Superiority of Peremptory Norms in Public International Law
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35246/8tt4zd38Keywords:
Jus Cogens, Erga Omnes, Erga Omnes Partes, International Constitution, Consuetudo Est Servanda, Pata Sunt Servanda, HierarchyAbstract
International law has proven that it is an evolving and flexible law over the years, and despite that, this development takes a very long time, as the concept of peremptory norms took 83 years to crystallize and have concrete and impactful applications, and within this development another modern concept emerged, which is the obligations Erga Omnes in the Barcelona Traction case 1970. We have concluded that these two concepts fall under a broader concept, which is peremptory norms, and this concept represents the common supreme interests of the international community, and consists of rules that transcend all other rules in international law, and it is not permissible to derogate or deviate from them. On the other hand, it bears the obligation of enforcement on all states in the international community.
Downloads
References
أولاً: المراجع العربية
i. الجمعية العامة. قرار الأمم المتحدة بشأن تعريف العدوان. رمز الوثيقة: A_RES_3314(XXIX)_A.
ii. تقرير لجنة القانون الدولي عن أعمال دورتها الثانية والثلاثين، 1980م، ص 65 – 66؛ 1989م، ص 168 – 172؛ 1998م، ص 109 – 132.
iii. داير تلادي. التقرير الأول عن القواعد الآمرة، لجنة القانون الدولي- الدورة الثامنة والستون، 2016م، ص 12. رمز الوثيقة: A/CN.4/693.
iv. داير تلادي. التقرير الثاني عن القواعد الآمرة، لجنة القانون الدولي، الدورة التاسعة والستون، 2017م، ص 42 – 47. رمز الوثيقة: A/CN.4/706.
v. دستور العراق 2005م.
vi. سارة قعمور. دور المجلس الدستوري في إحترام تدرج القواعد القانونية، رسالة ماجستير، جامعة قاصدي مرباح ورقلة كلية الحقوق والعلوم السياسية قسم الحقوق، 2016م، ص 7 وما بعدها؛ نبالي فطة. المجلس الدستوري وتدرج القواعد القانونية، المجلة الجزائرية للعلوم القانونية والإقتصادية والسياسية، المجلد 49، العدد 3، 2012م، ص 7 – 40.
vii. سردار ملا عزيز. فكرة النظام العام الدستوري ودور القاضي الدستوري في حمايتها، مجلة جامعة رابة رين، مجلد 7، العدد 1، كردستان- العراق، 2020م، ص 181 – 195.
viii. سليمان عبد المجيد. النظرية العامة للقواعد الآمرة في النظام القانوني الدولي، دار النهضة العربية، 1980م، ص 293 – 394
ix. عبد الله الحديثي. النظرية العامة في القواعد الآمرة في القانون الدولي، ط1، مطبعة أوفسيت عشتار، 1986م، ص 106؛ فؤاد خوالدية. القواعد الآمرة في القانون الدولي المعاصر، مجلة البحوث والدراسات العلمية- جامعة الدكتور يحيى فارس، 2018م، ص 17
x. قرار المحكمة الإتحادية العليا العراقية حول مفهوم وضوابط النظام العام والآداب العامة، العدد 63/إتحادية/2012م.
xi. لجنة القانون الدولي. الدورة التاسعة والستون، الملحق رقم 10، 2017م، ص 30 – 31. رمز الوثيقة: A/72/10.
xii. لجنة القانون الدولي. حولية مسؤولية الدول عن أعمالها غير المشروعة دولياً، الدورة الثالثة والخمسون، المجلد الثاني- الجزء الثاني، 2001م، ص 220. رمز الوثيقة: A/CN.4/SER.A/2001/Add.1 (Part 2).
xiii. مارتي كوسينكيمي. تجزؤ القانون الدولي: الصعوبات الناشئة عن تنوع وتوسع القانون الدولي، الدورة الثامنة والخمسون- لجنة القانون الدولي، 2006م، ص 149 – 150. رمز الوثيقة: A/CN.4/L.682.
ثانياً: المراجع الأجنبية
i. Brian R. Doak. The Origins of Social Justice in the Ancient Mesopotamian Religious Traditions, Faculty Publications - College of Christian Studies, 2006.
ii. Alfred Verdross. Forbidden Treaties in International Law, AJIL, Vol. 31, No. 4, 1937.
iii. Mr. H Lauterpacht. Report on the Law of Treaties, ILC, 1953. Code: A/CN.4/63.
iv. Mr. G.G. Fitzmaurice. Third Report on the Law of Treaties, ILC, 1958. Code: A/CN.4/115 and Corr.1.
v. Sir Humphrey Waldock. Second report on the law of treaties, ILC, 1963. Code: A/CN.4/156 and Add.1-3.
vi. Robert Kolb. Peremptory International Law, Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing Ltd, 2015.
vii. Dr. Markus Petsche. Jus Cogens as a Vision of the International Legal Order, Penn State International Law Review, Vol. 29, 2010.
viii. Georg Schwarzenberger. The Problem of International Public Policy, Current Legal Problems, Vol. 18, Issue 1, 1965.
ix. Alfred Verdross. Jus Dispositivum and Jus Cogens in International Law, AJIL, Vol. 60, 1966.
x. Evan J. Criddlet & Evan Fox-Decenttt. A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens, YJIL, Vol. 34, 2009.
xi. Evan J. Criddlet & Evan Fox-Decenttt. Fiduciaries of Humanity, Oxford University Press, 2016.
xii. Dinah Shelton. Normative Hierarchy in International Law, AJIL, Vol. 100, No. 2, 2006.
xiii. Martti Koskenniemi. Hierarchy in International Law: A Sketch, EJIL, 1997.
xiv. Mark Weston Janis. The Nature of Jus Cogens, Conn. J. Int'l L., 1988.
xv. Dan Dubois. The Authority of Peremptory Norms in International Law, NJIL, Vol. 78, 2009.
xvi. Mary Ellen O’Connell. Jus Cogens: International Law’s Higher Ethical Norms, in The Role Of Ethics In International Law by Donald Earl Childress, Cambridge University Press, 2012.
xvii. Sten Verhoeven. Norms of Jus Cogens in International Law: A Positivist and Constitutionalist Approach, PhD, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Faculteit Rechtsgeleerdheid, 2011.
xviii. Daniel John Rafferty. Constitutionalism in International Law: The Limits of Jus Cogens, LLM(Master), University of Pretoria, 2012.
xix. Alexander Orakhelashvili. Peremptory Norms as an Aspect of Constitutionalisation in the International Legal System, in The Dynamics Of Constitutionalism In The Age Of Globalization by S. Muller & M. Frishman, Hague Academic Press, 2009.
xx. Dennis R. Schmidt. Order, Ethics and the Constitution of International Society: Rethinking the Concept of Jus Cogens, PhD, Durham University, 2016.
xxi. Gunther Jaenicke. International Public Order, in Encyclopedia of Public International Law by Rudolf Dolzer and others, vol.7, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1984
xxii. Michel Virally. Réflexions sur le "jus cogens", In: Annuaire français de droit international, vol. 12, 1966.
xxiii. Stefan A. Riesenfeld. Jus Dispositivum and Jus Cogens in International Law: In the Light of a Recent Decision of the German Supreme Constitutional Court, AJIL, Vol. 60, No. 3, 1966.
xxiv. N.G. Onuf & Richard K. Birney. Peremptory Norms of International Law: Their Source, Function and Future, Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y, Vol. 2, 1974.
xxv. Salahuddin Mahmud & Shafiqur Rahman. The concept and status of Jus Cogens: An overview, International Journal of Law, 2017.
xxvi. Ulf Linderfalk. The Creation of Jus Cogens – Making Sense of Article 53 of the Vienna Convention, Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, 2011.
xxvii. ICJ. Nicaragua case (Nicaragua V. United States Of America), Merits, 1986.
xxviii. ICJ. Accordance With International Law Of The Unilateral Declaration Of Independence In Respect Of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion Of 22 July 2010.
xxix. Urteil des 2. Wehrdienstsenats vom 21. Juni 2005 BVerwG 2 WD 12.04.
xxx. International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. [PROSECUTOR v. ZEJNIL DELALI], Case No. IT-96-21-T, 1998.
xxxi. Mr. P. Kboijroans. Report by the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel…, 1986. Code: E/CN.4/1986/15.
xxxii. Inter-American Court Of Human Rights. Case of Espinoza Gonzáles V. Peru, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, Judgment of November 20, 2014.
xxxiii. ECHR. Case of Al-Adsani V. The United Kingdom, No. 35763/97, 2001.
xxxiv. ECHR. Case Of Jones And Others V. The United Kingdom, Nos. 34356/06 and 40528/06, 2014.
xxxv. ICJ. Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium V. Senegal), Judgment of 20 July 2012.
xxxvi. Erika de Wet. The Prohibition of Torture as an International Norm of jus cogens and Its Implications for National and Customary Law, EJIL, Vol. 15 No. 1, 2004.
xxxvii. Antônio Augusto & Cançado Trindade. Jus Cogens: The Determination And The Gradual Expansion Of Its Material Content In Contemporary International Case-Law, Curso de Derecho Internacional, vol. 35, 2008.
xxxviii. Andrea Bianchi. Human Rights and the Magic of Jus Cogens, EJIL, Vol. 19 no. 3, 2008.
xxxix. Christian Tomuschat. The Security Council and Jus Cogens, in The Present and Future of Jus Cogens by Enzo Cannizzaro, Sapienza Università Editrice, 2015.
xl. General Assembly. Resolution 96 (I), December 11th 1946. Code: A_RES_96(I)_E.
xli. ICJ. Reservations to the Convention on Genocide, Advisory Opinion of May 28th, 1951.
xlii. ICJ. Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of The Congo (New Application: 2002), (Democratic Republic Of The Congo V. Rwanda), Judgment Of 3 February 2006.
xliii. ICJ. Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of 26 February 2007.
xliv. International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreškić, Case No.: IT-95-16-T, JUDGEMENT, 2000.
xlv. Former Yugoslavia. Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojević and Dragan Jokić, Case No. IT-02-60-T, Judgement, 2005.
xlvi. International Tribunal for Rwanda. Prosecutor v. Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, 1999.
xlvii. Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru, Judgment of November 25, 2006.
xlviii. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Republic of Colombia, Case 12.531, November 14, 2008.
xlix. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Julia Gomes Lund and Others (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, Case 11.552, Decision, 26 March 2009.
l. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Juan Gelman and Others v. Uruguay, Case 12.607, Decision, 21 January 2010.
li. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law. Dinah Shelton. Sherlock Holmes and the Mystery of Jus Cogens, p. 23 – 50; Ulf Linderfalk. Understanding the jus cogens debate; Thomas Kleinlein. Jus Cogens as the ‘Highest Law’? Peremptory Norms and Legal Hierarchies; Louis J. Kotzé. Constitutional Conversations in the Anthropocene.
lii. L.N. Sadat. A contextual and historical analysis of the International Law Commission ’s 2017 draft articles for a new global treaty on crimes against humanity, Journal of International Criminal Justice, vol. 16, 2018.
liii. P. G. W. GLARE. Oxford Latin Dictionary, 2nded, Oxford University Press, 2012.
liv. Esther Badilla & Gustavo Barrantes. El principio erga omnes en el derecho constitucional costarricense. Análisis de constitucionalidad, Trabajo Final de Graduación presentado a la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de CostaRica, para optar por el grado académico de Licenciatura en Derecho, Universidad De Costa Rica, 2013.
lv. ICJ. Case Concerning The Barcelona Traction, Light And Power Company Limited, Judgment of 5 February 1970.
lvi. Affaire De La Barcelona Traction, Light And Power Company, Limited, Arret Du 5 Fevrier 1970.
lvii. Maurizio Ragazzi. The Concept of International obligations Erga Omnes, Oxford University Press, 1997.
lviii. Aaron X. Fellmeth & Maurice Horwitz. Guide to Latin in International Law, Oxford University Press, 2009.
lix. ICJ. Separate Opinion of Judge Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, in Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction.
lx. Christian J. Tams & Antonios Tzanakopoulos. Barcelona Traction at 40: The ICJ as an Agent of Legal Development, LJIL, Vol. 23, 2010.
lxi. Ardit Memeti. The concept of erga omnes obligations in international law, New Balkan Politics, vol. 14, 2013.
lxii. Sir Hersch Lauterpacht. The Development of International Law by the International Court, New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1958.
lxiii. A.J.J de Hoogh. Obligations Erga Omnes and International Crimes, Nijmegen, 1995.
lxiv. Diajeng Wulan Christianti. Why We Need Erga Omnes Character for Obligations to Combat Impunity for International Crimes?, PJIH, vol. 4, 2017.
lxv. Christian J. Tams. Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law, Cambridge university press, 2005.
lxvi. Ulf Linderfalk. International Legal Hierarchy Revisited– The Status of Obligations Erga Omnes, NJIL, vol. 80, 2011.
lxvii. G. Fitzmaurice. Third Report on Law of Treaties, in YBILC, 1958, vol. 2.
lxviii. Paolo Picone. Gli obblighi Erga Omnes tra passato efuture, Rivista didiritto internazionale, vol. 98, 2015.
lxix. Eric A. Posner. Erga Omnes Norms, Institutionalization, and Constitutionalism in International Law, Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers, 2008.
lxx. Marcel lchiro Bastos. Obligations Erga Omnes And International Public Order After The Decision In The Belgium V. Senegal Case, Revista dos Estudantes de Direito da UnB, 2013.
lxxi. Jure Vidmar. Norm Conflicts and Hierarchy in International Law, in Hierarchy in International Law by Erika De Wet and Jure Vidmar, Oxford University Press, 2012.
lxxii. Erika de Wet. Invoking obligations Erga Omnes in the twenty-first century, SAYIL, vol. 38, 2013.
lxxiii. Ernesto José Féliz. Obligations Erga Omnes as Multilateral Obligations In International Law, PhD, University of Oxford, 2012.
lxxiv. Tuomas Palosaari. More than Just Wishful Thinking? Existence and Identification of Environmental Obligations Erga Omnes, Master Thesis, University Of Eastern Finland, 2018.
lxxv. Alain Pellet. Conclusions, In the Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order By Christian Tomuschat And Jean-Marc Thouvenin, Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006.
lxxvi. M. Cherif Bassiouni. International Crimes: Jus Cogens and Obligation Erga Omnes, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 59, No. 4, 1996.
lxxvii. ICJ. Legal Consequences For States Of The Continued Presence Of South Africa In Namibia, (South West Africa), 1971.
lxxviii. General Assembly. Resolution 2131 (XX) of 21 December 1965 on the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of their Independence and Sovereignty.
lxxix. Resolution 2625 (XXV) on the Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, annex.
lxxx. General Assembly. Resolution 3411C (XXX) of 28 November 1975 on the special responsibility of the United Nations and the international community towards the oppressed people of South Africa.
lxxxi. Security Council resolution 473 (1980), para. 3; Security Council resolution 418 (1977).
lxxxii. Ian Brownlie. Principles of Public International Law, 3rd ed, Oxford Clarendon Press, 1979.
lxxxiii. Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Aloeboetoe and Others v. Suriname, Reparation and Costs, Judgment, Series C, No. 15, 1993.
lxxxiv. Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, Judgement, Series C, No. 250, 2012.
lxxxv. ICJ. Case Concerning East Timor (Portugal V. Australia), Judgment of 30 June 1995.
lxxxvi. ICJ. Legal Consequences of the Construction of the Wall in Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 2004.
lxxxvii. General Assembly. Resolution 33/28 A of 7 December 1978 on the question of Palestine.
lxxxviii. European Court of Justice. Council of the European Union v. Front populaire pour la libération de la saguia-el-hamra et du rio de oro (Front Polisario), Case C-104/16 P, Judgment, 2016.
lxxxix. Kadelbach, “Genesis, function and identification of jus cogens norms, in Netherlands Yearbook of International Law.
xc. ICJ. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion Of 8 July 1996; Declaration of President Bedjaoui; Dissenting Opinion Of Judge Weeramantry; Dissenting Opinion Of Judge Koroma.
xci. Former Yugoslavia. Prosecutor v. Dušan Tadić et al., Case No. IT-94-1, Decision of the Appeals Chamber on the Defense Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Judgement, 1995.
xcii. YBILC. 1950, Vol. 2.
xciii. YBILC, 1958, vol. 2.
xciv. YBILC. 1959, Vol. 2.
xcv. YBILC. 1960, vol. 2.
xcvi. YBILC. 1961, vol. 1.
xcvii. YBILC. 1962, vol. 1.
xcviii. YBILC. 1962, vol. 2.
xcix. YBILC. 1963, vol. 1.
c. YBILC. 1964, vol. 1.
ci. YBILC. 1966, vol. 1, part.1.
cii. YBILC. 1966, vol. 2.
ciii. YBILC. 1966, Vol. II.
civ. YBILC. 1968, vol. 1.
cv. YBILC. 1976, vol. 2, part. 2.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright and Licensing:
For all articles published in Journal of Legal Sciences, copyright is retained by the authors. Articles are licensed under an open access Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, meaning that anyone may download and read the paper for free. In addition, the article may be reused and quoted provided that the original published version is cited. These conditions allow for maximum use and exposure of the work.
Reproducing Published Material from other Publishers: It is absolutely essential that authors obtain permission to reproduce any published material (figures, schemes, tables or any extract of a text) which does not fall into the public domain, or for which they do not hold the copyright. Permission should be requested by the authors from the copyrightholder (usually the Publisher, please refer to the imprint of the individual publications to identify the copyrightholder).
Permission is required for: Your own works published by other Publishers and for which you did not retain copyright.
Substantial extracts from anyones' works or a series of works.
Use of Tables, Graphs, Charts, Schemes and Artworks if they are unaltered or slightly modified.
Photographs for which you do not hold copyright.
Permission is not required for: Reconstruction of your own table with data already published elsewhere. Please notice that in this case you must cite the source of the data in the form of either "Data from..." or "Adapted from...".
Reasonably short quotes are considered fair use and therefore do not require permission.
Graphs, Charts, Schemes and Artworks that are completely redrawn by the authors and significantly changed beyond recognition do not require permission.
Obtaining Permission
In order to avoid unnecessary delays in the publication process, you should start obtaining permissions as early as possible. If in any doubt about the copyright, apply for permission. Journal of Legal Sciences cannot publish material from other publications without permission.
The copyright holder may give you instructions on the form of acknowledgement to be followed; otherwise follow the style: "Reproduced with permission from [author], [book/journal title]; published by [publisher], [year].' at the end of the caption of the Table, Figure or Scheme.
