Script

What are Legal Personalities? - refers to the ability of an entity to have rights and duties that
are recognized and enforceable under the international legal system. This concept is essential
for an entity to be a participant in the international legal framework, as it determines who can
bring claims, who can be held responsible for violations, and how rights and obligations are
allocated. In any legal system, certain entities, whether they be individuals or companies, will be
regarded as possessing rights and duties enforceable at law.

Historically, states have been seen as the primary subjects of international law. However, over
time, other entities such as international organizations, non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), companies, and even individuals have also gained some level of international legal
personality.

So here we have different criterias for a state to be recognized. For an entity to be recognized
as a subject of international law, several factors are considered, such as its ability to enforce
claims and its recognition by the international community.
Legal personality in international law is not absolute; it varies depending on the type of entity
and the circumstances. For example, while states have full international legal personality,
individuals or organizations might have limited rights and duties under specific areas of
international law, like human rights law or international criminal law.

These NSAs include international organizations, multinational corporations, NGOs, and even
groups involved in international terrorism. While not all non-state actors have full legal
personality, they can still play significant roles in the international legal system and affect how
laws are applied and enforced.

CREATION OF STATEHOOD

The creation of statehood focuses between factual and legal criteria, with ongoing debates
about whether to stick more on objective realities or legal standards. Following the end of
colonialism, the formation of new states is increasingly dependent on the reduction or
dissolution of existing states, as demonstrated by recent historical events like the disintegration
of the Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia,.

The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933) outlines the essential
criteria for statehood, requiring a permanent population, defined territory, effective government,
and the capacity to engage in relations with other states. Historical interpretations have
emphasized the need for a stable government and political organization as indicators of
sovereignty, even in cases where actual control over territory may be contested or limited. For
instance, the recognition of states such as Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina occurred
despite internal conflicts and challenges to their governance. Furthermore, the ability to
establish diplomatic relations is critical, reflecting a state's independence from external control,
though even entities with limited self-governance can achieve recognition under specific
circumstances. Ultimately, the criteria for statehood are not rigid and can be influenced by
contemporary interpretations of international law, political realities, and the evolving nature of
sovereignty in a globalized world.

concept of "failed states," was indicated in the discussion as well where they indicated that a
complete breakdown of governance does not automatically eliminate a state's status. The
discussion challenges the conventional view that effective control is essential for statehood,
arguing that legal status can persist despite internal turmoil.

How does it happen?

creation of new states often occurs through the dissolution or diminishment of existing states,
particularly following the processes of decolonization. Examples like the breakup of the Soviet
Union and Yugoslavia illustrate this point.
It emphasizes that while traditional criteria for statehood are important, the recognition of
statehood can also be influenced by political dynamics and international relations.

It references the Montevideo Convention, which outlines four essential criteria for statehood: a
permanent population, defined territory, a functioning government, and the capacity to enter into
relations with other states. This convention serves as a key legal reference for determining
statehood in international law.

The Arbitration Commission of the European Conference on Yugoslavia was referenced as well
by shaw.

1. Key Legal Criteria for Statehood

The Commission declared that a state is typically defined by:

● A territory: A defined territorial base, though it doesn’t have to have perfectly settled
boundaries.
● A population: A permanent population, with no specific minimum size.
● Political authority: An organized government exercising control and authority over both
the territory and the population.

This reflects the traditional understanding of statehood as derived from the Montevideo
Convention (1933), but with additional nuances considered.

Territorial Effectiveness and Control

It isn't necessary to have perfectly demarcated boundaries for a state to exist, as territorial
disputes are common among internationally recognized states. The critical factor is that a
government maintains effective control over a consistent area of territory. This is a key reason
why states may be recognized even while involved in border disputes (for example, the case of
Israel and its disputed borders, yet its statehood is largely uncontested).

For example, Albania, prior to World War I, was recognized by many countries despite having
unresolved border disputes. Similarly, Israel has been accepted by the majority of the
international community and the United Nations as a valid state, even though its frontiers remain
unsettled, and it has faced ongoing hostilities with neighboring Arab states.

On the other hand, the State of Palestine, declared in 1988 during a conference in Algiers, was
not recognized as a valid state because Palestinian organizations did not control the territory
they claimed. This case shows that while a state doesn't need precise borders, it must have a
stable, controlled area.

SELF-DETERMINATION

Shaw discusses the evolving relationship between the concept of self-determination and the
criteria for statehood in international law. Traditionally, the effectiveness and stability of a
government have been central to the criteria for statehood. However, the emergence of the legal
right to self-determination has significantly altered this understanding, leading to a recognition
that a lower level of government effectiveness can be accepted in certain contexts, particularly
in decolonization scenarios.

Two case studies are highlighted to illustrate this evolution. The first is the independence of the
former Belgian Congo in 1960, which was marred by civil strife and governmental instability.
Despite this breakdown, the Congo was recognized by many states and admitted to the United
Nations. The second example involves Guinea-Bissau, where the independence declaration in
1973 was recognized by numerous states, despite challenges regarding effective governance
under Portuguese colonial rule. The UN acknowledged Guinea-Bissau’s independence,
suggesting that international recognition can sometimes override traditional criteria regarding
governance effectiveness.

Additionally, the principle of self-determination is presented as a potentially additional criterion

for statehood. The case of Rhodesia is cited, where a unilateral declaration of independence in
1965 was met with international condemnation and non-recognition, ultimately leading to its
transition into Zimbabwe. This case illustrates that without recognition from the international
community, a political entity may struggle to claim statehood, despite meeting the factual
criteria.

Shaw argues that self-determination should be regarded as an essential aspect of statehood,

particularly in contexts where a group seeks independence from colonial or oppressive rule.
However, this principle does not extend to secessions from existing states unless the entity
demonstrates that it respects the internal conditions of self-determination, such as avoiding
systematic discrimination against minority groups.
Furthermore, the recognition of new states emerging from the former Yugoslavia provides
additional context. The European Community's Guidelines on Recognition emphasized the
importance of democracy, the rule of law, and minority rights, suggesting that these conditions
may also be interpreted as extensions of the criteria for statehood. Thus, while the foundational
criteria for statehood remain significant, the influence of self-determination and the evolving
practices of the international community have shaped a more nuanced understanding of what
constitutes a legitimate state.

RECOGNITION

So here we have the discussions on Recognition which was described as a mechanism through
which certain factual situations are acknowledged and given legal significance. In this context,
recognition can be categorized into two theories: constitutive and declaratory. The constitutive
theory posits that a state only comes into existence under international law through recognition,
meaning that without recognition, the entity cannot be considered a state. On the other hand,
the declaratory theory suggests that a new state exists as an international person once it meets
the factual criteria of statehood, and recognition merely serves as a political acknowledgment
rather than a legal requirement.

Despite the debates or contentions regarding these theories, the role of recognition remains
critical, particularly as it provides strong evidence that an entity meets the necessary criteria for
statehood. The text emphasizes that requirements for recognition can influence perceptions of
statehood. For example, when international recognition is widespread, the need for strict
adherence to statehood criteria may be less scrutinized. Conversely, if recognition is limited,
greater emphasis is placed on demonstrating compliance with these criteria. Thus, the
relationship between recognition and statehood is dynamic, with the extent of international
acknowledgment directly impacting how statehood is evaluated in practice.

EXTINCTION OF A STATEHOOD

which can occur through several mechanisms, such as merger, absorption, annexation, or
dismemberment. Shaw highlighted that while governments may disappear more frequently, it is
rarer for entire states to become extinct, as this process is conditioned by international law. The
legal framework dictates how the disappearance of a state is treated and what consequences
arise from it.

Key Points

Here we have the DISSOLUTION OF YUGOSLAVIA AS AN EXAMPLE.

The Dissolution of Yugoslavia (SFRY):

Serbia and Montenegro’s Claim to Continuity: Initially, after the declarations of independence
by Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Macedonia, the remaining republics of
Serbia and Montenegro claimed that they were the continuation of Yugoslavia. They formed the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and asserted that they were the rightful successor of the
former state within reduced boundaries.

1. Dispute over State Succession: The other former republics, however, rejected this
claim and argued that the FRY was merely another successor state, not the legal
continuation of the entire state. This dispute prompted international arbitration. So in the
end, so single state was recognized as the legal continuation of the Yoguslavia.

2. Mechanisms of Extinction:
○ Merger and Absorption: Examples include North and South Yemen uniting in
1990 and the reunification of East and West Germany.
○ Dismemberment: The dissolution of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic
and Slovakia is cited as an example of state dismemberment.
3. International Law:
○ The extinction of a state must be recognized internationally, and this recognition
is generally cautious, especially in the context of illegal uses of force (e.g., the
Kuwait crisis).
○ The text emphasizes that the recognition of state extinction involves legal
implications that are framed within international law.
4. Case Studies:
○ Soviet Union: The disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 led to the formation
of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). The Russian Federation was
recognized as the continuation of the USSR, with implications for state
succession.
○ Yugoslavia: The dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(SFRY) in the early 1990s was contested. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(Serbia and Montenegro) claimed to be the continuation of the SFRY, while other
former republics regarded themselves as new states. The Yugoslav Arbitration
Commission declared the SFRY ceased to exist after the recognition of Slovenia,
Croatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina as independent states.
5. International Recognition:
○ The UN Security Council confirmed the extinction of the SFRY in various
resolutions, emphasizing that a federal state's existence is compromised when a
majority of its constituent entities become sovereign states. This culminated in
the recognition of Yugoslavia as a new member of the UN in 2000.

Conclusion

The extinction of statehood is a complex issue that requires careful consideration within the
framework of international law. The process is often influenced by geopolitical dynamics, and
the recognition of a state's extinction can vary based on the perspectives of the parties involved
and the international community's stance. The examples of Yemen, Germany, the Soviet Union,
and Yugoslavia illustrate the multifaceted nature of statehood and the legal ramifications of its
extinction.

INDEPENDENCE

Independence is characterized as a state’s capacity to govern itself without external domination,

as defined by the International Law Commission in 1949.

Legal independence means that even if a state experiences political or economic dependence,
it is still considered independent as long as it is not forced to comply with another state's
demands.

Her we have the austria-german case as an example.

Austro-German Customs Union Case (1931)

This case, brought before the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), examined
whether a proposed customs union between Austria and Germany after World War I would
violate Austria’s obligation under the 1919 Peace Treaties to maintain its independence. The
Court ruled that the customs union could compromise Austria’s sovereignty, as it would place
Austria under the economic influence of Germany, thereby affecting its ability to act
independently.

● Judge Anzilotti’s Opinion: He emphasized that certain restrictions imposed by

international law or treaties (like those that are part of customary international law) do
not automatically compromise a state's independence. Sovereignty is affected only when
a state is placed under the legal authority of another state.

2. Legal Interpretations of Independence

● The text refers to historical cases, such as the Austro-German Customs Union case
(1931) and the Lotus case, to highlight how international law views restrictions on a
state's independence. So it was asserted that a state’s sovereignty is not diminished by
obligations unless those obligations place it under another state's authority.
● The International Court of Justice (ICJ) reinforced that a state has the freedom to act
unless constrained by international law.

3. Rights and Duties Associated with Independence

 ● States have rights such as:
○ Exercising jurisdiction over their territory and population.
○ Engaging in self-defense when necessary.
● There is also a duty not to intervene in the internal affairs of other sovereign states.
However, the interpretation of what constitutes a state's "internal affairs" is fluid and can
change over time, especially concerning human rights issues.

4. Human Rights and International Relations

● The text notes a shift in the perspective of colonial powers regarding the discussion of
human rights and state sovereignty, asserting that violations of human rights can no
longer be viewed as purely domestic matters.
● The Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations
emphasizes the prohibition of intervention in a state’s internal affairs, including military
actions against a state's sovereignty.

● The principles of sovereignty, such as non-intervention, are essential for maintaining

stability in international relations. Respecting territorial sovereignty helps prevent
conflicts between states.
● A state cannot enforce its laws on another state's territory without consent, reinforcing
the importance of sovereign equality among states.

EQUALITY

● Definition: The principle of legal equality means that all states, regardless of size or
power, possess the same legal rights and duties. This principle is foundational in
international relations and is enshrined in various international documents.
● United Nations General Assembly: Each state is entitled to one vote, emphasizing that
all members are equal participants in decision-making, despite differences in their power
or resources.

2. Recognition of Sovereign Equality

● The 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law which is rooted to Natural

Law, so this affirms that all states enjoy sovereign equality.
○ Juridical Equality: All states are legally equal.
○ Rights of Sovereignty: Each state enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty.
○ Respect for Other States: States have a duty to respect each other’s
sovereignty and personality.
○ Territorial Integrity: The territorial and political independence of states is
inviolable.
 ○ Self-Determination: States have the right to freely choose their political, social,
economic, and cultural systems.
○ International Obligations: States must comply with their international
obligations and seek peaceful relations with other states.

3. Philosophical Origins

● The doctrine of equality can trace its roots to Natural Law thinking, where equality was
considered fundamental to humanity and the foundation of statehood.
● As legal positivism gained prominence, the focus shifted from general natural rights to
the specific sovereignty of individual states, highlighting the consent of states as the
basis of international law.

4. Practical Implications

● While states are considered equal in terms of legal personality and capacity, in practice,
major powers wield more influence due to their greater resources and international
interests.
● Within the United Nations General Assembly, the principle of equality is upheld by the
"one state, one vote" rule. However, there are exceptions, particularly in the Security
Council, where five permanent members (the USA, Russia, China, France, and the UK)
possess veto power, allowing them to override decisions regardless of the majority vote.

PEACEFUL CO-EXISTENCE

he concept of Peaceful Co-existence has evolved over time and has been articulated in
various ways by different nations, particularly by the USSR, China, and developing countries.
Here’s a summary of the key aspects of this concept based on the text provided:

1. Historical Background

● Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence: Formulated in 1954 by India and China,

these principles emphasize:
○ Mutual Respect: Acknowledging each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty.
○ Mutual Non-aggression: Commitment not to engage in hostile actions against
one another.
○ Non-interference: Respecting the internal affairs of other states.
○ Equality: Treating each other as equals in the international community.

2. International Recognition

● The principles were further elaborated in several important international documents,

including:
 ○ Bandung Conference (1955): A landmark conference where leaders from Asia
and Africa discussed decolonization and mutual cooperation, reinforcing the
principles of peaceful co-existence.
○ Organisation of African Unity (OAU): where they emphasize sovereign
equality, non-interference, and respect for territorial integrity.

3. Soviet Perspective

● The Soviet Union regarded peaceful co-existence as a fundamental guiding principle in

international law, underscoring its significance during the Cold War period.

4. Contemporary Relevance

● Interest in peaceful co-existence has been revitalized in recent years, particularly with
the Russia–China Declaration on the Promotion of International Law (June 25,
2016), which reaffirmed the importance of the original Five Principles established in
1954.

5. Additional Concepts

● Beyond the Five Principles, other essential elements associated with peaceful
co-existence include:
○ Condemnation of Subversive Activities: Opposing actions by one state
intended to destabilize another.
○ Execution of International Obligations: Emphasizing the importance of
adhering to international commitments in good faith.
○ Non-aggression: A principle asserting that states should not resort to force
against one another.

KOSOVO

Kosovo, originally a province of Serbia, declared independence on 17 February 2008 after a

period of UN administration that followed the Kosovo War. This move towards independence
was supported by a plan created by Martti Ahtisaari in 2007, which recommended
independence for Kosovo under international supervision. However, Serbia strongly rejected
this.

The international community is divided on recognizing Kosovo as an independent state. While

countries like the US, UK, Germany, and most EU members quickly recognized Kosovo, others,
such as Russia, Serbia, Spain, and Greece, opposed recognition. This opposition, especially
from Russia (which has veto power in the UN), makes it impossible for Kosovo to join the United
Nations at this time.
In 2010, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that Kosovo’s declaration of independence
did not violate international law. However, the court didn’t address whether Kosovo fully meets
the criteria of statehood. As of now, around 113 countries recognize Kosovo as a state, but its
status remains unresolved due to the lack of recognition from some major global players.

PALESTINE

The situation regarding Palestine and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) has evolved
over several decades, primarily through international recognition and agreements. The PLO
began participating in UN debates in 1972 and was invited to join as an observer in 1974. By
1988, "Palestine" was officially recognized in UN discussions. A key moment came with the
signing of the Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles in September 1993, which recognized the
PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and aimed to establish a framework for
self-governance in the West Bank and Gaza, areas occupied by Israel since 1967.

The Cairo Agreement in 1994 led to the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Jericho and Gaza,
transferring authority to the newly formed Palestinian Authority (PA), which had its own
legislative and executive powers. Subsequent agreements, like the 1995 Protocol, further
expanded the PA's powers and addressed issues of territory and Israeli withdrawals from
Palestinian areas. Although the international community has not fully recognized Palestinian
statehood, the PA has gained some international status due to these agreements, with the PLO
acting as the national liberation movement and the PA functioning as the governing body.

In terms of international legal standing, the PA accepted the jurisdiction of the International
Criminal Court (ICC) regarding alleged crimes in 2009 and 2015. Although the ICC initially
refused the case, Palestine became a member of the ICC in 2015. The PA sought full UN
membership in 2011 but faced opposition and was blocked; however, in 2012, it was granted
non-member observer state status by the General Assembly.

Today, the PA has received recognition from several countries and joined various international
organizations. The Oslo Accords remain in effect since neither party has denounced them, and
ongoing efforts aim for a two-state solution, recognizing both Israel and Palestine as
independent states. Overall, the situation is marked by ongoing international discussions,
differing levels of recognition, and the quest for peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

SECCIONIST

This section discusses various secessionist claims around the world where certain regions have
declared independence from recognized states but lack widespread international recognition.
Here’s a simplified overview of the key points:

1. Somaliland:
○ Somaliland, which is in the northern part of Somalia, declared independence on
May 17, 1991, following the collapse of the Somali government.
 ○A constitution was adopted in 2001, but the Organisation of African Unity (OAU)
refused to support Somaliland's claim to independence, emphasizing the unity of
Somalia.
○ Despite functioning with some degree of autonomy, Somaliland is not recognized
by any state or international organization.
2. Nagorno-Karabakh:
○ Following a conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the early 1990s,
Armenian forces took control of Nagorno-Karabakh, which has a majority ethnic
Armenian population.
○ This region declared independence as the "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" (NKR),
but it has not been recognized by any state, including Armenia.
○ The UN Security Council passed several resolutions reaffirming Azerbaijan's
territorial integrity and calling for the withdrawal of Armenian forces.
○ The European Court of Human Rights ruled in the Chiragov v. Armenia case that
Armenia effectively controls Nagorno-Karabakh through military, political, and
financial support.
3. Transdniestria:
○ After the USSR dissolved, Moldova declared independence on June 23, 1990.
On September 2, 1990, Transdniestria, a region within Moldova bordering
Ukraine, declared itself an independent state.
○ Transdniestria has managed to maintain its autonomy largely due to Russian
support but is not recognized by any other state.
4. South Ossetia and Abkhazia:
○ These two regions in Georgia have declared independence and established
separate governments, with significant support from Russia.
○ While Russia and a few other states recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the
lack of broader recognition and the extent of Russian control undermine their
claims to independent statehood.

Overall, these regions illustrate the complexities of secessionist movements, where local
governance and control exist alongside a lack of international recognition and the challenge of
asserting statehood.

ASSOCIATION OF STATES

This section talks about different forms of associations between states that do not constitute
independent states but have certain impacts on international law. Here’s a simplified breakdown:

1. Types of Associations:

● Confederations: These are agreements between several countries that work together.
They usually have some central institutions with limited functions.
 ● Federations: In contrast, federations are states with strong central governments that
have significant powers over their citizens, while also allowing for some division of
powers among regional units.

2. Associated States:

● Definition: These are small or less developed states that maintain a close relationship
with another more powerful state.
● Examples:
○ The Cook Islands is associated with New Zealand, where it has
self-government but relies on New Zealand for foreign affairs.
○ The Associated States of the West Indies had ties to the UK, allowing for
some independence while the UK handled foreign and defense issues.

3. International Personality:

● The status of these associated states can vary depending on their constitutional
arrangements and international recognition. If they have significant domestic powers and
can revoke their association without too much difficulty, they might have some form of
international personality (ability to act in international law).

4. The Commonwealth of Nations:

● The Commonwealth is a loose association of independent countries with historical ties,

mainly from the former British Empire.
● Members cooperate on common interests and issues, but it doesn’t have binding legal
authority. Relationships are characterized by unique terms (e.g., ambassadors are called
High Commissioners).

5. Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS):

● After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the CIS was formed by former Soviet Republics
(like Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine) to maintain some level of cooperation.
● It emphasizes respect for human rights, sovereignty, and peaceful dispute resolution.
However, it is not a state or a supranational organization but has set up coordinating
institutions to facilitate cooperation.

6. European Union (EU):

● The EU is a more integrated association of European countries that can adopt laws
binding on member states.
● It consists of various communities, including the European Economic Community, and
has developed a legal framework that allows it to act internationally.
 ● The EU has been recognized to possess legal personality, meaning it can enter into
agreements and act on the global stage.

Conclusion:

In summary, associations of states can take many forms, from loose cooperations like the
Commonwealth to more structured entities like the EU, each with varying degrees of legal
personality and influence in international law.

CONCLU

This conclusion summarizes key points about whether various entities (like Kosovo, Palestine,
or Transdniestria) qualify as international persons (entities with rights and responsibilities in
international law) or states. Here’s a simpler breakdown:

1. Determining International Status:

● Whether an entity is considered an international person or state depends on several

factors:
○ Claims Made: What the entity claims about its own status.
○ Facts on the Ground: This includes the level of control it has over its territory
and government.
○ Third-Party Control: Whether another state is influencing or controlling the
entity.
○ Effectiveness: How well the entity governs itself and meets administrative
needs.
○ International Reaction: How other countries and international organizations
respond to the entity’s claims.

2. Recognition and Acceptance:

● Recognition by other states is crucial. However, just because an entity is recognized by

some does not mean it has full international status, especially if other states do not
agree.
● This recognition may not last indefinitely or be absolute.

3. Interests of the International Community:

● The international community has its own needs and interests that can affect how it views
an entity's status.
● This includes ensuring responsibility for actions taken and protecting individuals during
armed conflicts, following international rules.

Conclusion:
In essence, determining whether an entity has international status involves a complex
assessment of various claims, situations, and reactions from the global community, all of which
play a crucial role in shaping the entity's legal standing.