MZUMBE UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF LAW
SUBJECT PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
CODE LAW 229
TASK GROUP ASSIGNMENT
GROUP NUMBER 08 STREAM B
LECTURER MR. MGETA
NO. GROUP MEMBERS REG NO.

1. GODFREY MOLLEL 11301032/T.19

2. DENIS ANTHONY 11301185/T.19

3. JENIPHER LYMO 11301131/T. 19

5. ERNEST LUSINDE 11301143/T. 19

6. ISSA JUMA ISSA 11301149/T. 19

QUESTION 03
“...It is only in terms of State powers, prerogatives, jurisdictional limits and law-making
capabilities that territorial limits and jurisdiction, responsibility for official functions, and a host
of other questions of co-existence between nations can be determined… this basic primacy of the
State as a subject of international relations and law would be substantially affected and
eventually superseded, only if national entities, as political and legal system, were absorbed in a
world State.”
Discuss the validity of the above observations in light to the subjects of international la

WORK OUTLINE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1Description of key terms

1.1.1 International Law

1.1.2 Subject of International Law

1.1.3 State

2.0 MAIN OBSERVATION

2.1 Critical Examination of the assertion or quotation

2.1.1 States as the primary subject of International Law

2.2 Subjects of International law

2.2.1 Other subjects of International Law

2.2.1.1 International Organizations

2.2.1.2 Individuals

2.2.1.3 Multinationals Enterprises & Corporations

3.0 CONCLUSSION

4.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

.
Abstract
Traditionally, it were only state which possessed international legal personality even after
changes brought by globalization and integration there are some scholars who continued to hold
the position that states are the only subjects of international law in support their argument, they
argue by using general treaties which create certain rights of protection slaves, that those rights
are bestowed to slaves by the society of states, they further argued that under customary
international law persons who commit offence of piracy jure gentium in the high sea are liable as
enemies of mankind to punishment by any apprehending state. 1 On the other hand, there are
authorities which assert that individual only are subjects of international law, one of the leading
profounder of this school of thought is Hans Kelsen in which he argued that, the duties and rights
of states are only the rights and duties of men compose them. 2 Leave alone the battle as evidence
shows that both can possess international legal personality, the important question is do they
possess the same status in their personality? This work tends to evaluate the validity of a
statement asserted by Friedman on the primacy of state as the subject of international law, as
what cause the state to be the primary subject of international law and other subjects of
international law.

INTRODUCTION
Description of Key Terms

What is meant by International Law?

Is the law regulating relations between states in all their myriad forms, from war to satellites, and
regulates the operations of many international institutions. 3It can also be defined as a system of

1
Starke, J. G. (1994). Starke international law 11th Ed.
2
Ibid
3
Shaw, M. N. (2008). International Law 6th Ed.
rules governing the conduct of inter- state relations 4or is the law that consists of rules and
principles governing the relations and dealings of nations with each other, as well as the relations
between states and individuals, and relations between international 5. International law is also
called public international law or the law of nations, the body of legal rules, norms, and
standards that apply between sovereignty states and other entities that are legally recognized as
international actors. This term was coined by an English Philosopher known as Jeremy Bentham
in 1748-18326. Historically international law was by-product of the gradual increase in the power
of the nation states which emerged from European feudalism. As the rulers from Europe secured
their own internal position, their policies were increasingly directed towards the field of foreign
affairs. That was the point where various treaties and convention started between nation to
increase their relations.7 The international lawyers provided a guidance on the attempt to set out
the criteria for statehood that were generally recognized in customary law. Such criteria ‘sofa
state as member of international law include qualifications such as a permanent population, a
defined territory, government, and capacity to enter into relations with each other states.

What is meant by Subject of International Law?

The term subject of international law was traditionally elaborated in the international case of
Reparations for injuries suffered in the service of the United Nations, 8the International Court
of Justice established that, in order to be a legal person under international law, an entity must be
a subject of international law and duties under international, therefore, subject of international
law is an entity possessing international rights and obligations and having the capacity to
maintain its rights by bringing international claims; and to be responsible for its breaches of
obligation by being subjected to such claims. 9 In another word subject of international law is an
entity which possesses international legal personality that is to mean a legally recognized identity

4
Greig.D.W.(1976). International Law, 2Ed., London, Butterworth & Co.Ltd.
5

6
Shaw,M. (in press). International law. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/international
-law .Accessed on 23, May 2021
7
Greig, D.W. (1976). International Law, 2nd Ed., London: Butterworth & Co.Ltd
8
(1949) ICJ Reports P.174
9
Law Explorer. (Ed), retrieved from https://lawexplores.com/subjects-of-international-law/. Accessed on 22, May
2021.
as a primary actor in the international legal system. 10This definition provides an element that in
order for an actor to be subject of international law , then international law should be capable of
imposing obligations upon such actor.

What is meant by State?

Is the territorial unit, containing a stable population, under the authority of its own government,
and recognized as being capable of entering into relations with other entities with international
personality.11

Also, State is the political system of a body of people who are politically organized; the system
of rules by which jurisdiction and authority are exercised over such a body of people12.

CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE EXPRESSION

The quotation provided in the question was opinions of Prof. Wolfgang Friedmann while giving
his opinion on the state as subject of international law, to him states are the key role players or
actor of international law this is because there is no absolute power that controls state behavior 13
due to sovereignty of states, to him states through their powers, privilege jurisdictional limits and
law-making capabilities determines the question of co-existence between nations that is to mean
is the states which authority to choose the kind of diplomatic relation with other state. Friedmann
backed his position by arguing that “today the world is organized on the basis of the co-existence
of States, and that fundamental changes will take place only through State action, whether
affirmative or negative’. States are the repositories of legitimated authority over peoples and
territories”14. The expression by Friedmann entails that state are the primary subject of
international law as they have power over both people and territories. To Friedmann that primacy
of states can only be supplemented or replaced only if states which are international legal person
are tied together and be the single state that is to mean if they surrender their sovereignty to
single state which will be a state of all nations. Observation by Friedmann is valid due to the

10
Ott, D. H. (1987). Public International Law in The Modern World, London: Pitman Publishing.
11
Greig, D.W.(Ed). International law, 2nd Ed. P. 93, London: Butterworth & Co.(publishers) Ltd
12
Gardner. (2001). Black’s Law Dictionary,2ndEd., (2001). Minn: West Publishing Co.Ltd
13
Seepersad, D. M. (2011) Wolfgang Friedmann and the Major Developments in International Law
14
Law Explorer (Ed), retrieved from https://lawexplores.com/subjects-of-international-law/. Accessed on 22, May
2021.
distinct indicia possessed by states which are not necessarily possessed by other international
legal persons

STATES AS THE PRIMARY SUBJECTS OF INTERNATINAL LAW

State is the primary subject of international law, as long as a state is proved to be a state it
automatically acquires international legal personality that is to mean it became a person in the
international legal system capable of suing and being sued. The important question is what
makes states to be primary subjects of international law as opposed to other entities as well as
individuals? Answers to this question are found in the Montevideo Convection on Rights and
Duties of States of 1933 in which under Article 1 it provides indicia or Qualities which are to be
proved in order to establish existence of a state. Article 1 of the same provides that “the state as a
person under International law should possess the following qualifications (a) a permanent
Population (b) a defined Territory (c) government (d) capacity to enter into relation with the
others states”.15These qualifications albeit some rise some controversies but they are the ones
which together lays bases for the primacy of states in the international legal system, hereunder is
the discussion of the qualifications and how they are make states to be primary subjects of
international law, these include:

States have a defined territory; This is the foundation of factual existence of the state in which
it is the basis for exercise of its legal powers. 16 The sovereignty principle and jurisdiction
principle are derived from state’s territory; state’s sovereignty cannot exist without existence of
well-defined territory. Sovereignty entails an absolute and exclusive authority of the state to
control over its own territories,17there is a principle which advocating respect of territorial
integrity of states, this principle bars interference of internal affairs of states 18. This principle is
codified under Article 2(4) and (7) of the Charter of United Nation and Statute of The
International Court of Justice. The concept of territorial sovereignty was discussed in the Island
of Palmas Case19 Mr. Max Huber who was an Arbitrator before the Permanent Court of

15
The Montevideo Convention on The Rights and Duties of States of 1933(adopted 26thDecember 1933 & came
into force on 26thDecember, 1934)
16
Greig, D.W.(Ed.) International law 2nd Ed., P. 155 London: Butterworth & Co.(publishers) Ltd.
17
Ott, D. H. (1987). Public International Law in The Modern World p. 48
18
Shaw, M. (2008). International Law,15thEd., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
19
2 RIAA, pp. 829, 838 (1928); 4 AD, pp. 103, 104.
Arbitration had this to say concerning territorial sovereignty “sovereignty in relation to a portion
of the surface of the globe is the legal condition necessary for the inclusion of such portion in the
territory of any particular state”
Moreover, jurisdiction is another important concept which have its roots from the concept of
sovereignty, jurisdiction denotes that ability of a state to make and enforce its laws, 20 while often
related to sovereignty and intrinsically linked to its territory, jurisdiction can exist without a
connection to territory but this is not automatically as there is the principle which protect
territorial integrity which bars the interference of a territory of one state by another state 21. The
principle of jurisdiction was firstly discussed in the Lotus case22 in which among the rules
enunciated in that case were, states cannot exercise its jurisdiction outsides its territory unless an
international treaty or Customary international law permit it to do so, and the second principle
was a state may exercise its jurisdiction in any matter, even if there are no specific rules of
international law permit it to do so. It is now a settled principle that jurisdiction of one state is
not superior than of another state this is due to sovereignty equality, Hence, only in very
particular circumstances may states exercise power within the territory of another state. In the
Arrest Warrant case23 which considered the ability of a Belgian judges to exercise criminal
jurisdiction by issuing an international arrest warrant against the then Minister for Foreign
Affairs of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) for alleged war crimes and crimes
against humanity, the argument by DRC which was upheld by the court was that, the acts in
question did not occur in Belgium, nor was any Belgian national a victim. The DRC argued that
Belgium had no jurisdiction to issue the warrant, as there was no connection between the alleged
acts and that state, and that even if there were jurisdiction Foreign Minister Yerodia was
protected by diplomatic immunity. The above discussion stands to support argument by
Friedmann as it shows distinct features possessed by states which makes it to be the primary
subject of international law it is sovereignty, which expresses internally the supremacy of the
governmental institutions and externally the supremacy of the state as a legal person. If states
surrender this feature to the single World state it will no longer be the primary actor of
international law rather it will be the object that is to mean state will no longer act upon
20
Rothwell,D., Kaye, S., Aktar-Khavari, A., Davis, R. & Saunders, I. (2018). International Law: Cases and Material with
Australian Perspective 3rd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21
Article 2(4) & (7) of Charter of United Nations…….
22
ICGJ 248 (PCIJ 1927)
23
[2002] ICJ Rep 3.
international law rather they will be acted upon therefore arguments by Friedmann are valid and
stand to be correct.

States are comprised of a permanent population; This is another qualification used to prove
existence of state and which make the state to be a primary subject of international law, this
requirement entails that state entity exhibit a permanent population and that this population can
be defined as a stable community.24 As such, the population must not be homogeneous in nature,
but it must be settled, there is no a specific number of population required for example Nauru
and Tuvalu.25 This requirement manifests the basic need for some form of stable human
community capable of supporting the superstructure of the state. This denotes that the people
must have the intention to inhabit a specific territory on a permanent basis. 26 It is from this
requirement the principle of nationality emanates, Nationality entails a link between an
individual a company and other entities such as ships or aircraft with the state. 27 Nationality
helps a person to enjoy a number of rights and privileges that are attached to states, states
maintains jurisdiction to its nationals and exercise that jurisdiction upon them, in the Western
Sahara Case28 the ICJ was at the opinion that, a population only comprising of nomads does not
revoke the right of a state or self- determination and thus Western Sahara was considered by the
ICJ to have a permanent population which possess the right for self-determination. This is
amongst factor which makes state to be primary subject of international law because permanent
population as well as the principle of nationality makes the state to be a key role player in the
international plane. For example, the principle of Nationality makes a national of a certain state
to be subject of laws of his or her state even if such national is in the foreign land also through
the principle of nationality a state can claim to have its national who have committed a crime
outside its territory to have them tried by it.

There is existence of Government; This criteria denotes that there should be organized
authority capable of asserting its control throughout at least a large party of the claimed territory

24
Boas, G. (2012) Public International Law: Contemporary Principles and Perspectives
25
Shaw, N. M. (2008). International Law,15thEd., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26
Ibid note 26
27
Gardiner, R. K. (2003) International Law p. 173. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
28
1975 ICJ Reports P.2
of the state.29 The authority here must not be a government in really sense with ministers,
departments and bureaucracy; a military or any controlling apparatus may suffice to be a
government, but this factual criteria of control must be assessed basing on the political context in
which the question is arises.30 The position may differ depending on whether the previous
authority recognizes the new one, this can be ascertained in the case of Belgian Congo 1960
where the country’s statehood was generally acknowledged after the colonial powers had left
despites the fact that thereafter there was eruption of civil war falling into Anarchy government.
Therefore, the paramount considerations were laid down in the Aaland Islands case of 192031
that there should be stable political organization, and the strength of public authorities enough to
assert themselves throughout the territories of the state without the assistance of the foreign
troops.32

States have a capacity to enter into relation with other states; This is another qualification of
statehood and a factor which makes states primary subjects of international law. It is an aspect of
the existence of the entity in question as well as an indication of the importance attached to
recognition by other countries. The capacity to enter into relation is not limited to sovereign
nations, since international organizations, non-independent states and other bodies can enter into
legal relations with other entities under the rules of international law. But it is important for a
sovereign state to be able to create such legal relations with other units as it sees fit 33. The
important requirement here is independence that the state is subject to no other sovereignty and
is unaffected either by factual dependence upon other states or by submission to the rules of
international law.

OTHER SUBJECTS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

The growth of positivism in the 19thcentury had the effect of focusing the concerns of
international law upon sovereign states. They alone were subjects of international law and to be
contrasted with the status of independent states and individuals as objects of international law.

29
D. H. (1987). Public International Law in The Modern World, London: Pitman Publishing.
30
Wallance, R.M.& Orlgea, M. (2009). International Law, 6thEd., London: Sweet & Maxwell
31
Ibid note No.32.
32
Shaw, M.N. (2003). International Law,15thEd., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Supra note26)
33
Brownlie, I. (2008). Principles of Public International Law, 7thEd., Oxford: Oxford University Press.
They alone created the law and independence could not be presumed. 34 But gradual
sophistication of positivist doctrine combined with the advent of new approaches to the whole
system of international relations, has broken this exclusive emphasis and extended roles played
by non-states entities. Therefore, international relations and law have certainly discerned
existence of other subjects than state, namely: individuals and semi- public international
governmental organizations and private international organizations (Multinational enterprises
and transnational organizations). These foregoing subjects prove that apart from sovereign states,
there are others which are also the subjects though in a limited sense. It is no doubt true that
states are mainly the subjects, as the capacity to follow international obligations, is on them
primarily. Though it is the conduct of the state that is regulated by international law, in the
ultimate analysis it is the conduct of the individuals that is regulated. As Westlake opines “The
rights and duties of the States are ultimately the rights and duties of men, that compose them.
Hence, though the states are normal subjects, they may endow the individual with the
international rights and duties, and to that extent make them subjects of international law. Herein
under is a comprehensive discussion in relation to other subjects of international law, particularly
on how their legal personalities are legally obtained or recognized and, finally their limits in
exercising powers and functions conferred on them. These include as follows:

Firstly, International organizations, it is a formal Institutions, established by agreement of the

affiliated members that created it. These include United Nations, The World Bank, and The
World Health Organization. These associations serve the diverse needs of member states, or
citizens within those states, all of whom benefit by the existence of an organization that has been
designed to work toward defined objectives35.From the original statement that an International

person is an entity having the power of independent action on the international plane 36. It is
further permissible to deduce from this “measure of international personality” that the entity has
the capacity to bring the claim under international law. 37The role of international organizations in
the world order centers on their possession of international legal personality as distinct from, and
functions and rights the organization was exercising and enjoying. in addition to, personality
34
Ibid note 34
35
William S.R (2003). Fundamental Perspectives on International Law, 4thEd., USA: Wadsworth & Thomson Learning,
P. 102
36
Greig D. W (1976). International Law, 2ndEd., (in press): Butterworth & Co. (publisher) Ltd. p. 110.
37
Ibid note 37
under domestic law. Once this is established, they become subjects of international law and thus
capable of enforcing rights and duties upon the international plane as distinct from operating
merely within the confines of separate municipal jurisdictions 38. Not all arrangements by which
two or more states co-operate will necessarily establish separate legal personality. The
International Court of Justice in Nauru v. Australia39noted that the arrangements under which
Australia, New Zealand and the UK became the joint ‘Administering Authority’ for Nauru in the
Trusteeship Agreement approved by the UN in 1947 did not establish a separate international
legal personality distinct from that of the states. International organizations have played a crucial
role in the sphere of international personality. Since the nineteenth century a growing number of
such organizations have appeared and thus raised the issue of international legal personality. In
principle it is now well established that international organizations may indeed possess objective
international legal personality. Whether that will be so in any particular instance will depend
upon the particular circumstances of that case. 40 Whether an organization possesses personality
in international law will hinge upon its constitutional status, its actual powers and practice.
Significant factors in this context will include the capacity to enter into relations with states and
other organizations and conclude treaties with them, and the status it has been given under
municipal law. Such elements are known in international law as the indicia of personality. Of
course, most international organizations need to operate within particular states and thus require
that their personality be recognized not only within international law but also within particular
domestic law in order to be able to make and defend claims and generally to perform legal acts in
domestic law. This may be achieved in different ways41.

In many legal systems, a domestic court will determine the legal status and capacity of a legal
person by reference to the applicable or proper law, which will in the case of international
organizations be international law. Thus, if the organization had personality under international
law, this would suffice to establish personality under domestic law 42. Indeed, in states where
treaties form part of domestic law upon ratification by parliament, then domestic legal
38
Shaw. N.M (2008). International Law, 6th Ed., New York: Cambridge University Press. P. 1297
39
[1992] 258; 97. Pp 125
40
Amerasinghe, C.F. (2006). Principles of the Institutional Law of International Organizations, 2nd Ed., Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
41
Shaw. N.M (2008). International Law, 6th end, Cambridge University Press, New York. P. 1297
42
Menon, P.R. (1992). “The Legal Personality of International Organizations” Sri Lanka Journal of International Law, vol.43,
PP. 79-93
personality would be a consequence of becoming a party to an international agreement
establishing an international organization explicitly endowed with legal personality, such as the
UN, for example. However, in the UK, the approach has been rather different since the UK
adopts a dualist approach to international treaties, so that in order for such agreements to operate
within the domestic system, express legislative incorporation is required. The International
Organizations Act 1968 grants the legal capacity of a body corporate to any organization
declared by Order in Council to be an organization of which the UK and one or more foreign
states are members. The view taken by the House of Lords in the Tin case was that the legal
effect of the Order in Council of 1972 concerning the International Tin Council (ITC) was to
create the ITC as a legal person separate and distinct from its members, since ‘as an international
legal persona had no status under the laws of the United Kingdom’. In other words, without such
legislative action, an international organization would have no legal existence in the UK. There
is an exception to this strict approach and that is where the organization has been granted legal
personality in another country. The case of Arab Monetary Fund v. Hashim43 concerned the
attempt by the AMF to bring an action before the English courts to recover funds allegedly
embezzled. The relevant constituent treaty of 1976 between a number of Arab states gave the
AMF ‘independent juridical personality’ and a decree was adopted in Abu Dhabi giving the
organization independent legal status and the capacity to sue and be sued in United Arab
Emirates law. There was, however, no Order in Council under the International Organizations
Act 1968 giving the AMF legal personality within the UK. The Court of Appeal took the view
that the decision of the House of Lords in the Tin case meant that the ordinary conflict of laws
rules allowing recognition of an entity created under foreign law could not be applied to an
organization established under international law, since this would apparently circumvent the
principle that an international organization with legal personality created outside the jurisdiction
would not have capacity to sue in England without a relevant authorizing Order in Council.
Though International Organizations have personality ability that means they can sue and being
sued that makes them to enjoy some privilege to state members but what’s makes them to not be
considered as a primacy subject matter of international law as it was to state is that, state have
essentials that make it to be unique among of them are permanent population (people), territory,
government and sovereignty. 44
43
[1991] 2 WLR; 85 ILR. P. 1
44
Higgins, R. (1994). Problems and Processes: International Law and How We Use It, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 46–47.
Secondly, Individuals are also deemed to be subject of international law: The individual
traditionally existed only as an object, rather than a subject, of international law. Individuals
figured in international legal rules in various capacities, 45 but rarely if ever did international law
actually create rights or obligations for those individuals. However, twentieth and twenty-first
century innovations have introduced a number of discrete exceptions to these general rules. This
has occurred in three principal areas. First, certain rules of conduct in times of armed conflict, in
addition to protecting individuals (such as civilians, combatants, prisoners of war, the sick and
wounded, and so on) are now generally considered to be directly binding upon individuals and
not merely the states for which they may be acting law but it is only recently that they have been
able to act directly rather than reply upon their national states. 46This development has been
closely tied to the development of a second body of international law that imposes obligations
directly on individuals. International criminal law concerns not only violations by individuals of
the laws of armed conflict but also other, usually large-scale, atrocities such as crimes against
humanity and genocide, whether or not committed in times of conflict. 47 These rules and the
consequences of their breach are most remarkable for the fact that they impose duties and
consequences directly upon individuals and not only upon states. Thus, a military officer
directing or carrying out a mass extermination of an ethnic minority, for example, may not only
be held responsible under the domestic laws of his or her national state, but may also be held
directly accountable as a matter of international criminal law. 48For example an individual is
prohibited from committing or assisting the commission of international crimes, under the
International case of Arrest warrant case (Democratic Republic of Congo v Belgium) 49the court
was at the opinion that , every state of the World has universal jurisdiction to prosecute an
individual who has committed an international crime. As of current an individual is made
responsible under international law for international crimes.
In this sense, then, international law has imposed certain narrowly defined obligations and thus,
arguably, a limited degree of international legal personality, directly upon individuals. The
international legal system is still in the process of developing effective mechanisms for enforcing

45
Dinstein, Y. (2004). The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
46
Brownlie, I. (2008). Principles of Public International Law, 7thEd., Oxford: Oxford University Press
47
Forcese, J.H, & Oosterveld,V. (2007). International Law: Doctrine, Practice, and Theory, Toronto: Irwin Law
48
Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg), 8 August 1945, 82 U.N.T.S. 279
49
(2002 ICJ Reports p.3)
such obligations, although a major step forward in this regard has been the recent establishment
of certain ad hoc and hybrid international criminal tribunal and, more permanently, the
International Court50.The third major development has been the elaboration of a far-reaching
body of international human rights law, beginning with the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights in 1948.51 In contrast to the first two developments noted above, which impose obligations
on individuals, the aim of international human rights law is the recognition of certain basic rights
and entitlements of individuals. These rights and entitlements may already have existed or been
recognized in various domestic legal systems. What is new is their recognition or conferral as a
matter of international law. In other words, such international legal rights are enjoyed directly by
individuals, and produce corresponding obligations for states, including the individual’s state of
nationality.

It has been recognized that individuals have duties as a matter of international law. So far, these
obligations have been restricted to the criminal sphere. The notion of individual criminal
responsibility was first applied by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1946 in
connection with atrocities committed by the Nazi regime during the Second World War. This
Tribunal was authorized to adjudicate crimes against humanity and war crimes. The concept of
individual criminal responsibility was developed and applied by the UN Security Council on an
ad hoc basis when it established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the
International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia. Individual criminal responsibility has become
more generally applicable with the setting up of the ICC via Article 25, Rome Statute (1998) 52.
Individual rights It is now accepted that individuals have rights at the level of international law.
However, these rights are dependent on particular States having given their consent to the rights
in question. For example, an individual cannot be said to have a particular right contained in a
multilateral treaty unless his or her State has ratified that treaty. So, individuals may have
indirect international legal rights. Further, whether that right can be enforced depends on the
institutional machinery and procedures which accompany the right in question 53. For example,
50
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998, 2187 U.N.T.S. 90 (in force 1 July 2002)
51
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, U.N.G.A. Res. 217(III), UN GAOR, 3rd Sess., Supp. No. 13, UN Doc. A/810 (1948).
52
Article 25, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998, 2187 U.N.T.S. 90 (in force 1
July 2002).
53
For example, Article 36(1), Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963) confers an individual right
of consular access upon nationals of those States which have ratified the Convention.
Article 36(1), Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963) confers an individual right of
consular access upon nationals of those States which have ratified the Convention (this was
confirmed by the ICJ in the LaGrand case (2001) in which the ICJ upheld inter alia that
individual right of consular access upon nationals of those states have ratified the convention
(those have entered agreement). Nevertheless, the whole subject has been highly controversial,
with some writers (for example Soviet theorists prior to perestroika) denying that individuals
may have rights as distinct from duties under international law, but it is indicative of the trend
away from the exclusivity of the state. Therefore, it suffices to note that while the imposition of
obligations and the conferral of rights of an international legal character has in some sense made
the individual a subject of international law for very limited purposes, the individual’s capacities
in international law remain tenuous at best.
Moreover; there are also Multinational Enterprises and Corporations: Another possible
candidate for international personality is corporations or Transnational corporations sometime
multinational enterprises as they in essence constitute private business organizations comprising
several legal entities linking together by parent corporations and are distinguished by size and
multinational spread so to say that what has been sought is the set of guidelines governing the
elements of the international conduct of these entities, however progress has been slow and
several crucial issues remains to be resolved , including the legal effect if any of such guidelines
so the question of international personality of transitional corporations remains an open one. 54In
present era International corporations are subject of International law on the ground that they
can bring claims or their rights and liabilities can be governed by international law and up to now
we had the Convention on the settlement of investment disputes of 1965, which allow
corporations to institute claims before the international center for resolution of the world disputes
, in the case of Texaco overseas petroleum company.vs. Libya55, it was held that , Even though
the right of a state to nationalize is recognized by international law, this right in itself is not
sufficient justification not to regard its contractual obligation.

Reference to states and similar political entities, to organizations, and to individuals does not
exhaust the tally of entities active on the international scene. Corporations, whether private or
public, often engage in economic activity in one or more states other than the state under the law

54
OP.cit
55
(1977) 53 ILR P 389.
of which they were incorporated or in which they have their economic seat. 56A corporation is an
artificial legal person created pursuant to legal rules established for that purpose within a
particular legal system. In international law, there are no rules providing for, and nobody
competent to oversee, the creation of such entities. Thus, corporations are strictly the creatures of
domestic legal systems and as such draw their basic legal personality, including rights,
obligations, and capacities, from the provisions of those legal systems. Insofar as they exist as
objects of which international law takes some account, they are simply treated in much the same
manner as individuals.57 In relation to the recognition as the subject of international law disputes
between companies and states on the international plane depend on the specific agreement
between the parties, in many instances’ companies have more economic power than states and
can force a state to accept international personality of companies. The main arguments for MNC
candidacy to international legal personality are that ;-They can bring proceedings against a state
before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Dispute (ICSID) during which they
treated on an equal footing with the respondent state, further, Corporations have capacity to bring
claims against a state before inter alia the Iran- United states claims Tribunal, the United Nations
Compensation Commission (UNCC), the World Bank Inspection Panel, the ECtHR and the
IACtHR and to institute process following the complaints procedure Under Article 14 of the
1993 North America Agreement on Environmental Co- operation. 58Therefore the argument that
they have international legal capacity to complain in international bodies under the relevant
treaties , and by considering that they ought to be regarded as subject of international law in the
sense that they can even participate in the treaty making in the areas of their activities.

CONCLUSION
It is true that states remained to be primary subject of international law, this is due to the fact that
they hold a distinctive feature of being sovereign that is to mean they are not under control of
any absolute power, but due to globalization which increased interdependent and integration
between and among states, the sovereignty of states is to some extent limited this is because
states are subject to various obligation and liabilities as per instruments integrated them.

56
Crawford, J. (2008). Principle of International Law, 8th Ed., New York; Oxford University Press, p.213
57
Currie, H, J. (2008). Public International Law, 2nd Ed., New York: Irwin Law Inc.
58
Allen, S (2010). International Law, 8TH Edition, London; Oxford University Press pg 398
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, S (2010). International Law, 8TH Edition, London; Oxford University Pres

Shaw, M. N. (2008). International Law, 6th Ed., New York: Cambridge University Press
Amerasinghe, C.F. (2006). Principles of the Institutional Law of International Organizations, 2nd
Ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Ott, D. H. (1987). Public International Law in The Modern World. London: Pitman Publishing.
Greig, D.W.(Ed). International law 2nd Ed., P.93 London: Butterworth & Co.(publishers) Ltd
Seepersad, D. M. (2011) Wolfgang Friedmann and the Major Developments in International Law
Ott, D. H. (1987). Public International Law in the modern World p. 42
2RIAA, pp. 829, 838 (1928); 4 AD, pp. 103, 104.,
Brownlie, I. (2008). Principles of Public International Law, 7thEd., Oxford: Oxford University
Press
Forcese, J.H, & Oosterveld,V. (2007). International Law: Doctrine, Practice, and Theory,
Toronto: Irwin Law
Dinstein, Y. (2004). The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
William S.R (2003). Fundamental Perspectives on International Law, 4 thedn, Wadsworth &
Thomson Learning, USA. P. 102
Greig D. W (1976). International Law, 2ndedn, Butterworth & Co. (publisher) Ltd. p. 110.
Wallance, R.M.& Orlgea, M. (2009). International Law, 6thEd., London: Sweet & Maxwell
Starke, J. G. (1994). Starke international law 11th Ed. Butterworths
CASES
ISLAND OF PALMAS CASE (UNITED STATE V NETHERLAND) RIAA, pp. 829, 838 (1928); 4
AD, pp. 103, 104
TEXACO OVERSEAS PETROLEUM COMPANY.VS. LIBYA (1977) 53 ILR P 389
ARAB MONETARY FUND v. HASHIM [1991] 2 WLR; 85 ILR. P. 1
NAURA V AUSTRALIA [1992] 258; 97. Pp 125

AALAND ISLANDS CASE (1920) L. N. O. J. SPEC Supp. No. 3

LOTUS CASE (FRENCH V TURKEY) ICGJ 248 (PCIJ 1927)
REPARATIONS FOR INJURIES SUFFERED IN THE SERVICE OF THE UNITED NATIONS
(1949) ICJ Reports P.174
WESTERN SAHARA CASE 1975 ICJ Reports P.2
ARREST WARRANT CASE (DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO V BELGIUM)

INTERENATIONAL CONVENTIONS
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, U.N.G.A. Res. 217(III), UN GAOR, 3rd Sess., Supp.
No. 13, UN Doc. A/810 (1948).
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998, 2187 U.N.T.S. 90 (in force 1
July 2002).
Charter of the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg), 8 August 1945, 82 U.N.T.S. 279
The Montevideo Convention on The Rights and Duties of States of 1933

ONLINE SOURCES
Law Explorer (in Press), retrieved from https://lawexplores.com/subjects-of-international-law/.
Accessed on 22, May 2021
Shaw,M. (in press). International law. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/international -
law .Accessed on 23, May 2021