Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties pp 965–1012Cite as

Article 53

Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of general international law (“jus cogens”)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

By adopting Art 53 VCLT, State Parties seized the widely academic notion of ius cogens in international law, imparted legal essence to legal theory and introduced the outcome into positive international law for the first time. Since then, the ius cogens concept constitutes one of the few largely unmutable mainstays of the international legal order, designed to protect overriding interests and values of the international community of States from selective alteration and corrosion. Indeed, the very idea of ius cogens is to delimit the destructive effects of relativism and consensualism on the international community’s essential normative commitments. Today, the ius cogens concept reflected in Art 53 is generally accepted—albeit seldom invoked in State practice—and a rule of customary international law. With a view to the overall agreement on the existence of ius cogens expressed at the UN conference, it is safe to say that Art 53 reflects a customary rule that has gradually developed long before the Convention entered into force (non-retroactivity of the Convention).

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Magallona (1976), pp. 521, 523; some authors dispute the legal validity of the ius cogens concept, considering it a purely “rhetorical weapon” or “normative myth”, see eg Christenson (1988), p. 590; Weisburd (1995–1996), p. 40; Czapliński and Danilenko (1990), p. 5: “international legal Yeti”.

  2. 2.

    Hannikainen (1988), p. 4.

  3. 3.

    Combacau and Sur (1995), p. 26.

  4. 4.

    Koskenniemi (2006), p. 321 et seq.

  5. 5.

    Federal Constitutional Court (Germany) 18 BVerfGE 441 (1965), translation of the relevant parts in Riesenfeld (1966), pp. 511, 513.

  6. 6.

    Cf ICJ Kosovo Opinion [2010] ICJ Rep 403, para 81; for a critical assessment see: Mik (2013), pp. 32–33.

  7. 7.

    For recent publications see eg den Heijer and van der Wilt (2015); Kolb (2015), p. 1; Weatherall (2015), p. 1; but see also the critique of Koskenniemi (2005), pp. 113, 122 that ius cogens is burdened with kitsch: ius cogens is a notion “expressed in a dead European language that [has] no clear reference in this world but which invoke[s] a longing for such reference and create[s] a community of such longing.”

  8. 8.

    The ILC placed ius cogens on its long-term program of work, the first report on ius cogens was submitted by SR Tladi on 8 March 2016, UN Doc A/CN.4/693.

  9. 9.

    Schwelb (1967), p. 948.

  10. 10.

    For this approach, see Byers (1997), p. 239; Orakhelashvili (2006), pp. 9–10.

  11. 11.

    But see Art 50 Final Draft, which does not disclose the creator of ius cogens.

  12. 12.

    Kadelbach (1992), p. 26, see also Orakhelashvili (2006), p. 68.

  13. 13.

    Rozakis (1976), p. 13.

  14. 14.

    Cf SR Tladi First Report on Ius Cogens (2016) UN Doc A/CN.4/693, para 19.

  15. 15.

    On the term ius publicum in Roman sources, understood as a reference to form (acts of the Praetor) or substance (all norms concerning public policy), see Rudden (1980), pp. 87, 88.

  16. 16.

    See eg Dig 2, 14, 38 (Papinian): “ius publicum privatorum pactis mutari non potest” (“[p]ublic law cannot be changed by private pacts”, Watson (1985), p. 71).

  17. 17.

    As pointed out correctly eg by Suy (1967), p. 18.

  18. 18.

    Dig 50, 17, 82: “donari videtur, quod nullo iure cogente conceditur” (“[a] thing is said to be given when it is yielded otherwise than by virtue of right”, Black (1990), p. 487).

  19. 19.

    See eg Glück (1797), p. 92. The pandectist heritage is also emphasized by Guggenheim (1967), p. 128.

  20. 20.

    Cf separate opinion of Judge Moreno-Quintana in ICJ Guardianship Case [1958] ICJ Rep 102, para 107.

  21. 21.

    See eg Grotius (1646/1964 I), pp. 38, 39, 40, 44; see Covell (2009), p. 54.

  22. 22.

    Strupp (1925), p. 69: “Pacta sunt servanda (einziger völkerrechtlicher Satz iuris cogentis!)”; Hegel (1821), § 336; Triepel (1899), p. 82.

  23. 23.

    Bluntschli (1872), p. 237; Martens (1882/1883), p. 406; Rivier (1896), p. 57 para 141.

  24. 24.

    Alexidze (1981), p. 229.

  25. 25.

    von der Heydte (1932), p. 463; Jurt (1933), pp. 98–100.

  26. 26.

    Separate opinion of Judge Schücking in PCIJ Oscar Chinn Case PCIJ Ser A/B No 63, 148, 149–150 (1934).

  27. 27.

    Verdross (1936), p. 1 et seq.

  28. 28.

    Harvard Draft 657.

  29. 29.

    Shelton (2006), p. 298.

  30. 30.

    Zemanek (2006), p. 1103.

  31. 31.

    [1950-I] YbILC 299, para 49c: “In order to be valid, a treaty, as understood in this Convention, must have a lawful purpose according to international law.”

  32. 32.

    Lauterpacht I 154: “A treaty, or any of its provisions, is void if its performance involves an act which is illegal under international law and if it is declared so to be by the International Court of Justice.”

  33. 33.

    Lauterpacht I 155.

  34. 34.

    Lauterpacht I 155–156.

  35. 35.

    Lauterpacht I 155.

  36. 36.

    Fitzmaurice III 26 (Draft Arts 16, 17, 18 and 22).

  37. 37.

    Fitzmaurice I 109.

  38. 38.

    Fitzmaurice III 26 (Draft Art 16 para 2).

  39. 39.

    Fitzmaurice III 28 (Draft Art 20); see also Fitzmaurice II 45. Cf separate opinions of Judges Eysinga and Schücking in PCIJ Oscar Chinn Case PCIJ Ser A/B No 63, 135, 148 et seq (1934).

  40. 40.

    Fitzmaurice III 40.

  41. 41.

    Waldock II 52.

  42. 42.

    Waldock II 53.

  43. 43.

    [1963-I] YbILC 314.

  44. 44.

    Final Draft, Commentary to Art 50, 247, para 1.

  45. 45.

    Yasseen [1963-I] YbILC 63, para 41; Tunkin [1963-I] YbILC 69, paras 24–26.

  46. 46.

    Pal [1963-I] YbILC 65, para 67.

  47. 47.

    Pal [1963-I] YbILC 65, para 64; Bartoš [1963-I] YbILC 66–67, para 63.

  48. 48.

    Rosenne [1963-I] YbILC 64, para 55.

  49. 49.

    [1963-II] YbILC 198, para 3.

  50. 50.

    [1963-II] YbILC 199, para 3. For details of the discussions, see [1963-I] YbILC 63 et seq.

  51. 51.

    Tabibi [1963-I] YbILC 63, para 44; disagreeing Ago [1963-I] YbILC 71, para 52.

  52. 52.

    Lachs [1963-I] YbILC 68, para 10; Tunkin [1963-I] YbILC 69, para 28; contra inequality Pal [1963-I] YbILC 70, para 33; Jiménez de Aréchaga [1963-I] YbILC 70, para 45.

  53. 53.

    Ago [1963-I] YbILC 71, para 53.

  54. 54.

    Waldock [1963-I] YbILC 78, para 49, 216–217, para 108 referring to ICJ jurisprudence.

  55. 55.

    Verdross [1963-I] YbILC 125, para 45.

  56. 56.

    Tunkin [1963-I] YbILC 197, para 19.

  57. 57.

    [1963-II] YbILC 199, para 3; see also Castrén [1963-I] YbILC 65–66, para 70, Ago [1963-I] YbILC 66, para 74, Amado [1963-I] YbILC 69, para 17; Waldock [1963-I] YbILC 78, para 48; Final Draft, Commentary to Art 50, 247–248, para 2.

  58. 58.

    See the comments of Algeria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Ecuador, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Morocco, Netherlands, Pakistan, Panama, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Syria, Thailand, the Ukrainian SSR, the USSR, Uruguay, Venezuela, the United Arab Republic and Yugoslavia [1966-II] YbILC 279 et seq.

  59. 59.

    See the comments of Algeria (morality and public policy), Panama (internal law and the principles of social justice), Brazil, Iraq, Thailand and Uruguay (principle of hierarchy of norms) [1966-II] YbILC 21–23; Yasseen [1963-I] YbILC 63, para 38 (substance of the rule).

  60. 60.

    See the comments of Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States [1966-II] YbILC 21, 341, para 2.

  61. 61.

    See the comments of Luxembourg, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States [1966-II] YbILC 20–21, 311, 340, 341, para 2, 344, 354.

  62. 62.

    See the comment of Luxembourg [1966-II] YbILC 20.

  63. 63.

    See the comment of Luxembourg [1966-II] YbILC 20.

  64. 64.

    See the comments of Cyprus and Sweden [1966-II] YbILC 22, 285, 340. For a strict interpretation of “use of force” as only referring to armed aggression, see the comment of the Netherlands [1966-II] YbILC 317 and the statement by the representative of Malaysia UNCLOT I 326.

  65. 65.

    See the comment of Cyprus [1966-II] YbILC 22.

  66. 66.

    See the comment of Cyprus [1966-II] YbILC 285.

  67. 67.

    See the comments of Italy, Morocco, the United Arab Republic and the United Kingdom 21–23.

  68. 68.

    See the comments of the Philippines and Spain [1966-II] YbILC 22.

  69. 69.

    See the comment of the Philippines [1966-II] YbILC 22.

  70. 70.

    See the comments of the Ukrainian SSR, the USSR and Czechoslovakia [1966-II] YbILC 23, 286.

  71. 71.

    See the comment of Luxembourg [1966-II] YbILC 20.

  72. 72.

    [1966-I] YbILC 121, para 129.

  73. 73.

    See the statement by the representative of Italy UNCLOT I 311, para 42.

  74. 74.

    See the statement by the representative of Ivory Coast UNCLOT I 321, para 50.

  75. 75.

    See eg the statements by the representatives of Chile and Turkey UNCLOT I 298, para 53, 300, para 1.

  76. 76.

    See the statement by the representative of Italy UNCLOT II 104, para 37.

  77. 77.

    See the statement by the representative of Mexico UNCLOT I 294, para 7; see also the statement by the representative of Ceylon UNCLOT I 319, para 37 (Draft Art 50 is legal expression of moral principle).

  78. 78.

    See the statement by the representative of Colombia UNCLOT I 301, para 26.

  79. 79.

    See the statement by the representative of Cyprus UNCLOT I 305, para 67.

  80. 80.

    See the statements by the representatives of Colombia and Ecuador UNCLOT I 301, para 26, 320, para 43.

  81. 81.

    See the statements by the representatives of Hungary, Brazil, the Philippines and Mali UNCLOT I 311, para 46, 317, para 22, 322–323, para 15, 327, para 68.

  82. 82.

    See the statement by the representative of Lebanon UNCLOT I 297, para 43.

  83. 83.

    See the statements by the representative of Turkey UNCLOT I 300, para 8, 471–472, para 9; partly critical statement by the representative of Switzerland UNCLOT I 324, para 31.

  84. 84.

    See the statements by the representatives of Madagascar, Austria, the United Kingdom, Sweden, France, Australia, Japan, Belgium, Monaco and Norway UNCLOT I 301, para 21, 303, para 47, 304, para 53, 306, para 2 et seq, 309, para 31, 316, para 13, 318, para 30, 320, para 47, 324, para 33, 325, para 37 et seq.

  85. 85.

    See the statements by the representatives of Finland, Lebanon, Italy, Pakistan, Australia, Japan, Germany, Belgium, Canada, Norway UNCLOT I 294, para 12, 297, para 45, 311, para 43, 316, para 9, 316, para 14, 318, para 30, 319, para 35, 320, para 47, 323, para 21, 325, para 37; against a junctim, see statements by the representatives of Iraq, Kenya, Cuba, Sierra Leone, Cyprus, Israel, Romania and Trinidad and Tobago UNCLOT I 296, paras 24–26, 296, para 33, 297 MN 35, 300, para 10, 306, para 70, 310, para 35, 313, para 62, 327, para 66; for judicial control: statement by the representative of France UNCLOT I 309, para 29.

  86. 86.

    In favor of separability: statements by the representatives of Finland and Canada UNCLOT I 294, para 13, 323, para 24; contra: statements by the representatives of Cuba, the Byelorussian SSR, Hungary, the Ukrainian SSR UNCLOT I 297, para 39, 307, para 10, 312, para 47, 322, para 7.

  87. 87.

    See the statement by the representative of the Byelorussian SSR UNCLOT I 307, para 9.

  88. 88.

    See the statements by the representative of the USSR, Uruguay, Czechoslovakia, the Ukrainian SSR and Canada UNCLOT I 294, para 3, 303, para 48, 318, para 25, 322, para 6, 323, para 22.

  89. 89.

    See the statement by the representative of the USSR UNCLOT I 294, para 3.

  90. 90.

    See the statements by the representatives of the USSR, Sierra Leone and Ghana UNCLOT I 294, para 3, 300, para 9, 301, para 16.

  91. 91.

    See the statements by the representatives of the USSR, Sierra Leone and Ghana UNCLOT I 294, para 3, 300, para 9, 301, para 16.

  92. 92.

    See the statements by the representatives of the USSR and Cuba, Czechoslovakia UNCLOT I 294, para 3, 297, para 34, 318, para 25.

  93. 93.

    See the statements by the representatives of the USSR, Cuba, Lebanon, Sierra Leone, Poland and Czechoslovakia UNCLOT I 294, para 3, 297, para 34, 294, para 43, 300, para 9, 302, para 35, 318, para 25.

  94. 94.

    See the statement by the representative of Cuba UNCLOT I 297, para 34.

  95. 95.

    See the statements by the representatives of Iraq, Czechoslovakia and Tanzania UNCLOT I 295, para 21, 318, para 25, 321, para 2.

  96. 96.

    See the statements by the representatives of Lebanon, Chile, Sierra Leone, Ghana and Poland UNCLOT I 297, para 43, 299, para 61, 300, para 9, 301, para 16, 302, para 35.

  97. 97.

    See the statements by the representatives of Greece, Kenya, Chile, Uruguay, Germany, Ecuador, Tanzania and the Ukrainian SSR UNCLOT I 295, para 18, 296, para 13, 298, para 55, 303, para 48, 318, para 31, 320, para 42, 321, para 2, 322, para 6.

  98. 98.

    See the statements by the representatives of Lebanon, Ghana, Poland, Uruguay, Czechoslovakia, Tanzania and Canada UNCLOT I 297, para 43, 301, para 16, 302, para 35, 303, para 48, 318, para 25, 321, para 2, 323, para 22.

  99. 99.

    See the statement by the representative of Sierra Leone UNCLOT I 300, para 9.

  100. 100.

    See the statements by the representatives of the Byelorussian SSR and the Ukrainian SSR UNCLOT I 307, para 9, 322, para 6.

  101. 101.

    See the statements by the representatives of Chile, Australia and Czechoslovakia UNCLOT I 299, para 61, 317, para 16, 318, para 25.

  102. 102.

    See the statements by the representatives of Ghana and Uruguay UNCLOT I 301, para 16, 303, para 48.

  103. 103.

    See the statements by the representatives of Kenya (referring to ICJ jurisprudence), Sierra Leone, Uruguay and Canada UNCLOT I 296, para 31, 300, para 9, 303, para 48, 323, para 22.

  104. 104.

    See the statement by the representative of Lebanon UNCLOT I 297, para 43; generally on the Geneva Conventions statements by the representatives of Italy and Switzerland UNCLOT I 311, para 41, 324, para 26.

  105. 105.

    See the statement by the representative of Sierra Leone UNCLOT I 300, para 9.

  106. 106.

    See the statement by the representative of Sierra Leone UNCLOT I 300, para 9.

  107. 107.

    See the statement by the representative of Sierra Leone UNCLOT I 300, para 9.

  108. 108.

    See the statement by the representative of Sierra Leone UNCLOT I 300, para 9; statement by the representative of Poland UNCLOT I 302, para 35.

  109. 109.

    See the statement by the representative of Poland UNCLOT I 302, para 35.

  110. 110.

    See the statement by the representative of Poland UNCLOT I 302, para 35.

  111. 111.

    See the statement by the representative of Italy UNCLOT I 311, para 41.

  112. 112.

    See the statement by the representative of Switzerland UNCLOT I 324, para 26.

  113. 113.

    Some States voted in favor but remained critical towards Draft Art 50, see the statements by the representatives of Cameroon, the United States and the Netherlands UNCLOT II 98, para 58, 102, para 20, 105, para 47.

  114. 114.

    Australia, Belgium, France, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Switzerland, Turkey; for reasons, see the statements by the representatives of France, Australia, Switzerland and Belgium UNCLOT II 95, para 18, 95, para 21, 97, para 53 et seq, 103, para 31, 106, para 55; Turkey completely opposed the concept, see the statement by its representative UNCLOT II 99, para 66.

  115. 115.

    UNCLOT II 107, para 65.

  116. 116.

    UNCLOTIO I 8, para 11.

  117. 117.

    1989 Declaration of the United Kingdom.

  118. 118.

    “[T]he United States Government intends, at such time as it becomes a party to the Convention, to reaffirm its objection to the Tunisian reservation and declare that it will not consider that Article 53 or 64 of the Convention is in force between the United States of America and Tunisia.”

  119. 119.

    Shelton (2006), p. 300.

  120. 120.

    Criddle and Fox-Decent (2009), p. 338.

  121. 121.

    Sztucki (1974), p. 97; Dubois (2009), p. 148.

  122. 122.

    Cf Byers (1997), pp. 220, 222.

  123. 123.

    Simma (1995), p. 53.

  124. 124.

    Verdross (1937), p. 574.

  125. 125.

    Janis (1988), p. 361; de Visscher (1971), p. 9.

  126. 126.

    Danilenko (1991), p. 46; see also Criddle and Fox-Decent (2009), p. 343.

  127. 127.

    ICJ Guardianship Case (separate opinion Moreno-Quintana) [1958] ICJ Rep 55, 106.

  128. 128.

    Verdross (1937), p. 572; Orakhelashvili (2006), p. 28; McNair (1961), pp. 213–214.

  129. 129.

    Orakhelashvili (2006), p. 29; ICJ Guardianship Case (separate opinion Moreno-Quintana) [1958] ICJ Rep 55, 106–107.

  130. 130.

    Federal Constitutional Court (Germany) ‘East German Expropriation Case’ 112 BVerfGE 1, para 97 (2004) (official translation); see also Federal Constitutional Court (Germany) 18 BVerfGE 441 (1965), translation of the relevant parts in Riesenfeld (1966), p. 513.

  131. 131.

    Kolb (2001), p. 172; Kolb (2015), p. 46 et seq.

  132. 132.

    Kolb (2001), p. 183.

  133. 133.

    Kolb (2001), p. 29; Kolb (2015), p. 49 et seq.

  134. 134.

    Criddle and Fox-Decent (2009), p. 347.

  135. 135.

    Criddle and Fox-Decent (2009), p. 387.

  136. 136.

    Weatherall (2015), p. 444.

  137. 137.

    Hannikainen (1988), p. 3 rightly proceeds on the premise that today, the definition set out in Art 53 is universally accepted.

  138. 138.

    But see also Art 33 ILC Articles on State Responsibility.

  139. 139.

    Mosler (1984), p. 311.

  140. 140.

    Dupuy (1989), p. 592.

  141. 141.

    For an in-depth analysis of the existence of a ius cogens source sui generis, see Kolb (1998).

  142. 142.

    Not in conformity with the wording: Kolb (2001), p. 140; supported by the wording: Orakhelashvili (2006), pp. 110–111.

  143. 143.

    In favor of an autonomous source: Monaco (1983), pp. 599, 606; Onuf and Birney (1974), pp. 187, 193; Orakhelashvili (2006), p. 108; Janis (1988), p. 361.

  144. 144.

    Danilenko (1993), p. 225.

  145. 145.

    PCIJ ‘Lotus’ PCIJ Ser A No 10, 16 (1927).

  146. 146.

    Cf Mosler (1974), pp. 1, 11–14.

  147. 147.

    Weatherall (2015), p. 441.

  148. 148.

    UNCLOTIO II 39, para 2.

  149. 149.

    UNCLOTIO II 39, para 2.

  150. 150.

    UNCLOTIO II 39, para 2.

  151. 151.

    See the statements by the representatives of Chile and Ghana UNCLOT I 472, para 11, 472, para 14.

  152. 152.

    UNCLOT I 472, para 12; see also the statement by the representative of Libya UNCLOT II 106, para 63.

  153. 153.

    Simma (1994), pp. 290–291; Gaja (1981); de Hoog (1991), p. 187.

  154. 154.

    Yasseen (Chairman of the Drafting Committee) UNCLOT I 471, para 7: “no individual State should have the right of veto”.

  155. 155.

    See the statement by the representative of the United States UNCLOT II 102, para 22: “absence of dissent by any important element of the international community”.

  156. 156.

    ILC, Report of the Study Group on Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law (2006) UN Doc A/CN.4/L.682, para 254: “no well articulated or uniform understanding of what this might mean”.

  157. 157.

    For references, see Kolb (2015), p. 90; Linderfalk (2013), Vol. 82; Tunkin (1993), p. 535, n 5; this understanding dates from times when no international treaty had truly universal character, see de Vattel (1758/1964), p. 8: “As it is clear that a treaty binds only the contracting parties the conventional Law of Nations is not universal, but restricted in character.” See also Kelsen (1952), p. 188: “General international law is, as a matter of fact, customary law.”

  158. 158.

    Bartoš [1963-I] YbILC 214, para 72.

  159. 159.

    In favor of a limitation to international customary law Verosta (1969), p. 686; Parker and Neylon (1989), p. 417.

  160. 160.

    Hannikainen (1988), p. 227.

  161. 161.

    Schwarzenberger (1965), pp. 467–468; Janis (1988), p. 360; Orakhelashvili (2006), p. 125.

  162. 162.

    ICJ North Sea Continental Shelf [1969] ICJ Rep 3, para 74; ILA, Committee on Formation of Customary Law, Final Report 2000, p. 26, Rule 14 commentary (e).

  163. 163.

    See eg ICJ Nicaragua (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, para 190 where the ICJ deduced from statements of both parties that the prohibition to use force constitutes a peremptory rule and that the prohibition is recognized by both parties as customary law.

  164. 164.

    Yasseen (Chairman of the Drafting Committee) UNCLOT I 472, para 12; statement of the representative of the United States UNCLOT II 102, para 22; de Visscher (1972), p. 107; Gómez Robledo (1981), p. 96 et seq; accepting only multilateral treaties (organized in contrast to the unorganized international society) to create ius cogens according to Art 53: Schwarzenberger (1965), p. 476.

  165. 165.

    For decisions or non-binding resolutions as evidence for the acceptance and recognition of a peremptory norm by the international community skeptical Wolfke (1974), p. 154; less dismissive Kadelbach (1992), pp. 201–202.

  166. 166.

    Vitanyi (1982), pp. 96–102 gives an overview of doctrinal approaches identifying general principles recognized in foro domestico.

  167. 167.

    For an early view, see Verdross (1935), pp. 204–206.

  168. 168.

    Baron Dechamps in Advisory Committee of Jurists, Procès-verbaux of the Proceedings of the Committee (16 June–24 July 1920) with Annexes (1920) 310.

  169. 169.

    ICJ South West Africa (Second Phase) [1966] ICJ Rep 6, para 49; see also Pellet (2012), Art 38 MN 257.

  170. 170.

    Bartoš [1963-I] YbILC 214, para 72.

  171. 171.

    With different lines of reasoning Wolfke (1974), p. 154; Orakhelashvili (2006), p. 109.

  172. 172.

    US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (United States) Siderman de Blake v Argentina 965 F2d 699 (1992) 103 ILR 454 (certiorari denied 507 US 1017).

  173. 173.

    Bassiouni (1990), p. 772; Kadelbach and Kleinlein (2006), p. 255; Petersen (2008), p. 308.

  174. 174.

    Simma and Alston (1988–1989), p. 104 (emphasis added).

  175. 175.

    See the statement by the representative of Cyprus UNCLOT I 473, para 24.

  176. 176.

    Kolb (1998), p. 81; Rozakis (1976), p. 74; Linderfalk (2007), p. 862; Akehurst (1975); Kadelbach (1992), p. 196.

  177. 177.

    ICJ Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v Senegal) [2012] ICJ Rep 422, para 99.

  178. 178.

    Suy (1983), pp. 935, 938.

  179. 179.

    ILC, Report of the Study Group on Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law (2006) UN Doc A/CN.4/L.682, para 365.

  180. 180.

    PCIJ The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions PCIJ Ser A No 2, 32 (1924); ICJ Ambatielos Case (Preliminary Objection) [1952] ICJ Rep 28, 44.

  181. 181.

    Kolb (2015), pp. 3–10.

  182. 182.

    Waldock (Expert Consultant) UNCLOT I 328, para 82; Waldock II 53; [1963-II] YbILC 199, para 4; Final Draft, Commentary to Art 50, 248, para 4; contra statement by the representative of Tanzania UNCLOT I 321, para 2; insightful Linderfalk (2011), p. 377.

  183. 183.

    Hannikainen (1988), pp. 265–266; Onuf and Birney (1974), p. 192; Paul (1971), p. 43.

  184. 184.

    Rozakis (1976), p. 85 et seq; Kadelbach (1992), p. 180; Waldock II 53; [1963-II] YbILC 199, para 4; Final Draft, Commentary to Art 50, 248, para 4 (even if focusing on a general multilateral treaty as the most probably modification tool); contra Hannikainen (1988), p. 267; van Hoof (1983), pp. 166–167.

  185. 185.

    Magallona (1976), pp. 521, 532; for a different view, see Hannikainen (1988), p. 267; Abi-Saab (1967), p. 11.

  186. 186.

    Shelton (2006).

  187. 187.

    Merkl (1931), p. 276; and furthermore Walter (1964), p. 62 et seq.

  188. 188.

    Vranes (2005), p. 403.

  189. 189.

    Dupuy (1993), pp. 15–16; Weil (1983), p. 423.

  190. 190.

    ILC, Report of the Study Group on Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law (2006) UN Doc A/CN.4/L.682, para 365; Simma (1994), p. 289 et seq; Tomuschat (1993), p. 306; for US jurisprudence, see US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (United States) Siderman de Blake v Argentina 965 F2d 699 (1992) 103 ILR 454 (certiorari denied 507 US 1017); US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (United States) Committee of United States Citizens Living in Nicaragua et al v Reagan 859 F2d 929, (1988) 85 ILR 248, 260 [940]; Princz v Germany 26 F3d 1166.

  191. 191.

    For a different view, see Kolb (2001), p. 81; Kolb (1998), p. 103.

  192. 192.

    Yasseen (Chairman of the Drafting Committee) UNCLOT I 471, para 4.

  193. 193.

    UNCLOT III 174 (UN Doc A/CONF.39/C.1/L.302).

  194. 194.

    See the statement by the representative of France UNCLOT I 309, para 33.

  195. 195.

    UNCLOT III 174 (UN Doc A/CONF.39/C.1.L.306, Add.1 and 2).

  196. 196.

    See the statement by the representative of Cyprus UNCLOT I 473, para 24.

  197. 197.

    Gómez Robledo (1981), p. 105; van Hoof (1983), p. 158; Rozakis (1976), p. 75.

  198. 198.

    Rozakis (1976), p. 74; Linderfalk (2007), p. 862; Akehurst (1975), p. 285; Kadelbach (1992), p. 196.

  199. 199.

    Skeptical Kadelbach (1992), p. 178.

  200. 200.

    See also → Art 5 MN 19.

  201. 201.

    Orakhelashvili (2006), p. 111 et seq; Hannikainen (1988), pp. 225–226; Barberis (1970), p. 45; Sztucki (1974), p. 107; Reimann (1971), pp. 50–51; Wolfke (1974), p. 151 et seq.

  202. 202.

    Simma and Alston (1988–1989), p. 107.

  203. 203.

    Hannikainen (1988), p. 242.

  204. 204.

    Turkey eg has strongly opposed Art 53 because it regarded the ius cogens concept a progressive development not reflected in international law; see the statement by the representative of Turkey UNCLOT I 300, paras 1, 8.

  205. 205.

    See the statements against the permissibility of persistent objection at the Vienna Conference by the representatives of Ghana and Czechoslovakia UNCLOT I 301, para 19, 318, para 25, by the representative of Libya UNCLOT II 106, para 63, and by Yasseen (Chairman of the Drafting Committee) UNCLOT I 471, para 7; in literature: Hannikainen (1988), p. 214; Bos (1982), p. 42 et seq; Bos (1984), p. 246; McNair (1961), p. 215; Scheuner (1969), p. 30; Reimann (1971), p. 12; Rozakis (1976), p. 77 et seq; Gangl (1980), p. 76 et seq, p. 81 et seq; Lau (2005), p. 498; Unger (1978), p. 98 et seq; Yasseen (1975), pp. 204, 207; Ziccardi (1975), p. 1065; Ronzitti (1978), p. 255 et seq.

  206. 206.

    ICJ Fisheries Case (UK v Norway) (reply UK) [1951-II] ICJ Pleadings 291, 426.

  207. 207.

    IACHR Domingues v United States Case 12285 Report No 62/02, 22 October 2002, para 49.

  208. 208.

    See for the persistent objection of the US government in the UN Commission on Human Rights subsequent to the decision of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in International Law Institute (2003), p. 306.

  209. 209.

    Only few authors accept persistent objection as a valid defense: Kadelbach (1992), p. 209; Wolfke (1974), p. 149; Magallona (1976), pp. 528–529; also skeptical Stein (1985), p. 481.

  210. 210.

    ILA, Committee on Formation of Customary Law, Final Report 2000, 27, Rule 15 commentary b.

  211. 211.

    ICJ Fisheries Case (UK v Norway) [1951] ICJ Rep 116, 131 (recognizing the principle that a State may contract out of a custom in the process of formation).

  212. 212.

    Jenks (1963), p. 426; see also Czapliński and Danilenko (1990), p. 12.

  213. 213.

    Orakhelashvili (2008), p. 957; see also Vranes (2006), p. 418.

  214. 214.

    Orakhelashvili (2006), p. 138.

  215. 215.

    ECtHR Al-Adsani v United Kingdom (GC) App No 35763/97, 123 ILR 42, para 61. For a different view, see the dissenting opinion of Judges Rozakis, Caflisch, Wildhaber, Costa, Barreto and Vajić (2001) 123 ILR 50, para 3: “The acceptance […] of the ius cogens nature of the prohibition of torture entails that a State allegedly violating it cannot invoke hierarchically lower rules (in the case, those of State immunity), to avoid the consequences”.

  216. 216.

    House of Lords (United Kingdom) Jones v Ministry of Interior Al-Mamlaka Al-Arabiya As-Saudiya (the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) et al [2006] UKHL 26, para 45 (emphasis original).

  217. 217.

    See the statement by the representative of Argentina UNCLOT I 308, para 24; UNCLOT III 68, para 6.

  218. 218.

    Final Draft 247, para 6; Rosenne (1971), pp. 52–53.

  219. 219.

    Lauterpacht I 147.

  220. 220.

    Cf the statement by the representative of Bolivia UNCLOT I 154, para 27.

  221. 221.

    Jennings (1965), pp. 64, 67.

  222. 222.

    PCIJ Oscar Chinn (separate opinion Schücking) PCIJ Ser A/B No 63, 148, 149 (1934).

  223. 223.

    For an overview of all proposed Articles on State Responsibility dealing with ius cogens issues, see Kawasaki (2008), p. 145.

  224. 224.

    For an incidental reference to Art 26 Articles on State Responsibility, see ICSID CMS Gas Transmission Company v Argentina ARB/01/8, 12 May 2005, para 325.

  225. 225.

    ICJ Construction of a Wall Opinion [2004] ICJ Rep 136, para 159; the Federal Constitutional Court (Germany) ‘East German Expropriation Case’ 112 BVerfGE 1, para 122 (2004) (official translation) referred to Art 41 ILC Articles on State Responsibility; on the legal meaning of non-recognition see Gianelli (2011), p. 338 et seq.

  226. 226.

    [2001-II/2] YbILC 132, para 9.

  227. 227.

    Kawasaki (2008), p. 151.

  228. 228.

    Opposing Costelloe (2017), pp. 165-166; for a discussion of all arguments see Pellet 10th Report on Reservations to Treaties, Addendum, 14 June 2005, UN Doc A/CN.4/558/Add.1, paras 131–145.

  229. 229.

    Reuter (1989), pp. 625, 630–631; see also Teboul (1982), p. 690.

  230. 230.

    Pellet 10th Report on Reservations to Treaties, Addendum, 14 June 2005, UN Doc A/CN.4/558/Add.1, para 135; but note that reservations, which require acceptance to produce legal effects, do not fall within the category of unilateral acts as referred to by the ICJ in the Nuclear Tests case (→ MN 71).

  231. 231.

    Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 24, 4 November 1994, para 8.

  232. 232.

    ICJ North Sea Continental Shelf (separate opinion Padilla Nervo) [1969] ICJ Rep 86, 97.

  233. 233.

    ICJ North Sea Continental Shelf (dissenting opinion Tanaka) [1969] ICJ Rep 171, 182.

  234. 234.

    ICJ North Sea Continental Shelf (dissenting opinion Sørensen) [1969] ICJ Rep 241, 248.

  235. 235.

    ECtHR Belilos v Switzerland (concurring opinion de Meyer) App No 10328/83 (1988).

  236. 236.

    Reinisch (2001), p. 859; for a different view, see Martenczuk (1999), pp. 545–546.

  237. 237.

    ECJ Kadi and Barakaat v Council and Commission C-402/05 P, C-415/05 P [2008] ECR I-6351.

  238. 238.

    CFI Kadi v Council and Commission T-315/01 [2005] ECR II-3649, para 226; see the similar wording in CFI Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission T-306/01 [2005] ECR II-3533, para 277; CFI Hassan v Council and Commission T-49/04 [2006] ECR II-5, para 92; CFI Ayadi v Council T-253/02 [2006] ECR II-2139, para 116; all judgments have been annulled on appeal.

  239. 239.

    ICTY Prosecutor v Tadić (Appeals Chamber) IT-94-1-A, 15 July 1999, para 296; endorsed by Prosecutor v Akayesu (Appeals Chamber) ICTR-96-4-A, 1 June 2001, para 465, n 845.

  240. 240.

    ICJ Genocide Case (Further Requests for the Indication of Provisional Measures) (separate opinion Lauterpacht) [1993] ICJ Rep 407, para 100.

  241. 241.

    Orakhelashvili (2006), p. 206; Nicoloudis (1974), pp. 123, 134.

  242. 242.

    ICJ Genocide Case (Further Requests for the Indication of Provisional Measures) (separate opinion Lauterpacht) [1993] ICJ Rep 407, para 100.

  243. 243.

    Understood as “domestic legal systems most representative of different conceptions of law”, see Capotorti (1994), p. 118; Raimondo (2008), p. 54.

  244. 244.

    Raimondo (2008), p. 44.

  245. 245.

    SR Rodríguez Cedeño 5th Report on Unilateral Acts of States [2002-II/1] YbILC 91, 102, para 81; international jurisprudence clarifies that intention, and communication of that intention to the intended recipient, is the decisive element making valid a unilateral act, see ICJ Nuclear Tests (Australia v France) [1974] ICJ Rep 253, para 43.

  246. 246.

    Rubin (1977), p. 5.

  247. 247.

    SR Rodríguez Cedeño 3rd Report on Unilateral Acts of States, [2000-II/1] YbILC 247, 253, paras 48–49; Skubiszewski (1991), pp. 221, 230.

  248. 248.

    Dugard (2005), p. 100.

  249. 249.

    Cf ICJ Kosovo Opinion [2010] ICJ Rep 403, para 81; for the necessity of a direct and inherent connection between the declaration of independence and the ius cogens violation see Pippan (2010), p. 156.

  250. 250.

    In case of non-treaty acts, the prohibition to derogate from ius cogens stipulated in Art 53 must be understood as the prohibition to violate ius cogens, Hannikainen (1988), p. 7.

  251. 251.

    This argument is put forward by Weil (1992), p. 261.

  252. 252.

    ICJ Kosovo Opinion [2010] ICJ Rep 403, para 81.

  253. 253.

    For the declaration of independence of the “Turkish Republic of North Cyprus”, see SC Res 541 (1983), 4th recital; for the declaration of independence of Southern Rhodesia see SC Res 217 (1965), para 3.

  254. 254.

    Orakhelashvili (2006), p. 208.

  255. 255.

    SR Rodríguez Cedeño 3rd Report on Unilateral Acts of States [2000-II/1] YbILC 247, 263, para 167.

  256. 256.

    Constitutional Court (Hungary) Decision No 53/1993, 13 October 1993, para V.2 (unofficial translation), published in [1993] Magyar Közlöny No 147 (Hungarian).

  257. 257.

    US Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Circuit (United States) Committee of United States Citizens Living in Nicaragua et al v Reagan 859 F2d 941 (1988) 85 ILR 261; for the 1996 Decision of the Swiss Federal Council that a popular initiative is invalid if the proposed legislation would violate ius cogens see de Wet (2004), p. 101.

  258. 258.

    Kadelbach (2015), p. 165.

  259. 259.

    ICTY Prosecutor v Furundžija (Trial Chamber) IT-95-17/1-T, 10 December 1998, para 155 (footnotes omitted).

  260. 260.

    Cassese (2013), p. 312; Gattini (2003).

  261. 261.

    Admitted by Bassiouni (1998), pp. 133, 134 who strongly advocates a broad set of State obligations attached to ius cogens core crimes; for a critical review of State practice with regard to the duty to prosecute, see Ferdinandusse (2006), p. 185.

  262. 262.

    For a critique of the arguments, see Seibert-Fohr (2009), pp. 250–254.

  263. 263.

    See ICJ Arrest Warrant Case (dissenting opinion Al-Khasawneh) [2002] ICJ Rep 95, para 7.

  264. 264.

    ICTY Prosecutor v Furundžija (Trial Chamber) IT-95-17/1-T, 10 December 1998, para 156 (footnotes omitted).

  265. 265.

    Federal Court (Australia) Nulyarimma v Thompson [1999] FCA 1192, para 141.

  266. 266.

    ICJ Arrest Warrant Case [2002] ICJ Rep 3, paras 59–60.

  267. 267.

    Special Court for Sierra Leone Prosecutor v Gbao (Decision on Preliminary Motion on the Invalidity of the Agreement between the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone on the Establishment of the Special Court) (Appeals Chamber) SCSL-2004-15-AR72(E), para 10 (2004).

  268. 268.

    US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (United States) Doe v Unocal Corp 248 F3d 915, n 15 (2001): “We stress that although a jus cogens violation is, by definition, ‘a violation of “specific, universal, and obligatory” international norms’ that is actionable under the ATCA, any ‘violation of “specific, universal, and obligatory” international norms’ – jus cogens or not – is actionable under the ATCA.” See also the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, UNGA Res 60/147, 16 December 2005, UN Doc A/RES/60/147, para 15.

  269. 269.

    For a detailed analysis, see Stephens (2004).

  270. 270.

    See eg US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit (United States) Kadić et al v Karadžić 70 F3d 232 (1995) (genocide, war crimes, torture, summary execution); US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (United States) In re Estate of Ferdinand Marcos 25 F3d 1467 (1994) (torture, summary execution, disappearances); US District Court for the District of Massachusetts Xuncax et al v Gramajo 886 FSupp 162 (1995) (torture, summary executions, prolonged arbitrary detentions, disappearances); US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit Doe v Unocal 248 F3d 915, n 15 (2001) (forced labor).

  271. 271.

    For an analysis of the case law concerning State immunity, see Potestà (2010).

  272. 272.

    ICJ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State [2012] ICJ Rep 99, para 93; this approach was criticized by Judge Cançado Trindade in his dissenting opinion, para 296: “The fact remains that a conflict does exist, and the Court’s reasoning leads to what I perceive as a groundless deconstruction of jus cogens, depriving this latter of its effects and legal consequences.”

  273. 273.

    Court of Cassation (Italy) Ferrini v Germany (2004) 128 ILR 658; see also Bianchi (1999), p. 265.

  274. 274.

    Dissenting opinion of Judge Wald in US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Princz v Germany 26 F3d 1176; along this line is the judgment of the Supreme Civil and Criminal Court (Greece) Prefecture of Voiotia v Germany Case No 11/2000, 4 May 2000; the judgment was reversed in Supreme Special Court (Greece) Germany v Miltiadis Margellos, Case No 6/2002, 17 September 2002.

  275. 275.

    Cf Vidmar (2013), p. 19; Costelloe (2017), pp. 257–259.

  276. 276.

    House of Lords (United Kingdom) R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 3) (1999) 119 ILR 136, 232.

  277. 277.

    ECtHR Al-Adsani v United Kingdom (GC) App No 35763/97, 123 ILR 42; Kalogeropoulou et al v Greece and Germany App No 59021/00, 12 December 2002, (references omitted); along this line Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Canada) Bouzari v Iran [2002] OJ No 1624, paras 63–73.

  278. 278.

    Court of Cassation (Italy) Germany v Mantelli et al (Preliminary Order on Jurisdiction) Case No 14201/2008, para 11 (references omitted); Ferrini v Germany (2004) 128 ILR 658; ECtHR Al-Adsani v United Kingdom (GC) App No 35763/97, 123 ILR 42; Kalogeropoulou et al v Greece and Germany App No 59021/00, 12 December 2002, (references omitted).

  279. 279.

    ICJ Arrest Warrant Case [2002] ICJ Rep 3, para 58; cf Akande (2004), p. 414: confirming: ICJ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State [2012] ICJ Rep 2012 99, para 95.

  280. 280.

    ILC commentary to Draft Code of Crimes against Peace and Security of Mankind [1996-II/2] YbILC 1, 29, para 8: “The Commission considered that [the extension of national court jurisdiction] was fully justified in view of the character of the crime of genocide as a crime under international law for which universal jurisdiction existed as a matter of customary law for those States that were not parties to the Convention and therefore not subject to the restriction contained therein.” See also Kreß (2002), p. 828; Damrosch (2004), p. 91, 95; for a different view, see Bassiouni (2001), pp. 96–97.

  281. 281.

    House of Lords (United Kingdom) R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 3) (1999) 119 ILR 136, 149.

  282. 282.

    Tribunal of First Instance of Brussels (Belgium) Aguilar Diaz et al v Pinochet, 6 November 1998, reprinted in [1998] Revue de droit pénal et de criminologie 278, 288, translated in Reydams (2003), pp. 112, 115.

  283. 283.

    On the general absence of reasoning of ius cogens identification see Saul (2013), p. 26.

  284. 284.

    ICJ Nicaragua (Merits) (separate opinion Nagendra Singh) [1986] ICJ Rep 151, 153; and the ICJ itself when quoting the ILC commentary to Draft Art 50, para 1 declaring “the law of the Charter concerning the prohibition of the use of force in itself constitutes a conspicuous example of a rule in international law having the character of jus cogens” in Nicaragua (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, para 190; US Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Circuit (United States) Committee of United States Citizens Living in Nicaragua et al v Reagan 859 F2d 949 (1988) 85 ILR 248, 260 [940]; ICJ Construction of a Wall Opinion (separate opinion Elaraby) [2004] ICJ Rep 246, 254; ICJ Kosovo Opinion [2010] ICJ Rep 2010 403, para 81; see the critical assessment of international practice in Helmersen (2014), pp. 167–193.

  285. 285.

    ICJ Nicaragua (Merits) (separate opinion Sette-Camara) [1986] ICJ Rep 192, 199–200.

  286. 286.

    ICJ Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v Senegal) [2012] ICJ Rep 422, para 99; ICTY Prosecutor v Furundžija (Trial Chamber) IT-95-17/1-T, 10 December 1999, paras 144, 153 et seq; Prosecutor v Delalić et al (Trial Chamber) IT-96-21-T, 16 November 1998, para 454; Prosecutor v Kunarac et al (Trial Chamber) IT-96-23-T, IT-96-23/1-T, 22 February 2001, para 466; Prosecutor v Simić (Trial Chamber) (Sentencing Judgment) IT-95-9/2-S, 17 October 2002, para 34; Prosecutor v Naletilić and Martinović (Trial Chamber) IT-98-34-T, 31 March 2003, para 336; Prosecutor v Delalić et al (Appeals Chamber) IT-96-21-A, 20 February 2001, para 172 (at n 225); ECtHR Al-Adsani v United Kingdom (GC) App No 35763/97, 123 ILR 42, para 61; ECtHR Othman v UK App No 8139/09 (2012), paras 253-254, 266-267; US Courts: US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (United States) Siderman de Blake v Argentina 965 F2d 715, 717 (1992) 103 ILR 471, 473 (certiorari denied 507 US 1017); IACtHR Servellón García et al v Honduras, IACtHR Ser C No 152, para 97 (2006); Baldeón García v Peru, IACtHR Ser C No 147, para 117 (2006); US Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Circuit (United States) Committee of United States Citizens Living in Nicaragua et al v Reagan 859 F2d 949 (1988) 85 ILR 248, 260; US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (United States) In re Estate of Ferdinand Marcos 978 F2d 493, para 20 (1992) (certiorari denied 508 US 972); House of Lords (United Kingdom) R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate et al ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 3) [2000] Appeal Cases 147.

  287. 287.

    US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (United States) Alejandre v Cuba 996 FSupp 1239 (1997) 121 ILR 603, 616.

  288. 288.

    Special Court for Sierra Leone Prosecutor v Sesay, Kallon and Gbao (Trial Chamber) SCSL-04-15-T, 2 March 2009, para 157.

  289. 289.

    See ICJ Jurisdictional Immunities of the State [2012] ICJ Rep 99, para 93; IACtHR in Aloeboetoe et al v Suriname, IACtHR Ser C No 15, para 57 (1993); US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (United States) United States v Matta-Ballesteros 71 F3d 754, 764, n 5 (1995); US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (United States) Siderman de Blake v Argentina 965 F2d 714–715 (1992) 103 ILR 471–471 (certiorari denied 507 US 1017); US District Court for the District of New Jersey (United States) Iwanowa v Ford Motor Co 67 FSupp2d 424 (1999); US Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Circuit (United States) Committee of United States Citizens Living in Nicaragua et al v Reagan 859 F2d 949 (1988) 85 ILR 269.

  290. 290.

    ICJ Construction of a Wall Opinion [2004] ICJ Rep 136, para 156; ICJ East Timor [1995] ICJ Rep 90, para 29: “The principle of self-determination of peoples […] is one of the essential principles of contemporary international law.” See also Barcelona Traction (Second Phase) (separate opinion Ammoun) [1970] ICJ Rep 286, 304, 312: principles in the Preamble of the UN Charter are ius cogens, right to self-determination and independence, principle of equality and non-discrimination on racial grounds are imperative rules of international law.

  291. 291.

    ICTY Prosecutor v Tadić (Allegations of Contempt Against Prior Counsel, Milan Vujin) (Appeals Chamber) IT-94-1-A-AR77, 27 February 2001, 3: “Considering moreover that Article 14 of the International Covenant reflects an imperative norm of international law to which the Tribunal must adhere”.

  292. 292.

    Special Tribunal for Lebanon (Pre-Trial Judge) Order Setting a Time Limit for Filing an Application by the Prosecutor in Accordance with Rule 17(B) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence CH/PTJ/2009/03, 15 April 2009, para 14.

  293. 293.

    ICJ Armed Activities Case (DRC v Rwanda) [2006] ICJ Rep 6, para 64; ICJ Genocide Case [2007] ICJ Rep 43, para 161; ECtHR in Kalogeropoulou et al v Greece and Germany App No 59021/00, 12 December 2002, p. 9; IACtHR in Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v Peru, IACtHR Ser C No 160, paras 402–404 (2006); Almonacid Arellano et al v Chile, IACtHR Ser C No 154, paras 99, 128–129 (2006); ICTR Prosecutor v Kayishema and Ruzindana (Trial Chamber) ICTR-95-1-T, 21 May 1999, para 88; ICTY Prosecutor v Jelisić (Trial Chamber) IT-95-10-T, 14 December 1999, para 60; Prosecutor v Kupreškić et al (Trial Chamber) IT-95-16-T, 14 January 2000, para 520; Prosecutor v Krstić (Trial Chamber) IT-98-33-T, 2 August 2001, para 541; Prosecutor v Stakić (Trial Chamber) IT-97-24-T, 31 July 2003, para 500; Prosecutor v Brđanin (Trial Chamber) IT-99-36-T, 1 September 2004, para 680; Prosecutor v Blagojević and Jokić (Trial Chamber) IT-02-60-T, 17 January 2005, para 639; ECtHR Jorgić v Germany App No 74613/01, 12 July 2007, para 68; IACHR Roach and Pinkerton v United States Case No 9647, 27 March 1987, para 55.

  294. 294.

    ICJ Armed Activities Case (DRC v Rwanda) (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) [2006] ICJ Rep 6, para 78; Barcelona Traction (Second Phase) [1970] ICJ Rep 3, paras 33–34; IACtHR in Servellón García et al v Honduras, IACtHR Ser C No 152, para 94 (2006); Yatama v Nicaragua, IACtHR Ser C No 127, para 184 (2005); The Juridical Condition and the Rights of Undocumented Migrants, Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, IACtHR Ser A No 18, paras 97–101, 110–111 (2003); for the prohibition of apartheid see also US Federal Court, Sarei v Rio Tinto, PLC, 671 F.3d 736, 675 (9th Cir. 2011).

  295. 295.

    ICJ Construction of a Wall Opinion [2004] ICJ Rep 136, para 157; Nicaragua (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, para 79; Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons [1996] ICJ Rep 226, para 79; ICTY Prosecutor v Kupreškić et al (Trial Chamber) IT-95-16-T, 14 January 2000, para 520; US Federal Court Decisions: Sarei v Rio Tinto, PLC, 487 F.3d 1193, 1202 (9th Cir. 2007); Kadic v Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 243 (2nd Cir. 1995).

  296. 296.

    Court of First Instance of Leivadia (Greece) Prefecture of Voiotia v Germany Case No 137/1997, translated in Gavouneli (1997).

  297. 297.

    ICJ Barcelona Traction (Second Phase) [1970] ICJ Rep 3, paras 33–34.

  298. 298.

    Byers (1997), pp. 211, 238; but see the separate opinion of Judge Ammoun in Barcelona Traction (Second Phase) [1970] ICJ Rep 286 who addresses ius cogens nature of rules under the headline of erga omnes obligations: ICJ Barcelona Traction (Second Phase) (separate opinion Ammoun) [1970] ICJ Rep 286, 325.

  299. 299.

    Frowein (1994), pp. 405–406.

  300. 300.

    Simma (1989), pp. 821, 825.

  301. 301.

    Byers (1997), p. 236; Tams (2005), p. 151; Weatherall (2015), p. 352; for international core crimes see Bassiouni (1998), p. 134.

  302. 302.

    Byers (1997), p. 237; Meron (1986), p. 187.

  303. 303.

    Tams (2005), p. 151.

  304. 304.

    Kadelbach (1992), p. 203.

  305. 305.

    Gaja (1981), p. 289.

  306. 306.

    UNCLOTIO II 39, para 2.

  307. 307.

    See ICJ Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v Senegal) [2012] ICJ Rep 422, para 99.

References

  • Abi-Saab G (1967) Introductory Note. In: Lagonissi Conference on International Law, Papers and Proceedings, Vol II: The Concept of ius cogens in International Law. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, European Centre, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Akande D (2004) International Law Immunities and the International Criminal Court. AJIL 98(3):407–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akehurst M (1975) The Hierarchy of the Sources of International Law. BYIL 47(1):273–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexidze L (1981) Legal Nature of jus cogens in Contemporary International Law. RdC 172(2):219–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Barberis JA (1970) La liberté de traiter des États et le jus cogens. ZaöRV 30:19–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassiouni MC (1990) A Functional Approach to “General Principles of International Law”. MichJIL 11(3):768–818

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassiouni MC (1998) International Crimes: jus cogens and obligatio erga omnes. In: Bassiouni MC, Joyner C (eds) Reigning in Impunity for International Crimes and Serious Violations of Fundamental Human Rights. Érès, Toulouse, pp 133–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassiouni MC (2001) Universal Jurisdiction for International Crimes: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Practice. VaJIL 42(1):81–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi A (1999) Immunity versus Human Rights: The Pinochet Case. EJIL 10(2):237–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black HC (1990) Black’s Law Dictionary: Definitions of the Terms and Phrases of American and English Jurisprudence, Ancient and Modern, 6th edn. West Publishing Co., St. Paul

    Google Scholar 

  • Bluntschli JC (1872) Das moderne Völkerrecht der civilisirten Staten: Als Rechtsbuch dargestellt. Beck, Nördlingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Bos M (1982) The Identification of Custom in International Law. GYIL 25:9–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Bos M (1984) A Methodology of International Law. North-Holland, Amsterdam/Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Byers M (1997) Conceptualising the Relationship between jus cogens and erga omnes Rules. Nordic JIL 66(2):211–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Capotorti F (1994) Cours général de droit international public. RdC 248(1):9–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A (2013) International Criminal Law, 3rd edn. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Christenson GA (1988) Jus cogens: Guarding Interests Fundamental to International Society. VaJIL 28(3):585–648

    Google Scholar 

  • Combacau J, Sur S (1995) Droit international public, 2nd edn. Montchrestien, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Costelloe D (2017) Legal Consequences of Peremptory Norms in International Law. CUP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Covell C (2009) The Law of Nations in Political Thought: A Critical Survey from Vitoria to Hegel. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

    Google Scholar 

  • Criddle EJ, Fox-Decent E (2009) A Fiduciary Theory of jus cogens. Yale JIL 34(2):331–387

    Google Scholar 

  • Czapliński W, Danilenko GM (1990) Conflict of Norms in International Law. NYIL 21:3–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damrosch LF (2004) Comment: Connecting the Threads in the Fabric of International Law. In: Macedo S (ed) Universal Jurisdiction: National Courts and the Prosecution of Serious Crimes under International Law. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp 91–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Danilenko GM (1991) International jus cogens: Issues of Law-Making. EJIL 2:42–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Danilenko GM (1993) Law-Making in the International Community. Nijhoff, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois D (2009) The Authority of Peremptory Norms in International Law: State Consent or Natural Law? Nordic JIL 78:133–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Dugard J (2005) International Law: A South African Perspective, 3th edn. Juta, Cape Town

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupuy P-M (1989) Le juge et la règle générale. RGDIP 93:569–598

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupuy P-M (1993) Droit international public, 2nd edn. Dalloz, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferdinandusse WN (2006) Direct Application of International Criminal Law in National Courts. The Hague, T.M.C. Asser Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Frowein JA (1994) Reactions by Not Directly Affected States to Breaches of Public International Law. RdC 248(2):345–437

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaja G (1981) Jus cogens beyond the Vienna Convention. RdC 172(3):271–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Gangl WT (1980) The jus cogens dimensions of Nuclear Technology. Cornell ILJ 13(1):63–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Gattini A (2003) To What Extent are State Immunity and Non-Justiciability Major Hurdles to Individuals’ Claims for War Damages? JICJ 1(2):348–367

    Google Scholar 

  • Gavouneli M (1997) War Reparation Claims and State Immunity. RHDI 50:595–608

    Google Scholar 

  • Gianelli A (2011) Absolute Invalidity and Non-Recognition by Third States. In: Cannizzaro E (ed) The Law of Treaties Beyond the Vienna Convention. OUP, Oxford, pp 333–349

    Google Scholar 

  • Glück CF (1797) Ausführliche Erläuterung der Pandecten nach Hellfeld, Vol I. Palm & Enke, Erlangen

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez Robledo A (1981) Le ius cogens international: sa genèse, sa nature, ses fonctions. RdC 172(2):9–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Grotius H (1646/1964 I) De jure belli ac pacis libri tres. In: Scott JB (ed) The Law of War and Peace, Vol 2, book I. Oceana Publications, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Guggenheim P (1967) Traité de droit international public: avec mention de la pratique internationale et suisse, Vol I. Librairie de l’Univ, Genève

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannikainen L (1988) Peremptory Norms in International Law. Finish Lawyers’ Pub. Co., Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegel GWF (1821) Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts. Nicolai, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • den Heijer M, van der Wilt H (eds) (2015) Jus Cogens: Quo Vadis? NYIL 46:3–438

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmersen ST (2014) The Prohibition of the Use of Force as jus cogens: Explaining Apparent Derogations. NILR 61(2):167–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von der Heydte FA (1932) Die Erscheinungsformen des zwischenstaatlichen Rechts: jus cogens und jus dispositivum im Völkerrecht. ZVöR 16:461–478

    Google Scholar 

  • van Hoof GJH (1983) Rethinking the Sources of International Law. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • de Hoog AJJ (1991) The Relationship between jus cogens, Obligations erga omnes and International Crimes: Peremptory Norms in Perspective. ZÖR 42(2):183–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis MW (1988) The Nature of jus cogens. ConnJIL 3:359–363. Reprinted in: May L, Brown J (eds) (2010) Philosophy of Law: Classic and Contemporary Readings. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp 184–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenks CW (1963) The Conflict of Law-Making Treaties. BYIL 30:401–453

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings RY (1965) Nullity and Effectiveness in International Law. In: Bowett DW, Fitzmaurice G, Jenks CW, Jennings RY, Lauterpacht E, Parry C, Vallat F (eds) Cambridge Essays in International Law: Essays in Honour of Lord McNair. Stevens, London, pp 64–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Jurt J (1933) Zwingendes Völkerrecht: Ein Beitrag zur Lehre vom objektiven Völkerrecht. Gegenbauer, Wil, St. Gallen

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadelbach S (1992) Zwingendes Völkerrecht. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kadelbach S (2015) Genesis, Function and Identification of jus cogens Norms. NYIL 46:147–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadelbach S, Kleinlein T (2006) Überstaatliches Verfassungsrecht. AVR 44(3):235–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawasaki K (2008) International ius cogens in the Law of State Responsibility. In: Focarelli C (ed) Le nuove frontiere del diritto internazionale. Morlacchi, Perugia, pp 145–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen H (1952) Principles of International Law. Rinehart & Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb R (1998) The Formal Source of ius cogens in Public International Law. ZÖR 53:69–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb R (2001) Théorie du ius cogens international. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kolb R (2015) Peremptory International Law - jus cogens: A General Inventory. Hart Publisher, Oxford and Portland

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi M (2005) International Law in Europe: Between Tradition and Renewal. EJIL 16(1):113–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi M (2006) From Apology to Utopia. CUP, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreß C (2002) Völkerstrafrecht und Weltrechtspflege im Blickfeld des Internationalen Gerichtshofs. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 114(4):818–849

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau H (2005) Rethinking the Persistent Objector Doctrine in International Human Rights Law. ChicJIL 6(1):495–510

    Google Scholar 

  • Linderfalk U (2007) The Effect of jus cogens Norms: Whoever Opened Pandora’s Box, Did You Ever Think About the Consequences? EJIL 18(5):853–871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linderfalk U (2011) The Creation of jus cogens Making Sense of Article 53 of the Vienna Convention. ZaöRV 71:359–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Linderfalk U (2013) The Source of jus cogens Obligations – How Legal Positivism Copes with Peremptory International Law. Nordic JIL 82:369–389

    Google Scholar 

  • Magallona MM (1976) The Concept of jus cogens in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. PhilLJ 51(5):521–542. Reprinted in: Davidson JS (ed) (2004) The Law of Treaties. Ashgate/Dartmouth, Aldershot, pp 495–542

    Google Scholar 

  • Martenczuk B (1999) The Security Council, the International Court and Judicial Review: What Lessons from Lockerbie? EJIL 10(3):517–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martens FF (1882) Sovremennoe meždunarodnoe pravo civilizovannych narodov. German translation in: Bergbohm C (1883) Völkerrecht: Das Internationale Recht der civilisirten Nationen, Vol I. Weidmann, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • McNair A (1961) The Law of Treaties. OUP, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Merkl A (1931) Prolegomena einer Theorie des rechtlichen Stufenbaues. In: Verdross A (ed) Gesellschaft, Staat und Recht: Untersuchungen zur reinen Rechtslehre; Festschrift Hans Kelsen zum 50. Geburtstage gewidmet. Springer, Wien, pp 252–294

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Meron T (1986) Human Rights Law-Making in the United Nations: A Critique of Instruments and Process. OUP, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mik C (2013) Jus cogens in Contemporary International Law. PolYIL 33:27–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Monaco R (1983) Observations sur la hiérarchie des sources du droit international. In: Bernhardt R (ed) Völkerrecht als Rechtsordnung, Internationale Gerichtsbarkeit, Menschenrechte: Festschrift für Hermann Mosler. Springer, Berlin, pp 599–615

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mosler H (1974) International Society as a Legal Community. RdC 140(1):1–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosler H (1984) International Legal Community. In: Bernhardt R (ed) EPIL, Vol 7. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 309–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicoloudis EP (1974) La nullité de jus cogens et le développement contemporain du droit international public. Papazissi, Athens

    Google Scholar 

  • Onuf NG, Birney RK (1974) Peremptory Norms of International Law: Their Sources, Their Function and Future. DJILP 4:187–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Orakhelashvili A (2006) Peremptory Norms in International Law. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Orakhelashvili A (2008) State Immunity and Hierarchy of Norms. EJIL 18(5):955–970

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker K, Neylon LB (1989) Jus cogens: Compelling the Law of Human Rights. Hastings ICLR 12(2):411–464

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul V (1971) The Legal Consequences of Conflict between a Treaty and an Imperative Norm of General International Law (jus cogens). ZÖR 21:19–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellet A (2012) Article 38. In: Zimmermann A, Tomuschat C, Oellers-Frahm K, Tams C (eds) The Statute of the International Court of Justice – A Commentary, 2nd edn. OUP, Oxford, pp 731–870

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen N (2008) Customary Law without Custom? Rules, Principles, and the Role of State Practice in International Norm Creation. AmUILR 23(2):275–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Pippan C (2010) The International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion on Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence: An Exercise in the Art of Silence. EJM 3(3-4):145–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Potestà M (2010) State Immunity and jus cogens Violations: The Alien Tort Statute against the Backdrop of the Latest Developments in the ‘Law of Nations’. Berkeley JIL 28(2):571–587

    Google Scholar 

  • Raimondo FO (2008) General Principles of Law in Decisions of International Criminal Courts and Tribunals. Nijhoff, Leiden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reimann HB (1971) Ius cogens im Völkerrecht: Eine quellenkritische Untersuchung. Schulthess, Zurich

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinisch A (2001) Developing Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Accountability of the Security Council for the Imposition of Economic Sanctions. AJIL 95(4):851–871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reuter P (1989) Solidarité et divisibilité des engagements conventionnels. In: Dinstein Y (ed) International Law at a Time of Perplexity: Essays in Honour of Shabtai Rosenne. Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 623–634

    Google Scholar 

  • Reydams L (2003) Universal Jurisdiction: International and Municipal Legal Perspectives. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Riesenfeld SA (1966) Jus dispositivium and jus cogens in International Law: In the Light of a Recent Decision of the German Supreme Constitutional Court. AJIL 60(3):511–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivier A (1896) Principes du droit des gens, Vol II. Rousseau, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronzitti N (1978) La disciplina dello jus cogens nella Convenzione di Vienna sul Diritto dei Trattati. Comunicazioni e studi 15:241–299

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenne S (1971) The Settlement of Treaty Disputes under the Vienna Convention of 1969. ZaöRV 31:1–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozakis CL (1976) The Concept of jus cogens in the Law of Treaties. North-Holland, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin AP (1977) The International Legal Effects of Unilateral Declarations. AJIL 71(1):1–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudden B (1980) Ius cogens, ius dispositivum. Cambrian LR 11:87–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Saul M (2013) Identifying jus cogens Norms: The Interaction of Scholars and International Judges. Asian JIL 5:26–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheuner U (1969) Conflict of Treaty Provisions with a Peremptory Norm of General International Law. ZaöRV 29:28–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzenberger G (1965) International jus cogens? TexLR 43(4):455–478

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwelb E (1967) Some Aspects of International jus cogens as Formulated by the International Law Commission. AJIL 61(4):946–975

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seibert-Fohr A (2009) Prosecuting Serious Human Rights Violations. OUP, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shelton D (2006) Normative Hierarchy in International Law. AJIL 100(2):291–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simma B (1989) Bilateralism and Community Interests in the Law of State Responsibility. In: Dinstein Y (ed) International Law at a Time of Perplexity: Essays in Honour of Shabtai Rosenne. Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 821–844

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma B (1994) From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law. RdC 250(2):217–384

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma B (1995) The Contribution of Alfred Verdross to the Theory of Law. EJIL 6(1):33–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simma B, Alston P (1988–1989) The Sources of Human Rights Law: Custom, jus cogens, and General Principles. AYIL 12:82–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Skubiszewski K (1991) Unilateral Acts of States. In: Bedjaoui M (ed) International Law: Achievements and Prospects. UNESCO/Nijhoff, Paris/Dordrecht, pp 221–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein TL (1985) The Approach of the Different Drummer: The Principle of the Persistent Objector in International Law. HarvILJ 26(2):457–482

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens PJ (2004) A Categorical Approach to Human Rights Claims: jus cogens as a Limitation on Enforcement? WisILJ 22(2):245–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Strupp K (1925) Theorie und Praxis des Völkerrechts. Liebmann, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Suy E (1967) The Concept of jus cogens in Public International law. In: Lagonissi Conference on International Law, Papers and Proceedings, Vol II: The Concept of ius cogens in International Law. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, European Centre, Geneva, pp 17–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Suy E (1983) Droit des traités et droits de l’homme. In: Bernhardt R, Geck WK, Jaenicke G, Steinberger H (eds) Völkerrecht als Rechtsordnung, internationale Gerichtsbarkeit, Menschenrechte: Festschrift für Hermann Mosler. Springer, Berlin, pp 935–947

    Google Scholar 

  • Sztucki J (1974) Jus cogens and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Critical Appraisal. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tams C (2005) Enforcing Obligations erga omnes in International Law. CUP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Teboul G (1982) Remarques sur les réserves aux conventions de codification. RGDIP 86:679–717

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C (1993) Obligations Arising for States Without or Against Their Will. RdC 241(2):195–374

    Google Scholar 

  • Triepel H (1899) Völkerrecht und Landesrecht. Hirschfeld, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Tunkin GI (1993) Is General International Law Customary Law Only? EJIL 4(1):534–541

    Google Scholar 

  • Unger RF (1978) Völkergewohnheitsrecht – objektives Recht oder Geflecht bilateraler Beziehungen: seine Bedeutung für einen ‘persistent objector’. Tuduv-Verlagsges, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vattel E (1758/1964) Le droit des gens, book I. In: Fenwick CG (ed) Oceana Publications, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Verdross A (1935) Les principes généraux du droit dans la jurisprudence internationale. RdC 52(3):191–251

    Google Scholar 

  • Verdross A (1936) Der Grundsatz pacta sunt servanda und die Grenzen der guten Sitten. ZÖR 16:79–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Verdross A (1937) Forbidden Treaties in International Law. AJIL 31(4):571–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar J (2013) Rethinking jus cogens after Germany v. Italy: Back to Article 53? NILR 60(1):1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Visscher P (1971) Positivisme et jus cogens. RGDIP 75:5–11

    Google Scholar 

  • de Visscher P (1972) Cours général de droit international public. RdC 136(1):1–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Vitanyi B (1982) Les positions doctrinales concernant le sens de la notion de ‘principes généraux de droit reconnus par les nations civilisées. RGDIP 86:48–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Vranes E (2005) Lex superior, lex specialis, lex posterior – zur Rechtsnatur der ‘Konfliktlösungsregeln’. ZaöRV 65:391–405

    Google Scholar 

  • Vranes E (2006) The Definition of ‘Norm Conflict’ in International Law and Legal Theory. EJIL 17(2):395–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walter R (1964) Der Aufbau der Rechtsordnung: eine rechtstheoretische Untersuchung auf Grundlage der Reinen Rechtslehre. Leykam, Graz

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson A (1985) The Digest of Justinian, Vol I. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherall T (2015) Jus cogens: International Law and Social Contract. CUP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weil P (1983) Towards Relative Normativity in International Law? AJIL 77(3):413–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weil P (1992) Le droit international en quête de son identité: cours général de droit international public. RdC 237(1):11–370

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd AM (1995–1996) The Emptiness of the Concept of jus cogens, as Illustrated by the War in Bosnia-Herzegovina. MichJIL 17(1):1–52

    Google Scholar 

  • de Wet E (2004) The Prohibition of Torture as an International Norm of jus cogens and Its Implication for National and Customary Law. EJIL 15(1):97–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfke K (1974) Jus cogens in International Law (Regulation and Prospects). PolYIL 6:145–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Yasseen MK (1975) Réflexions sur la détermination du ‘jus cogens’. In: Societé Française pour le droit international (ed) Colloque de Toulouse, L’élaboration du droit international public. Pedone, Paris, pp 204–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Zemanek K (2006) How to Identify Peremptory Norms of International Law. In: Dupuy P-M, Fassbender B, Shaw M, Sommermann K-P (eds) Völkerrecht als Wertordnung, Festschrift für Christian Tomuschat. Engel, Kehl a. Rhein, pp 1103–1117

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziccardi P (1975) Il contributo della Convenzione di Vienna sul Diritto dei Trattati alla determinazione del diritto applicabile dalla Corte Internazionale di Giustizia. Comunicazioni e studi 14:1043–1082

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law Faculty, Paris Lodron University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

    Kirsten Schmalenbach

Authors
  1. Kirsten Schmalenbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. European Legal Studies Institute, University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany

    Oliver Dörr

  2. Faculty of Law, Department of Public Law/International Law, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

    Kirsten Schmalenbach

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schmalenbach, K. (2018). Article 53. In: Dörr, O., Schmalenbach, K. (eds) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55160-8_56

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55160-8_56

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-55159-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-55160-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation