The application of international legal entities to all peoples is real and can be implemented as a citizen of the United Nations since 1947. Indeed, the UN is the only global issuer of legal entities for all member states. Since the United Nations is the source, the transfer of personalities between States becomes trivial. Bringing a UN citizen called Mexicans to the United States is technically irrelevant; since U.S. citizens are also UN citizens equally. A legal presence/instrument of a U.S. citizen is only a specialized national international legal entity of the United Nations. For a UN citizen, the border between countries is a trivial separation between UN economic zones. International law is based on the rules issued by states for states.

States are sovereign and equal in their relations and can therefore voluntarily create or accept legally binding rules, usually in the form of a treaty or convention. By signing and ratifying treaties, States voluntarily establish legal and contractual relations with other States parties to a particular treaty, compliance with which is normally governed by interactions of non-compliance. The ability of States to establish such relations with other States and to establish rules that are legally binding on themselves results from the international legal personality of States, a prerogative vested in all sovereign States. The corresponding rights and obligations are found in customary international law, investor-state treaties, more than 3,000 bilateral and multilateral investment treaties (or free trade agreements with investment protection). Rights range from the ability to freely transfer profits to and from the host State (US model BIT, Art. 7) to the extended standard of “fair and equitable treatment”, which has been interpreted as protecting procedural rights such as due process and material interests in the stability of a state`s regulatory standards. The rules issued by States for States are the basis of international law. [1] International law governs states and their relations with each other. Historically, it has been assumed that States are the only actors in international law and that, therefore, other entities are solely the responsibility of international law. [2] The international responsibility of individuals has subsequently been upheld by various tribunals such as the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, established notably by the UN Security Council to prosecute those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide under international law. The acquisition of international legal personality is often an objective of international actors.

Through the acquisition of personality, they gain recognition in the international legal community. The personality of an international actor depends entirely on the recognition of the State. Legal personality can determine the rights of actors and their position before the courts. Since personality is given by States, it goes without saying that international actors are effective only if States allow them to do so. [3] Without the consent of states, other actors have no real rights or capabilities on the international stage. One question that critics of the effectiveness of legal personality are asking is whether “personality contains an inherent legal capacity to act”. [4] Personality is a concept with many fuzzy areas, but must be captured to understand the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of international actors. The entities that may be given personality and are therefore subject to international law are those that are capable of acting on the international scene. [5] Companies applying for international legal personality include companies, corporations, sovereign states, international organizations and individuals. [6] These bodies should have legal powers, the ability to exercise their powers effectively and lasting links with States. [6] Second, companies have the right to determine how certain disputes are resolved. States must agree on arbitration, but written consent to arbitration is often included in IIL general treaties or national investment laws.

State consent often gives a company a choice between where it can assert its rights (national or international; ICSID or another board of arbitration). The company, on the other hand, agrees to a particular arbitration on a particular dispute, and with the choice of locations, control of dispute resolution passes from the state to the company. This gives the company a discretion and independence that is rarely enjoyed at the international level. The treatment of persons in foreign territory has been regulated for decades by customary international law and conventions. Such rules protect the own citizens of States, when they are in foreign territory, from illegal acts of the foreign State. Thus, for example, if a citizen of country A were to live and do business in the territory of State B and State B unlawfully confiscated the property and affairs of country A, State A may hold State B accountable to the ICJ under international law (see the Diallo case). Whether or not State A takes State B to the ICJ (or any other regional or international court) depends entirely on State A, regardless of the wishes of the citizen. The full set of privileges (legally called “rights”) for the United Nations` national international legal entities is the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This is important because, for example, the constitutions of different countries do not apply to UN citizens, except through the UN UDHR, even in what people consider to be their own homeland.