INTERNATIONAL

LEGAL PERSONALITY
& ACTORS
 DEFINITION
International legal personality, often simply referred to as "legal personality" or "international legal
personality," is a concept in international law that refers to the capacity of an entity to have rights and
obligations under international law. In essence, it determines which entities can participate in the
international legal system and be subject to its rules and regulations.
Entities with international legal personality are considered as legal actors in the global arena and can
enter into agreements, sue and be sued, and exercise other legal rights and duties in international
relations.
According to Shaw, personality in international law necessitates the consideration of the
interrelationship between rights and duties afforded under the international system and capacity to
enforce claims. That is the concept of international legal personality is one which acknowledges that
within any legal system, there are those who may claim rights and be subject to duties and obligations.
This means that if State , group or body can be said to have rights and duties under international law,
then it can be said to have ‘ international personality’ or to be a ‘subject’ of international law.
“To have ‘personality’ in international law (ILP) means
inclusion in the international legal system as an actor,
it means being subject to the law and having the right
to use it. To be denied ILP means to be excluded, with
ensuing deprivation of instruments such as
rightsholdership, capacity to conclude treaties, ius
standi, and legal responsibility ‐ but it may also mean
freedom from normative constraints.” – Brolmann and
Nijman, 2017
 HISTORY
International legal personality has traditionally been associated with states, and states remain
the primary subjects of international law. However, there have been developments in
international law that have recognized limited forms of international legal personality for
certain non-state actors, such as intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), companies, and individuals. These recognitions have evolved over
time and are still subject to debate and ongoing developments.
After formal recognition by the UN, NGOs were able to truly interact in the international
arena. Getting international personality has historically been an obstacle for NGOs.
The United Nations (UN) formally recognized the participation of non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) in its activities and processes through its Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in 1946.
This recognition was established with the creation of Article 71 of the UN Charter, which states:
"1. The Economic and Social Council may make suitable arrangements for consultation with non-
governmental organizations which are concerned with matters within its competence. Such
arrangements may be made with international organizations and, where appropriate, with national
organizations after consultation with the Member of the United Nations concerned."
 HISTORY
Article 71 provides the legal basis for the UN's engagement with NGOs, allowing them to
participate in and consult with ECOSOC on matters related to its functions, such as economic and
social issues. It marked an important step in acknowledging the role that NGOs could play in
international affairs and in addressing global challenges.
1899 saw the first convention to grant legal personality, and in 1936 Charles Fenwick is quoted with
saying that NGO representation “might be greatly effective in cutting across national lines.”
The Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, also known as the Hague
Convention of 1899, was part of a series of agreements reached at the First Hague Peace Conference,
held in The Hague, Netherlands, from May 18 to July 29, 1899.
The Hague Convention of 1899 established the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), which was
designed to provide a peaceful means for the resolution of international disputes between states. The
PCA is often considered the first international court of its kind. It allowed states to submit disputes
voluntarily to arbitration, and the PCA's panel of arbitrators would then make binding decisions.
 HISTORY
What was significant about the PCA is that it was open not only to states but also to individuals and
organizations. Article 20 of the convention stated:
"In questions of a legal nature, and especially in the interpretation or application of international
conventions, arbitration is recognized by the Contracting Powers as the most effective, and, at the
same time, the most equitable means of settling disputes which diplomacy has failed to settle."
This provision allowed private individuals and non-state entities, such as corporations and
associations, to bring disputes before the PCA, thereby granting them a form of international legal
personality for dispute resolution purposes.
While the PCA primarily focused on the peaceful settlement of disputes, and its jurisdiction was
limited to cases submitted to it, this convention marked an important step in recognizing non-state
entities as potential participants in the international legal order. It laid the groundwork for subsequent
developments in international law that would further extend legal personality to a broader range of
non-state actors.
 RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES
Rights that come with obtaining international legal personality include the right to enter into
treaties, right to immunity, right to send and receive legations, and the right to bring
international claims to obtain reparation for damages. Those who have international legal
personality can sue and be sued, can enter into contracts, can incur debt, and pay various
taxes.
International legal personality is a concept in international law that grants certain rights and
privileges to entities that possess it. International legal personality is typically recognized for
states, but it can also apply to other entities under specific circumstances.
Some key rights and privileges that come with having international legal personality:
1. Sovereignty: States with international legal personality enjoy sovereignty, which means
they have the supreme authority over their territory and domestic affairs. This includes the
right to make laws, enter into international agreements, and maintain diplomatic relations
with other states.
 RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES
Some key rights and privileges that come with having international legal personality:
2. Treaty-making and Treaty-enforcing: States can enter into international treaties and
agreements, and they have the right to enforce those agreements. They can also become party to
multilateral treaties and engage in diplomatic negotiations.
3. Access to International Organizations: States with international legal personality can become
members of international organizations such as the United Nations, World Trade Organization,
and regional organizations like the European Union. This allows them to participate in decision-
making processes and benefit from the resources and services provided by these organizations.
4. Diplomatic Relations: States can establish diplomatic relations with other states, exchange
ambassadors, and maintain embassies and consulates in foreign countries. This allows them to
engage in diplomacy and represent their interests internationally.
5. Immunity from Jurisdiction: States and their representatives enjoy immunity from the
jurisdiction of foreign courts, protecting them from legal actions in foreign countries. This
principle is known as sovereign immunity and is based on the idea that one state should not
exercise jurisdiction over another.
 RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES
Some key rights and privileges that come with having international legal personality:
6. Right to Declare War and Self-Defense: States have the right to declare war in self-defense
and to defend themselves against armed aggression, subject to the limitations and principles
of international law, such as the United Nations Charter.
7. Access to International Dispute Resolution Mechanisms: States can bring disputes with
other states to international courts and tribunals, such as the International Court of Justice, for
peaceful resolution. They can also participate in arbitration proceedings to resolve disputes.
8. Recognition of Territory and Borders: States with international legal personality have their
territory and borders recognized by other states, contributing to the stability of international
relations.
9. Protection of Nationals Abroad: States have the responsibility to protect the rights and
interests of their nationals when they are abroad, including providing consular assistance and
support.
INTERNATIONAL ACTORS
There are several entities that can possess international legal personality, including:

1. States: Sovereign states are the primary subjects of international law. They have full legal
personality and are considered the most significant actors in the international system. States can enter
into treaties, engage in diplomatic relations, and are bound by customary international law.
2. International Organizations: Various international organizations, such as the United Nations
(UN), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and regional organizations like the European Union
(EU), have international legal personality. They can make agreements, engage in diplomatic
relations, and have legal rights and responsibilities.
3. Individuals: While individuals do not have the same level of international legal personality as
states and international organizations, certain individuals can be held accountable for international
crimes, such as genocide and war crimes, by international tribunals like the International Criminal
Court (ICC). These individuals are subject to the jurisdiction of these courts.
INTERNATIONAL ACTORS
There are several entities that can possess international legal personality, including:

4. Certain Non-State Entities: In some cases, non-state entities, such as national liberation
movements, may be granted limited international legal personality for specific purposes, particularly
in situations involving decolonization or self-determination.
5. Corporations, NGOs and Other Legal Entities: Multinational corporations and other legal
entities, while not possessing the same level of international legal personality as states, can still
engage in international business transactions and may be subject to certain international regulations
and obligations.

The concept of international legal personality helps define the structure and functioning of the
international legal system, as it clarifies which entities can participate in international relations and
be held accountable for their actions on the global stage. It is a fundamental aspect of international
law that helps maintain order and accountability in the international community.
 WHY ARE THESE INTERNATIONAL ACTORS
GRANTED INTERNATIONAL LEGAL
PERSONALITIES?
1. States:
States, as sovereign entities, are generally considered to have inherent international legal personality under international
law. International legal personality is not something that is granted to states but is rather a fundamental aspect of their
existence as subjects of international law. When a state comes into existence and is recognized by other states, it is presumed
to possess international legal personality. This recognition is not granted but is a result of customary international law and
the principle of state sovereignty.
The reasons for granting recognition and international legal personality to a new state typically include:

1. Effective Control and Governance: The new entity must demonstrate effective control over a defined territory and a
functioning government capable of maintaining law and order within its borders.
2. Capacity to Enter into International Relations: To participate in the international community and engage in diplomatic
relations, a state needs international legal personality. This enables it to negotiate and enter into treaties and agreements with
other states.
3. Recognition by Other States: One of the primary ways that a new state acquires international legal personality is through
recognition by other states. When a sufficient number of states recognize a new entity as a state, it gains international legal
status.
4. Independence and Sovereignty: A new state is typically granted international legal personality when it establishes itself as
an independent and sovereign entity, free from the control or domination of other states.
5. Peaceful Coexistence: States are often recognized when they demonstrate a commitment to peaceful coexistence with
other states and respect for international law and norms.
 WHY ARE THESE INTERNATIONAL ACTORS
GRANTED INTERNATIONAL LEGAL
PERSONALITIES?
1. States:

Historical examples of states that were granted international legal personality include:
South Sudan:
 Recognition: South Sudan gained independence from Sudan in 2011 following a referendum in which its citizens voted overwhelmingly for
secession.
 Reason for Recognition: South Sudan met the criteria for statehood, including effective control over a defined territory and a functioning
government. It was recognized as a new sovereign state by a significant number of other countries.

East Timor (Timor-Leste):

 Recognition: East Timor became an independent state in 2002 after a period of United Nations administration following a vote for
independence from Indonesia.
 Reason for Recognition: East Timor demonstrated its capacity to govern itself and was recognized as an independent state by the international
community.

Kosovo:
 Recognition: Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia in 2008 and has been recognized as a sovereign state by a significant number of
countries.
 Reason for Recognition: Kosovo asserted its independence and effective control over its territory, leading to recognition by many states.

These examples illustrate the process by which new states acquire international legal personality through recognition
by other states and by meeting the criteria for statehood under international law.
 WHY ARE THESE INTERNATIONAL ACTORS
GRANTED INTERNATIONAL LEGAL
PERSONALITIES?
2. International Organisations:
United Nations (UN):
 Recognition: The United Nations is the most prominent international organization with full international legal personality.
 Reason for Recognition: The UN was established in 1945 to promote international cooperation, maintain peace and security,
protect human rights, and address global issues. Its legal personality is enshrined in the UN Charter and allows it to enter into
treaties, conduct diplomatic relations, and take legal actions in its own name.

World Trade Organization (WTO):

 Recognition: The WTO is a specialized agency of the United Nations with international legal personality.
 Reason for Recognition: The WTO was established to oversee and regulate international trade and resolve trade disputes
among its member states. Its legal personality allows it to administer trade agreements, conduct dispute settlement procedures,
and represent its members in trade negotiations.

African Union (AU):

Recognition: The African Union, formerly the Organization of African Unity (OAU), has international
legal personality.
Reason for Recognition: The AU was created to promote unity and cooperation among African states,
address continental challenges, and work toward the political and economic integration of the African
 WHY ARE THESE INTERNATIONAL ACTORS
GRANTED INTERNATIONAL LEGAL
PERSONALITIES?
2. International Organisations:
European Union (EU):
 Recognition: The European Union is an international organization with international legal personality.
 Reason for Recognition: The EU was established to promote economic and political integration among European countries.
Its legal personality enables it to negotiate international agreements on behalf of its member states, regulate trade, and
engage in foreign policy.

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC):

 Recognition: The ICRC, although not a traditional international organization, has been granted international legal
recognition and status.
 Reason for Recognition: The ICRC plays a unique role in providing humanitarian assistance and protection to victims of
armed conflicts. Its legal personality allows it to work in conflict zones, visit prisoners of war, and negotiate with states and
armed groups to ensure the application of international humanitarian law.

World Health Organization (WHO):

 Recognition: WHO is a specialized agency of the United Nations with international legal personality.
 Reason for Recognition: WHO was established to address global health issues and promote international cooperation in
healthcare. Its legal personality allows it to coordinate responses to health emergencies, set health standards, and work with
member states to improve public health.
 WHY ARE THESE INTERNATIONAL ACTORS
GRANTED INTERNATIONAL LEGAL
PERSONALITIES?
3. Individuals:
Individuals who are held accountable under international law typically do not have international legal
personality conferred upon them. Instead, they are subject to international legal mechanisms and
institutions established to hold individuals accountable for certain international crimes. Here are some
examples of individuals who have been held accountable under international law, along with the reasons
for their accountability:
War Criminals and Perpetrators of Genocide:
 Accountability: Individuals who have committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide can be held accountable
under international law through mechanisms like international criminal tribunals and courts.
 Reason for Accountability: Accountability for these crimes is crucial to ensure justice and deter future violations of
international humanitarian law. Notable examples include the trials of individuals involved in the Rwandan Genocide
(International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda) and the Yugoslav Wars (International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia).

Heads of State and Government:

 Accountability: Although heads of state and government typically enjoy immunity from prosecution while in office, they can
be held accountable for certain international crimes, such as genocide and crimes against humanity, once they leave office.
 Reason for Accountability: Accountability for high-ranking officials ensures that those responsible for grave violations of
international law do not escape justice solely because of their official positions. For example, former Yugoslav President
 WHY ARE THESE INTERNATIONAL ACTORS
GRANTED INTERNATIONAL LEGAL
PERSONALITIES?
3. Individuals:
International Criminal Court (ICC) Defendants:
 Accountability: The ICC has jurisdiction over individuals accused of committing genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the
crime of aggression.
 Reason for Accountability: The ICC was established to hold individuals accountable for the most serious international crimes,
particularly when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so. Notable ICC cases include those against individuals like Charles Taylor
(Liberia) and Omar al-Bashir (Sudan).

Individuals Accused of Terrorism:

 Accountability: Some individuals accused of involvement in terrorism, including acts against civilians, can be prosecuted under
international law, often in domestic courts with international cooperation.
 Reason for Accountability: Holding terrorists accountable is essential for combatting terrorism and ensuring justice for victims.
Examples include trials of individuals involved in the 9/11 attacks and the 2004 Madrid train bombings.

Individuals Accused of Crimes in Conflict Zones:

Accountability: Individuals accused of committing crimes in armed conflicts, such as unlawful killings or sexual
violence, can be held accountable through international mechanisms.
Reason for Accountability: Accountability in conflict zones helps deter violations of international humanitarian
law and ensures justice for victims. Various international and hybrid tribunals have been established to address
such cases, including the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of
 WHY ARE THESE INTERNATIONAL ACTORS
GRANTED INTERNATIONAL LEGAL
PERSONALITIES?
4. Certain Non-State Entities: National liberation movements, seeking self-determination
and independence for a particular territory or people, have historically sought recognition and legal personality in
international law. While not all of them have been granted international legal personality, some have achieved this
status for various reasons. Here are a few examples:
 Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO):
 Recognition: The PLO, representing the Palestinian people, gained recognition and observer status in various
international organizations, including the United Nations General Assembly, UNESCO, and the Arab League.
 Reason for Recognition: The PLO was recognized as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people,
which had been displaced and was seeking self-determination and statehood. This recognition allowed them to
engage in diplomatic and political activities on the international stage.
African National Congress (ANC) - South Africa:
Recognition: The ANC, which led the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, received support and
recognition from many countries and international organizations during the apartheid era.
Reason for Recognition: The ANC was seen as a legitimate representative of the oppressed majority in South
Africa and was supported in its efforts to end apartheid and establish a democratic, non-racial state.
 WHY ARE THESE INTERNATIONAL ACTORS
GRANTED INTERNATIONAL LEGAL
PERSONALITIES?
4. Certain Non-State Entities:
East Timorese Resistance Movements:
 Recognition: Various East Timorese resistance movements, including Fretilin and CNRT, received international recognition
and support during their struggle for independence from Indonesia.
 Reason for Recognition: These movements were recognized as representing the aspirations of the East Timorese people for
self-determination and independence. International solidarity played a crucial role in their eventual success.

Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA):

 Recognition: The KLA, which played a significant role in the conflict in Kosovo during the late 1990s, received support and
recognition from some countries.
 Reason for Recognition: Some states and international actors viewed the KLA as a legitimate force fighting against the
repression of Kosovo Albanians by Serbian authorities. This recognition eventually contributed to Kosovo's declaration of
independence in 2008.

Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF):

 Recognition: The EPLF was recognized as the legitimate representative of the Eritrean people during their war for
independence from Ethiopia.
 Reason for Recognition: The Eritrean struggle for self-determination was widely supported by the international community,
which saw the EPLF as representing the aspirations of the Eritrean people.
 WHY ARE THESE INTERNATIONAL ACTORS
GRANTED INTERNATIONAL LEGAL
PERSONALITIES?
5. Corporations, NGOs and Other Legal Entities:
Corporations and other legal entities do not typically possess international legal personality in the
same way that states and international organizations do. International legal personality is primarily a
characteristic of states, international organizations, and certain individuals in specific contexts, such as
international criminal accountability. Corporations and other legal entities are generally subject to
national laws and regulations, and their legal status is determined within the domestic legal framework
of the country where they are registered or incorporated.
However, there are certain international agreements and conventions that provide recognition and legal
standing for specific types of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and entities in limited contexts.
These agreements are often designed to address particular issues, such as environmental protection or
human rights.
 WHY ARE THESE INTERNATIONAL ACTORS
GRANTED INTERNATIONAL LEGAL
PERSONALITIES?
5. Corporations, NGOs and Other Legal Entities:
International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs):
 Recognition: Certain international agreements, particularly in the context of environmental conservation and humanitarian
work, recognize and grant a form of international legal standing to INGOs.
 Reason for Recognition: INGOs, such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and Médecins Sans
Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), are recognized for their role in addressing global challenges, providing humanitarian
assistance, and contributing to international cooperation.

International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement:

 Recognition: The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red
Crescent Societies (IFRC) are recognized under international humanitarian law.
 Reason for Recognition: These organizations are recognized for their role in providing humanitarian assistance during
armed conflicts and natural disasters and for upholding principles of humanity, neutrality, and impartiality.

Inter-Governmental Organizations (IGOs):

 Recognition: Some inter-governmental organizations, while primarily composed of states, may include observer status or
participation for specific NGOs or non-state entities.
 Reason for Recognition: This recognition allows NGOs or entities to participate in discussions and activities related to
specific issues under the purview of the IGO, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), which permits observer organizations to attend climate negotiations.
CASELAW
There is a significant body of case law and legal scholarship concerning the concept of international legal personality.
1. The Lotus Case (1927): The Lotus case of 1927, officially known as the "S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey),"
was a landmark international law case heard by the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), the
predecessor to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). It is often cited as a seminal case in the development of the
principles of jurisdiction and the Lotus principle in international law.
Background: On August 2, 1926, a collision occurred at sea between two vessels, the French ship S.S.
Lotus and the Turkish ship Boz-Kourt, in the high seas of the Mediterranean, which were outside the
territorial waters of any state. The collision resulted in the death of several Turkish nationals on the Boz-
Kourt.
Events and Legal Proceedings:
Following the collision, the French authorities took Lieutenant Demons, a French national who was the
officer responsible for the navigation of the S.S. Lotus, into custody.
France decided to prosecute Lieutenant Demons for manslaughter in French courts, asserting that it had
jurisdiction to do so because the collision involved a French-flagged vessel.
Turkey protested this action, arguing that the collision occurred on the high seas, which were beyond the
territorial waters of any state, and therefore, it was an international matter not subject to French jurisdiction.
The dispute between France and Turkey over the jurisdictional question led to the case being brought before
CASELAW – LOTUS CASE 1927
Issue: The main issue in the Lotus case was whether the French authorities had jurisdiction to prosecute and try the Turkish
national, Lieutenant Demons, for his alleged involvement in a collision at sea between the French vessel, S.S. Lotus, and the
Turkish vessel, Boz-Kourt, resulting in the death of several Turkish nationals. The central question was whether the principle of
territorial sovereignty allowed France to exercise jurisdiction over an incident that occurred on the high seas, outside its
territorial waters.
Rule:
Territorial Sovereignty: Under customary international law, states have sovereignty over their territorial waters, which
generally extend 3 nautical miles from their coastlines. Within these waters, states have exclusive jurisdiction over both their
territory and foreign vessels.
The Lotus Principle: The Lotus principle, as established in this case, states that in the absence of a specific rule to the contrary,
states are free to exercise jurisdiction over any activity that occurs within their territory or on board a vessel flying their flag,
even if the act has no substantial connection to that state. However, this principle does not preclude other states from exercising
jurisdiction over the same incident if their jurisdictional nexus can be established.
Analysis: The PCIJ's analysis in the Lotus case revolved around whether the exercise of French jurisdiction over Lieutenant
Demons was in violation of international law, given that the collision occurred on the high seas, outside French territorial waters.
French Jurisdiction: France argued that it had jurisdiction over Lieutenant Demons because the collision took place on board a
French vessel flying the French flag (S.S. Lotus). Under the Lotus principle, it contended that it had the right to assert
jurisdiction over any incident involving its flag vessel.
Turkish Jurisdiction: Turkey, on the other hand, contended that since the collision occurred on the high seas, it was an
international matter and fell outside the scope of French jurisdiction. Turkey argued that under customary international law, states
could only assert jurisdiction over incidents occurring within their territorial waters.
CASELAW – LOTUS CASE 1927
Conclusion: The PCIJ, in its judgment delivered on September 7, 1927, ruled in favor of France. It held that, in the
absence of a specific rule to the contrary, states were entitled to exercise jurisdiction over acts that occurred on
board their flag vessels, even on the high seas. Specifically:
States have the right to exercise jurisdiction over acts that occur on board their flag vessels on the high
seas, provided there is no specific rule of international law to the contrary.
In the absence of a prohibition in international law, states are generally free to exercise jurisdiction over
acts that occur on their flag vessels, even if those acts have no substantial connection to the state's
territory.
The court further emphasized the Lotus principle that jurisdiction was not prohibited unless explicitly restricted by
international law. As there was no such restriction in this case, France had the right to prosecute and try Lieutenant
Demons for the collision involving the S.S. Lotus. This case had a significant impact on the development of
international law, solidifying the principle of flag state jurisdiction and the Lotus principle in customary
international law.
CASELAW – CORFU CHANNEL CASE 1949
The Corfu Channel Case (1949): This case, brought before the International Court of Justice (ICJ),
involved a dispute between the United Kingdom and Albania regarding the mining of the Corfu Channel.
It addressed issues related to state responsibility and the rights and obligations of states in the context of
international waterways.
The Corfu Channel case, also known as the Corfu Channel incident, was a significant international legal
dispute that arose in the aftermath of World War II. It involved a series of naval incidents in the Corfu
Channel, which is located between the Greek island of Corfu and the coast of Albania. The case
ultimately led to a decision by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Facts:
In 1946 and 1947, several British warships, including HMS Orion, HMS Superb, and HMS Saumarez,
struck mines in the Corfu Channel, which is located between the Greek island of Corfu and the coast of
Albania.
The United Kingdom accused Albania of being responsible for the mining incidents and sought
compensation for the damage to its ships and the loss of life.
CASELAW – CORFU CHANNEL CASE 1949
Issue:
The primary issue in the Corfu Channel case was whether Albania bore legal responsibility for the damage to British
warships and casualties resulting from the mine explosions in the Corfu Channel.
Rule:
International Law: The case was governed by principles of international law, particularly customary international
law and general principles of state responsibility.
Duty to Ensure Safe Navigation: Under international law, states have a duty to ensure the safety of navigation in
their territorial waters and to provide adequate warnings about hazards to shipping.
Attribution of State Responsibility: To hold Albania legally responsible, the International Court of Justice (ICJ)
needed to establish that Albania either laid the mines or failed to clear them or provide sufficient warnings.
Analysis:
HMS Orion and HMS Superb (1946): The ICJ found that Albania had not directly laid the mines, but it concluded
that Albania had failed in its duty to inform the United Kingdom about the presence of the mines and to take adequate
measures to warn and protect shipping in the Corfu Channel. This breach of duty contributed to the damage caused to
the British warships, and as a result, Albania was held responsible for the consequences.
HMS Saumarez (1947): In this incident, the ICJ again determined that Albania had not directly laid the mines.
However, it found that Albania had still failed in its duty to clear the mines or provide adequate warnings, which led
to the damage to HMS Saumarez and the deaths of British sailors. Albania was held responsible for the consequences.
CASELAW – CORFU CHANNEL CASE 1949
Conclusion:
In the Corfu Channel case, the International Court of Justice ruled that Albania was legally responsible
for the damage caused to British warships and casualties resulting from the mine explosions in the Corfu
Channel in 1946 and 1947. While Albania was not found to have directly laid the mines, it was
determined that Albania had breached its duty to warn and protect navigation in the channel, resulting in
the damage and casualties suffered by the United Kingdom. Albania was ordered to pay compensation to
the UK as a result of this legal responsibility.
This case is significant in international law as it established important precedents regarding state
responsibility for ensuring safe navigation in international waters and the legal consequences of failing
to fulfill those responsibilities.
CASELAW – NICARAGUA VS UNITED
STATES 1986
The Nicaragua v. United States Case (1986): This ICJ case centered around the activities of the United
States in Nicaragua, including support for Contra rebels. The case addressed the legal personality of
states and their responsibility for violations of international law.
Facts:
The case stems from the conflict in Nicaragua during the 1980s, which involved a leftist Sandinista
government supported by the Soviet Union and Cuba, and a group of Contra rebels, who were opposed
to the Sandinista regime and supported by the United States.
Nicaragua filed a lawsuit against the United States in the ICJ in 1984, alleging that the U.S. had
violated international law by supporting the Contras and engaging in military and paramilitary activities
in Nicaragua.
Nicaragua's claims included charges of U.S. intervention, military and economic support to the Contras,
mining of Nicaraguan ports, and other alleged violations of international law.
Issue:
The central issue in the Nicaragua v. United States case was whether the United States had violated
international law by supporting the Contras and engaging in various activities against Nicaragua, and if
so, whether it was legally responsible for these actions.
CASELAW – NICARAGUA VS UNITED
STATES
Rule:
1986
Principles of International Law: The case was governed by principles of customary international law,
including the prohibition of the use of force against another state, non-intervention in the internal affairs
of another state, and the principle of state responsibility.
Analysis:
Military and Paramilitary Support: The ICJ found that the United States had provided military and
paramilitary support to the Contras, which included financial aid, training, and the supply of weapons.
This support was deemed a violation of the prohibition of the use of force against another state under
international law.
Mining of Nicaraguan Ports: The ICJ also determined that the United States had been involved in the
mining of Nicaraguan ports, causing damage to Nicaraguan vessels. This act was seen as a violation of
the principles of customary international law, particularly the prohibition of the use of force and the
principle of non-intervention.
Responsibility of the United States: The ICJ held the United States responsible for its actions in
Nicaragua and ordered it to pay reparations to Nicaragua for the damage caused.
CASELAW – NICARAGUA VS UNITED
STATES
Conclusion:
1986
In the Nicaragua v. United States case, the International Court of Justice concluded that the United States
had violated international law by supporting the Contras and engaging in military and paramilitary
activities in Nicaragua. The U.S. was held legally responsible for these actions and was ordered to pay
reparations to Nicaragua.
This case is significant in international law as it reaffirms the principles of non-intervention and the
prohibition of the use of force in international relations and demonstrates the role of the ICJ in
adjudicating disputes between states based on international legal norms.
CASELAW – NICARAGUA VS UNITED
STATES
Aftermath:
1986
After the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled against the United States in the Nicaragua v. United
States case in 1986, finding the U.S. responsible for its actions in Nicaragua and ordering it to pay
reparations, the U.S. did not directly challenge the ICJ's judgment. Instead, the U.S. took several
diplomatic and political measures to avoid implementing or complying with the ICJ's decision. The U.S.
took advantage of its position as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, which
includes veto power, to thwart the enforcement of the ICJ judgment. It did so in the following ways:
Withdrawal from ICJ Jurisdiction: In 1986, after the ICJ ruling, the U.S. announced its withdrawal
from the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ with respect to cases related to military and paramilitary
activities. This meant that the U.S. would not accept the ICJ's jurisdiction in cases similar to Nicaragua's,
thereby preventing future cases from being brought before the court.
Use of Veto Power: The United States, as one of the five permanent members of the United Nations
Security Council, possesses veto power. This means that it can veto any Security Council resolution,
including those related to the enforcement of ICJ judgments or sanctions against a member state. The
U.S. used its veto power to block any Security Council resolutions that could have called for the
enforcement of the ICJ judgment or imposed sanctions on the U.S.
CASELAW – NICARAGUA VS UNITED
STATES
Aftermath:
1986
Non-Compliance with ICJ Judgment: Despite the ICJ's ruling, the U.S. did not comply with the court's
order to pay reparations to Nicaragua. This refusal to comply effectively undermined the enforcement of
the judgment.
Continued Support for Contras: The U.S. continued its support for the Contras, the rebel group
opposing the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. This support, which the ICJ had ruled was in
violation of international law, persisted, further undermining the implementation of the ICJ's decision.
In summary, the United States used a combination of diplomatic measures, including withdrawal from
ICJ jurisdiction, the use of its veto power in the Security Council, and non-compliance with the ICJ
judgment, to thwart responsibility and avoid the practical consequences of the ICJ's decision in the
Nicaragua case. This case highlighted the limitations of international legal mechanisms when powerful
states are involved and raised questions about the enforcement of ICJ judgments in the face of non-
compliance by a permanent member of the Security Council.
CASELAW - ETC
Advisory Opinion on Reparations for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations
(1949): The ICJ rendered an advisory opinion regarding the legal personality of the United Nations
and its capacity to seek reparations for injuries suffered by its personnel. This case emphasized the
legal personality of international organizations.
Various cases involving international organizations: There have been numerous cases involving
international organizations like the European Union, the United Nations, and the International
Criminal Court. These cases often touch upon issues related to the legal personality of these
organizations and their ability to enter into agreements, sue, or be sued.
Investor-State Arbitration: In the realm of investment arbitration, cases involve the legal
personality of both states and corporations. Arbitral tribunals often examine whether a corporation, as
a non-state actor, has the legal personality to bring a claim against a state under a bilateral investment
treaty or other international agreement.
FOLLOW UP FROM LAST WEEK….
1. What is a ‘peremptory norm’ and what is the latin term for it?
2. follow up questions from last week’s slides
TUTORIAL
1. What is the concept of international legal personality, and why is it important in
international law?
2. What are the primary actors with international legal personality in international law, and
how do they differ in terms of rights and responsibilities?
3. Discuss the legal personality of states in international law. What rights and obligations do
states have, and how has this concept evolved over time?
4. Explain the legal personality of international organizations. How do international
organizations acquire and exercise their legal personality?
5. What is the role of non-state actors, such as individuals and corporations, in international
law? Do they have legal personality, and if so, what are their rights and responsibilities?
TUTORIAL
1. What is the concept of international legal personality, and why is it important in
international law?
2. What are the primary actors with international legal personality in international law, and
how do they differ in terms of rights and responsibilities?
3. Discuss the legal personality of states in international law. What rights and obligations do
states have, and how has this concept evolved over time?
4. Explain the legal personality of international organizations. How do international
organizations acquire and exercise their legal personality?
5. What is the role of non-state actors, such as individuals and corporations, in international
law? Do they have legal personality, and if so, what are their rights and responsibilities?
TUTORIAL
6. Explore the principle of sovereignty in the context of international legal personality. How does
state sovereignty intersect with international legal obligations?
7. Discuss recent developments or cases in international law that have challenged or expanded
the concept of international legal personality.
8. How do international treaties and agreements affect the legal personality of states and other
international actors? Provide examples.
9. What is the distinction between legal personality and recognition in international law? How
does recognition impact the rights and status of international actors?
10. Analyze the implications of state succession on the legal personality of states. How does
international law address the continuity of legal personality in cases of state succession?
TUTORIAL
11. Examine the concept of diplomatic and consular immunities. How do these immunities
relate to the legal personality of states and their representatives in foreign territories?
12. Discuss the role of international courts and tribunals, such as the International Court of
Justice (ICJ), in adjudicating disputes related to international legal personality.
13. Explore the challenges and controversies associated with granting legal personality to non-
state actors, such as transnational corporations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
14. Compare and contrast the legal personality of states in public international law with the
legal personality of entities in private international law, such as corporations in investment
arbitration cases.
15. Analyze the impact of emerging technologies and cyberspace on the concept of international
legal personality. How do digital actors and virtual entities fit into the framework of
international law?