01.10.08 POLI 383 Remember Gentini case when we come to rights of aliens & prescription. PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS – Red Cross

- Corporations INDIVIDUALS – Aliens

- Nationals - Stateless Persons

Some will argue that individuals are the ultimate subjects, and that States are really just fiction. In practice, individuals are more like objects. Nuremberg Trials made it clear that individuals have responsibilities under International law. They didn’t hang abstractions: they hung people. Though, individuals do have only limited rights under international law. Alien: a national of one country in the territory of another. Has certain rights in int’l law, but must depend on his State for these to be protected. Relationship between Alien and his State is a matter of national law. Has no real obligation to the individual or their family. It is the State that is damaged on behalf of its national. National: is a relationship between a citizen of a State and the State. Acquisition and loss of nationality is a matter of the State. (The State giveth, the State taketh away.) Cannot necessarily change your own nationality. Stateless Person: a person without nationality. In theory, a stateless person could be oppressed without impunity. Some attempts to give these people some international legal protection. No specific state to appeal to for protection! -Your country could disappear, or your State may strip you of nationality. In marriage, you could loose your nationality, but not gain another one. (Not that common, depends on national laws.) Could be a matter of how the different countries laws “mesh”. State dominates individuals. RECOGNITION - General -Theories –Constitutive -Declaration -Modes -Explicit -Implicit -Effects Cases

Basically, the formal acceptance and acknowledgement of a situation: You are applying the legal consequences of that acknowledgement. It is possible to refuse recognition. 1930s, Japan seizes control of Manchuria, and sets up what they claim was an independent government. STIMSON DOCTRINE – withheld recognition because they don’t want Japan to have the legal benefits of their actions. South Africa’s claim of Namibia as part of their country. Recognition was refused. This is to say that the question of the area’s future is not settled. Russia claiming some Baltic States, recognized by the US as an illegal occupation. Recognition is a very significant act, so too is withholding recognition, or taking it away. State: -must have an administrative government. An organized body that has control of its territory, can speak authoritatively for it, and can bind it in its international relations. -organized as a territorial unit, not by any other means (a State tries to control a certain territory, may be areas in question, but more or less has a defined area. E.g. US and Canada have disputes, but no one doubts the existence of Canada.) Theories: -Constitutive – recognition creates a fact. -Declarative – recognition acknowledges a fact. There is a distinction between the State and the government. Governments may change, but States stay the same. May still recognize the State, just not the government. These two are distinct and not to be confused. Recognition is not conferred by the UN. It is recognized by the states. UN can have general agreement, but this is not binding on member states. Recognition is a political act with legal consequences. It is something that only individual states do. Many countries will not make a big deal out of recognition. But may withhold on grounds of disagreement with policy. Can do this even if the objective criteria are met.

Recognition may be granted prematurely. E.g. South Ossetia! & Russia, US recognized Panama just to warn Colombia not to try anything.

- some will tell you this is illegal, but impossible to reinforce. Diplomacy is very symbolic. E.g. arguments over who’s chair is higher! Seems silly, but these can have cultural meanings. ESTRADA DOCTRINE: Countries may get tired of having political significance read into their recognition. Developed in Mexico: we acknowledge the existence of States not governments. A way of dodging acknowledging revolutions etc. If it comes before their court, “We practice the Estrada doctrine” makes it complex. Then, they must try to guess based on relations with that country. (Implicit recognition!) A way out for countries, but provides a problem for the courts of that country.