Most political theories of the state can roughly be classified into two categories.

The first,
which includes liberal or conservative theories, treats capitalism as a given, and concentrates
on the function of states in a capitalist society. Theories of this variety view the state as a
neutral entity distinct from both society and the economy. However, this academic writing
will discuss the two types of modern states that are internationally recognized.

Types of state can be separated into two categories: democracy and dictatorship. However,
just because a group of states are all democratic does not mean that they follow the same
rules. Iran, Pakistan, France, Germany and the United States of America are all states. Each
of them sees itself as a democracy. Each of them however has a different idea of what
democracy really means.

Although states are not the only entities with international legal standing and are not the
exclusive international actors, they are the primary subjects of international law and possess
the greatest range of rights and obligations. Unlike states, which possess rights and
obligations automatically, international organizations, individuals, and others derive their
rights and duties in international law directly from particular instruments. Individuals may,
for example, assert their rights under international law under the International Covenant on
Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, both of which entered into force in 1976.

The rights accorded to states under international law imply responsibilities. States are liable
for breaches of their obligations, provided that the breach is attributable to the state itself. A
state is responsible for direct violations of international law e.g., the breach of a treaty or the
violation of another state’s territory.

A state also is liable for breaches committed by its internal institutions, however they are
defined by its domestic law; by entities and persons exercising governmental authority; and
by persons acting under the direction or control of the state. These responsibilities exist even
if the organ or entity exceeded its authority. Further, the state is internationally responsible
for the private activities of persons to the extent that they are subsequently adopted by the
state.
The sovereignty of a state is confined to a defined piece of territory, which is subject to the
exclusive jurisdiction of the state and is protected by international law from violation by
other states. Although frontier disputes do not detract from the sovereignty or independence
of a particular state, it is inherent in statehood that there should be a core territory that is
subject to the effective control of the authorities of the state. Additional territory may be
acquired by states through cession from other states (the Island of Palmas case in 1928); by
the occupation of territory that is terra nullius (Latin: “the land of no one”)—i.e., land not
under the sovereignty or control of any other state or socially or politically organized
grouping; or by prescription, where a state acquires territory through a continued period of
uncontested sovereignty.

In 1979, for example, the Iranian government officially supported the seizure of the U.S.
embassy by militants and the subsequent holding of diplomats and other embassy staff as
hostages. A state is not internationally responsible if its conduct was required by a
peremptory norm of general international law, if it was taken in conformity with the right to
self-defense under the UN Charter, if it constituted a legitimate measure to pressure another
state to comply with its international obligations, if it was taken as a result of a force majeure
(French: “greater force”) beyond the state’s control, if it could not reasonably be avoided in
order to save a life or lives, or if it constituted the only means of safeguarding an essential
interest of the state against a grave and imminent peril, where no essential interest of the
states toward which the obligation.

A state must make full reparation for any injury caused by an illegal act for which it is
internationally responsible. Reparation consists of restitution of the original situation if
possible, compensation where this is not possible, or satisfaction (i.e., acknowledgment of
and apology for the breach) if neither is possible.

One controversial aspect of international law has been the suggestion, made by the
International Law Commission in its 1996 draft on State Responsibility, that states can be
held responsible for “international crimes” (comprising internationally wrongful acts
resulting from the breach by a state of an international obligation so essential for the
protection of the international community’s fundamental interests that its breach is
recognized as a crime by that community). Examples given included aggression, colonial
domination, and genocide. In addition to the argument that states (as distinct from
individuals) could not be guilty of crimes as such, serious definitional problems arose, and
there was concern over the consequences of such crimes for states.

Accordingly, in its draft articles finally adopted in 2001, the International Law Commission
dispensed with this politically divisive approach but retained the idea of a more serious form
of international wrong. The commission emphasized the concept of serious breaches of
obligations arising under a peremptory norm of international law (i.e., the rules of jus
cogens, or those deemed essential for the protection of fundamental international interests).
In such circumstances, all states are under an obligation not to recognize such a situation and
to cooperate in ending it.