The relationship between jus cogens and erga omnes norms
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24866/1813-3274/2025-1/138-158Keywords:
jus cogens norms, erga omnes obligations, principles of international lawAbstract
The fundamental basis of modern international law are the norms of jus cogens and obligations erga omnes, which act not only as criteria and guidelines for the legality of all elements of the international legal system, but also allow this system to develop exclusively in a progressive direction. At the same time, there is no consensus in the international legal doctrine regarding the nature, sources and content of these concepts. Even more controversial is the problem of the relationship between the norms of jus cogens and obligations erga omnes, which is the subject of this article. The authors examine the concepts of these norms from the standpoint of their similarities and differences, as well as full and partial identity, and analyze the mechanisms of their interaction. As an additional aspect for identifying the relationship between the norms of jus cogens and obligations erga omnes, the authors turn to the norms regulating the cooperation of states in the fight against international crimes. In their study, the authors rely on extensive international legal doctrine, state practice, universal international treaties, documents of the International Law Commission and decisions of the International Court of Justice.
Downloads
References
1. Tams C.J. Enforcing obligations erga omnes in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 359 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511494116
2. Zemanek K. New trends in the enforcement of trga tmnes tbligations // Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law. 2000. № 4. Р. 1–52.
3. Christianti D.W. The “modern” concept of erga omnes to establish the obligation of impunity eradication: towards the primacy jurisdiction of the International criminal court // Padjadjaran Jurnal Ilmu Hukum. 2018. № 5 (2). Р. 211–230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v5n2.a1
4. Schmalenbach K. Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of general International law. In: O. Dӧrr and K. Schmalenbach (eds) // Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 2012. Аrt. 53. Р. 897–942. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19291-3.
5. Christianti D.W. Why we need erga omnes character for obligations to combat impunity for International crimes? // Padjadjaran Jurnal Ilmu Hukum. 2017. No. 4 (2). Р. 362–378. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v4n2.a8
6. Рабцевич О.И. Категория «международное сообщество» и «международное право» // Современное право. 2016. № 9. С. 126–135.
7. Талалаев А.Н. Право международных договоров. Т. 2: Действие и применение договоров / отв. ред. Л.Н. Шестаков. М.: Зерцало, 2011. 504 с.
8. Strong S.I. General principles of procedural law and procedural jus cogens // Penn State Law Review. 2018. No. 122 (2). Р. 347–409. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3011947.
9. Schmalenbach K. International agreements not within the scope of the present Convention // Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 2012. Аrt. 3. Р. 49–79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19291-3
10. Лукашук И.И. Современное право международных договоров: в 2 т. Т. 1: Заключение международных договоров. М.: ВолтерсКлувер, 2004. 672 c.
11. Salerno F. Treaties establishing objective regimes // The law of treaties beyond the Vienna convention / ed. by E. Cannizzaro. [S. l.], 2011. P. 226–244. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199588916.003.0014
12. Verhoeven S., Wouters, J. The prohibition of genocide as a norm of ius cogens and its implications for the enforcement of the law of genocide. [S. l.]: Institute for International Law Publ., 2005. P. 11–16.
13. Picone P. The distinction between jus cogens and obligations erga omnes // The law of treaties beyond the Vienna convention / ed. by E. Cannizzaro. [S. l.], 2011. P. 411–424. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199588916.003.0024
14. Gaja G. Jus cogens beyond the Vienna convention // Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law. 1981. No. 172. Р. 271–316.
15. Hojatzadeh A.R., Sartipi H. The innovation in concept of the erga-omnesisation of International law // International Journal of Humanities & Social Science Studies. 2015. No. 2 (2). Р. 189–228. URL: https://oaji.net/articles/2015/1115-1443861890.pdf.
16. De Wet E. Invoking obligations erga omnes in the twenty-first century: progressive developments since Barcelona Traction // South African Yearbook of International Law. 2013. No. 38. Р. 1–19. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2629560.
17. Gülgeç Y.B. The problem of jus cogens from a theoretical perspective // Ankara Üni. Hukuk Fak. Dergisi. 2017. No. 66 (1). Р. 73–115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1501/Hukfak_0000001888
18. Клюня А.Ю. Соотношение императивных норм международного права и обязательств erga omnes // Евразийский юридический журнал. 2015. № 3. С. 54–58.
19. Леонов А.С., Споршев А.М. Противодействие международному терроризму как обязательство erga omnes // Вестник Нижегородского университета им. Н.И. Лобачевского. Право. 2018. № 2. С. 151–161.
20. Mik C. Jus cogens in contemporary International law // Polish Yearbook of International Law. [S. l.], 2013. Р. 27–93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2473061
21. Ragazzi M. The concept of international obligations erga omnes. Oxford: Clarendon Press Publ., 1997. 264 p.
22. Sicilianos L.-A. The classification of obligations and the multilateral dimension of the relations of international responsibility // European Journal of International Law. 2008. No. 13. Р. 1127–1145. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/13.5.1127
23. Wyler E. From “state crime” to responsibility for “serious breaches of obligations under peremptory norms of general international law” // European Journal of International Law. 2002. No. 13(5). Р. 1147–1160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/13.5.1147
24. Bassiouni M.C. International сrimes: jus cogens and obligatio erga omnes // Law and Contemporary Problems. 1996. No. 59 (4). Р. 63–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1192190
25. Dupuy P.-M. Back to the future of a multilateral dimension of the law of state responsibility for breaches of “obligations owed to the international community as a whole” // European Journal of International Law. 2012. No. 23. Р. 1059–1069. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chs078
26. Biermann F. “Common concern of humankind”: the emergence of a new concept in international environmental law // Archiv des Völkerrechts. 1996. No. 34 (4). Р. 426–481.
27. Frowein J.A. Reactions by not directly affected states to breaches of Public international law // Recueil des Cours. 1994. Vol. 248 (IV). P. 345–438.
28. Черниченко С.В. Взаимосвязь императивных норм международного права (jus cogens) и обязательств erga omnes // Московский журнал международного права. 2012. № 3. С. 3–17.
29. Muhammadin F.M. Humanitarian intervention and the jus cogens argument: a critical observation // Padjadjaran Journal of Law. 2018. No. 5 (1). Р. 70–88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v5n1.a4
30. Tomuschat C. The security council and jus cogens // The present and future of jus cogens / ed. by E. Cannizzaro. Roma: Sapienza Università Editrice, 2015. P. 7–97.
31. Сазонова К.Л. К вопросу о соотношении международных преступлений государства, норм jus cogens и обязательств erga omnes // Право и политика. 2013. № 9. С. 1175–1181.
32. Скуратова А.Ю. Международные преступления: современные проблемы квалификации. М.: Норма, 2012. 60 c.
33. Сазонова К.Л. Обязательства erga omnes и нормы jus cogens в международном праве: концептуальное оформление и правоприменительная практика // Государство и право. 2014. № 11. С. 72–79.
34. Martin F. Delineating a hierarchical outline of international law sources and norms // Saskatchewan Law Review. 2002. No. 65. Р. 333–368.
35. Criddle E.J., Fox-Decent E. A fiduciary duty of jus cogens // Yale Journal of International Law. 2009. No. 34. Р. 331–388.
36. Villalpando S. L’émergence de la communauté internationale dans de la responsabilité des États. Paris: Graduate Institute Publications, 2005. 466 p. DOI: 10.4000/books.iheid.1154
37. Tomuschat C., Thouvenin J.-M. The fundamental rules of the international legal order. Leiden; Boston: Martin Nijhoff. 2006. 471 p.
38. Pellet A. Conclusions // The fundamental rules of the international legal order / ed. by Ch. Tomuschat, J.-M. Thouvenin. [S. l.], 2006. P. 417–424.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Лариса Владиславовна Вереина, Иван Игоревич Синякин, Александра Юрьевна Скуратова
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
