ABSTRACT
The foregoing chapters of this monograph have critically examined the extant approaches to the legal regulation of non-State actors. It has been argued that State-based methods are an ineffective means of securing non-State actor accountability, particularly in weak governance States. In addition, the theoretical scope for the attribution of direct international obligations to nonState actors is extremely limited by traditional doctrine. The consequences of this view, which bolsters a largely contractarian vision of a decentralised international legal system based on the consent of sovereign States, include the conflation of the creators of international law with the addressees of the resulting duties. This presupposition has effectively excluded non-State actors from the direct reach of international law. It has led to widespread concern that politically dubious non-State actors will be legitimised if they are considered the direct addressees of international rights and duties.
