International Law

Subjects of International Law

There are various debates on the matter of who exactly is subject to international law. Among
others, three main theories answering this question are as follows:

1. States alone are the subjects of International Law

- Some jurists hold the view that international law regulates the conduct of States
only and hence States are the only subjects of international law
- Oppenheim is a chief exponent of this theory
- P. E. Corbett: “the triumph of positivism in the late eighteenth century made the
individual an object, not a subject of international law.”
- This theory fails to take pirates and the case of slaves into account
- The exponents of this theory consider slaves and pirates as the objects of
international law, rather than the subjects
- Individuals are the basis of society and they collectively form a State. In that case
they become direct subjects also if States are considered as subjects of International
law.

2. Individuals alone are the subjects of International Law

- The ultimate analysis of international law yields the result that individuals are
basically the only subjects of international law
- Professor Kelsen is one of the chief proponents of this theory
- Westlake had remarked: “The duties and rights of the States are only the duties and
rights of men who compose them.”
- However, the primary concern of international law is the rights and duties of States,
although there is nothing in international law that prevents individuals from
acquiring directly rights under a treaty provided that this is the intention of the
contracting parties
- Moreover, a State is entitled to protect its subjects when injured by acts contrary to
international law committed by another State
- Individuals are now recognized as subjects of International law but their procedural
capacity to enforce their rights is deficient

3. States are the main subjects of International Law but, to a lesser extent, individuals
and other non-state actors have certain rights and duties too
- This view not only combines the first two theories, but also extends the scope of
international law to other non-state actors
- Following examples support the extended scope of international law:

Muhammad Minhaj Mahdi

International Law

I. Danzing Railway Official Case (PCIJ): “if the intention of parties [to a treaty]
is to confer certain rights upon individuals then international law will not
only recognize such rights of the individual but may also enforce them”
II. 1949 Geneva Convention on the Prisoners of War: confers rights upon the
prisoners of war
III. Nuremberg Tribunals: “Crimes against International Law are committed by
men, not by abstract entities and only by punishing individuals who commit
such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.”
IV. The Genocide Convention of 1948: person guilty of genocide may be
punished, regardless of the person’s stature
V. European Convention on Human Rights: under this convention, European
Commissions and European Courts were established

Conclusion

- International organizations are also the subjects of international law now.

International Court of Justice has granted United Nations a status of an
International Person under international law.
- Certain law making treaties have imposed certain obligations upon the individuals
and the States have consented to it
- Treaty of Versailles confer upon minorities certain rights
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and International Covenants on
Human Rights 1966 empower individuals to such an extent that under certain
conditions they can even send petitions against their own States
- Percy E. Corbett: “[international law] is applicable on a footing of equality to
individuals, corporations, international organizations and States.”

Muhammad Minhaj Mahdi