Nonstate Actors

Abstract

There are competing definitions of what entities classify as nonstate actors. The broadest notion holds that nonstate entities are all entities different from states. Most theories concur in any case that nonstate actors differ considerably among themselves. Nonstate actors are examined in light of international law for multiple purposes. Some legal materials and analyses examine all nonstate actors, although it is often the case that they focus on certain types of nonstate entities, considered relevant for their purposes. Generally, nonstate actors are relevant for international law insofar as they are often able to impact legal values and must accordingly be regulated. The aforementioned impact may be a positive or a negative one, and this justifies both the existence of rights and the special status of nonstate entities that enables them to contribute in fields of their competence, as revealed by ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31 (consultative relationship between the United Nations and nongovernmental organizations), or to consider that they can have responsibilities, be they social and sometimes legal, as happens with international criminal law. Furthermore, responding to nonstate actions is crucial in certain fields. For instance, the fact that nonstate conduct can be inimical to human rights, as evinced by state obligations to prevent or respond to such violations and to protect rights, explains why several authors discuss if a human rights framework that ignores the need to directly protect individuals from nonstate actors is flawed and fails to uphold its foundation: human dignity. Altogether, although they have acquired greater power and formal relevance, nonstate actors have impacted international law and participated in international legal processes throughout history, which explains why state-exclusivist approaches to international law and international relations are deficient and the study of nonstate actors and their interaction with multiple international legal dimensions and processes is called for. The importance of nonstate actors and the possibility that they might be addressees of international law makes it troublesome to consider that they are irrelevant for international law. Moreover, given their power, participation, influence, and impact on legal interests and processes, some nonstate entities are properly referred to as actors. Furthermore, they may have direct, indirect, formal, or informal impact on such legal processes as lawmaking, law enforcement, or dispute settlement.