ABSTRACT
Demanding direct compliance of non-state actors with international obligations can therefore only be justified if those actors have been represented in the adoption process of the rules giving rise to the obligations, or to put it more succinctly, if they are considered as genuine subjects of international law. The general consent deficit of just cogens rules nevertheless exceeds the scope of this contribution which focuses on non-state actors so that the argument of substantive legitimacy is in the end only touched upon briefly here. As the issue is therefore not peculiar to non-state actors, we refer to general discussions of jus cogens, and the legitimacy and consent problems, which it elicits. Let us now focus more intensely on the input or procedural legitimacy of the binding character of international norms in respect of non-state actors. When treaty obligations are imposed on non-state actors, pursuant to the procedural legitimacy theory.
