights and obligations directly under international law is less clear and generally more limited.

Example 1. A large multinational corporation operates factories in several developing countries. Reports emerge of severe human rights abuses and environmental damage caused by its operations. Can this corporation be directly sued before an international court (like the ICJ or ICC) under international law?

Answer:

Generally, no. While the conduct of the multinational corporation is highly relevant to international human rights and environmental standards, MNCs are typically not considered subjects of international law with direct standing or liability before international courts like the ICJ (which primarily hears cases between States) or the ICC (which prosecutes individuals for international crimes). The liability for such abuses would usually be pursued through:

National courts in the countries where the abuses occurred.
National courts in the home country of the MNC, sometimes based on principles of extraterritorial jurisdiction or specific legislation.
Civil lawsuits in national courts by affected individuals.
Advocacy and pressure through international organizations or NGOs.

While there are ongoing discussions about the international accountability of MNCs, they are not currently direct subjects of international law in the same way that States or, for international crimes, individuals are.