Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:03:01.051Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Jus Cogens: International Law's Higher Ethical Norms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2011

Donald Earl Childress, III
Affiliation:
Pepperdine University School of Law
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Most international lawyers recognize that the international legal system includes a category of higher ethical norms known as jus cogens or peremptory norms. Most international lawyers also agree as to the operation or effect of jus cogens norms within the system. Such norms void conflicting lesser norms. To explain the existence of the category and how the norms operate, most international lawyers turn to natural law theory. A few international lawyers do argue that there is no such category as jus cogens. A larger group accepts that the category exists but rejects any role for natural law theory. Those rejecting natural law seek to explain jus cogens norms on the basis of positivism. Nevertheless, even with these doubters, the doctrine of jus cogens provides a good example of consensus in the international legal community.

The consensus begins to break down, however, over how to identify jus cogens norms. In turn, the uncertainty regarding identification leads to debates over just which norms qualify as jus cogens. This chapter offers a preliminary investigation into the appropriate process in the system of international law for identifying jus cogens norms. To understand that process, the chapter considers a variety of evidence respecting jus cogens, including the negotiating history of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, important judicial decisions that discuss particular norms belonging to the category, and the writings of scholars. This evidence confirms that government officials, judges, and scholars have identified a number of important norms as jus cogens norms. These norms are generally of an ethical or moral nature. At the same time, little, if anything, is said about how these scholars and judges know that a norm is a peremptory norm. The chapter, therefore, examines both the nature of jus cogens norms and principles of legal process theory to propose a methodology for identifying jus cogens norms in future cases.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

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

Tomuschat, ChristianThouvenin, Jean-MarcThe Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order, Jus Cogens and Erga OmnesBostonMartinus Nijhoff 2006
Weil, ProsperTowards Relative Normativity in International Law?American Journal of International Law 77 1983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Hoogh, AndréObligations Erga Omnes and International CrimesHagueKluwer Law International 1996 44Google Scholar
Jennings, R.Y.Watts, A.Oppenheim's International LawOxfordOxford 1992 7Google Scholar
Waldron, JeremyNormative (or Ethical) PositivismColeman, JulesHart's Postscript: Essays on the Postscript to the Concept of LawNew YorkOxford 2001Google Scholar
D’Amato, AnthonyIt's a Bird, It's a Plane, It's Jus Cogens!Connecticut Journal of International Law 6 1990Google Scholar
de Aréchaga, E. JiménezEl legado de Grocio y el concepto de un orden internacional justoPensamiento Jurídicicio y Socidedad international 1 1986 612Google Scholar
Farnsworth, E. AllanContractsNew YorkAspen 1984Google Scholar
Shelton, DinahCommitment and Compliance: The Role of Non-Binding Norms in the International Legal SystemOxfordOxford 2004
Klabbers, JanThe Redundancy of Soft LawNordic Journal of International Law 65 1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sztucki, JerzyJus Cogens and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, A Critical AppraisalNew YorkSpringer-Verlag 1974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnegie Endowment for International PeaceThe Concept of Jus Cogens in International LawLagonissi Conference: Papers and ProceedingsWashington, D.CCarnegie Endowment for International Peace 1967Google Scholar
O’Connell, Mary EllenThe Power and Purpose of International LawOxfordOxford 2008 137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarzenberger, GeorgThe Inductive Approach to International LawLondonStevens & Sons 1965Google Scholar
O’Connell, Mary EllenNew International Legal ProcessAmerican Journal of International Law 93 1999 334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1932
Verdross, Alfred and in International LawAmerican Journal of International Law 60 1966Google Scholar
American Law InstituteRestatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United StatesSt. PaulAmerican Law Institute 1987Google Scholar
Shestack, JeromeThe Philosophic Foundations of Human RightsHuman Rights Quarterly 20 1998 201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henkin, LouisHuman RightsNew YorkFoundation Press 2009Google Scholar
Henkin, LouisThe Rights of Man TodayBoulder, COWestview 1978 3Google Scholar
Orakhelashvili, AlexanderPeremptory Norms in International LawOxfordOxford 2006Google Scholar
Kearney, Richard D.Dalton, Robert E.The Treaty on TreatiesAmerican Journal of International Law 64 1970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luban, DavidMoral Responsibility in the Age of BureaucracyMichigan Law Review 90 1992 2352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1988
1980
2000
2003
2003
Finnis, JohnNatural Law and Natural RightsOxfordOxford 1980Google Scholar
McDougal, Myres S.Perspectives for an International Law of Human DignityAmerican Society of International Law Proceedings 53 1959Google Scholar
Macdonald, Ronald St. J.Johnston, Douglas M.The Structure and Process of International Law: Essays in Legal Philosophy Doctrine and TheoryDordrechtMartinus Nijhoff 1983Google Scholar
1992
Nussbaum, MarthaFrontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species MembershipCambridge, MAHarvard 2006Google Scholar
Bowett, Derek WilliamCrimes of State and the 1996 Report of the International Law Commission on State ResponsibilityEuropean Journal of International Law 9 1998 163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fastenrath, UlrichFrom Bilateralism to Community Interest, Essays in Honour of Judge Bruno SimmaOxfordOxford University Press 2011CrossRef

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×