This article compares legal models for involving non-state actors in international regulation, using the investment, international maritime, and international space regimes as case studies. It demonstrates that, notwithstanding the growing role of private activity in cross-border domains, public international law retains its inter-State core: the rights and procedural opportunities of private parties arise primarily through State consent, treaty-based frameworks, and domestic implementation. The analysis shows that the most pronounced “approximation” of international norms to non-state actors is found in the investment regime (through international dispute settlement mechanisms) and, within the law of the sea, in relation to activities in the Area (through access for private entities subject to State sponsorship and oversight). In space law, the study identifies a tension between the traditional treaty-based principles of the regime and national regulatory initiatives aimed at commercial utilization of space resources. The article concludes that, across all three regimes, the State remains the primary bearer of international responsibility, while the expansion of participation by non-state actors is structured so as to preserve legal certainty, risk controllability, and procedural safeguards.
Dmitry Semenovich Belkin (Wed,) studied this question.