The state-centric international order is in flux and the role of the individual as an actor in international law is growing. Yet in most international law regimes, states continue to interposition themselves between individuals and international law and mediate between international law and their citizens. Against the background of the regime-transcending paradigm of humanization as qualified by resovereignization, this thesis revisits the interposition of states between individuals and international law. From the normative success, as measured by legitimacy and effectivity, of the most innovative post-interposition regime, Internet Governance Law, this thesis draws lessons for the optimal design ? with a focus on the position of individuals ? of (existing and emerging) international law regimes. Innovatively, this thesis describes how functional analysis of the interposition of states, can have a transformative effect on the international order. In the case study of International Internet Law, an emerging legal regime without ?entrenchment bias? towards mediation of individuals by states, this thesis elaborates all characteristics of a post-interposition regime, including a commitment to multistakeholderism, non-traditional normative instruments and system-wide disintermediation. The case study of International Internet Law validates transcending interposition in international law because the regime?s normative results are both largely legitimate and broadly effective.A post-interposition international law, as qualified by functionalism, is best able to respond to the regulatory challenges of an international order shaped by humanization as qualified by resovereignization by institutionalizing organically an allocation of roles, rights and responsibilities to states and individuals that is likely to lead to more effective and legitimate normative outcomes.