Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:42:57.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fundamental Norms in Contemporary International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

R. ST. J. MacDonald
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 25 , 1988 , pp. 115 - 149
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Council on International Law / Conseil Canadien de Droit International, representing the Board of Editors, Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Comité de Rédaction, Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Sorensen, , Les Sources du droit international 242–51 (1946)Google Scholar; Akehurst, , “The Hierarchy of the Sources of International Law,” (1974–75) 47 Br-J-Int’l L 273 Google Scholar; Hoof, van, Rethinking the Sources of International Law 58–60 (1983)Google Scholar. See also generally Monaco, , “Observations sur la hierarche des sources du droit international,” in Volkerrecht als Rechtsordnung Internationale Gerichtsbarkeit Menschenrechte: Festschrift für Herman Mosler 599, and Bos, A Methodology of International Law 94–104 (1984).Google Scholar

2 Brierly, , “The Shortcomings of International Law,” (1924) 5 Br. Yb. Int’l L. 4 at 9.Google Scholar

3 Nys, , Etudes de droit international et droit politique 260–72 (2nd ed., 1896)Google Scholar ; Grotius, , Mare Liberum (1608)Google Scholar ; Seiden, , Mare Clausum (1635).Google Scholar

4 Selden, ibid., 13–16.

5 Phillimore, , International Law vol. 2, at 111 (1st ed., 1855).Google Scholar

6 Ibid., vol. 1, at 26.

7 See ibid. (3rd ed. 1882) vol. 2, at 126 and vol. 1, at 27.

8 See Kaplan, and Katzenbach, , The Political Foundations of International Law 70–76 (1961).Google Scholar

9 Verdross, , “Forbidden Treaties in International Law,” (1937) 31 Am. J. Int’l L. 571 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Anzilotti, , Rivista di Dritto Internazionale 78–79 (1914).Google Scholar

10 McNair, , Law of Treaties 112–15 (1938)Google Scholar; McNair, , The Law of Treaties 214–27 (1961).Google Scholar

11 Hall, , International Law 382 (8th ed., 1924).Google Scholar

12 Oppenheim, , International Law 528 (1st ed., 1905).Google Scholar

13 Mosler, , The International Society as a Legal Community 19 (1980).Google Scholar

14 Meron, , “On a Hierarchy of International Human Rights Law,” (1986) 80 Am. J. of Human Rights L. 1 Google Scholar; The Concept of Jus Cogens in the Law of Treaties 17-19 (1976).

15 Brierly, , “The Covenant and the Charter,” (1946) 23 Br. J. Int’l L. 83, at 83.Google Scholar

16 See generally Macdonald, , “The United Nations Charter: Constitution or Contract?,” in Macdonald, and Johnson, (eds.), The Structure and Process of International Law 889 (1983), and the articles and works cited therein.Google Scholar

17 Goodrich, , Hambro, , and Simons, , Charter of the United Nations 9 (1969).Google Scholar

18 Brownlie, , Principles of Public International Law 619–23 (1979).Google Scholar

19 Lauterpacht, , “The Covenant as the Higher Law,” (1936) 17 Br. J. Int’l L. 54. Google Scholar

20 See Dehaussy, , “Travaux de la Commission du Droit International des Nations Unies,” (1963)Annuaire Fraçias 599 Google Scholar, and (1964) Annuaire Fraçias 505, and Tyunov, , “Princip sobludeniya mezhdunarodnikh i Ustav OON,” (1976) Pravovedeniye Vol. 3, 104–8.Google Scholar

21 Cahier, , “La Charte des Nations Unies et les Etats Tiers,” in Cassesse (ed.), Current Problems of International Law 81 (1975).Google Scholar

22 Kelsen, , Law of the United Nations 116 (1951).Google Scholar

23 Ciobanu, , “Impact of the Characteristics of the Charter upon Its Interpretation,” Cassese (ed.), Current Problems of International Law (1975)Google Scholar. See also Jenks, , “The Conflict of Law Making Treaties,” (1953) 30 Br. Yrbk Int’l L. 401, at 436.Google Scholar

24 Kopelmanas, , L’organisation des Nations Unies 242 (1947).Google Scholar

25 Supra note 10, at 217.

26 Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1953), Vol. 2, A/CN/63, at 156, para. 2 and paras. 5-6. See also Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1954), Vol. 2, at 133–39.

27 Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1958), Vol. 2, A/GN-4/115, at 26–27, 41–44.

28 Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1964), Vol. 2, at 37, para. 8.

29 Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1966), Vol. 2, at 214–15.

30 See (1969) 63 Am. J. Int’l L. 875; ibid., 22; ibid., 23.

31 Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1985), Vol. 2, pt. 2, at 21.

32 Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1977), Vol. 2, pt. 2, at 21–22.

33 Aerial Incident case, [1959] I.G.J. Rep. 158; Namibia Opinion (1971) I.C.J. Rep. 52.

34 Falk, , “The Authority of the United Nations to Control Non-Members,” (1965) 19 Rutgers L. Rev. 591, at 593.Google Scholar

35 Kelsen, supra note 22, at 117.

38 Yearbook of the International Law Commission (19641), Vol. 1, at 74.

37 Eastern Carelia case, (1923) P.C.I.J. Ser. B., No. 5.

38 See more fully Widdows, “Security Council Resolution and Non-Members of the United Nations,” (1978) 27 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 459.

39 See generally Kunz, , “Revolutionary Creation of Norms of International Law,” (1947) 41 Am. J. Int’l L. 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40 Supra note 26, at 154. Cf. his treatment of the priority of successive treaties.

41 See Onuf, and Birney, , “Peremptory Norms of International Law: Their Source, Function and Future,” (1974) 4 Denver J. Int’l L. & Pol. 187, at 195–6Google Scholar; Cassese, , International Law in a Divided World 176––79 (1986).Google Scholar

42 Supra note 10, at 815.

43 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. U.S.), Merits, [1986] I.C.J. Rep. 14, at 90, para. 97.

44 Vienna Conference Proceedings, 1st Session, 80th meeting, at 47, para. 12.

45 Virally, , Papers and Proceedings: The Concept of Jus Cogens in International Law, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 96 (1967).Google Scholar

46 Schwarzenberger, , “International Jus Cogens?,” (1965) 43 Texas L. Rev., 455. at 476.Google Scholar

47 See in particular Alexdize, “The Legal Nature of Jus Cogens in Contemporary International Law,” (1981) 72 Hague Recueil, Vol. 3, 227, at 228-32.

48 United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties, Official Records E. 70, V. 60, at 300–1.

49 This definition was reaffirmed by the International Law Commission in its Draft Treaty on Treaties Concluded between States and International Organisations: see Yearbook of International Law (1979), Vol. 2, pt. 2. at 156.

50 Supra note 47, at 255–56.

51 Quadri, , “Cours général de droit international public,” (1964) 113 Hague Recueil, Vol. 3, at 335.Google Scholar

52 See also, in particular, Shaw, International Law 95 (1986) ; Bos, , A Methodology of International Law 94–104 (1984)Google Scholar; Rozakis, , The Concept of Jus Cogens in the Law of Treaties 19–24 (1976)Google Scholar; Mosler, , The International Society as a Legal Community 84–86 (1980)Google Scholar; and Hoof, , Rethinking the Sources of International Law 151–54 (1983)Google Scholar. The doctrine’s hierarchical implications were also soon noted by state delegations ; see, for instance, those of Brazil, Iraq, and Thailand, supra note 39, at 21, 22, 23 respectively.

53 Supra note 47, at 237, 260.

54 Mosler, supra note 13, at 85. For example, the principle of freedom of expression in the Sunday Times case, Series A No. 45, p. 21, para. 22.

55 Suy, , Papers and Proceedings: The Concept of Jus Cogens in Contemporary International Law, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 75 (1967).Google Scholar

56 Only one or two delegates at the Vienna Conference suggested that the doctrine could apply to unilateral acts. See, for example, Verosta of Austria, Vienna Conference Proceedings, 1st session, 53rd meeting, at 303, para. 64.

57 See Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1980), Vol. 2, at 30.

58 Barcelona Traction case, [1970] I.C.J. Rep. 32.

59 Iranian Hostages case, [1979] I.C.J. Rep. 19, 20, 40, 42.

60 Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1976), Vol. 2, pt. 2, at 117.

61 See Art. 14(2) of the International Law Commission’s Draft Code on State Responsibility: Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1985), Vol. 2, pt. 2, at 21.

62 Supra note 60, at 99.

63 Ibid., 73. In conclusion, the Commission decided to leave the relationship between jus cogens and international crimes unclarified: Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1985), Vol. 2, pt. 2, at 24.

64 The expansion of the scope of international crimes has been criticized: see Gray, , Judicial Remedies in International Law 215–19 (1987).Google Scholar

65 See also Meron, , “On a Hierarchy of International Human Rights,” (1986) 80 Am. J. Int’l L. 1, at 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

66 Cf. Article 12(a) and 12(b) of the International Law Commission’s Draft Code on State Responsibility: Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1985), Vol. 2, pt. 2, at 20 and cf. Yearbook of International Law Commission (1953), Vol. 2, at 154 with Gaja, , “Jus Cogens beyond the Vienna Convention,” (1981) 172 Hague Recueil Vol. 3, at 279, 298.Google Scholar

67 Supra note 13, at 135-36. Arechaga provocatively suggests that international crimes and rules jus cogens may become fused: see Arechaga, , “International Law in the Past Third of a Century,” (1979) 159 Hague Recueil Vol. 1, 1, at 66.Google Scholar

68 Jaenicke, , “International Public Order,” in Encyclopedia of Public International Law (1984), Vol. 7, at 315.Google Scholar

69 Supra note 13, at 18.

70 Monaco, , “Observations sur la hierarche des sources du droit international,” in Bernhardt (ed.), Volkerrecht als Rechtsordnung, Internationale Gerichtsb-barkeit Menschenrechte: Festschrift für man Mosier 607 (1983).Google Scholar

71 See Macdonaldj, “The Nicaragua Case: New Answers to Old Questions?,” (1986) 24 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 127.Google Scholar

72 Supra note 43, para. 188.

73 Ibid., para. 204.

74 Bedjaoui, , Towards a New International Economic Order 248 (1979).Google Scholar

75 Ibid., 249.

76 Caldera, , “Judicial Basis of a New International Economic Order,” (1986) 196 Hague Recueil Vol. 1, at 385, 391.Google Scholar

77 See Brownlie, , Principles of Public International Law 270–83 (1979)Google Scholar and Shaw, , International Law 475–82 (1986).Google Scholar

78 Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1964), Vol. 2, at 26–34.

79 Ibid.

80 Ballreich, , “Treaties, Effect on Third States,” in Encyclopedia of Public International Law (1984), Vol. 7, at 478.Google Scholar

81 Flory, Art. 103 in Cot and Pellet (eds.), La Charte des Nations Unies 1377 (1985)·

82 See generally Green, , “Is There a Universal Law Today?” (1985) 23 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 3.Google Scholar

83 See, for example, Alvarez, , Le Droit international américain (1910)Google Scholar; Alvarez, , Le Continent américain et la codification du droit international (1938)Google Scholar, and the Asylum case, [1950] I.C.J. Rep. 266, at 293–94; and Green, supra note 82.

84 Arangio-Ruiz, , “Friendly Relations Resolution,” in Encyclopedia of Public International Law (1986), Vol. 9, at 135 Google Scholar. See also the important study by Arangio-Ruiz, G., The United Nations Declaration on Friendly Relations and the System of the Sources of International Law (1979).Google Scholar

85 The highwater mark of American international law is past: see Barberis, , “International Law, American,” in Encyclopedia of International Public Law Vol. 6, at 222 Google Scholar; and similarly on Islamic law, see Khadduri, , “International Law, Islamic,” in Encyclopedia of International Public Law, Vol. 7, at 227.Google Scholar

86 Kartashkin, , “The Marxist-Leninist Approach: The Theory of Class Struggle and Contemporary International Law,” in Macdonald, and Johnson, (eds.), The Structure and Process of International Law 82 (1983).Google Scholar