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 treatment of persons in 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. 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. 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 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. 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] Until the expansion of NGOs in the 20th century, non-state actors had little or no legal personality.
