نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
استادیار گروه حقوق عمومی دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه مازندران بابلسر، ایران
چکیده
قاعده آمره بهعنوان یک ابرهنجار در سلسلهمراتب هنجاری حقوق بین الملل، به دلیل پیوند ناگسستنی که با اصول و مفاهیم ناب اخلاقی دارد، همواره در تعریف و تشخیص با نوعی ابهام همراه بوده است. در حقوق کنوانسیونی و نیز رویه قضایی، تعریف صریح و روشنی از آن نشده و صرفاً به معیارهای کلی برای شناسایی این قاعده و نیز ایجاد محدودیت هایی بر اراده دولتها و دیگر تابعان حقوق بین الملل در این رابطه اشاره شده است. روش به کارگرفته شده در این پژوهش، روش توصیفی- تحلیلی و نحوه جمعآوری دادهها نیز به روش کتابخانهای، مطالعه اسناد و استفاده از منابع معتبر اینترنتی میباشد. در این پژوهش، به شیوهای تحلیلی و با تکیه بر طرح پیشنهادی کمیسیون حقوق بین الملل در زمینه شناسایی و آثار حقوقی قواعد انکارناپذیر حقوق بین الملل عام (قواعد آمره) مصوب سال 2022 و نیز با نگاهی به رویه قضایی بین المللی و دکترین، شناخت بهتر معیارهای تشخیص و شناسایی قواعد آمره حقوق بین الملل بررسی شد. یافته علمی این پژوهش آن است که این معیارها در هر مورد باید اثبات شود و اهمیت یک قاعده به خودی خود، جایگاه آمره به آن قاعده نمیبخشد. در واقع هرگونه استنباط و استخراج شهودی قواعد آمره چه از نظر کمیسیون و چه از منظر رویه قضایی بین المللی مردود است.
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
Criteria for Identifying Jus Cogens in Contemporary International Law: An Analysis of the International Law Commission’s Draft Conclusions (2022)
نویسنده [English]
- sepanta mojtahedzadeh
Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran
چکیده [English]
Introduction
Jus cogens, as a super-norm in the normative hierarchy of international law, has always been associated with a certain ambiguity in its definition and recognition, primarily due to its inextricable link with fundamental moral principles. In the conventional law and case law, it is not explicitly defined; instead, there are only general criteria for identifying this norm and imposing restrictions on the will of states and other subjects of international law. The identification of a rule as a peremptory norm seems to hinge primarily on the selection of a theoretical justification—should it be natural law theory, public order theory, or customary international law? Moreover, the question of methodology persists: Is there a specific and novel methodological approach for identifying peremptory norms? Or does this concern fall within a realm where recognition is based on the relevant values in an intuitive and clear manner?
These questions do not yield easy answers, given the importance and complexity of the topic. It is also challenging to derive a clear and coherent guide from existing state practices in this regard. However, it is evident that the interaction between the two subsidiary sources of international law (i.e., the doctrine and the case law) will be productive, as the ideas and guidelines generated by one can be assessed against the criteria of the other. In this respect, the present study aimed to examine the criteria for identifying peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens) by examining the draft approved in 2022 by the International Law Commission (ILC) regarding their identification and legal effects, alongside relevant international case law and doctrines. The central question is whether these criteria need to be substantiated or the inherent significance of a rule is sufficient for it to be deemed peremptory?
Literature Review
In Persian-language legal literature, there are several studies about jus cogens or peremptory norms. The notable studies include: “The Foundations and Legal Nature of Jus Cogens From the Perspective of the International Law Commission” (Golchin & Mousazadeh, 2022) and “The Obligation Not to Render Aid or Assistance in Maintaining a Situation Created by the Breach of a Peremptory Norm of General International Law (Momtaz et al., 2018). Much of the relevant literature examines different aspects of jus cogens in international law. What distinguishes the present study from previous research, however, is its focus on the criteria for identifying jus cogens. It does so by drawing on the most recent developments in international law, particularly those reflected in the ILC’s 2022 draft conclusions.
Materials and Methods
The current research used a descriptive–analytical methodology. The data was collected through library research, including credible online sources.
Results and Discussion
According to the research findings, the relevant criteria must be established in each individual case, and that the inherent significance of a rule, by itself, does not confer peremptory status upon it. In fact, any intuitive or impressionistic identification of jus cogens is rejected—both by the ILC and the international case law. This is why international courts rely on a broad range of tools and evidence to determine the existence of jus cogens, including official statements and legal views of states, diplomatic correspondence, national constitutions, administrative and judicial decisions at both national and international levels, treaty provisions, acts and documents issued by international organizations, and the writings of distinguished international jurists. All these sources are used allegorically rather than exhaustively. It should also be noted that, in the ILC’s view, even subsidiary means of identifying jus cogens—such as the doctrine of leading jurists—are not diminished in importance due to their subsidiary character. Rather, their value lies in their facilitative role in the identification, or more precisely the “proof,” of the existence of a peremptory rule.
Conclusion
The study focused on the ILC’s draft and the views expressed in its commentary, as well as the opinions of scholars and international jurists. Although the draft does not entirely dispel the ambiguity surrounding jus cogens and the methods for identifying such norms in international law, it has significantly reduced these uncertainties by providing both primary and secondary tools for identifying jus cogens. Therefore, the ILC’s draft constitutes a forward‑looking and constructive document on the criteria for recognizing jus cogens.
کلیدواژهها [English]
- Jus Cogens
- International Law Commission
- Identification Criteria
- Customary International Law
- General Principles of Law
کتابها
- ذوالعین، پرویز، مبانی حقوق بینالملل عمومی (تهران: انتشارات وزارت امور خارجه، 1383).
- فلسفی، هدایت الله، حقوق بین الملل معاهدات، چاپ دوم (تهران: فرهنگ نشر نو، 1383).
- وکیو، دل، فلسفه حقوق، ترجمه جواد واحدی، چاپ اول (تهران: نشر میزان، 1380).
مقالهها
- ارکشویلی، آلکساندر، «تاثیر قواعد آمره حقوق بینالملل بر تفسیر و اجرای قطعنامههای شورای امنیت»، ترجمه سید قاسم زمانی، نشریۀ پژوهشهای حقوقی، شماره 7، (1384).
- گلچین، سهیل و موسیزاده، رضا، «مبانی و ماهیت حقوقی قواعد آمره در نگاه کمیسیون حقوق بینالملل»، فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق عمومی، دوره 52، شماره 3، (1401).
- ممتاز، جمشید و سایرین، «تعهد به عدم مساعدت به حفظ وضعیتی که در نتیجه نقض یک قاعده آمره حقوق بین الملل عام ایجاد شده است»، نشریه پژوهشهای حقوق تطبیقی، دوره 22، شماره 1، (1397).
References
Books
- Cassese, AntonioRealizing Utopia: The Future of International Law: For an Enhanced Role of Jus Cogens (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).
- Kolb, R., Peremptory International Law–Jus Cogens: A General Inventory (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2015)
Articles
- Gagnon-Bergeron, N., “Breaking the Cycle of Deferment: Jus Cogens in the Practice of International Law”, Utrecht Law Review, Vol. 15, No. 1, (2019).
- Johnston, Katie A., “Identification the Jus Cogens Norm in the Jus ad Bellum”, Cambridge University Press, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 70, No. 1, (2021).
- Jure VIDMAR, “Rethinking Jus Cogens after Germany v. Italy: Back to Article 53”, Netherlands International Law Review, Cambridge University Press , Vol. 60, No. 1, (2013).
- Pellet, A, “Comments in Response to Christine Chinkin and in Defense of Jus Cogens as the Best Bastion against the Excesses of Fragmentation”, Finnish Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 17, (2006).
- Saul, Matthew, “Identifying Jus Cogens Norms: The Interaction of Scholars and International Judges”, Asian Journal of International Law, Vol. 5, Issue 1, (2015).
- Tomuschat, Christian, “Obligations Arising for States Without or Against Their Will”, (1993-IV) 241 Recueil des Cours 209 at 307, available at: referenceworkes.brill.com, (accessed in June 5, 2025)
- Verdross, A.V.,“Forbidden Treaties in International Law: Comments on Professor Garner’s Report on the Law of Treaties”, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 31, Issue 4, (1937).
Judicial Decisions
- Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 35763/97, Judgment of 21 November 2001, Grand Chamber, European Court of Human Rights, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2001-XI, para.30.
- Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p.43.
- Arancibia Clavel, Enrique Lautaro s/ homicidio calificado y asociación ilícita y otros, Case No. 259, Judgment of 24 August 2004, Supreme Court of Argentina.
- Bayan Muna as Represented by Representative Satur Ocampo et al., v. Alberto Romulo, in his Capacity as Executive Secretary et al., (Case G.R. No. 159618, Judgment of 1 February 2011).
- Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p.43.
- Del número legal de Congresistas contra el Decreto Legislativo N° 1097, EXP. No. 0024-2010- PI/TC, Judgment of the Jurisdictional Plenary of 21 March 2011, Constitutional Tribunal of Peru.
- García Lucero, et al., v. Chile, Judgment 28 August 2013, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series C, No. 267, paras.123-124.
- Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, Tugboat Case, Case 11.436, Report No. 47/96, (1997).
- Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 (Decision No) IACHR Series A, No 18.
- Juridical Condition and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of 17 September 2003, requested by the United Mexican States, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series A, No. 18.
- Kazemi Estate v. Islamic Republic of Iran, File No. 35034, Appeal Decision of 10 October 2014, Supreme Court of Canada, 2014 SCC 62, [2014] 3 S.C.R. 176.
- North Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 3, at pp. 38–39, para. 63.
- Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija (Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Judgment of 10 December 1998, Trial Chamber, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Judicial Reports 1998, Vol. 1, p. 563.
- Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Judgment of 10 December 1998, Trial Chamber, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Judicial Reports 1998, Vol. 1, at p. 569.
- Prosecutor v. Jelisic, Case No. IT-95-10-T, Judgment of 14 December 1999, Trial Chamber, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Judicial Reports 1999, pp.431-433.
- Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Judgment of 20 July 2012, [2012] I.C.J Rep. at 9.
- Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1951, p.15.
Documents
- International Law Commission, (2014), Report of the International Law Commission on the Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice in Relation, (A/69/10), available at: un.ilibrary.org, accessed in 2025-7-23.
- International Law Commission, (1976), Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1976A/CN.4/SER, (A/1976/Add.1) (part 2), un.ilibrary.org, accessed in 2025-7-23.
- International Law Commission, (2022), Draft Conclusions on Identification and Legal Consequences of Peremptory Norms of General International Law (Jus Cogens), with Commentaries, (A/77/10), un.ilibrary.org, accessed in 2025-7-23.
- International Law Commission, (2006), Report of the Study Group on the Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law (A/CN.4/L.702), un.ilibrary.org, accessed in 2025-7-29.
- Second Report on the Law of Treaties, (1963) 2 International Law Commission Yearbook, U.N. (A/CN.4/156), un.ilibrary.org, accessed in 2025-7-29.
- United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties, First and Second session, Vienna, 26 March- 24 May 1968 and 9 April- 22 May 1969, un.ilibrary.org, accessed in 2025-7-25.
)