Public International Law Sub-element 1
States in their capacity as international legal persons engage or participate in unilateral acts to intend that their acts will produce legal effects. The place of unilateral acts in the international sphere is rising its relevance in the wake of rapid political, economic, and technological changes taking place in the present times and the outgrowing space and means for expressing and sharing the states’ attitudes and acts across the international community.
The consequences of the unilateral acts are that it provokes corresponding international obligation in response to the state’s conduct in question. Unilateral acts emanate from a state’s expression of will or consent to be bound under international law. As observed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in the Nuclear Tests Case (Australia & New Zealand v. France)[1]Declarations made by way of unilateral acts regarding a legal or factual situation may affect creating binding legal obligations. In other words, the ICJ ruled that a state that submits itself be bound through its consent shall give rise to a corresponding international legal arising treaty law, international customs, and general principles of international law such as pacta sunt servanda, which translates to “promises must be kept.” Thereby default arises an unequivocal commitment to states to obey the international treaty or customary law. Consequently, a state whose acts deviate from its unilateral declarations means a deviation from the existing international legal obligations and may be held liable under state responsibility for violating an international treaty or a custom.
Sub-element 2
There continues a hot debate in light of the increasing activities of state non-actors on the international plane, with divergent opinions as to whether or not the proliferation of non-state actors should earn the non-state actors the legal capacity such they are on the equal legal standing with states. Even as the debate continues, I agree that non-state actors should be clothed with Sui generic legal personality that although they do not meet the criteria to be clothed with legal personality, their actions on the international plane are alarming and call for recognition of non-state actors as equal actors on the plane with the capacity to provoke an international obligation in the event of deviation[2]. This is because the non-state actors transact on the international plane with state actors should be weighed against the accepted minimum international practice. For instance, the emergence of overly performing and stable multinationals with cross-border operations ma yield vast power on the international plane due to issues of international concern such as human rights violations. To maneuver the constraints of the traditional-based accountability, there is a need to raise the bar a little bit higher to hold such corporations accountable for violations of international obligations, such whenever they violate their Sui generic international obligations; they owe it all to the international community due to the multinational stature. Therefore, I sustain the argument that the international community should concern itself with establishing the criteria against which non-state actors eligible to be clothed with international legal personality to be able to hold them accountable on an international level.
Sub-element 3
Active jurisdiction refers to a state’s powers to exercise criminal jurisdiction over its citizens for crimes committed outside its territory. This jurisdiction is influenced by the notion that a state right reserves the protect citizens and interests hence clothed with the jurisdiction to try her nationals. On the converse, passive jurisdiction refers to a situation where a state is permitted to try crimes so long as the crime victim is her national. Under this principle, a state may exercise her jurisdiction over all crimes affecting her nationals regardless of where the offense was committed or the offender’s nationality.
This principle is supported by the notion that the state is the first to protect its citizens and give rise to state responsibility. As such, states are allowed to commence exercising jurisdiction on the criminal as soon as they step within its jurisdiction. For instance, in the US vs. Yunis[3]The US intervened on behalf of her citizens on the plane hijacked by the defendant and pressed charges on him for hijacking the Jordan airliner while aboard US nationals. Consequently, a state could assume criminal jurisdiction over a foreigner on the run, having committed a crime against its citizens.
Bibliography
Menshawy I, ‘Unilateral Acts and Peremptory Norms (Jus Cogens) In the International Law Commission’s Work’ (2019) 4 Review of Economics and Political Science
Nuclear Tests Case (Australia & New Zealand v. France) I.C.J. [1974] I.C.J. 253, 457
US vs. Yunis (83) AJIL 94 (1989)
Weiss, Thomas G., D. Conor Seyle, and Kelsey Coolidge. “The rise of non-state actors in global governance: Opportunities and limitations.” (2013).
Wijninga, P., Oosterveld, W.T., Hendrik J.G and Marten. P., State and Non-State Actors: Beyond the Dichotomy. Four Strategic Challenges. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep12608.8
[1] I.C.J. [1974] I.C.J. 253, 457
[2] Wijninga, P., Oosterveld, W.T., Hendrik J.G, and Marten. P., State, and Non-State Actors: Beyond the Dichotomy. Four Strategic Challenges. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep12608.8
[3] (83) AJIL 94 (1989)