With globalization, however, international law and international relations have rapidly developed with increasing complexity: new technologies have made the world smaller and more interconnected, new global threats have emerged that could not be combated without the cooperation of states, new actors have appeared on the international forum such as various IOs and NSAs. International law has been strongly influenced by these developments and changes in international relations, with States no longer being the only actors on the international scene and therefore no longer the only subjects of international law. International law is based on rules that states have established for states. States are sovereign and equal in their relations and can therefore voluntarily create legally binding rules or agree to abide by them, usually in the form of a treaty or convention. By signing and ratifying treaties, States willingly establish legal and contractual relations with other States parties to a particular treaty, compliance with which is normally governed by the interactions of non-compliance. The ability of States to establish such relations with other States and to create legally binding rules for themselves derives from the international legal personality of States, a prerogative enjoyed by all sovereign States. The application of international legal entities to all peoples has been real and achievable as citizens of the United Nations since 1947. Indeed, the United Nations is the sole global issuer of legal entities for all Member States. Since the United Nations is the source, the transfer of personalities between States becomes trivial.

The transfer to the United States of a United Nations citizen called Mexican is technically irrelevant; as U.S. citizens, they are also UN citizens. A legal presence/instrument for U.S. citizens is simply a specialized national international legal entity of the United Nations. For a UN citizen, the border between countries is a trivial separation between UN economic zones. The dynamic state approach fits quite well between the last two approaches. Basically half a point between factual realism and legal traditionalism, this approach asserts that the source of the actors` personality lies in international treaties or customs. Theorists of the dynamic state approach argue that while legal traditionalists are too inclined to preserve international law through tradition, objective realists tend to ignore the customs and traditions of international law. [4] The treatment of persons on foreign territory has been regulated for decades by customary international law and conventions. These rules protect States` own citizens, when they are in a foreign territory, from the illegal acts of the foreign State. For example, if a citizen of country A lived and did business in the territory of State B and State B illegally confiscated the property and businesses of the citizen of country A, State A may hold State B liable under international law before the ICJ (see the Diallo case).

Whether or not State A takes State B to the ICJ (or any other regional or international tribunal) depends entirely on State A, regardless of the wishes of the citizen. The traditionalist legal approach is one such method. In this way of thinking, one might think that international legal personality should be explicitly transferred from States to actors via a legal instrument. Without this transfer, an actor has no reputation. In this approach, States are seen as the ultimate international actors and the only source of personality. The direct opposite of this approach is the de facto realistic approach. This mindset describes global integration as a source of international legal personality, not as States. Factual realists would assume that states will eventually cease to be the source of NGO personality as globalization and transculturation take place. From: International Legal Personality in A Dictionary of Law Enforcement » After World War II, the Security Council established two ad hoc international tribunals to try war crimes committed during the war.

The Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals have confirmed that, in certain circumstances, individuals may have legal personality under international law and may have the capacity to have rights and obligations directly under international law, in particular humanitarian and human rights law. For the first time in the history of international law, individuals have been held responsible for international crimes such as war crimes and crimes against humanity, which are prohibited by customary international law as well as several international conventions. The procedure relating to the international responsibility of persons for international crimes was finally made permanent with the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC), governed by the Rome Statute, which entered into force in 2002. The mandate of the tribunals is to prosecute individuals under international law for crimes such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. There are currently a total of 121 States parties to the Rome Statute. There are theories to consider when deciding how to apply international legal personality and where the power comes from. The international responsibility of individuals was subsequently confirmed by various tribunals, such as the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, established by the United Nations Security Council, inter alia, to prosecute those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide under international law. International legal personality is an important aspect of international law that has evolved throughout history as a means of international representation and the ability to conclude treaties and initiate international judicial proceedings.

The acquisition of personality comes with privileges and international rights and obligations. International legal personality is the inherent capacity of States and is made available to international organizations through basic legal acts (statutes or “constitutions”) or international conventions. Search: “international legal personality” at Oxford Reference” (in international law) Legal persons with rights and obligations under international law have international legal personality. Entities with such legal personality include States, international organizations, non-governmental organizations and, to some extent, individuals and enterprises within a State. The acquisition of international legal personality is often an objective of international actors. By acquiring personality, they gain recognition in the international legal community. The personality of an international actor depends entirely on the recognition of the State. Legal personality may determine the rights of actors as well as their position before the courts.

Since personality is given by States, it goes without saying that international actors are only effective if States allow it. [3] Without the consent of states, other actors have no real rights or capabilities on the international stage. One question that critics of the effectiveness of legal personality ask is whether “personality contains an inherent legal capacity to act”. [4] Personality is a concept with many grey areas, but must be understood in order to understand the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of international actors. You have the option to fund a cause instead of asking for funding for a cause. You even have certain legal rights and protections. [8] NGOs that are parties to the contract may file complaints of misconduct. NGOs with a personality may eventually obtain representative status in international councils and assemblies. [7] Some NGOs, such as Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, have been granted rights that governments usually grant to IOs.

[3] NGOs are not held back by things like political parties and re-elections, they are simply allowed to lobby for what they think is the best choice. This freedom is usually found only in NGOs. This freedom gives NGOs a kind of flexibility and efficiency that other international actors do not address. More energy will inevitably come from an NGO than from an IGO, because NGOs are voluntary commitments. [3] NGO members are committed to their cause and tend to work harder to get things done. [7] NGOs are also capable of acting outside the realm of sovereignty in ways that governments and their organizations cannot do. Once an NGO has reached consultative status, it can do even more. Advisory NGOs may receive official documents, attend meetings of various councils, be consulted by a Secretary-General or committee, and participate in hearings in various ways.

[8] This stems from state sovereignty and the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of a state, which is gradually decreasing.