Abstract
Despite growing reference to jus cogens in the jurisprudence of international courts and scholarly writings, the concept remains vague. What is jus cogens? Why does it matter? What are its effects? These questions remain unsettled, and the time is ripe for further in-depth investigation. This chapter aims at addressing this set of questions, focusing on the role of jus cogens in international investment law and arbitration. Jus cogens has played an important role in the evolution of international investment law, and illuminating the trajectory of this concept is important for the future of the field. In fact, not only can the study contribute to further clarifying the concept of jus cogens but it can also reinforce the perceived legitimacy of the international investment law system. These developments can be significant for international investment lawyers, international law scholars and other interested audiences.
The mystery of jus cogens remains a mystery (Sinclair 1984), at 224.
Professor of International Economic Law, Lancaster University, United Kingdom. The author wishes to thank Emily Den, the anonymous reviewers and the Editorial Board for helpful comments on an earlier draft. The usual disclaimer applies. The research for this chapter has been funded in part by the European Research Council under the European Union’s ERC Starting Grant Agreement No. 639564. This chapter reflects the author’s views only and not necessarily those of the European Union.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
There is considerable literature on jus cogens in international law. See, inter alia, Verdross 1937, at 571–577; Rolin 1960, at 441–462; Schwarzenberger 1964–1965, at 455–78; Schwarzenberger 1965, at 191–214; Verdross 1966, at 55–63; Ronzitti 1984, at 209–272; Saulle 1987, at 385–396; Janis 1987a–1988 1987–1988a; Orakhelashvili 2006; Bianchi 2008, at 491–508.
- 2.
Verdross 1966, at 58.
- 3.
Article 53 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 UNTS 331 (VCLT).
- 4.
Ibid.
- 5.
Ibid.
- 6.
Sztucki 1974, at 4.
- 7.
Verdross 1937.
- 8.
See generally Kadelbach 2016.
- 9.
Janis 1987a–1988 1987–1988b.
- 10.
Glennon 2006, at 529.
- 11.
D’Amato 1990–1991, at 1.
- 12.
Koskenniemi 2005, at 113.
- 13.
Schwarzenberger 1965, at 213.
- 14.
Paulus 2005, at 309.
- 15.
Dupuy 2005, at 136.
- 16.
- 17.
Case Concerning the Delimitation of Maritime Boundary Between Guinea-Bissau and Senegal, Arbitral Award, 31 July 1989, vol. XX UNRIAA, 119 at para 44 (highlighting that a jus cogens norm can develop as either custom or general principle of law); Kadelbach 2016, at 167 (noting that jus cogens norms can be ‘found in many if not all sources of international law’); Weil 1983, at 425 (noting that ‘peremptory norms may originate in any of the formal sources of international law: conventions, customs and general principles of law’).
- 18.
International Law Commission, Reports on the second part of its 17th session and on its 18th session, 17th and 18th session of the ILC, UN Doc. A/6309/Rev.1, 1966, at 248. The report states that ‘[i]t is not the form of a general rule of international law, but the particular nature of the subject matter with which it deals that … may give it the character of jus cogens’.
- 19.
Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Congo v Rwanda), ICJ, Judgment of 3 February 2006, para 64.
- 20.
Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro), ICJ, Judgment of 26 February 2007, para 161.
- 21.
Ibid., para 320.
- 22.
Ibid., para 344.
- 23.
Ibid.
- 24.
Ibid., para 161.
- 25.
Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v Senegal), ICJ, Judgment of 20 July 2012, para 99.
- 26.
Ibid.
- 27.
See sect. 12.4 below.
- 28.
- 29.
Article 53 VCLT.
- 30.
Marceau 2002, at 778.
- 31.
Article 44(5) VCLT.
- 32.
- 33.
Sinclair 1984, at 139.
- 34.
Sands 1999, at 49.
- 35.
This expression is borrowed from United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline (US – Gasoline), Appellate Body Report, WT/DS2/AB/R, 20 May 1996, at 18.
- 36.
1965 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States, 575 UNTS 159 (the ICSID or Washington Convention).
- 37.
1992 North American Free Trade Agreement, 32 ILM 289 (NAFTA).
- 38.
Dupuy 2009, at 60.
- 39.
See, for instance, Cordero Moss 2006, at 13.
- 40.
Paulsson 2006, at 888–889.
- 41.
Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), ICJ, Judgment of 25 September 1997, para 76.
- 42.
Orakhelashvili 2006, at 498.
- 43.
Ibid.
- 44.
Schwarzenberger 1964–1965, at 477 (internal citations omitted).
- 45.
Verdross 1966, at 62.
- 46.
Casanovas 2001, at 77.
- 47.
In his separate opinion to the ruling on jurisdiction in the case Armed Activities in the Territory of the Congo between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, Judge Dugard affirmed: ‘norms of jus cogens advance both principles and policy … they must inevitably play a dominant role in the process of judicial choice’. Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Rwanda), ICJ, Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment of 3 February 2006, Separate Opinion of Judge ad hoc Dugard, para 10.
- 48.
Schwarzenberger 1964–1965, at 455.
- 49.
- 50.
Hameed 2014, at 66.
- 51.
Hunter and Conde e Silva 2003, at 367.
- 52.
Sheppard 2004, at 1.
- 53.
Hameed 2014, at 67.
- 54.
Virally 1966, at 7.
- 55.
Ibid., at 7.
- 56.
Ibid., at 8.
- 57.
Lalive 1987, at 266 (noting that ‘the international public policy of the forum has no reason to intervene, properly speaking, whenever public international law applies by reason of its priority’).
- 58.
Linderfalk 2012, at 11.
- 59.
World Duty Free v. Republic of Kenya, ICSID, Award, Case No. ARB/00/7, 4 October 2006, para 141.
- 60.
- 61.
- 62.
- 63.
Gaillard and Savage 1999, at 861.
- 64.
Kreindler 2003, at 244.
- 65.
Lew, Mistelis and Kröll 2003, at 93–94.
- 66.
Rubino-Sammartano 2001, at 504.
- 67.
See, for instance, Article 35 of the 1997 International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules of Arbitration, 36 ILM 1604: ‘the Arbitral Tribunal shall act in the spirit of these rules and shall make every effort to make sure that the Award is enforceable at law.’
- 68.
Menaker 2010, at 72.
- 69.
The grounds for setting aside arbitral awards are set out in the lex loci arbitri or the law of the seat which establishes the link between an arbitration procedure and a certain legal order. See Giovannini 2001, at 115.
- 70.
1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 330 UNTS 38 (New York Convention).
- 71.
Article V.2 New York Convention.
- 72.
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), Model law on international commercial arbitration, UN Doc. A/40/17 Annex 1 and A/61/17 Annex I, 21 June 1985, amended on 7 July 2006 (UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration).
- 73.
Article 36(1)(b)(ii) UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.
- 74.
Arfazadeh 2002, at 1–10.
- 75.
1965 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States, 575 UNTS 159 (ICSID Convention).
- 76.
Article 54(1) of the ICSID Convention requires Contracting States to enforce an ICSID award ‘as if it were a final judgment of a court in that State’.
- 77.
The ICSID Convention provides for the following remedies: interpretation of the award (Article 50), rectification of the award (Article 51), and annulment of the award (Article 52).
- 78.
Article 53(1), ICSID Convention.
- 79.
Schreuer 2001, at 1129.
- 80.
Ibid.
- 81.
Giardina 2007, at 29–39.
- 82.
Baldwin, Kantor and Nolan 2006, at 8.
- 83.
Case Concerning Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, PCIJ, Merits, Judgment of 25 May 1926, at 167.
- 84.
Seraglini 2001, at 533.
- 85.
Orakhelashvili 2006, at 27.
- 86.
Methanex v. United States of America, UNCITRAL (NAFTA), Final Award of the Tribunal on Jurisdiction and Merits, 3 August 2005, 44 ILM 1345, Part IV, ch. C, para 24.
- 87.
Ibid., Part IV, ch. C, para 24.
- 88.
Ibid.
- 89.
Ibid.
- 90.
Biloune and Marine Drive Complex Ltd v. Ghana Investments Centre and the Government of Ghana, UNCITRAL, Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, 27 October 1989, 95 ILR 184.
- 91.
Ibid., at 203.
- 92.
Spyridon Roussalis v. Romania, ICSID, Award, Case No. ARB/06/1, 7 December 2011.
- 93.
Article 10 of the Greece-Romania BIT provided: ‘[i]f the provisions of law of either Contracting Party or obligations under international law existing at present or established hereafter between the Contracting Parties in addition to this Agreement, contain a regulation, whether general or specific, entitling investments by investors of the other Contracting Party to a treatment more favourable than is provided for by this Agreement, such regulation shall to the extent that it is more favourable, prevail over this Agreement’. Spyridon Roussalis v. Romania, para 310.
- 94.
In casu the claimant referred to the right to property and the right to fair proceedings as protected under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and of Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention. Ibid., para 10.
- 95.
Ibid., para 312.
- 96.
Ibid.
- 97.
Maria Luz Arbitration, award rendered by the Czar of Russia, 17–19 May 1875, quoted by Lalive 1986, at 49.
- 98.
For a detailed account of the case, see Botsman 2006.
- 99.
Saveliev 2002, at 75–78.
- 100.
Ibid.
- 101.
Keene 2002, at 216–218.
- 102.
Saveliev 2002, at 75–78.
- 103.
‘Unequal treaties’ refer to a series of treaties signed during the 19th and early 20th centuries by European countries on the one hand and China, Korea and Japan on the other hand, after the latter suffered military defeat or a threat of military action by the former. See, generally, Auslin 2006.
- 104.
See The Government of Kuwait v. The American Independent Oil Co (Kuwait v. Aminoil), Ad Hoc Arbitral Tribunal, 24 March 1982, 21 ILM 976.
- 105.
Ibid., para 90.2.
- 106.
Texaco Overseas Petroleum Company and California Asiatic Oil Company v. The Government of the Libyan Arab Republic, International Arbitral Tribunal, Award on the Merits, 19 January 1977, 17 ILM 11.
- 107.
Ibid., para 78.
- 108.
Cantegreil 2011, at 441.
- 109.
Verdross 1937, at 575 (arguing that ‘a state cannot be bound to close its schools, universities or courts, to abolish its police or to reduce its public services in such a way as to expose the population to the dangers of disorder and anarchy, in order to obtain the necessary funds for the satisfaction of foreign creditors’).
- 110.
EDF International, SAUR international, and Léon Participationes Argentinas v. Argentina, ICSID, Award, Case No. ARB/03/23, 11 June 2012.
- 111.
Ibid., para 192 (quoting the Respondent’s Rejoinder: ‘it was necessary to enact the Emergency Tariff measures in order to guarantee the free enjoyment of certain basic human rights such as, inter alia, the right to life, health, personal integrity, education, the rights of children and political rights which were directly threatened by the socio-economic institutional collapse suffered by the Argentine Republic’).
- 112.
Ibid., para 193 (stating that ‘the non-derogable nature of such rights is said to be conclusive evidence that they are tantamount to jus cogens’).
- 113.
Ibid., paras 909–911.
- 114.
Ibid., paras 912–914.
- 115.
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. and Vivendi Universal, S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID, Decision on Liability, Case No. ARB/03/19, 30 July 2010, para 262.
- 116.
Azurix v. Argentine Republic, ICSID, Award, Case No. ARB/01/12, 14 July 2006, para 254.
- 117.
Ibid., para 261.
- 118.
Siemens v. Argentina, ICSID, Award, Case No. ARB/02/8, 6 February 2007, para 75.
- 119.
Ibid., para 79.
- 120.
Ibid., para 114.
- 121.
CMS Gas Transmission Co. v. Argentina, ICSID, Award, Case No. ARB/01/08, 12 May 2005, at para 121.
- 122.
Reiner and Schreuer 2009, at 90.
- 123.
Glamis Gold, Ltd. v. United States of America, ICSID/UNCITRAL, Award, 8 June 2009, 48 ILM 1038, para 654.
- 124.
Boisson de Chazournes 2010, at 310.
- 125.
Sempra Energy International v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID, Award, Case No. ARB/02/16, 28 September 2007, para 332.
- 126.
Continental Casualty v. Argentine Republic, ICSID, Award, Case No. ARB/03/9, 5 September 2008, para 192.
- 127.
Ibid., para 227.
- 128.
See, generally, Boersma 2012.
- 129.
Criddle and Fox-Decent 2009 at 327.
- 130.
Argentine Engineer v. British Company, ICC, Award, Case No. 1110, Yearbook of Commercial Arbitration 47, at 61.
- 131.
Ibid. For commentary, see Tirado, Page and Meagher 2014, at 495.
- 132.
World Duty Free v. Republic of Kenya, ICSID, Award, Case No ARB/00/7, 4 October 2006, para 157.
- 133.
Ibid., para 157.
- 134.
Ibid.
- 135.
Ibid., para 188.
- 136.
Ibid., para 181.
- 137.
Inceysa Vallisoletana SL v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID, Award, Case No. ARB/03/26, 2 August 2006, paras 263–4.
- 138.
Phoenix Action Ltd. v. The Czech Republic, ICSID, Award, Case No. ARB/06/5, 15 April 2009, para 78.
- 139.
Metal-Tech Ltd. v. The Republic of Uzbekistan, ICSID, Award, Case No. ARB/10/3, 4 October 2013.
- 140.
Ibid., para 422.
- 141.
Hunter and Conde e Silva 2003, at 372.
- 142.
Ibid., at 374.
- 143.
Douglas 2014, at 180.
- 144.
Ibid., at 181.
- 145.
Ibid.
- 146.
Trari-Tani 2011, at 89.
- 147.
- 148.
Trari-Tani 2011, at 96.
- 149.
This dynamism is acknowledged by the VCLT which admits that new peremptory norms may emerge, causing the voidness or termination of any treaty which is in conflict with that norm (Article 64) and that newly arisen peremptory norms can modify previous norms having the same character (Article 53).
- 150.
Linderfalk 2016.
- 151.
Weil 1983, at 421.
- 152.
Virally 1966, at 6 (noting that ‘Son admission sur une large échelle aurait des conséquences qu’il n’est pas exagéré de qualifier révolutionnaires’).
- 153.
Weil 1983, at 422.
- 154.
d’Aspremont 2016, at 94.
- 155.
d’Aspremont 2016.
- 156.
Janis 1987a–1988, at 361; Criddle and Fox-Decent 2009; and Gould 2011, at 271.
- 157.
Gould 2011, at 271.
- 158.
Ibid., at 272 (quoting Mr. Cole, representative from Sierra Leone at the Vienna Conference).
- 159.
Weil 1983, at 422.
- 160.
Cassese, 2005, at 202.
- 161.
Gould 2011, at 272 (quoting Mr. Dons, representative from Norway at the Vienna Conference).
- 162.
Virally 1966, at 10.
- 163.
Paulus 2005, at 299–300.
- 164.
Gould 2011, at 264.
- 165.
Due to space limits, this chapter does not discusses amicus curiae briefs or third party/NGO jus cogens arguments. For an interesting case study, see Vadi 2015.
- 166.
Linderfalk 2012, at 11.
- 167.
Bianchi 2008, at 493.
- 168.
Paulus 2005, at 297.
- 169.
Ibid., at 299.
- 170.
Ruiz Fabri 2012, at 1050.
- 171.
Ibid.
- 172.
Paulus 2005, at 332.
- 173.
Bassiouni 1990, at 808–809.
- 174.
Ruiz Fabri 2012, at 1052.
- 175.
Paulus 2005, at 332.
- 176.
Cassese 2012, at 166.
- 177.
Zemanek 2011, at 388 (arguing that the closest is the ICJ). See also Ford 1994–1995, at 145.
- 178.
Paulus 2005, at 331.
- 179.
Saul 2015, at 28.
- 180.
Focarelli 2008, at 429.
- 181.
Linderfalk 2008, at 855.
- 182.
Ibid., at 868.
- 183.
Weatherall 2015.
References
Arfazadeh H (2002) In the shadow of the unruly horse: international arbitration and the public policy exception. Am Rev Int Arbitr 13:1–10
Arfazadeh H (2005) Ordre public et arbitrage international à l’épreuve de la mondialisation. Bruylant, Bruxelles
Auslin MR (2006) Negotiating with imperialism: the unequal treaties and the culture of Japanese diplomacy. Harvard University Press, Boston, MA
Bassiouni MC (1990) A functional approach to ‘general principles of international law’. Mich J Int Law 11:768–818
Bianchi A (2008) Human rights and the magic of jus cogens. Eur J Int Law 19:491–508
Boersma M (ed) (2012) Corruption and human rights: interdisciplinary perspectives. Intersentia, Antwerp
Boisson de Chazournes L (2010) Fundamental rights and international arbitration: arbitral awards and constitutional law. In: ICCA Congress series no. 15, International arbitration conference Rio de Janeiro, 23–26 May 2010, Wolters Kluwer Law, pp 309–324
Botsman D (2006) Freedom without slavery? The case of the Maria Luz and the question of emancipation in nineteenth century Japan. Paper presented at the Conference on Trans-Pacific Relations, Princeton University
Brownlie I (1998) Principles of public international law, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Cannizzaro E (2011) The Law of Treaties beyond the Vienna Convention. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Cantegreil J (2011) The audacity of the Texaco/Calasiatic award: René-Jean Dupuy and the internationalization of foreign investment law. Eur J Int Law 22:441–458
Casanovas O (2001) Unity and pluralism in public international law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague
Cassese A (2005) International law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Cassese A (2012) For an enhanced role of jus cogens. In: Cassese A (ed) Realizing utopia: the future of international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 158–171
Cordero Moss G (2006) Is the arbitral tribunal bound by the parties’ factual and legal pleadings? Stockh Int Arbitr Rev 3:1–31
Criddle EJ, Fox-Decent E (2009) A fiduciary theory of jus cogens. Yale J Int Law 34:331–387
D’Amato A (1990–1991) It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s jus cogens! Conn J Int Law 6:1–6
d’Aspremont (2016) Jus cogens as a social construct without pedigree. Neth Yearb Int Law 46:85–114
Dörr O, Schmalenbach K (2012) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. A commentary. Springer, Heidelberg
Douglas Z (2014) The plea of illegality in investment treaty arbitration. ICSID Rev Foreign Investment Law J 29:155–186
Dupuy P-M (2005) Some reflections on contemporary international law and the appeal to universal values: a response to Martti Koskenniemi. Eur J Int Law 16:131–137
Dupuy P-M (2009) Unification rather than fragmentation of international law? The case of international investment law and human rights law. In: Petersmann E-U, Francioni F, Dupuy P-M (eds) Human rights in international investment law and arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Focarelli C (2008) Promotional jus cogens: a critical appraisal of jus cogens’ legal effects. Nord J Int Law 77:429–459
Ford CA (1994–1995) Adjudicating jus cogens. Wis Int Law J 13:145–181
Gaillard E, Savage J (1999) Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldmann on international commercial arbitration. Kluwer Law Int, The Hague
Gardiner R (2008) Treaty interpretation. Oxford University Press, New York
Giardina A (2007) International investment arbitration: recent developments as to the applicable law and unilateral recourse. Law Pract Int Courts Tribunals 5:29–39
Giovannini T (2001) The making and enforcement of the arbitral award: what are the grounds on which awards are most often set aside? Bus Lawyer Int 1:115–127
Glennon MJ (2006) De l’absurdité du droit impératif (jus cogens). Rev Gén Droit Int Public 3:529–536
Gould H (2011) Categorical obligation in international law. Int Theor 3:254–285
Hameed A (2014) Unravelling the mystery of jus cogens in international law. Br Yearb Int Law 84:52–102
Hunter M, Conde e Silva G (2003) Transnational public policy and its application in investment arbitrations. J World Investment and Trade 4:367–378
Janis MW (1987a–1988) The nature of jus cogens. Conn J Int Law 3:359–363
Janis MW (1987b–1988) Jus cogens: an artful not a scientific reality. Conn J Int Law 3:370
Kadelbach S (2016) Genesis function and identification of jus cogens norms. Neth Yearb Int Law 46:147–172
Kantor E, Baldwin M, Nolan M (2006) Limits to enforcement of ICSID awards. J Int Arbitr 23:1–24
Keene D (2002) Emperor of Japan: Meiji and his world 1852–1912. Columbia University Press, New York
Koskenniemi M (2005) International law in Europe: between tradition and renewal. Eur J Int Law 16:113–124
Kreindler RH (2003) Approaches to the application of transnational public policy by arbitrators. J World Investment Trade 4:239–250
Lalive P (1986) Ordre public transnational (ou réellement international) et arbitrage international. Revue de l’Arbitrage 329–373
Lalive P (1987) Transnational (or truly international) public policy and international arbitration. In: Sanders P (ed) Comparative arbitration practice and public policy in arbitration, ICCA Congress Series, 1986 New York, vol 3. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 258–318
Lew JDM, Mistelis LA, Kröll SM (2003) Comparative international commercial arbitration. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Linderfalk U (2008) The effect of jus cogens norms: whoever opened Pandora’s box, did you ever think about the consequences? Eur J Int Law 18:853–871
Linderfalk U (2012) What is so special about jus cogens? On the difference between the ordinary and the peremptory international law. Int Community Law Rev 14:3–18
Linderfalk (2016) Understanding the jus cogens debate: the pervasive influence of legal positivism and legal idealism. Neth Yearb Int Law 46:51–84
MacLachlan C (2005) The principle of systemic integration and article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention. Int Comp Law Q 54:279–320
Madalena I, Pereira D (2012) Human rights as a defence in investor-state arbitration. Advocates for International Development
Marceau G (2002) WTO dispute settlement and human rights. Eur J Int Law 13:753–814
Menaker A (2010) The determinative impact of fraud and corruption on investment arbitrations. ICSID Rev Foreign Investment Law J 25:67–75
Meyer P (1994) Droit international privé. Montchrestien, Paris
Orakhelashvili A (2006) Peremptory norms in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Orakhelashvili A (2008) The interpretation of acts and rules in public international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Paulsson J (2006) International arbitration and the generation of legal norms: treaty arbitration and international law. ICCA Congress Series. Kluwer Law, The Hague, pp 888–889
Paulus AL (2005) Jus cogens in a time of hegemony and fragmentation. Nord J Int Law 74:297–334
Reiner C, Schreuer C (2009) Human rights and international investment arbitration. In: Petersmann E-U, Francioni F, Dupuy P-M (eds) Human rights in international investment law and arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 82–96
Rolin H (1960) Vers un ordre public rèellement international. Hommage d’une génération de juristes au Président Basdevant. Pedone, Paris, pp 441–462
Ronzitti N (1984) Trattati contrari a norme imperative del diritto internazionale. Studi in onore di Giuseppe Sperduti. Giuffré, Milano, pp 209–272
Rubino-Sammartano M (2001) International arbitration law and practice. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Ruiz Fabri H (2012) Enhancing the rhetoric of jus cogens. Eur J Int Law 23:1049–1058
Sands P (1999) Sustainable development: treaty, custom and the cross-fertilization of international law. In: Boyle A, Freestone D (eds) International law and sustainable development. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Saul M (2015) Identifying jus cogens norms: the interaction of scholars and international judges. Asian J Int Law 5:26–54
Saulle MR (1987) Jus cogens and human rights. Le droit international à l’heure de sa codification. Giuffré, Milan, pp 385–396
Saveliev I (2002) Rescuing the prisoners of the Maria Luz: the Meji Government and the ‘Coolie Trade’. In: Edström B (ed) Turning points in Japanese history. Routledge Curzon, London
Schreuer C (2001) The ICSID Convention: a commentary. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Schwarzenberger G (1964–1965) International jus cogens? Texas Law Rev 43:455–478
Schwarzenberger G (1965) The problem of international public policy. Curr Legal Probl 18:191–214
Schwelb E (1967) Some aspects of international jus cogens as formulated by the international law commission. Am J Int Law 61:946–975
Seraglini C (2001) Lois de police et justice arbitrale internationale. Dalloz, Paris
Sheppard A (2004) Public policy and the enforcement of arbitral awards: should there be a global standard? Transnational Dispute Management 1, www.transnational-dispute-management.com. Accessed 20 Sept 2015
Sinclair I (1984) The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Manchester University Press, Manchester
Sztucki J (1974) Jus cogens and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Springer, Wien/New York
Tirado J, Page M, Meagher D (2014) Corruption investigations by governmental authorities and investment arbitration: an uneasy relationship. ICSID Rev Foreign Investment Law J 29:493–513
Trari-Tani M (2011) L’ordre public transnational devant l’arbitre international. Arab Law Q 25:89–102
Vadi V (2012) Public health in international investment law and arbitration. Routledge, Abingdon
Vadi V (2015) Crossed destinies: international economic courts and the protection of cultural heritage. J Int Econ Law 18:51–77
Verdross A (1937) Forbidden treaties in international law. Am J Int Law 31:571–577
Verdross A (1966) Jus dispositivum and jus cogens in international law. Am J Int Law 60:55–63
Villiger ME (2009) Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Brill, Leiden
Virally M (1966) Réflexions sur le jus cogens. Annuaire Fr Droit Int 12:5–7
Weatherall T (2015) Jus cogens: international law and social contract. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Weil P (1983) Towards relative normativity in international law? Am J Int Law 77:413–442
Zemanek K (2011) The metamorphosis of jus cogens: from an institution of treaty law to the bedrock of the international legal order. In: Cannizzaro E (ed) The Law of Treaties beyond the Vienna Convention. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 T.M.C. Asser press and the authors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vadi, V. (2016). Jus Cogens in International Investment Law and Arbitration. In: Heijer, M., van der Wilt, H. (eds) Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2015. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, vol 46. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-114-2_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-114-2_12
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-113-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-114-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)
