Advertisement

Article 53

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

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).

References

  1. 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, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  2. Akande D (2004) International Law Immunities and the International Criminal Court. AJIL 98(3):407–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akehurst M (1975) The Hierarchy of the Sources of International Law. BYIL 47(1):273–285Google Scholar
  4. Alexidze L (1981) Legal Nature of jus cogens in Contemporary International Law. RdC 172(2):219–270Google Scholar
  5. Barberis JA (1970) La liberté de traiter des États et le jus cogens. ZaöRV 30:19–45Google Scholar
  6. Bassiouni MC (1990) A Functional Approach to “General Principles of International Law”. MichJIL 11(3):768–818Google Scholar
  7. 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 133–148Google Scholar
  8. Bassiouni MC (2001) Universal Jurisdiction for International Crimes: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Practice. VaJIL 42(1):81–162Google Scholar
  9. Bianchi A (1999) Immunity versus Human Rights: The Pinochet Case. EJIL 10(2):237–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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. PaulGoogle Scholar
  11. Bluntschli JC (1872) Das moderne Völkerrecht der civilisirten Staten: Als Rechtsbuch dargestellt. Beck, NördlingenGoogle Scholar
  12. Bos M (1982) The Identification of Custom in International Law. GYIL 25:9–53Google Scholar
  13. Bos M (1984) A Methodology of International Law. North-Holland, Amsterdam/OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Byers M (1997) Conceptualising the Relationship between jus cogens and erga omnes Rules. Nordic JIL 66(2):211–239Google Scholar
  15. Capotorti F (1994) Cours général de droit international public. RdC 248(1):9–343Google Scholar
  16. Cassese A (2013) International Criminal Law, 3rd edn. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Christenson GA (1988) Jus cogens: Guarding Interests Fundamental to International Society. VaJIL 28(3):585–648Google Scholar
  18. Combacau J, Sur S (1995) Droit international public, 2nd edn. Montchrestien, ParisGoogle Scholar
  19. Costelloe D (2017) Legal Consequences of Peremptory Norms in International Law. CUP, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Covell C (2009) The Law of Nations in Political Thought: A Critical Survey from Vitoria to Hegel. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  21. Criddle EJ, Fox-Decent E (2009) A Fiduciary Theory of jus cogens. Yale JIL 34(2):331–387Google Scholar
  22. Czapliński W, Danilenko GM (1990) Conflict of Norms in International Law. NYIL 21:3–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 91–96Google Scholar
  24. Danilenko GM (1991) International jus cogens: Issues of Law-Making. EJIL 2:42–65Google Scholar
  25. Danilenko GM (1993) Law-Making in the International Community. Nijhoff, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  26. Dubois D (2009) The Authority of Peremptory Norms in International Law: State Consent or Natural Law? Nordic JIL 78:133–175Google Scholar
  27. Dugard J (2005) International Law: A South African Perspective, 3th edn. Juta, Cape TownGoogle Scholar
  28. Dupuy P-M (1989) Le juge et la règle générale. RGDIP 93:569–598Google Scholar
  29. Dupuy P-M (1993) Droit international public, 2nd edn. Dalloz, ParisGoogle Scholar
  30. Ferdinandusse WN (2006) Direct Application of International Criminal Law in National Courts. The Hague, T.M.C. Asser PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Frowein JA (1994) Reactions by Not Directly Affected States to Breaches of Public International Law. RdC 248(2):345–437Google Scholar
  32. Gaja G (1981) Jus cogens beyond the Vienna Convention. RdC 172(3):271–316Google Scholar
  33. Gangl WT (1980) The jus cogens dimensions of Nuclear Technology. Cornell ILJ 13(1):63–88Google Scholar
  34. Gattini A (2003) To What Extent are State Immunity and Non-Justiciability Major Hurdles to Individuals’ Claims for War Damages? JICJ 1(2):348–367Google Scholar
  35. Gavouneli M (1997) War Reparation Claims and State Immunity. RHDI 50:595–608Google Scholar
  36. 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 333–349Google Scholar
  37. Glück CF (1797) Ausführliche Erläuterung der Pandecten nach Hellfeld, Vol I. Palm & Enke, ErlangenGoogle Scholar
  38. Gómez Robledo A (1981) Le ius cogens international: sa genèse, sa nature, ses fonctions. RdC 172(2):9–218Google Scholar
  39. 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 YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Guggenheim P (1967) Traité de droit international public: avec mention de la pratique internationale et suisse, Vol I. Librairie de l’Univ, GenèveGoogle Scholar
  41. Hannikainen L (1988) Peremptory Norms in International Law. Finish Lawyers’ Pub. Co., HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  42. Hegel GWF (1821) Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts. Nicolai, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  43. den Heijer M, van der Wilt H (eds) (2015) Jus Cogens: Quo Vadis? NYIL 46:3–438Google Scholar
  44. Helmersen ST (2014) The Prohibition of the Use of Force as jus cogens: Explaining Apparent Derogations. NILR 61(2):167–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. von der Heydte FA (1932) Die Erscheinungsformen des zwischenstaatlichen Rechts: jus cogens und jus dispositivum im Völkerrecht. ZVöR 16:461–478Google Scholar
  46. van Hoof GJH (1983) Rethinking the Sources of International Law. Kluwer, DeventerGoogle Scholar
  47. de Hoog AJJ (1991) The Relationship between jus cogens, Obligations erga omnes and International Crimes: Peremptory Norms in Perspective. ZÖR 42(2):183–214Google Scholar
  48. 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 184–186Google Scholar
  49. Jenks CW (1963) The Conflict of Law-Making Treaties. BYIL 30:401–453Google Scholar
  50. 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 64–87Google Scholar
  51. Jurt J (1933) Zwingendes Völkerrecht: Ein Beitrag zur Lehre vom objektiven Völkerrecht. Gegenbauer, Wil, St. GallenGoogle Scholar
  52. Kadelbach S (1992) Zwingendes Völkerrecht. Duncker & Humblot, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kadelbach S (2015) Genesis, Function and Identification of jus cogens Norms. NYIL 46:147–172Google Scholar
  54. Kadelbach S, Kleinlein T (2006) Überstaatliches Verfassungsrecht. AVR 44(3):235–266Google Scholar
  55. 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 145–165Google Scholar
  56. Kelsen H (1952) Principles of International Law. Rinehart & Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  57. Kolb R (1998) The Formal Source of ius cogens in Public International Law. ZÖR 53:69–105Google Scholar
  58. Kolb R (2001) Théorie du ius cogens international. Presses Universitaires de France, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kolb R (2015) Peremptory International Law - jus cogens: A General Inventory. Hart Publisher, Oxford and PortlandGoogle Scholar
  60. Koskenniemi M (2005) International Law in Europe: Between Tradition and Renewal. EJIL 16(1):113–124Google Scholar
  61. Koskenniemi M (2006) From Apology to Utopia. CUP, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  62. Kreß C (2002) Völkerstrafrecht und Weltrechtspflege im Blickfeld des Internationalen Gerichtshofs. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 114(4):818–849Google Scholar
  63. Lau H (2005) Rethinking the Persistent Objector Doctrine in International Human Rights Law. ChicJIL 6(1):495–510Google Scholar
  64. Linderfalk U (2007) The Effect of jus cogens Norms: Whoever Opened Pandora’s Box, Did You Ever Think About the Consequences? EJIL 18(5):853–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Linderfalk U (2011) The Creation of jus cogens Making Sense of Article 53 of the Vienna Convention. ZaöRV 71:359–378Google Scholar
  66. Linderfalk U (2013) The Source of jus cogens Obligations – How Legal Positivism Copes with Peremptory International Law. Nordic JIL 82:369–389Google Scholar
  67. 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 495–542Google Scholar
  68. Martenczuk B (1999) The Security Council, the International Court and Judicial Review: What Lessons from Lockerbie? EJIL 10(3):517–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Martens FF (1882) Sovremennoe meždunarodnoe pravo civilizovannych narodov. German translation in: Bergbohm C (1883) Völkerrecht: Das Internationale Recht der civilisirten Nationen, Vol I. Weidmann, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  70. McNair A (1961) The Law of Treaties. OUP, LondonGoogle Scholar
  71. 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 252–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Meron T (1986) Human Rights Law-Making in the United Nations: A Critique of Instruments and Process. OUP, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Mik C (2013) Jus cogens in Contemporary International Law. PolYIL 33:27–93Google Scholar
  74. 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 599–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Mosler H (1974) International Society as a Legal Community. RdC 140(1):1–320Google Scholar
  76. Mosler H (1984) International Legal Community. In: Bernhardt R (ed) EPIL, Vol 7. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 309–312Google Scholar
  77. Nicoloudis EP (1974) La nullité de jus cogens et le développement contemporain du droit international public. Papazissi, AthensGoogle Scholar
  78. Onuf NG, Birney RK (1974) Peremptory Norms of International Law: Their Sources, Their Function and Future. DJILP 4:187–198Google Scholar
  79. Orakhelashvili A (2006) Peremptory Norms in International Law. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  80. Orakhelashvili A (2008) State Immunity and Hierarchy of Norms. EJIL 18(5):955–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Parker K, Neylon LB (1989) Jus cogens: Compelling the Law of Human Rights. Hastings ICLR 12(2):411–464Google Scholar
  82. Paul V (1971) The Legal Consequences of Conflict between a Treaty and an Imperative Norm of General International Law (jus cogens). ZÖR 21:19–49Google Scholar
  83. 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 731–870Google Scholar
  84. Petersen N (2008) Customary Law without Custom? Rules, Principles, and the Role of State Practice in International Norm Creation. AmUILR 23(2):275–310Google Scholar
  85. 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):145–166Google Scholar
  86. 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):571–587Google Scholar
  87. Raimondo FO (2008) General Principles of Law in Decisions of International Criminal Courts and Tribunals. Nijhoff, LeidenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Reimann HB (1971) Ius cogens im Völkerrecht: Eine quellenkritische Untersuchung. Schulthess, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  89. Reinisch A (2001) Developing Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Accountability of the Security Council for the Imposition of Economic Sanctions. AJIL 95(4):851–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 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 623–634Google Scholar
  91. Reydams L (2003) Universal Jurisdiction: International and Municipal Legal Perspectives. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  92. 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):511–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Rivier A (1896) Principes du droit des gens, Vol II. Rousseau, ParisGoogle Scholar
  94. Ronzitti N (1978) La disciplina dello jus cogens nella Convenzione di Vienna sul Diritto dei Trattati. Comunicazioni e studi 15:241–299Google Scholar
  95. Rosenne S (1971) The Settlement of Treaty Disputes under the Vienna Convention of 1969. ZaöRV 31:1–62Google Scholar
  96. Rozakis CL (1976) The Concept of jus cogens in the Law of Treaties. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  97. Rubin AP (1977) The International Legal Effects of Unilateral Declarations. AJIL 71(1):1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Rudden B (1980) Ius cogens, ius dispositivum. Cambrian LR 11:87–100Google Scholar
  99. Saul M (2013) Identifying jus cogens Norms: The Interaction of Scholars and International Judges. Asian JIL 5:26–54Google Scholar
  100. Scheuner U (1969) Conflict of Treaty Provisions with a Peremptory Norm of General International Law. ZaöRV 29:28–38Google Scholar
  101. Schwarzenberger G (1965) International jus cogens? TexLR 43(4):455–478Google Scholar
  102. Schwelb E (1967) Some Aspects of International jus cogens as Formulated by the International Law Commission. AJIL 61(4):946–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Seibert-Fohr A (2009) Prosecuting Serious Human Rights Violations. OUP, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Shelton D (2006) Normative Hierarchy in International Law. AJIL 100(2):291–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 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 821–844Google Scholar
  106. Simma B (1994) From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law. RdC 250(2):217–384Google Scholar
  107. Simma B (1995) The Contribution of Alfred Verdross to the Theory of Law. EJIL 6(1):33–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Simma B, Alston P (1988–1989) The Sources of Human Rights Law: Custom, jus cogens, and General Principles. AYIL 12:82–108Google Scholar
  109. Skubiszewski K (1991) Unilateral Acts of States. In: Bedjaoui M (ed) International Law: Achievements and Prospects. UNESCO/Nijhoff, Paris/Dordrecht, pp 221–240Google Scholar
  110. Stein TL (1985) The Approach of the Different Drummer: The Principle of the Persistent Objector in International Law. HarvILJ 26(2):457–482Google Scholar
  111. Stephens PJ (2004) A Categorical Approach to Human Rights Claims: jus cogens as a Limitation on Enforcement? WisILJ 22(2):245–272Google Scholar
  112. Strupp K (1925) Theorie und Praxis des Völkerrechts. Liebmann, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  113. 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 17–77Google Scholar
  114. 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 935–947Google Scholar
  115. Sztucki J (1974) Jus cogens and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Critical Appraisal. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Tams C (2005) Enforcing Obligations erga omnes in International Law. CUP, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Teboul G (1982) Remarques sur les réserves aux conventions de codification. RGDIP 86:679–717Google Scholar
  118. Tomuschat C (1993) Obligations Arising for States Without or Against Their Will. RdC 241(2):195–374Google Scholar
  119. Triepel H (1899) Völkerrecht und Landesrecht. Hirschfeld, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  120. Tunkin GI (1993) Is General International Law Customary Law Only? EJIL 4(1):534–541Google Scholar
  121. Unger RF (1978) Völkergewohnheitsrecht – objektives Recht oder Geflecht bilateraler Beziehungen: seine Bedeutung für einen ‘persistent objector’. Tuduv-Verlagsges, MunichGoogle Scholar
  122. de Vattel E (1758/1964) Le droit des gens, book I. In: Fenwick CG (ed) Oceana Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  123. Verdross A (1935) Les principes généraux du droit dans la jurisprudence internationale. RdC 52(3):191–251Google Scholar
  124. Verdross A (1936) Der Grundsatz pacta sunt servanda und die Grenzen der guten Sitten. ZÖR 16:79–86Google Scholar
  125. Verdross A (1937) Forbidden Treaties in International Law. AJIL 31(4):571–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Vidmar J (2013) Rethinking jus cogens after Germany v. Italy: Back to Article 53? NILR 60(1):1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. de Visscher P (1971) Positivisme et jus cogens. RGDIP 75:5–11Google Scholar
  128. de Visscher P (1972) Cours général de droit international public. RdC 136(1):1–202Google Scholar
  129. Vitanyi B (1982) Les positions doctrinales concernant le sens de la notion de ‘principes généraux de droit reconnus par les nations civilisées. RGDIP 86:48–116Google Scholar
  130. Vranes E (2005) Lex superior, lex specialis, lex posterior – zur Rechtsnatur der ‘Konfliktlösungsregeln’. ZaöRV 65:391–405Google Scholar
  131. Vranes E (2006) The Definition of ‘Norm Conflict’ in International Law and Legal Theory. EJIL 17(2):395–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Walter R (1964) Der Aufbau der Rechtsordnung: eine rechtstheoretische Untersuchung auf Grundlage der Reinen Rechtslehre. Leykam, GrazGoogle Scholar
  133. Watson A (1985) The Digest of Justinian, Vol I. University of Pennsylvania Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  134. Weatherall T (2015) Jus cogens: International Law and Social Contract. CUP, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Weil P (1983) Towards Relative Normativity in International Law? AJIL 77(3):413–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Weil P (1992) Le droit international en quête de son identité: cours général de droit international public. RdC 237(1):11–370Google Scholar
  137. Weisburd AM (1995–1996) The Emptiness of the Concept of jus cogens, as Illustrated by the War in Bosnia-Herzegovina. MichJIL 17(1):1–52Google Scholar
  138. 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):97–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Wolfke K (1974) Jus cogens in International Law (Regulation and Prospects). PolYIL 6:145–162Google Scholar
  140. 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 204–210Google Scholar
  141. 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 1103–1117Google Scholar
  142. 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 14:1043–1082Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kirsten Schmalenbach
    • 1
  1. 1.Law FacultyParis Lodron University of SalzburgSalzburgAustria

Personalised recommendations