Economic, Social and Cultural Human Rights: The Journey towards Peremptory Norms in International Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-37
Author(s):  
Janelle M Diller
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Peremptory Norms

scholarly journals The Role of Customary International Law in Regulating the Activities of Armed Groups in the Field of Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 195-204
Author(s):  
R. I. Sharipov
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
Peremptory Norms

Over the past decades, there has been a significant increase in the number of armed groups involved in armed conflicts around the world, as well as in their impact on the rights and freedoms of the population under their control. Facing various situations of systematic violations of human rights by non-state actors, experts in the field of international human rights law began to consider the theoretical justification for the mandatory nature of the provisions on the observance and protection of human rights for armed groups. In this regard, a number of scholars have turned to the theory of customary international law, the acceptability of which is being investigated by the author of this paper. The author examines the provisions underlying this theory and the persuasiveness of the argumentation used by its supporters. Based on an analysis of the nature of customary international law, its structural elements, their interpretation by the UN International Court of Justice in its decisions and the relationship of customary international law with peremptory norms of jus cogens, the author concludes that the theory under consideration is currently unable to explain the existence of obligations of armed groups in the field of human rights.

II. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE: QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE OBLIGATION TO EXTRADITE OR PROSECUTE (BELGIUM v SENEGAL) JUDGMENT OF 20 JULY 2012

2013 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 753-769 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mads Andenas ◽  
Thomas Weatherall
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
Heads Of State ◽  
Peremptory Norms

This case1 marks the first pronouncement by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the obligation to extradite or prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare) in international law. It is the second contentious case in which the ICJ has held the defendant country in breach of its obligations under a human rights convention. The ICJ both added to the corpus of norms it has formally recognized as peremptory norms (jus cogens) and also reinforced the principle that former heads of state are subject to universal jurisdiction for grave violations of international law.

Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Armed Groups in Other Situations of Violence: The Syria Example

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tilman Rodenhäuser
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
Syrian Arab Republic ◽  
Recent Trends ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Peremptory Norms ◽  
Vertical Relation

In February 2012, the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic found that opposition groups fighting against the Assad regime are bound by human rights obligations constituting peremptory norms of international law. This finding is innovative for two reasons. First, human rights obligations apply generally to the vertical relation between States and their subjects. Second, whereas is seems accepted that non-state armed groups can have human rights obligations when they control territory, the Commission of Inquiry was unable to confirm that Syrian opposition forces exercised such control over territory. This article examines whether the finding that non-state armed groups are bound by peremptory human rights norms is supported by contemporary international law. Moreover, recent trends in the practice of the United Nations with regard to human rights obligations of non-state actors will be analysed. Even though this article argues that non-state armed groups can have human rights obligations in other situations of violence, it points out particular challenges to their practical application.

A Return toCommunitarianism? Reacting to “Serious Breaches of Obligations Arising under Peremptory Norms of General International Law” under the Law of State Responsibility and United Nations Law

2005 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
pp. 197-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Toufayan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
State Action ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The Law ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Peremptory Norms

SummaryDiscussion surrounding the prevention of genocide has focused to a large extent on the appropriate mode(s) of reaction to particularly serious breaches of human rights obligations. In particular, the question arose whether existing UN mechanisms aimed at preserving international peace and security should be regarded as a privileged — or even exclusive — means to enforce compliance by states with their obligations relating to genocide. Drawing extensively on the work of the International Law Commission on the codification of the law of state responsibility, the author argues that the new draft articles, with their emphasis on “serious breaches of obligations arising under peremptory norms of general international law” rather than obligations erga omnes, are ill-suited to provide for the taking of preventive measures by “not-directly affected” states. Paradoxically, the institutionalization of mechanisms for preventing gross human rights abuses has been reduced to a minimum in the new draft, with emphasis being laid on the vague requirement that states “cooperate” to bring “serious breaches” to an end. It is suggested, however, that ascribing a subsidiary role to UN organs and procedures is, despite criticisms made as to their adequacy, necessary to supplement state action. The UN has in fact a distinct legal interest that is clearly affected when breaches of obligations relating to genocide occur. More importantly, by acting on behalf of the “organized international community” in matters of international peace and security, the Security Council has itself assumed today a legally binding subsidiary obligation to prevent genocide. The article concludes that in the absence of ineffective decisional institutions for the prevention of genocide, the choice is not between the subjectivism of a decentralized response and the absence of any consequences for the most serious wrongful acts but rather to strengthen the UN’s institutional capacity to react.

International law and armed non-state actors in Afghanistan

2011 ◽  
Vol 93 (881) ◽  
pp. 47-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annyssa Bellal ◽  
Gilles Giacca ◽  
Stuart Casey-Maslen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Responsibility ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
State Actors ◽  
Peremptory Norms

AbstractAn effective legal regime governing the actions of armed non-state actors in Afghanistan should encompass not only international humanitarian law but also international human rights law. While the applicability of Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions to the conflict is not controversial, how and to what extent Additional Protocol II applies is more difficult to assess, in particular in relation to the various armed actors operating in the country. The applicability of international human rights law to armed non-state actors – considered by the authors as important, particularly in Afghanistan – remains highly controversial. Nevertheless, its applicability to such actors exercising control over a population is slowly becoming more accepted. In addition, violations of peremptory norms of international law can also directly engage the legal responsibility of such groups.

scholarly journals HAK ASASI MANUSIA SEBAGAI JUS COGENS DAN KAITANNYA DENGAN HAK ATAS PENDIDIKAN

Yuridika ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 352
Author(s):  
Virgayani Fattah
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Right To Education ◽  
Social Community ◽  
National Education ◽  
Peremptory Norm ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
The Right ◽  
Peremptory Norms

Jus cogens as a norm of general international law accepted and recognized by the community as a whole interasional with the main characteristics are non-derogable nature. The right to education is a fundamental human rights, so that its presence can not be reduced under any circumstances based on the benefits and importance of education for children. The national education policy is not fully aligned with the international human rights instruments led to the development of the education sector is not entirely based on human rights. Government is obliged to fulfill the right to education, especially with regard to the budget for building and repairing school buildings and improve the quality of education in Indonesia. The importance of the right to education as the main vehicle for elevating and empowering children from poverty, as a means to actively participate in the construction and total social community and as a powerful path towards human civilization itself. So it can be understood that a peremptory norm, also called jus cogens is a basic principle of international law that is considered to have been accepted in the international community of the country as a whole. Unlike general treaty law that traditionally requires treaties and allows for changes in obligations between countries through treaties, peremptory norms can not be violated by any country.

scholarly journals UK GOVERNMENT CANNOT HIDE FROM COMPLICITY IN HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES

2017 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-227
Author(s):  
Andrew Sanger
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
British Government ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Uk Government ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Peremptory Norms

IN the joined appeals of Belhaj v Straw and Rahmatullah (No 1) v Ministry of Defence [2017] UKSC 3, the UK Supreme Court held that state immunity and the foreign act of state doctrine did not prevent claims against the British Government alleging complicity in human rights abuses and breaches of peremptory norms of international law.

State Immunity in National and International Law: Three Recent Cases Before the European Court of Human Rights

2002 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 703-714 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Orakhelashvili
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
International Law ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Peremptory Norms

The issue of state immunity in the case of human rights violations has been controversial in the last decade, partly due to the absence of international judicial pronouncements. The bringing of the three cases previously litigated in the United Kingdom and Ireland before the European Court of Human Rights was supposed to reduce this uncertainty. However, decisions of the Court seem to have failed to meet these expectations. The Court has failed to properly examine whether the sources of international law support the scope of state immunity as portrayed in the decisions. Furthermore, the decision on Al-Adsani is deficient in that it fails to respect the difference between sovereign and non-sovereign acts, and the effects of peremptory norms with regard to state immunity.

scholarly journals A CRITIQUE OF THE DEMISE OF HEADS OF STATE IMMUNITY IN THE AGE OF HUMAN RIGHTS

2018 ◽  
pp. 108-127
Author(s):  
SELMAN OZDAN
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
Heads Of State ◽  
Peremptory Norms

This paper presents an unspoken aspect of Head of State immunity, namely that such immunity is at odds with the expectation that international law should be applied to challenge resistance to and promote respect for human rights. It considers the question of whether Head of State immunity gives rise to de facto impunity in the case of violations of human rights recognised as peremptory norms (jus cogens) committed by such Heads of State. While this paper emphasises the critical role of Head of State immunity in the context of international relations, it argues that Heads of State should not exempt from punishment when violations of those human rights are at stake.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document