CONVENTION ON RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES (MONTEVIDEO) Art. 1. 1. 2. 3. 4.

The State as a person of international law should possess: Permanent population Defined territory Government Capacity to enter into relations with other states HYDE (INTERNATIONAL LAW) A State or person of international law must possess the following qualifications: 1. There must be people sufficient in numbers to maintain and perpetuate itself 2. There must be fixed territory which the inhabitants occupy 3. There must be organized government exercising in fact supremacy therein 4. There must be an assertion of right through governmental agencies to enter into relations with the outside worldthe possession and use of the right to enter into foreign relations 5. The inhabitants of the territory must have attained a degree of civilizationthose principles of law which by common assent govern the members of the international society in their relations with each other CASE CONCERNING RIGHTS OF NATIONALS OF THE US IN MOROCCO It is not disputed by the French Government that Morocco, even under the Protectorate, has retained its personality as a State in international law. US can, therefore, not only recognize French Courts in Morocco, but also give up, in the French Zone, the enjoyment of all privileges following from capitulations, without thereby losing this advantage. ADMISSION TO LEAGUE OF LIECHTENSTEIN The Government of the Principality of Liechtenstein has been recognized de jure by many States and it possesses a stable Government and fixed frontiers. Juridically, the Principality of Liechtenstein is a sovereign State, but by reason of her limited area, small population, and her geographical position, she has chosen to depute to others some of the attributes of sovereignty. We are of the opinion that the Principality of Liechtenstein could not discharge all the international obligations which would be imposed on her by the Covenant. Hence, it was denied admission to the League of Nations.
Roan Salanga

STATEMENT OF FOREIGN SECRETARY OF GREAT BRITAIN It is international law which defines the conditions under which a government should be recognized de jure or de facto, and it is a matter of judgment in each particular case whether a regime fulfills the conditions. De facto governmentnew regime has in fact effective control over most of the States territory and that this control seems likely to continue. De jure governmentnew regime should not merely have effective control over most of the States territory, but that it should in fact be firmly established. Recognition should be accorded when the conditions specified by international law are in fact fulfilled and that recognition should not be given when these conditions are not fulfilled. It sets up an international legal standard for recognition, it contains 3 rules: 1. Conditions which any regime must satisfy in order to be recognized as the government of a State are prescribed by international law 2. These conditions are that the regime has effective control over most of the States territory and that its control seems likely to continue 3. If and only if these conditions are satisfied, it should, as a matter of international obligation, be recognized as a government The question whether a particular regime satisfies the conditions prescribed is not one of fact but a matter of judgment. Here lies the difference between the attitude of UK and US to recognition. The US regards the margin as a wide one into which moral factors may enter. SENATE RESOLUTION 205 When US recognizes a foreign government and exchanges diplomatic representatives with it, this does not of itself imply that US approves of the form, ideology, or policy of that foreign government. CANADIAN PRACTICE ON THE RECOGNITION OF STATES Effective controlthis involves a decision as to whether an authority, claiming to be the government of a particular State, is in fact entitled to be regarded as representing that State on the international plane. 1. Ability to exercise effective control 2. Reasonable prospect of permanency 3. Over the area which it claims to govern 4. Support from the people of such territory

Public International Law

Page | 1

Political Considerationsit is a policy decision to determine, on the merits and circumstances of each case, whether the legal conditions for recognition are fulfilled. Granting of recognition by the Canadian Government to another government is not viewed as signifying approval of the policies of that government, or for that matter, of the political philosophy of that government or of the manner in which it came into power. Timing of Recognitiona key factor is that it ought not to be effected too early, inasmuch as this might in itself tend to constitute interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. So long as the lawful government has a reasonable prospect of reasserting its authority, recognition would constitute a violation of the non-intervention principle as set out in Art. 2[7] of UN Charter. External Controlother tests for criteria for the recognition: a. Legitimacy b. Method of revolutionary change c. Freedom from external controla test for the recognition of States, not of government Recognition of a government presupposes recognition of the State governed by the recognized government. A state, in order to continue to qualify for recognition as such, must first possess an independent government. If it is considered in a particular case that the question is one of recognition of a government only, that is in itself a tacit admission that the government concerned is considered to be free from external control. BRITISH PRACTICE ON THE RECOGNITION OF STATES The British Government recognizes States in accordance with common international doctrine. The policy of successive British Governments has been that we should make and announce a decision formally recognizing the new Government. We shall continue to decide the nature of our dealings with regimes which come to power unconstitutionality in the light of our assessment of whether they are able of themselves to exercise effective control of the territory of the State concerned, and seem likely to continue to do so. WESTERN SAHARA CASE FACTS: In 1884, Western Sahara was colonized by Spain. General Assembly in 1966 indicated that decolonization of Western Sahara should occur. Spain agreed to hold a referendum under UN supervision in 1975. At this point, both Mauritania and Morocco made similar claims on the territory on the basis of an historic title predating Spains colonization.
Roan Salanga

HELD: The principle of self-determination as a right of peoples, and its application for the purpose of bringing all colonial situations to a speedy end were enunciated in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. Right to self-determinationright to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. General Assembly Resolution provided the basis for the process of decolonization for non-self governing territories: 1. Emergence as a sovereign independent State 2. Free association with an independent Stateresult of a free and voluntary choice by the peoples of the territory concerned expressed through informed and democratic processes 3. Integration with an independent Stateresult of the freely wishes of the territorys peoples acting with full knowledge of the change in their status, their wishes having been expressed through informed and democratic processes, impartially conducted and based on universal adult suffrage RECOGNITION OS STATES: THE COLLAPSE OF YUGOSLAVIA Recognition of states is not a matter governed by law but a question of policy. It is today more of an optional and discretionary political act that was thought to be the case a year ago. I. The Baltic States The 1920 Treaty between Russia and Latvia expressly states that the former recognizes without reservation the independence, autonomy and sovereignty of Latvia and forever renounces all sovereignty rights over the Latvian people and territory. Baltic states, like other Soviet republics, asserted their sovereignty but their international status did not change as a result. Most Western countries continued to extend de jure recognition to the 3 states, they also accepted de facto control over these territories by the USSR and, accordingly, most Western countries did not have diplomatic relations with the Baltic states. II. Croatia and Slovenia Unrecognized The Republic of Croatia and Republic of Slovenia were 2 of the 6 republics of the SFRY. A distinction was made between the nations of Yugoslavia and the republics of Yugoslavia. The former being peoples like the Croats, Macedonians, Serbs
Page | 2

Public International Law

and Slovenes without any necessary geographic connection and the latter being the 6 geographically defined federal units without any necessary ethnic connection. A second distinction was made between nations and nationalities with the latter being defined as members of nations whose native countries border on Yugoslavia. Accordingly, the Albanians of Kosovo and the Hungarians of Vojvodina were regarded as nationalities and did not have a right of self-determination or secession under the Constitution. In 1991, both Croatia and Slovenia declared their independence. The Constitutional Resolution Regarding the Sovereignty and Independence of the Republic of Croatia adopted by the Croatian Parliament based its actions 'upon the will of the nation demonstrated at the referendum of 1991,' and argued that 'the SFRY no longer is acting as the constitutional-legal organized state. The Slovenian Declaration is more forthright in that it 'expects legal recognition from all countries which respect the democratic principles and the right of all nations to self-determination. Yugoslav National Army resisted attempts by the Slovenian and Croatian authorities to assert their independence and considerable violence occurred. The European Community assumed the principal mediation role in the conflict and in 1991, the Yugoslav parties meeting in Brioni agreed, inter alia, to a 3 month moratorium on the implementation of the Declarations of Independence. Senator Evans identified the 4 formal criteria for the recognition of statehood as 'permanent population, defined territory, government and a capacity to enter into relations with other states' and then added 'we look at whether the government is in effective control of the territory. Upon expiration of the 3 month moratorium, in the Declaration, 'all countries, particularly the Member States of the EC and the UN are called upon to establish diplomatic relations with the Republic of Croatia. III. Ukraines Independence Ukraine had declared its sovereignty on 16 July 1990. Ukraine's Declaration of Independence was, however, made subject to the results of a referendum to be held on 1 December 1991 and countries accordingly had good reason to hold off consideration of recognition until that time. IV. The European Community Sets New Rules The EC Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels issued a 'Declaration on the Guidelines on the Recognition of the New States in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union'. Accompanying this Declaration was a 'Declaration on Yugoslavia'. The Declaration begins by referring to the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris, 'in particular the principle of self-determination'. It affirms the readiness of the EC countries to recognize new states 'subject to the normal standards of international practice and the political realities in each case.
Roan Salanga

The Guidelines describe the candidates for recognition as those new states which 'have constituted themselves on a democratic basis, have accepted the appropriate international obligations and have committed themselves in good faith to a peaceful process and to negotiations'. The Guidelines conclude with the warning that the EC countries 'will not recognize entities which are the result of aggression' and, cryptically, that they would take account of the effects of recognition on neighbouring states.' This method of requiring an application for recognition which is examined by an arbitrator and then decided upon according to a set timetable is virtually unprecedented in recognition practice. V. The Demise of Soviet Union USSR formally ceased to exist on 21 December 1991 when the 11 CIS participants adopted the Alma-Ata Declaration which noted that 'with the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics ceases to exist. In relation to Russia, the term 'recognition' was therefore not used by the EC because these countries accepted Russia's continuity of the international personality of the Soviet Union. In the 23 December statement, the EC stated its willingness to recognize the other former Soviet republics which met its Guidelines. VI. Recognition of Croatia and Slovenia All 6 Yugoslav republics responded to the invitation extended in the EC's Declaration on Yugoslavia but only 4 sought recognition. The 4 republics of Yugoslavia requested recognition and undertook to comply with the requirements listed in the EC's Guidelines. The requests were backed by various republican constitutional and legislative documents. The Badinter Commission held that because 'the right of self-determination must not involve changes to existing frontiers' the Serbian minorities are entitled to the rights accorded to minorities (as opposed to peoples) under international law. Opinion 3 decided that the principle of uti possidetis has general application and thus applies to the republican borders of Yugoslavia in the context of its current dissolution. In 1992, basing themselves on the opinions of the Badinter Commission, the EC decided to extend recognition to Croatia and Slovenia. VII. Recognition of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina In Bosnia and Herzegovina's admission to the UN, the UN Security Council had unanimously recommended this country's membership and the General Assembly had unanimously accepted the recommendation.

Public International Law

Page | 3

However, the Badinter Commission held that although the various constitutional processes had been followed in the request to the EC for recognition, the absence of a referendum on the subject meant that 'the will of the peoples of Bosnia-Herzegovina to constitute [the republic] as a sovereign and independent State cannot be held to have been fully established. Despite such opinion, the EC countries and the US moved to recognize Bosnia and Herzegovina on 7 April 1992. The US statement noted in relation to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Slovenia that these states 'meet the requisite criteria for recognition' but did not spell these out. VIII. The Political Realities in Each Case There have always been exceptions to the rule, but the international community had generally come to accept the traditional criteria for statehood as the proper means for taking decisions on recognition. The reason for this is that these criteria provide a way of maintaining consistency as well as a defense against doubtful claims. They were found to be useful tools. EC countries took the view that recognition should be used more as an instrument of foreign policy rather than a formal declaration of an ascertainable fact. IX. Conditionality In introducing their Guidelines in relation to Eastern Europe, the EC also departed from another basic understanding in relation to recognition practice. It had been thought that the setting of conditions with respect to such matters as religious practices, the level of 'civilization' and the applicable political system were improper because they implied a value judgment about how the new state should be organized. The effect is that the EC has moved away from the process of recognition as the formal acceptance of a fact to a process based on value judgments and through which the international community tries to create a fact. While the EC Guidelines are stated to be 'subject to the normal standards of international practice,' their application in fact has thrown doubt on the relevance of the traditional criteria for statehood. There has been widespread recognition of a state which has no control over 1/3 of its territory (Croatia). A country has been admitted to the UN while it was clear that its government had no effective control over any areas including the capital city (Bosnia and Herzegovina). A putative country (Macedonia) is being denied recognition because a neighbouring country objects to its name even though it meets all traditional criteria and appears to meet the conditions set by the EC. There is also uncertainty as to the effect of the conditionalities. The EC considers the conditions it has set to be factors determining recognition decisions. The US, on the other hand, has used the human rights and non-

proliferation conditions as a test of whether to enter into diplomatic relations with the new states it has already recognized. X. Questions of Secession and Frontiers The decolonization period may be said to be characterized by 2 broad political/legal considerations: (a) support for the sanctity of inherited national borders and the (b) unacceptability of secession. The authorities in Belgrade have from the outset viewed the struggle for independence by Croatia and Slovenia as a question of secession. In Zagreb and Ljubljana, on the other hand, it was seen as a legitimate process of selfdetermination leading to the dissolution of the original state. The Badintcr Commission's Opinions 1 and 8 support the view that this was not a matter of secession but one of the dissolution of the federal state. The Badinter Commission was also asked whether the internal boundaries, for example between Croatia and Serbia, can be regarded as frontiers in terms of public international law. In its opinion, such boundaries could not be changed except by agreement and upon independence the internal republican boundaries become international frontiers. The Commission reached this conclusion by the application of the principle of uti possidetis which although it was 'initially applied in settling decolonization issues in America and Africa, is today recognized as a general principle. XI. Continuity of International Personality Brownlie notes that 'the term "continuity'' of States is not employed with any precision and may be used to preface a diversity of legal problems.' For example, alterations of territory as such do not affect the identity of a state. But the break-up of a federation into its constituent parts is fundamentally more than a mere change of territory. In view of the imprecision in the concept, it is difficult to do anything other than to treat each case on its individual merits. XII. Limitations on the Applicability of these Precedents The first point to ask is whether recent practice should be seen as geographically limited to Europe alone. It is certainly the case that the statements and guidelines issued on these matters were restricted in their headings to the particular facts under review. It could also be validly argued that the European stage is sui generis because of the particular historical circumstances in that continent. While this argument may be a comfort to some because it would suggest that the break-up of the Soviet Union and of Yugoslavia is a precedent only for other federal countries of Eastern Europe such as the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and perhaps the Russian Federation, it is difficult to accept such a limitation. Many of the principles referred to in this process, such as the principle of selfdetermination, the principle of uti possidetis, the proscription against the
Page | 4

Roan Salanga

Public International Law

ducat or use of force and the insistence on disputes being settled by peaceful means are of universal application. Their application leading to certain results in Europe must run parallel to the results their application would lead to in other continents. XIII. Conclusions Question of recognition of states has become less predictable and more a matter of political discretion as a result of recent practice. The traditional criteria for statehood retain an uneasy existence alongside the new EC Guidelines, which have been particularly influential in relation to the recognition of the new states emerging from the USSR and Yugoslavia. It now seems that the 'political realities' have gained primacy over the inclinations to maintain consistency by applying accepted criteria to test the fact of statehood. This should not be seen as necessarily a negative development. The application of the traditional criteria as the test for statehood and therefore the rationale behind recognition was largely amoral. How a government came to be in effective control over its territory was, for the most part, not considered to be a relevant factor. The adoption of conditions leading to recognition is an attempt to introduce a greater moral dimension. Yet the enemy of such a moral stand is inconsistency, the very factor which the traditional criteria tried to avoid. And mere can be fewer better examples of inconsistency than the continuing refusal to recognize the independence of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia even though it meets every criterion and every condition but simply refuses to change its name. The 'political realities' in this case seem to have more to do with internal EC politics than with the merits of the Macedonian case. When considering a question of recognition, states will have to ask themselves questions about whether such an action will contribute to a peaceful resolution of a conflict, and if the answer is in the affirmative, the traditional criteria for statehood may well have to be finessed. THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA v. THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES FACTS: Commonwealth has sued the State of New South Wales for damages by a collision between a vessel belonging to the defendant and a motor-launch belonging to the plaintiff. The question arising from the defendants summons is whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this action, without the consent of the State. The Commonwealth maintains that there is jurisdiction and rests primarily on Sec. 75 of the Constitution. The contention urged at the Bar on behalf of the defendant was

1. 2. 3.

That it is a sovereign State and therefore cannot be sued without its consent That no actual consent has been given The jurisdiction given by the Constitution is conditioned on Parliament

Defendant contends that an Australian State is a sovereign State. Learned counsel placed the matter on the same plane as a foreign independent State, the representative and said that consent of the foreign State was necessary, and so of an Australian State. HELD: Under the Parlement Bedge, as a consequence of the absolute independence of every sovereign authority and of the international comity, each State declines to exercise by means of any of its Courts any of its territorial jurisdiction over the person of any sovereign or ambassador, or over the public property of any State which is destined to its public use, or over the property of any ambassador, though such sovereign, ambassador, or property be within its territory. New South Wales is not a foreign country. The Commonwealth includes the people of New South Wales as they are united with their fellow Australians as one people for the higher purposes of common citizenship, as created by Constitution. When the Commonwealth is present in Court as a party, the people of New South Wales cannot be absent. It is only where the limits of the wider citizenship end that the separateness of the people of a State as a political organism can exist. THE WEEKLY REST IN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS ACT The Parliament of Canada has the power to implement international agreements amount matters that normally come within the jurisdiction of provincial legislatures. The Lieutenant-Governors represent the Crown for certain purposes. But, in no respect does the L-G of a province represent the Crown in respect of relations with foreign governments. Provinces have no status in international law, they are not States and are not recognized as such. INTERNATIONAL STATUS OF SOUTH-WEST ASIA FACTS: Territory of South West Africa was one of the German overseas possession. The Treaty of Versailles renounced all her rights and titles in favor of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers.

Roan Salanga

Public International Law

Page | 5

When territories had ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and inhabited by peoples not yet able to assume full measure of self-government, 2 principles were considered to be paramount importance: 1. Non-annexation 2. Well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilization A Mandate System was created to give practical effect to these principles. A tutelage was to be established for these peoples, and this was to be entrusted to certain advanced nations and exercised by them as mandatories on behalf of the League. A Mandate for the Territory of South East Africa was conferred upon His Britannic Majesty to be exercised on his behalf by the Government of the Union of South Africa. The Union of South Africa was to have full power of administration and legislation over the Territory subject to such local modifications as circumstances may require. The Council of the League was to supervise the administration. The terms of this Mandate show that the creation of this new international institution did not involve any cession of territory or transfer of sovereignty to the Union of South Africa. CONTENTION: It is now contended on behalf of the Union Government that this Mandate has lapsed because the League has ceased to exist HELD: Such contention was based on a misconception. The League was not a mandate in the sense used in the national law of certain States. It had only assumed an international function of supervision and control. The Mandate was created, in the interest of the inhabitants of the territory and of humanity in general, as an international institution with an international object. The international obligations assumed by the Union of South Africa were of 2 kinds: 1. Directly related to the administration of the Territory and corresponded to the sacred trust of civilizationgeneral obligation is to promote to the utmost the material and moral well-being and the social progress of the inhabitants 2. Related to the machinery for implementation linked to the supervision and control of the League

Since their fulfillment did not depend on the existence of the League of Nations, they could not be brought to an end merely because this supervisory organ ceased to exist. Nor could the right of the population to have the Territory administered in accordance with these rules depend thereon. RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UN Reaffirms the provisions of the General Assembly Resolution 1514the people of South West Africa have the inalienable right to selfdetermination, freedom and independence in accordance with the Charter of UN Reaffirms that South West Africa is a territory having international status Decides that the Mandate exercised by the Government of the Union of South Africa is therefore terminated, that South Africa has no other right to administer the Territory, and that South West Africa comes under the direct responsibility of the UN

1.

2. 3.

LEGAL CONSEQUENCES FOR STATES OF THE CONTINUED PRESENCE OF SOUTH AFRICA IN NAMIBIA DOCTRINE: 1. The continued presence of South Africa in Namibia being illegal, South Africa is under obligation to withdraw its administration from Namibia immediately and thus put an end to its occupation of the Territory 2. States Members of the UN are under obligation to recognize the illegality of South Africas presence in Namibia and the invalidity of its acts on behalf of or concerning Namibia, and to refrain from any acts and in particular any dealings with the Government of South Africa implying recognition of the legality of, or lending support or assistance to, such presence and administration 3. That it is incumbent upon States which are not Members of the UN to give assistance, within the scope of subparagraph (2) above, in the action which has been taken by the UN with regard to Namibia HISTORY: The mandates system established by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations was based upon 2 principles of paramount importance: the principle of non-annexation and the principle that the well-being and development of the peoples concerned formed a sacred trust of civilization. The mandatory was to observe a number of obligations, and the Council of the League was to see that they were fulfilled. The rights of the mandatory as such had their foundation in those obligations. When the League of Nations was dissolved, the raison detre and original object of these obligations remained. Since their fulfilment did not depend on the existence of the League, they could not be brought to an end merely because the supervisory organ had ceased to exist.
Page | 6

Roan Salanga

Public International Law

HELD: Under the UN Charter, party which disowns or does not fulfil its obligations cannot be recognized as retaining the rights which it claims to derive from the relationship. Resolution 2145 determined that there had been a material breach of the Mandate, which South Africa had in fact disavowed. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, only a material breach of a treaty justifies termination, and such breach being defined as: 1. A repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the present Convention 2. Violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty Resolution 2145 determines that both forms of material breach had occurred in this case. South Africa has, in fact, disavowed the Mandate, and the General Assembly declared, in fact, that it had repudiated it. The general principle of law is that a right of termination on account of breach must be presumed to exist in respect of all treaties, except as regards provisions relating to the protection of the human person contained in treaties of a humanitarian character. The silence of a treaty as to the existence of such right cannot be interpreted as implying the exclusion of such right which has its source outside of the treaty, in general international law, and is dependent on the occurrence of circumstances which are not normally envisaged when a treaty is concluded. REPARATIONS FOR INJURIES SUFFERED IN THE SERVICE OF THE UN ISSUE: w/n the UN has the capacity to bring an international claim in the event that an agent of the UN, in the performance of his duties, suffered an injury in circumstances involving the responsibility of the State HELD: Competence to bring an international claim is the capacity to resort to the customary methods recognized by international law for the establishment, presentation and settlement of claims. This capacity belongs to the State; a State can bring an international claim against another State. Such a claim takes the form of a claim between 2 political entities, equal in law, similar in form and both the direct subjects of international law. When the Organization brings a claim against one of its Members, this claim will be presented in the same manner, and regulated by the same procedure. The Organization is an international person. What it means is that it is a subject of international law and capable of possessing international rights and duties, and that it has capacity to maintain its rights by bringing international claims. However, that is not the same thing as saying that it is a State, which it
Roan Salanga

certainly is not, or that its legal personality and rights and duties are the same as those of a State. LAUTERPACHT, AN INTERNATIONAL BILL OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN First constitutional instruments of modern time s to proclaim that the natural rights of man were part of the fundamental law of the State and that their protection was the reason for its existence: 1. Constitution of Virginia 1776 2. American Declaration of Independence 3. French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen The sovereign State, in an exclusive and unprecedented ascendancy of power, became the unsurpassable barrier between man and the law of mankind. The human being became, in the offensive, but widely current, terminology of the experts, a mere object of international law. Treaties of a humanitarian character were concluded for protecting the individual in some specified spheres. But the fundamental claims of human personality to equality, liberty, and freedom against the arbitrary will of the State remained outside the orbit of international law save for the precarious and controversial principle of humanitarian intervention. EXTRACT FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE NUREMBERG TRIBUNAL ISSUE: w/n an individual could be held personally responsible for executing Acts of his State HELD: International law imposes duties and liabilities upon individuals as well as upon states has long been recognized. For example, 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. The principle of international law, which under certain circumstances, protects the representatives of a State, cannot be applied to acts which are condemned as criminal by international law. DISPUTE BETWEEN TEXACO OVERSEAS PETROLEUM CO. AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE LIBYAN ARAB REPUBLIC To say that international law governs contractual relations between a State and a foreign private party neither means that the latter is assimilated to a State nor that the contract entered into with it is assimilated to a treaty.
Page | 7

Public International Law

The rules of economic international law concern not only States but directly the individuals; because economic and social progress has as its objective to assure its direct application to those concerned. The result is that individuals are directly the subjects of economic or social international law. Legal international capacity is not solely attributable to a State and that international law encompasses subjects of a diversified nature. Other subjects enjoy only limited capacities which are assigned to specific purposes. Unlike a State, the private person has only a limited capacity and his quality as a subject of international law does enable him only to invoke, in the field of international law, the rights which he derives from the contract. When a State recognizes its partner to such a contract as a subject of international law, the private partner is recognized as a subject of only those rights and duties, as are embodied in the contracts concerned. In the matter of contract, the international personality and capacity of the individual depend on the recognition granted to them by the State in its legal relations with him.

Roan Salanga

Public International Law

Page | 8