Although the use of the notion of statehood in individual cases is often controversial, the term “state” has a fairly well-defined meaning.96 The UN resolutions often refer to the so-called “undeveloped countries”, and after 1960 to the so-called “developing countries”. Doctrine further categorizes these concepts.97 Since the debate on permanent sovereignty, it has become obvious that these are the general terms covering all African countries (except for South Africa before 1994), Asia (with the exception of Japan), and Latin America, and some European countries such as Albania, Cyprus, and Malta.98 The Vienna conventions on succession99 introduced an additional sub-category of “newly independent states”, stating that agreements between the state’s predecessor and the newly independent state cannot violate the principle of permanent sovereignty of any nations. The term “newly independent state” is defined as the successor state, within whose territory a dependent territory was located directly before the date of succession, and for whose international relations the state-antecedents were responsible.100 In the Compensation Advisory Opinion (1949), the International Court of Justice stated that the UN is an “international person” and a “subject of international law capable of possessing rights and duties”.101 Later, other intergovernmental organizations were treated in a similar way. The circle expanded even further due to legal changes related to the principle of self-determination of nations and human rights, which granted nations and individuals rights and obligations under international law. Transnational corporations obtained a limited, functional international personality.102 This is evidenced by a number of international legal documents, i.e.: procedures provided for in the World Bank Convention on the International Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States;103 the provisions of the World Bank Convention Establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) that allow MIGA subrogation to such rights or claims related to guaranteed investments that the beneficiary of the guarantee may report to the host state and other debtors;104 and international dispute resolution provisions regarding mineral deposits in the sea and ocean beds contained in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982).105 However, it should be noted that this legal status is conditional because it depends on the prior approval of the corporation’s state of origin to comply with the treaties and, in the case of the law of the sea, on financing of a given enterprise by the state. Finally, reference should be made to the development of the concept of “mankind”, which covers both present and future generations. In international law, with regard to the oceans, the cosmos and the global environment, laws and powers fall to mankind as such.106
The group of entities authorized to dispose of natural resources underwent temporary changes. Initially, in 1950, the right to permanent sovereignty was exercised by “peoples and nations” and “developed countries” due to the fact that permanent sovereignty had its roots in both promoting the economic development of developed countries, as well as the self-determination of nations.107 When the process of decolonization was progressing, the emphasis on the “nation” and the relationship with “self-determination” decreased and gradually shifted towards “developing countries”. In the 1950s and 60s, reference to “nations” as subjects of law to permanent sovereignty, was probably intended to strengthen the right of nations to self-determination, both before and after their right to political self-determination. After the adoption of Resolution No. 1803 (XVII) regarding permanent sovereignty over natural resources,108 the word “nation” was only once included in the resolution concerning permanent sovereignty, namely Resolution No. 2692 (XXV).109 Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that the term “nation” lost its significance as a subject of the right to permanent sovereignty.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the disposal of natural resources was increasingly perceived as an attribute of state sovereignty. Hence, the detailed rules of exercising state sovereignty became the main thread of the debate on permanent sovereignty, giving way to the self-determination of nations. This change resulted from an emphasis on the relatively fast process of decolonization, the way in which the newly independent states exercised their sovereignty, and the lack of national representation in the United Nations.110 This “etatist” orientation was mitigated by the growing number of obligations incumbent on states, in particular the duty to exercise permanent sovereignty in the national interest and for the nations’ welfare. However, at that time there was a tendency to devote increased attention to the principle of self-determination and peoples’ rights in the non-colonial context. At present, the rights of indigenous peoples are at the forefront even though indigenous peoples have been previously treated as an object rather than as a subject of international law.111
In the 1970s and 1980s, only those nations whose territories were under foreign occupation or under foreign colonial rule or were identified as subjects of the right to permanent sovereignty were considered worthy of UN attention. For example, in 1974, the UN Council for Namibia formulated the right of the people of Namibia to their natural resources and resources of Namibia, which they called their birthright.112 For the same reason, special attention was also given to the rights of the Palestinian people, as well as to some states in Latin America and the Arab areas under Israeli occupation.113 During this period, however, a clear tendency to limit the circle of permanent entities with state sovereignty was again observed. Both the Charter of States’ Rights and Obligations adopted by the UN General Assembly (1974) and the Seoul Declaration (1986) of the International Law Association (ILA) illustrate this trend: neither Article 2 of the Charter nor Chapter 5 of the Seoul Declaration, which deal with permanent sovereignty, contain any reference to the concept of nation.114
Later, however, there was a further shifting of the centre of gravity away from the colonial nations, which were not yet able to exercise the right to self-determination, and for whom permanent sovereignty was an attribute supporting their independence. Then, permanent sovereignty became an atribute of the undeveloped countries, and subsequently of the developing countries, as well as the newly independent countries seeking economic autonomy. Examples include environmental protection laws included in the World Charter for Nature (1982),115 the rights of nations to develop in the exercise of sovereignty over all their wealths and natural resources contained in the UN Declaration on the Right to Development (1986)116 and the rights of indigenous peoples to their territories, lands and resources included in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007).117 Thus, the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources has again referred to two primary generators, stressing the nation’s
