¹ On the state-centric conception of the international legal system, see Klabbers, Jan, ‘(I Can't Get No) Recognition: Subjects Doctrine and the Emergence of Non-State Actors’ in Petman, Jarna and Klabbers, Jan (eds), Nordic Cosmopolitanism: Essays in International Law for Martti Koskenniemi (Martinus Nijhoff 2003) 351 Google Scholar, 354–57; and Woodward, Barbara K, Global Civil Society in International Lawmaking and Global Governance (Martinus Nijhoff 2010) 2 Google Scholar.

² Noortmann, Math, ‘Understanding Non-State Actors in the Contemporary World Society: Transcending the International, Mainstreaming the Transnational, or Bringing the Participants Back In?’ in Noortmann, Math and Ryngaert, Cedric (eds), Non-State Actor Dynamics in International Law: From Law-Takers to Law-Makers (Ashgate 2010) 153 Google Scholar, 154.

³ See, among many others, Alston, Philip (ed), Non-State Actors and Human Rights (Oxford University Press 2005)Google Scholar; Armstrong, David and others (eds), Civil Society and International Governance: The Role of Non-State Actors in Global and Regional Regulatory Frameworks (Routledge 2011)Google Scholar; Arts, Bas, Noortmann, Math and Reinalda, Bob (eds), Non-State Actors in International Relations (Ashgate 2001)Google Scholar; Bianchi, Andrea (ed), Non-State Actors and International Law (Ashgate 2009)Google Scholar; d'Aspremont, Jean (ed), Participants in the International Legal System: Multiple Perspectives on Non-State Actors in International Law (Routledge 2011)Google Scholar; Hofmann, Rainer and Geissler, Nils (eds), Non-State Actors as New Subjects of International Law: International Law – From the Traditional State Order towards the Law of the Global Community: Proceedings of an International Symposium of the Kiel-Walter Schucking (Duncker & Humblot 1999)Google Scholar; Klabbers (n 1); Macdonald, Terry, Global Stakeholder Democracy: Power and Representation Beyond Liberal States (Oxford University Press 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Noortmann and Ryngaert (n 2); Slaughter, Anne-Marie, A New World Order (Princeton University Press 2004)Google Scholar; Teubner, Gunther (ed), Global Law Without a State (Dartmouth 1997)Google Scholar.

⁴ Noortmann, Math, Reinisch, August and Ryngaert, Cedric (eds), Non-State Actors in International Law (Hart 2015)Google Scholar.

⁵ Math Noortmann, Cedric Ryngaert and August Reinisch, ‘Introduction’ in Noortmann, Reinisch and Ryngaert, ibid 1, 2.

⁶ The chapters not only depict the diversity of actors but also the fragmented scenery of international law – that is, the proliferation of autonomous or self-contained regimes which frequently have rules of their own. See generally Martti Koskenniemi, ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law’, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission (13 April 2006), UN Doc A/CN.4/L.682. This may also account for the diverse theoretical approaches used by the contributors, which may vary according to the specific actor being examined and/or depending on the area of law under analysis, as well as for some minor overlapping between different chapters.

⁷ Charter of the United Nations (entered into force 24 October 1945) 1 UNTS XVI (UN Charter).

⁸ Christian Henderson, ‘Non-State Actors and the Use of Force’ in Noortmann, Reinisch and Ryngaert (n 4) 77, 80–81.

⁹ ibid 83–84. This position is also explained by Kamto, Maurice, L'agression en droit international (Pedone 2010) 215 Google Scholar; Becker, John D, ‘The Continuing Relevance of Article 2(4): A Consideration of the Status of the UN Charter's Limitations on the Use of Force’ (2004) 32 Denver Journal of International Law & Policy 583 Google Scholar; Müllerson, Rein, ‘Jus ad bellum: plus ça change (le monde), plus c'est la même chose (le droit)? (2002) 7(2) Journal of Conflict and Security Law 175 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nicholas Tsagourias, ‘Non-State Actors in International Peace and Security: Non-State Actors and the Use of Force’ in d'Aspremont (n 3) 326, 329–33. See also UNSC Res 1368 (12 September 2001), UN Doc S/RES/1368; UNSC Res 1373 (28 September 2001), UN Doc S/RES/1373; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion [2004] ICJ Rep 136 (Wall Advisory Opinion), separate opinion of Judge Higgins [33]; Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo v Uganda), Judgment [2005] ICJ Rep 168, separate opinion of Judge Kooijmans [25]–[31], and separate opinion of Judge Simma [8]–[13]; North Atlantic Treaty Organization, ‘Statement by the North Atlantic Council’, Press Release (2001) 124, 12 September 2001, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_18553.htm?selectedLocale=en; Organization of American States, ‘Ataques terroristas contra Estados Unidos son ataques contra todos los países americanos, afirman cancilleres’, C-194/01, 21 September 2001, http://www.oas.org/OASpage/press2002/sp/a%C3%B1o99/a%C3%B1o2001/sept01/194.htm (in Spanish).

¹⁰ Jordan Paust, ‘Armed Opposition Groups’ in Noortmann, Reinisch and Ryngaert (n 4) 273, 291–92.

¹¹ Müllerson (n 9) 177; Franck, Thomas M, ‘Who Killed Article 2(4)? Or Changing Norms Governing the Use of Force by States’ (1970) 64 American Journal of International Law 809 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 811–20; Franck, Thomas M, ‘When, If Ever, May States Deploy Military Force Without Prior Security Council Authorization’ (2000) 4 Singapore Journal of International and Comparative Law 367 Google Scholar, 371; Reisman, W Michael, ‘Article 2(4): The Use of Force in Contemporary International Law’ (1984) 78 American Journal of International Law 79 Google Scholar. See also Daboné, Zakaria, Le Droit International Public Relative aux Groups Armés Non Etatiques (Schulthess/University of Geneva/LGDJ 2012) 304–05Google Scholar.

¹² Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States), Merits, Judgment [1986] ICJ Rep 14 [195]; Wall Advisory Opinion (n 9) [139]; Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (n 9) [143]–[47]. However, Henderson argues that in the ICJ's decisions in the Nicaragua and Armed Activities cases, ‘far from ruling that self-defence can only occur against a state or state-controlled armed attack, the Court was instead silent as to the possibilities for self-defence if the action taken was restricted to the non-state actors’: Henderson (n 8) 91.

¹³ Rosalyn Higgins, ‘International Law and the Avoidance, Containment and Resolution of Disputes: General Course on Public International Law’ (1991) 230 Recueil des cours de l'Academie de droit international de la Haye [Hague Academy of International Law] 307.

¹⁴ Henderson (n 8) 90–91.

¹⁵ ibid 87–88.

¹⁶ ibid 91–94.

¹⁷ ibid 96.

¹⁸ Lauri Mälksoo, ‘Contemporary Russian Perspectives on Non-State Actors: Fear of the Loss of State Sovereignty’ in d'Aspremont (n 3) 126, 136.

¹⁹ Müllerson (n 9) 177.

²⁰ Schachter, Oscar, International Law in Theory and Practice (Martinus Nijhoff 1991) 118–19Google Scholar.

²¹ Henderson (n 8) 96.

²² See, eg, Clapham, Andrew, Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors (Oxford University Press 2005) 271–312 Google Scholar; Henckaerts, Jean-Marie, ‘Binding Armed Opposition Groups through Humanitarian Treaty Law and Customary Law’ (2003) 27 Collegium 123–38Google Scholar; Sassòli, Marco, ‘Taking Armed Groups Seriously: Ways to Improve their Compliance with International Humanitarian Law’ (2010) 1 Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies 5–51 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cedric Ryngaert, ‘Non-State Actors in International Humanitarian Law’ in d'Aspremont (n 3) 284; Zegveld, Liesbeth, Accountability of Armed Opposition Groups in International Law (Cambridge University Press 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²³ A few exceptions are Clapham (n 22) 310–12; Barrat, Claudie, Status of NGOs in International Humanitarian Law (Brill/Nijhoff 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Bongard, Pascal and Somer, Jonathan, ‘Monitoring Armed Non-State Actor Compliance with Humanitarian Norms: A Look at International Mechanisms and the Geneva Call Deed of Commitment’ (2011) 883 International Review of the Red Cross 673–706 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁴ Hans-Joachim Heintze and Charlotte Lülf, ‘Non-State Actors under International Humanitarian Law’ in Noortmann, Reinisch and Ryngaert (n 4) 97, 99.

²⁵ ibid 106.

²⁶ ibid 108.

²⁷ ibid 106.

²⁸ ibid 107.

²⁹ ibid 111.

³⁰ Jakob Kellenberger, ‘Ensuring Respect for International Humanitarian Law in a Changing Environment and the Role of the United Nations’, 60th Anniversary of the Geneva Conventions – Ministerial Working Session, 26 September 2009, https:// www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/statement/geneva-conventions-statement-260909.htm.

³¹ Henckaerts, Jean-Marie and Doswald-Beck, Louise, Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol I: Rules (Cambridge University Press/International Committee of the Red Cross 2005, revised 2009) 105–09CrossRefGoogle Scholar, r 31.

³² Paust (n 10) 274.

³³ ibid 279–80.

³⁴ ibid 280–83.

³⁵ ibid 286–91.

³⁶ Pierre Hauck and Sven Peterke, ‘Organized Crime and Gang Violence in National and International Law’ (2010) 878 International Review of the Red Cross 407, 429–34; Hazen, Jennifer, ‘Understanding Gangs as Armed Groups’ (2010) 878 International Review of the Red Cross 369–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁷ Paust (n 10) 284–85.

³⁸ ‘In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance …’: Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 31; Geneva Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 85; Geneva Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 135; and Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 287.

³⁹ ‘3. This Protocol, which supplements the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victims, shall apply in the situations referred to in Article 2 common to those Conventions. 4. The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations’: Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (AP I) (entered into force 7 December 1978) 1125 UNTS 3.

⁴⁰ International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), ‘How is the Term “Armed Conflict” Defined in International Humanitarian Law?’, ICRC Opinion Paper, March 2008, https:// www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/opinion-paper-armed-conflict.pdf.

⁴¹ See data available from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program, http://www.pcr.uu.se/research/ucdp.

⁴² Yves Sandoz, Christophe Swinarski and Bruno Zimmerman, Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (ICRC 1987) para 4529, fn 18; Moir, Lindsay, The Law of Internal Armed Conflict (Cambridge University Press 2002) 65–67 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴³ See, eg, ICRC, ‘Improving Compliance with International Humanitarian Law’, ICRC Expert Seminars, October 2003, https:// www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/improving_compliance_with_international_humanitarian_law.pdf.

⁴⁴ Henckaerts (n 22) 126–27; Moir (n 42) 54–55.

⁴⁵ eg, Ezequiel Heffes and Marcos Kotlik, ‘Special Agreements as a Means of Enhancing Compliance with IHL in Non-International Armed Conflicts: An Inquiry into the Governing Legal Regime’ (2014) 895/896 International Review of the Red Cross 1195–224; Kleffner, Jann, ‘The Applicability of International Humanitarian Law to Organized Armed Groups’ (2011) 882 International Review of the Red Cross 443–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bongard and Somer (n 23) 673–706; Sassòli (n 22) 13; Somer, Jonathan, ‘Jungle Justice: Passing Sentence on the Equality of Belligerents in Non-International Armed Conflict’ (2007) 867 International Review of the Red Cross 661–62Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Manfred Nowak and Karolina Miriam Januszewski, ‘Non-State Actors and Human Rights’ in Noortmann, Reinisch and Ryngaert (n 4) 113, 151.

⁴⁷ ibid 115.

⁴⁸ ibid 118–23.

⁴⁹ Ibid 124–25.

⁵⁰ ibid 127.

⁵¹ eg, Andrea Bianchi, ‘Globalization of Human Rights: The Role of Non-state Actors’ in Teubner (n 3) 179; Clapham (n 22).

⁵² Nowak and Januszewski (n 46) 129–32.

⁵³ ibid 132–35.

⁵⁴ ibid 135–37. On different aspects concerning legitimacy challenges faced by IHRL, see Schaffer, Johan Karlsson, Føllesdal, Andreas and Ulfstein, Geir, ‘International Human Rights and the Challenge of Legitimacy’ in Føllesdal, Andreas, Schaffer, Johan Karlsson and Ulfstein, Geir (eds), The Legitimacy of International Human Rights Regimes (Cambridge University Press 2013) 1 Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Philip Alston, ‘The “Not-a-Cat” Syndrome: Can the International Human Rights Regime Accommodate Non-State Actors?’ in Alston (n 3) 3, 6.

⁵⁶ Nowak and Januszewski (n 46) 151–54.

⁵⁷ ibid 159.

⁵⁸ ibid 159–61.

⁵⁹ eg, Boyle, Alan and Chinkin, Christine, The Making of International Law (Oxford University Press 2007) 46–52 Google Scholar; Hofmann and Geissler (n 3); Klabbers (n 1); Teubner (n 3).

⁶⁰ eg Armstrong and others (n 3); Arts, Noortmann and Reinalda (n 3); Macdonald (n 3); Slaughter (n 3).

⁶¹ This has also been noted by Dianne Otto, who considers that it reveals the defensive position of states towards NGOs: Otto, Dianne, ‘Non-Governmental Organizations in the United Nations System: The Emerging Role of International Civil Society’ (1996) 18 Human Rights Quarterly 107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 110. Moreover, Peter Willetts has signalled that the definition of NGOs has been highly controversial and necessarily entails, explicitly or implicitly, the adoption of a political position: Willetts, Peter, Non-Governmental Organizations in World Politics: The Construction of Global Governance (Routledge 2011) 6 Google Scholar.

⁶² Math Noortmann, ‘Non-Governmental Organisations: Recognition, Roles, Rights and Responsibilities’ in Noortmann, Reinisch and Ryngaert (n 4) 205, 205–06.

⁶³ Bhuta, Nehal, ‘The Role International Actors other than States Can Play in the New World Order’ in Cassese, Antonio (ed), Realizing Utopia: The Future of International Law (Oxford University Press 2012) 61 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 67; Nowrot, Karsten, ‘Legal Consequences of Globalization: The Status of Non-Governmental Organizations under International Law’ (1999) 6(2) Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 579 Google Scholar, 589–90.

⁶⁴ Noortmann (n 62) 212.

⁶⁵ ibid 213–16. Such activities have been thoroughly analysed by Charnovitz, Steve, ‘Nongovernmental Organizations and International Law’ (2006) 100 American Journal of International Law 348 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Charnovitz, Steve, ‘Two Centuries of Participation: NGOs and International Governance’ (1996–97) 18 Michigan Journal of International Law 183–286 Google Scholar. See also Rossi, Ingrid, Legal Status of Non-Governmental Organizations in International Law (Intersentia 2010) 10–24 Google Scholar, and McCorquodale, Robert, ‘The Individual and the International Legal System’ in Evans, Malcolm (ed), International Law (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2006) 312 Google Scholar, 324–26.

⁶⁶ Noortmann (n 62) 221. On the international rights and obligations of NGOs, see Lindblom, Anna-Karin, Non-Governmental Organisations in International Law (Cambridge University Press 2005)Google Scholar; on the accountability of NGOs, see Bluemel, Erik, ‘Overcoming NGO Accountability Concerns in International Governance’ (2005) 31(1) Brooklyn Journal of International Law 139–206 Google Scholar; Havrda, Marek and Kutílek, Petr, ‘Accountability 2.0 – In Search for a New Approach to International Non-Governmental Organisations' Accountability’ in Steffek, Jens and Hahn, Kristina (eds), Evaluating Transnational NGOs: Legitimacy, Accountability, Representation (Palgrave Macmillan 2010) 157 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁷ Noortmann (n 62) 224.

⁶⁸ eg, Byers, Michael, Custom, Power and the Power of Rules: International Relations and Customary International Law (Cambridge University Press 1999) 86 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁹ eg, Brownlie, Ian, Principles of Public International Law (6th edn, Oxford University Press 2003) 57–67 Google Scholar. This phenomenon has also been noted by Green, Fergus, ‘Fragmentation in Two Dimensions: The ICJ's Flawed Approach to Non-State Actors and International Legal Personality’ (2008) 9 Melbourne Journal of International Law 47 Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ Ben-Ari, Rephael Harel, The Normative Position of International Non-Governmental Organizations under International Law (Martinus Nijhoff 2012) 9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jean d'Aspremont, ‘International Law-Making by Non-State Actors: Changing the Model or Putting the Phenomenon into Perspective?’ in Noortmann and Ryngaert (n 2) 171, 178; Lindblom (n 66) 85; Malanczuk, Peter, Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law (7th rev'd edn, Routledge 1997) 97 Google Scholar; Nowrot (n 63) 594–95.

⁷¹ eg, Hobe, Stephan, ‘Global Challenges to Statehood: The Increasingly Important Role of Nongovernmental Organizations’ (1997) 5 Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 191 Google Scholar, 209; Lindblom (n 66) 62–63; Shaw, Malcolm N International Law (7th edn, Cambridge University Press 2014) 191 Google Scholar.

⁷² Noortmann (n 62) 223.

⁷³ Jan Wouters and Anna-Luise Chané, ‘Multinational Corporations in International Law’ in Noortmann, Reinisch and Ryngaert (n 4) 225, 228–30.

⁷⁴ ibid 225–26.

⁷⁵ ibid 237–39.

⁷⁶ ibid 249–50.

⁷⁷ ibid 248–49.

⁷⁸ eg, Johns, Fleur, ‘The Invisibility of the Transnational Corporation: An Analysis of International Law and Theory’ (1994) 19 Melbourne University Law Review 893 Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ Cutler, Claire, ‘Critical Reflections on the Westphalian Assumptions of International Law and Organization: A Crisis of Legitimacy’ (2001) 27 Review of International Studies 133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 146.

⁸⁰ Wouters and Chané (n 73) 251.

⁸¹ August Reinisch, ‘Investors’ in Noortmann, Reinisch and Ryngaert (n 4) 253, 253.

⁸² ibid 254–58. See also Cutler (n 79) 143–44.

⁸³ Reinisch (n 81) 260–62.

⁸⁴ ibid 262–68.

⁸⁵ McCorquodale, Robert, ‘An Inclusive International Legal System’ (2004) 17 Leiden Journal of International Law 477 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 491.

⁸⁶ Reinisch (n 81) 270–71.

⁸⁷ Cutler (n 79) 143.

⁸⁸ ibid 144.

⁸⁹ Ramses Wessel, ‘International Governmental Organisations as Non-State Actors’ in Noortmann, Reinisch and Ryngaert (n 4) 185, 185.

⁹⁰ ibid 201.

⁹¹ Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion [1949] ICJ Rep 174.

⁹² Wessel (n 89) 187–91. However, it should also be noted that this decision has been criticised in this regard, as it is not clear if the capacity to bear international rights and obligations is a precondition or a consequence of international legal personality: see, eg, Green (n 69) 55; Rossi (n 65) 31–32.

⁹³ Klabbers (n 1) 366.

⁹⁴ Wessel (n 89) 195.

⁹⁵ ibid 196–97.

⁹⁶ See Charnovitz (2006) (n 65) 362–63; Eisuke Suzuki, ‘Non-State Actors in International Law in Policy Perspective’ in Noortmann, Reinisch and Ryngaert (n 4) 33, 34. In this respect it has also been argued that a growing convergence of interests has fostered cooperation between IGOs and NGOs, the latter even defining the scope of their activities in accordance with policies advanced by the former: Rebasti, Emanuele, ‘Beyond Consultative Status: Which Legal Framework for Enhanced Interaction between NGOs and Intergovernmental Organizations?’ in Dupuy, Pierre-Marie and Vierucci, Luisa (eds), NGOs in International Law: Efficiency in Flexibility? (Edward Elgar 2008) 21 Google Scholar, 21–22; Cedric Ryngaert, ‘Imposing International Duties on Non-State Actors and the Legitimacy of International Law’ in Noortmann and Ryngaert (n 2) 69, 80–81.

⁹⁷ International Law Commission, Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries (2001), UN Doc A/56/10.

⁹⁸ Cedric Ryngaert, ‘State Responsibility and Non-State Actors’ in Noortmann, Reinisch and Ryngaert (n 4) 163, 164.

⁹⁹ ibid 167–68.

¹⁰⁰ ibid 168–73.

¹⁰¹ ibid 174–76.

¹⁰² ibid 164.

¹⁰³ ibid 177–79.

¹⁰⁴ ibid 182. For an overview of issues and debates related to the responsibility of NSAs, see Gal-Or, Noemi, Ryngaert, Cedric and Noortmann, Math (eds), Responsibilities of the Non-State Actor in Armed Conflict and the Market Place: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Findings (Brill/Nijhoff 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰⁵ Andrea Bianchi, ‘Introduction: Relativizing the Subjects or Subjectivizing the Actors: Is That the Question?’ in Bianchi (n 3) xi, xii.

¹⁰⁶ Noortmann, Ryngaert and Reinisch (n 5) 3.

¹⁰⁷ Jean d'Aspremont, ‘Non-State Actors and the Social Practice of International Law’ in Noortmann, Reinisch and Ryngaert (n 4) 11.

¹⁰⁸ Suzuki (n 96).

¹⁰⁹ Math Noortmann, ‘Transnational Law: Philip Jessup's Legacy and Beyond’ in Noortmann, Reinisch and Ryngaert (n 4) 57.

¹¹⁰ Markus Kornprobst, ‘Non-State Actors in International Relations: Actors, Processes, and an Agenda for Multifaceted Dialogue’ in Noortmann, Reinisch and Ryngaert (n 4) 295.

¹¹¹ Alan Chong, ‘Non-State Actors and Soft Power’ in Noortmann, Reinisch and Ryngaert (n 4) 323.

¹¹² Barrie Axford, ‘Non-State Actors and Globalisation: A Paradigm for a Decentred World?’ in Noortmann, Reinisch and Ryngaert (n 4) 345.

¹¹³ d'Aspremont (n 107) 12.

¹¹⁴ ibid 14–16. This aspect of the author's position is further developed in earlier pieces, in which he argues that NSAs do not possess a formally recognised law-creating capacity: d'Aspremont (n 70) 124; and Jean d'Aspremont, ‘Non-State Actors from the Perspective of Legal Positivism: The Communitarian Semantics for the Secondary Rules of International Law’ in d'Aspremont (n 3) 23, 25. In the same line, the author has also claimed that the proliferation of actors involved in diverse activities can be understood as an informalisation of the exercise of public authority that is not framed within the traditional processes of normative creation: Jean d'Aspremont, ‘Introduction: Non-State Actors in International Law: Oscillating between Concepts and Dynamics’ in d'Aspremont (n 3) 1, 4.

¹¹⁵ d'Aspremont (n 107) 18–20.

¹¹⁶ ibid 20–21. This reasoning is explicitly built by revisiting the concept of ‘law-applying authority’ developed by Hart, HLA, The Concept of Law (2nd edn, Clarendon Press 1994) 144–50Google Scholar.

¹¹⁷ d'Aspremont (n 107) 30.

¹¹⁸ Suzuki (n 96) 33.

¹¹⁹ ibid 35–37.

¹²⁰ ibid 40–44. ‘Values are preferred events – what people cherish … defined succinctly: Respect: freedom of choice, equality, and recognition; Power: making and influencing community decisions; Enlightenment: gathering, processing, and disseminating information and knowledge; Well-being: safety, health, and comfort; Wealth: production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services; control of resources; Skill: acquisition and exercise of capabilities in vocations, professions, and the arts; Affection: intimacy, friendship, loyalty, positive sentiments; Rectitude: participation in forming and applying norms of responsible conduct. The aggregate of all these values may be described as security’: Chen, Lung-chu, An Introduction to Contemporary International Law: A Policy-Oriented Perspective (3rd edn, Oxford University Pres 2015) 16 Google Scholar.

¹²¹ Suzuki (n 96) 46–53. ‘In brief, these seven decision functions may be defined as follows: Intelligence: gathering, processing, and disseminating information essential to decision making; Promotion: advocacy of general policies and the urging of proposals; Prescription: projecting authoritative community policies about the shaping and sharing of values; Invocation: provisional characterization of events in terms of community prescriptions; Application: final characterization and execution of prescriptions in concrete situations; Termination: ending a prescription or arrangement within the scope of a prescription; Appraisal: evaluating performance in decision process in terms of community goals’: Chen (n 120) 17–18.

¹²² Suzuki (n 96) 44–45.

¹²³ ibid 47.

¹²⁴ ibid 55–56.

¹²⁵ eg, W Michael Reisman, Siegfried Wiessner and Andrew R Willard, ‘The New Haven School: A Brief Introduction’ (2007) 32 Yale Journal of International Law 576; McDougal, Myres S and Wiessner, Siegfried, ‘Law and Peace in a Changing World’ (1992) 22 Cumberland Law Review 683 Google Scholar.

¹²⁶ McDougal, Myres S, Reisman, W Michael and Willard, Andrew R, ‘The World Community: A Planetary Social Process’ (1988) 21 University of California, Davis Law Review 837 Google Scholar; McDougal, Myres S, Lasswell, Harold D and Chen, Lung-chu, ‘The Social Setting of Human Rights: The Process of Deprivation and Non-Fulfillment of Values’ (1977) 46 Revista Jurídica de la Universidad de Puerto Rico 477 Google Scholar.

¹²⁷ Shaw (n 71) 43.

¹²⁸ Portmann, Roland, Legal Personality in International Law (Cambridge University Press 2010) 268 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹²⁹ Noortmann (n 109) 68.

¹³⁰ ibid 68.

¹³¹ ibid 68–69.

¹³² ibid 64.

¹³³ ibid 70–73.

¹³⁴ ibid 74.

¹³⁵ ibid 74.

¹³⁶ Kornprobst (n 110) 295.

¹³⁷ ibid 297, 320–21.

¹³⁸ ibid 321.

¹³⁹ ibid 321–22.

¹⁴⁰ Chong (n 111) 327–30.

¹⁴¹ ibid 342.

¹⁴² Axford (n 112) 345–46.

¹⁴³ ibid 367.

¹⁴⁴ Woodward (n 1) 390.

¹⁴⁵ Ben-Ari (n 70) 3–5.

¹⁴⁶ Cedric Ryngaert, Math Noortmann and August Reinisch, ‘Concluding Observations’ in Noortmann, Reinisch and Ryngaert (n 4) 369, 369.