Published November 30, 2024 | Version v1
Book chapter Open

Divisive jus cogens

Description

An even cursory look at the international law literature and the recent works of the International Law Commission (ILC) on the subject confirm that jus cogens is a controversial notion. A variety of positions have been put forward concerning the identification, legal basis, consequences, interactions with other international rules etc. of jus cogens rules. It is our general assumption that the divisive character of jus cogens closely depends on one’s conception of the international legal order because that notion bears upon law-making, the relationship between international rules and the legal consequences to be attached to their violation. The solutions for the legal issues raised by this special category of international law rules owes much to the conceptual understanding that each author has of the legal system as a whole.
Bearing that in mind, our purpose is not to support a particular conception of jus cogens, but to analyse and tentatively explain its divisive nature. In order to carry out this conceptual exercise, we have identified four particularly divisive core issues raised by jus cogens rules. Admittedly, this is a personal choice as many other issues could have been selected. In our opinion these four issues are meaningful because they allow us to point out the main structural characteristics of jus cogens rules. In addition, they have been – if not truly ignored – at least overlooked by the ILC, whose recent codification effort focused on less controversial methodological aspects relating to the identification and legal consequences of jus cogens. Two of these issues concern jus cogens in international law-making, and more specifically the appropriateness of treaties as instruments for creating jus cogens rules (section 1) and the possibility that jus cogens covers both substantive and structural international law rules (section 2). The other two issues concern the legal consequences of breaches of jus cogens: the jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals to settle disputes on violations of jus cogens rules (section 3) and the possibility under international law to adopt collective countermeasures as a response to such violations (section 4).
The following analysis will tackle these four issues in turn. The way in which we proceed is along the lines of the divisive nature of jus cogens, that is, for each issue we illustrate the main opposing views that have been taken. The final purpose, which is discussed in the concluding remarks, is to point out the controversial elements of
jus cogens that are linked to the structure of the international legal order and how this divide has evolved over time.

Files

04_Arcari.pdf

Files (230.4 kB)

Name Size
md5:1026ccdedd98242f8b28b039f98fc897
230.4 kB Preview Download

Additional details

Related works

Is published in
Book chapter: 978-83-66300-98-9 (ISBN)

References

  • W. Czapliński, Is There a Space for Jus Cogens in Present International Law? Remarks in the Context of a Ban on the Use of Force, 11(2) Polish Review of International and European Law 149 (2022).
  • Draft conclusions on the identification and legal consequences of peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens), in: Report of the International Law Commission, Seventy-Third Session (18 April–3 June and 4 July–6 August 2022), GAOR Seventy-seventh session Suppl. No. 10 (A/77/10).
  • See K. Zemanek, The Metamorphosis of Jus Cogens: From an Institution of Treaty Law to the Bedrock of the International Legal Order?, in: E. Cannizzaro (ed.), The Law of Treaties Beyond the Vienna Convention, Oxford University Press, Oxford: 2011.
  • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties [1969] 1155 UNTS 331.
  • M. Glennon, De l'absurdité du droit impératif (jus cogens), 110(3) Revue Générale de Droit International Public 529 (2006).
  • R. Ago, Droit des traités à la lumière de la Convention de Vienne, 134 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International de la Haye 303 (1971).
  • G. Gaja, The Protection of General Interests in the International Community, 364 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International de la Haye 19 (2011).
  • The comment of the Netherlands to ILC Draft Conclusion 23, in Peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens): Comments and observations received from governments, A/CN.4/748, 9 March 2022.
  • R. Ago, Second report on State responsibility, A/CN.4/233.
  • G. Morelli, A proposito di norme internazionali cogenti, 51(1) Rivista di diritto internazionale 108 (1968)..
  • G. Schwarzenberger, International Jus Cogens?, 43(4) Texas Law Review 455 (1965).
  • J. Combacau, Droit international bric-à-brac ou système?, 31 Archives de philosophie du droit 85 (1986).
  • G. Schwarzenberger, supra note 15, p. 476; P. Weil, Towards Relative Normativity in International Law, 77(3) American Journal of International Law 413 (1983).
  • P.-M. Dupuy, L'unité de l'ordre juridique international, 297 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International de La Haye 25 (2002).
  • J. Verhoeven, Sur les 'bons' et les 'mauvais' emplois du jus cogens, 3 Anuário Brasileiro de Direito Internacional 133 (2008).
  • P.-M. Dupuy, Le fait générateur de la responsabilité internationale des Etats, 188 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International de La Haye 21 (1984).
  • B. Simma, Bilateralism and Community Interests in the Law of State Responsibility, in: Y. Dinstein, M. Tabory (eds.), International Law at a Time of Perplexity: Essays in Honour of Shabtai Rosenne, Kluwer Int., Dordrecht: 1988.
  • ICTY, Prosecutor v. Furundzija, IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Judgment, 10 December 199.
  • ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, 3 February 2006, ICJ Rep 2006.
  • G. Gaja, Jus Cogens Beyond the Vienna Convention, 172 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International de La Haye 279 (1981), p. 285 ("it would be hard to maintain that the existence of a judicial remedy is an element of the concept of a peremptory norm").
  • General Comment No. 24 on issues relating to reservations made upon ratification or accession to the Covenant or the Optional Protocols thereto, or in relation to declarations under Article 41 of the Covenant, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.6 (4 November 1994).
  • G. Arangio-Ruiz, Fifth Report on State Responsibility, A/CN.4/45.
  • G. Arangio-Ruiz, Counter-measures and Amicable Dispute Settlement Means in the Implementation of State Responsibility: A Crucial Issue Before the International Law Commission, 5(1) European Journal of International Law 20 (1994).
  • G. Arangio-Ruiz, Seventh report on State Responsibility, A/CN/4469 and Add 1–2.
  • B. Bonafé, La violation d'obligations envers la communauté internationale dans son ensemble et la compétence juridictionnelle de la Cour internationale de Justice, in: E. Cannizzaro (ed.), The Present and Future of Jus Cogens, Sapienza Università Editrice, Roma: 2015.
  • Art. 40 (former Art. 5 "Meaning of injured State") of the ASR adopted on first reading by the ILC in 1996: 2(2) Yearbook International Law Commission (1996).
  • G. Arangio-Ruiz, Fourth report on State responsibility, A/CN.444.
  • R. Ago, Eighth report on State responsibility, A/CN.4/318.
  • Former Art. 19 of the ASR adopted on first reading by the ILC in 1976: 2(2) Yearbook International Law Commission (1976).
  • J. Crawford, State Responsibility: The General Part, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 2013.
  • Arts. 40 and 41 ASR and commentaries thereto, 2(1) Yearbook International Law Commission (2001).
  • Art. 41 ASR, 2(1) Yearbook International Law Commission (2001), p. 113–114 (emphasis added).
  • Art. 48 ASR and commentary thereto, 2(1) Yearbook International Law Commission (2001).
  • Art. 54 ASR and commentary thereto, 2(1) Yearbook International Law Commission (2001).
  • Peremptory norms, supra note 11, in particular the comments to Draft Conclusion 19 made by Australia, Colombia, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
  • R.J. Barber, Cooperating Through the General Assembly to End Serious Breaches of Peremptory Norms, 71(1) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1 (2022); M. Jackson, F. Paddeu, The Countermeasures of Others: When Can States Collaborate in the Taking of Countermeasures?, 118(2) American Journal of International Law 231 (2024).
  • M. Arcari, International Reactions to the Crimea Annexation under the Law of State Responsibility: "Collective Countermeasures" and Beyond?, in: W. Czapliński, S. Dębski, R.Tarnogórski, K. Wierczyńska (eds.), The Case of Crimea's Annexation Under International Law, Scholar Publishing House, Warszawa: 2017.
  • J. Verhoeven, Considérations sur ce qui est commun, 334 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International de La Haye 25 (2008).