Criminal Law and Philosophy

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 249–265 | Cite as

Habeas Corpus as Jus Cogens in International Law

Original Paper

Abstract

For hundreds of years procedural rights such as habeas corpus have been regarded as fundamental in the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence. In contemporary international law, fundamental norms are called jus cogens. Jus cogens norms are rights or rules that can not be derogated even by treaty. In the list that is often given, jus cogens norms include norms against aggression, apartheid, slavery, and genocide. All of the members of this list are substantive rights. In this paper I will argue that some procedural rights, crucial for the fair functioning of criminal proceedings, such as habeas corpus, should also have the status of jus cogens norms. I will begin by explaining what it means for a right to have jus cogens status. And I will follow this with a defense of having procedural rights like habeas corpus added to the list of jus cogens norms. I will then rehearse some of the debates about the jus cogens status of procedural rights in the European Commission on Human Rights. At the end of this paper, I will look at the attempts to deal with the abuses at Guantanamo by the American Commission on Human Rights, and by the US and Australian courts, as a way to understand why there needs to be a stronger support for habeas corpus than is today provided by regional courts.

Keywords

Habeas corpus Juscogens Equity Procedural rights Guantanamo 

References

  1. Aristotle, Nicomachean ethics, Book V, Chap. 10, 1137b10.Google Scholar
  2. Blackstone, W. (1765, 1979). Commentaries on the laws of England (Vol. I). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bracton 474–477 (1883). Sir Travis Twiss, ed., Bracton, De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae (London: Longmans and Co., 1883). A constitutional history of Habeas Corpus, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press [quoted in Duker, W. F. (1980)].Google Scholar
  4. Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light, and Power Co., Limited, Second Phase (1970). Belgium v. Spain, 1970 I.C.J. 3, 1970 WL 1.Google Scholar
  5. Charlesworth, H., & Chinkin, C. (1993, 2010). The gender of Jus Cogens. Human Rights Quarterly, 15, 63–76. (Reprinted from Philosophy of Law: Classic and Contemporary Readings, pp. 610–619, by L. May, & J. Brown, Eds., Oxford: Wiley/Blackwell).Google Scholar
  6. Clark, D., & McCoy, G. (2000). Habeas Corpus: Australia, New Zealand, The South Pacific. Sydney: The Federation Press.Google Scholar
  7. Criddle, E. J., & Fox-Decent, E. (2009). A fiduciary theory of Jus Cogens. Yale Journal of International Law, 34 (Summer).Google Scholar
  8. Feller, E., Turk, V., & Nicholson, F. (2003). Refugee protection in international law. NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Franck, T. (1995). Fairness in international law and institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hannikainen, L. (1988). Peremptory norms (Jus Cogens) in international law. Helsinki: Finnish Lawyers Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  11. Hertz, R., & Liebman, J. S. (1998, 2001). Federal Habeas Corpus practice and procedure (4th ed.). Lexis Law Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Jacobs & White (2002). In C. Ovey & R. White (Eds.), The European convention on human rights (3rd ed., p. 138). NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Janis, M. (1988, 2010). The nature of Jus Cogens. Connecticut Journal of International Law (Vol. 3, pp. 359–363). (Reprinted from Philosophy of law: Classic and contemporary readings, pp. 184–186, by L. May & J. Brown, Eds., Oxford: Wiley/Blackwell).Google Scholar
  14. Lauterpacht, H. (1958). The development of international law by the international court.Google Scholar
  15. Law Reform Commission, Report 1. (1966, September and 26). Application for Writs of Habeas Corpus and Procedure to be Adopted.Google Scholar
  16. May, L. (2005). Crimes against humanity: A normative account. NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. May, L. (2007). War crimes and just war. NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. May, L. (2008). Aggression and crimes against peace. NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Orakhelashvili, A. (2006). Peremptory norms in international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Shue, H. (1980). Basic rights. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Story, J. (1834, 1884). Commentaries on equity Jurisprudence (pp. 1–3) London: Stevens and Hayes.Google Scholar
  22. Tittemore, B. D. (2006). Guantanamo Bay and the precautionary measures of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: A case for international oversight in the struggle against terrorism. Human Rights Law Review, 6(2), 378–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tully, S. (2007, April and 23). Australian detainee pleads guilty before the First Military Commission. ASIL Insights 11(11).Google Scholar
  24. Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties. (1969). May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S 331, 8 International Legal Materials 679 (1969), Art. 53 [hereinafter VCLT].Google Scholar
  25. X. v. United Kingdom: Judgment. (1981). No. 46 (5.11.1981) pp. 56–58, quoted in Fawcett, J. E. S. (1987). The application of the European Convention on Human Rights (pp. 120–121). NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA
  2. 2.Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public EthicsCharles Sturt UniversityWagga WaggaAustralia
  3. 3.Australian National UniversitiesCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations