De jure or de facto organ of the state?

Question

In the ICJ's Iran v. United States case judgment, Khomeini's statement that the militants' actions were "done by our nation" effectively recognized them as state actions. Regarding the legal status of the protesters, the judgment states:

"The militants, authors of the invasion and jailers of the hostages, had now become agents of the Iranian State for whose acts the State itself was internationally responsible."(para.74)

What is the legal status of the term "agent" as used in this statement? Is it de jure organ of the state, or de facto organ of the state?

In a broader sense, If a non-state actor performs an act and this act is recognized by the state as its own, does this non-state actor legally (de jure) acquire the status of a state organ or do they acquire the status of a de facto state organ?

Answer 1

The precedent is that a sovereign nation can both endorse and later disavow groups operating from their soil. Consider, for instance, the Polish exile government operating from London in WWII and their armed forces. However, to make a disavowal credible, it has to be matched by actions to cut off support.

While a public endorsement is pretty strong evidence of state responsiblity for the actions of a group, the lack of endorsement is no evidence for a lack of responsibility. Consider, for instance, the soldiers in unmarked uniforms who were used by Russia to occupy Crimea. By international law, that was an act of war by Russia against Ukraine, and Ukraine would have been justified to strike back against Russia.