scholarly journals Jus Cogens: Problem of the Role in Treaty Interpretation

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 305-318
Author(s):  
Svitlana Karvatska
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Decisive Role ◽  
Law System ◽  
Paradoxical Situation ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Treaty Interpretation ◽  
International Legal System ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Jus Cogens

Due to their specific legal nature, the jus cogens rules occupy a special place and have conceptual significance in international law system in the vein that their non-compliance may, in fact, sabotage foundations of the international legal system based on states consent. Since the entry into force of the VCLT, jus cogens concept in international law has moved closer to international legal practice. A paradoxical situation exists - jus cogens concept in international law is generally accepted, there is also a normatively established definition of such a rule, but its specific framework and content remain unclear. The ICJ has repeatedly addressed the issue of jus cogens norms, but a detailed concept on jus cogens has not been formed. It is analyzed that the problem of establishing jus cogens is difficult to solve in abstractio. The reason lies not only in the absence of a single official list of norms jus cogens – the criteria for including norms in such a list are not defined. Opinions of representatives of the doctrine and the international judiciary on this issue differ significantly. Addressing the problem of the role and significance of jus cogens, general international law imperative rules, for the observance and interpretation of treaties, it should be noted that treaties are to be interpreted in a format compatible with the imperative norms. The considerations presented in the research indicate a special, if not decisive, role in the observance of jus cogens in treaties interpretation.Keywords: International Law; VCLT; Treaties; Imperative Rules Jus Cogens: Masalah Peran dalam Interpretasi Perjanjian AbstrakAturan Jus Cogens menempati tempat khusus dan memiliki makna konseptual dalam sistem hukum internasional dikarenakan sifat hukumnya yang spesifik, selain karena ketidakpatuhannya dapat menyabot fondasi sistem hukum internasional berdasarkan persetujuan negara. Sejak berlakunya VCLT, konsep Jus Cogens dalam hukum internasional semakin mendekati praktik hukum internasional. Situasi paradoks terjadi - konsep Jus Cogens dalam hukum internasional diterima secara umum. Ada juga definisi yang ditetapkan secara normatif dari aturan semacam itu, tetapi kerangka kerja dan isinya yang spesifik masih belum jelas. ICJ telah berulang kali membahas masalah norma Jus Cogens, tetapi konsep rinci tentang Jus Cogens belum terbentuk. Dianalisis bahwa masalah pembentukan Jus Cogens sulit dipecahkan secara abstrak. Alasannya tidak hanya terletak pada tidak adanya satu daftar resmi norma Jus Cogens – kriteria untuk memasukkan norma dalam daftar tersebut tidak didefinisikan. Pendapat perwakilan doktrin dan peradilan internasional tentang masalah ini berbeda secara signifikan. Mengatasi masalah peran dan pentingnya Jus Cogens, aturan umum hukum internasional imperatif, untuk ketaatan dan interpretasi perjanjian. Perlu dicatat bahwa perjanjian harus ditafsirkan dalam format yang kompatibel dengan norma-norma imperatif. Pertimbangan yang disajikan dalam penelitian ini menunjukkan peran khusus, jika tidak menentukan, dalam ketaatan Jus Cogens dalam interpretasi perjanjian.Kata kunci: Hukum Internasional; VCLT; Perjanjian; Aturan Imperatif Jus Cogens: Проблема Роли В Толковании Договора Aннотация Нормы jus cogens вследствие своей специфической правовой природы занимают особое место, имеют концептуальное значение в системе международного права в том смысле, что их несоблюдение может фактически подорвать основы международной правовой системы, которая опирается на согласие государств. Со времени своего включения в Венскую конвенцию о праве международных договоров 1969 г., концепция международного права jus cogens подошла к международной юридической практике. Доказано, что имеет место парадокс – концепция jus cogens в международном праве общепринятая, также существует нормативно-закрепленное понятие такой нормы, при этом ее рамки и содержание остаются неточными. МС ООН неоднократно касался проблематики норм jus cogens, однако не дал системного видения данного вопроса. Проблему определения jus cogens решить in abstracto сложно. Причина не только в отсутствии единого официального перечня норм jus cogens – не определены критерии включения норм в такой перечень. Мнения представителей доктрины и международного судейского корпуса по этому поводу существенно различаются. Приведенные в исследовании соображения свидетельствуют об особой, если не решающей, роли jus cogens в процессе интерпретации международных договоров.Ключевые слова: Jus cogens, международное право, интерпретация международных договоров, ВКПМД

Some Reflections on the Theory of Sources of International Law: Re-examining Customary International Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 485-502 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ezequiel Heffes
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Cambridge University ◽  
Exponential Increase ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Current Value ◽  
Legislative Model ◽  
Complex Features ◽  
Definition Of

This review explores certain challenges related to the notion of customary international law. It seems that it was a long time ago when international law academics and practitioners ever thought that the nature of this source was a well-settled topic. Nowadays international lawmaking processes involve an extraordinary number of interactions, taking place both formally and informally. Such complex features are reflected by an exponential increase in the scholarly study of international legal sources. The legal nature, its applicability and principles regulating customary international law are addressed in the book under review (Brian D Lepard (ed), Reexamining Customary International Law (Cambridge University Press 2017)) through several topical essays. The chapters offer a comprehensive analysis of these lawmaking processes and the challenges they portray from various perspectives and in various fields, such as: What is customary international law and why is it law? Is it law because it reflects a ‘global legislative’ model? What is the current value of the persistent objector theory? Is the two-element definition of customary international law still applicable? By meticulously addressing these and other inquiries, the book presents novel arguments and represents a stimulating addition to the literature on sources of international law.

scholarly journals States’ Mouthpieces or Independent Practitioners? The Role of Counsel before the ICJ from the Perspective of the Legal Value of their Oral Pleadings

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-76
Author(s):  
Marco Longobardo
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Treaty Interpretation

Abstract This article explores the role of counsel before the International Court of Justice, taking into account their tasks under the Statute of the Court and the legal value of their pleadings in international law. Pleadings of counsel constitute State practice for the formation of customary international law and treaty interpretation, and they are attributable to the litigating State under the law on State responsibility. Accordingly, in principle, counsel present the views of the litigating State, which in practice approves in advance the pleadings. This consideration is relevant in discussing the role of counsel assisting States in politically sensitive cases, where there is no necessary correspondence between the views of the States and those of their counsel. Especially when less powerful States are parties to the relevant disputes, the availability of competent counsel in politically sensitive cases should not be discouraged since it advances the legitimacy of the international judicial function.

scholarly journals The European Union and the Law of Treaties: A Fruitful Relationship

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 721-751
Author(s):  
Paz Andrés Sáenz De Santa María
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Provisional Application ◽  
Frequent Use ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Treaty Law ◽  
Treaty Interpretation

Abstract This article examines the European Union’s (EU) treaty practice from the perspective of the international law of treaties, focusing on its most significant examples. The starting point is the EU’s attitude towards the codification of treaty law involving states and international organizations. The article discusses certain terminological specificities and a few remarkable aspects, such as the frequent use of provisional application mechanisms as opposed to much less use of reservations, the contributions regarding treaty interpretation, the wide variety of clauses and the difficulties in determining the legal nature of certain texts. The study underlines that treaty law is a useful instrument for the Union and is further enriched with creative contributions; the outcome is a fruitful relationship.

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.

Rescuing Nationals Abroad

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathias Forteau
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Humanitarian Assistance ◽  
Current Position ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Legal Perspective ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Definition Of

This chapter examines one of the most contentious issues in the jus ad bellum: whether and when international law permits a state to use force unilaterally to rescue its nationals abroad when their lives or security are threatened. It first considers the definition of the phrase ‘rescuing nationals abroad’ and the legal scope and legal nature of the justification based on the necessity of carrying out such an act. It analyses the opinion of the International Court of Justice concerning the matter before assessing the current position of international law on the permissibility of rescuing nationals abroad. It also discusses whether the use of force to rescue nationals abroad can be invoked for humanitarian assistance purposes involving non-nationals. The chapter shows that the notion of ‘rescuing nationals abroad’ is ambiguous from a legal perspective and that the legality of using force to rescue nationals abroad has remained unclear since 1945.

The Dark Side of Immunity: Is There Any Individual Right for Activities Jure Imperii?

2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
MATTEO SARZO
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Dark Side ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Sensitive Questions ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Procedural Rule ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Definition Of

AbstractThe following contribution interprets the ICJ decision on the case Jurisdictional Immunities of the State in a broader picture. The article focuses on the cause of action underlying the domestic civil claims, i.e. the primary rules providing for individual rights. Indeed, the traditional view, which conceives immunity as a ‘procedural’ rule, vigorously upheld by the Court, is not the only way to address this topic. In our view, state immunity is a substitute for other more sensitive questions, namely the definition of ‘state’, its prerogatives, and the individuals as right holders under international law. This approach points out a different rationale under state immunity, leading to major practical consequences in terms of the assessment of international jurisdiction.

Nihil Novum Sub Sole Since the South West Africa Cases? On Ius Standi, the ICJ and Community Interests

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-197
Author(s):  
Ignacio de la Rasilla del Moral
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Republic Of The Congo ◽  
South West Africa ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
Peremptory Norms ◽  
First Time ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractThe Democratic Republic of the Congo v Rwanda Judgement of 3rd February 2006 marked the first occasion in which the International Court of Justice expressly pronounced on the jus cogens character of a norm of international law. The Court did also expressly extend, for the first time, the scope of the principle of consensual jurisdiction to cover the relationship between peremptory norms of general international law and the establishment of the Court's jurisdiction. Against this backdrop, this piece revisits some of the main ICJ milestones regarding community interests in light of recent doctrine on the question of ius standi in disputes involving obligations erga omnes and jus cogens norms. It does so in order to examine the main alternatives put forward by the doctrine to circumvent the requirement of state consent for the protection of community interests by jurisdictional means at the international level.

scholarly journals Środki tymczasowe w stanach nadzwyczajnych. Uwagi na tle sprawy Gruzja v. Federacja Rosyjska przed Międzynarodowym Trybunałem Sprawiedliwości

2019 ◽  
pp. 181-204
Author(s):  
Elżbieta Hanna Morawska
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
General Nature ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Interim Measure ◽  
And Function

The article deals with some aspects of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) jurisdiction considered in recently decided dispute between Georgia and Russian Federation. The analysis essentially covers the question of provisional measures: the conditions for their indication, their legal nature and function. The article refers to measures indicated under Article 41 of the Statute of the ICJ which allows the Court to indicate provisional measures providing interim protection to the rights of either party to a pending dispute. Having regard to the relevant case-law of the ICJ, two issues are discussed, namely the existence of prima facie jurisdiction and risk of irreparable prejudice and urgency. In addition to the measures referred to specific measures aimed at preserving specific rights, the article draws attention to the Interim measure of general nature with the view of ensuring the non-aggravation of the dispute between the Parties. As Russia does not recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, the greater part of the article are dedicated to questions regarding the jurisdictional basis for Georgia’s action before the ICJ and the issues of the procedural preconditions for the sesin of the Court in the compromissory clause, under art. 22 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). It will also comment on whether the dispute between Georgia and Russia really concerned the issues of “the interpretation or application” of CERD,  or respect for others international law principles, i.e. the legality of the use of force, sovereignty, territorial integrity and self-determination.

scholarly journals Damage in International Law: Precondition For State and International Organization Responsibility?

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (3(16)) ◽  
pp. 381-408
Author(s):  
Enis Omerović
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Punitive Damages ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
International Legal Personality

The first chapter of the paper elaborates the question of whether one of the constitutive elements of the internationally wrongful act and a precondition for responsibility could be embodied in an existence of damage that has to be inflicted upon participants with international legal personality. In this regards legal doctrine, the arbitral awards, international judgments as well as the works of the UN International Law Commission will be examined, particularly the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts and the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organisations from 2001 and 2011, respectively. An interesting question could be raised concerning the terms used in Law on Responsibility and that is whether there is a difference between damage, injury, and unlawful consequence. Punitive or penal damage and its application in Law on Responsibility will be further assessed. The author will begin its research with the definition of punitive damage, and will further take into consideration international legal doctrine, international arbitral awards, judicial decisions of international courts, decisions of various claims commissions as well as norms of general international law in supporting his hypothesis that international law does not entail reparations for punitive damages. One of the aims of this paper is to indicate the question of whether the existence of punitive damages in international law, if any, be linked to a legal nature of State and international organization responsibility, in the sense that application of punitive damages in international law would support the thesis on the very existence of criminal responsibility of the named subjects of international law? It is interesting to note that the criminal responsibility of states has been abandoned by the removal of Article 19 in the final Draft Articles on Responsibility of States.

Territorial Title

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masaharu Yanagihara
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Decisive Role ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
State Recognition ◽  
Legal Term ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
In The Beginning ◽  
The 19Th Century ◽  
Territorial States ◽  
State Territory

Especially essential for the existence of modern European international law is a state with a “defined territory,” or a “territorial state.” International law cannot exist without a coexistence of several sovereign and territorial states. According to the definition of modern European international law, “territory” is not the same as “territory” in ancient and medieval Europe or “territory” in medieval or early modern East Asia. The concept of state territory composed of land as principal and sea as accessory, as well as the concept of territorial title as facts justifying an acquisition of territory, were developed in the 18th and the early 19th centuries in Europe. State territory in the case of a newly established state, justified by the theory of state recognition, was completely distinguished from the territory defined by the concept of territorial title. The theory of territorial title that asserts five modes of acquiring territory, such as occupation, accretion, cession, subjugation (conquest), and prescription, was elaborated in the latter half of the 19th century and in the beginning of the 20th century, following private law patterns. Discovery as a legal term was extremely controversial, dealing with issues such as whether this category was recognized as a complete title at some point in time, what kind of symbolic acts were required to compel discovery, what is the real meaning of “inchoate title” assigned to discovery, and so on. Currently, the only mode of acquisition of territorial title in operation is accretion and cession. Occupation is not usually relevant given the lack of terrae nullius. Conquest is incompatible with the prohibition of the use of force in international relations. Prescription continues to be one of the most controversial issues among international lawyers as well as in state practices. It is sometimes contended that its ultimate justification lies in the principles of effectiveness, recognition, and acquiescence, or a historic title. Significantly, traditional modes of acquisition have not necessarily played a decisive role in territorial disputes in international tribunals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document