Welcome to the deep dive. Today we're tackling well a really fundamental question in international law, isn't it? Who are the real players on the global stage? Exactly. It's not just about countries anymore, right? We're going to look beyond just sovereign states, try to unpack that whole complex web of actors. And our mission for you listening is basically to give you a clear uh concise understanding of who actually holds power, who holds responsibility in this well incredibly complex global system. We're diving into what really defines a state these days. Some of the surprising challenges to that definition, you know, and then crucially this diverse range of other legal actors. We're talking international organizations, individuals. Yes, individuals and uh these powerful non-state groups that are genuinely shaping our world and guiding us through this. Our listener sent in some fantastic lecture notes. Law WOS4126013 public international law. These are going to be sort of our foundation today. Great resource. Okay, so let's unpack this. Where do we start? Well, you have to start with the state, right? Is the traditional bedrock. The primary subject as the notes say, the one we link with sovereignty, legal personality. It's the big one. Absolutely. And the classic definition, the one everyone points to comes from the uh 1933 Montido Convention, article one. Ah yes, the Monteido criteria. That's the one. It lays out four key things. You need a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and importantly, the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Sounds pretty straightforward on paper. It does, but applying it, that's where it gets uh tricky, almost immediately, right? Because even those criteria aren't always black and white. Take permanent population. The notes say it's about a stable community, not necessarily static residents. Exactly. Think Australia, 26 million. Japan, 125 million. People move, but the community is stable. and defined territory. You'd think you need perfectly drawn borders, but no. Israel in 48 is the classic example, right? Recognized despite ongoing dispute. Precisely. Borders can be fuzzy. Then there's government. It needs to exercise effective control. And that's been an issue. Somali in the '90s, for instance, lots of internal conflict which delayed uh full recognition even if there was technically a government. Yeah, effectiveness is key. And finally, that capacity to enter relations. It's really a marker of sovereignty of independence like Taiwan engages in heaps of trade but lacks full recognition because China opposes it limiting its formal relations capacity. That's a perfect illustration. And the courts, especially the International Court of Justice, the ICJ, they've had to grapple with this stuff constantly. Any key cases we should mention? Oh, definitely. The Monetary Gold case back in the 50s basically cemented the idea that generally only states can sue or be sued internationally. Okay. And more recently, the Kosovo advisory opinion in 2010, the ICJ said the Declaration of Independence itself wasn't illegal under international law. But did that make it a state? Ah, no. That's the crucial bit. The ICJ basically said statehood itself was left to political recognition by other states. So law says one thing, politics decides another. Often, yes. By 2025, you know, 104 states recognize Kosovo. It's gradual political acceptance, which brings us right to a really current uh pressing example. Palestine. Since 2012, the UN General Assembly resolution gave it non-member observer status. Now, what 145 states recognize Palestine? That's the number. Yeah. And proponents point to the criteria territory in the West Bank and Gaza, a population of about 5.5 million, and the Palestinian Authority is the government. But there's significant push back. Absolutely. Israel and the US among others dispute the recognition. They argue there isn't full effective control over the territory, especially with the ongoing conflict uh obviously intensified by the 2024 Gaza war. So it really boils down to it boils down to start herd being as much a political question as a legal one. The criteria exists, but recognition, acceptance by other states is hugely powerful. It's a dynamic interplay. It really shows that applying MA to video isn't just ticking boxes. There are real challenges that test this whole definition for sure. And one of the biggest uh perennial ones is territorial disputes like Western Sahara. Exactly. Morocco claims the territory, but you have the Sarawi Arab Democratic Republic recognized by what 46 states now. And the ICJ weighed in on that too, didn't they? They did back in 75. An advisory opinion basically said there weren't historical ties strong enough to justify Moroccan sovereignty. Yet here we are in 2025 and it's still unresolved. UN peacekeepers are still there. It just shows how entrenched these disputes can become legally and politically. So what does this all mean then for the definition? Leads straight into another tricky area. Failed states and this idea of government effectiveness, right? Somalia in the '90s is the textbook case really. Government collapses, piracy explodes, humanitarian crisis. But it kept its UNC. It did because of prior recognition. Once you're in the club, it's hard to get kicked out even if you lose effective control. Now, by 2024, things are reportedly stabilizing somewhat. But the question lingers, doesn't it? Can a state really exist in a meaningful way without effective control? It feels like a contradiction. It really does. And it connects to another major challenge. Self-determination versus secession. Okay. How does that play out? Well, sometimes it works. South Sudan in 2011, huge referendum vote, nearly 99% for independence, UN support, international recognition after a long civil war. That's a successful secession, but not always. Definitely not always. Look at Catalonia's attempt in 2017. Strong local push, but Spain rejected it. The ICJ didn't support it. It showed you usually need consent from the parent state, or at least broad international backing. Local will isn't always enough. And then there are actions that just fly in the face of international norms, like Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2022, widely condemned as illegal. It shows that invoking self-determination has very clear limits when it violates fundamental principles like territorial integrity without consent. Such a complac balancing act. It really is between principles like self-determination and the stability that comes from respecting existing statehood and borders. Okay, so we've grappled with the complexities of the state itself. But as we said at the start, states aren't the only actors here. Who else is on the stage? Well, a major category is international organizations or IO's. I think the big ones like the UN exactly established 1945. Crucially, IO's like the UN possess their own legal personality. They can act independently. How was that established? The ICJ again. The reparation for injuries case in 1949. It confirmed the UN could sue and be sued. We saw that practically um when the UN sought compensation after peacekeepers were killed in Mali in 2023. And it's not just the UN. Oh no. Think of the World Trade Organization, the WTO. Huge regulatory power. or its 2024 ruling against China's export bans on rare earths that directly impacts global trade state behavior. Okay, IO's are key. But the notes also mention something maybe even more surprising. Individuals, how do we fit in? This is a really fascinating shift in international law. Increasingly, individuals, you, me, everyone are seen as subjects of international law too. Meaning we have rights and responsibilities that go beyond national borders. Responsibilities like being held accountable. Precisely. The International Criminal Court, the ICC, is central here. Think of the Lubanga case in 2012 convicting a Congolese warlord for using child soldiers. That set a huge precedent. Wow. Or the BMBA case in 2016 emphasizing command responsibility leaders being liable for crimes committed by their subordinates. And that applies even at the highest levels. Well, the attempt is there. The 2024 ICC arrest warrant for President Putin regarding the alleged deportation of Ukrainian children shows that intent. Enforcement is the issue. That's the perennial challenge, especially with powerful leaders. Enforcement relies heavily on state cooperation, which isn't always forthcoming. It shows limits for sure. So, individuals have responsibilities, but also rights. Yes, absolutely. through treaties like the ICCPR, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Australia ratified it, for example. So, an Australian citizen could could potentially petition an international body like the UN Human Rights Committee if they believe their rights under the treaty have been violated by the state and they've exhausted domestic remedies. There's a 2025 example mentioned involving an indigenous leader challenging detention policies. So, we're both duty bearsers and rights holders on the international plane. Exactly. It's a really significant evolution. The system is looking beyond just states interacting with states. Okay. And there's one more big category the notes highlight. Non-state actors. This seems quite broad. It is. It's a bit of a catch-all, but includes really influential groups. Think multinational corporations, MNC's, non-governmental organizations, NOS, even liberation movements. How do corporations fit into international law? Increasingly, they're being held accountable under it, or at least pressured by its principles. Look at Shell, that Dutch court case in 2025 ordering massive emission cuts based on Paris agreement goals, right? Impacting global climate policy. Definitely. Or Exxon Mobile facing lawsuits in the US in 2024 over allegedly misleading investors about climate risks. There's a clear trend towards corporate accountability, sometimes using international norms and NOS's. Yeah. Like Amnesty International. Their power is often in advocacy and information. Amnesty's 2023 report on the Rohinda crisis in Myanmar was cited as contributing to the ICC's investigation into genocide starting in 2024. They shape the narrative, provide evidence, pressure states and IO's and liberation movements. You mentioned Western Sahara earlier, right? The Policario front. They negotiate directly with states with IOS. They have observer status at the UN. They act like states in some ways even without full recognition. Even groups designated as terrorist organizations. Well, historically, even groups like the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, despite that designation, were involved in ceasefire talks in the 2000s. They influenced events even if their legal status was uh highly contested. So, taken together, all these non-state actors, they really challenge that traditional statecentric view. They create this incredibly complex web of legal influence, economic power, political pressure. It's messy, but it's the reality. It feels like the lines are really blurring. They absolutely are. These actors aren't just background noise. They are fundamentally shaping outcomes. Sometimes setting agendas, sometimes even holding states to account. It forces us to rethink where power actually lies. So wrapping this up, we've journeyied from the core definition of a state through all its messy realities and challenges like territorial disputes, failed states, secession, and then expanded out to these other crucial players, international organizations, individuals with rights and duties, and this diverse array of non-state actors like corporations and NOS's. Yeah. Looking at the big picture, the international legal system is clearly far more crowded and frankly more dynamic than just, you know, nations signing treaties. Absolutely. and understanding all these different actors, states, ios, individuals, MNC's, NOS's. It's just essential, isn't it, for you, for anyone trying to grasp who actually shapes global events, who holds power, who bears responsibility. It's clearly not just governments anymore. Not by a long shot. So, the takeaway from this deep dive, the thing maybe to leave you thinking about is this. Given this growing legal influence especially of say multinational corporations and even individuals through rights frameworks, what traditional aspects of state sovereignty might we see fundamentally change, maybe even erode in the coming decades? Could national borders become well less significant in certain areas of international law? That's a fascinating question. Where does sovereignty reside when corporations operate globally and individuals can appeal beyond their own state? Something to ponder. Thank you for joining us on this deep dive.