ABSTRACT
Having examined in Chapter 1 the two conditions that make possible an assertion that rural communities are non-state actors—the permissibility of the non-state actor definitional boundaries, and recent dynamics underlining increased capacities for smaller entities—this chapter moves to a deeper theoretical examination of the ‘rural communities as non-state actors’ proposition. The argument is threefold, evolving in the three main grand theories of international law: positivism, sociologism (specifically, the New Haven School), and normativism (specifically, international constitutionalism). Rural communities are seen in this chapter as all those human settlements that are neither large-urban nor outer-urban. Following Slack, Bourne, and Gertler (2003, 6), rural communities are therefore considered as those characterised by their small size in terms of population, market, and labour supply; their physical isolation from each other; and their physical isolation from urban centres. Focussing on physical isolation, the final section of this chapter raises the stakes further, with an examination of the relevance to international law of a particular subset of rural communities: the remote ones.
