Top

Published in:

2016 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

6. Genesis, Function and Identification of Jus Cogens Norms

Author : Stefan Kadelbach

Published in: Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2015

Publisher: T.M.C. Asser Press

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Against the backdrop of scepticism in legal writings, the purpose of this chapter is to assess which functions jus cogens can fulfil. It takes up the genesis of the concept and shows that state and court practice display a rather narrow notion with respect to the functions of the jus cogens principle. This is due to the definition and legal consequences laid down in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the International Law Commission’s codifications, which suggest a legal formalist approach with respect to the identification of peremptory norms. The ways in which jus cogens is presented as an argument today are at times contradictory, but do not justify fear of abuse. However, they point at a role, which is more significant than the technical functions of jus cogens, namely its symbolic value in that the concept of jus cogens denotes basic conditions of collective and individual self-determination, most notably in the area of human rights. In that function, it lends itself for legal policy purposes. Ensuing uncertainties of content are a problem not genuinely linked to jus cogens, and they must be addressed with respect to the underlying obligations rather than to the concept itself. However, they advocate in favour of a narrow concept of peremptory norms.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

previous chapter Audience and Authority—The Merit of the Doctrine of Jus Cogens

next chapter Jus Cogens as the ‘Highest Law’? Peremptory Norms and Legal Hierarchies

Articles 53, 64 and 71 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 UNTS 331.

International Law Commission, Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 53rd session of the ILC, UNGA Res 56/83, 12 December 2001 (ARSIWA). On jus cogens, see Articles 26, 40, 41, 50(1)d ARSIWA.

See Klabbers 1999, at 171 (‘at the expense of the law itself’); cf. D’Amato 1990, at 1 (‘protean supernorm’), 4 (‘Pac Man’) and 5 (‘Superman’); Linderfalk 2007, at 853 (‘Pandora’s box’); Bianchi 2008, at 419 (magic), 492 (‘myth of Lohengrin’) and 496 (‘myth of Janus’); cf. also Koskenniemi 2005, at 122 (‘kitsch’); Linderfalk 2013, at 367 (‘utterers resort to jus cogens because it potentially causes addressees to misunderstand the true nature of any utterer’s argument’).

For documentation, see Kadelbach 1992, at 36–46.

Schwarzenberger 1964/1965, at 455; Weil 1983. See also Sztucki 1974.

Ross 1957, at 812. Ample reference to anthropological classics is found in Bianchi 2008, at 492 ff and 507 ff.

Kolb 2001; Criddle and Fox-Decent 2009; Hameed 2014, at 76–85.

Cf. O’Connell 2012, at 93–97.

See Gómez Robledo 1981, at 23 (Vitoria); Schweitzer 1971‐1972, at 198 ff (Grotius); Thomann 1972, at XXXII, XLI (Christian Wolff); Verdross 1966, at 56 (Vattel).

Kaser 1971, at 198.

Bluntschli 1868, paras 410–412; Fiore 1909, paras 742 and 755.

See the reference to the Martens clause by Shelton 2006, at 296.

Cf. Verdross 1935, at 294–295; Verdross 1937.

1919 Peace Treaty of Versailles, Ser 3/XI Martens NRGT, 323.

Peters 2012, at 41–42.

Costa Rica v Nicaragua, Cent Am Ct J, Judgment of 30 September 1916, 11 AJIL 181, at 228 (conflict of a treaty with an older boundary water regime); S.S. ‘Wimbledon’ (UK v Germany), PCIJ, Judgment of 17 August 1923, Ser. A, No. 1, p. 25 (Versailles Treaty as of a “general and peremptory character”); Customs Union between Austria and Germany, PCIJ, Advisory Opinion, 5 September 1931, Ser. A/B, No. 43, individual opinion of Judge Anzilotti, p. 57 (Paris Treaties were “in the interests of Europe as a whole” and hence non-derogable); Oscar Chinn (UK v Belgium), PCIJ, Judgment of 12 December 1934, Ser. A/B, No. 63, separate opinion of Judge van Eysinga, p. 131 (Berlin Treaty of 1885 not dispositive law); separate opinion of Judge Schücking, p. 148 (mention of immoral treaties).

Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v Spain), ICJ, Second Phase, Judgment of 5 February 1970, para 33.

On obligations erga omnes, see Articles 42 and 48 ARSIWA; see also below, Sect. 3.1.2.

Barcelona Traction. Cf. also American Law Institute 1987, § 102 (rep note 6) and § 702; Hannikainen 1988, summary at 716–723; Kadelbach 1992, at 210–315; Orakhelashvili 2006, at 50–65.

Talmon 2012.

The 1986 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations, UN Doc. A/CONF.129/15, 21 March 1986, has been ratified by 45 parties but not entered into force.

For statements before the Sixth Committee and on the Vienna Conference, see Kadelbach 1992, at 40–46; for the notable exception of France see the episode reported by Bjorge 2012.

For a good account of the pertinent practice including pleadings before the International Court of Justice, see Gianelli 2011, at 340–347.

In the course of the Leticia conflict, Peru maintained that a cession of territory to Colombia was immoral since it provoked the risk of resorting to war. Société des Nations, Journal Officiel 1933, at 504, 510 and 523. For the statement of France see Kiss 1962, at 100.

UNSC, 19th sess. 1098th mtg, UN Doc S/PV.1098, 27 February 1964, paras 95–105.

R.B. Owen, US Dep. St Legal Adviser, Memorandum to Acting Secretary of State W. Christopher, US Digest 1979, 29 December 1979, at 34.

Giardina 1978‐1979, at 23 and 27.

Files of the Congress of the Peoples’ Deputies of the USSR and the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, No. 29, 27 December 1979, Article 579, at 833–834, as cited by Mälksoo 2003, at 65 (n 82).

Vice-Roi d’Egypte v Compagnie universelle du canal maritime de Suez, Napoleon III Sole Arbitrator, Award of 6 July 1864, Actes Constitutifs de la Compagnie Universelle du Canal de Suez, 1866, at 78. The author is grateful to Jason Yackee, University of Wisconsin, for drawing his attention to this award.

The SS ‘Lotus’ (France v Turkey), PCIJ, Series A No. 10, Judgment of 7 September 1927, at 18.

1929 Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, replaced by the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Third Geneva Convention), 75 UNTS 135.

Case No. 58: The Krupp Trial, US Military Tribunal, Judgment of 31 July 1948, UN War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals X, at 144.

Prosecutor v Furundžija, Trial Chamber, Judgment, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, 10 December 1998, para 155.

See the account given in Kadelbach 2006, at 31–33.

Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, ICJ, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, para 79.

Cf. Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium), ICJ, Judgment of 14 February 2002, paras 58 and 78 and Dissenting Opinion by Judge Al-Khawasneh, para 7.

Oil Platforms (Iran v US), ICJ, Judgment of 6 November 2003, paras 32–42.

Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Rwanda), ICJ, Jurisdiction of the Court and Admissibility of the Application, Judgment of 3 February 2006, paras 64–65 and Separate Opinion by Judge ad hoc Dugard, paras 6–10.

Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v Serbia), ICJ, Judgment of 3 February 2015, paras 87–88.

Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v Senegal), ICJ, Judgment of 20 July 2012, paras 99–100.

Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy, Greece intervening), ICJ, Judgment of 3 February 2012, paras 92–95.

The phrase used by the Court in the Jurisdictional Immunities of the State case, namely ‘assuming for this purpose that the rules of the law of armed conflict which prohibit… murder are rules of jus cogens’, reads awkwardly distanced. Ibid., para 93.

Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, ICJ, Advisory Opinion, 22 July 2010, para 81.

Demir and Baykara v Turkey, ECtHR, No. 34503, 12 November 2008, para 73; Ould Dah v France, No. 13113/03, 17 March 2009.

Jorgic v Germany, ECtHR, No. 7461/01, 12 July 2007, para 68.

1984 Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1465 UNTS 85.

Othman (Abu Qatada) v. UK, ECtHR, No. 8139/09, 17 January 2012, para 266.

Case T-315/01, Yassin Abdullah Kadi v Council and Commission [2005] ECR II-3659, paras 226–232; reversed by Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission [2008] ECR I-6351, where the EU’s Charter on Fundamental Rights was used as an ordre public objection against the implementation of the Security Council’s sanctions resolutions. It is interesting to note that the Italian Constitutional Court used the ordre public rationale developed in Kadi to establish an exception from state immunity and thus departed from the ICJ’s judgment in the Jurisdictional Immunities of the State, without resorting to jus cogens. See Sentenza 238/2014, Corte Costituzionale, 22 October 2014.

Al-Jedda v. UK, ECtHR, No. 27021/08, 7 July 2011; Nada v. Switzerland, ECtHR, No. 10593/08, 12 September 2012; Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v. Switzerland, ECtHR, No. 5809/08, 14 April 2013.

Al-Adsani v. UK, ECtHR, No. 35763/97, 21 November 2001, para 66; Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica v. The Netherlands, ECtHR, No. 65542/12, 11 June 2013, paras 157–158; Jones et al. v. UK, ECtHR, No. 34356/06 and 40528/06, 14 January 2014, paras 193–195. See also, McElhinney v. Ireland, ECtHR, App. 31253/96, 21 November 2001, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Loucaides.

Gomez Paquiyauri Brothers v Peru, IACtHR, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C No. 110, Judgment of 8 July 2004, para 128; Huilca Tecse v Peru, IACtHR, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C No. 121, Judgment of 3 March 2005, para 65.

Baldeon-Garcia v Peru, IACtHR, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C No. 147, Judgment of 6 April 2006, para 117; Torres Millacura v. Argentina, IACtHR, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C No. 229, Judgment of 26 August 2011, para 84; Mendoza v Argentina, IACtHR, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C No. 260, Judgment of 14 May 2013, para 199.

Castro Prison v Peru, IACtHR, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C No. 160, Judgment of 25 November 2006, para 271; Bueno-Alves v Argentina, IACtHR, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C No. 164, Judgment of 11 May 2007, para 76.

Juridical Condition and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, IACtHR, Advisory Opinion, Series A No. 18, 17 September 2003, para 101. The Court enumerates ‘gender, race, colour, language, religion, belief, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, nationality, age, economic situation, property, civil status, birth or any other status’.

YATAMA v Nicaragua, IACtHR, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C No. 127, Judgment of 23 June 2005, para 184; Servellon Garcia v Honduras, IACtHR, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C No. 152, Judgment of 21 September 2006, para 94; Article 55 of the American Convention, IACtHR, Advisory Opinion, Series A No. 20, 29 September 2009, para 54; Xakmok Kasek Indigenous Community v Paraguay, IACtHR, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C No. 214, Judgment of 24 August 2010, para 269; Riffo v Chile, IACtHR, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C No. 239, Judgment of 24 October 2012, para 225.

Juridical Condition and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, para 101; Velez Loor v Panama, IACtHR, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C No. 218, Judgment of 23 November 2010, para 248.

Mapiripan Massacre v Colombia, IACtHR, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C No. 134, Judgment of 15 September 2005, para 178.

Ríos Paiva v Venezuela, IACtHR, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C No. 194, Judgment of 28 January 2009, para 283; Las Dos Erres Massacre v Guatemala, IACtHR, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C No. 211, Judgment of 24 November 2009, para 140; Rio Negro Massacres v Guatemala, IACtHR, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C 250, Judgment of 4 September 2012, paras 114 and 227.

An account of the case-law which dates back to 1996 is given in Cançado Trindade 2012, at 508–531. For more recent judgments see, e.g., Goiburu Gimenez v Paraguay, IACtHR, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C No. 153, Judgment of 22 September 2006, paras 93 and 128; Tiu Tojín v Guatemala, IACtHR, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C No. 190, Judgment of 26 November 2008, para 91; Anzualdo Castro v Peru, IACtHR, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C No. 202, Judgment of 22 September 2009, para 59; Radilla-Pacheco v Mexico, IACtHR, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C No. 209, Judgment of 23 November 2009, para 139; Chitay Nech v Guatemala, IACtHR, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C No. 212, Judgment of 25 May 2010, para 193; Gomes Lund v Brazil, IACtHR, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C No. 219, Judgment of 24 November 2010, paras 105 and 137; Gelman v Uruguay, IACtHR, Merits and Reparations, Series C No. 221, Judgment of 24 February 2011, para 183; Contreras et al. v El Salvador, IACtHR, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C No. 232, Judgment of 31 August 2011, para 83; Alvarez v Guatemala, IACtHR, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C No. 253, Judgment of 20 November 2012, paras 192 and 232.

See also Oeter 2007, at 509–511.

Cf. for that change in paradigm Tomuschat 1993, at 222–240; Frowein 1994, at 365; Simma 1994, at 293 and 300.

The two do not necessarily coincide. See Byers 1997; and Czaplinski 1997‐1998.

Articles 6–8 of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2187 UNTS 3 (genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes).

Barcelona Traction, para 91.

East Timor (Portugal v Australia), ICJ, Judgment of 30 June 1995, para 29.

Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo, paras 64–65 and Separate Opinion by Judge ad hoc Dugard, paras 6–10.

Similarly so far, in the so-called wall sniper cases, Streletz et al. v Germany, ECtHR, No. 34044/96, 22 March 2001, paras 90–108.

Cf. Hart 1961, at 70.

But see Kolb 2014, at 26. See also the cautious conclusion in International Law Commission, Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, 58th session, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682, 13 April 2006, para 409.

Paulus 2005, at 308–309 and 332; Cassese 2012, at 166.

In that sense, with regard to enforced disappearance Sarkin 2012, at 583; and more generally Cançado Trindade 2012, at 535.

Accordingly, ‘a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the state community as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted’.

Focarelli 2008, at 449.

Cf. Simma and Alston 1989, at 103–104.

Espaliu Berdud 2013, at 214.

Linderfalk 2012.

North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), ICJ, Judgment of 20 February 1969, para 71–77.

100

So-called Baxter test. See Baxter 1970, at 36–56.

101

Besson 2010, at 171.

102

Hannikainen 1988, at 208–292.

103

1949 Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (First Geneva Convention), 75 UNTS 31; 1949 Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (Second Geneva Convention), 75 UNTS 85; 1949 Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Third Geneva Convention), 75 UNTS 135; 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention), 75 UNTS 287. For more criteria found in humanitarian law see Schwelb 1967, at 953–957.

104

Torres Millacura v Argentina, IACtHR, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C No. 229, Judgment of 26 August 2011, para 84; Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 29, States of emergency (Article 4), UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11, 31 August 2001, para 11.

105

Barcelona Traction. Cf. also American Law Institute 1987, § 102 (rep note 6) and § 702; Hannikainen 1988, summary at 716–723; Kadelbach 1992, at 210–315; Orakhelashvili 2006, at 50–65.

106

1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 999 UNTS 171.

107

Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 29, States of emergency (Article 4), UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11, 31 August 2001, para 11. See also the proposals in Hannikainen 2007, at 48–50: basic rights of the child, prevention of violence against women, rights of minorities and indigenous peoples.

108

Prosecutor v Gbao, SCSL, Decision on the prosecution motion for immediate protective measures for witnesses and victims and for non-public disclosure, Case SCL-03-09-PT-048, 10 October 2003, para 41. See also jurisprudence by the Swiss Federal Court as cited and confirmed in Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc v. Switzerland, ECtHR, No. 5809/08, 26 November 2013, para 38.

109

Oeter 2007, at 513.

110

Articles 7 and 8 of the 2006 Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, 2716 UNTS 3 (‘extreme seriousness’).

111

It is a crime against humanity under Article 7(1)(k) Rome Statute.

112

‘[A]n agreement to disagree further about the detail of the values’. Besson 2010, at 182.

113

Koskenniemi 2005, at 122.

American Law Institute (1987) Restatement of the Law (Third): the Foreign Relations Law of the United States. American Law Institute Publishers, St Paul

Baxter RR (1970) Treaties and custom. Recueil des Cours 129:25–105

Besson S (2010) Theorizing the sources of international law. In: Besson S, Tasioulas J (eds) The philosophy of international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 163–185

Bianchi A (2008) Human rights and the magic of jus cogens. Eur J Int Law 19:491–508CrossRef

Bjorge E (2012) International decisions—Kandyrine de Brito Paiva. Am J Int Law 106:353–359CrossRef

Bluntschli JC (1868) Das moderne Völkerrecht der civilisierten Staaten als Rechtsbuch dargestellt. CH Beck, Nördlingen

Byers M (1997) Conceptualizing the relationship between jus cogens and erga omnes rules. Nordic J Int Law 66:211–239CrossRef

Cançado Trindade AA (2012) Enforced disappearances of persons as a violation of jus cogens: the contribution of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Nordic J Int Law 81:507–536CrossRef

Cannizzaro E (2011) A higher law for treaties? In: Cannizzaro E (ed) The Law of Treaties beyond the Vienna Convention. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 425–441CrossRef

Cassese A (2012) For an enhanced role of jus cogens. In: Cassese A (ed) Realizing utopia—the future of international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 158–171CrossRef

Criddle EJ, Fox-Decent E (2009) A fiduciary theory of jus cogens. Yale J Int Law 34:331–388

Czaplinski W (1997–1998) Concepts of jus cogens and erga omnes in the light of recent developments. Polish Yearb Int Law 23:87–97

D’Amato A (1990) It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s jus cogens. Connecticut J Int Law 6:1–6

de Wet E (2004) The prohibition of torture as an international norm of ius cogens and its implications for national and customary law. Eur J Int Law 15:97–121CrossRef

Espaliu Berdud C (2013) De la vie et de la mort des normes impératives en droit international. Revue Belge de Droit International 47:209–231

Fiore P (1909) Il diritto internazionale codificato e la sua sanzione giuridica, 4th edn. Unione tipografico-editrice, Turin

Focarelli C (2008) Promotional jus cogens: a critical appraisal of jus cogens’ legal effects. Nordic J Int Law 77:429–459CrossRef

Frowein JA (1994) Reactions by not directly affected states to breaches of public international law. Recueil des Cours 248:345–437

Gianelli A (2011) Absolute invalidity of treaties and their non-recognition by third states. In: Cannizzaro E (Ed) The Law of Treaties beyond the Vienna Convention. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 333–349

Giardina A (1978–1979) The Egyptian-Israeli peace agreements and other international obligations of the parties. Ital Yearb Int Law 4:20–30

Gómez Robledo A (1981) Le ius cogens international: sa génèse, sa nature, ses fonctions. Recueil des Cours 172:9–217

Hameed A (2014) Unravelling the mystery of jus cogens in international law. Br Yearb Int Law 84:52–102CrossRef

Hannikainen L (1988) Peremptory norms (jus cogens) in international law. Lakimiesliiton Kustannus, Helsinki

Hannikainen L (2007) Developments of jus cogens in international law in the post ‘cold war’ years, in particular in human rights law. Theory and practice of contemporary international law. Essays in honour of Levan Alexidze. Inovatia, Tbilisi, pp 39–59

Hart HLA (1961) The concept of law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

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

Kadelbach S (2006) Jus cogens, obligations erga omnes and other rules—the identification of fundamental norms. In: Tomuschat C, Thouvenin J-M (eds) The fundamental rules of the international legal order. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden Boston, pp 21–40

Kaser M (1971) Das Römische Privatrecht, Erster Abschnitt, 2nd edn. CH Beck, Munich

Kawasaki K (2006) A brief note on the legal effects of jus cogens in international law. Hitotsubashi J Law Politics 34:27–43

Kiss AC (ed) (1962) Répertoire de la pratique française en matière de droit international public, vol I. CRNS, Paris

Klabbers J (1999) The scope of international law: erga omnes obligations and the turn to morality. In: Tupamäki M (ed) Liber amicorum Bengt Broms. Publications of the Finnish Branch of the International Law Association, Helsinki, pp 149–179

Kleinlein T (2016) Jus cogens as the ‘highest law’? Peremptory norms and legal hierarchies. Neth Yearb Int Law 46:173–210

Kolb R (2001) Théorie de ius cogens international: essai de relecture du concept. Presses universitaires de France, Paris

Kolb R (2014) La determination du concept de jus cogens. Revue Générale de Droit Int Public 118:5–29

Koskenniemi K (2005) International law in Europe: between tradition and renewal. Eur J Int Law 16:113–124CrossRef

Linderfalk U (2007) The effect of jus cogens norms: whoever opened Pandora’s box, did you ever think about the consequences? Eur J Int Law 18:853–871CrossRef

Linderfalk U (2012) What is so special about jus cogens? On the difference between the ordinary and the peremptory international law. Int Community Law Rev 14:3–18CrossRef

Linderfalk U (2013) All the things that you can do with jus cogens. A pragmatic approach to legal language. German Yearb Int Law 56:351–383

Mälksoo L (2003) Illegal annexation and state continuity: the case of the incorporation of the Baltic states by the USSR. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, Boston

O’Connell ME (2012) Jus cogens: international law’s higher ethical norms. In: Childress DE (ed) The role of ethics in international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 78–98

Oeter S (2007) Ius cogens und der Schutz der Menschenrechte. In: Breitenmoser S et al (eds) Human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Liber amicorum Luzius Wildhaber, Dike, Zurich, pp 499–521

Orakhelashvili A (2006) Peremptory norms in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Paulus A (2005) Jus cogens in a time of hegemony and fragmentation. Nordic J Int Law 74:297–334CrossRef

Peters A (2012) Treaties, unequal. In: Wolfrum R (ed) The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol X. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 38–50

Ross A (1957) Tû-Tû. Harvard Law Rev 70:812–825CrossRef

Sarkin J (2012) Why the prohibition of enforced disappearance has attained jus cogens status in international law. Nordic J Int Law 81:537–583CrossRef

Schwarzenberger G (1964–1965) International jus cogens? Texas Law Rev 43:455–478

Schweitzer M (1971–1972) Ius cogens im Völkerrecht. Archiv des Völkerrechts 15:197–223

Schwelb E (1967) Some aspects of international jus cogens as formulated by the International Law Commission. Am J Int Law 61:946–975CrossRef

Shelton D (2006) Normative hierarchy in international law. Am J Int Law 100:291–323

Simma B (1994) From bilateralism to community interest in international law. Recueil des Cours 250:217–384

Simma B, Alston P (1989) The sources of human rights law: custom, jus cogens, and general principles. Aust Yearb Int Law 12:82–108

Sztucki J (1974) Jus cogens and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. A critical appraisal. Springer, Vienna, New YorkCrossRef

Talmon S (2012) Jus cogens after Germany v Italy: substantive and procedural rules distinguished. Leiden J Int Law 25:979–1002CrossRef

Thomann M (1972) Introduction. In: Thomann M (ed) Christian Wolff Gesammelte Werke, Abteilung III, vol 25. Georg Olms, Hildesheim New York, pp V–LI

Tomuschat C (1993) Obligations arising for states without or against their will. Recueil des Cours 241:195–374

Verdross A (1935) Anfechtbare und nichtige Staatsverträge. Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht 15:289–299

Verdross A (1937) Forbidden treaties in international law. Am J Int Law 31:571–577CrossRef

Verdross A (1966) Jus dispositivum and jus cogens in international law. Am J Int Law 60:55–63CrossRef

Weil P (1983) Towards relative normativity in international law. Am J Int Law 77:413–442CrossRef

Zimmermann A, Wennholz P (2011) Article 33 § 2. In: Zimmermann A (ed) The 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol: a commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1397–1423CrossRef

Title: Genesis, Function and Identification of Jus Cogens Norms
Author: Stefan Kadelbach
Publisher: T.M.C. Asser Press
Book: Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2015
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-113-5

Electronic ISBN: 978-94-6265-114-2

Copyright Year: 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-114-2_6