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. 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. The entities to which personality can be given and which are therefore subjects of international law are those which are capable of acting on the international scene. [5] Entities applying for international legal personality include corporations, corporations, sovereign states, international organizations and individuals. [6] These bodies should have legal powers, the ability to exercise their powers effectively, and permanent associations with states. [6] 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. 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. What about the rights of individuals under international law? Can the individuals, John and Jane, have rights under international law and, moreover, seek justice if their rights are violated? However, the emergence of international human rights law has altered the sanctity of state sovereignty and imposed certain international obligations on states to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of all people on their territory. In addition, international human rights law has established non-binding enforcement mechanisms (complaint procedures under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), and regional human rights standards have gone further and established a strict enforcement mechanism of a human rights court capable of issuing legally binding judgments on whether or not a State has violated the European Convention on Human Rights. 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. This stems from State sovereignty and the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of a State, which is gradually diminishing. A few decades ago, the question of how a Government treated its own citizens was a purely internal matter or an internal matter that did not concern other sovereign States, let alone the rest of the international community. For decades, the veil of state sovereignty seemed impenetrable until international and regional human rights law was accepted globally at unprecedented speed. The rights associated with obtaining international legal personality include the right to conclude treaties, the right to immunity, the right to send and receive legations and the right to assert international claims for compensation for damages. [5] Those who have international legal personality may sue and be sued, may conclude contracts, incur debts and pay various taxes. [5] NGOs with personality may participate directly in international bodies and organizations established by laws and treaties. 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.