Public International Law: Working Group
WEEK 2
—> subjects of international law
Kosovo
Quebec
UNGA res 1514 and 2625
International legal personality
Criteria:
1. Rights and obligations under int law
2. Capacity to enforce claims
- Distinguishes between actors with a formal status in International laws and those who done
- Rights and duties: substantive and procedural
- International legal personality ≠ domestic legal personality
How to acquire:
1. Recognition by other international person (ex. UN)
2. Subjecting an agreement between recognised international person and private party
directly to rules of PIL (ex: Texaco v Libya or insurgents) —> they agreed case would be
subject to rules of PIL = texaco is int person IT VERY LIMITED (dont have personality
outside this)
3. Conclude agreement between recognised international legal persons creating direct
rights/obligation for private actors
4. By being directly subjected to international duties (ex. War crimes, genocide, piracy)
Subjects of PIL
(Reparation for Injuries advisory opinion)
- Not every entity has the same degree of ILP (internatinoal legal personality)
- Subjects of law in any legal system are not identical in their nature/rights
Full = states
Partial = international organisations
Objective = entity’s personality applies erga omnes (states)
Subjective = personality applies ad personam (individually); status depends on recognition
General actor = subjects of PIL with full ILP (states)
,Derivative actor = recognition by primary; depends on recognition from primary subjects
—
State of Palestine and the International Criminal Court
• Accession to ICC
Theories of recognition:
Declaratory - fulfil Montevideo convention = you are a state; doesn’t rely on recognition
Constitutive - relies on recognition
Collective recognition
Sinking Islands
Right to nationality - internationally recognised principle
TNCS and OBES HR standards (business and HR)
Businesses dont have rights and obligations internationally = no ILP (except in some
circumstances)
This instrument doesn’t make them subjects because theres no direct obligations, the obligation
is on the state
HRC draft general comment on Article 6
ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)
To promote implementation of the covenant, specifically art 6
Advise state parties
HR committee: drafts specific/general comments
General comment is not binding, but it does influence how art 6 is applied = law determining and
law evidencing regarding ICCPR
Giving general comment does not give you ILP
Subjects vs Participants/users
• Subjects = States, int org, individuals
• Participants = NGIS, other persons/entities with lesser rights/obligations, contributors to
evolution of PIL
—
, Right to self-determination
- Went from political declaration (‘all peoples’ in non-binding UNGA res 1514+2625) to legal right
(erga omnes)
- Developed in order to combat colonialism
- Common art 1 ICCPR + ICESCR => legally binding
Internal self determination: A people’s pursuit of its political, economical, social and cultural
development within the framework of an existing state (Quebec case) —> Scotland is part of UK
but has a lot of autonomy
External self determination: free determination of political status = the establishment of sovereign/
independent state, free association or integration with an independent state (leave one state and
become part of another with consent of both states), existing states merge with each other (north
and south yemen) (UNGA res 1514)
—> applicable for colonial people and peoples living in non-self-governing territories
—> possible with consent of parent state
Unilateral secession = without consent of parent state
Remedial secession = (no right but its not prohibited) a state may not avail itself of the principle of
territorial integrity if it does not possess a government representing the whole people belonging to
its territory —> secession to remedy situation
Just because a state is recognised after unilateral secession doesn’t mean it had a right to do so
Principle of effectivity (para 141 Quebec)
Catalonia case
• Legal arguments against:
- Quebec: should respect territorial integrity, 3 situations in which entity has right (if doesn’t
fall under these situations it needs to work within framework of parent state) —> unilateral
secession cannot violate territorial integrity
1. People are governed as part of colonial empire
2. People is subject to alien subjugation/domination/exploitation
3. People denied exercise of internal self-determination
in any other case: only in most extreme cases
- Kosovo: 79 + 82 —> accepts declarations of independence from people of non-self-
governing territories, no consensus on remedial secession so no CIL
- East Timor: ICJ says right is erga omnes (but stated 3 situations) => there is oppression
requirement (Quebec, Kosovo)
WEEK 2
—> subjects of international law
Kosovo
Quebec
UNGA res 1514 and 2625
International legal personality
Criteria:
1. Rights and obligations under int law
2. Capacity to enforce claims
- Distinguishes between actors with a formal status in International laws and those who done
- Rights and duties: substantive and procedural
- International legal personality ≠ domestic legal personality
How to acquire:
1. Recognition by other international person (ex. UN)
2. Subjecting an agreement between recognised international person and private party
directly to rules of PIL (ex: Texaco v Libya or insurgents) —> they agreed case would be
subject to rules of PIL = texaco is int person IT VERY LIMITED (dont have personality
outside this)
3. Conclude agreement between recognised international legal persons creating direct
rights/obligation for private actors
4. By being directly subjected to international duties (ex. War crimes, genocide, piracy)
Subjects of PIL
(Reparation for Injuries advisory opinion)
- Not every entity has the same degree of ILP (internatinoal legal personality)
- Subjects of law in any legal system are not identical in their nature/rights
Full = states
Partial = international organisations
Objective = entity’s personality applies erga omnes (states)
Subjective = personality applies ad personam (individually); status depends on recognition
General actor = subjects of PIL with full ILP (states)
,Derivative actor = recognition by primary; depends on recognition from primary subjects
—
State of Palestine and the International Criminal Court
• Accession to ICC
Theories of recognition:
Declaratory - fulfil Montevideo convention = you are a state; doesn’t rely on recognition
Constitutive - relies on recognition
Collective recognition
Sinking Islands
Right to nationality - internationally recognised principle
TNCS and OBES HR standards (business and HR)
Businesses dont have rights and obligations internationally = no ILP (except in some
circumstances)
This instrument doesn’t make them subjects because theres no direct obligations, the obligation
is on the state
HRC draft general comment on Article 6
ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)
To promote implementation of the covenant, specifically art 6
Advise state parties
HR committee: drafts specific/general comments
General comment is not binding, but it does influence how art 6 is applied = law determining and
law evidencing regarding ICCPR
Giving general comment does not give you ILP
Subjects vs Participants/users
• Subjects = States, int org, individuals
• Participants = NGIS, other persons/entities with lesser rights/obligations, contributors to
evolution of PIL
—
, Right to self-determination
- Went from political declaration (‘all peoples’ in non-binding UNGA res 1514+2625) to legal right
(erga omnes)
- Developed in order to combat colonialism
- Common art 1 ICCPR + ICESCR => legally binding
Internal self determination: A people’s pursuit of its political, economical, social and cultural
development within the framework of an existing state (Quebec case) —> Scotland is part of UK
but has a lot of autonomy
External self determination: free determination of political status = the establishment of sovereign/
independent state, free association or integration with an independent state (leave one state and
become part of another with consent of both states), existing states merge with each other (north
and south yemen) (UNGA res 1514)
—> applicable for colonial people and peoples living in non-self-governing territories
—> possible with consent of parent state
Unilateral secession = without consent of parent state
Remedial secession = (no right but its not prohibited) a state may not avail itself of the principle of
territorial integrity if it does not possess a government representing the whole people belonging to
its territory —> secession to remedy situation
Just because a state is recognised after unilateral secession doesn’t mean it had a right to do so
Principle of effectivity (para 141 Quebec)
Catalonia case
• Legal arguments against:
- Quebec: should respect territorial integrity, 3 situations in which entity has right (if doesn’t
fall under these situations it needs to work within framework of parent state) —> unilateral
secession cannot violate territorial integrity
1. People are governed as part of colonial empire
2. People is subject to alien subjugation/domination/exploitation
3. People denied exercise of internal self-determination
in any other case: only in most extreme cases
- Kosovo: 79 + 82 —> accepts declarations of independence from people of non-self-
governing territories, no consensus on remedial secession so no CIL
- East Timor: ICJ says right is erga omnes (but stated 3 situations) => there is oppression
requirement (Quebec, Kosovo)
