#10606 - Legal Personality And Statehood In International Law - International Law

Supv 5 - Legal Personality & Statehood in International Law Personality, Statehood & Recognition 1. Legal Personality a. Jennings & Watts describe LP as a subject of IL is a body capable of possessing and exercising rights and duties of IL. Brownlie points out this is circular - "Who has IL rights?" "Subjects of IL". b. Not only States, but organisations, the Holy See, various territorial entities possess capacity to be treated as international legal persons (Shaw). States possess general competence, but international organisations only have competence so far as they are invested with it per Advisory Opinion on Nuclear Weapons. c. UN has IP per Reparations for Injuries suffered in service of UN. Creating a State 1. Art 1 Montevideo Convention on Rights & Duties of States 1933 defines it as: a. Permanent Population i. Shaw and Warbrick note there is no minimum population. b. Defined Territory i. Boundaries don't have to be settled or accurately delimited eg Israel. ii. Loss of territory doesn't void a state, such as Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. iii. The territory must be lawful. Thus even though TRNC has all the hallmarks of a State, the territory was acquired by use of force thus isn't lawful. Conversely, when India unlawfully invaded East Pakistan, while she didn't annex it herself, the lawful creation of Bangladesh was created. Thus later recognition 'cured' the unlawful creation. c. Government i. The physical State must have a subjective identity to represent itself. ii. Loss of government doesn't cease to be a State. A State may have two governments each of which recognised by different states. iii. NOTE: Protectorates do not lose their international personality, but are merely protected by another per Rights of US Nationals in Morocco Case. d. Capacity to Enter Relations International Organisations 1. This is derived personality - Though the UN has objective personality. 2. But they only have limited competence for their function per Advisory Opinion on Nuclear Weapons - It was outside the WHO's competence, but within the GA's. 11