Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:55:50.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jus Dispositivum and Jus Cogens in International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Alfred Veedross
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Nearly three decades ago I published in this JOURNAL an article in which I tried to prove that even in international law there exist rules having the character of jus cogens; i.e., norms with which treaties must not conflict. Since my eminent colleague in the International Law Commission, Ambassador Tabibi, mentioned in a meeting of this Commission that the view expressed in my article “foreshadowed the solution” embodied in Article 37 of the Commission’s draft Convention on the Law of Treaties concerning the problem of jus cogens in international law, I feel obliged to defend this draft against the criticism directed against it by the eminent English lawyer, Professor Georg Schwarzenberger.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , January 1966 , pp. 55 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1966 

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 “Forbidden Treaties in International Law,” 31 A.J.I.L. 571-577 (1937). See, further, on this topic before the second world war, von der Heydte, “Die Erscheinungsformen des zwischenstaatlichen Eechts: jus cogens und jus dispositivum im Völkerrecht,” in 16 Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht 461 et seq. (1932); and Jurt, Zwingendes Völkerrecht (1933).

2 See 1 I.L.C. Yearbook (1963) 63. As the Commission was informed by this communication of my point of view in this question, I abstained from speaking about the substance of Art. 37, inasmuch as I was in complete agreement with the draft proposed by the Special Reporter, Sir Humphrey Waldock.

3 “International jus cogens?” in 43 Texas Law Eeview (1965), and “The Problem of International Public Policy,” in Current Legal Problems (1965), pp. 191-214.

4 Principles of International Law 89, 323, 344 (1952).

5 General Principles of Law 5, 393-394 (1953).

6 1 International Law 352-353, 425-427 (1957).

7 1 Völkerrecht 16, 443; 3 ibid. 60, 140 (1957).

8 Diritto Internazionale Pubblico 94-95 (3rd ed., 1960).

9 Das Völkerrecht der Gegenwart 95-96 (1963).

10 Wolff, Jus Gentium, par. 5 (1764); “Vattel, Le Droit des Gens, Introduction, par. 9 (1758).

11 Wolff, op. cit., par. 25; “Vattel, op. cit., par. 27.

12 Das Europäische Völkerrecht der Gegenwart 156 (4th ed., 1861).

13 1 Principes du Droit International Public 340-341 (1944).

14 Nozioni di Diritto Internazionale 37 (3rd ed., 1951).

15 1 Traité de Droit International Public 57 (1953). He later changed his opinion, however, as we will see in the text of this article.

16 Law of Treaties 213-214 (1961).

17 Diritto Internazionale Pubblieo 282 (8th ed., 1962).

18 Op. cit.

19 3 Strupp-Schlochauer, Worterbuch des Völkerrechts 531 (1962).

20 1963 I.L.C. Yearbook 291. It is also published in 58 A.J.I.L. 264 (1964).

21 In the meeting of July 9, 1963, 1963 I.L.C. Yearbook 292.

22 I.L.C. Report on the Work of Its Fifteenth Session, U.N. General Assembly, 18th Sess., Official Becords, Supp. No. 9 (A/5509), pp. 11-12; also in 58 A.J.I.L. 245, 264 (1964).

23 1 I.L.C. Yearbook (1963) 66, 67.

24 Ibid. 63.

25 Ibid. 65.

26 Ibid. 68.

27 Ibid. 69.

28 lbid. 72, 76-77.

29 Ibid. 73.

30 Ibid. 62.

31 Report 11.

32 See the writer's Völkerrecht 126 (5th ed., 1964).

33 [1951] I.C.J. Rep. 23.

34 Italics added.

35 Cf. Strisower, Der Krieg und die Völkerrechtsordnung 114 (1919).

36 See note 31.

37 P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 63, p. 149.

38 [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 22.

39 U.N. Charter, preamble, second paragraph.

40 Ibid., Art. 1, par. 3.

41 Cf. General Assembly Kesolution 616 B (“VII).

42 Current Legal Problems 194 (1965); The Inductive Approach to International Law 100 (1965); 1 International Law 213-214 (1957).

43 Current Legal Problems 212 (1965).

44 The Inductive Approach to International Law 100 (1965).

45 Current Legal Problems 208 (1965).

46 See my lectures, ‘’ Les principes généraux du droit dans la jurisprudence internationale,” in 52 Hague Academy Eecueil des Cours 195-249 (1935, I I ) ; and my article, “Les principes généraux du droit applicables aux rapports internationaux,” 45 Eevue gfaerale de droit international public 33 et seq. (1938).

47 Cf. 1 Guggenheim, Traité de droit international public 150-151 (1953); Sir H. Lauterpacht, The Development of International Law by the International Court 165 (1957).

48 Current Legal Problems 213 (1965).

49 The Inductive Approach to International Law 112-113 (1965). There he refers to Art. 3(1) of the Convention on Relations between the Three Powers and the Federal Republic of Germany, May 26, 1952.

50 Italics added.

51 The Inductive Approach to International Law 113 (1965).

52 Current Legal Problems 213 (1965).

53 See 29 A.J.I.L. Supp. 655-1226 (1935).

54 In 31 A.J.I.L. 577 (1937).

55 I would like to emphasize that I am alone responsible for this article. It was written without any contact with the other members of the International Law Commission.

56 Quaestiones juris public! libri duo (1737) II, Cap. 10. [The passage may be translated roughly as: “The civil law protects the contracts of individuals; good faith the contracts of princes. If you destroy good faith, you destroy the mutual intercourse of princes … and you destroy even international law itself.“—Ed.]