Breaking the Cycle of Deferment: Jus Cogens in the Practice of International Law

IF 0.6 Q2 Social Sciences Utrecht Law Review Pub Date : 2019-05-10 DOI:10.18352/ULR.489
Noémie Gagnon-Bergeron
{"title":"Breaking the Cycle of Deferment: Jus Cogens in the Practice of International Law","authors":"Noémie Gagnon-Bergeron","doi":"10.18352/ULR.489","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article explores how the concept of jus cogens is understood and practiced in the field of international law. While the concept has gained mass acceptance and recognition, the actual legal significance and application is still very much unclear. In Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, peremptory norms are defined as those which are ‘non-derogable’ but nevertheless require the ‘acceptance and recognition’ from the international community as a whole. This process of acceptance and recognition had to be developed through state practice and judgments from international courts and tribunals. Accordingly, this article examines how jus cogens has been interpreted by those actors, without ignoring the contributions from academic scholarship and reports of the International Law Commission. Through analysing these sources, it becomes clear that the task of clarifying the content and legal meaning of the concept is continuously being deferred amongst the relevant actors. After demonstrating this tendency, the remaining sections of the article discuss why this is happening, whether it is forth fixing and if so how that change could come about.","PeriodicalId":44535,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Utrecht Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18352/ULR.489","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article explores how the concept of jus cogens is understood and practiced in the field of international law. While the concept has gained mass acceptance and recognition, the actual legal significance and application is still very much unclear. In Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, peremptory norms are defined as those which are ‘non-derogable’ but nevertheless require the ‘acceptance and recognition’ from the international community as a whole. This process of acceptance and recognition had to be developed through state practice and judgments from international courts and tribunals. Accordingly, this article examines how jus cogens has been interpreted by those actors, without ignoring the contributions from academic scholarship and reports of the International Law Commission. Through analysing these sources, it becomes clear that the task of clarifying the content and legal meaning of the concept is continuously being deferred amongst the relevant actors. After demonstrating this tendency, the remaining sections of the article discuss why this is happening, whether it is forth fixing and if so how that change could come about.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
打破拖延的循环:国际法实践中的强制法
本文探讨了国际法领域如何理解和实践强制法的概念。虽然这一概念已经得到了广泛的接受和认可,但其实际法律意义和适用仍然非常不清楚。《维也纳条约法公约》第53条将强制性规范定义为“不可减损”但需要整个国际社会“接受和承认”的规范。这种接受和承认的过程必须通过国家实践以及国际法院和法庭的判决来发展。因此,本条审查了这些行为者如何解释强制法,而不忽视学术学术研究和国际法委员会报告的贡献。通过分析这些来源,很明显,澄清这一概念的内容和法律含义的任务在相关行为者中不断推迟。在展示了这一趋势之后,文章的其余部分讨论了为什么会发生这种情况,是否是远期修复,如果是,这种变化是如何发生的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊最新文献
Field Experiments Examining Trust in Law: Interviewer Effects on Participants with Lower Educational Backgrounds Legitimacy as Expressed versus Legitimacy as Experienced: Methodologies to Assess an Elusive Concept Towards Evidence-Based Legitimacy Interventions in EU Law: Challenges and Directions for Empirical Research Digitalisation of Enforcement Proceedings (Re)defining Conflicts: Democratic Legitimacy in Socially Sensitive Court Cases
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1