Legal Personality in International Law - Assets -...

INDEX

Abyssinian crisis (1934), 139, 217ACTA (Alien Tort Claims Act; US law)

jurisprudence on jus cogensviolations, 154, 162–7

actor conception, 208–42actual and normative, relationship

between, 245, 264–8, 269as additional conception rather than

alternative terminology, 3American realismeffective participation andinternational realism, 223–8

origins of actor conception in,213–17

rule-sceptic legal realism, 217–23assumptions no longer supported by

current practice, 3, 243, 248,268–70

authoritative decision-makingprocess, international lawviewed as (rule-sceptic view oflaw), 211–12, 213, 217–23,258, 264

basic propositions of, 210–13compared to other conceptions,

245–8defined, 14, 208dichotomy between subjects/persons

and objects rejected by,210–11

effective power to participate, 212,213, 223–8

evaluation of. See evaluation ofconceptions of internationallegal personality

international organizationsBIS as, 210, 228–32

international personality of, 23ITC cases and objective reality ofinternational personality of,210, 233–9

legal practice, main manifestationsin, 228

non-state actors in, 24pragmatist philosophy and, 213,

220–3Reparation for Injuries case and, 102,

104, 236Sandline v. Papua New Guinea and,

210, 239–42state contracts under, 27, 239–42untenability of, 3

aggressive war, 156–8Ago, Roberto, viii, 162Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom (ECHR,

2001), 171, 172, 262, 273Albania and Corfu Channel case

(United Kingdom v. Albania,ICJ, 1949), 262

Alien Tort Claims Act (ACTA; US law)jurisprudence on jus cogensviolations, 154, 162–7

Alvarez, Alejandro, 126, 139Amco v. Indonesia (ICSID,

1984–1990), 77, 197,204–7, 281

America. See United StatesAmerican Convention on Human

Rights (1969), 253Anglo-American and Continental

approaches, Lauterpacht on,136

Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. case (UnitedKingdom v. Iran, ICJ, 1952), 76

311

www.cambridge.org© in this web service Cambridge University Press

Cambridge University Press978-0-521-76845-0 - Legal Personality in International LawRoland PortmannIndexMore information

www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org/9780521768450

Anzilotti, Dionisioon Holy See’s international status, 117recognition conception and, 84, 93on states-only conception, 42, 45,

49–50, 58, 59, 63, 64, 68, 71, 72apartheid. See South AfricaArgentina in CAA and Vivendi

Universal v. Argentina (ICSID,2002), 77, 124

as-if philosophy (Vaihinger), 188Asylum case (Colombia v. Peru, ICJ,

1950), 260Atlee, Clement, 155Austin, John, 41Austriaformal conception, Austro-

Hungarian empire, and newAustrian state, 178, 179–83

liberalism, Austrian/Victorian,135–6, 140, 146

Austro-Prussian War (1866), 51auto-limitation of the state

(Selbstbindungslehre), 62Avena case (Mexico v. United States,

ICJ, 2004), 11, 20, 173, 203, 278

Bank for International Settlements(BIS), 86, 89, 210, 228–32, 278

Bankovic v. Belgium et al. (ECHR,2001), 22, 171, 172

Bantustans (South Africanhomelands), 252, 253

Barberis, Julio A., 173Barcelona Traction case (ICJ, 1970), 67,

255, 256, 257Beamtenabkommen (between Poland

and Free City of Danzig, 1921),20, 69–72

Begriffsjurisprudenz, 94–5, 96BelgiumBIS and, 229Yerodia case (Democratic Republic of

the Congo v. Belgium, ICJ,2002), 161

Bentham, Jeremy, 31Bergbohm, Karl, 59, 61, 63Bernadotte, Count, assassination

of, 100

bilateral investment treaties (BITs)private individuals’ interest in, 10state contracts distinguished, 26umbrella clauses, 27

Binding, Karl, 48, 59, 63binding nature of international lawin formal conception, 194–5Grundnorm theory and, 149, 194in recognition conception, 83in states-only conception, 45–6,

62–3bipartite character of customary

international law, 265BIS (Bank for International

Settlements), 86, 89, 210,228–32, 278

Bismarck, Otto von, 51–2, 57BITs. See bilateral investment treatiesBluntschtli, John Caspar, 62Bophuthatswana, recognition as state, 250Bosnia and Herzegovina, 165–7Bosnian Genocide case (Bosnia and

Herzegovina v. Serbia andMontenegro, ICJ, 2007), 161,162, 274

Bosnian Genocide case (Bosnia andHerzegovina v. Yugoslavia, ICJ,1993), 261

Bourquin, Maurice, 126, 151Brierly, James Leslie, 126, 138, 151, 214Britain. See United KingdomBrownlie, Ian, 117, 263

CAA and Vivendi Universal v.Argentina (ICSID, 2002), 27,77, 124

Cameroon, Klöckner Industrie-AnlagenGmbH and Others v. Republic of(ICSID, 1985), 77

Canada, on individual treaty rights toconsular assistance, 203

Cançado Trindade, AntônioAugusto, 128

Carr, E. H., 226Carty, Anthony, 49Cassese, Antonio, 128Catholic Church. See Roman Catholic

Church

312 index



www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org


Catholicism. See PopeCavaglieri, Arrigo, 80, 85, 86, 90, 91,

93, 107Central American Court of Justice, 73centralized law of persons,

international law’s lack of, 9–10Certain Expenses of the United Nations

(ICJ Advisory Opinion, 1962),109

Certain Questions relating to Settlers ofGerman Origin in the Territoryceded by Germany to Poland(Advisory Opinion, PCIJ,1923), 73, 89

choice of law for state contracts, 120–2Churchill, Winston, 155Ciskei, recognition as state, 250Civil War, US, 216, 218Cold War, 217, 223, 226Colombia and Asylum case (Colombia

v. Peru, ICJ, 1950), 260comparison of different conceptions of

international legal personality,245–8

Competence of the ILO to ExamineProposal for the Organizationand Development of theMethods of AgriculturalProduction (PCIJ AdvisoryOpinion, 1922), 108

Competence of the ILO to RegulateIncidentally the Personal Workof the Employer (PCIJ AdvisoryOpinion, 1926), 108

Comte, Auguste, 142, 181concept and conceptions distinguished,

14conceptions or types of international

legal personality, 2, 13–18,29. See also actor conception;formal conception;individualistic conception;recognition conception;states-only conception

comparison of, 245–8evaluation of, 245–70. See also

evaluation of conceptions ofinternational legal personality

concurrent liability of member states ofinternational organizations,233–9

Confederation Treaty of 1815, 51conferral of international

personality. See entries atrecognition

Congo, Democratic Republic of, andYerodia case (2002), 161

Congress of Vienna (1815), 51Constant, Benjamin, 142Constitution, US, Fourteenth

Amendment, 215, 218–19constitutional principles of jus cogens

characterin individualistic conception. See

under individualisticconception

superior to expressions of statewill, in individualisticconception, 127

consular assistance, LaGrand case onindividual treaty rights to, 197

Continental and Anglo-Americanapproaches, Lauterpacht on,136

Continental Shelf (Libya v. Malta, ICJ,1985), 260

contractsbetween states and private

parties. See state contractsVereinbarung (law-making

agreement) between statesdistinguished, 45, 63, 93

Copernican Turn, of Kant, 185Corfu Channel case (United Kingdom

v. Albania, ICJ, 1949), 262corporate personalityformal conception, as international

personality under, 175in private municipal law, 7Trading Companies, historical

international personality of, 34Costa v. Enel (ECJ, 1964), 79Crawford, James, 253creation of law, international legal

personality’s competenceregarding, 8

index 313



www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org


creation of law (cont.)American legal realist rule-sceptic

view of international law,217–23

formal conception not requiring,173, 176, 177, 196

in late 18th and 19th centuries, 40–1in recognition conception, 83, 84, 93in states-only conception, 64Vattel on, 37–8

criminal law, internationalframework combining formal and

individualistic conceptions incontext of, 273–4, 276, 280

individualistic conception and, 128,154–62

Cumuraswamy opinion (Differencerelating to Immunity from LegalProcess of a Special Rapporteurof the Commission on HumanRights, ICJ Advisory Opinion,1999), 109

customary international lawbipartite character of, 265general versus particular sources of

international law, 245, 257–64non-state actors in framework

combining formal andindividualistic conceptions,280–1

normative force in formalconception, 195–6

opinio iuris, role of, 265–8subjection of non-state actors to, 23–5

Cyprus and TurkeyLoizidou case involving, 167–72Turkish Republic of Northern

Cyprus, recognition of, 250,252, 253

Danzig, Free City ofBeamtenabkommen, 1921, with

Poland, 20, 69–72designated as Free City in Treaty of

Versailles, 68Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig,

PCIJ Advisory Opinion on, 12,42, 68–73

Darmon, ECJ Advocate-General, 234,235–6, 237

Das Wesen des Völkerrechts und dieClausula Rebus Sic Stantibus(Kaufmann, 1911), 138

De Jure Belli ac Pacis (Grotius,1625), 32

De la Division du Travail Social(Durkheim, 1893), 144

Declaration of the Rights of Man and ofthe Citizen (1789), 141

Democratic Republic of the Congo, andYerodia case (2002), 161

Denmark and North Sea ContinentalShelf cases (ICJ, 1969), 259–61

Descamps, Baron, 152Designation of the Workers’ Delegate

for the Netherlands at the ThirdSession of the InternationalLabour Conference (PCIJAdvisory Opinion, 1922), 108

Deutsch, Karl W., 226Dewey, John, 214diplomatic protection in international

law, Mavrommatis-formula for,65–8

divine law and international law, 33, 34Doe I v. Unocal Corporation (US Court

of Appeals, 9th Circuit, 2002),166

Dreyfus Affair, France, 137, 140, 142Le Droit des Gens (Vattel, 1758), 31,

35–8, 66Dugard, John, 209, 250Duguit, Leon, 139–46, 151Dunant, Henry, 111Dupuy, Rene-Jean, 119–25Durkheim, Emile, 143, 144Dutch East India Company, 33Dworkin, Ronald, 14

Eastern Carelia, Status of (PCIJAdvisory Opinion, 1923), 108

ECHR. See European Court of HumanRights

ECJ. See European Court of JusticeÉcole de l’exegèse, 148Edwards, Judge, 163–4

314 index



www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org


Elizabeth I (queen of England), 33Emperor and Pope, respublica

christiana under, 33, 35England. See United KingdomEstonia and Panevezys-Saldutiskis

Railway case (Estonia v.Lithuania, PCIJ, 1939), 67

Ethiopia and South West Africajudgment (ICJ, 1966), 255–6

European Convention on HumanRights (1950), 169–70

European Convention for theProtection of Rights andFundamental Freedoms(1950), 253

European Court of Human Rights(ECHR)

Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom(2001), 171, 172, 262, 273

Bankovic v. Belgium et al. (2001),171, 172

individualistic conception informingpractice in, 154, 167–72

Ireland v. United Kingdom (1976),169

Loizidou v. Turkey (1996), 167–72European Court of Justice (ECJ)Costa v. Enel (1964), 79European Economic Area Agreement,

opinion on, 79ITC cases (1990), 22, 110, 210,

233–9, 279Van Gend en Loos case on individual

rights under EEC treaty (1963),21, 42, 64, 77–9, 170, 278

European Union (EU), internationallegal status of, 77–9, 110

evaluation of conceptions ofinternational legal personality,245–70

actual and normative, relationshipbetween, 245, 264–8, 269

assumptions of individualistic andformal conceptions supportedby current practice, 3, 243, 248,268–70

comparison of different conceptions,245–8

individual freedom and statehood,relationship between, 245,254–7, 268

nature and powers of state, 245,248–54, 268

opinio iuris, role of, 265–8recognition, constitutive versus

declaratory nature of, 248–53sources of international law, general

versus particular, 245, 257–64,269

ex post facto principle, 156expropriation law and Reineccius v.

Bank for InternationalSettlements, 228–32

Filartiga v. Pena-Arala (US Court ofAppeals 2nd Circuit, 1980), 163

Final Act of Congress of Vienna(1815), 51

formal conception, 173–207. See alsoframework combining formaland individualistic conceptions

actual and normative, relationshipbetween, 264

in Amco v. Indonesia, on statecontracts, 197, 204–7

Austro-Hungarian empire and newAustrian state, 178, 179–83

basic propositions of, 173–7binding nature of international law

in, 194–5compared to other conceptions,

245–8consequences for international

personality, lack of, 173, 176,177, 191–6

corporate bodies as internationalpersonalities, 175

defined, 13, 173evaluation of. See evaluation of

conceptions of internationallegal personality

implied powers doctrine, 103, 104individual freedom and statehood,

relationship between, 254individuals under, 174, 175,

197–204

index 315



www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org


formal conception (cont.)is-ought distinction and, 184–6, 188,

192, 265in LaGrand case, on individual treaty

rights, 173, 197–204law-creating competence not

required by, 173, 176, 177, 196legal fiction, international

personality as, 184legal practice, main manifestations

in, 197mechanism of acquisition of

international personalityunder, 174

natural law, exclusion of, 177, 193,195, 196

neo-Kantianism, influence of, 182,185–6

as open concept, 173, 177origins in Kelsen’s theories, 177,

178–83principles of international

personality necessarilyinformed by, 3, 243, 248,268–70

public law theory and, 178, 179, 182,186–9

pure legal positivism of, 177, 181,192–6

recognition, constitutive anddeclaratory nature of, 249

Reparation for Injuries case and, 102,103, 104

sociological perspective rejected by,187, 190, 195

sources of international law in, 177,258, 261, 263

stateidentity with domestic legalsystem, 190

as international personality, 175lack of actual existence, 175, 184,187–90

as legal status rather thanfact, 248

normative theory of, 177, 183–91unified scientific method

influencing, 181

Fornos Diaz v. Guatemala (CentralAmerican Court of Justice,1909), 73

Fourteenth Amendment, USConstitution, 215, 218–19

framework combining formal andindividualistic conceptions,243, 271–81

basic principles of, 271–7criminal contexts, 273–4, 276, 280effective actors, international

personalities as, 273individualsapplicability of treaties to,277–8

as international persons, 272–4international organizations as

international persons, 278–80new framework, problems with

attempting to articulate, 15–16non-state actors in, 280–1openness of system regarding

identity of internationalpersons, 271–2, 276

recognition, role of, 272, 277responsibility as sole consequence of,

275–6, 277rights contexts, 273–4, 276, 280state contracts and, 281states as international persons,

274–5Franceacademic treatment of international

law in, 40BIS and, 229Case Concerning Rights of Nationals

of the United States of Americain Morocco (France v. UnitedStates, ICJ, 1952), 260

individualistic conception, ThirdRepublic, and Dreyfus Affair,136–8, 140, 141

on Lotus case, 266Napoleonic Code Civil, 147natural law, influence of, 50Serbian Loans case, French

bondholders in, 74Franco-German war of 1871, 137

316 index



www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org


freedom, individual, and statehood,relationship between, 245,254–7

French Revolution, 54, 55, 59, 60, 143Freud, Sigmund, 180Friedmann, Wolfgang M., 209Fuller, Lon, 222function of international legal

personality in internationallegal argument, 7–12

fundamental principles of law, inindividualistic conception

ACTA jurisprudence on privateviolations of, 154, 162–7

superiority to expressions of statewill, 127, 133, 147–53

Fusinato, Guido, 97–8

Gaja, Giorgio, 238Gallie, W. B., 14Garcìa Amador, F. V., 123general theory of law and the state

(Kelsen), 177Geneva Conventions and Additional

Protocols, recognition of ICRCin (1864–1949), 111, 113, 114

Geneva Conventions on theContinental Shelf (1958), 259

Gentili, Alberico, 33–5Geny, François, 147–8Gerber, Carl Friedrich, 56, 58, 61, 94, 182German-Polish Convention (1922), 73Germanyacademic treatment of international

law in, 40, 41betweenWorldWars I and II, 84–90,

178, 179BIS, reparations payments through,

86, 89, 210, 228–32Certain Questions relating to Settlers

of German Origin in theTerritory ceded by Germany toPoland (Advisory Opinion,PCIJ, 1923), 73, 89

common will of community of states,international law as, 59–64

Holy Roman Empire and, 50,52–3, 60

individualistic conception andresentment of, 137–9, 147

Italy, influence on, 49–50, 94LaGrand case, on individual treaty

rights under formal conception,197

legal method between World Warsin, 88

liberal-national revolutions of1845–9, 59, 60

Methoden- und Richtungsstreit, 88–9North Sea Continental Shelf cases

(ICJ, 1969), 259–61, 267Nuremberg Judgments and

individualistic conception, 128,154–62

post-World War resentment of,137–9, 147, 217

Prussian-Austrian War (1866), 51recognition conception originating

in, 84–90Reichspublizistik, 52–4, 58, 60social contract theory, rejection of,

52, 53, 54, 55state as historical fact absorbing

individuals in, 52–9state sovereignty, concept of,

140–3states-only conception in

sociopolitical context of 19thcentury, 47–54

unification of, 50–2, 60, 64Gesetzespositivismus, Gerber-Laband,

61, 94, 182Great Britain. See United KingdomGreece and Mavrommatis-formula,

65–8The Grotian Tradition in International

Law (Lauterpacht, 1946), 134Grotius, Hugo, 32, 33–5, 38Grundnorm theory, 149, 192, 194GuatemalaFornos Diaz v. Guatemala (Central

American Court of Justice,1909), 73

Nottebohm case (Liechtenstein v.Guatemala, ICJ, 1955), 67

Guggenheim, Paul, 173

index 317



www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org


Habsburg monarchy, end of, 180Hackworth, Judge, 104Hart, H. L. A., 14, 218Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrichformal conception and, 190individualistic conception and, 129,

141states-only conception and, 52, 54–6,

58, 62Herz, John H., 226Herzl, Theodor, 135Higgins, Rosalyn, 3, 208, 214, 237historical background, 29, 31–41intellectual history approach to

study of international legalpersonality, 16–18

inter-state law, Vattel’s conceptionof international law as (1758),35–8

law-creationin late 18th and 19th centuries, 40–1Vattel on, 37–8

periodization of, 29practical issues prompting

developments in internationallaw theory, 33

pragmatic application in earlymodern era (late 18th and 19thcenturies), 38–41

separate personality of statein late 18th and 19th centuries,38–40

Vattel on, 35–8web of laws prior to Vattel (Roman

period to 18th century), 32–5Hobbes, Thomas, 36, 38Holmes, Oliver Wendell, 219–22Holy Roman Empire, 50, 52–3, 55, 60Holy See. See also Roman Catholic

Churchas international personality, 115–18as separate international personality

from state of Vatican City,116–18

The Holy See v. Starbright EnterprisesInc. (Philippines SupremeCourt 1994), 118

Huber, Max, 34, 85, 94, 95–6, 97, 98

human rights. See rightsHume, David, 181, 184

IACHR (Inter-American Court ofHuman Rights), 202, 203

ICC (International Criminal Court), onindividual responsibility underinternational criminal law, 161

ICJ. See International Court of JusticeICRC (International Committee of the

Red Cross), 24, 110–14, 280ICSID (International Centre for

Settlement of InvestmentDisputes), 10, 27, 77, 124,204–7

ICTR (International Criminal Tribunalfor Rwanda), on individualresponsibility underinternational criminal law,160, 161

ICTY. See International CriminalTribunal for the FormerYugoslavia

ILC. See International LawCommission

ILO (International LabourOrganization), 108, 159,162, 209

implied powers doctrine, 103, 104IMT (International Military Tribunal)

at Nuremberg, 128, 154–62,273

IMT (International Military Tribunal)for the Far East at Tokyo,155, 160

indeterminacy thesis, 15individual freedom and statehood,

relationship between, 245,254–7, 268

individualistic conception, 126–72. Seealso framework combiningformal and individualisticconceptions

actual and normative, relationshipbetween, 264

basic propositions of, 128–33compared to other conceptions,

245–8

318 index



www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org


constitutional principles of iuscogens character (fundamentalprinciples of law)



defined, 13, 126ECHR practice reflecting, 154,

167–72evaluation of. See evaluation of


French socio-political context,136–8, 140, 141

inalienable rights of individualsunder, 131

individual freedom and statehood,relationship between, 254

legal positivism, rejection of, 128–9,134, 138, 147–9, 151, 152


natural law in, 131–2, 142, 148, 151,153

non liquet, exclusion of, 131, 153Nuremberg Judgments and

international criminal law asprimary manifestation of, 128,154–62

origins in interwar Europe, 128other types of law not rigidly

separated from internationallaw in, 130

principles of internationalpersonality necessarilyinformed by, 3, 243, 248,268–70

recognition of internationalpersonality under, 132

sociological perspective of, 143, 144,148, 151

sources of international law in,131–2, 258, 261, 263

stateactions always exercised byindividual human beings, 130

centrist view, rejection of, 134

consequences of conception for,127, 130–1

as functional entity governed byindividuals, 127, 129–30, 133,139–46

interests of state and individuals,no opposition of, 130

as international personality, 131not necessarily entrustedwith all interests of individuals,130

superiority of constitutionalprinciples of jus cogenscharacter to state will, 127

World War II and, 139individuals in international lawBITs, private individuals’ interest

in, 10under formal conception, 174, 175,

197–204in framework combining formal

and individualisticconceptions

application of treaties, 277–8as international persons, 272–4

in Jellinek’s modification of states-only conception, 57

in Jurisdiction of the Courts ofDanzig Opinion, 68–73, 278

LaGrand case, on individual treatyrights under formal conception,173, 197–204, 278

under Mavrommatis-formula, 65–8,278

significance of different conceptionsfor, 19–21

social contract theory, states-onlyconception rejecting, 52, 53,54, 55

state contracts between individualsand states. See state contracts

in states-only conception, 21, 44, 46,52–9

treaties application of, 77–9,197–204, 277–8

Van Gend en Loos case onapplication of EEC treaty toindividuals, 77–9, 278

index 319



www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org


IndonesiaAmco v. Indonesia, on state

contracts, 77, 197, 204–7, 281Holy See, recognition of

international status of, 118Institut de Droit National, 233, 237–9institutionalism, social, 94, 96–7, 151intellectual history, study of

international legal personalityas form of, 16–18

Inter-American Court of HumanRights (IACHR), 202, 203

inter-state law, Vattel’s conception ofinternational law as, 35–8

International Centre for Settlement ofInvestment Disputes (ICSID),10, 27, 77, 124, 204–7

International Committee of theRed Cross (ICRC), 24, 110–14,280

International Court of Justice (ICJ). Seealso specific cases and AdvisoryOpinions, by name

on concept of international legalpersonality, 1, 9

on general principles ofinternational law (Article 38),147, 196

on individual and state responsibilityunder international criminallaw, 161

on individual rights in internationallaw, 9, 11

on individual treaty rights underformal conception, 197

on international organizations asinternational persons, 12, 22

Mavrommatis-formula confirmedby, 67

Serbian Loans statement confirmedby, 75

on sources of international law, 9International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights (1966), 253International Criminal Court (ICC),

on individual responsibilityunder international criminallaw, 161

international criminal lawframework combining formal and

individualistic conceptions incontext of, 273–4, 276, 280

individualistic conception and, 128,154–62

International Criminal Tribunal forRwanda (ICTR), on individualresponsibility underinternational criminal law,160, 161

International Criminal Tribunal for theFormer Yugoslavia (ICTY)

on individual responsibilityunder international criminallaw, 160

Prosecutor v. Furundzija (1998), 262,273, 275

Prosecutor v. Simic et al. (1999), 24,111, 113–14, 272, 280

Prosecutor v. Tadic (1995–98), 273International Institute of Agriculture,

97, 98International Labour Organization

(ILO), 108, 159, 162, 209International Law (Oppenheim,

1905–06), 48International Law and Human Rights

(Lauterpacht, 1950), 135International Law Commission (ILC)actor conception and, 233, 237–9on codification of international

personality, 9on diplomatic protection under

Mavrommatis-formula, 65, 68on individuals and international

treaties, 19international law, sources of. See

sources of international lawinternational legal personality, 1–4, 5,

282–3centralized law of persons,

international law’s lack of,9–10

combined frame of reference,243. See also frameworkcombining formal andindividualistic conceptions

320 index



www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org


competence to create law. Seecreation of law, internationallegal personality’s competenceregarding

concept and conceptionsdistinguished, 14

conceptions or types of, 2, 13–18,29. See also actor conception;formal conception;individualistic conception;recognition conception; states-only conception

comparison of, 245–8evaluation of, 245–70. See alsoevaluation of conceptions ofinternational legal personality

consequences of, 2, 3developments in practice regarding,

10–12existing jurisprudence and doctrine,

importance of, 15–16historical background, 29, 31–41. See

also historical backgroundideal types and modified positions, 14intellectual history approach to, 16–18of international organizations, 12,

22–3municipal law and. Seemunicipal lawpresence and function in international

legal argument, 7–12presumptions regarding, 2, 3private individuals and, 10, 19–21significance of, 19–28state contracts and, 25–8terminology for, 1, 3

International Military Tribunal (IMT)at Nuremberg, 128, 154–62, 273

InternationalMilitary Tribunal (IMT) forthe Far East at Tokyo, 155, 160

international organizations asinternational persons, 12, 22–3,80, 94, 97–9, 278–80. See alsospecific organizations

international relations, as academicdiscipline, 226

International Tin Council (ITC) cases(UKCourts, 1987–1989, and ECJ,1990), 22, 110, 210, 233–9, 279

Interpretation of the Agreementbetween WHO and Egyptopinion (ICJ, 1980), 109

IranAnglo-Iranian Oil Co. case (United

Kingdom v. Iran, ICJ, 1952), 76Claims Tribunal, Iran–US, 231Sapphire International Petroleums

Ltd. v. National Iranian OilCompany (1963), 76

Ireland v. United Kingdom (ECHR,1976), 169

is–ought distinction, 184–6, 188, 192,265

Island of Palmas arbitration case(Sole Arbitrator Huber, 1928),34, 95

Israelassassination of UN envoy to, 100British mandate over Palestine, 65as non-member of UN at time of

Reparation for Injuries case, 101Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic

(US Courts, 1984), 163–4, 165Italyacademic treatment of international

law in, 41German influence on, 49–50, 94Holy See, international personality

of, 115–18legal method between World Wars

in, 88Malta, international personality of

Order of, 119Papal States annexed by, 115recognition conception originating

in, 84–90unification of, 49–50, 64Versailles, loss of Dalmatia in Treaty

of (1919), 87, 89between World Wars, 84–90

ITC (International Tin Council) cases(UK Courts, 1987–1989, andECJ, 1990), 22, 110, 210,233–9, 279

ius cogensgeneral international norms,

peremptory character of, 255

index 321



www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org


ius cogens (cont.)individualistic conception and

constitutional principles of iuscogens character



non-state actors in frameworkcombining formal andindividualistic conceptions,280–1

ius gentium, 32Iwonawa v. Ford Motor Company (US

District Court, District of NewJersey, 1999), 166

James, William, 220–1Jellinek, Georgformal conception and, 182recognition conception and, 85, 86,

91, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98states-only conception and, 57–8, 59,

62, 63Jessup, Philip C., 209Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig

(PCIJ Advisory Opinion, 1928),12, 20, 42, 64, 68–73, 92, 197,202, 278

Jurisdiction of the EuropeanCommission of the Danube case(PCIJ, 1927), 108

Kadic v. Karadzic I (US District Court,Southern District of New York,1994), 165

Kadic v. Karadzic II (US Court ofAppeals, 2nd Circuit 1995), 24,163, 165–7, 273, 280

Kant, Immanuel, 182, 185–6Karadzic, Radovan, 165–7Kaufmann, Erich, 138Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928), 157Kelsen, Hansactor conception and, 224–6formal conception and, 173, 175,

177, 178–83general theory of law and the state, 177

individualistic conception and, 134,138, 145, 149

on lack of consequences ofinternational personality,191–6

on normative theory of state, 183–91on opinio iuris, 265recognition conception and, 90, 91Vienna Circle, relationship to, 181

Ken Wiwa v. Royal Dutch PetroleumCompany (US District Court,Southern District of New York,2002), 166

Kennan, George F., 223, 226Kerr, Sir Michael, LJ, 234, 236, 240Keynes, John Maynard, viiiKissinger, Henry, 226Klabbers, Jan, 102Klöckner Industrie-Anlagen GmbH and

Others v. Republic of Cameroon(ICSID, 1985), 77, 206, 207

Knights of Malta, internationalpersonality of Order of, 115,118–19

Kolb, Robert, 265Koskenniemi, Martti, 15, 135Krabbe, Hugo, 126, 138, 145–6Kritik der reinen Vernunft (Kant,

1781), 185Kunz, Josef L., 178

Laband, Paul, 56, 58, 61, 94, 182LaGrand case (Germany v. United

States, ICJ, 2001), 11, 20, 173,197–204, 272, 278

Laski, Harold J., 134, 139Lasson, Adolf, 62Lasswell, Harold D., 208, 214Lateran Treaty (1929), 116Lausanne Peace Treaty (1923), 65, 67Lauterpacht, Herschon Anglo-American and

Continental approaches, 136Austrian liberalism of, 135–6,

140, 146individualistic conception and,

126, 127, 128, 133, 134–6, 140,146, 147

322 index



www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org


Nuremberg trials, involvement in, 155recognition conception and, 90states-only conception and, 69

law-creation. See creation of law,international legal personality’scompetence regarding

Law of Guarantees (1871, Italy), 115Law of Nations, 43, 46law of persons. See international legal

personality; legal personalityLe Fur, Louis, 151League of Nations, 89, 108, 138, 139,

217, 224legal method in Germany and Italy

between World Wars, 88legal personalityin international law. See

international legal personalityin private municipal law, 7–8, 19

legal positivismformal conception’s purely positive

approach, 177, 181, 192–6individualistic conception rejecting,

128–9, 134, 138, 147–9, 151,152

neo-positivism or logical positivisminfluencing, 181, 192–6

PCIJ Article 38(3) and, 152recognition conception and, 84, 90,

94–6significance of theory of

international personality to, 41states-only conception and, 48, 50,

59–62, 63WW I and rejection of, 149

legal realism, American. See actorconception

Legality of the Threat or Use of NuclearWeapons (ICJ AdvisoryOpinion, 1996), 109, 262

Legality of Use of Force cases (ICJ,2004), 22, 110

Lena Goldfields v. Soviet Union (LenaGoldfields Arbitration, 1930), 76

liberalismAustrian or Victorian, 135–6, 140, 146German liberal-national revolutions

of 1845–9, 59, 60

legal fiction of state rooted inideology of illiberal democracy,Kelsen on, 189–90

Liberia and South West Africajudgment (ICJ, 1966), 255–6

liberty, individual, and statehood,relationship between, 245,254–7

LibyaCase Concerning the Continental

Shelf (Libya v. Malta, ICJ, 1985),260

Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic(US Court of Appeals, DCCircuit, 1984), 163–4, 165

Texaco/Calasiatic v. Libya (1977),76, 110, 119–25, 281

Liechtenstein and Nottebohm case(Liechtenstein v. Guatemala,ICJ, 1955), 67

Lithuania and Panevezys-SaldutiskisRailway case (Estonia v.Lithuania, PCIJ, 1939), 67

Llewellyn, Karl N., 222Locarno, Treaty of (1925), 225Lochner v. New York (US Supreme

Court, 1905), 218–21Locke, John, 142logical positivism (neo-positivism),

181, 192–6Loizidou v. Turkey (ECHR, 1996),

167–72London Agreement (1945), 155Lotus case (PCIJ, 1927), 42, 266

Madison, James, 216Malta and Case Concerning the

Continental Shelf (Libya v.Malta, ICJ, 1985), 260

Malta, Order of, internationalpersonality of, 115

Manchurian crisis (1931), 139, 217, 250Mavrommatis-formula (Mavrommatis

Palestine Concessions, Greece v.UK, PCIJ, 1924), 11, 42, 65–8,74, 204, 278

McCorquodale, Robert, 209McDougal, Myers S., 208, 214, 222

index 323



www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org


McNair, Arnold Duncan, 134, 135, 155medieval concepts of international law,

32–3, 35member states of international

organizations, concurrentliability of, 233–9

Merkl, Adolf, 178Metaphysical Club, 220Methoden- und Richtungsstreit, 88–9Mexico and Avena case on individual

treaty rights to consularassistance, 203

Military and Paramilitary Activities inand Against Nicaragua(Nicaragua v. United States,ICJ, 1986), 262, 267

Ministry of Finance v. Association ofItalian Knights of the Order ofMalta (Italy, Court ofCassation, 1978), 119

Mondev International Ltd. v. UnitedStates (Award, 2002), 204

Monroe Doctrine, 216Montevideo Convention (1933), 250,

253Morgenthau, Hans D., 223–7Morocco, Case Concerning Rights of

Nationals of the United States ofAmerica in (France v. UnitedStates, ICJ, 1952), 260

municipal lawexclusive regulation of private

individuals in late 18th and19th centuries, 39

in individualistic conception, 130legal personality in, 7–8, 19state contracts and, 26, 27

Mussolini, Benito, 87

NamibiaNamibia opinion (ICJ, 1971)

individual freedom andstatehood, relationshipbetween, 255, 257

on nature and powers of state,250–2

South West Africa judgment (ICJ,1966), 255–6, 257

Nanni and Others v. Pace and theSovereign Order of Malta (Italy,Court of Cassation, 1935), 119

Napoleon, and Order of Malta, 118Napoleonic Code Civil, 147Napoleonic Wars, 51national lawformal conception, identity of state

with domestic legal system in,190

in individualistic conception, 130monist approaches to, 90, 91–2recognition conception, dualist

approach of, 91–2states-only conception, dualist

approach of, 44, 46treatment of international treaties

by, 20NATO (North Atlantic Treaty

Organization), internationalpersonality of, 22, 110

natural lawformal approach rejecting, 177, 193,

195, 196in France and United Kingdom

versus Italy, 50in Germany and Italy between

World Wars, 88historical background, 33, 34, 38,

40–1in individualistic conception, 131–2,

142, 148, 151, 153neo-Kantianism and, 183recognition conception’s rejection

of, 92in states-only conception, 44, 50,

60–4neo-Kantianism, 182, 185–6neo-positivism (logical positivism),

181, 192–6NetherlandsDesignation of the Workers’ Delegate

for the Netherlands at the ThirdSession of the InternationalLabour Conference (PCIJAdvisory Opinion, 1922), 108

North Sea Continental Shelf cases(ICJ, 1969), 259–61

324 index



www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org


NewHaven (policy-oriented) School, 215new states, recognition by existing

states, 81–2, 93NicaraguaContra forces, 164Military and Paramilitary Activities

in and Against Nicaragua(Nicaragua v. United States,ICJ, 1986), 262, 267

Nietzsche, Friedrich, 224Nijman, Janne Elisabeth, 18non liquet exclusion, 131, 153non-state actorsACTA jurisprudence on private

violations of constitutionalprinciples of jus cogenscharacter, 154, 162–7

defined, 23in framework combining formal and

individualistic conceptions,280–1

in late 18th and 19th centuries, 39in recognition conceptionlimited and exceptionalpersonality under, 82, 84, 93,99, 106

as objective internationalpersonalities, 105, 107

significance of different personalityconceptions to, 23–5

normative and actual, relationshipbetween, 245, 264–8, 269

normative view of state in formalconception, 177, 183–91

North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO), internationalpersonality of, 22, 110

North Sea Continental Shelf cases (ICJ,1969), 259–61, 267

Nottebohm case (Liechtenstein v.Guatemala, ICJ, 1955), 67

nullum crimen sine lege, 156Nuremberg Judgments, 128, 154–62,

273

objective reality of internationalpersons

actor conception in ITC cases, 233–9

recognition conception of non-stateactors, 105, 107

O’Connell, D. P., 173open systemformal conception as, 173, 177framework combining formal and

individualistic conceptions as,271–2, 276

international law regarded as, 283opinio iuris, role of, 265–8Oppenheim, Lassa, viiion Holy See as international

personality, 117recognition conception and, 84, 117on states-only conception, 42, 46, 48,

49, 52, 58, 59, 64Order of Malta, international

personality of, 115, 118–19

pacta sunt servanda, 45, 123, 131, 195Pakistan and SGS, 77Palestine. See IsraelPalestinian Liberation Organization

(PLO), 163–4Panevezys-Saldutiskis Railway case

(Estonia v. Lithuania, PCIJ,1939), 67

Papal States annexed by Italy, 115. Seealso Roman Catholic Church

Papua New Guinea and SandlineInternational case (InterimAward, 1998), 27, 76, 210,239–42, 281

Paraguay, 163PCIJ. See Permanent Court of

International JusticePeckham, Judge, 218Peirce, Charles Sanders, 220Permanent Court of International

Justice (PCIJ). See also specificcases, statements, and AdvisoryOpinions, by name

creation of, 89on general principles of

international law (Article 38(3)), 147, 196

on non liquet exclusion, 132, 153persistent objector, concept of, 260

index 325



www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org


personality, legal. See internationallegal personality

persons, law of. See international legalpersonality; legal personality

Peru and Asylum case (Colombia v.Peru, ICJ, 1950), 260

Philippinesrecognition of international status of

Holy See by 118Societe Generale de Surveillance

(SGS) v. Philippines (ICSID,2004), 204

philosophy of as-if (Vaihinger), 188piracy, as international law subject, 39PLO (Palestinian Liberation

Organization), 163–4PolandBeamtenabkommen (1921),

with Free City of Danzig, 20,69–72

Certain Questions relating to Settlersof German Origin in theTerritory ceded by Germany toPoland (Advisory Opinion,PCIJ, 1923), 73, 89

German-Polish Convention(1922), 73

Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig,PCIJ Advisory Opinion on, 12,42, 68–73

Questions Concerning theAcquisition of PolishNationality (PCIJ AdvisoryOpinion, 1923), 89, 108

Steiner and Gross v. Polish State(Upper Silesian ArbitralTribunal, 1928), 73

policy-oriented or New Haven School,215

Polish Minorities Treaty (1919), 73political nature of legal fiction of state,

Kelsen on, 189–90Politis, Nicolas, 126, 139, 151Pope. See Roman Catholic Churchpositivism, legal. See legal positivismPound, Roscoe, 222pragmatist philosophy and actor

conception, 213, 220–3

Presbyterian Church of Sudan v.Talisman Energy, Inc. (USDistrict Court, SouthernDistrict of New York, 2003),166, 167, 274, 280

presence and function of internationallegal personality ininternational legal argument,7–12

Principia Mathematica (Russell,1910–1913), 181

private individuals. See individuals ininternational law

private municipal law. See municipallaw

private parties, state contracts with. Seestate contracts

Prosecutor v. Akeyasu (ICTR, 1998), 161Prosecutor v. Furundzija (ICTY, 1998),

160, 161, 262, 273, 275Prosecutor v. Simic et al. (ICTY, 1999),

24, 111, 113–14, 272, 280Prosecutor v. Tadic (ICTY, 1995–98),

160, 273Prussian-Austrian War (1866), 51public lawDuguit’s conception of, 140–5formal conception and, 178, 179,

182, 186–9in Germany and Italy between

World Wars, 88–9, 178,179, 182

in individualistic conception, 130international law as form of, 47, 60, 62

Pufendorf, Samuel, 36, 38, 53

quasi-international law and statecontracts, 28

The Queen v. Van Bergen (AlbertaCourt of Appeal, 2000), 203

Questions Concerning the Acquisitionof Polish Nationality (PCIJAdvisory Opinion, 1923), 73,89, 108, 200

Ralli Brothers principle, 241Rama-Montaldo, Manuel, 102, 104Rawls, John, 14

326 index



www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org


realism, American. See under actorconception

recognitionconstitutive versus declaratory

nature of, 248–53in framework combining formal and

individualistic conceptions,272, 277

in individualistic conception, 132in states-only conception, 43, 93

recognition conception, 80–125actual and normative, relationship

between, 264assumptions no longer supported by



under, 83compared to other conceptions,

245–8defined, 13, 80evaluation of. See evaluation of


framework of states-only conception,maintaining, 84, 90–3

Holy See, international personalityof, 115–18

ICRC, international legal status of,110–14

implied powers doctrine, 103, 104individual freedom and statehood,

relationship between, 254individualistic conception rejecting,

128international organizations,

emergence of, 80, 94, 97–9law-creation, international legal

personality’s competenceregarding, 83, 84, 93

legal positivism and, 84, 90, 94–6legal practice, main manifestations

in, 99Malta, international personality of

Order of, 115, 118–19national and international law,

relationship between, 91–2

natural law, rejection of, 92nature of statehood in, 88, 91non-state entitieslimited and exceptionalpersonality of, 82, 84, 93,99, 106

as objective international persons,105, 107

origins in German and Italiancontext after WW I, 84–90

recognition, constitutive nature of,249

in Reparation for Injuries caseregarding United Nations, 80,99–110

sociological perspective of, 85, 93–9,104, 106

on sources of international law, 83,88, 92, 257

stateas fact, 248nature of statehood, theories of,88, 91

new states, recognition by existingstates, 81–2, 93

as normal, primary legal person,80, 83, 84

Texaco/Calasiatic v. Libya (1977),119–25

Red Cross, International Committee ofthe (ICRC), 24, 110–14, 280

Regina v. Bow Street MetropolitanStipendiary Magistrate, ex partePinochet Ugarte No. 3 (UKHouse of Lords, 1999), 161

Reichspublizistik, 52–4, 58, 60Reine Rechtslehre (Kelsen, 1934), 91, 179Reineccius v. Bank for International

Settlements (Permanent Courtof Arbitration, 2002), 210,228–32, 279

Reisman, W. Michael, 208, 214, 229Reparation for Injuries (ICJ Advisory

Opinion, 1949), 1, 9, 12, 22, 23,80, 99–110, 122, 123, 236, 253,276, 279

Republika Srpska, 165–7respublica christiana, 33, 35

index 327



www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org


Rhodes and Malta, internationalpersonality of Order of, 115,118–19

Rhodesia, recognition as state, 250,252, 253

Right to Information on ConsularAssistance (IACHR AdvisoryOpinion, 1999), 202

rightsconception of international

personality based on. Seeindividualistic conception

framework combining formal andindividualistic conceptions incontext of, 273–4, 276, 280

individual freedom and statehood,relationship between, 245, 254–7

LaGrand case on consular assistanceas human right, 201–2

Rights of Nationals of the United Statesof America in Morocco (Francev. United States, ICJ, 1952), 260

Roman Catholic ChurchHoly See, as international

personality, 115–18The Holy See v. Starbright Enterprises

Inc. (Philippines SupremeCourt, 1994), 118

Order of Knights of Malta,international personality of,115, 118–19

Papal States annexed by Italy, 115respublica christiana under Emperor

and Pope, 33, 35separate international personalities

of Holy See and Vatican City,116–18

Vatican City, recognized as state, 116Roman ius gentium, 32Romano, Santi, 85, 94, 96–7, 98, 151Rome Statute (1998), 161, 162Roosevelt, Franklin D., 155Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 141, 142, 189, 190rule-sceptic view of international law as

authoritative decision-makingprocess, 211–12, 213, 217–23,258, 264

Russell, Bertrand, 181

St. John of Jerusalem (Malta),international personality ofOrder of, 115, 118–19

Salvioli, Gabriele, 151Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan (US Court

of Appeals, DC Circuit, 1985),164, 165

Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon (USSupreme Court, 2006), 203

Sandline International Inc. v. PapuaNew Guinea (Interim Award,1998), 27, 76, 210, 239–42, 281

Sapphire International Petroleums Ltd.v. National Iranian OilCompany (1963), 76

Scalia, Antonin, 164Scelle, Georges, 90, 91, 126, 127, 139,

151scholastic concepts of international

law, 32–3, 35Schönberg, Arnold, 180Schwarzenberger, Georg, 80, 85, 86, 90,

91, 93, 103, 107Seidl-Hohenveldern, Ignaz, 102, 122Sein and Sollen, 224–7Selbstbindungslehre (auto-limitation of

the state), 62separate personality of statein late 18th and 19th centuries, 38–40Vattel on, 35–8

Serbian Loans statement on statecontracts (PCIJ, 1929), 42,73–7, 84, 281

Sereni, Angelo Piero, 102Seyersted, Finn, 102, 209SGS (Societe Generale de Surveillance)

v. Pakistan (ICSID, 2004), 77SGS (Societe Generale de Surveillance) v.

Philippines (ICSID, 2004), 204significance of international legal

personality, 19–28Siotto-Pintor, Manfredi, 80Skinner, Quentin, 17Slaughter, Anne-Marie, 209slavery, US, 216social contract theory rejected in states-

only conception, 52, 53, 54, 55social institutionalism, 94, 96–7, 151

328 index



www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org


Societe Generale de Surveillance (SGS)v. Pakistan (ICSID, 2004), 77

Societe Generale de Surveillance (SGS) v.Philippines (ICSID, 2004), 204

sociological perspectiveformal conception rejecting, 187,

190, 195of individualistic conception, 143,

144, 148, 151of recognition conception, 85, 93–9,

104, 106Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain et al. (US

Supreme Court, 2004), 167sources of international law. See also

natural lawactor conception of authoritative

decision-making process,211–12, 213, 217–23, 258, 264

before Vattel, 33in formal conception, 177, 258, 261,

263general versus particular, 245,

257–64, 269in individualistic conception, 131–2,

258, 261, 263in recognition conception, 83, 88,

92, 257in states-only conception, 64, 257

South AfricaBantustans (South African

homelands), 252, 253Namibia opinion (ICJ, 1971)

individual freedom and statehood,relationship between, 255, 257

on nature and powers of state,250–2

South West Africa judgment (ICJ,1966), 255–6, 257

Un souvenir de Solferino (Dunant,1862), 111

sovereignty, state, interwar ideas about,140–3

Soviet UnionCold War, 217, 223, 226Lena Goldfields v. Soviet Union (Lena

Goldfields Arbitration, 1930), 76Status of Eastern Carelia (PCIJ

Advisory Opinion, 1923), 108

St. John of Jerusalem (Malta),international personality ofOrder of, 115, 118–19

Stalin, Josef, 155Stammler, Rudolph, 182stateauto-limitation of

(Selbstbindungslehre), 62comparison of nature and powers in

different conceptions, 245,248–54

as fact versus legal status, 248–54, 268in formal conception. See under

formal conceptionin framework combining formal and

individualistic conceptions,274–5

general versus particular sources ofinternational law and view of,245, 257–64

individual freedom and statehood,relationship between, 245,254–7, 268

in individualistic conception. Seeunder individualisticconception

Kelsen’s normative theory of, 177,183–91

in recognition conception. See underrecognition conception

separate personality ofin late 18th and 19th centuries,38–40

Vattel on, 35–8sovereignty, interwar ideas about,

140–3two-sided theory of (Zwei-Seiten-

Theorie), 57, 94, 182, 186, 189,252

state contractsactor conception and, 27, 239–42Amco v. Indonesia, formal

conception in, 197choice of law for, 120–2in framework combining formal and

individualistic conceptions, 281Sandline v. Papua New Guinea on,

239–42

index 329



www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org


state contracts (cont.)Serbian Loans statement on, 42,

73–7, 84, 281significance of different conceptions

of international law for, 25–8Suez Canal arbitration of 1864, 39Texaco/Calasiatic v. Libya, 76, 110,

119–25states-only conception, 42–79actual and normative, relationship

between, 264assumptions no longer supported by



in, 45–6, 62–3common will of community of states,

international law as, 43–5, 47,59–64

compared to other conceptions,245–8

creation of law, international legalpersonality’s competenceregarding, 9, 59, 64

defined, 13, 42evaluation of. See evaluation of


fact, state as, 248German 19th-century socio-political

context and, 47–54. See alsoGermany

historical fact absorbing individuals,state regarded as, 52–9

individual freedom and statehood,relationship between, 254

individualistic conception rejecting,128

individuals in, 21, 44, 46, 52–9international organizations,

international personality of, 23international personality and states,

synonymity of, 43, 46, 47Italy, unification of, 49–50Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig

Opinion and, 42, 68–73legal positivism and, 48, 50, 59–62, 63


Lotus dictum and, 42Mavrommatis-formula and, 42, 65–8national law contrasted with

international law in, 44, 46natural law rejected by, 44, 50, 60–4non-state actors in, 24origins of, 42, 47public law, international law as form

of, 47, 60, 62recognitionconstitutive nature of, 249role of, 43, 93

recognition conception maintainingbasic framework of, 84, 90–3

Serbian Loans statement on statecontracts and, 42, 73–7

social contract theory, rejection of,52, 53, 54, 55

social relations regulated in, 46sources of international law in,

64, 257untenability of, 2Van Gend en Loos decision of ECJ

and, 42, 77–9Vattel on separate personality of

state, 35–8Status of Eastern Carelia (PCIJ

Advisory Opinion, 1923), 108Steiner and Gross v. Polish State (Upper

Silesian Arbitral Tribunal,1928), 73

Stresemann, Gustav, 224Strupp, Karl, 80, 85, 86, 90, 91, 92, 93,

107Suarez, Francisco, 33–5subjects of international law. See

international legal personalitysubstantive due process, 215, 218–19Suez Canal arbitration (1864), 39Supreme Court, US, constitutional

review powers of, 215SwitzerlandBIS and, 229, 230Civil Code, 148ICRC as private association under

Swiss law, 110, 111, 112, 113

330 index



www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org


Talmon, Stefan, 252Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic (US

Court of Appeals, DC Circuit,1984), 163–4, 165

Texaco/Calasiatic v. Libya (ICJ, 1977),76, 110, 119–25, 281

Third Republic, France, 136Tocqueville, Alexis de, 215Tokyo, International Military Tribunal

(IMT) for the Far East at, 155, 160torture, 163Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

(Wittgenstein, 1921), 181Trading Companies, historical

international personality of, 34Transkei, recognition as state, 250treatiesBITs. See bilateral investment

treatiesgeneral versus particular sources of

international law, 245, 257–64individuals, application to, 77–9,

197–204, 277–8LaGrand case, on individual treaty

rights under formal conception,173, 197–204

normative force in formalconception, 195–6

Treatise of Human Nature (Hume,1739–40), 184

Triepel, Heinrich, 42, 45, 48, 52, 58, 59,63, 64, 84, 93

Truman Doctrine, 217Truman, Harry, 155Turkish Republic of Northern CyprusLoizidou case involving, 167–72recognition of, 250, 252, 253

The Twenty Years’Crisis (Carr, 1939), 226two-sided theory of the state

(Zwei-Seiten-Theorie), 57, 94,182, 186, 189, 252

types or conceptions of internationallegal personality, 2, 13–18,29. See also actor conception;formal conception;individualistic conception;recognition conception;states-only conception

umbrella clauses in BITs, 27unified scientific method, formal

conception influenced by, 181United Kingdomacademic treatment of international

law in, 40Anglo-American and Continental

approaches, Lauterpacht on,136

Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. case (UnitedKingdom v. Iran, ICJ, 1952), 76

Corfu Channel case (UnitedKingdom v. Albania, ICJ, 1949),262

Ireland v. United Kingdom (ECHR,1976), 169

ITC cases (UK Courts, 1987–1989,and ECJ, 1990), 22, 110, 210,233–9, 279

Lauterpacht and individualisticconception in, 134, 136

Mavrommatis-formula, 65–8natural law, influence of, 50Oppenheim and states-only

conception in, 48, 49Palestine, British mandate over, 65post-WW II collapse of empire,

217Regina v. Bow Street Metropolitan

Stipendiary Magistrate,ex parte Pinochet UgarteNo. 3 (UK House of Lords,1999), 161

Schwarzenberger and recognitionconception in, 86

United NationsCharter’s failure to address

international personality of,101, 103, 105

ICRC and, 112on individual responsibility under

international criminal law, 159,162

Order of Malta and, 119Reparation for Injuries Advisory

Opinion (ICJ), recognized asinternational personality in, 1,9, 12, 22, 80, 99–110

index 331



www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org


United Statesactor conception and American

realism. See under actorconception

Amco v. Indonesia (ICSID, 1984–1990), on state contracts, 204–7

Anglo-American and Continentalapproaches, Lauterpacht on,136

ATCA jurisprudence, 154Avena case (Mexico v. United States,

ICJ, 2004), 11, 20, 173, 203, 278BIS and, 229Case Concerning Rights of Nationals

of the United States of Americain Morocco (France v. UnitedStates, ICJ, 1952), 260

Civil War, 216, 218Cold War, 217, 223, 226Filartiga v. Pena-Arala (US Court of

Appeals 2nd Circuit, 1980), 163Iwonawa v. Ford Motor Company

(US District Court, District ofNew Jersey, 1999), 166

Kadic v. Karadzic I (US DistrictCourt, Southern District of NewYork, 1994), 165

Kadic v. Karadzic II (US Court ofAppeals, 2nd Circuit 1995), 24,163, 165–7, 273, 280

Ken Wiwa v. Royal Dutch PetroleumCompany (US District Court,Southern District of New York,2002), 166

LaGrand case (Germany v. UnitedStates, ICJ, 2001), on individualtreaty rights to consularassistance, 197

Lochner v. New York (US SupremeCourt, 1905), 218–21

Military and Paramilitary Activitiesin and Against Nicaragua(Nicaragua v. United States,ICJ, 1986), 262, 267

Mondev International Ltd. v. UnitedStates (Award, 2002), 204

Presbyterian Church of Sudan v.Talisman Energy, Inc. (US

District Court, SouthernDistrict of New York, 2003),166, 167, 274, 280

Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan (USCourt of Appeals, DC Circuit,1985), 164, 165

Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon (USSupreme Court, 2006), 203

Smith, United States v. (US SupremeCourt, 1820), 39

Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain et al. (USSupreme Court, 2004), 167

substantive due process andFourteenth Amendment, 215,218–19

Supreme Court, constitutionalreview powers of, 215

Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic(US Court of Appeals, DCCircuit, 1984), 163–4, 165

Vaihinger, Hans, 188, 189–90Van Gend en Loos v. Netherlands

Inland Revenue Administration(ECJ, 1963), 21, 42, 77–9, 170,278

Vatican City. See also Roman CatholicChurch

recognized as state, 116as separate international personality

from Holy See, 116–18Vattel, Emer de, 31, 35–8, 66VCCR (Vienna Convention on

Consular Relations, 1963), 20,197–203

VCLT (Vienna Convention on the Lawof Treaties, 1969), 261, 272

Venda, recognition as state, 250Verdross, Alfredformal conception and, 178individualistic conception and, 127,

134, 147, 149–50, 151, 153recognition conception and, 90, 96

Vereinbarung (law-makingagreement), state agreementsas, 45, 63, 93

Versailles, Treaty of (1919), 68, 87,89, 224

332 index



www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org


Victorian (Austrian) liberalism, 135–6,140, 146

Vienna Circle, 180, 192Vienna, Congress of (1815), 51Vienna Convention on Consular

Relations (VCCR, 1963), 20,197–203

Vienna Convention on the Law ofTreaties (VCLT, 1969), 261, 272

Vienna, Final Act of Congress of(1815), 51

Vienna school of law, 149, 178Vitoria, Francisco de, 33–5, 38Völkerrecht und Landesrecht (Triepel,

1899), 48volonte generale, Rousseau’s concept of,

141, 142, 189, 190

Washington Convention on theSettlement of InvestmentDisputes between States andNationals of Other States(1966), 10

Weber, Max, 51Weimar Republic, 87Westphalia, Peace Treaties of (1648),

51Wilson, Woodrow, 216, 223Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 181Wolff, Christian, 36, 37World War IGermany, post-war resentment of,

137–9, 217positivism, rejection of, 149

Versailles, Treaty of (1919), 68, 87,89, 224

World War IIindividualistic conception and

horrors of, 139Nuremberg Judgments and

individualistic conception, 128,154–62

US intervention in, 216

Yerodia case (Democratic Republic ofthe Congo v. Belgium, ICJ,2002), 161

Young Plan, 89, 228–32Yugoslavia, formerBosnia and Herzegovina, 165–7Bosnian Genocide case (Bosnia and

Herzegovina v. Serbia andMontenegro, ICJ, 2007), 161,162, 274

Bosnian Genocide case (Bosnia andHerzegovina v. Yugoslavia, ICJ,1993), 261

ICTY. See International CriminalTribunal for the FormerYugoslavia

Serbian Loans statement on statecontracts (PCIJ, 1929), 42,73–7, 84, 281

Zionist movement, 135Zwei-Seiten-Theorie (two-sided theory

of the state), 57, 94, 182, 186,189, 252

index 333



www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org


Legal Personality in International Law - Assets -...

Documents

Transcript of Legal Personality in International Law - Assets -...