There is little doubt today that transnational corporations (TNCs) have become among the most powerful actors in the global economy. In some cases, their economic capacity equals or even exceeds that of many sovereign states. Nevertheless, their legal status and international legal personality remain among the most controversial issues in the theory of international law. According to the traditional approach, states are the primary and full subjects of international law, whereas transnational corporations are regarded not as direct subjects of international law but rather as objects of its regulation. This article examines the longstanding “subject or object of law” debate concerning the international legal status of transnational corporations based on leading scholarly perspectives and demonstrates that the issue is of not only theoretical but also significant practical importance. This is because the recognition of a corporation's international legal personality determines whether it may be held directly responsible under international law for violations of international legal norms.

The article analyzes the emergence and development of the theory of international legal personality, including the approaches derived from the International Court of Justice’s 1949 Advisory Opinion in Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations (“Reparations”). It further provides a comparative legal analysis of the principal doctrinal approaches to the international legal status of transnational corporations, including the traditional approach, the revisionist approach, the concepts of direct and indirect international obligations, as well as skeptical and functional approaches. The findings indicate that transnational corporations currently possess a limited degree of participation in the international legal system. In particular, international investment arbitration enables corporations to bring direct procedural claims against states; international soft law establishes standards of corporate conduct; and the draft legally binding international treaty on business and human rights currently being negotiated within the United Nations seeks to establish direct international obligations for corporations.

The article concludes by assessing the practical significance of this theoretical debate for the Republic of Uzbekistan.

transnational corporations; international legal personality; subject and object of law; non-state actors; direct and indirect obligations; corporate liability; investment arbitration.

Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (opened for signature 18 March 1965, entered into force 14 October 1966) 575 UNTS 159

Human Rights Council Res 26/9 (26 June 2014) UN Doc A/HRC/RES/26/9

OECD, Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct (OECD Publishing 2023)

UN Human Rights Council, ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework’ (21 March 2011) UN Doc A/HRC/17/31

Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v Spain) (Second Phase) [1970] ICJ Rep 3

Reparations for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations (Advisory Opinion) [1949] ICJ Rep 174

Alvarez JE, ‘Are Corporations “Subjects” of International Law?’ (2011) 9 Santa Clara Journal of International Law 1

Clapham A, Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors (OUP 2006)

Crawford J, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (9th edn, OUP 2019)

Deva S and Bilchitz D (eds), Human Rights Obligations of Business: Beyond the Corporate Responsibility to Respect? (CUP 2013)

Higgins R, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (OUP 1994)

Jessup PC, ‘Subjects of a Modern Law of Nations’ (1946) 45 Michigan Law Review 383

Karavias M, Corporate Obligations under International Law (OUP 2013)

Kelsen H, Principles of International Law (Rinehart 1952)

Klabbers J, ‘The Concept of Legal Personality’ (2005) 11 Ius Gentium 35

Lauterpacht H, International Law and Human Rights (Stevens 1950)

Muchlinski P, Multinational Enterprises and the Law (3rd edn, OUP 2021)

Ratner SR, ‘Corporations and Human Rights: A Theory of Legal Responsibility’ (2001) 111 Yale Law Journal 443

Ruggie JG, Just Business: Multinational Corporations and Human Rights (WW Norton 2013)

Shaw MN, International Law (8th edn, CUP 2017)

Stephens B, ‘The Amorality of Profit: Transnational Corporations and Human Rights’ (2002) 20 Berkeley Journal of International Law 45

Vázquez CM, ‘Direct vs Indirect Obligations of Corporations under International Law’ (2005) 43 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 927

Hisobotlar va onlayn manbalar

Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, ‘UN Binding Treaty’ https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/big-issues/governing-business-human-rights/un-binding-treaty/ (accessed June 2026)

OHCHR, Open-ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights, eleventh session (Geneva, 20–24 October 2025) https://www.ohchr.org (accessed June 2026)