The prohibition of genocide as a norm of ius cogens and its implications for the enforcement of the law of genocide

International Criminal Law Review

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 401-416

  Wouters, Jan ^a,b   Verhoeven, Sten ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b Linklaters De Bandt ^*  (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34248037965     PISSN: 1567536X     EISSN: 15718123     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/1571812054940049     Document Type: Article

References (144)

1. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948), United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 78, 277.
2. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1155, 331.
3. Art. 53 VCLT.
4. Especially natural law thinkers like Francisco de Vitoria, Francisco Suarez, Hugo Grotius and Emmerich de Vattel were of the opinion that the provisions of natural law were peremptory and that positive law was subjected to it, see A. ALEXIDZE, "Legal Nature of Jus Cogens in Contemporary International Law", Recueil des Cours 1981-III, 228-229;
5. A. VERDROSS, "Forbidden Treaties in International Law", American Journal of International Law 1937, 571-577;
6. for an overview of other authors after World War II see E. SUY, "The Concept of Jus Cogens in Public International Law", in CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE, The Concept of Jus Cogens in International Law, Geneva, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1967, 26-49
7. and A. VERDROSS, "Jus Dispositivum and Jus Cogens in International Law", American Journal of International Law 1966, 57.
8. A. J. J. DE HOOGH, "The Relationship between Jus Cogens, Obligations Erga Omnes and International Crimes: Peremptory Norms in Perspective", Austrian Journal of Public International Law 1991, 188-189;
9. G. GAJA, "Jus Cogens beyond the Vienna Convention", Recueil des Cours 1981-III, 279;
10. U. SCHEUNER, "Conflict of Treaty Provisions with a Peremptory Norm of General International Law and Its Consequences", Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 1967, 520;
11. M. VIRALLY, "Réflexions sur le Jus Cogens", Annuaire Français de Droit International 1966, 6.
12. L. HANNIKAINEN, Peremptory Norms (Jus Cogens) in International Law, Helsinki, Finnish Lawyers' Publishing, 1988, 3.
13. A. AUST, Modern Treaty Law in Practice, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000, 258;
14. A. GOMEZROBLEDO, "Le Ius Cogens International: Sa Genèse, Sa Nature, Ses Fonctions", Recueil des Cours 1981-III, 167.
15. L. HANNIKAINEN, o.c., 208-209;
16. C. L. ROZAKIS, The Concept of Jus Cogens in the Law of Treaties, Amsterdam, North-Holland Publishing, 1976, 55-56;
17. L. HANNIKAINEN, o.c., 210-212.
18. See inter alia G. M. DANILENKO, "International Jus Cogens: Issues of Law Making", European Journal of International Law 1991, 44;
19. C. L. ROZAKIS, The Concept of Jus Cogens in the Law of Treaties, Amsterdam, North-Holland Publishing, 1976, 2-3.
20. G. M. DANILENKO, "International Jus Cogens: Issues of Law Making", European Journal of International Law 1991, 45;
21. C. L. ROZAKIS, o.c., 78;
22. Art. 50.1 (d) DASR, at .
23. L. HANNIKAINEN, o.c., 265.
24. Art. 53 VCLT.
25. UN G. A. Res. 96 (I).
26. Although the word 'genocide' is not mentioned in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal, it was included in the categories of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The term also did not appear in the judgment itself, which spoke of 'a plan to get rid of whole native populations by expulsion and annihilation, in order that their territory could be used for colonization by Germans'. The indictment however used the word 'genocide'. See L. HANNIKAINEN, o.c., 457
27. and M. RAGAZZI, The Concept of International Obligations Erga Omnes, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1997, 92-93.
28. Convention on Non-Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity (1968), United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 754, 73;
29. European Convention on Non-Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity (1974), European Treaty Series No. 82; both regard genocide as a specific crime against humanity.
30. Art. 4 Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, adopted by UN S. C. Res. 827
31. as amended by UN S. C. Res. 1166
32. UN S. C. Res. 1329
33. UN S. C. Res. 1411
34. UN S. C. Res. 1431
35. and UN S. C. Res. 1481.
36. Art. 2 Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, adopted by UN S. C. Res. 955
37. as amended by UN S. C. Res. 1165
38. UN S. C. Res. 1166
39. UN S. C. Res. 1329
40. UN S. C. Res. 1411
41. UN S. C. Res. 1431
42. UN S. C. Res. 1503
43. and UN S. C. Res. 1512.
44. Art. 6 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998), United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 2187, 3.
45. Reservations to the Genocide Convention, Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1951, International Court of Justice Reports 1951, 23.
46. Case concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Ltd. (Belgium v. Spain), 5 February 1970, International Court of Justice Reports 1970, §§ 33-34; on the relation between ius cogens and obligations erga omnes see infra.
47. Case concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Order of 8 April 1993, International Court of Justice Reports 1993, § 49.
48. Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreskic et al., Case No. IT-95-16, Trial Chamber II, 14 January 2000, § 520 at .
49. A. AUST, o.c, 257;
50. I. BROWNLIE, Principles of Public International Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003, 488-489;
51. P. DAILLIER and A. PELLET, Droit International Public, L. G. D. J., Paris, 2002, p. 205, § 127;
52. L. HANNIKAINEN, o.c., 462-464;
53. P. MALANCZUCK, Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law, London, Routledge, 1997, 58;
54. M. N. SHAW, International Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003, 117;
55. A. CASSESE, International Criminal Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003, 103;
56. W. A. SCHABAS, Genocide in International Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000, 217-221;
57. Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Chamber I, 2 September 1998, § 497, at .
58. A. CASSESE, o.c., 96;
59. W. A. SCHABAS, o.c., 134-145.
60. Case concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Ltd. (Belgium v. Spain), 5 February 1970, International Court of Justice Reports 1970, § 33.
61. C. ANNACKER, "The Legal Régime of Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law", Austrian Journal of Public International Law 1994, 133.
62. In the Nuclear Test Cases the erga omnes obligation to be free from atmospheric nuclear tests was considered to be without merits (Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v. France), 20 December 1974, International Court of Justice Reports 1974, § 50 and § 53.)
63. and in the Nicaragua Case the Court did not touch upon the enigmatic nature of the concept by unconditionally denying a third State's right to react with force against armed intervention, leaving aside the erga omnes character of the duty of non-intervention (Case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), 27 June 1986, International Court of Justice Reports 1986, §§ 248-249).
64. Case concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Ltd. (Belgium v. Spain), 5 February 1970, International Court of Justice Reports 1970, § 91;
65. A. J. J. DE HOOGH is of the opinion that this dictum does not limit the application of obligations erga omnes: see A. J. J. DE HOOGH, Obligations Erga Omnes and International Crimes: A Theoretical Inquiry into the Implementation and Enforcement of the International Responsibility of States, Nijmegen, 1995, 45.
66. Case concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), 30 June 1995, International Court of Justice Reports 1995, § 29.
67. Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its 18th Session, Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1966, Vol. II, Part II, 248.
68. Separate Opinion Judge AMMOUN, Case concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Ltd. (Belgium v. Spain), 5 February 1970, International Court of Justice Reports 1970, 325.
69. The right to self-determination is widely considered as a norm of ius cogens; see A. CASSESE, Self-Determination of People: A Legal Reappraisal, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995, 133-140;
70. P. D. COFFMANN, "Obligations Erga Omnes and the Absent Third State", German Yearbook of International Law 1997, 315;
71. K. PARKER and L. B. NEYLON, "Jus Cogens: Compelling the Law of Human Rights", Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 1989, 440-441;
72. M. RODRIGUEZ-ORELLANA, "Human Rights Talk... and Self-Determination too", Notre Dame Law Review 1998, 1406.
73. Case concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), 30 June 1995, International Court of Justice Reports 1995, § 29.
74. A substantial part of international humanitarian law is ius cogens: indeed, the International Court of Justice stated in the Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (8 July 1996, International Court of Justice Reports 1996 (I), § 79) that "a great many rules of humanitarian law applicable in armed conflict are so fundamental to the respect of the human person and 'elementary considerations of humanity' (...), that they are to be observed by all States whether or not they have ratified the conventions that contain them, because they constitute intransgressible principles of international customary law" (emphasis added).
75. For an in-depth study of peremptory norms of international humanitarian law, see L. HANNIKAINEN, o.c., 596-715.
76. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004, §§ 155-157, at .
77. See Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004, § 159, at .
78. Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Chamber II, 10 December 1998, §144 and §§ 151-154, at .
79. Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreskic et al., Case No. IT-95-16, Trial Chamber II, 14 January 2000, §519 and §520 at .
80. A. J. J. DE HOOGH, o.c., 45-48;
81. B. SIMMA, "From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law", Recueil des Cours 1994-VI, 300;
82. V. STARACE, "La Responsabilité Résultant de la Violation des Obligations à l'égard de la Communauté Internationale", Recueil des Cours 1976-V, 289.
83. M. RAGAZZI, The Concept of International Obligations Erga Omnes, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1997, 194-199;
84. L.-A. SICILIANOS, "The Classification of Obligations and the Multilateral Dimension of the Relations of International Responsibility", European Journal of International Law 2002, 1137;
85. E. WYLER, "From 'State Crime' to Responsibility for 'Serious Breaches of Obligations under Peremptory Norms of General International Law'", European Journal of International law 2002, 1156;
86. K. ZEMANEK, "New Trends in the Enforcement of erga omnes Obligations", Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 2000, 6.
87. M. C. BASSIOUNI, "International Crimes: Jus Cogens and Obligatio Erga Omnes", Law and Contemporary Problems 1996, 73;
88. M. RAGAZZI, o.c., 206;
89. P. WEIL, "Towards Relative Normativity in International Law", American Journal of International Law 1983, 431-432;
90. see also Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Chamber II, 10 December 1998, § 153, at .
91. J. A. FROWEIN, "Reactions by Not Directly Affected States to Breaches of Public International Law", Recueil des Cours 1994-IV, 405-406;
92. E. WYLER, "From 'State Crime' to Responsibility for 'Serious Breaches of Obligations under Peremptory Norms of General International Law' ", European Journal of International Law 2002, 1157.
93. J. A. FROWEIN, "Collective Enforcement of International Obligations", Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 1987, 68;
94. G. GAJA, "Obligations Erga Omnes, International Crimes and Jus Cogens: A Tentative Analysis of Three Related Concepts", in J. WEILER, A. CASSESE AND M. SPINEDI (eds.), International Crimes of States, Berlin, de Gruyter 1989, 158-159.
95. Case concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), 30 June 1995, International Court of Justice Reports 1995, § 29.
96. Art. 36. 1. ICJ Statute.
97. A. J. J. DE HOOGH, "The Relationship between Jus Cogens, Obligations Erga Omnes and International Crimes: Peremptory Norms in Perspective", Austrian Journal of Public International Law 1991, 197.
98. P. AKHAVAN, "Enforcement of the Genocide Convention: A Challenge to Civilization", Harvard Human Rights Journal 1995, 247.
99. Art. 36. 2. ICJ Statute.
100. The ICJ has already held that the underlying principles of the Genocide Convention are binding on all States, whether or not they are a party to the convention (Reservations to the Genocide Convention, Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1951, International Court of Justice Reports 1951, 23)
101. and that the obligations of the Genocide Convention are obligations erga omnes (Case concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (Bosnia-Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), 11 July 1996, International Court of Justice Reports 1996, § 31);
102. for jurisdiction on the basis of Art. 36.2. Statute of the International Court of Justice in relation to obligations erga omnes, see A. KORKEAKIVI, "Consequences of Higher International Law: Evaluating Crimes of State and Erga Omnes", Journal of International Legal Studies 1996, 110;
103. O. SCHACHTER, "General Course in Public International Law", Recueil des Cours 1982-V, 198.
104. Case concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), 30 June 1995, International Court of Justice Reports 1995, § 29.
105. Case concerning the Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v. France, United Kingdom and United States), 15 June 1954, International Court of Justice Reports 1954, 19.
106. Case concerning the Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v. France, United Kingdom and United States), 15 June 1954, International Court of Justice Reports 1954, 32.
107. Case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), 26 November 1984, International Court of Justice Reports 1984, §§ 86-88.
108. UN S. C. Res. 384;
109. UN S. C. 389;
110. UN G. A. Res. 32/34.
111. Art 48 juncto Art. 44 DASR.
112. A. GATTINI, "A Return Ticket to 'Communitarisme', Please", European Journal of International Law 2002, 1195-1196;
113. I. SCOBBIE, "The Invocation of Responsibility for the Breach of 'Obligations under Peremptory Norms of General International Law'", European Journal of International law 2002, 1217.
114. Case concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Ltd. (Belgium v. Spain), 5 February 1970, International Court of Justice Reports 1970, § 33.
115. A. J. J. DE HOOGH, o.c., 45;
116. J. A. FROWEIN, "Reactions by Not Directly Affected States to Breaches of Public International Law", Recueil des Cours 1994-IV, 406.
117. A. J. J. DE HOOGH, o.c., 45.
118. Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its 52nd Session, 145, § 422, at .
119. Countermeasures are legitimate breaches of international obligations, as a response to the violation of international law by another State, see art. 22 DASR;
120. Case concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), 25 September 1997, International Court of Justice Reports 1997, § 83;
121. Naulilaa Case, Reports of International Arbitral Awards II, 1025-1026;
122. Cysne Case, Reports of International Arbitral Awards II, 1052;
123. Air Services Case, Reports of International Arbitral Awards XVIII, 416;
124. D. ALLAND, "Légitime Défense et Contre-mesures", Journal de Droit International 1983, 729-734;
125. S. P. JAGOTA, "State Responsibility: Circumstances precluding Wrongfulness", Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 1985, 257-260;
126. P. MALANCZUK, "Countermeasures and Self Defence", Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 1983, 715;
127. E. ZOLLER, Peacetime Unilateral Remedies, New York, Transnational Publishers, 1984, 81-93.
128. For the ability to take countermeasures for breaches of obligations erga omnes, see: D. ALLAND, "Countermeasures of General Interest", European Journal of International Law. 2002, 1221-1239;
129. J. A. FROWEIN, "Reactions by Not Directly Affected States", Recueil des Cours 1994-IV, 406;
130. Art. 50. 2 (a) DASR;
131. Case concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), 24 May 1980, International Court of Justice Reports 1980, § 53;
132. Art. 50. 1 DASR.
133. Art. 51 DASR;
134. O. Y. ELAGAB, The Legality of Non-forcible Counter-measures in International Law, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1988, 64-79;
135. Art. 49. 1 DASR;
136. Cysne Case, Reports of International Arbitral Awards II, 1057;
137. Report on Draft Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts (1979), Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1979, Vol. II, Part II, 120, § 18;
138. O. Y. ELAGAB, o.c., 111-113;
139. Art. 52. 1 (a) DASR;
140. Case concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), 25 September 1997, International Court of Justice Reports 1997, § 84;
141. Naulilaa Case, Reports of International Arbitral Awards II, 1025;
142. Air Services Case, Reports of International Arbitral Awards XVIII, 444.
143. Art. 54 DASR.
144. Art. 22 DASR.