Why do scholars, who generally acknowledge the international legal personality of non-State entities, still question the bindingness of the law of non-international armed conflict on insurgents? This article examines the relationship between the two dominant positivist conceptions of international legal personality and the rights and obligations of insurgents as a matter of positive international law. First, the article illustrates that the evolution of the law of non-international armed conflict corroborates Hans Kelsen’s idea that the international legal personality of an entity, be it a State, an armed opposition group, or an individual, is solely contingent upon interpretation of international norms. Second, it shows that the traditional perception of States as exclusive subjects of international law – though never reflected in positive norms governing non-international armed conflict – continues to influence the current debate on the theoretical underpinnings for binding insurgents. The orthodox ‘States-only’ conception of international legal personality is seemingly so ingrained in the minds of contemporary international lawyers that they inadvertently rely on it when faced with international legal regulation of non-State entities. Finally, the article addresses the implications of these findings for the overall question of international legal obligations of non-State actors.

中文翻译：

---

象牙塔中的幽灵：实证主义和武装反对派组织的国际法律法规

为什么通常承认非国家实体具有国际法人资格的学者仍然质疑非国际武装冲突法对叛乱分子的约束力？本文考察了国际法人格的两种主要实证主义概念与作为积极国际法的叛乱分子的权利和义务之间的关系。首先，该文章说明，非国际性武装冲突法的发展证实了汉斯·凯尔森（Hans Kelsen）的观点，即一个实体（无论是国家，武装反对团体还是个人）的国际法人身份完全取决于对以下方面的解释：国际规范。第二，它表明，传统上将国家视为国际法的排他性主体的看法，尽管从未反映在关于非国际性武装冲突的积极规范中，但仍在继续影响当前关于有约束力的叛乱分子的理论基础的辩论。传统的国际法人格“仅国家”概念似乎根深蒂固在当代国际律师的思想中，以至于他们在面对非国家实体的国际法律法规时无意中依赖它。最后，本文论述了这些调查结果对非国家行为者国际法律义务总问题的影响。传统的国际法人格“仅国家”概念似乎根深蒂固在当代国际律师的思想中，以至于他们在面对非国家实体的国际法律法规时无意中依赖它。最后，本文论述了这些调查结果对非国家行为者国际法律义务总问题的影响。传统的国际法人格“仅国家”概念似乎根深蒂固在当代国际律师的思想中，以至于他们在面对非国家实体的国际法律法规时无意中依赖它。最后，本文论述了这些调查结果对非国家行为者国际法律义务总问题的影响。