Individuals as Subjects of International Law

Individuals have traditionally occupied a different position from States in Public International Law. Classical international law was largely State-centred, and individuals were generally regarded as objects rather than independent subjects of international law. However, the development of international human rights law, international criminal law and individual petition mechanisms has significantly changed this position.

Today, individuals possess international rights and obligations in several areas and may, in certain circumstances, have international legal standing or incur direct responsibility under international law. Their legal personality is not as broad as that of States and is generally limited to the rights, duties and procedures recognised by particular international rules.

Meaning of Individual as a Subject

An individual may be regarded as a subject of international law when international law directly confers rights or obligations upon that individual.

This means that the individual is not merely protected indirectly through the State but is itself the holder of an international legal right or obligation.

Examples include:

• human rights;
• prohibition of slavery;
• prohibition of genocide;
• protection under international humanitarian law;
• individual criminal responsibility for international crimes;
• rights under certain international petition mechanisms.

Traditional Position

Under classical international law, States were considered the principal subjects of international law.

Individuals were generally treated as:

• objects of international protection;
• nationals of particular States;
• beneficiaries of treaties through their States.

The traditional view was based on the idea that international law primarily regulated relations between sovereign States.

Under this approach:

International Law → States → Individuals

Individuals generally depended upon their State for the enforcement of international rights.

Modern Position

The development of modern international law has progressively expanded the role of individuals.

Today:

International Law → Direct rights and obligations → Individuals

Individuals may now:

• possess internationally recognised human rights;
• bring certain international claims or petitions;
• incur direct international criminal responsibility;
• receive protection under international humanitarian law;
• be protected against certain acts of States;
• participate in international legal mechanisms where permitted.

Thus, individuals are increasingly recognised as limited or partial subjects of international law.

Basis of Individual Legal Personality

Individual legal personality in international law arises from specific international rules.

These may include:

• human rights treaties;
• international humanitarian law;
• international criminal law;
• regional human rights systems;
• international institutional mechanisms.

The extent of an individual’s international legal personality depends upon the particular legal regime.

Individuals and International Human Rights Law

International human rights law is one of the strongest foundations for recognising individuals as subjects of international law.

International human rights instruments directly recognise rights belonging to individuals.

These include rights relating to:

• life;
• liberty;
• equality;
• dignity;
• freedom from torture;
• freedom of expression;
• freedom of religion;
• fair trial;
• protection against discrimination.

The individual is therefore the direct beneficiary of many international human rights obligations.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights played an important role in the development of international human rights law.

It recognises a broad range of rights belonging to individuals.

Its importance lies in establishing the principle that the international community has a legitimate interest in the protection of human dignity and individual rights.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides internationally recognised rights to individuals.

It protects rights including:

• right to life;
• liberty and security;
• fair trial;
• freedom of expression;
• freedom of religion;
• equality;
• political participation.

The Covenant demonstrates the direct recognition of individuals as holders of international rights.

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

The ICESCR recognises economic, social and cultural rights.

These include rights relating to:

• work;
• education;
• health;
• social security;
• adequate living conditions.

Together, the ICCPR and ICESCR demonstrate the development of international law from a purely State-centred system towards one that directly protects individuals.

Individual Petition Mechanisms

Some international and regional human rights systems permit individuals to submit complaints against States.

Examples include:

• UN treaty-body individual communications under applicable procedures;
• European human rights mechanisms;
• Inter-American human rights mechanisms;
• African human rights mechanisms.

Where such procedures are available, individuals can directly participate in international legal processes.

This is a significant development from the traditional State-centred system.

Individuals and International Criminal Law

Individuals may also possess direct obligations under international law.

This is particularly evident in international criminal law.

Individuals can incur responsibility for certain international crimes, including:

• genocide;
• crimes against humanity;
• war crimes;
• aggression, subject to applicable jurisdictional requirements.

This is important because responsibility is imposed directly upon the individual rather than solely upon the State.

Individual Criminal Responsibility

The principle of individual criminal responsibility means that a person may be held personally responsible for an international crime.

The fact that the individual acted as:

• a head of State;
• government official;
• military commander;
• public servant;

does not automatically eliminate individual responsibility where international law provides otherwise.

Nuremberg Trials

The Nuremberg Trials were a major turning point in the development of individual responsibility under international law.

The trials established the importance of the principle that individuals may be held personally responsible for international crimes.

The development represented a major departure from the traditional idea that international responsibility belonged exclusively to States.

Tokyo Trials

The Tokyo Trials similarly contributed to the development of individual criminal responsibility for serious international crimes.

Together, the Nuremberg and Tokyo proceedings helped establish the principle that international law can impose obligations directly upon individuals.

Rome Statute and International Criminal Court

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court further developed individual responsibility under international law.

The International Criminal Court has jurisdiction over individuals for specified international crimes, subject to the conditions established by the Rome Statute.

The Court deals principally with:

• genocide;
• crimes against humanity;
• war crimes;
• aggression.

This provides a permanent institutional mechanism for individual criminal responsibility at the international level.

Individuals and International Humanitarian Law

International humanitarian law directly imposes certain obligations upon individuals participating in armed conflicts.

Individuals may be required to:

• distinguish between civilians and combatants;
• respect protected persons;
• refrain from prohibited methods of warfare;
• protect prisoners of war;
• comply with applicable rules concerning armed conflict.

Serious violations may result in individual criminal responsibility.

Individual Responsibility for War Crimes

A person may incur individual responsibility for acts such as:

• intentionally attacking civilians;
• torture;
• unlawful killing;
• cruel treatment;
• certain forms of unlawful displacement;
• other serious violations of international humanitarian law.

The exact scope of responsibility depends upon the applicable international legal rules.

Individuals and Genocide

International law directly prohibits genocide and establishes individual responsibility for it.

The Genocide Convention, 1948 recognises genocide as an international crime and provides for punishment of persons responsible for the crime.

Therefore, individuals can incur international criminal responsibility for genocide.

Individuals and Crimes Against Humanity

Crimes against humanity involve serious acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population, subject to the applicable legal requirements.

Individuals can be prosecuted for such crimes under applicable international criminal law.

Individuals and the Law of Treaties

Treaties generally operate between States and other international legal persons capable of concluding treaties.

However, treaties may directly confer rights upon individuals.

For example, human rights treaties may create rights that individuals can invoke through domestic or international mechanisms.

Thus, an individual may be the beneficiary or holder of a treaty right even though the individual is not a party to the treaty.

Individuals and Diplomatic Protection

Diplomatic protection illustrates the traditional State-centred structure.

Under diplomatic protection, a State may invoke the international responsibility of another State for injury caused to one of its nationals.

The claim is formally presented by the State.

Therefore:

Individual suffers injury → State exercises diplomatic protection → International claim

This differs from a system where the individual directly brings an international claim.

Nottebohm Case

The Nottebohm Case, 1955 is important in relation to nationality and diplomatic protection.

The ICJ considered the relationship between an individual and the State claiming diplomatic protection on the individual’s behalf.

The case illustrates that traditional international law often operates through the State even when the underlying injury is suffered by an individual.

Barcelona Traction Case

In the Barcelona Traction Case, 1970, the ICJ discussed the distinction between obligations owed to particular States and obligations owed to the international community as a whole.

The case contributed to the development of the concept of erga omnes obligations, particularly in areas involving fundamental international values.

Individuals and International Courts

Individuals cannot generally bring cases before every international court.

Access depends upon the jurisdiction of the particular institution.

For example:

• the ICJ primarily deals with disputes between States;
• the ICC prosecutes individuals for specified international crimes;
• regional human rights courts may allow individuals to bring applications subject to applicable rules.

Therefore, international legal personality does not mean universal access to every international court.

Individuals and International Organisations

Individuals may also possess rights in relation to international organisations.

For example, international officials may enjoy certain protections, while individuals affected by international organisational decisions may have access to particular review mechanisms where established.

The precise rights depend upon the organisation’s constituent instruments and applicable legal framework.

Individual Responsibility vs State Responsibility

These concepts must be distinguished.

State Responsibility

A State becomes responsible for an internationally wrongful act attributable to it.

Individual Responsibility

An individual becomes personally responsible for an international crime or other obligation imposed directly upon individuals.

The same conduct can sometimes raise both forms of responsibility.

For example:

State organ commits an international crime

↓

State responsibility may arise

Individual criminal responsibility may also arise

Individuals as Objects and Subjects

The historical development can be understood as a transition.

Traditional International Law

Individuals were primarily:

Objects of international law

Modern International Law

Individuals can be:

Objects + Rights-holders + Duty-bearers

This represents one of the most important developments in contemporary Public International Law.

Limitations of Individual Legal Personality

Although individuals are recognised as subjects in several areas, their legal personality remains limited.

1. No General Treaty-Making Capacity

Individuals generally cannot conclude treaties in their personal capacity.

2. Limited International Standing

Individuals cannot ordinarily bring proceedings before every international court.

3. Dependence on Specific Rules

Individual rights and obligations must generally arise from specific international legal rules.

4. Limited Institutional Access

International complaint mechanisms depend upon the relevant treaty or institutional framework.

5. State-Centred Structure Remains Important

States continue to occupy the central position in many areas of international law.

Individuals and State Sovereignty

The recognition of individuals as subjects has significantly affected the traditional concept of sovereignty.

States remain sovereign, but sovereignty is no longer understood as giving States unlimited freedom to treat individuals without international legal constraints.

International human rights law imposes international obligations concerning the treatment of individuals.

Individuals and Human Rights Enforcement

International human rights mechanisms have strengthened the position of individuals.

Depending upon the relevant system, an individual may:

• submit a complaint;
• seek international review;
• obtain a finding of violation;
• receive remedies through domestic or international procedures.

This has transformed individuals from passive beneficiaries into active participants in certain areas of international law.

Important Cases

Nuremberg Trials

Established the importance of individual responsibility for international crimes.

Nottebohm Case, 1955

Important for nationality and diplomatic protection.

Barcelona Traction, 1970

Important for erga omnes obligations and the broader protection of fundamental international interests.

Prosecutor v. Tadić

The case before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia contributed significantly to the development of international criminal law and individual responsibility for serious violations of international humanitarian law.

Individuals vs States

Point	States	Individuals
Legal personality	General and primary	Limited and specialised
Sovereignty	Possess sovereignty	Do not possess sovereignty
Treaty-making	General capacity	Generally no
Human rights	Mainly duty-bearers	Major rights-holders
International crimes	May incur State responsibility	May incur individual criminal responsibility
International claims	Broad capacity	Available only under specific mechanisms
International courts	Can appear before ICJ as parties	Access depends on particular court
Responsibility	State responsibility	Individual responsibility under applicable rules

Individuals vs International Organisations

Point	Individuals	International Organisations
Personality	Limited and rule-specific	Functional and institutional
Main rights	Human rights and other specific rights	Institutional rights
Main obligations	Human rights and criminal obligations in specified areas	Organisational international obligations
Responsibility	Individual criminal responsibility	Organisational responsibility
Legal basis	International rules directly applicable to individuals	Constituent instruments and international law

Common Confusions

Are individuals full subjects of international law like States?

No.

Individuals have international legal personality in specific areas, but it is not as broad as that of States.

Were individuals always recognised as subjects?

No.

Classical international law was primarily State-centred.

Can individuals bring cases before the ICJ?

Generally, no.

The ICJ primarily exercises jurisdiction over disputes between States, subject to its Statute.

Can individuals be directly responsible under international law?

Yes.

International criminal law imposes direct responsibility on individuals for specified international crimes.

Can individuals have international rights?

Yes.

Modern human rights law directly recognises numerous rights belonging to individuals.

Does every international treaty give individuals direct rights?

No.

The effect depends upon the treaty, its provisions and the applicable domestic or international enforcement mechanism.

Can an individual sue a State internationally?

Only where the relevant international legal system provides such a mechanism.

There is no universal right of individual access to international courts.

Is diplomatic protection the same as an individual’s international claim?

No.

In diplomatic protection, the State generally brings the international claim in relation to injury suffered by its national.

Topic at a Glance

Point	Position
Subject	Individuals as Subjects of International Law
Traditional position	Primarily objects of international law
Modern position	Limited subjects with direct rights and obligations
Major basis	Human rights and international criminal law
Rights	Human rights and treaty-based protections
Obligations	International criminal responsibility and other direct obligations
Individual claims	Available under specific mechanisms
Criminal responsibility	Genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, aggression subject to applicable law
Key development	Nuremberg Trials
Permanent institution	International Criminal Court
Important cases	Nottebohm, Barcelona Traction, Tadić
Key limitation	Legal personality is not as broad as that of States

Quick Revision

• Individuals were traditionally regarded as objects rather than subjects of international law.
• Modern international law recognises individuals as limited subjects.
• International human rights law directly grants rights to individuals.
• International criminal law directly imposes obligations upon individuals.
• Individuals may incur responsibility for:
  • genocide;
  • crimes against humanity;
  • war crimes;
  • aggression, subject to applicable jurisdictional requirements.
• The Nuremberg Trials were a major development in individual criminal responsibility.
• The Rome Statute established the International Criminal Court’s framework for prosecuting individuals.
• Individuals may have access to certain international human rights complaint mechanisms.
• Individuals cannot generally bring cases before the ICJ as parties.
• Diplomatic protection traditionally operates through the State rather than directly through the individual.
• Nottebohm is important for nationality and diplomatic protection.
• Barcelona Traction is important for erga omnes obligations.
• Tadić contributed significantly to international criminal law.
• Individuals do not possess the general international legal personality of States.
• Their international legal personality depends upon specific international rules.
• Modern international law therefore recognises individuals as rights-holders and, in certain areas, direct duty-bearers.
• The essential distinction is:

Individuals are subjects of international law to a limited and specialised extent, unlike States, which possess general international legal personality.

Conclusion

The position of individuals in Public International Law has undergone a major transformation. Classical international law was predominantly State-centred and generally treated individuals as objects of international protection. Modern international law, particularly through human rights law and international criminal law, directly confers rights and obligations upon individuals. Individuals may now be rights-holders under international human rights instruments and may incur direct international criminal responsibility for serious international crimes. International and regional mechanisms may also provide individuals with avenues for bringing complaints. Nevertheless, individual legal personality remains limited and depends upon specific international rules and institutional mechanisms. States continue to possess the broadest and most general form of international legal personality, while individuals occupy an increasingly important but specialised position within the international legal system.