Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Audience and Authority—The Merit of the Doctrine of Jus Cogens

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2015

Part of the book series: Netherlands Yearbook of International Law ((NYIL,volume 46))

Abstract

It seems that, several decades after the 1969 Vienna Convention approved the concept of jus cogens and detailed its particular implications as part of positive international law, the debate as to the feasibility of this concept should be over. However, the current debate, while maintaining the adherence to the overall concept of jus cogens, questions its particular implications, either because those who take this view ask for extra evidence, or they are not confident that they can sell to the relevant legal audiences the view that the peremptory nature of the rule relates not to its binding force but to its normative implications. This contribution addresses the merit of this debate, and highlights the merit of jus cogens in relation to objective treaty obligations, sources of international law and the law of State immunity. Examining all the available evidence, this contribution concludes that the adherence to the ‘narrow’ version of the jus cogens doctrine, notably in cases relating to State immunity, represents not an accurate statement of the legal position, but political and ideological choices made and maintained by national and international courts.

LL.M. (Leiden); PhD (Cambridge); Lecturer, School of Law, University of Birmingham.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    ‘Rule’ and ‘norm’ are synonymous. The word ‘norm’ is used in Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, as well as by the International Court of Justice in cases of Nicaragua (note 7 below) and Legality of the Use of Nuclear Weapons. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States), ICJ, Merits, Judgment of 27 June 1986, at 100–101; Legality of the Use of Nuclear Weapons, ICJ, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, at 227.

  2. 2.

    See, e.g., Andreas Paulus debating whether jus cogens has liberal or Rawlsian conceptual underpinnings. Paulus 2005, at 297.

  3. 3.

    Bianchi 2013, at 457.

  4. 4.

    Fox 2011, at 524–525; Aust 2011, at 39–40; Sivakumaran 2009, at 149; Rensmann 2009, at 164–165; Vidmar 2013, at 1.

  5. 5.

    Schwarzenberger 1965, at 213–214; Weil 1983, at 421.

  6. 6.

    Simma 1994, at 285.

  7. 7.

    1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 UNTS 331.

  8. 8.

    Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States), at 100–101.

  9. 9.

    Despite doctrinal insistences to the opposite effect, e.g., Shelton 2002, at 843; Simma 2009, at 272.

  10. 10.

    1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 999 UNTS 171.

  11. 11.

    1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, ETS 5.

  12. 12.

    This runs into objective treaty obligations, see Sect. 5.3 below.

  13. 13.

    1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1249 UNTS 13.

  14. 14.

    1966 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 660 UNTS 195.

  15. 15.

    For an earlier contribution, see Higgins 1976–1977, at 282.

  16. 16.

    And this view has anyway been since contradicted by the Human Rights Committee, General Comment 29, States of emergency (Article 4), UN Doc. CCPR/21/Rev.1/Add.11, 31 August 2001.

  17. 17.

    Slivenko v. Latvia, ECtHR, No. 48321/99, 9 October 2004, paras 104–109.

  18. 18.

    1945 Statute of the International Court of Justice, 33 UNTS 993.

  19. 19.

    As discussed above, sub-Sect. 5.2.2 and below Sect. 5.3.

  20. 20.

    As suggested by Thirlway 2014, at 155–157.

  21. 21.

    For a detailed analysis of the practice consisting of decisions of ICJ, ICTY and national courts to this effect, see Orakhelashvili 2006, Chapter 5.

  22. 22.

    This could also be one of the possible rationalisations of the 1951 dictum on certain treaty obligations being binding even without any conventional obligation. See on detail Sect. 5.3 below.

  23. 23.

    See generally, de Hoogh 1996; Annacker 1994.

  24. 24.

    Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, ICJ, Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004, Separate Opinion of Judge Higgins, para 37.

  25. 25.

    Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v Senegal), ICJ, Judgment of 20 July 2012, para 69.

  26. 26.

    As Special Rapporteur Crawford suggests, peremptory norms and erga omnes obligations are virtually coextensive. J. Crawford, Special Rapporteur, Third report on state responsibility, 52nd session of the ILC, UN Doc. A/CN.4/507, 2000, para 106. Furthermore, ‘if a particular obligation can be set aside or displaced as between two States, it is hard to see how that obligation is owed to the international community as a whole.’ Ibid., 46–47.

  27. 27.

    Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite, para 68.

  28. 28.

    G.G. Fitzmaurice, Special Rapporteur, Second Report on the Law of Treaties, 9th session of the ILC, UN Doc. A/CN.4/107, 15 March 1957, at 54; G.G. Fitzmaurice, Special Rapporteur, Third Report on the Law of Treaties, 10th session of the ILC, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1958/Add.1, 1958, at 44.

  29. 29.

    G.G. Fitzmaurice, Special Rapporteur, Second Report on the Law of Treaties, 9th session of the ILC, UN Doc. A/CN.4/107, 15 March 1957, at 54.

  30. 30.

    International Law Commission, Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 53rd session of the ILC, UNGA Res 56/83, 12 December 2001 (ASR).

  31. 31.

    Reservations to the Genocide Convention, ICJ, Advisory Opinion, 28 May 1951, at 23.

  32. 32.

    See in general Simma 1989, at 821.

  33. 33.

    Reservations to the Genocide Convention, at 23.

  34. 34.

    E.g., duties under Articles 5 and 7 of the 1984 Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1465 UNTS 85; Article 6 of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 78 UNTS 277; Common Articles 49, 50, 129 and 146 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (1949 Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (First Geneva Convention), 75 UNTS 31; 1949 Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (Second Geneva Convention), 75 UNTS 85; 1949 Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Third Geneva Convention), 75 UNTS 135; 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention), 75 UNTS 287.

  35. 35.

    Austria v. Italy, ECsionHR, No. 778/70, 11 January 1961, 4 Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights, at 136–138.

  36. 36.

    Prosecutor v. Kupreskic, Trial Chamber, Judgment, Case No. IT-95-16-T, 14 January 2000, paras 511–517. Some vagueness was introduced by the subsequent ICTY decision in Martic. Where the Tribunal does not purport departing from Kupreskic, instead repeatedly cites Kupreskic in relation to every single finding on reprisals. Prosecutor v. Martic, Trial Chamber, Judgment, Case No. IT-95-11-T, 12 June 2007, paras 464–468. Yet, it introduces some degree of relativity when suggesting that, even where lawful, ‘reprisals must be exercised, to the extent possible, in keeping with the principle of the protection of the civilian population in armed conflict and the general prohibition of targeting civilians’. Prosecutor v. Martic, Trial Chamber, Judgment, Case No. IT-95-11-T, 12 June 2007, para 467 (emphasis added). More generally, Martic does not discuss as broad ground as Kupreskic does, and therefore the latter case is a better indication of the current state of the law in relation to reprisals in the area of humanitarian law.

  37. 37.

    See further on this sub-Sect. 5.3.5 below.

  38. 38.

    Application of the Genocide Convention (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro), ICJ, Judgment of 11 July 1996, para 31.

  39. 39.

    Ibid., para 34.

  40. 40.

    Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite, paras 102–104.

  41. 41.

    Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v Serbia), ICJ, Judgment of 3 February 2015, para 98.

  42. 42.

    Article 2 of the 1907 Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 36 Stat. 2277 provides that ‘[t]he provisions contained in the Regulations referred to in Article 1, as well as in the present Convention, do not apply except between Contracting powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention.’

  43. 43.

    Kupreskic, para 518.

  44. 44.

    Article 1 of the 1992 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, 1974 UNTS 45; Article 1 of the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions, 2688 UNTS 39.

  45. 45.

    Crawford 2006, at 102.

  46. 46.

    International Law Commission, Report of the International Law Commission, Jus cogens (Mr. D.D. Tladi), 66th session, UN Doc. A/69/10 Annex, 2014, at 274.

  47. 47.

    Ibid., at 282.

  48. 48.

    Jennings 1965, at 74; Dugard 1987.

  49. 49.

    For similar consequential approach, see further Articles 41–42, ILC Articles on the Responsibility of International Organisations, applying the same approach to the law of international organisations. 2nd reading, 2011, A/66/10.

  50. 50.

    Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Trial Chamber, Judgment, Case No. IT-95-17/I-T, 10 December 1998, para 155; Prosecutor v Morris Kallon & Brimma Bazzy Kamara, Decision on Challenge to Jurisdiction: Lomé Accord Amnesty, Cases No SCSL-2004-15-AR72(E) & SCSL-2004-16-AR72(E), 13 March 2004, para 71.

  51. 51.

    A (FC) and others (FC) (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) (2004), House of Lords, [2005] UKHL 71, 8 December 2005.

  52. 52.

    Kuwait Airways Corporation (Respondents) v. Iraqi Airways Company (Appellants) and Others, [2002] UKHL 19, 16 May 2002, paras 114 and 117.

  53. 53.

    Belhaj v Straw, Court of Appeal, [2014] EWCA Civ 1394, 30 October 2014, para 116; Regina (Youssef) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, [2013] EWCA Civ 1302, 29 October 2013, paras 54–55.

  54. 54.

    Fox 2011; Aust 2011; Sivakumaran 2009; Rensmann 2009; Vidmar 2013.

  55. 55.

    Ibid.

  56. 56.

    Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece Intervening), ICJ, Judgment of 3 February 2012. See also Espósito 2011.

  57. 57.

    Overall, five Law Lords subscribed to such extra-conventional effect of jus cogens: Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others, Ex Parte Pinochet [1999] UKHL 17 (24 March 1999), Lord Nicholls, paras 939–940, Lord Steyn, paras 945–946, Lord Hutton, paras 165–166, Lord Hope, para 242, and Lord Millett, para 179.

  58. 58.

    Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom, ECtHR, No. 35763/97, 21 November 2001; Jones v Saudi Arabia, [2006] UKHL 16, 14 June 2006; Khurts Bat v Mongolia, High Court, [2011] EWCH 2029 (Admin), 29 July 2011, para 74.

  59. 59.

    Furthermore, the 2009 IDI Naples resolution, treating the denial of immunities for the perpetrators of international crimes for the purpose of civil and criminal proceedings alike, was not addressed by the ICJ in Germany v Italy at all. Addressing this instrument would have enabled the Court to evenly balance its reasoning and apply its mind to conflicting considerations. See Institut de Droit International, Immunity from Jurisdiction of the State and of Persons Who Act on Behalf of the State in case of International Crimes, Naples Session, 2009.

  60. 60.

    Jones v Saudi Arabia, paras 24 and 44 (both Lords Bingham and Hoffmann referring to Fox); Fox 2011; Aust 2011; Sivakumaran 2009; Rensmann 2009; Vidmar 2013.

  61. 61.

    Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom, paras 19, 50–51.

  62. 62.

    For a relatively recent discussion, see Boudreault 2012, at 1003.

  63. 63.

    A. v Attorney General of Switzerland, Swiss Federal Criminal Court, Case No. BB.2011.140, Judgment of 25 July 2012, paras 5.3.5 and 5.4.3; Bashe Abdi Yousuf v Mohamed Ali Samantar, No. 11-1479, 2 November 2012, at 23.

  64. 64.

    Jones and Others v. The United Kingdom, ECtHR, Nos. 34356/06 & 40528/06, 14 January 2014, para 198.

  65. 65.

    On the Samantar v. Jousuf case see Supreme Court of the United States Blog, Samantar v. Jousuf, http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/samantar-v-yousuf-2/. Accessed 10 May 2015. Even if the Executive branch of the US Government was critical of the approach taken by the Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals decision still remains in force as an element of US State practice. The Executive’s position enjoys no primacy over it. There is no reason to assume that the separation of powers doctrine, otherwise applicable under the US Constitution, is irrelevant to determining how the US Government as a whole formulates its views on international legal issues. For the Government’s position, see Brief Amicus Curiae of United States, 10 December 2013, at 19 ff.

  66. 66.

    See, e.g. International Law Commission, Report of the International Law Commission, Jus cogens (Mr. D.D. Tladi), 66th session, UN Doc. A/69/10 Annex, 2014, para 12.

References

  • Annacker C (1994) Die Durchsetzung von erga omnes. Verpflichtungen vor dem Internationalen Gerichtshof. De Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Aust H (2011) Complicity and the law of state responsibility. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi A (2013) Gazing at the crystal ball (again): state immunity and jus cogens beyond Germany v. Italy. Journal of International Dispute Settlement 2:457–475

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudreault F (2012) Identifying conflicts of norms: the ICJ approach in the case of the Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening). Leiden J Int Law 25:1003–1012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford J (2006) Creation of states in international law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • de Hoogh A (1996) International crimes and erga omnes obligations: a theoretical inquiry into international responsibility of states. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Dugard J (1987) Recognition and the United Nations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Espósito C (2011) Jus cogens and jurisdictional immunities of states at the International Court of Justice: a conflict does exist. Ital Yearb Int Law 21:161–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox H (2011) The law of state immunity, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins R (1976) Derogations under human rights treaties. British Yearbook of International Law 48:281–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings RY (1965) Nullity and effectiveness in international law. In: Jennings RY (ed) Cambridge essays in international law. Essays in honour of Lord McNair. Stevens, London pp 64–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Orakhelashvili A (2006) Peremptory norms in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulus A (2005) Jus cogens in a time of hegemony and fragmentation: an attempt at a re-appraisal. Nordic Journal of International Law 74:297–333

    Google Scholar 

  • Rensmann T (2009) Impact on the Immunity of States and their Officials. In: Scheinin M, Kamminga M (eds) The impact of human rights law on general international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 151–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzenberger G (1965) The problem of international public policy. Curr Legal Prob 18:191–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelton D (2002) Righting wrongs: reparations in the Articles on State Responsibility. American Journal of International Law 96: 833–856

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma B (1989) Bilateralism and community interest in the Law of State Responsibility. In: Dinstein Y, Tabory M (eds) International law at a time of perplexity. Essays in honour of Shabtai Rosenne, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 821–844

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma B (1994) From bilateralism to community interest in international law. Recueil des Cours 250:217–348

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma B (2009) Universality of international law from the perspective of a practitioner. European Journal of International Law 20:265–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Sivakumaran S (2009) Impact on the structure of treaty obligations. In: Scheinin M, Kamminga M (eds) The impact of human rights law on general international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 133–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Thirlway H (2014) The sources of international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar J (2013) Rethinking jus cogens after Germany v Italy: back to Article 53? Neth Int Law Rev 60:1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Weil P (1983) Towards relative normativity in international law? Am J Int Law 77:413–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

    Alexander Orakhelashvili

Authors
  1. Alexander Orakhelashvili
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Orakhelashvili .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for International Law, University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Law, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Maarten den Heijer

  2. Chair of International Criminal Law, University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Law, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Harmen van der Wilt

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 T.M.C. Asser press and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Orakhelashvili, A. (2016). Audience and Authority—The Merit of the Doctrine of Jus Cogens . 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_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-114-2_5

  • 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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation