The question of whether states are capable of acting morally in world politics remains an important concept of debate in international relations. In addressing arguments for and against the status of states as moral agents in international relations, this essay will begin by examining how moral agency can be attributed to the state. By attributing moral agency to states, we mean that states have the capacity – like their individual citizens – to make moral judgments or actions and to be held accountable for those judgments or actions. However, states are not individuals in the human sphere when it comes to moral action; rather, they have been seen as institutions and collectives (Erskine, 2001) – as institutional actors within the international system. States are made up of individual citizens and represented by a collective of these citizens, forming different groups and bodies, with a particular group of citizens as representatives: the government. Moral action has been primarily attributed to the individual, however, the state can be seen simply as a collective of its citizens – a collective of moral agents. or potential to assume moral duties (Erskine 2001, Hoover 2012, Schwenkenbecher 2011). The idea put forward is that the State has a distinct identity – independent of the respective identities of citizens and collectives. States play a central role in the arena of international relations and, as such, they appear to be seen as institutional moral agents (Erskine, 2001). Erskine proposes three criteria for determining the status of states as moral agents, namely... middle of article ......eohane, 1984). Keohane argues that if states are seen as moral agents, then they are not responsible for the actions of their citizens and are therefore much more sensitive to the outcomes of collective decisions. There is a certain degree of ambiguity in whether the state bears moral duty in relation to its individual citizens. Schewenkenbecher (2011) suggests that the moral duty of a state ultimately lies with individual citizens, representatives who contribute to the collective and achieve the outcome desired by the collective. Runciman goes further by questioning the “capacity of the state to behave directly as a moral agent.” The State will always depend on how individuals and collectives of individuals choose to perceive it, therefore it is the moral agent of the State. the State will be linked to the moral action of its individuals and collectives.