Abstract
The notion of “sovereign equality among all states” is central to modern international law. Some states have the legal authority to impose rules of behaviour on non-contracting parties, which contradicts the values of equality as well as autonomy in a society based on coordination among members. Accordingly, in the words of L. McNair, “both legal principle and common sense are in favour of the rule pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt, because as regards States which are not parties (commonly referred to as Third States & apos) a treaty is res inter alios acta”. The implementation of this ancient Roman law principle is now widely recognized and respected worldwide. This broad rule serves as the primary framework for analysing the relationship among international treaties and non-party states. The differences in attitudes towards international law-creation and its obligation to those of the international community highlight the socio-political divide between the Western world, new states, and socialist countries. However, the traditional rule "pacta tertfis nec nocent necprosunt" is inherently misleading. Law-making is a process of liberating legal norms from the constraints of strict consensus. This paper examines how third countries execute international law. There is legal, practical, and scholarly support for third-state remedies.
Keywords: International Law, Non-Parties, State Sovereignty, Third State, Treaties, Party Obligations