As Frédéric Megret argues in “International las as law” international law’s peculiar approach to law can perhaps be best described as that of a law that is “in between”. International law is characterized by what it seeks to escape from, what it is not and what it aspires to achieve. This quality of international law relies in the history, preferred subjects, a certain ethos, a concept of society, legal constructs and a functional architecture. The debate on international law’s ‘legality’ reveals many connections between competing views such as the idealist, the apologists, the reformists and the critics. The debate is a dynamic and constantly evolving one. To find the answer to the question how the concept of sovereignty tied to the idea of international law is, we need to answer some basic questions first. What exactly is the character of international law as a legal system? We first have to look at the basic concepts of international law. We have to ask ourself the question what type of legal system is international law? Can international law be qualified as law? Lacks international law the minimum stability to be a legal order or is it instead remarkably constant over time despite the appearance of renewal? International law operates between equal and sovereign collectivities. International law can be qualified as the law in between. It is irreducible and inter-state but also influenced by domestic law. International law is the law of states. The law towards the organization of relations between self-governing collectivities. International law is the legal system wich confers full legal personality on states. States are recognized as the principal subjects of international law. “The state is a historical, political and legal phenomenon. Being a highly complex social category, the notion of state can be analysed in several ways. “The concept of sovereignty reflects the fact that contemporary international law is a legal order predominantly between coordinated, juxtaposed States as its typical subjects. The basic instruments of international organizations, innumerable multilateral and bilateral treaties, as well as many State constitutions again and again refer to the external sovereignty of States.” (Steinberger, loc. cit., note 1, at 517.) In the definition of the state there are several opinions influenced by different doctrines and ideologies. C. Dissescu (in the paper Constitutional Law, Bucharest, 1915, p. 237) appreciates that in the classical theories, the state was studied in an abstract way, being created a concept based more on what we want it to be than on what it really is. Thus, the state is defined as a human collectivity, permanently settled down in a given territory and having a structure of bodies of power that enjoys sovereignty. The state, once organized, has a specific purpose and well determined functions. Of course, the main purpose of the state lies in defending the general interest (common good). In this sense, Hegel was perfectly right when he said: "if citizens do not go well, if their subjective purpose is not satisfied, if they do not find that the intercession of this satisfaction represents the state itself as such, then the state sits on weak legs" (FLOREA, D., & GALE?, N. (2012). SOVEREIGN STATE - THE CLASSIC BASIC SUBJECT OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW. USV Annals Of Economics & Public Administration, 12(2), 262-273.) In the late nineteenth century the international organizations were created. They are the so called “non-state actors”. These non-state actors have only derivative or partial status as subjects of international law. Nonstate actors have been examined from different disciplines, which acknowledge their relevance and attach importance to the international and transnational dimensions of nonstate conduct given their power or impact. “Clapham defines nonstate actors as all entities different from states, acknowledging that some legal materials use narrower definitions. Legitimacy and dilution fears about engaging with nonstate actors are rebutted, and their monitoring is discussed. Additionally, examines related issues of accountability and entitlements of those actors, state obligations, and implementation of law.” (Clapham, Andrew. “Non-state Actors.” In Post-Conflict Peacebuilding: A Lexicon. Edited by Vincent Chetail, 200–212. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.) On the other hand international law can be more than just the legal system of inter-state relations. It can also be said to express a certain ethos of pluralism. This view is based on the belief in the incommensurability of beliefs and the impossibility of operating under a single unifying formula of the ‘good’ life. “This is a world in which claims to coercive power, abstract notions of legitimacy, and arguments about legal authority are only part of an ongoing conversation, not the final determining factors. It is a world where jurisgenerativ